Jean-Guy Chrétien

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, October 7th, 1997]

Fundraisers perhaps, as we saw in Quebec in March and in previous months.

A major difference—and I want to say a word about it—concerns the appointment of the president. The governor in council will have to consult the 14 other directors already sitting on the board in order to appoint number 15, who will become the president.

We in the agriculture committee managed, thanks—and I say it in all humility—to my intervention and also to the support of my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Malpeque, to include in the bill a provision whereby the remuneration is fixed by resolution of the board.

So, if a nitwit is appointed, board directors will have the power to decide that this person's salary will be one dollar per year. This way, the nitwit will not hang around for too long and will quickly give up his position. The board of directors will also have the power to include or exclude certain grain categories.

Let us take the case of canola, for example. Canola is currently not covered by the Canadian Wheat Board. Of course, should canola producers wish to join the Canadian Wheat Board, three very specific rules will apply. However, the most important decision, the biggest hurdle, will be to obtain a mandate from registered canola producers. A vote will be held, but it will not be by show of hands, since some people can then move quickly and vote two or three times. There will only be one vote per producer.

If a majority vote yes and the other two conditions, which I will deal with later, are met, then all canola growers will have to join the Canadian Wheat Board.

That is not what some members of the official opposition were hoping for, which is for producers to join the Canadian Wheat Board one year because it suits them, and leave the next year, because they were able to sell their grain on their own. In other words, producers will not be allowed to join the commission when prices are down and then to opt out when prices go up. Either you're in or you're out. Either all producers join the Canadian Wheat Board or they're out.

In closing, I would like, of course, to congratulate the new Minister of Agriculture on his appointment. For once, the Prime Minister brought in someone who knows agriculture well. I find it unfortunate however that the responsibility for the Canadian Wheat Board was given to another minister, who no longer heads the Department of Agriculture. Like all members of this House, I think this is most unfortunate. Even among government members there is discontent.

What is the rationale? When the current minister was agriculture minister, he was naturally put in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Like the Canadian Dairy Commission, the wheat board falls under Agriculture Canada, not under External Affairs or Justice. This decision is fraught with consequences the Prime Minister will have to live with for years to come.

To conclude, members of the Bloc Quebecois will support this government initiative, which they believe is a step forward. It may be a small step, but a step in the right direction nonetheless in modernizing the Canadian Wheat Board.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, October 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this morning on Bill C-4, formerly C-72. Thanks to the lack of foresight by the government during the 35th Parliament, we have to partially repeat the work the hon. members had done in this House on Bill C-72.

First of all, it must be made perfectly clear that the Canadian Wheat Board we are today trying to modernize, to update for the year 2000 and beyond, affects the grain producers of Quebec only very slightly. In reality, the Canadian Wheat Board is important in four provinces: Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and part of British Columbia.

Unlike the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois will vote in favour of Bill C-4, because we find it a reasonable attempt to modernize the Canadian Wheat Board, its board of directors in particular.

Thanks to the contributions by the Bloc Quebecois members sitting on the Agriculture and Agri-Food Committee, we have managed to get the number of directors elected by the grain producers themselves raised to 10. Before that, the good old federal government, with all of its great foresight, and particularly with its great generosity, was the one making the appointments. Obviously, we always tried to select the best, but the best is usually an acquaintance or a friend, someone who has done us a favour in the past.

For example, the government has just appointed Mr. Justice Michel Bastarache, a colleague of the Prime Minister, the former chairman of the yes committee in the 1992 referendum on the Charlottetown accord and a great friend of this country's federalists. Our fine Prime Minister, the member for Saint-Maurice, propelled this judge into a seat on the supreme court and it will be this judge who decides on Quebec's right to sovereignty.

In the riding next to mine, the very beautiful riding of Beauce, the member, Gilles Bernier, was an independent. In order to free this riding for a Liberal member, Mr. Bernier was also given an appointment. Although he had no previous experience, the government appointed him ambassador to Haiti.

When I was relatively young, the Trudeau government appointed the Créditiste member for the riding of Richmond—Arthabaska, my friend Lionel beaudoin, to the Canadian Wheat Board. A byelection was then called, and Alain Tardif was elected, and sat in the House until 1984, when the Conservative Party arrived in force. Funnily enough, he too was appointed a judge, but with the tax court.

You can see how it works. Where is the usual process for appointing people to the important jobs?

From now on, only five members of the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board will be appointed by the Governor General in Council, the ten others will be elected democratically by the grain growers as a whole. The majority of the board of directors will be elected—a significant change—and under the control of the producers themselves.

Four appointments will be made by the Governor General in Council, that is friends once more. They will not be members of the Reform Party, but certainly friends of the Liberal régime will be sitting on the board.

