Jean-Guy Chrétien

[Criminal Code, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on December 1, I put a very important question to the Minister of International Trade.

The asbestos region is facing hard times with chrysotile asbestos. Great Britain has announced its intention to ban this asbestos following in the steps of France and seven other European countries. Since March 1997, I have been calling on the Prime Minister to take vigorous action with France.

He, through his Minister of International Trade, preferred to take route of diplomatic negotiations. They led nowhere. What the asbestos industry needs is vigorous action before the WTO against France to avoid the domino effect that could result from other countries like Great Britain banning chrysotile asbestos.

In addition, Canada could claim financial compensation from France as the result of its unilateral action. Instead of dozing off with diplomacy in the style of Jacques Roy, the government must listen to the people in the industry and defend us just as vigorously as it defended durum wheat and the Sherritt company of Toronto against the United States and the Helms-Burton legislation.

In the asbestos region, Thetford Mines to be specific, the consensus is to demand the federal government take legal action before the WTO. Led by the Government of Quebec, asbestos producers, LAB Chrysotile, with Jean Dupéré, and Johns Manville with Bernard Coulombe; the three unions, FTQ, CNTU and CSD; the members for Québec, Vallières and Lefebvre, under the banner of the Liberal Party of Quebec; the RCM, with its chairman Fernand Huot; the Thetford Chamber of Commerce; all are unanimously calling on the federal government to file a complaint with the WTO, but the federal government is refusing to take action.

Unfortunately for the asbestos region, the response I would have liked to hear from the Minister for International Trade, and it is undoubtedly a response dated December 2, will be read this evening by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada.

Of course, the response, which undoubtedly dates back to December 2, should have been modified to fit today's circumstances, because almost four months have passed since that time, but for lack of anything better, I will naturally content myself with this late response. I hope it will provide some hope for producers and especially for workers in our asbestos mines.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, when I was first elected to this House on October 25, 1993, I brought my little flag with me, all quite innocently, into this House and put it on my desk. An officer of the House came to see me, very discreetly of course, and said “In this place, sir, there are rules you must follow”. I told him I loved my Quebec flag. “No props are allowed here”, he said.

He also told me I could not have any grape juice or apple juice here, only water or ice water. Props in the House of Commons, even La Presse , were not permitted. I voluntarily complied with the rule.

As far as the flag is concerned, I clearly remember that, in Sault Ste. Marie, the riding of Ron Irwin, the former Minister of Indian Affairs, they stomped on the fleur-de-lys, the Quebec flag. What did the member for York South—Weston do to defend the Quebec flag? Nothing. What has this independent member done to punish or call to order the members of the Reform Party, who threw the Canadian flag to the ground, because the Speaker ruled against their wishes?

Could these whited sepulchres abuse the Canadian flag, when the Speaker or an opposition party—

[The Late Yves Landry, March 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that we learned today of the death of Gaétan Yves Landry, the president of Chrysler Canada.

Mr. Landry, who was born in the region which I represent, more specifically in Thetford Mines, had a career marked by commitment and hard work.

His energy and know-how earned him the respect of his friends, but also enabled him to become one of the most prominent leaders in the business community in Quebec and Canada.

My colleagues in the House of Commons join me in expressing our most sincere condolences to Mr. Landry's family.

[The Budget, March 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, listening to the hon. member for Malpeque, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, one is tempted to take him seriously. However, his partisanship clouds his thinking. According to a basic law of physics, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In preparing his budget, against the revenues the Minister of Finance also wrote a list of expenditures.

I would like the hon. member for Malpeque, who primarily represents middle-class Canadians from Prince Edward Island, to comment on the 10% increase provided for in this estimates for the Senate. A $45 million budget for 104 senators. This represents roughly $450,000 a year per senator. Given the amount of work they do in a year, one might say they are paid a very high hourly rate.

I would also like the member for Malpeque to tell us what he thinks of the 12% increase in the budget for the Governor General of Canada and his staff. During last week's break, I asked more than 250 of my constituents to name the governor general and not one of them knew who he was. I told them he nonetheless cost them $12 million a year. Yet no one knew his name.

I would like our colleague from Malpeque, who with his wife runs a successful dairy business, whose dairy herd has a good yield, why there is absolutely nothing for the farm community in this budget he just praised, a so-called forward-looking budget. What is left for agriculture after the WGTA, which provided a grain transportation subsidy for Quebec and the maritime provinces, was eliminated, after the subsidy for industrial milk producers was phased out over five years and after almost all research stations were shut down? Nothing.

