Jean-Guy Chrétien

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

It is appalling. There is a double standard here, because 48 per cent of dairy producers are in Quebec, and the Minister of Finance told them: "We are cutting the milk subsidy to commercial milk producers". In 1994-95, the subsidy was $5.42 per hectolitre, that is to say that dairy producers were paid $5.42 per 100 litres of commercial milk. As we know, commercial milk is under Quebec's control.

The subsidy was cut by 80 cents in 1995-96 and by 82 cents the following year. In five years, it will be all gone. By the year 2000, it will be down to 76 cents, and by 2001, it will be all gone. By August 1, 2001, there will be nothing left.

Quebec dairy producers are taking a $168 million loss. This cut is made in Quebec, which is a big milk producing province as compared to the western provinces, without a cent in compensation being paid. Quebec dairy producers are not getting anything to make the cut more palatable, when $2.9 billion, almost $3 billion,

was paid to western grain producers when the Western Grain Transportation Act, commonly known as the Crow rate, was abolished. That is appalling and unjustified.

What will be the impact on Quebec farmers? It will bring up the price of butter or cheese. According to a comprehensive study, whenever the price of butter goes up 10 per cent, consumer demand drops by 7 per cent. And 48 per cent of the milk used to make butter comes from Quebec's dairy producers.

I see the hon. member for Pierrefonds-Dollard, who is a city dweller. He is not affected. However, his voters are consumers and they will pay 40 cents more for a pound of cheddar and 30 cents more for a pound of butter.

In a wealthy neighbourhood such as Dollard, this is not a problem. However, it is a different story in poor areas. It does create problems. Indeed, the reason the demand drops by 7 per cent is that the poor buy less butter, or no butter at all. They may have to use margarine, fat or something else.

The same is true in the case of cheese. When the price of cheese goes up 10 per cent, demand drops by 4 per cent. As the official opposition critic on agricultural issues, I look after the interests of dairy producers. However, I am well aware that, ultimately, consumers are the ones who will have to make up for this government's cuts.

I want to go back to the Pinocchio syndrome. Some years ago, I was in my living room, listening to the news. Brian Mulroney was Prime Minister and Statistics Canada announced that, the previous week, there were one million Canadians unemployed. Back then, the rat pack sat on this side of the House. Things were bad: "One million unemployed and the Prime Minister is not doing anything. We want jobs. We want our young people to find work. You are rotten. You do not work for Canadians".

Today, there are 1.5 million unemployed. There are three million children in Canada who live in poverty and who do not eat three meals a day. We are not talking about Zaire, but Canada. What is the Minister of Finance doing? What is the Prime Minister doing about these children living in poverty?

Last week, I met a teacher in Montreal who told me that several children in her class arrive at school without having had breakfast and that they barely have anything to eat for lunch.

It is sad to watch this government go about its business. After three years and seven months, Canadians will have the opportunity to elect a new government, and I hope they will. I hope that, on Sunday, April 27, the Prime Minister will hand in his government's resignation to the Governor General, so that voters can teach him a good lesson.

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

I certainly hope not.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise this afternoon to speak on Bill C-93, the Budget Implementation Act, 1997, at third reading.

You will probably recall how proud the Minister of Finance was when he tabled his fourth budget, boasting about the fact that the deficit, which was $42 billion when the Prime Minister entrusted him with this portfolio, should have shrunk to a mere $17 billion by the end of the current fiscal year.

There is a difference between the current Liberal government, and the previous Conservative government. While the Conservative Party underestimated its deficits, the Liberal Party tends to overestimate its deficits, which means that, by March 30 next year, the deficit may actually be closer to $12 billion.

The minister is fiddling around with the numbers and using the communicating vessels principle, in other words interest rates, to his advantage. In Canada as in every other industrialized country in the world, interest rates are relatively low right now. On the more than $615 billion in cumulatve deficits or debt, one can understand that the Minister of Finance is saving a bundle each month by paying less interest than he would have to if we had interest rates of 8 per cent or 9 per cent.

However, and there is the rub, he is dipping deep into the employment insurance fund. This year, the EI fund will be generating a $5.6 billion surplus. Where does the money that generates this surplus in the EI fund come from? From the $2.95 premium paid by workers on every $100 of insurable earnings and $3.20 premium paid by employers, these premiums amounting to a payroll tax on employment.

By charging way too much, they get a surplus at the expense of workers. Indeed, this same government has decided to shorten the benefit period while at the same time increasing the number of hours-they count hours now-required to qualify for employment insurance benefits. Naturally, the benefit rate will be reduced by 1 per cent for every 20 weeks of benefits collected. After a few years, a worker who has collected employment insurance benefits for more than 20 weeks will see his benefits reduced by 1 per cent increments down to 50 per cent of his insurable earnings.

So, on the one hand, the Minister of Finance is keeping the employees' and employers' contributions to the employment insurance fund way too high while, on the other hand, he is making it extremely difficult for potential recipients to qualify for benefits. At this rate, within a few years, the fund will be overflowing.

However, this is another way this government can shift its deficit onto the provinces. The unemployment rate tends to go down because people are no longer on the list of those actively looking for work; however, meanwhile, the number of welfare recipients has been on the rise for some years in all of the provinces.

This is the case in Quebec, where the unemployment rate has gone down, while the number of welfare recipients has gone up because, in many cases, people are no longer eligible for employment insurance benefits and are still without a job. The result is that these people end up on the welfare rolls.

