Jean-Guy Chrétien

[Ice Storm 1998, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I will share my time with my distinguished colleague, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.

I would like to join with all the speakers who have taken part in this emergency debate on the ice storm to thank and congratulate people who had to deal with what could be called a historical storm, the storm of the century.

I am thinking especially about the Premier of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard, the president of Hydro-Quebec, André Caillé, the head of public security, the Prime Minister of Canada, the leaders of the Canadian army, all the mayors in areas hit by the storm, who without any training whatsoever were able to deal with this storm the extent of which could not be properly assessed, even from the air, in a helicopter or otherwise. One could only have a limited view of things. Nobody in this House is yet aware of the real impact of this ice storm.

I would also like to congratulate people in my riding, volunteers for collecting wood, of course, and money, but also for the love and caring they were able to show for those hard hit by the storm.

I am thinking especially of teachers in the Amiante regional school board who, without a word of protest, agreed to have scores and scores of children from the infamous “triangle of darkness” come at a rate of one or two per classroom, to take French, history, maths and English. They did not look at their collective agreement. They just said: “Welcome in our classroom”.

I would now like to deal mainly with the problem of our maple producers, since there are some 2,000 in my riding, with between 1,000 and over 100,000 tapholes. I had the chance to take part in two meetings with major groups of maple producers. The first meeting, organized by producers themselves, was held at Stornoway, at the junction of roads 108 and 161, where demonstrators symbolically barred traffic on both roads to raise the awareness of both levels of government. The second meeting took place on my initiative in Thetford Mines, where over 150 maple producers gathered to get some information.

I would like to ask the federal and provincial governments for some financial support that could compensate our maple producers for the loss of their working capital. An example. In a egg producing farm where, for example, 20,000 hens had suffocated to death as a result of the power failure, there would be a compensation for the loss of these 20,000 hens that I would call working capital. The maple producer who has 20,000 tapholes and whose maple trees would be to all intents and purposes dead within a year or two could not be compensated since this is not considered as working capital in the same sense as the animals that would have died as a result of the ice storm.

I recall a case that I think would be worth sharing with my colleagues who are here in this House. A couple from Sainte-Cécile-de-Whitton who sold their dairy farm, their quota, to go into maple production, own over 100,000 tapholes. If you do some quick calculations, you will find out that at a minimum of $20 per tap you get a fair amount—100,000 times $20; you do the mathematics. This couple estimates that the syrup production in their maple bush will be down by 40 to 60 per cent. They are finished if they do not get any help.

Worse yet, our maple producers are very often in debt to the federal government, through the Farm Credit Corporation, or to the provincial government, through the Société de financement agricole . Some will have to file for bankruptcy. Therefore the Farm Credit Corporation will have to assume ownership of a maple syrup operation which is no longer profitable. Or, if the money had been provided by the Société , it is the government of Quebec which will have to deal with the bankruptcy. You understand that.

Therefore, I think it would be wise to help the maple producers financially. One of my constituents showed me a video. He filmed the situation in the farm he was preparing for his retirement. He would have cut some 25 or 30 cords of wood per quarter, just to add some income to his pension, and would have lived happily, doing what he enjoys.

Unfortunately, all the deciduous trees, or at least 80 per cent of them, because it is difficult to say 100 per cent, are doomed.

My second plea for help is directed to the minister of Human Resources Development. Through his partnership program for job creation, he proposed $25 million for Quebec, but the program applies only to people presently receiving employment insurance or who received it during the last 36 months. Within the “ Granit et Amiante ” regional municipality there is clearly a lack of trained manpower to work in maple bushes and pull the plastic tubing from under the ice and the fallen branches.

There is a staff shortage and I am waiting for an answer, but time is of the essence. The sap should start flowing within three weeks, or a month at the most. If we miss that date, maple syrup producers will obviously lose money.

I will conclude by simply saying that I deplore the attitude of certain petty politicians in this country, who took advantage of the situation to score political points. I am thinking, among others, of the member for Bourassa, and the Ontario premier, Mr. Harris, who, during the South American trip with the Prime Minister, took advantage of Mr. Bouchard's absence, who had his hands full managing the crisis in Quebec.

Again, congratulations to all those who did such a good job of managing the crisis. Polls conducted in Quebec clearly show that Lucien Bouchard, André Caillé and the armed forces are the three big winners following this crisis, the likes of which we hope never to experience again.

Thank you for your attention. The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve will use up the rest of the time allotted to me.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 3rd, 1998]

That sure look bad, as the hon. member for Longueuil so aptly puts it.

As the agriculture critic for my party, I would like to call to mind a problem we are all facing at the moment with the importing of butter oil, mainly from New Zealand and Australia, by the big and well-known multinational, Unilever.

In late 1993, when we negotiated the GATT, later to become the WTO, agreements, it was agreed that agriculture on which there were quotas in Canada would be protected: dairy, eggs and poultry production. In order to protect those quotas, we set a very high duty, which to all intents and purposes made it virtually impossible to import dairy products, butter, poultry products and eggs.

