Jean-Guy Chrétien

[Food Inspection, March 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the Minister of Agriculture that the industry is prepared to pay a fair price for the services currently provided.

Does the minister recognize that he is off beam with this recommendation to abolish these services in the short term, when a study commissioned by his own department concluded that it would result in reduced compliance with the standards respecting labelling and recipes for the products in question and, in addition, may jeopardize the health of our fellow citizens, and of young people in particular?

[Food Inspection, March 5th, 1997]

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

Agriculture Canada recently notified the meat and poultry industry, as well as the processed fruit and vegetable industry, of its intention of doing away with the mandatory registration and approval of labels and recipes for these products.

Since the industry is prepared to pay a fair and equitable share of the costs to continue to have access to the services his department has been providing since 1959, will the minister maintain these services and not eliminate them anytime soon?

[Tobacco Act, March 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest and passion that I want to side with my friend and colleague, the member for Lévis, who has made a superhuman effort this week to bring the present government to change its mind in spite of the firm commitment made by the health minister, who invited Canadians to vote against his party if he did not succeed in having Bill C-71 adopted before the next elections.

I must pay tribute to the member for Lévis because, once again, this government is picking on Quebec when things are going well. Quebecers have adopted a philosophy that this government seems to be doing everything it can to destroy.

The best example of that was ten month ago, when the same health minister wanted to ban the importation and production of raw milk cheese in Canada, knowing that Quebec accounted for 90 per cent of raw milk cheese consumption and production.

The labour minister, the member for Saint-Léonard who is of Italian origin, realized from his seat in the House that his friend, the health minister, wanted to deprive him of his parmesan cheese imported from Italy. The government changed its mind on that issue and it will do the same on Bill C-71 because at this very moment, in Montreal, all the people who count have joined forces to save their cultural, sports and artistic events.

I made a list of ten or so events that are threatened by this bill and I would like to read them to you: the Montreal Grand Prix, the Benson and Hedges fireworks, the jazz festival, the Trois-Rivières Grand Prix, the Festival Just for Laughs, the Valleyfield and Ville-Marie regatta, the Quebec summer festival and the international tennis championships in Montreal. Do you know that tobacco companies invest some $60 million a year to support these kinds of events which, without such sponsorship, could not exist? Of these $60 million, $30 million are spent in Quebec.

Is it just a coincidence that this Liberal government is picking on Quebec once again? I doubt it. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said in the House that it was to save lives in Canada, because 40,000 people die every year from smoking, and increasing numbers of young people are taking up smoking at a very early age.

Mr. Speaker, through you, I ask the Prime Minister, and I look him in the eye as I ask the question, if he really wants to help our young people, why does he not make sure that his own regulations are enforced in his country? Cigarettes must be sold to adults only, to people 18 years of age and older. Do you know how many inspectors there are to enforce this law in Canada? There are 40. Since Quebec represents one quarter of the population, it should have 10 of these inspectors, if it is not unfortunate. Ten inspectors to check whether cigarettes are being sold to those under 18 years of age.

Yesterday, I asked how many establishments had been found breaking the law in the last five years. Government members were unable to tell me. They were probably ashamed to give me the figure. There are regulations that are not even being enforced, and they want to introduce other legislation, other regulations that will privatize, I was going to say deprive Quebec of major events and, to top it all, that will eliminate several thousand jobs, jobs that are often held by students.

In 1993, along with the promise to scrap the GST, did the government not have as one of its slogans "jobs, jobs, jobs"? The unemployment rate has been hovering around 10 per cent for over 40 months now. Month after month, since this government took office, unemployment remained at the same level. It is really the first time since the economic depression of the 1930s that unemployment has reached 10 per cent, with 1.5 million unemployed. Bill C-71 will probably cause 2,000 more unemployed workers, although everybody agrees that the fact Jacques Villeneuve has a cigarette logo on his clothes will not induce youngsters to smoke.