The Minister of Finance also reduced transfers to the provinces, including social transfers for post-secondary education and health. This triggered a chain reaction whereby all the provinces had to make other taxpayers, particularly municipalities, school boards and hospitals, shoulder part of the burden dumped on them by the finance minister.

What is really serious is the inequity of the minister's approach to balancing his budget within three years. The most blatant examples are undoubtedly the abolition of the Western Grain Transportation Act, in the prairies, and the harmonization of the infamous GST, which the Prime Minister himself promised to abolish, to scrap, as he said so eloquently. To scrap means to tear up, to throw in the garbage.

The Prime Minister often said: "I will scrap the GST". Four years later, what has been the cost of scrapping the GST? It cost at least a byelection in Hamilton East, since the Deputy Prime Minister had pledged to resign in the first 12 months of a Liberal government if the GST was not abolished.

It took a lot longer than 12 months for her to resign her seat in the House of Commons, and the official opposition had to remind her for several weeks of the promise she had made, with the help of the media, which ran almost daily clips of her saying: "I promise to resign if we have not abolished the GST in the first 12 months".

Obviously, it took several weeks, several months, and in June of last year she handed in her resignation, because a promise had not been kept, a promise that can of course be found in the red book, which I note by the way has become as rare on Parliament Hill as Chairman Mao's little red book has in China; people made a point of learning Mao's book by heart. My colleagues in the Liberal Party also made a point of memorizing their little red book. What I would like is for my Liberal friends opposite to give me a few copies. I will need them for my next election campaign, and nobody wants to give me a copy.

I throw out an appeal to everyone, as they do on the quiz show Tous pour un : if you have half a dozen red books, I need them in the riding of Frontenac-Mégantic to give to my Liberal opponent, Manon Lecours, to read over again before she rushes headlong into the next election campaign that will be announced next Sunday.

I am certain that nobody will provide me with these books because they are so ashamed of them. I urge Liberal candidates in the next election not to lapse into the Pinocchio syndrome described in the book of the same name written by my friend, André Pratte, a reporter with La Presse . You must have read it, Mr. Speaker. He mentioned a number of famous comments made by our friends across the way. He gave examples of frequently lengthening noses on the faces of some of you, my Liberal friends, as the result of past untruths.

To get back to Bill C-93, I should point out that the Minister of Finance applies cuts sometimes unevenly, sometimes unfairly. I was talking about the GST, the harmonization with the three maritime provinces, three small Canadian provinces. To help them swallow the pill, he gave them $960 million. The GST has lost its name. Now it is the HST, the harmonized sales tax. The people in the maritimes will forget the GST in a few months or years. They will be calling it the HST.

In Quebec, the late Robert Bourassa, a federalist premier, with his good friend the former Prime Minister of Canada, Brian Mulroney, another federalist, agreed to harmonize the GST and the Quebec sales tax. I recall very clearly, when I was a farmer, having to complete two forms for the GST and the QST.

In 1991, I was very proud, I even telephoned my MNA to congratulate him on harmonizing with the federal government, since we would be completing only one form. Quebec collects the GST for the federal government, and, at the end of the month, makes a cheque out to the Minister of Finance of Canada.

The only advantage the Government of Quebec receives is a split of the costs involved in collecting, whereas the maritime provinces get $960 for this same harmonization. Worse yet, the provinces do not do the collecting, the federal government does. It looks after the forms and the investigations and charges the provinces nothing for doing so. A double standard.

The Quebec department of finance fairly calculated the cost of having the same privileges in Quebec. The Minister of Finance's government would have to pay $2 billion if it were going to treat everyone fairly.

We in the Bloc Quebecois will pester all Liberal candidates in Quebec to be fair and to make commitments to the voters. As I said, it was utterly unfair of this government to use the WGTA to reduce its deficit. The Western Grain Transportation Act will save the Canadian treasury $560 million per year.

To sugarcoat it for western grain producers, the same finance minister paid $2.9 billion in compensation, including $1 billion paid directly to the producers, under the table. He sent them a cheque and told them: "You are not required to claim this amount on your next income tax return, and no TP4 or T4 will be issued to include with your return".

It is the same thing with bribes: one is not required to tell the tax man about them. The government paid producers under the table to sugarcoat a bitter tasting pill. It is appalling.

[Farm Debt Mediation Act, April 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, you are absolutely right. I got carried away in the heat of the moment. Through the Chair, I am sending an invitation to the parliamentary secretary to come to the riding of Frontenac and debate the issue of his government's fairness-it will also be an opportunity for him to meet francophones.

In conclusion, since it is 1.55 p.m. and question period is fast approaching, the Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-38. Of course, I hope our farm producers never have to use Bill C-38. It would be better if they had a decent income, even though I am well

aware that a bad manager can have problems making the best use of a loan and paying it off.

Mr. Speaker, what I would like you to convey to the parliamentary secretary has to do with the appointment of mediators. For example, look at what is going on in my riding. Who was appointed to the employment insurance board of referees? Nathalie. Who will be the Liberal Party candidate? Manon. You see, everything makes sense. In small communities, people all know each other. These are partisan appointments. This week, I got quite a shock when I asked a witness about the salaries of the five Canadian Wheat Board commissioners. My colleagues and friends from the Reform Party were just as surprised as I was to learn that the commissioners' salaries range from $114,000 to $144,000 annually.

