Jean-Guy Chrétien

[Canada Endangered Species Protection Act, April 24th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, the government is playing a childish game only hours before an election is called.

It is introducing bills in the House that it knows full well will die on the Order Paper when an election is called, probably on Sunday afternoon in Shawinigan.

Barely a few minutes ago we were debating a bill apparently eagerly awaited by western grain producers, Bill C-72, that the Pinocchio crowd promised would be passed in this 35th Parliament, and that is going to die on the Order Paper.

A few hours later, in order to look good, the Minister of the Environment is introducing Bill C-65, which, on the face of it, seems quite commendable. When we examine it closely, however, we see that, once again, the government is on the wrong track.

I will read you the title of the bill and you will understand how very commendable it is: an act respecting the protection of wildlife species in Canada from extirpation or extinction. Are you opposed to this? Of course not, neither am I. But a clause by clause

examination of the bill shows that the Minister of the Environment is on the wrong track, and I will tell you why.

I will begin by giving an example. The government has taken so-called positive action with respect to certain endangered species. Listen carefully while I tell you about the case of cod.

Barely three years ago, realizing that cod were declining in the Gulf and on the Atlantic coast, this government's fisheries minister took a positive step: a cod moratorium. Exactly what was needed.

A few years later, however, on the eve of an election, the cod have returned in staggering numbers. They are so large they are hanging off the edges of our plates. So, with an election about to be called in a few days, the fisheries minister authorizes cod fishing. Brilliant if you want to win votes, but for the environment, for the dwindling cod supply, it is a terrible move.

Another example is the peregrine falcon, the swiftest bird in the world. This is the bird you see in period films which is trained to attack on a signal from his owner. It is endangered here, and not because people destroy the nests or kill the birds. The problem goes much deeper than that; it is the environment, the gases we release into the atmosphere, the heavy metals, mercury in particular. What happens is that the female lays eggs whose shells are so thin that when the parents sit on them they break. It is a problem caused by pollution.

What did the Deputy Prime Minister do during her 18 months as Minister of the Environment? She did nothing about this. What is the new, and always dapper, Minister of the Environment doing about this? Nothing. He would like to protect endangered species, but he has forgotten that four provinces are ahead of him in this: Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and New Brunswick. They already have their own rules, their own legislation to protect endangered species. Now he would like to overlap with them, duplicating departments, duplicating regulations, and then to tell us that this will cost less. How very clever.

Quebec created a protective agency in 1989, not under a sovereignist government, but the government of Robert Bourassa himself, who played on the same team as the Liberals. So here we go, more duplication. Quebec, Manitoba and New Brunswick represent at least 60 per cent of Canada's land mass. Once again, this is not such a clever move by the Minister of the Environment.

What is even worse is that the federal government will be appropriating areas that do not come under its jurisdiction. It is not a rare thing to see the federal government come stomping into the provinces with the attitude of: "Gang way and make room for me". It will, for example, be responsible for transborder regions.

Let me give an example of an animal that moves between provinces or between countries, the hare. If you study natural history, you will see that hares do not range much more than about a square kilometre. But if a hare lives near the U.S. border, might it not occasionally cross the border without a visa? Yes. I am taking the hare as an example, because its territory is very limited.

Now, let us take the case of a wolf. The territory of a wolf or coyote is 100 times as big, or 100 square kilometres. So a wolf will tend to cross back and forth from the American side to the Quebec and Ontario sides. So it could be called a transboundary species. However, that is impossible, because it is not a migratory bird like the duck.

I would like to add the following for the benefit of those who are listening at home. When you go hunting in the fall and you want to hunt partridge, hare, black bear or deer, you need a Quebec licence. But if you want to hunt duck or snow geese, you have to go to the post office-the post office, that is a good one-to buy a federal licence for migratory birds. I agree migratory birds should be managed, at least under our present system, by the federal government. But hares, foxes, wolves, black bears and deer are a provincial responsibility.