Indeed, our good old Prime Minister was proud to have his picture taken with Jacques Villeneuve under a Players sign. He was hoping this picture would go around Canada. He was not reluctant

to be photographed just in front of an ad for Players. This shows his double standards.

The member for Brome-Missisquoi, in the Eastern Townships, said he tried to convince the banks to take over from the tobacco companies. We checked, and he made only one call to one Ottawa office. This is really not serious. Today, the banks told us that this was definitely out of the question, because they are not active in this field.

The member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot who spoke before me referred to the fact that there used to be 74 nitwits from the Liberal Party, and now there are 20 such nitwits from Quebec, not one of whom will rise in defence of Quebec's interests, but fortunately, since she does not have to answer to the Prime Minister, Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette is getting ready to oppose Bill C-71 in the Senate, and has asked her colleagues not to support this bill. We hope that the Prime Minister will backtrack or that this bill will die on the Order Paper, because of the coming general election.

The Minister of Health made a commitment three months ago, saying that if he could not get that bill passed, he invited all Canadians to vote against the Liberal Party of Canada. I am going to top that. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I invite all Canadians, especially Quebecers, to teach a lesson to this political party, which almost reflects badly on Quebec. The little guy from Shawinigan is saying that he will go and take the pulse of his riding in the taverns and the shopping centers. I invite him to go to Shawinigan this weekend and, if he has the time, to stop off in Trois-Rivières on the way to find out what people think of him now, how people rate him. I think his popularity is at its lowest point.

I therefore invite the Minister of Health and the Prime Minister to backtrack. Admitting they made a mistake, as they did in the case of the raw milk cheese, will improve their public image.

I just need another ten seconds to conclude. During a press conference in Montreal last Sunday, the Minister of Labour said they were going to solve the tobacco problem, then the liquor problem. His colleague, the hon. member from right across the river, the President of the Treasury Board, did not agree. He told his distinguished colleague not to overdo it on the liquor issue, that they were going to lose too many votes. They are going to deal first with the tobacco problem. This just goes to show how they are running the country now. They are just coasting along, which is nothing for Canadians to be proud of.

[Tobacco Act, March 4th, 1997]

He is with Guy Bertrand.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak today at second reading of Bill C-72, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Bill C-72, which is under debate this morning, is of little concern to the agricultural community in Quebec. While there are some wheat and barley growers there, their numbers are far fewer than in western Canada. However, because of the mission and role that have been given the Bloc Quebecois, it is our duty to express our opinion on the matter and more importantly to try to ground the current government's aspirations to control just about every field of activity in this immense country.

Our intervention in the issue is all the more important because it permits an objective analysis of the situation that will lead to a better understanding between the government and the 130,000 wheat producers and because, first and foremost, it allows us to fulfill the role we were given of protecting Quebec's interests.

So long as Quebec continues to pay billions of dollars in taxes to the federal government, we will continue to demand equal services and, more importantly, equitable financial benefits for Quebec.

This morning, the headlines in most of the francophone dailies read: "The Minister of Finance in Ottawa again denies Quebec's claim for justice in the collection of the federal GST within Quebec". Quebec will have a shortfall of nearly $2 billion. The Minister of Finance, a man of intelligence, said yesterday that Quebec is not losing any money in harmonizing the GST with its sales tax, whereas the maritimes would lose five tax percentage points.

However, he must be aware nothing is created and nothing is lost in nature. The maritime provinces preferred to have a higher sales tax rather than personal income tax, which was not the case in Quebec, Ontario and Alberta, for example.

However, this five per cent means we are paying the equivalent of $250 million to enable three maritime provinces to harmonize. A fine example of inequity. So, as long as Quebec continues to pay its $30 billion in income tax to the federal government, we will be around to demand justice.

You know as well as I do how difficult it is for the Liberal government to grasp this rather simple concept of equality. This prompts me to add that the government should devote as much energy to developing a long term dairy strategy promoting the growth of the dairy industry, particularly in Quebec, since more than 47 per cent of all industrial milk in Canada is produced in Quebec.