Occasionally a member of Parliament is appointed to one of these boards after giving up his or her seat, to make room for someone who will eventually become minister. The federal government did that in two Quebec byelections, by bringing in newcomers who respectively became Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. It seems the government is about to do the same in the riding of Beauce, to make room for its candidate.

In the end, who pays for this? The answer is always the same: the taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, I am co-operating with you by concluding my speech and confirming that, in the interest of our farmers, we will support Bill C-38.

[Farm Debt Mediation Act, April 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-38 immediately after the parliamentary secretary.

As mentioned earlier, this is an act to provide for the mediation between insolvent farmers and their creditors, to amend the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act and to repeal the Farm Debt Review Act.

Before drafting Bill C-38, the Minister of Agriculture should have given some thought as to why many farmers experience serious financial difficulties. Some of them may have a hard time when they go through a divorce or a separation. This can cause financial difficulties, and so could, for example, an illness. Nowadays, the agricultural world has very little to do with the popular television series currently being rerun on Radio-Canada, Le Temps d'une paix .

Today, farmers must be good administrators, since they manage small businesses. The invested capital often approaches or exceeds $1 million. But could it be that these financial problems are also directly related to the federal government, to its lack of vision concerning agriculture in Canada and in Quebec?

After watching for almost four years this government mishandle agricultural issues, it is no surprise to see that, every year, hundreds of farmers run into serious problems and must declare bankruptcy.

Just before I rose, I was reading the classified adds in the most widely read newspaper in French Canada, in Quebec, La Terre de chez nous . When you see so many auctions and liquidations being held in April, it means there is a problem. That problem is not just the result of bad management, family problems, or illness: it is also the result of the terrible conditions being imposed on farmers by the government, month after month.

Let me give you an example of the problems experienced by our producers, with the exception of course of those who are in a supply-managed sector such as dairy, poultry and egg producers, who are lucky enough to be protected, at last. Still, later on I will discuss price fluctuations in the dairy industry.

Take, for example, feeder calves. Three years ago, we could expect to get $1.15 or $1.20 per pound, in the fall, for our veal calves. One year ago, or seven months to be exact, last fall, it was possible to buy very fine calves at 50 per cent of what they were worth two years ago. A farmer hoping to get $700 for his calf got $350 or $360. We are no longer talking about a drop of 2 or 3 per cent, but of 50 per cent.

You will reply that cow and calf stabilization insurance is needed. You are right, but you know how insurance works: the more you use it, the more premiums go up. Since the government is also getting ready to cut its share of funding for the farm income stabilization program, we can expect a large increase in premiums there too, as well as a decrease in services.

Take maple syrup. This year, the run seems much inferior in quality and quantity to what it was last year. Prices will therefore rise slightly, but the maple syrup producer will not receive a fair wage. Pork production is fine, but reform is another matter entirely. In the case of softwood lumber, with the agreement the federal government negotiated with our neighbours to the south, when the export quota is reached, it will be the same story there as well.

The Canadian Wheat Board, which one of my Reform colleagues brought up earlier in connection with Bill C-72, and which has a monopoly, of course, is trying to get the best prices, except that western grain producers are not free to sell directly to their neighbours across the border at prices very often higher than what they could get from the Board.

With the exception of producers who operate under a supply management system, dairy, poultry and egg producers face uncertainty as a result of fluctuating prices.

Which reminds me, I wonder whether this government will have the guts to defend supply management at the WTO, since the American foreign trade representative has sworn she would not accept the tariffs imposed in the course of negotiations approved in December 1993 by GATT, now the WTO. She said she would fight to the death, if necessary, to win her case. The United States seems determined to go before a WTO panel.

I asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he would defend our tariffs with equal vigour. We shall see if the government is able to defend our interests. Of course we have only a few sitting days left. We will have to run again in our respective ridings. So we do not know who will be in a position to defend us. Will we have a minority or a majority government? As for who will form the next government, your guess is as good as mine.

This also brings us to examine the role that could be played by the Farm Credit Corporation. I hope that when the FCC evaluates the solvency of a farmer and approves a loan of $300,000 or $400,000, it does a very thorough evaluation. If approving the loan is too risky, the right thing to do would be for FCC representatives to consolidate the loan or simply refuse it.

So in several respects, farmers are like skilled workers or the owner of a factory, except they should not expect to work only40 hours, five days a week. A dairy farmer has to milk cows twice a day, seven times a week. If he leaves Friday evening, there will be no scabs on his farm. He will have to find a replacement or make arrangements with his neighbour, and next time he will have to return the favour, because, as I pointed out earlier, there are no scabs.

So a farmer has to work seven days a week and often 60 or70 hours a week. Unfortunately, in many cases his income is less than that of a skilled worker who only has to work 40 hours a week for five days, and in many cases, a little less than 40 hours in four days. The farmer therefore has to devote a great deal of time to the operation, often along with his wife and children, in order to make ends meet.

Recently, this government made its cuts and the agricultural sector got it in the neck. Taking the example of a dairy farmer producing industrial milk, the government has found the trick of reducing his income by an average 5.5 per cent, for the past two years and the coming three. Then the government wonders why dairy farmers have to give up their farms, or even declare bankruptcy.

Their income is cut and then they are told what poor managers they are. You know as well as I that, for a dairy farmer, it is not the first cow in the barn that brings him profit, but the last ones. His electricity costs the same, regardless of the number of cows, and more cows of course require more feed and more hay, but the last ones you milk will be nothing but profit.