[Speech From The Throne, October 2nd, 1997]

Are you ready to put your seat on the line?

[Speech From The Throne, October 2nd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, the new member for Bourassa, who until recently was the assistant director general of his party, the Liberal Party of Canada, in Quebec said it would be effective and desirable to forge bonds of trust between him and his voters, between the Liberal Party of Canada and Canadian voters.

It would be extremely difficult to build up trust, given that, as a whole, members of this Parliament do not enjoy a great degree of credibility among the public. According to a poll conducted last year, barely 4 percent of voters have some confidence in members of Parliament.

The member for Bourassa spoke about promises, promises which, need I remind him, were not kept. During the 1993 election campaign, his government promised to abolish the GST. That promise was broken. His government also pledged to set up a $5-a-day child care program from coast to coast. Another broken promise.

How can the member believe he can promote trust when, yesterday, the headlines of every newspaper in the country revealed that fundraisers from the Liberal Party had twisted the arms of businesspeople throughout Quebec to collect funds for the last election campaign, not to the tune of $5, $10 or $50 but, rather, $10,000, $50,000 or $100,000. As we all know, when Bombardier, for example, or the CIBC gives $100,000 to the Liberal Party, it is because it will make five times that amount. Theirs is not an investment that will bring in a mere 3 percent in interest; it is a lot more profitable than that.

It is very difficult to build up trust between voters and MPs when some Liberal members behave in this fashion.

In the past, the Conservative Party experienced problems of its own. Today, unfortunately, it is the Liberal Party. The former director general of its Quebec wing certainly did not provide a good example if his goal is to promote trust. It is just empty rhetoric.

[Speech From The Throne, October 2nd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, my distinguished colleague from Oak Ridges, who describes himself as a teacher, has had much to say about youth, Canadian youth in particular. I would like to ask him a question.

As he is well aware, barely 4 percent of our electorate trusts politicians and many of that number are members of our own immediate families or friends of ours. However, our young people's trust in politicians is pretty close to 0 percent. In order to give Canadian young people more faith in parliaments and in elected representatives particularly, would the hon. member not agree to try to convince his colleagues in the Liberal party to propose a bill similar to the one in Quebec? This legislation would allow only voters to contribute to political parties, so big business would no longer be telling them what to do. Fundraisers would not be allowed to twist the arms of company CEOs in order to get $10,000, $20,000 or $100,000 in exchange for certain recompenses from the government.

I can see several Liberal members of this House who are nodding to indicate that they would be in agreement with such a bill. However, I would like to hear it from this hon. member's lips. Would he be agreeable to the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois joining forces to look at what is being done in Quebec in order to improve finances at the present time, not just government finances, but also those of the political parties?

When we see things like what we saw on last night's news—this morning, when I called my riding office, they reported a number of constituents' calls still coming in, along the lines of “Is that what is happening in our fine riding of Frontenac—Mégantic, as it is in Drummond and Trois-Rivières, where Liberal fundraisers are forcing company CEOs to pay up $10,000 or $20,000 if they want any recognition?” This is scandalous.

Surely the hon. member for Bourassa will want to rise in his place and—

[Supply, September 30th, 1997]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me immediately after my distinguished Liberal colleague from the beautiful riding of Stoney Creek finished his speech.

In his 20 minute speech, he raised a few points which may be worth looking at again.

First, he said interest rates are currently the lowest this country had ever seen. I would submit to him that, conversely, I experienced the highest rates at a time when I had a substantial mortgage. As it happens, his leader was sitting in the finance minister's seat, or very close to him, at the time. I have paid rates as high as 22 percent at a time when this same Liberal Party was running the country.

The debt is now $620 billion, or thereabouts. I will remind my distinguished colleague that the Liberal Party, which ran the country from 1970 to 1984, except for the nine months of Joe Clark's government, managed to make the accumulated deficit grow to $250 billion. The Conservatives made it grow twofold from 1984 to 1993. Since 1993, the Liberals have been at it again and, as a result, it has now reached $620 billion.

The GST. His leader had promised to kill it. The ruse he found to lull some Atlantic provinces was the harmonization that Quebec had already carried out in 1991-92 and that should bring in to Quebec about as much as was offered to the three provinces that agreed to harmonize their taxes. He therefore owes the people of Quebec some $2 billion.

He talked about jobs. I find it shameful for a government to take between $6 billion and $9 billion a year out of the employment insurance surplus to finance the deficit reduction effort. I fin it shameful for the government to come and boast in this House about working for the unemployed, for youth, for our students who are looking for work and training in their field. It is shameful and I am convinced that his constituents are not proud of the speech their member has just delivered.

I urge my hon. colleague, whom I had the pleasure to meet more often when we were sitting together on the environment committee, to try to raise awareness in cabinet and in the party to which he belongs, to make them more responsive to the demands of the working class.