In this context, I must warn the government that we will not be satisfied with a policy statement based on little more than empty promises, as the Liberal government has a habit of doing. In our view, while representing a laudable effort to modernize the Canadian Wheat Board, the blueprint for changes to the commission is clearly insufficient in the present situation.

Several wheat and barley producers called for a more flexible operational framework for the board, especially at the higher management level, and mainly for increased input from the producers themselves in the development of long term marketing strategies.

Whether the hon. parliamentary secretary agrees or not, Bill C-72 addresses to some extent these long-standing demands of the producers, while at the same time not giving them the freedom and flexibility they want and need to achieve their production objectives.

I was listening a moment ago to the parliamentary secretary who said over and over that a majority of western grain producers were happy with this bill. It is not normal for groups of western farm producers to hold referendum after referendum calling for changes to the Canadian Wheat Board. Granted, the Canadian Wheat Board has played and continue to play a major role in the sale and marketing of wheat and barley in western Canada. I am speaking honestly when I say that no one in this House can tell what would have happened to the economy and the farming industry in the three western provinces had it not been for the Canadian Wheat Board.

However, after 62 years, time has come to update this institution which, unfortunately, has strayed slightly from its goal. And when the government keeps making partisan appointments without-and that is a shame-looking at the primary qualifications of the commissioners, this goal is lost.

I am saying it and I will say it again. The secretary of state might get annoyed and say: "Sure, but the member for Frontenac sits in the opposition and knows full well he will never have to appoint a director to the Canadian Wheat Board". This is true. However, in my riding, for example, one can see that, over the last three years, a number of appointments were made strictly because of services rendered to that party, because of the funding provided to that party, with little consideration being given to qualifications.

This pattern is becoming the trademark of the Liberal Party and therefore of this Liberal government.

It is well known that the Liberals give with one hand and take away with the other. Instead of acceding to the producers' requests, the government is trying, through devious and illusory means, to maintain control over the CWB. The bill provides that the board's social structure and the directors' status will be changed by electing a board of directors that will include a number of people from the industry.

However, given that this body will no longer be an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada, producers should have priority as members of the board. Unfortunately, the government refuses to make a greater commitment to this issue. It refuses or at least fails to specify the number of farmers who will sit on a rather flexible new board of directors that will have anywhere from 11 to 15 members.

I am concerned about the Liberal Party's attitude, a party which has managed to appoint a fair number of its supporters to various government bodies since it came to office. Given its new structure, the Canadian Wheat Board will continue to leave the door wide open to this kind of partisan appointments, rather than give producers the place that is rightfully theirs in managing their interests.

I will conclude by pointing out that the Canadian Wheat Board accounts for close to 23 per cent of world exports of wheat and barley, which reflects the importance of its role. This is very

significant. These exports are estimated at close to $5 billion, in current dollars.

Since we will support the bill at second reading, we will make a few suggestions to improve Bill C-72 and if you accept them-

[Supply, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, last Monday, I asked the Prime Minister about his visit to France on January 22 and 23.

In my first question, which was very straightforward, I asked the Prime Minister to tell the House about the outcome of his representations with his counterpart, Alain Juppé, concerning the safe use of asbestos. By way of an answer, the Prime Minister merely pointed to some facts known to everyone, namely, the announcement during a press conference of France's refusal to reconsider its position on the asbestos issue.

In a supplementary question, following the answer given by the Prime Minister, that I considered totally inadequate, I asked for a simple explanation about the Liberal government's stubborn refusal to go to arbitration before the WTO.

As early as last December, I had raised this alternative with the minister of international trade and the Prime Minister. Almost three months later, the government is starting to examine the issue more seriously. I was hoping the Prime Minister, despite his inability to adequately manage this crisis, which goes way beyond the trade dimension, could have given at least one good news to the asbestos people. On the contrary, the Prime Minister seems to lose

total interest in the issue and only gives vague interpretations of our regional realities.