The Bloc Quebecois, like the Reform Party, was vigorously opposed, while this government, including some of its members who are involved in the dairy industry, such as the hon. member for

Malpèque on Prince Edward Island, voted in favour of cutting the milk subsidy. This is an out and out scandal.

In a few weeks, however, the member in question will be doing the rounds of his beautiful riding of Malpèque, and he will forget all about this. He will, as André Pratte so aptly described it, be playing Pinocchio, hiding or falsifying the fact that he voted against the dairy farmers in his riding and in favour of cutting back to zero the milk subsidy, which was $5.43, or 5.5 cents a litre. For an average farm, such as my colleague from Malpèque himself has, 5.5 cents a litre represents a loss of $7,500.

It is not surprising that the dairy farmers, while not necessarily going bankrupt, will be announcing farm auctions on such and such a day at such and such a time, in order to get rid of all their stock and equipment. They are opting for retirement before they are forced into it. The worst thing is that 48 per cent of dairy farmers are located in Quebec. So this government is following its usual practice of going after Quebec first and foremost, which is forcing our dairy farmers to take a $108 million loss as a result of the elimination of this subsidy. And so, once again, Quebec pays the highest price.

The worst of it is that, if milk producers want to get as much money for their milk, the price of industrial milk will have to be raised, and that decision rests with the Canadian Dairy Commission. You do not have to be a lawyer to see that raising the price of industrial milk will raise the price of butter, cheese and all other dairy products.

According to a study ordered by the dairy producers of Canada, a 10 per cent increase in the price of butter results in a 7 per cent decrease in its consumption. When I said, Mr. Speaker, that the last cow is the most profitable, you seemed to agree with me. So, if consumption now drops by 7 or 14 per cent, you cannot even keep one or two extra, but may have to lose a couple. This sort of situation will bring hard financial times to the farming community.

According to the same study, raising the price of cheese by10 per cent lowers consumption by 4 per cent and further reduces the size of your herd. The worst is that, when you look at Agriculture Canada's overall budget, Quebec gets only 9 per cent of what it invested last year in Canada. In a good year, the figure goes up to 16 per cent.

Quebec alone generates some 17 per cent of direct agricultural activity. Add to that the processing of such things as cheese, butter and ham, and our share climbs to 24 per cent. We pay 24 per cent of federal taxes, or $30 billion. But we are getting barely 9 or 10 per cent back year after year. That is appalling.

I will be waiting for you, my Liberal friends, when you visit the riding of Frontenac in the next election campaign and tell the people of my riding, as the President of the Treasury Board did in the referendum, that, while Quebec pays $30 billion, it receives $31 billion or $32 billion. Why is it so important to you that we remain a part of your Canadian federation if we are costing you so much?

Mr. Speaker, we must look at who, in this country, got the first break. We will recall that, in 1841, when Upper and Lower Canada were joined-Upper Canada corresponding to what is now known as Ontario, and Lower Canada to Quebec-so were their respective debts. Upper Canada's debt was 1.195 million pounds, as compared to a mere 200,000 pounds for Lower Canada. How were the debts handled? They were simply added up. Living together meant paying off our debts together. So the French Canadians had to pay up. At the time, they were referred to as the Canadians, while the others were called the English. That is how it was at the beginning of the colony.

When this government abolished the WGTA, the Western Grain Transportation Act, two years ago, the yearly cost was-I would be much obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture to look me straight in the eye. The yearly cost to the government was $860 million. What did you do to sugarcoat it in western Canada, to make this cut more palatable to western producers? You gave them $1.6 billion. Worse yet, you gave this money under the table. Farmers were not required to claim it on their income tax returns. This is appalling.

You have established a $300 million fund to finance adjustment measures, road upgrading, silo construction and the upgrading and construction of new railway lines. One million dollars was used to establish a loan guarantee fund to help certain foreign countries buy Canadian grain. All this adds up to $2.9 billion. Where is the equity in all this? For western grain producers, the government is prepared to pay $2.9 billion to save $860 million. But when the dairy producers subsidy was cut by $228 million, how much was paid in compensation? Not a penny.

Mister Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, 48 per cent of all Canadian milk is produced in Quebec. That is what your notion of equity is all about. You and I can debate this in my riding of Frontenac.

[Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, April 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, once again I rise to address Bill C-34. I am pleased to reiterate my support and that of the Bloc Quebecois for this bill, which the agricultural sector has been anxiously waiting. However, the official opposition's support should not be viewed by the government as an unconditional endorsement.

I want to make it clear: We support the principle of this bill, and most of its provisions, but we still have reservations about the budget allocation.

Therefore, I want to explain our reservations. The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food spent a long time discussing the benefits, and particularly the gains that could be achieved by the agricultural industry, both in Quebec and in the rest of Canada.

The major irritant at the root of the Bloc Quebecois' opposition, or at least its reservations, had to do with the budget allocation. The development of the advanced payments program is a major aspect of Bill C-34.

Since I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether you are aware of the situation in the agricultural sector, I will try to shed some light on the issue. Bill C-34 provides that $120 million will be allocated to the advance payments program, in equal parts, over the next three years.

Needless to say, these funds are absolutely necessary to ensure the survival, or at least the financial viability, of farm operations.

In many cases, the final payment for a given crop can take weeks or even months to get to farmers while payments for costs associated with operating the farm get to them in no time.

