Jean-Guy Chrétien

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would be grateful if you were to allow me the two minutes I have left.

This morning, the Prime Minister expelled a Liberal senator appointed by Lester B. Pearson. I will not name him out of respect for his children. The fellow will earn $500,000 for doing nothing. This is coming out of our pockets.

In my riding, I hear about these appointments all the time. Voters turfed out Mary Clancy. Not two weeks had gone by before the Prime Minister found her a spot paying more than MPs' wages. Voters showed Francis Leblanc the door because of the treatment of the unemployed in his riding. The Minister of Human Resources Development will get him to administer the employment insurance fund. This did not—

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

I only have two minutes to go.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would invite my friend from Prince Edward Island, the hon. member for Malpeque, to listen, which is no mean feat in his case since you cannot tell him anything. However, he can learn a thing or two from the member for Frontenac—Mégantic, which is what I want.

So, the government, under the Prime Minister, gave responsibility for this bill to the Minister of Natural Resources, on the grounds that he comes from the west. I have more fingers on my hands than there are Liberal members from the West in this House, so he did not have a choice if they were going to give it to someone from the West. So he gave it to the Minister of Natural Resources.

I suggested to my friend from Malpeque that the auditor general, who is above all reproach and whose appointment was approved by all parties in this House, should go and root through the books of the Canadian Wheat Board. The Liberals turned the suggestion down saying that a group of auditors from the west—one of the famous accounting firms like Raymond, Chabot, Martin, Paré in Quebec—could do the audit. In the West it appears to be Touche Ross & Co.

My Reform colleagues went at the Prime Minister himself on several occasions because it appears that he gets a lot of financial support from these groups of auditors.

When an organization like the Canadian Wheat Board has its books audited, only the invoices presented are audited. The auditors find that it matches the invoice, but do not check if the invoice is valid. Do you follow me?

I think that the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois and all the opposition parties in this House agree that the auditor general should audit the books. I made some calculations. The Canadian Wheat Board will be managing sales representing between $6 billion and $7 billion. That is a substantial amount. A 1% error would cost $600 million. That is quite a lot of money. You will tell me that I am exaggerating. I agree, 1% is too high. Take 1% of 1%, or one thousandth. That is $6 million. I am pretty sure that if one thousandth of the sales were poorly managed, western farm producers would lose $6 million without anyone noticing.

But the auditor general, with his flair, with his team and with his expertise, would figure out in no time that something is wrong and would not hesitate to single out individuals in his annual report or to point out any inappropriate spending. Then we could rub Liberals' noses in it.

As I said, this is a step forward, but a very tiny step indeed. The board of directors will include 10 elected members; 10 western grain producers will sit on the board. But five other directors, two of whom will be major players, will be appointed by the governor in council.

I take this opportunity to submit to the hon. member for Malpeque, who is running this debate for the government, that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food should be consulted. I am not asking that it be given a veto, just that it be consulted. The hon. member for Malpeque does not want to. He does not even trust—I am afraid my name is about to get crossed off of his list of friends, but we will see what can be negotiated later—the members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food.

This brings me to the appointments in question. This morning's papers report that the Prime Minister revoked an appointment made by his predecessor, Lester B. Pearson.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor so promptly.

Bill C-4 is a major bill for western grain producers, so much so that consideration of the bill had to be spread over more than a year. In its great wisdom and clarity of vision, the Liberal government had planned to have Bill C-72 passed during the 35th Parliament, but the early call for a general election on June 2 forced us to scrap everything that had been done. This meant a considerable waste of money.

I would, however, like to emphasize that, on the agriculture and agri-food committee, we heard the views of scores of people. The large majority of them expressed discontent with the wording of Bill C-4, which will, according to the Liberals, modify the Canadian Wheat Board Act from a to z .

In our opinion, this is a very tiny step forward, and as a result I can announce to you, to the great chagrin of the hon. member for Malpeque, that we will support this amendment to Bill C-4 for a number of different and important reasons.

One of the reasons is as follows. I would like to know—and from you directly, Mr. Speaker—why the Prime Minister gave responsibility for the Canadian Wheat Board to a minister other than the minister of agriculture. Is the new minister of agriculture too incompetent to manage the Canadian Wheat Board on his own? That is my question. Does the Prime Minister not have confidence in him?

