Jean-Guy Chrétien

[Excise Tax Act, December 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last week I questioned the Minister of Agriculture about the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, or PMRA. This agency is being created from services in three departments: Health, Agriculture and Environment.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, or his colleague at Health Canada, wants to recover 60 per cent of the costs from the sales of pesticides. Our American neighbours only recover 15 per cent of the costs, which means that Canadian companies will move to the United States to develop their products in that country or that farmers will buy their chemicals directly in the United States, because they will cheaper there, probably much cheaper. With such a cost recovery level, the price of herbicides, insecticides and fungicides is going to increase dramatically.

Let us now look at the services provided by the PMRA. Il will test product safety and also product effectiveness. Companies already test the effectiveness of their products, but the government wants to redo the testing. The results must show an 80 per cent effectiveness over two crop seasons. This type of test was not carried out before, but the government now claims that it will improve public safety. Does it mean that the public is not safe at the present time?

Farmers believe that it is up to the market to determine whether a given product is effective or not.

If a product is known to be ineffective, it will be quickly eliminated from that market because of a lack of consumers. The PMRA also wants to reassess every two to five years all the products that it has already certified and not only those that require certification. Thus, the PMRA will do costly audits that are not really necessary. Producers never asked for such measures and these will entail major costs for the agency.

Moreover, this 60 per cent cost recovery will be difficult to apply to industries that develop low volume consumers' products. Consequently, my estimation is that between 21 and 30 per cent of products used in pest management will no longer be available to agricultural producers if the PMRA goes ahead as expected with its cost recovery policy, that is, 60 per cent of the costs.

I just outlined very briefly the most important elements of the PMRA issue, particularly as it pertains to cost recovery. Thus, in light of all the available data, the PMRA will function less quickly than its American counterpart. It will cost more, will be less efficient, will perform more audits than necessary and there will be less products available on the market. Thus, there may be job losses and our producers will be less competitive.

For the sake of fairness for agricultural producers in Canada and Quebec, I challenge the government, particularly the ministers of health, environment and agriculture, to review the way the agency recovers costs associated with the certification of pest control products.

[An Act To Revoke The Conviction Of Louis David Riel, December 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, I questioned the Minister for International Trade about the Liberal government's plans regarding the filing of an official complaint with the World Trade Organization.

For months and months, this government has been boasting about everything being under control. It certainly looks like this attitude is taking away any hope the industry may have had to see France reconsider its decision to ban asbestos on its territory.

This will have an tremendous impact on my riding, not only on the asbestos industry, but also on the development of the community as a whole. The government does not seem to realize how worried people are in my riding; all it does is send us ministers on a purely election-oriented mission. Could the minister tell us if cabinet issued some secret directions not to go to the WTO? We all know about this government's inclination to turn to the courts when in a tight spot.

Beyond the rhetoric and lip service we have heard from the minister and the Prime Minister, does the government have any real plan of action?

I would like to know the profound convictions of cabinet on this unique mineral, not only because of its extraordinary properties, but also because it constitutes one of the jewels in the crown of the Canadian mining industry.

It is high time the federal government made amends to the citizens of Thetford, Black Lake and the whole asbestos mining region. It made a commitment to intervene on the international level to rehabilitate asbestos, particularly chrysotile asbestos.

Perhaps the time is ripe for it to start promoting it on its own territory, even here on the Hill.

How can it be assumed that the asbestos that is sealed inside the walls in the buildings on Parliament Hill is dangerous? Yet that is what is suggested in the numerous internal memos we receive in our offices concerning the major renovations that are scheduled, including decontamination of the buildings.

Despite all the respect I have for this House and for cabinet, this whole scenario suggests to me that the Liberal government's famous action plan is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The government, and its Minister for International Trade, are improvising daily in this matter, inventing things as they go along.

In this connection, I could produce before this House numerous documents setting out the position of the current government and the previous one concerning the government's true psychosis about the harmful effects of asbestos. My predecessor, the hon. Marcel Masse, was one of the most vocal supporters of chrysotile fibre during his entire political carrier in Ottawa. His statements in favour of asbestos were decisive for our industry.

Personally, I strongly condemn the lack of leadership shown by the Minister of Natural Resources, who proved unable to convince one French MP, Christian Daniel, of the safety of asbestos when used properly. Imagine, if she is unable to convince one lone MP, how could she hope to influence the position of a whole government?

In conclusion, I would ask the minister to apprise us of the government's intentions regarding the promotion of chrysotile fibre, especially with regard to the use of asbestos ore in Canada. The minister should take note of my question, I intend to follow through with it. People in the asbestos producing area are tired of ministers coming to Thetford with empty promises. As far as I know the election campaign has not started yet. The government was elected to govern, and so it should.