At this point, I would like to give you a specific example. Take maple syrup producers for instance. The sap runs for two, three or four weeks maximum. Of course, producers must invest large amounts of money before and during this short period. As we know, preparations often start right after New Year's day, and this involves tapping the trees and getting the tubing ready, along with all the other equipment that will be used in the sugar bush.

During these tree or four weeks of intense work, maple syrup producers must invest large amounts. A portion of the production will be sold at retail to people visiting the sugar bush. But for the most part the crop is sold wholesale, in barrels, and often maple syrup producers have to wait for months, if not years, to receive final payment.

With this advance payment scheme, producers will be receiving a reasonable payment on the fair value of the syrup. This also means that advance payments for crops provide balance in the financial management of farm operations. Need I point out also that, in many cases, this represents the operations' lifeline? It is the difference between an anxiety ridden operation and a prosperous one and the profitability of farms, which are the pride of rural areas.

You can see that a farmer has to be able to count on a higher authority to guarantee the investments required to run a farm.

From a strictly analytical and non-partisan point of view, the bill introduced by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is certainly very laudable and full of good will, but certain features of the bill leave me wondering about the minister's real intentions and motivations with respect to the main idea behind marketing these agricultural products.

As I pointed out in my speech last June 17, just before the House rose for the summer, there is a rather obvious inconsistency in the way the government markets these crops. Let me explain.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will use huge sums of money to facilitate the marketing of annual crops, but this money already comes from the income protection programs envelope. This is a rather huge inconsistency. In my humble opinion, the government is trying to hide the cuts it is forcing on a category of taxpayers, who are already in a precarious financial position.

This brings me to the agriculture department's unfair treatment of farmers, particularly dairy producers. I remind you that on August 1, 1995 we cut the price paid for a hectolitre of industrial milk by 81 cents. On August 1, 1996, the same thing: another 81 cents cut per hectolitre, with another 76 cents to come next August 1-in a few months-until it is all used up, or in other words until August 1, 2001, when there will be no milk subsidy left, when it was $5.43 per hectolitre to begin with.

I will give you the example of an average Quebec farm, since Quebec alone produces 47 per cent of industrial milk in Canada. An average farm, a family farming operation, producing 1,900 hectolitres of industrial milk yearly, will lose $1,500 a year, or over the five year period of regular cuts, an average of $7,500. That represents a drop in income of between 5 and 5.5 per cent.

Often, that 5 per cent in question is the only net income that is left in the dairy farmer's pocket at the end of the year, with which he can treat himself to a little outing, a little trip.

Unfortunately, the government across the way is taking care not to speak of this cut. For instance, between 1994 and 1995, when the subsidy was $5.43 a hectolitre-a hectolitre being 100 litres-that meant that the government was paying about 5.5 cents per litre in industrial milk subsidies. As of August 1, 2001, that figure will be down to zero.

Do you know what this means for the dairy producers of Quebec, the 26,000 dairy producers of Quebec? It means a cut of $108 million, for Quebec alone. For all of Canada, $228 million. Since Quebec produces 48 per cent, you will see that, first and foremost, it is the Quebec dairy farmers who are being penalized most heavily.

The Minister of Finance has made more cuts in the Department of Agriculture than in all of the other departments. Between the 1994-95 budget and next year's 1998 budget, cuts in agriculture will be 35.5 per cent, close to three eighths of the total cuts. In Bill C-34, the principle of interconnectedness is being used, linking what has been forecast as revenue and what will be given in anticipated payments, to what must be guaranteed as income if the crop should fail.

In other words, it is a question of robbing Peter to pay Paul. There is no fresh money, no new money. Together with the cuts in subsidies for producers of industrial milk, this will inevitably lead to a price increase for the processors.

I want dairy producers to listen carefully to these figures. According to a study, every time we increase the price of butter by 10 per cent, and butter costs more than $3 a pound today, the price goes up 30 cents. Will people eat more butter? No. It means a 7 per cent drop in sales.

The problem in Quebec is not that we have trouble supplying the processing plants, on the contrary. Every dairy producer would be delighted to keep an extra cow or two. Of course he would, but if we raise the price of industrial milk, instead of keeping an extra cow he will have to get rid of one, which means a difference of two cows. As you know, not the first cow in the herd but the last one makes money. The last cow is pure profit. Thanks to her, the farmer can buy a few extras, like other skilled workers in our country.

I have another example which concerns cheese. The same thing will happen if we increase the price of cheese by 10 per cent. I see the parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture who is being very attentive, and I suggest that he get in touch with me if he does not understand the figures and also that he listen carefully.

So in the case of cheese, if we increase the price by 10 per cent, there will be 4 per cent drop in sales. Here again, increasing the price will mean be a drop in sales. Mr. Speaker, you do not seem to care about the problems facing dairy producers, and I think that is very unfortunate, because these people do not work five but seven days a week.

The morning milking and evening milking and taking care of the livestock goes on week in, week out, even on Sundays, even New Year's Day, Christmas and Easter. Farmers cannot afford to lose, and we have no right to make them lose, 5.5 per cent of their income. We have no right unilaterally to cut subsidies that were introduced by the central government in the first place in the early 70s.

I think this is an important point, and if the parliamentary secretary does not agree, let him argue otherwise: on average, the overall budget of the Department of Agriculture invested only 9 per cent last year in Quebec. The current average would seem to be11 per cent. One year when the department was particularly generous farmers in Quebec, it invested up to 17 per cent in purchasing goods and services or setting up research stations, 5 or 6 of which were closed two years ago. That was the best it did.