This 461 page tome we are presented with here is full of loopholes. When it has been weeded through, when experts like the Minister of Finance have weeded through it, it will be found to be full of loopholes. Some companies have discovered the trick of importing butter oil at nearly zero duty, a mere 7% or 8%, so the amount of butter oil has doubled year after year for the past five years here in Canada, and you and I are now being served up second class ice cream at the same price as before. Thus the dairy farmers of Canada have had a 3% drop in quotas, which represents close to $2,000 per dairy farm in Canada.

Since 47% of industrial milk produced in Canada is produced in Quebec, the dairy farmers of Quebec are being penalized nearly 50%.

The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food insisted on resolving the impasse. It involved dealing with the departments of finance, revenue, agriculture, foreign trade and, of course, the new food inspection agency because butter oil, which arrives by ship, must be checked to ensure it does not contain BST. It also must be checked to see that it is of good quality and edible.

So there is a loophole, an error. It can be imported under a different tariff schedule, a number that was changed so that 49% butter mixed with 51% sugar creates a mixture that, once in Canada, can be processed to make ice cream. Worse yet, the mixture can be put in a separator, the butter and sugar switched around and butter made. So what cannot be done legally can be done illegally.

Time is passing, and I wanted to speak to you of a loophole. One of my constituents called me last week to tell me that she and her husband had started a company to operate their farm at Saint-Ludger, near Beauce. They have farmed for 30 years.

The Conservatives and not the Liberals were originally responsible, but the Liberals have not corrected the injustice. I was informed that there was an accounting void between November 21, 1985 and January 1, 1988 for farmers setting up a company within that time period. Before and after this period, the value of the milk quota can be included in the company and when the company is sold, no tax is paid on the value of this quota.

My constituent in Saint-Ludger is therefore penalized, but she is not the only one. It is not encouraging, to be sure, but it is estimated that there are 300 producers in Quebec and over 1,200 altogether in Canada penalized by this administrative oversight.

I asked the Minister of Finance to rectify this situation, but it is taking a long time to get an answer. For the ships flying the flag of Barbados, there is no problem. These matters are quickly sorted out.

I would like to speak about employment insurance. The Minister of Finance will soon achieve budget surpluses, but unfortunately it will be at the expense of the most disadvantaged. As we know, the gap between the rich and the poor is not getting any smaller. On the contrary, it is growing much wider. The proof is that the government overtaxes workers on their EI premiums and has reduced the size of the cheque they receive to 55%, with the result that surpluses are accumulating that are expected to exceed $13 billion this year.

In closing, I must say that I am going to vote with my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois against Bill C-28, which leaves much to be desired.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 3rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, yesterday morning, Bill C-28 was introduced in this House. This is a rather bulky document and it is clear from reading these 461 pages that much of it is meaningless.

I would like to come back to the financial administration of this country. Before the 1970s, at the end of every year, the Canadian finance minister would report either a surplus or a small deficit and, as a result, there was no Canadian debt.

Then, 1968 saw the election of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Thanks to his delusions of grandeur and his lack of talent for public administration, we started accumulating one deficit after the other. During the Trudeau years, from 1968 to 1984, not counting of course the nine-month Conservative interlude under Joe Clark, Trudeau and his cabinet, in which, we will recall, the current Prime Minister served as Minister of Finance for several years, managed to build a monstrous $250-billion accumulated debt.

In 1984, we changed our red car for a blue one. The ideas put forward then were those of the Conservatives, who reminded me at the time of calves stampeding out of the barn for the first time in the spring. Stir-crazy. You will no doubt recall that there was one spending scandal a month and, in nine years, the accumulated deficit grew from $250 billion to $500 billion.

In 1993, we traded cars again and went back to a red one. Of course, the deficits continued to rise, to the point where we now collectively owe some $570 billion, with a zero deficit being anticipated this year. We even expect a surplus, and the Liberals are beginning to wheel and deal on how surpluses should be shared out.

Let me remind you that, year in year out, we currently pay $44 billion—and this will please former Social Credit members—in interest alone. The Minister of Finance, who is very astute, says “We will avoid having to pay interest; we will reduce transfers to the provinces by the same amount”. The same minister managed, over a three-year period, to reduce by $42 billion the transfers to the provinces for hospitals, post-secondary education and social assistance, so that it is not uncommon to see a student saddled with a debt of $25,000 to $30,000 by the time he or she gets his or her B.A.. Your child, and mine, has incurred that kind of debt to get his or her B.A.. Again, the current Minister of Finance is largely responsible for this situation.

The minister has some nerve. He is said to be a multimillionaire and he owns Canada Steamship Lines. And he is very very familiar with Canada's financial rules and also the rules of Revenue Canada. Do you know what he does in order to avoid paying taxes, or in order to pay as little as possible, in the country whose fiances he directs? He registers his ships in tax havens, Barbados, Bermuda. That is our Minister of Finance. We are sunk.

[Questions On The Order Paper, February 3rd, 1998]

Regarding the recent relocation of the Lake Megantic Human Resources Development Centre, can the government: ( a ) describe the bidding procedure; ( b ) specify the number of bidders; and ( c ) indicate the amounts covered in each of the bids, including the services offered and the costs involved in occupying the premises concerned?