I hoped the international trade minister himself would answer my question. Does he not consider this issue important enough to be present in the House and respond to my comments?

[Asbestos Industry, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I was asking the minister when he plans to file an official complaint with the World Trade Organization.

Given that the Netherlands, which is scheduled to assume the presidency of the European Union on January 1, is likely to try to impose a ban on asbestos across the EU, what positive steps, aside from visits to Thetford Mines, does the Canadian government intend to take to prevent this from happening?

[Asbestos Industry, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.

With respect to France's ban on asbestos, French Prime Minister Alain Juppé recently announced his government's decision not to grant the exemptions Canada had asked for regarding asbestos cement in particular. Bear in mind that more than 2,000 jobs depend directly on this industry in Thetford and Asbestos, in Quebec.

In light of the fact that France's reaction is guided by emotional rather than rational, scientific reasons, what is the minister waiting for to file a complaint with the World Trade Organization to obtain the exemptions sought or $20 million in compensation for lost exports?

[Chemical Product Industry, November 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there will be a problem. Given this gap of 45 per cent, will the minister agree that imposing such high recovery costs will make it more costly for companies to develop their products in Canada and that, consequently, these companies will pass on the bill to farmers, who will also become less competitive, unless they buy directly from the United States?

[Chemical Product Industry, November 27th, 1996]

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

The government is about to expand, under the framework of a federal agency, current pest management regulatory services. It will take this opportunity to have the chemical product industry pay for part of the costs of this monitoring activity.

Will the minister confirm that, as regards its agency project, the Canadian government wants to recover 60 per cent of the costs from the chemical product industry, while the American government only imposes a 15 per cent recovery cost for the same services?

[Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, October 31st, 1996]

Madam Speaker, before speaking on the motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Kindersley-Lloydminster, I would like to comment on the confusion that seemed to exist among the hon. member's colleagues in the Reform Party reflecting in essence his party's view of the thrust to be given the many legislative changes on agriculture.

It is disappointing to see the reluctance of the Reform Party and especially the ideological barriers colouring its rather limited contribution to the ongoing debate in the Quebec and Canadian agricultural sector.

Now, moving to serious matters, to Bill C-34. While the motion before us today was amended a number of times in the past few days, it still contains elements that run counter to the concern the government must have for farm producers.

We are aware of the fact that Bill C-34 involves developing programs for the marketing of agricultural products, which means having products to market, which provide a profit for producers, at a fair price to consumers. This means, for the producers, having more effective tools to recover the costs associated with operating a farm.

The amendment put forward by my hon. colleague from the third party removes two of the elements that form the very basis for this bill. It would eliminate the government's role as regulator of the agricultural market as set in clause 31 of the bill and ensure impunity in the case of refusal to provide information leading to a better analysis process in order to properly define the principles underlying clause 31.

I get the impression that, through Bill C-34, my hon. colleague is trying set a kind of precedent in order to apply the principle in the debate on restructuring the Canadian Wheat Board. I must tell my

hon. colleague from the Reform Party, however, that any such legislative change can in no way apply to the Canadian Wheat Board because of its status and prerogatives. In this context, what the hon. member is asking in his motion is to limit the important contribution of the government in stabilizing costs in the agri-food sector.

Concretely, this enables the government to maintain the price of a given product at a certain level in the event of crop failure or, conversely, when harvest is too good and plentiful.

To illustrate the problem, we could take the example of the 1988 maple syrup production. You may recall that, in 1988, record amounts of maple syrup were produced. Consequently, maple syrup producers found themselves with barrels of grade A1 and even AA syrup that they could not sell even for less than a basic price, to at least cover their operation costs. In the case of maple syrup, the government had decided to support prices by buying up maple syrup surpluses from producers, and thus avoid a price drop. Stocks were stored, to be put on the market later, at a time of relative shortage, or in a year when production would be much more limited. This is why the price of maple syrup fluctuates very little from year to year. The Reform member seems not to know this basic economic rule.

Based on the same approach, the second motion of the Reform member seeks to ensure impunity for an action preventing the government from obtaining information that might be necessary to fulfil its role of price stabilizer. Obviously, and you will agree with me, this way of thinking is totally unacceptable, since it defeats government efforts to make things better for farmers.

The member's logic is even more flawed when you consider the high level of confidentiality governing this type of government intervention. From an administrative point of view, no one has any business knowing someone's personal situation, since the substance of this bill is to take action for the good of farm operators, based on a global and collective vision.

Before concluding, I remind the House that Bloc Quebecois members were and continue to be in agreement with the general principle of Bill C-34. However, we strongly oppose the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster. We care too much about farmers, given their role, to risk a lowering of their industry's standards of operation.

