Jean-Guy Chrétien

[Asbestos, April 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge in this House the courage and determination of the four miners from Asbestos who ran in the Paris marathon last weekend.

In so doing, although they were ignored by the French press, they wanted to create awareness about how safe asbestos really is when used properly. These four miners have demonstrated that the physical ability of workers is in no way affected by exposure to chrysotile asbestos fibres, partly because of the very high health standards in the industry.

I salute their action and encourage any such activity aimed at convincing the French people that this matter was blown out of proportion.

My colleague from Richmond-Wolfe joins me in congratulating Guy Guérette, Eudore Lemay, Michel Champagne and Pierre Laliberté, our four marathon runners and chrysotile asbestos miners.

[Copyright Act, March 17th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, you have such a good memory that you probably remember that, last Tuesday, I put a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I was not very pleased with the answer, that goes without saying. That is why I want to take advantage of these Adjournment Proceedings to revive the debate; I am ready to listen to the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, who is currently in Japan to promote Canadian exports.

My question is quite simple. Pursuant to the agreement we signed three years ago with GATT, now known as the WTO, the 118 signatory states agreed to reduce direct farm subsidies in their own countries.

Canada is preaching by example. Of course, it is benefiting from all this since it is saving money on the backs of farmers, who will, of course, pass on higher prices to all consumers.

Let me give you an example. Here, in Canada, over a three year period, the government has, under the helm of the Minister of Finance, reduced direct farm subsidies by 21 per cent, or more than one fifth, compared to 23 per cent for our neighbours south of the border.

Some members will say: "Yes, but Jean-Guy, that is 2 per cent more". Yes, I agree, but these cuts are being implemented over seven years instead of three, which is more than twice as long. All things considered, the cuts in Canada are more than twice what they are in the United States. Our farmers are directly affected.

The most striking example is without any doubt the total elimination of subsidies to industrial milk producers over the next five years.

To keep their income at the level it was two years ago, farmers must raise the selling price of industrial milk. And you know as well as I do that each time the price of butter goes up, consumption goes down.

We are in a dilemma and our milk producers are able to increase dairy production by 5 to 10 per cent fairly easily. But if we raise the price, we will have to reduce the quotas. Thus, we are in a catch 22 situation with this government.

For example, the Western Grain Transportation Act was suddenly abolished in the West. That meant $860 million each year. Sure, since that was in western Canada, this good government of ours gave almost $3 billion as a bonus to farmers, while there was no bonus to the dairy producers when their grant was cut; there is a double standard.

Moreover, the Federation of Dairy Producers of Canada formally asked the agriculture minister to postpone until February 1, 1998 the next 15 per cent cut in the grant to industrial milk producers, which is to take effect on August 1, 1997. It is only a matter of six months. We are waiting for an answer and if you consult the calendar, you will see that there will be an election in June. I suspect our good Minister of Agriculture will make his announcement during the next election campaign, which I for one would find quite dishonest on his part.

We are only four months away from August 1, and I wish the agriculture minister would make that announcement, which would

be most reassuring for our dairy producers, since, according to reports, the income of Quebec dairy producers has fallen every year because of these famous cuts.

[Peacekeeping Or Peace Enforcement Commitments, March 12th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I urge you to keep an eye on the government. It is about to pull another fast one on us. This time, it is food inspection.

This is the problem. I asked the Minister of Agriculture last week about his plan to withdraw from the inspection of processed meat, poultry, fruits and vegetables.

When you go grocery shopping, you buy pâté made by La Belle Fermière or cretons or tête fromagée made with pig's heads, fruit juice, fruit cocktail or other processed food, and now the federal government wants to withdraw from inspecting this type of processed food.

There would be implications for recipes and labelling. When you buy pâté, there are certain ingredients in this product, and at the

present time, federal inspectors go to small processing plants to check whether the labelling reflects exactly what is in the product. Now the government wants to withdraw from this type of inspection.

These inspections have been done in Canada since 1959-almost 40 years-and done very well. The industry is happy and takes them in its stride. Industries have in fact asked the federal government to continue to provide the inspection service, for which they would be prepared to pay a fair price. The federal government asked its officials to do a study, which shows that the quality could drop in this sort of product. The health of our fellow Canadians could ultimately be affected.

Last week, I was listening to the Prime Minister talk about tobacco as he eliminated cigarette sponsorship of sports and cultural events; he said it was bad for the health of our children.

In this case, although the industry is prepared to pay a fair price, the government is considering withdrawing from this sector.

I think the department of agriculture should ask cabinet and the minister to take a step backward, give the people what they already have today and continue to provide the same service.