[Criminal Code, December 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.

I would like to encourage and forgive right now the member for Vancouver Quadra, because at the Department of Agriculture, there is little concern for the French language, and this is not surprising.

[Criminal Code, December 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on November 19 last, I asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food a question on the future of the dairy industry.

To give you the appropriate background, I would like to quote part of that question. It said:

Does the minister intend to vigorously defend the dairy producers of Quebec and Canada by taking a clear and firm stand in the face of American claims?

Please note the answer.

Mr. Speaker, yes I will confirm that we will defend the Canadian dairy industry vigorously.

Each time I ask that minister a question, he invariably says “I defend very strongly, I defend vigorously.”

How can he explain that processors, and especially Unilever, are importing butter oil, the mix containing 49% butter oil and 51% sugar, at a very low tariff?

For a minister who keeps saying that he is vigorously defending the dairy industry, this is really great. Dairy producers have lost this fiscal year $50 million, which represents about 3% of their quota. And since there are 25,000 dairy producers, this represents an average of $2,000 that every dairy farm is losing today because of the import of butter oil. “I defend vigorously”, he says. How can we believe a minister who is so vigorously failing to act?

The problem is caused by the fact that the product is not under the proper tariff item. From 1995 to 1997, there has been more than a four-fold increase in imports. At the rate that these imports are going, there is every reason to fear that dairy producers will find themselves in a dire financial straits. Not only does the minister have to work vigorously, he also has to work quickly, because this is urgent.

This butter oil mix was obviously invented to avoid tariff regulations. Unfortunately, Revenue Canada is slow in reacting, and our Minister of Agriculture is sleeping on the job. Meanwhile, it is the agricultural community that is paying not for the lack of courage of this government but for its failure to act, especially as far as the Minister of Agriculture is concerned.

I hope there will be appropriate foresight on the part of officials during the next WTO negotiations. Proper management means proper foresight, and the Liberal government is showing neither when it comes to agriculture.

[Division No. 68, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer here to a question that I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development on November 27 last.

To ensure that everyone understands the background, I will remind the House what that question was:

The minister recently said that BC mine workers were not interested in a POWA. Yet, these workers are currently protesting in front of the minister's Montreal office. They are asking for a modified POWA.

That is the term I used, “a modified POWA”.

Given the repeated requests made by the former BC mine workers, will the minister finally see the light and take the necessary steps to ensure their financial security?

That was my question. Here is what the Minister of Human Resources Development answered:

I draw the hon. member's attention—

<—and he was showing a document—

—to a letter, dated the 27 and signed by the union president, which I am prepared to table in the House. It says clearly that the workers want an improved POWA, that they are not interested in a traditional POWA, only in an improved one. Therefore this has nothing to do with what the hon. member is asking for.

Will the minister finally show a bit of compassion and stop playing with words? I am asking for a modified POWA, and he is saying that what the workers want is an improved POWA. It is the same thing.

Whether we call it an improved POWA, a modified POWA, I could not care less, but was is important is that he wake up and that he give to the BC mine workers what they are entitled to.

I call it a modified POWA for the simple reason that Jean Dupéré, the president of Lab Chrysotile, is willing to contribute a considerable amount to the program that existed before, the POWA. Furthermore, Louise Harel wrote to the Minister of Human Resources Development to tell him that she was to ready to match any contribution that the minister might make.

The minister is an intelligent man. He has already proven that in the past. Why is he playing with the intelligence of BC mine workers by speaking of improved instead of modified?

If I had used the term “improved POWA”, he would have said “They do not want an improved POWA, they want a modified POWA”. The minister is not lying, of course I am not allowed to say this here, but he is playing with words, to a certain extent.

The Minister of Human Resources Development, by showing a letter from Mr. Laliberté, the president of the workers who were paid by the hour, tried to undermine his credibility, and I found this extremely regrettable. What the workers of the former BC mine want is an improved POWA. If he does not like the word “improved”, he can use a similar word, I repeat that I really do not care. The fact is that Jean Dupéré is ready to contribute a substantial amount of money.

As for myself, right now, I want to tell all the BC mine workers that I will never let them down in their attempt to get an improved or a modified POWA.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, who will be answering later, will show a bit more compassion than—

[Employment Insurance Act, December 8th, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-296, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, 1997 (rate of benefits).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce a bill to change the calculation of employment insurance premiums. This bill if passed will eliminate from the calculation of benefits the many rules reducing the amount of benefits recipients are entitled to.

The bill aims to have benefits represent 55% of earned salary. We will thus be a little more compassionate with workers facing a period of unemployment. I seek the support of all parties in this House.

(Motions agreed to, bill read the first time and printed)

[Questions On The Order Paper, December 3rd, 1997]

With regard to the recent reopening of the Cassiar asbestos mine in British Columbia, can the government (a) state what its involvement was; (b) indicate how much the government contributed; (c) indicate which government programs were used; (d) indicate the amounts contributed under each program; (e) specify the conditions of any loan or loans, including the interest rate and duration; and (f) indicate which departments were involved in this reopening?

[Division No. 49, December 2nd, 1997]

They might have.