Back home in PEI, he will boast about this budget for the future. In that sense, the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is clouded by partisanship because there is nothing in this budget for the middle class, which really needs tax relief.

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, three years ago, the Minister of Finance cut the subsidy to Canadian dairy farmers by $5.12 per hectolitre to zero over five years. Cuts have been made for two years now.

This year, his fifth report to the House of Commons as Finance Minister says nothing about agriculture. Since he will, we believe, generate between $8 and $12 billion in the 1998-99 budget, he could perhaps have eased off a bit on the dairy farmers because it is a known fact that cheese has gone up by 40 cents a kilo since he became Minister of Finance.

I would like to ask my distinguished colleague from Lotbinière whether he does not think this would be a good thing for the numerous dairy farmers in his riding, since it would increase the consumption of industrial milk products.

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, my honourable colleague from Cambridge is out of touch with reality. Unfortunately for him, he does not have contact with the men and women in the street. He does not have contact with the middle-class workers in our society.

He says this is the first budget without a deficit in 30 years. I would like to remind him that all but nine of those years had Liberal ministers of finance, one of whom was the present Prime Minister. That is when the country experienced the highest interest and inflation rates.

The member for Cambridge was trying hard to tell us earlier about the treats the government will be giving out, but he forgot that employment insurance has a surplus of $12 billion right now. Why not lower the contributions of our poor workers? Oh, no. We certainly cannot touch that.

This morning I had a call from a representative of the AFEAS group in my riding complaining that, in the future, the average family income will be calculated in order to establish spousal pensions. Who is this going to penalize? Women for the most part, once again. But the hon. member did not mention that.

He made no mention of the $42 billion cut to the provinces. When I say he is cut off from reality—and I shall end on this—we need only listen to the Journal de Montréal . Vox populi, vox Dei: Joseph Bourque “He is sending the bill to the provinces”; Claude Allaire “He is not doing much for the middle class”; Claude Grenier—

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that Canadians and Quebeckers are among the world's most highly taxed people.

If we compare ourselves to our American neighbours, as we are so fond of doing, we pay 25% more in taxes. One reason, unfortunately, is that there is duplication.

For instance, when a dairy cow's production is used for industrial milk, the federal minister has jurisdiction. When it is used for commercial milk, the milk people drink every day, the Minister of Agriculture of Quebec, or of Ontario if the cow is from that province, has jurisdiction over the animal. The Minister of Finance, and our wonderful Prime Minister, are now creating more duplication: millennium scholarships.

I wonder whether my government colleague is happy about this duplication, which unfortunately stirs up ill feelings and sets people at loggerheads. In this case, it will not be cows coming under two jurisdictions, but students. The first four months are paid by the federal government, and the next four by—

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, earlier this morning, a call came in at my constituency office, which I quickly returned of course, via my Ottawa office. It was a call from the AFEAS group in Quebec.

Women are extremely disappointed with the latest Martin budget, especially as concerns the calculation of the amounts women will be eligible to. From now on, it will be based on family income instead of personal income. This is yet another low blow, especially to women who have been away from the labour market and will be hard hit.

In my region, at Garthby, Beaulac and Disraëli in particular, a letter writing campaign is being staged to raise the finance minister's awareness of the injustice of the poverty issue in this country, because the hon. Minister of Finance, being a very rich man, is naturally above all that.

I would like the hon. member opposite, who supports the budget brought down by her finance colleague of course, to tell me if she at least has compassion for the women who will be the most affected by this calculation based on family income.

[Diseased Sheep, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, since January 1997, over 3,000 sheep have been slaughtered in Quebec because they were found to have scrapie, which fortunately is not transmittable to humans.

Does the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food intend to investigate why this disease was not detected by inspectors until recently, and will he report back to the House?

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Below cost, of course. We lose money on each pig that comes out of the hog house.

This is how the Liberal government of the member for Saint-Maurice manages our affairs.

The distinguished Reform Party member who spoke before me was right when he said that Bill C-4 has the effect of uniting grain producers, not in support of the legislation, but against it.

I received hundreds of letters. Even yesterday evening, before the vote, I received telephone calls from Manitoba grain producers who urged me to vote against Bill C-4. They asked me to go and talk to some Liberal members and tell them to abstain from voting if they did not have the courage to oppose the legislation. The arguments against Bill C-4 were different, but grain producers were united in their opposition.