However, Quebec's agricultural activity represents 17 per cent of total gross agricultural activity in this country. However, when processing plants-which is where value is added, that is the value added in the processing of cheese, yogurt, butter and ice cream-are included, Quebec contributes 24 per cent to Canada's agricultural economy. Yet, only a meagre 9 per cent is invested in Quebec, while the average elsewhere is 11 per cent. It is shameful, a scandal.

When I meet the producers in my riding, I regularly explain the unfair treatment we have been getting, not just once in a while, but every decade. I would go so far to say that it dates back to the supposed union of Upper and Lower Canada, which took place in 1841 and predates Confederation in 1867; at that time, the debts of Upper and Lower Canada were combined. Upper Canada is Ontario today, Lower Canada is Quebec. The debts were combined, and everyone was made to pay.

Ontario, Upper Canada, had 12 times the debt of Quebec, and, obviously, its infrastructures, its port in Toronto, roads and railways were also 12 times more developed than in Quebec. The situation could be likened to that of a wolf whelping four cubs. As you already know, the first cub to suckle will be the strongest, the most vigilant and the most vigorous of the entire pack. By 1841, Ontario was already ahead and has retained the lead.

Another example of unfairness occurred two years ago when the government in Ottawa did away with the WGTA in the west. When the subsidy to industrial milk producers was cut here, it was cut, and of course no compensation was paid. However, when the WGTA, the Western Grain Transportation Act, was eliminated to permit savings of $860 million a year, the government invested $2.9 billion, not $2.9 million, in order to save $860 million.

This amount of $2.9 billion was divided in three. First, $1.6 billion was allocated to grain producers, based on the size of their farms, the number of bushels sold the previous year and so on, depending on the geographical location of the farm, if it were close to this or that. A cheque for $1.6 billion was issued but, listen to this, no TP4 or T4 was issued. This means it was tax free, clear, which is rather unusual. It takes some doing, does it not?

The federal government paid out substantial amounts without those at the receiving end having to include them in their income tax return. That is what I call money paid under the blanket.

In addition, $300 million in adaptation funds have been earmarked for upgrading roads and railways, silo construction, rentals and so on. A $1 billion loan guarantee has also been established to help certain foreign countries that may want to buy western grain but cannot afford to do so. This all adds up to $2.9 billion.

As you can see, once again, Agriculture Canada has created inequity between farm producers in the west and the east, not just in Quebec, but also in the maritimes and, of course, in Ontario.

In a sense, Bill C-34 will benefit those producers who have to do without an income for extended periods because the money comes in all at once, come harvest time. I gave the best possible example, the easiest one to understand, since we are now at the very end of the maple syrup season. A maple syrup producer can try to sell all the production at once, but maple products will be on the market throughout the year.

In conclusion, while this government may be trying to improve things, it has a weakness, and I will remind the public of that weakness in my speeches during the upcoming election campaign. That weakness is a lack of fairness. The government does not seem to know about fairness.

As André Pratte, from the daily La Presse , wrote so well in his book entitled Le syndrome de Pinocchio , Canadians politicians have unfortunately lost all credibility, because they have abused voters' confidence for too long.

A poll conducted a while ago by a specialized magazine showed that, out of some 30 professions in Canada, politicians came next to last at the bottom of the list, just before used car dealers. Doctors and police officers were at the top of the list. Lawyers, because their job is often rather difficult, came pretty close to politicians. Come to think of it, a number of members here are lawyers by training. So, politicians were very low on the list, just before used car dealers. Incidentally, new car dealers did relatively well.

Granted, a Ford salesman will extol the virtues of that make, at the expense of Chrysler and so on. But the bottom line is that politicians did very poorly. Unfortunately, I became one by accident, but I will do my best to avoid catching the Pinocchio syndrome. My children often tell me: "Daddy, someone else in the House of Commons has the same name as you". I tell them: "Listen, he is the king and his Deputy Prime Minister is the queen when it comes to that syndrome". We saw this with the GST, when they promised to scrap it. To us, scrapping something means throwing it out, destroying it, sending it to the scrap heap.

So, when the Prime Minister said he was going to scrap the GST, we understood that he was going to abolish it and perhaps find another clever way of coming up with the $19 billion that the GST brings into the federal coffers. Remember what he said he meant: "If you understood that I was going to scrap it, you misunderstood, and if you did not understand, you were not listening. And if you do not understand, you are idiots". This was the answer given by the Prime Minister over Christmas when questioned by several members of the public chosen at random from across Canada.

So, not surprisingly, politicians do not rate very high with the public, and yet an election campaign is going to be launched in a few days. There will be more and more of these distortions of the truth. The President of the Treasury Board, who visited Thetford Mines in my region on the eve of the 1995 referendum, said he was giving Quebec much more money than this province was paying. Year after year, we pay $30 billion in taxes of one sort or another to this institution called the federal government. And the President of the Treasury Board tried to make us believe he was giving us too much. If we are costing this government, this Treasury Board, this minister, too much, they should let us leave, for heaven's sake. I have never seen anyone so anxious to hang on to something that was costing him so much.

I am sure that, when you look at the figures for each department, Quebec is not receiving its fair share. I just gave the example of the Department of Agriculture, which is giving us 9 per cent compared to an 11 per cent average. Last year, Quebec received 9 per cent of the overall envelope of the Department of Agriculture, when it represents 24 or 25 per cent of the population, pays 24 per cent of taxes and generates 17 per cent of direct agricultural activity. When you include processing plants, it is easily 24 per cent. We could come up with more examples of such unfairness if we took the trouble to look for them.