Another point that bothers me is those appointments. As you know, and I see you are smiling again, I am allergic to patronage and these appointments made by the governor in council or, as it says so neatly in Bill C-65, on the recommendation of our Minister of the Environment, who does not know much about saving endangered species. He only listens to his officials. He will be responsible for appointing the nine members who sit on this committee.

Of course they will be remunerated-the same old story-after being appointed for political reasons, something I saw in my own riding. The president of the EI board of referees-you know who I mean because I think I told you that yesterday-is the sister of the Liberal candidate in the riding of Frontenac-Mégantic. She may be competent, but she is a Liberal first and foremost.

The former president had to be replaced, for some important reason. There was no competition, and the same procedure must have been used to appoint the returning officer in your riding for the next election, which will be called on Sunday, for June 2.

I repeat, it is truly appalling that the government should use political appointments to protect endangered species.

Bill C-65 also refers to federal land. I would appreciate it if the Minister of Environment said "On my land in Canada". For instance, in Mauricie Park or Forillon Park in the Gaspé, they say no moose or partridge shall be shot on this land, but if the moose or

partridge move out, well, the federal government did not buy the whole country.

We have deer on our farm. When the hunting season starts, a friend of the returning officer for my riding goes deer hunting on my property. If the deer crosses the street and is no longer on my property, I cannot tell the hunter: "Go ahead and shoot it, it is over there". I will have to tell him: "You only have the right to hunt on our property".

So I suggest the federal government mind its own business. Sure, it can protect endangered species, but it should first look where the problem is and then try to deal with it.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, April 24th, 1997]

She is a fine young lady, who was recently appointed through the good offices of this government. But the essential qualification, if I may use that word, is to be a Liberal.

Another problem with the blueprint for change to the Canadian Wheat Board is that it applies to all the provinces. And the hon. member for Malpeque supported this, knowing full well that Prince Edward Island produces potatoes rather than wheat or barley. When I asked the secretary of state whether he could promise that 25 per cent of wheat board members would come from Quebec, he said: "That is out of the question. You grow hardly any wheat and barley in Quebec". Why include us on the board if basically there are only three provinces, plus a small portion of British Columbia-say three and a half provinces-where a serious effort is made to mass produce wheat and barley?

We have submitted, and I will conclude on this, very positive amendments to improve the Canadian Wheat Board Act, not to

give satisfaction to Liberal politicians but to please western grain producers. Incidentally, the number of elected representatives was finally set at 10. I should remind the House however that the chief executive officer, the real boss of the Canadian Wheat board, will be appointed by the government, and that I will not stand for.

Therefore, while supporting the first group of motions put forward by the Reform Party, the official opposition will be voting against Bill C-72 as a whole.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, April 24th, 1997]

The sister of the Liberal candidate in Frontenac-Mégantic.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, April 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-72, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, commonly referred to as the CWB.

It is important to look at this bill in the current context, but it is also appropriate to go back in time and look at the historical context. When the government created the Canadian Wheat Board, Canada, like every other country in the world, was going through a major economic crisis. It was in the 1930s, more than 65 years ago, that the federal government established the Canadian Wheat Board. At the time, there was widespread famine, and men and women often worked just to put food on the table. Some people starved during this period called the Great Depression.

Western farmers had great difficulties making ends meet. They were often stuck with their crop, because they could not sell it at a fair price. The government, like a good father, created the Canadian Wheat Board and gave it a monopoly. All the grain had to go through the CWB.

At the time, the creation and the existence of the Canadian Wheat Board seemed justified. It would still be justified today were it not for the fact that, over the years, the government lost touch with the grassroots. This is especially true of the current Liberal government, which is totally out of touch with the grassroots. It seems this government only listens to financial interests, to those who contribute to its campaign fund.