I would like to know the underlying reasons behind the Liberal government's refusal to take serious steps to make France respect its commitments to the WTO and the OTI. France is violating a significant trade commitment based on a single report, the scientific bias of which seems basically flawed.

In fact, this past January, the Royal Society of Canada made public its analysis of the INSERM report which clearly demonstrated that the basic premises of the French specialists no longer reflected the current reality of asbestos handling methods and the safety aspects.

The Liberal government is unwittingly losing all of the opportunities available to it to preserve more than 2,000 jobs in such a vital sector of our economy. What could the underlying motivations of the cabinet possibly be to explain this chronic hesitancy to draft a concrete action strategy to deal with the French government?

During the 80's, Canada dared confront the US on the same questions. Today, it refuses to get involved in a process which could enable the asbestos industry to gain some exemptions from the French decision.

The Bloc Quebecois has been calling, ever since this crisis began, for a structured intervention from the Liberals. We are still waiting for even the foundation of such a structure. The government, and the Prime Minister and his minister of international trade in particular, are settling for saying over and over that negotiations are under way. The people in the asbestos mining region are concerned, and the government's shilly-shallying is not enough for them.

I am therefore making a formal request to the government to initiate as quickly as possible a procedure to contest France's ban on asbestos before the World Trade Organization.

If the asbestos mines were located anywhere but Quebec, would the response have been as vigourous as the government's response, past and present, to defend Sherritt's interests in Cuba in relation to the ban under Helms-Burton?

[Supply, February 17th, 1997]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for playing Solomon. That is perfect, one minute for me and one minute for the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

When I met the constituents of the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, on three occasions, these very warm people told me: "This is strange, you are coming to visit us, but we never see our own MP".

[Supply, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague-

[Supply, February 17th, 1997]

With your propaganda.

[Supply, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to my hon. colleague, the member from northern Ontario.

In this country, there are two founding nations; it is a little bit like a couple. You cannot buy love. I recall that on October 27, 1995, people in the party opposite spent an inordinate amount of money on a sudden show of love for the Quebec people. Tens of thousands of people from Ontario and New Brunswick converged on Place Canada, downtown Montreal. Even the airlines were asked to do their share. People were supposed to suddenly show their love.

Twelve month later, there was an attempt to repeat the performance, but this time the airlines and the Liberal Party of Canada were not asked to contribute. The result: hardly 225 people showed up to profess their love for the Quebec people.

Was it love for one day or love for ever? Quebecers will not be bought with flags, biased information, information that sounds like the kind of propaganda that could be heard on the airwaves in Europe at a certain time.

I must commend my hon. colleague, the member for Richmond-Wolfe, for his motion. I would like to read the part I am interested in. As he said so rightly a little while ago, the government must reduce its expenditures. It has been cutting everywhere except in the area of propaganda.

The member for Richmond-Wolfe wrote:

That this House denounce the use of public funds squandered on propaganda activities sponsored by Heritage Canada, such as the Canada Information Office and the One Million Flags Operation-

Finally, I would like the member to tell me how it is that his government has been had by Robert Gillet? While on the air on his Quebec radio show, he dialled the infamous number 1-800-DRAPEAU and said he was Bob Sweater. He ordered thousands of flags to fly on every cottage on both sides of the Saint Lawrence River, from Quebec City to Gaspé. Thousands of flags were actually shipped.

They had to give get rid of these infamous flags; the magic number was one million and there are 30 million of us. This means that one Canadian in 30 had to receive a flag. Robert Gillet, alias Bob Sweater, received several thousands of them. Sirs, you have become the laughing stock of Quebecers.

We are in the thick of budget cuts. Try to explain to your government that it is currently squandering public funds on propaganda activities that are underhanded, disgusting and verging on the ridiculous.