When all is said and done, we are going to vote in favour of Bill C-34. We will support it, although it is not a perfect bill. I told you how they came up with $120 million by taking it from somewhere else. This is not new money. They take it out of another envelope, the one for farmers, and invest it to generate advance payments. However, as requested by many farmers and farmers associations which called my office to ask us to support Bill C-34, we will go along with the consensus that exists among farmers across Canada. Because after all, there are some good things in this bill.

The government could have ended up with a far better bill if it had bothered to accept the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois. These were very sound amendments, as the parliamentary secretary may recall, we moved in the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food. However, if they do not initiate it, it is no good, and if they do, it is.

I remember this week that when we were discussing Bill C-72, we were talking about the majority of grain producers to be elected to the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board. A majority, that is what it said in the bill.

I said: "Listen, let us write down a number. Out of 15 members, they could elect nine. That is a majority, nine out of 15. Or we could put eight, which is still a majority. To avoid any misunderstanding, we will set a figure". I set the limit at 12. I presented an amendment to the amendment. The Reform Party agreed with the Bloc Quebecois; the Liberal Party, all eight members, including the parliamentary secretary, voted against it because it was not their idea. Thirty-six hours later, unanimous consent was requested to present an amendment that would set the majority at 10 out of 15, which is what it says now in Bill C-72: 10 out of 15 to be elected by the grain producers.

This is an improvement, but 36 hours earlier, it was the Bloc Quebecois that came up with this idea, and even my colleague from Malpeque voted against it, to the eternal shame of the farmers of Prince Edward Island. But 36 hours later, the Liberals came back, sweet as you please, and suggested 10. So 10 out of 15, 66 per cent. I said: "Let us see whether our colleagues opposite have any

guts. Sixty-six per cent, 12 out of 15, 75 per cent, let us split the difference, and I presented an amendment to the amendment: 11.

The Canadian Wheat Board, I should point out, was not established 60 years ago, during the Depression, for eastern farmers, to please the members of this House, for consumers or for tractor sellers-there were none then, or very few. The Canadian Wheat Board was established during a Depression in the 1930s, to support grain growers who were declaring bankruptcy one after another and to ensure their grain was properly marketed. It was for them. Since it was for them, they should have control. The government, however, sees it as an opportunity to make three or four political appointments.

I proposed 12. Thirty-six hours later they came back with 10. The next day, during deliberations I proposed 11. We looked each other squarely in the face, and my Liberal colleagues voted against it. My Reform Party colleagues joined with the Bloc, and agreed on 11. However, as the Liberals have total control, and committees often being nothing more than a charade, time wasted, it was a good thing in this case, because we at least made them aware with our arguments and ended up with 10 in the bill, which is none too many.

If the Liberal Party paid more attention to the official opposition, bills would often be more acceptable and would have a better impact on the farming community.

[Mayor Of Thetford Mines, April 16th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute, here in this House, to the first magistrate of Thetford Mines, who is also the president of the asbestos economic development corporation, Mayor Henri Therrien who, last week, was named personality of the year for 1996 by the chamber of commerce of the asbestos region.

This honour follows a long list of achievements by Mayor Therrien, in the economic, cultural, sports and municipal areas, among others. For ten years now, the citizens of Thetford Mines have been proud to be able to rely on the dynamism and generosity of their mayor.

Congratulations Henri, and thank you.

[Tariffs On Agricultural Products, April 15th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.

In spite of a NAFTA ruling supporting Canada's position regarding the tariffs on our eggs, dairy and poultry products, the U.S. trade representative, Charlene Barsketsky, indicated a few weeks ago that this issue was a priority for her country and that she would fight to the end to eliminate these tariffs.

Can the minister assure us that he will be firm and will not start negotiating with his American counterpart to eliminate our tariffs, contrary to what has already been done by the Liberal government in the case of wheat and softwood lumber? The Bloc Quebecois would never accept such a move.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1997, April 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this morning we now have 71 minutes left to talk about the latest budget, about Bill C-93, the Budget Implementation Act, 1997, and the motion to refer the bill to committee before second reading.

As the member for the beautiful riding of Frontenac in Quebec and as a member of the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, I can hardly be expected to be enthusiastic about the latest budget which as far as I am concerned is a lot of smoke and mirrors. This is an electoral budget.

First of all, when the Liberal Party came to power on October 25, 1993, about three and a half years ago, the Conservative deficit was around $42 billion. For the current year, the deficit should be around $17 billion. Sure, the deficit went down by $25 billion, because the minister was able to take advantage of favourable economic trends and because of the drastic and often brutal cuts he made in his budget.

First of all, let us remind the Minister of Finance that today the employment insurance fund has a $6 billion surplus.

So what did they do to get this $6 billion dollars? They kept employer and employee premiums very high. They reduced the time during which workers who lose their jobs can receive benefits. They also increased the number of hours worked-we now talk about hours-people need to qualify.

Furthermore, 1 per cent of 55 per cent is deducted for every 20 weeks a worker draws employment insurance. If a worker receives employment insurance every year, after 20 weeks of benefits he will reach the minimum, which is 50 per cent of his eligible earnings.

So there is a $6 billion surplus the government uses year after year to reduce its deficit. It also cut $4.5 billion in transfers to the

provinces. In other words, the government has offloaded a substantial part of its deficit onto the provinces, including Quebec. The Quebec government also has to make cuts in transfers to municipalities and school boards. This is a chain reaction. You kick your neighbour, who kicks the next person, and so forth.