Western farmers are very upset. Earlier, I was listening to the Reform Party member who said: "If you want war in western Canada, you will get it with grain producers because they are so upset".

I think he exaggerated. There will not be war, well maybe a verbal one, but that will not be all that bad. I can tell you that, of all the amendments and proposals we put forward in the Standing Committee on Agriculture, very few were approved, although some of our motions were very interesting, but the Liberals, with one exception, after consulting the great one himself, the minister that is, turned around 48 hours later and passed the motion requiring the election of 10 farmers, and 10 was the number put into the bill.

Sixty years ago, there was a need for the Canadian Wheat Board. I think there still is today, but the government should wake up and make some changes. A good number of motions have been introduced, and it could accept a few of them.

It should also be remembered that the Canadian Wheat Board has a monopoly, in the sense that a grain producer living on the border with the United States would not have the right, nor did he before, to sell his crop or a part of it for more than his American neighbours.

The Canadian Wheat Board undertakes to buy wheat and barley from any registered grain producer and is expected, obviously, to get the highest price possible, domestically or abroad, for this wheat and barley.

All wheat and barley for human consumption must go through the Canadian Wheat Board. Even in Quebec, if you need an amount of wheat for human consumption, not for feed, you must go through the Canadian Wheat Board.

There will be 15 on the board of directors. That is already an advantage. Before, with four or five, there were always one or two that had to be reappointed. But the Canadian Wheat Board has often been directed by three people. Now, there will be 15, 10 of them because of the efforts of the opposition, of the Bloc Quebecois, with the support of the Reform Party. Our Liberal friends did not want to include this in the bill so, after 48 hours of consideration, they consulted the great one himself, who said: "All right, the west is making such a fuss that we will give them 10".

I myself would have preferred to see 12, of course, as the Reform Party would have, but the Liberals wanted to hang on to the possibility of rewarding the faithful, because the five others will be appointed by the governor general in council. Although the parliamentary secretary to the agriculture minister was naturally not too happy about it, I asked senior officials: "Would you tell us the salaries of those now sitting on the Canadian Wheat Board?". At this point, I would urge all my colleagues in the House to listen very carefully.

Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that the president of the Canadian Wheat Board earns quite a bit more than you do, even though he does not have to go to the polls? His salary ranges from $115,000 to $144,000. I guarantee you, and you can check this out, that the incumbent is not a Conservative, but a Liberal. His assistant earns between $110,000 and $129,000, as do the commissioners. Indeed, it is often a choice spot to dump a member in order to vacate a riding, as will be done in the coming weeks and days, after the Prime Minister calls an election on Sunday.

Someday perhaps the hon. member for Malpeque will be sitting on one of these commissions, earning $144,000 a year, without going to the people, because he knows full well that there is a Conservative wind, and a very strong one at that, blowing on Prince Edward Island. He might be tempted to take a job like that.

The parliamentary secretary is smiling; I know he once condemned such appointments, but that is what political patronage is all about. That is why we in the Bloc Quebecois have always denounced, and quite vigorously so, these appointments.

Do you know who the chair of the employment insurance board of referees in my riding is?

[Committee Of The House, April 23rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, 18 months ago the member for Richelieu introduced a votable private member's bill providing a limit for contributions to campaign funds, knowing that certain individuals, groups or companies pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into a party'coffers or, not uncommonly, into two parties' coffers, to hedge their investment.

I was listening very carefully earlier to my colleague for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans talk of the two prominent families, obviously well known, that sent over $2 billion to the United States without paying a cent in income tax. I would ask the member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans to take a few

minutes to tell us in the Bloc about this transfer of $2 billion to the United States tax free.

[Food Inspection, April 23rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Since the Liberal government took office, it has increasingly made the Quebec and Canadian agri-food industry pay for food inspection costs. The Liberal government is imposing all sorts of fees, but forgets that farmers are always the ones stuck with the bill, and that consumers ultimately have to pay for it.