[Child Benefit, November 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on November 4, I reminded the Minister of Human Resources Development that 300 miners in Black Lake had lost their jobs, that their average age was 52, that the region is suffering high unemployment, and that these workers were calling for a modified POWA program.

Louise Harel in Quebec is in agreement. Jean Dupéré, the president of Lab Chrysotile, is in agreement. Only our Minister of Human Resources Development in Ottawa is refusing to budge.

The minister should sit down and take a serious look at the issue of these men from the BC mine in Black Lake. Black Lake is four kilometres from Thetford, and the small a asbestos region is not the same as the large A Asbestos region. The guys from the BC mine are not workers from British Columbia, as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation claims.

Why does the Minister of Human Resources Development himself not reply to our questions regarding the creation of a modified POWA program for the workers of the BC mine? The department is completely adrift.

All the big shots in the Liberal Party are getting involved: the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, and tonight, the reply will probably come from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

That is why they think the BC Mine workers are from British Columbia and that is also why the minister himself is wrong in portraying the city of Asbestos as the capital of the asbestos industry.

The minister should leave the war veterans aside and take care of the BC Mine veterans. Furthermore, he should address the issue of cooperation between Quebec and Canada instead of letting the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation stumble in his place.

The people in the Black Lake region would be better served if cabinet knew that Black Lake is not Asbestos and that the BC Mine is in Black Lake and not in British Columbia.

Most of these workers are over 50 and they are entitled to a modified POWA because, on March 7, 1996, an application to that effect was submitted to the Minister of Human Resources Development; furthermore, the program must be modified because Jean Dupéré is ready to make his own contribution to this POWA.

So I am very eager to hear the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I speak this afternoon to Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

The Liberal government headed by the Prime Minister, the member for Saint-Maurice, thought that a slight revamping of the more than 60-year-old Canadian Wheat Board, a body viewed with very mixed feelings by grain producers themselves, it might be added, would be a good idea. Discontent in the three western provinces and in the Peace River area was such that producers were on the verge of signing a general petition calling for nothing less than the total abolition of the board.

So, 18 months ago, the minister responsible for the board, a western minister of course, tabled amendments in the form of Bill C-72. We in this House devoted much effort to improving this bill. But because of this government's lack of foresight, we are now, to all intents and purposes, back at square one with Bill C-4.

My colleague in the Reform Party, the member for Yorkton—Melville, is suggesting a preamble to Bill C-4 that I feel I must approve. I will tell you why. When a bill seems to be good, there is no need to shy away from saying so. What interests me most in the motion put forward by the hon. member from the Reform Party, is the preamble saying that agriculture plays a vital role in Canada and especially in the three western provinces and the Peace River region. Do you object to that, Mr. Speaker? You agree with me that it is no crime to include that in the preamble to the bill.

The interesting thing is that this organization, the Canadian Wheat Board, has an important effect on grain producers and must, accordingly, have as its object and first priority the securing of the very best financial return for them. The Canadian Wheat Board will have to be accountable to the grain producers for its performance.

Mr. Speaker, can you look me in the eye and say that you object to the Canadian Wheat Board making every effort to obtain the best prices for our grain producers? The Liberal government objects to having this in a preamble to the bill. It makes no bloody sense. Worse yet, they are going to ask the Canadian Wheat Board to account to grain producers for its actions.

The minister responsible is objecting. I fail to see why. Bill C-4 does have good intentions. For instance, there is at least some attempt to democratize the administration of the Canadian Wheat Board, by having 10—not enough in my opinion, but at least this is a first step in the right direction—of the 15 directors elected by universal suffrage by the grain producers. That is a step forward.

In case it has been forgotten, there used to be five commissioners, and all five were appointed by the governor in council. These were generally five patronage appointments, not necessarily five truly competent administrators. When the colour of the government in power was blue, Conservatives were appointed. Now, since it is red, we have just had the announcement of a series of Department of Agriculture appointments, and they are all Liberals. One was a bag man, one the chief organizer, one had worked hard to get his boss, the Prime Minister, elected as leader of his party. You will recall this, Mr. Speaker, since you supported him too and got a little reward for it, since you are now seated in the chair.