In order to save a few million dollars, the government would run the risk of imperiling a significant element in the processing of meats, poultry, fruits and vegetables-industries, as usual, found primarily in Quebec. It would seem that every time things go well in Quebec the government tries to throw a wrench in the works to show that things are not going so well.

I see that the parliamentary secretary will be responding, as the minister is in Japan at the moment. I hope he takes that into consideration and encourages his minister to go back on this decision to stop food processing inspections.

[Petitions, March 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition circulated by Albert Vachon, of Garthby, asking for the abolition of the Upper House, that is to say the Senate.

This would represent yearly savings of $60 million, or $5 million per month, for the federal government. Needless to say, the member for Frontenac supports this petition.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, March 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday I asked the Minister of Agriculture a question in this House about rBST.

This, as you know, is the famous hormone that can be injected into a cow and increase its milk production by 10, 15 and sometimes 25 per cent. It becomes a bionic cow, or close to it.

Obviously, the pharmaceutical industry has put several hundreds of millions of dollars into developing this miracle hormone. However, there is uncertainty about the effect of this hormone on cows, as well as on consumers of the milk they produce.

I reminded the hon. Minister of Agriculture that on at least three occasions customs officers had stopped farmers or dishonest individuals importing this well known hormone, the production, importation and use of which in Canada is prohibited.

One customs officer, quite by chance, asked that the back trunk of a vehicle full of syringes containing bovine somatotropin be opened. If it is like drugs, a seizure does not even represent 1 per cent of what is imported into and consumed in Canada. If the same ratio is applied to somatotropin, it can be assumed that we now run the risk in Canada of drinking, without knowing it, milk produced by bionic cows.

I asked the minister what he intended to do to correct the situation. He merely answered that it is up to customs officers to do their job, and that he hopes they are doing it well. That is a reply that I unfortunately could not accept, coming from the mouth of the Minister of Agriculture himself.

In addition, since we are now into another year of analysis, there is a moratorium on the use of this famous hormone. The department, the government, is undoubtedly being worked on by lobbyists representing Monsanto, for instance, the pharmaceutical company that developed this hormone, because there is a fortune associated with the sale of somatotropin in Canada.

I therefore call on the government, and I will conclude with this, to hold a public debate on the use of this hormone. It would be a debate in which consumers, as well as producers, processors, and producers of somatotropin, in other words the pharmaceutical industry, would be invited to present their views.

The government has no right to impose this product on Canada, especially to protect public health. It has just passed an anti-smoking bill supposedly to protect public health. I therefore hope that this government, which is so concerned about the well-being and health of our children, will hold a public debate into whether somatotropin should be used, produced and sold.

[Petitions, March 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, following the tragic events that occurred in the city of Disraeli, in the Eastern Townships, I wish to table a very important petition bearing more than 22,200 signatures.

The promoters, André Beaulieu and Jeannot Talbot, supported by the petitioners, call upon the government to ensure stricter enforcement of conditional release legislation and increase surveillance. I support these 22,200 people in their undertaking and I hope the Minister of Justice will be attentive to their demands.

[Agriculture, March 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will remind the Minister of Agriculture that we are talking here about the total reductions expected. Overall, Canada will reduce its subsidies by 21 per cent over three years, while our neighbours south of the border will take almost twice as long, seven years in fact, to cut their subsidies by 23 per cent.

Since the level of farm support in Canada is now among the lowest in the world, except for Australia and New Zealand, can the minister at least approve the dairy producers' request to postpone the next reduction in dairy subsidies from August 1, 1997 until February 1, 1998, as this would give them another six months to adjust to the austerity measures taken by the Liberal government?

[Agriculture, March 10th, 1997]

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

For a little over two years now, in a relentless effort to abide by the new rules of the WTO, the federal government has been slashing its various farm support programs. For instance, dairy subsidies will be completely abolished as of August 1, 1997, without any financial compensation.

Can the minister tell us how our farmers will benefit from the fact that the U.S. government is planning to cut its overall farm support by 23 per cent over a period of seven years, while Canada will cut its support by 21 per cent but over only three years?

[Bovine Somatotropin, March 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is very optimistic, but this is not what is happening in the field.

Will the Minister of Agriculture commit to holding a public debate on the use of bovine somatotropin before it is allowed, should the study conducted by his department result in the licensing of this hormone?

[Bovine Somatotropin, March 6th, 1997]

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

We learned recently that last year, on at least three occasions, Canadian customs officer stopped individuals trying to bring into the country hundreds of syringes containing bovine somatotropin.

In view of the fact that a Health Canada inspector has acknowledged how easy it is for dairy farmers to get this hormone, what action is the government contemplating to prevent it from entering Canada in large quantities and eventually finding its way into the dairy supply system and onto our plates?