What I really want to condemn this morning, during the 10 minutes I am allowed, are the promises made but not kept in the notorious red book that was distributed across Canada. Today, we are looking for copies to give our constituents before the next election, but they have become very rare. I am willing to pay a lot for the red books that were being circulated in 1993, just like Mao's little red book. I suppose the Liberal Party, in its shame, has collected all the red books and burnt them.

Mr. Speaker, you know the Prime Minister often has a colourful choice of words. He said they were going to scrap, and I imagine he meant tear up, the GST legislation. And now, less than three and a half years later, instead of scrapping the GST, he is doing everything he can to hide it. In fact, he gave $960 million, nearly $1 billion, to three small maritime provinces for harmonizing his GST with their provincial sales tax, the so-called harmonized sales tax, the HST. So that is what the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance did to make us accept the fact that the GST would no longer exist, at least in part of the country.

I may remind the Minister of Finance that he is not being fair to all citizens of this country. Two weeks ago, in a pre-election tour of my new riding, I met the mayor of Saint-Ludger, in the Beauce region, who asked me: "Why is the government not treating Quebec fairly? How does it explain giving $1 billion to harmonize the GST in the Maritimes, when we in Quebec did it in 1991 with Robert Bourassa, the Liberal premier in Quebec at the time, and Brian Mulroney, the Conservative Prime Minister?" Mr. Mulroney had the courage to create the GST, and it is the cause of his downfall to a large extent and of the Conservative Party's being swept out of office in all but two ridings in Canada.

So, Brian Mulroney and Robert Bourassa agreed in Quebec to harmonize their sales taxes, the GST and the QST. The Government of Quebec collects them, while, in the case of the maritimes, Ottawa will be collecting them. Year in and year out, it costs the government in Ottawa some $60 million, because we split the cost of recovering the government's GST fifty-fifty.

What does this government give the Quebec government in exchange for having harmonized in good faith in 1991? Zilch. It gives it nothing. This government is not treating Quebec taxpayers fairly. And Frank McKenna is using the money he gets from the federal government to pay for advertising to lure our industry away.

Another fine promise I would like to look at in the now extinct famous red book is the slogan of "jobs, jobs, jobs". I was listening to the Prime Minister saying in a speech last week: "We have created 675,000 jobs in the past three years". In my region, while I was taking part in the opening of a new store known as Intermarché, the owner told me they were going to create 55 new jobs. At the end, off in a corner, I said: "You are going to create 55 new jobs, that is great. However, will there be layoffs in the other stores you will be getting your customers from?" He said: "Well, sir, one thing leads to another. Nothing is wasted in nature. I will create 55 jobs here, so 55 jobs will be cut somewhere else". The fact that there is a new Intermarché in Plessisville is not going to cause people to go grocery shopping three times a week.

It is the same story in the restaurant business. A new restaurant is opening on rue Notre-Dame, creating 43 new jobs. But I would expect there will be 43 layoffs in other restaurants.

I could remind the Prime Minister, who is going on about how he has created "jobs, jobs, jobs", that we have never, since the terrible economic crisis of the 1930s, seen an unemployment rate as high as this go on for so long.

Three weeks ago, one of my constituents turned up unannounced at my office with his tax returns. He asked my secretary if he could meet with me. Naturally, I saw him, but I wondered why he had brought along his tax returns. This was a man of 66, retired from the asbestos mines. Before sending off his tax returns, he had to add a cheque in the neighbourhood of $3,000 to each envelope, the one for the Government of Quebec and the one for Ottawa. I said to him: "Why don't you help us bring about sovereignty for Quebec?" Instead of having two agriculture ministers, a Prime Minister and a provincial premier, two industry ministers and so on, two of everything, you would just send your cheque to one place. Of course, the one cheque would be much higher but, proportionally speaking, you would pay a bit less and you would get better service". Right now, we have a premier, who is working to help Quebecers, and a Prime Minister, who is doing anything but.

Mr. Speaker, I request another 30 seconds in which to wrap up, 30 seconds to talk about the results of the Gallup poll that came out this morning. It says that a majority of Canadians, 45 per cent, say we are worse off today, after four years of Liberal government, worse off today after what this Prime Minister's Liberal government is going to try to make us believe during the next election campaign. The Gallup poll results appeared on page 7 of this morning's La Presse .

I take this opportunity to urge you to be wary and not to swallow everything you hear from politicians.

[An Act Amend An Act To Incorporate The Bishop Of The Arctic Of The Church Of England In Canada, April 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking this morning on behalf of the official opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, on Bill S-15, an act to amend an Act to incorporate the Bishop of the Arctic of the Church of England in Canada.

This private member's bill, passed by the Senate on March 18, 1997 and sponsored by Senator Meighen, broadens the investment powers of the Bishop of the Arctic.

As you know, I am a hardline abolitionist as far as the Senate is concerned. It is, in my opinion, an archaic institution which perpetuates colonialism in this country and interferes with the sovereignty of the House of Commons. I find it useless, therefore, to retain this institution on the eve of the third millennium.

When the public interest of Quebecers and all Canadians is at stake, however, I am capable of being open-minded. I am aware of the problems involved in designating the Bishop of the Arctic in

French as a "corporation" rather than a "personne morale". For this reason, the official opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, will vote in favour of Bill S-15.