Bill C-4 is an attempt to change the Canadian Wheat Board Act for the better—at least I hope it is for the better, and the government is sincere—for the benefit of grain producers. So why fear it?

I have just been listening to the words of the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. He said they were afraid they would have to tie the hands of the directors of the Canadian Wheat Board. Is it a crime to tie their hands and require them to obtain a better price? I do not think so. Given that the board will be dealing with $6 billion or $7 billion, even a fraction of 1% will mean a better price. A fraction of 1% of $7 billion means many many millions of dollars that the board could come up with and put into the pockets of producers.

I invite my colleagues in the government to have another look at the proposed preamble. It is not because it was introduced by the Bloc Quebecois that it is no good. It looks like the Liberals think that if it is not their idea it is not good.

I do not want to have to reread the main part of this preamble, but the part that interests me, once again, is the part that would oblige the Canadian Wheat Board to obtain the best possible return on grain. The board should also be accountable for its performance.

So, a vote against this motion, the first on Bill C-4, indicates a lack of transparency and a fear of working effectively for western grain producers.

[Dairy Industry, November 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

We know that the Americans are challenging the price of Canadian milk for export. The World Trade Organization was hearing the American complaint this morning. This is a major issue for Quebec and Canadian dairy producers.

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?

[Boulangerie Saint-Méthode, November 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge in this House the determination of the Faucher family, of Saint-Méthode, and its concern for a job well done.

Their family operation was granted the prestigious ISO-9002 standard of total quality. This is a first in Quebec, as Boulangerie Saint-Méthode will become the first such business to achieve this high standard of quality.

This bakery's outstanding products are the pride of the asbestos producing region. Every day for the past 50 years, our community has been able to literally taste the care the Faucher family puts into baking quality products.

I for one believe that the main ingredient in the Faucher family's winning recipe remains its great respect for its employees and their expertise.

Long live Boulangerie Saint-Méthode.

[Euthanasia, November 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on October 29 I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development a question in this House.

On October 29, we were three days away from the closure of the BC asbestos mine at Black Lake, where 300 workers were laid off on November 1. Their average age is 52. Of the 300 miners, 82% are over 50 and 36% are over 55.

What the workers, the employer, Jean Dupéré, and Louise Harel of the Quebec government want is a pre-retirement program for these older employees.

The minister insists on offering only active measures, namely the transitional job fund, measures for independent workers and the purchase of courses. Try asking Edgar Rousseau, 56, of Coleraine to take a course in electricity or soldering, for example.

Try asking Normand Cloutier, 56, an electrician who knows his job inside out, Louis-Philippe Roy, 56, or Maurice Grégoire, 54, an experienced dynamiter, to train for some other type of work. You will agree with me that, for these people, training would be totally meaningless.

The minister has no compassion for these workers. On October 27, 1997, I asked him a question in the House and he did not even dare to come to the defence of his government's treatment of these workers. Instead, he designated the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs has now replaced the Minister of Human Resources Development. In a few minutes, we will find out who this evening's stand-in will be.

Employees of the BC mine met last week with the Minister of Human Resources Development. André Laliberté, Gaétan Rousseau and Charles Lacroix from the Thetford region met with him in his office. They asked him for an improved POWA program. The next day, in this House, he dared to rise in his place and state that asbestos workers had told him they did not want the POWA program.

At that point, my colleague, the member for Rimouski—Mitis, tabled a letter in the House reminding the minister that the workers wanted an improved POWA program.

This minister has no compassion. Jean Dupéré, I remind the House, is prepared to do his share, a substantial share, he says. Louise Harel is also ready. Only the minister is refusing to budge. He is prepared to go as far as $3 million in active measures. Does he not understand that forcing workers who are 55, 56, 58 or 59 years old, to sit in a classroom is not only unrealistic, but stupid coming from a minister who claims to manage this country's human resources?

It is not surprising—

[Bc Mine, November 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the minister does not know Quebec. The Asbestos region is not the same as the Thetford region.

Will the minister admit that, at least in the case of these older workers, what is needed is not active measures, but a form of income support that will see them through to retirement with dignity at the age of 65? Jean Dupéré and Louise Harel have already stated their position. It is now up to the minister.