How can farmers remain competitive if the 1996-97 estimates for the agriculture department provide for cost recovery measures in at least 42 areas for the next three years?

[Broadcast Act, April 22nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again this evening in adjournment proceedings to find out from the Secretary of State for Agriculture how quickly the government will come to the defence of farm producers and especially Ontario and

Quebec producers of quotaed products. That is what we call rightly or wrongly supply management in the case of eggs, poultry and milk.

I will take a moment to remind the House of the issue. In response to market globalization, Canada signed an agreement with the United States known as the FTA. A few years later, we expanded the agreement, which became NAFTA. Mexico joined the two original partners.

In the fall of 1993-it was signed in the fall of 1993-GATT became the WTO. Within the context of the WTO and NAFTA, we set tariffs on imports of these various products to protect our agriculture, administered by supply management.

The tariff percentages are huge. But they protect our domestic markets very well. In general terms, they vary from 180 to 360 per cent. We must reduce these tariffs by 30 per cent over the next six years. It must, on average, be not less than 15 per cent.

However, the United States, in their usual heavy handed fashion, are making our life very hard. We had to argue before a NAFTA tribunal and we won five out of five. The head of the tribunal and the four judges supported without exception our tariffs on eggs, poultry and milk.

However, the trade representative, Charlene Barshefsky, swore up and down to the American farming community that she would fight to the end and win. Having lost under NAFTA, the U.S. is now turning to the WTO, and the reports I have are quite alarming, because there is serious question about this government's efforts to defend producers since we have seen how pliant it has been in the past before American demands.

I offer as an example the situation with durum wheat and lumber. We give them too much, when we should not. The point of my remarks is to make the government aware and remind it that the Bloc Quebecois will be there in the next elections to be on the lookout and ensure that the Liberal government defends the rules for our farmers who depend on supply management.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1997, April 22nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member of the Reform Party promise tax rebates and tax cuts. Well, good luck to him, considering the credibility politicians acquired with the last red book.

They promised to scrap the GST, but more than three and a half years later, the GST is still there, and even worse, they paid three small maritime provinces $960 million to make the medicine go down in one part of Canada where the GST will miraculously change its name. Quite a feat, this name change. From now on, it will be known as the HST, the harmonized sales tax. This means that in New Brunswick, for instance, they blended the provincial sales tax with the GST. They pay 15 per cent, which is added on to the price, of course.

My point is that the government is acting like Robin Hood, but in reverse. Instead of taking money from the rich to give to the poor, it is taking money from the poor to give to the rich. For instance, at Bombardier, where you have more than-

[Budget Implementation Act, 1997, April 22nd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my distinguished colleague, the member for Mississauga South, a good-hearted man, a man of courage and incredible loyalty, that we are not in politics to fool the voters. You can fool people once, but you cannot fool them all the time.

When we look at the latest surveys on how much confidence people have in various professions, doctors top the list, used car salesmen are at the bottom and one up from them are politicians. Do you know why? Because certain politicians often suffer from the Pinocchio syndrome, as my colleague has just shown. He says for all to hear: "We never promised to abolish the GST". That is a lie. I do not say he is a liar, I say it is a lie.

All the CBC and TVA footage showed the Prime Minister of this country saying: "We will scrap the GST". And the Deputy Prime Minister, who was one of the rat pack and who held a major post in the last election campaign in 1993 said: "I will resign in the first 12 months if we do not abolish the GST". It took 28 months. We had to give her a shove. This resignation cost the public $500,000, so that she could turn around and get re-elected with a much smaller majority in Hamilton East.

I ask my distinguished colleague, a good-hearted and loyal man as I was saying earlier, to find me six copies of his red book in French, because I need them badly in Frontenac-Mégantic for the next election.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1997, April 22nd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My distinguished colleague has already said enough that it will take up the rest of the time allotted me to reply. You will understand that, without wanting to get into a debate with my colleague-