If the Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board truly intends to co-operate with producers, he should leave Ottawa and visit farms in western Canada, in Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Peace River. He would see what producers think of his bill. The minister is out of touch with reality.

Some object to the inclusion provisions. Others to the exclusion clauses. Others still to the reserve fund or the appointment process. Some would even like another election as soon as possible.

I know of very few people who agree with the bill in its present form. If the good minister intends to work on behalf of the grain producers, he ought to call a halt to Bill C-4, possibly returning it to the Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food with the definite intention of making major changes.

I would like to review some of the amendments we in the Bloc Quebecois proposed. First of all, as I pointed out, the appointed president will, to all intents and purposes, be the one directing the Canadian Wheat Board. Our proposal was that his appointment go through the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. That was rejected, because the minister told his MPs, whose time in committee is often wasted: “Vote against it. You have no business being involved in this”.

Who will make the appointment? The governor in council. And who is the governor in council? In this case, it will be the minister responsible, and he will tell his cabinet buddies: “You will appoint Mr. or Ms. X.” The salary will be $144,000 plus a few odds and ends. And that is how it will take place.

I asked some of my Liberal colleagues who sat on this committee with us “Why did you vote against it? You are not acting in your own best interests. For once, the agriculture committee would have had a role to play. You would have gained back some self-esteem”. Anyway, it is a known fact that the chair of each committee is a Liberal. There are eight Liberals, and six opposition members, and then sometimes even the opposition is divided, since there are four recognized parties.

So, had they had a bit of gumption to stick to their guns, they could still have appointed their protégé, but at least there would have been an opportunity to ask that protégé some questions. I have even seen some appointments where a person who knew absolutely nothing, someone who could not tell wheat from oats or barley, was appointed to a position as important as this one. The prerequisite was to be of the right colour politically.

I am talking about the Liberals. However, when the Progressive Conservative Party formed the government before the Liberals, things were not much better, as we well know. On the subject of appointments, was it not the Liberal Party that appointed the famous Senator Thompson? He was good at the time. He headed the Liberal Party in Ontario. He led his troops to electoral disaster. In appreciation of his work, they appointed him at a very young age to the other House with a salary of $64,000 and $10,000 in allowances. Today he is the embarrassment of all the other senators. He was expelled from the Liberal Party for trying to boost the family fortunes. Now they are trying various ways to expel him from the Senate.

When we put the question to the Prime Minister in the House, he says we have to change the Constitution, because he was appointed to age 75. How many of my constituents have wondered why we do not abolish the Senate? They say the $45 million we would save could go to maple producers, whose sugar bushes were destroyed.

I had another proposal concerning access to information relating to the Canadian Wheat Board. I told you that sales for 1998-99 will be over $7 billion. Not $7 million but $7 billion. That is a lot of money. This $7 billion must at all costs be administered by and for grain producers.

In 1935, when the Canadian Wheat Board was created, there were a lot of bankruptcies. Eight out of ten people lost their farms. Some torched their crops. It was more profitable to burn them than to harvest them. It was less costly not to harvest their crops. At the time, the Canadian Wheat Board helped a fair number of producers get out of trouble.

Earlier, an hon. member said that some producers are thrown in jail for bypassing the board. As you know—and as the member for Trois-Rivières reminded me earlier—some producers located close to the border load their grain on big trucks and deliver it directly to American buyers. This way, they get up to 12% more than what the Canadian Wheat Board can offer them.

Whenever one of these producers gets caught, he is charged and taken to court, because the law says there is a monopoly and grain can only be sold through the CWB. The producer ends up in jail. The hon. member may have exaggerated somewhat when he said that the producer was thrown in the same cell as a rapist or a drug addict, adding that, unlike rapists and drug addicts who are often paroled, the producer could not enjoy such treatment.

I will end by giving you a scoop and telling you that, primarily because the auditor general will not be able to go and audit the books, that responsibility will be given to a private accounting firm. This is worrisome; it stinks. One thing is for sure: the process will definitely lack transparency. We have some doubt, because neither the producer nor anyone else will be able to check the information. The public interest is not protected, and this puts another doubt in our mind.

Since the whole issue seems to create a lot of uncertainty and discontent among grain producers, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against Bill C-4 at third reading.