[Supply, September 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to the new member for Madawaska—Restigouche who, I might say, speaks an exemplary French.

However, in his speech, he mentioned our government's accumulated deficits, and I would like to give him a little background quickly. Prior to 1970, the federal government had little deficit but, year in year out, the deficit accumulated.

With the arrival of the philosopher Pierre Elliott Trudeau at the helm of the government, the deficit began to grow. However, on his arrival, Brian, the hon. member's spiritual leader, whom he obviously dare not name, threw himself into lavish spending so that, in its final year in government, the Conservative Party had a deficit of $44 billion and an accumulated debt of $600 billion.

Obviously shameful. However, the word also applies to the party currently forming the government if not more than to the preceding government, when it draws an annual surplus of between $6 billion and $9 billion out of the pockets of the impoverished workers by unduly increasing the employment insurance premium, while cutting benefits, shortening the period of eligibility for employment insurance and tightening the requirements.

On this point, I support my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche, but when he talks about the spending of the current federal government, I suggest he look in his own back yard to see what the Conservative Party did during its nine years in government. It spent extravagantly too.

[Speech From The Throne, September 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to my colleague, the hon. member for Oxford.

Most of his speech was about the Calgary proposal and national unity. Members will recall that, when Canadians and Quebecers were asked to vote on the Charlottetown accord in 1992, Quebecers rejected the accord as clearly not enough, while the rest of Canada rejected it because, in their estimation, it was giving far too much to the people of Quebec.

Just this morning, it was reported in Le Journal de Montréal , Le Journal de Québec and The Globe and Mail that a poll by Léger & Léger indicated that 45 percent of Quebecers said the Calgary proposal was clearly not enough, while another 35 percent could live with it.

Also, this morning's press summary shows that there are already people in English Canada who are openly saying that too much is being offered in the Calgary proposal.

How can an agreement, which I feel is impossible, ever be reached? English Canada will say it is far too much. French Canada, Quebec will say it is clearly not enough.

Again this past weekend—and I will conclude on that—former Liberal Party leader Claude Ryan raised serious doubts. André Tremblay, who was former premier Bourassa's adviser for several years, said there was too little in there to say it was not enough. There is also Senator Rivest, who was also an adviser to Robert Bourassa, who said that the Quebec Liberal Party should distance itself from its friends in the Liberal Party of Canada.

Could the hon. member for Oxford tell us, as the representative of the views of the people of Oxford, whether his constituents feel that what was offered to Quebec in the Calgary declaration was enough or not?

[Speech From The Throne, September 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speake, before making my comments to the member for Waterloo—Wellington, I would like to congratulate you on being returned to your duties as Deputy Speaker of this House. You certainly deserve it, having proven your mettle in the 35th Parliament, and I trust you will be just as vigilant in the 36th.

I would address my remarks to the member for Waterloo—Wellington, an educator it seems. I understand that he cares a great deal about young Canadians and especially the young people in his riding. Does he consider the abnormally high rate of unemployment among young people to be normal? The rate, unfortunately, did not decrease over the four years his government, the Liberal Party, sat in this House. On the contrary, it increased. The rate of unemployment among young people increased.

Is it the member's intention to propose concrete solutions to his Liberal caucus for improving things for our young people, to enable them to find satisfying work that complements their studies at CEGEP or university?

[Speech From The Throne, September 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin with my congratulations to you for having accepted the appointment to your position. I hardly need remind you that this is only the third time in the history of this Parliament that a party in power has designated a deputy speaker from outside its ranks. This is a great honour, therefore, and your friends and family, the members of your party and certainly those who elected you will be very proud of you.

I would also like to thank the new member for Simcoe—Grey. I listened closely to his speech and I feel he will make a good MP—or at least I hope so. He strikes me as being full of good will. He gave particular attention in his speech to agriculture and to unemployment. My riding seems rather like Simcoe—Grey, with a number of farmers and many unemployed people.

I would like to ask the valiant new member for Simcoe—Grey, who states his readiness to work with all members of this House, what concrete proposals he wishes to make to his Liberal caucus that will be of any help whatsoever to the agricultural sector, which has seen its net earning power weaken year after year, particularly since 1993 when his party came to power, and to our young people in particular, with their abnormally high rate of unemployment?

And what has his government done to sustain employment since 1993? It has toughened up eligibility for unemployment insurance, particularly for young people, counting not the number of weeks but the number of hours. New workers have to accumulate 910 hours before they qualify. And worse still—my final point—the duration of employment insurance benefits has been shortened.

Since the hon. member for Simcoe—Grey gives me the impression of being very very positive in these, his first days in the House of Commons, what are the concrete proposals he will make to his party caucus, to the Liberal party?