In conclusion, I ask Reformers to reconsider their opinion and their position, for the good of consumers and farm producers.

Should there be a very bad crop, prices could increase unduly and eliminate a number of farmers. In three, four or five years, there could be a shortage of farmers, or else prices could remain unusually high.

For the good of the general public and of farmers, consumers and processors, it is important to support the substance of Bill C-34 and to oppose the two amendments proposed by the Reform member.

[Petitions, October 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit a petition asking for the abolition of the Senate.

Over 30,000 petitioners, including 6,300 from the riding of Frontenac, support this measure to save more than $50 million in taxpayers' money. It goes without saying that I fully support this petition, which has been appropriately certified by the Clerk of Petitions.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, October 28th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I rise today at third reading of Bill C-29, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances.

This bill has been debated in this House for quite some time, having been introduced as Bill C-94 during the previous session. Although it survived a challenge to the Liberal government's work when the House was prorogued last winter, this bill is the perfect example of the absurdity and lack of logic guiding cabinet, and especially its leader's lack of rigour.

As I pointed out, the government allowed dozens of bills to die on the Order Paper when the House was prorogued. Yet, Bill C-94 survived to become Bill C-29. This is totally absurd. Enough pressure was exerted during the first session for the government to abandon this bill, which, in fact, does not in any way respond to the concerns of the industry, the public, or the various interest groups.

This bill is highly controversial in form as well as content. As far as form is concerned, the government may be using the noble precepts of public health and environmental protection to pass a bill that will benefit only the ethanol industry. I will get back to this outrageous aspect of the bill a little later at the end of my speech.

First, I would like to go back to the substance of Bill C-29, whose main purpose is to ban the addition of MMT to unleaded gasoline. I find it unacceptable for the party in power to be shamelessly spending taxpayers' money in order to pass a bill that not only does not respond to public concerns, but also knowingly creates a conflict situation in which Canada could be sued for close to $300 million under NAFTA.

The situation is quite simple. The government and the automotive industry want MMT banned as a fuel additive because MMT may impair the operation of emission control devices. It does nothing of the kind, at least not according to American, Canadian and European scientific studies published to date. There is no legislation attesting to the harmfulness of MMT as a fuel additive.

This goes to show that there must be more obscure and possibly more partisan reasons pushing the government to have this bill passed, even though the Prime Minister boasts about not having been involved in any scandal.

Let me explain briefly the basis for my remarks. This move to ban the importation of MMT, and especially its trade, has more to do with protectionism than with the public interest, unless it is merely motivated by financial consideration or else support for and contributions to the Liberal Party's election fund. Personally, I have no problem endorsing this view, given the very real motivation the former Minister of the Environment may have, benefits the current incumbent may also be entitled to, incidentally.

They are using scare tactics in saying that adding manganese to fuel is harmful to our health and to the environment. In this respect, the U.S. Court of Appeal has ruled against banning MMT, because it was not established that MMT presented a public health risk.

Incidentally, our American neighbours are much more cautious than us when dealing with environmental issues. Therefore, if the U.S. court of appeal ruled, as regards EPA's challenge concerning

MMT, that the use of this product cannot not be prohibited in the United States, I fail to see why we should prohibit it here in Canada.

Even the EPA, which is well-known in my riding of Frontenac because of the asbestos dispute, made no attempt to challenge this ruling, since the evidence to support such a move is so weak and disorganized. This suggests that such a restrictive measure under NAFTA can be supported by the industry providing the substitute, namely ethanol. The automotive industry is also involved in this attempt to prohibit MMT, even though it does not lead the group lobbying the Liberal caucus.

One wonders about the principles and especially the integrity of some cabinet members, given that the former environment minister is from a region that produces ethanol, while the current minister is also from Ontario. Indeed, one wonders about the real motives of the environment minister. Obviously, an industry as rich as the ethanol industry can be very generous during an election campaign. We are all aware of current economic conditions.

But there is more. We are at third reading of Bill C-29, whose impact is so major that it is now a source of dissension within the Liberal caucus. Bill C-29 directly contravenes several NAFTA provisions. Worse still, Canada faces a potential lawsuit that could reach close to $300 million. In fact, the Minister for International Trade has already told his colleague, the environment minister, about the peculiarity of this situation. Yet, nothing seems to detract the minister and his acolytes from their objective.

Since my time is running out, I will conclude by stressing the danger, for Canadian Parliament, to pass Bill C-29. The official opposition will strongly oppose this legislation, so that, if it is not defeated it can at least be amended so as not to be implemented throughout the country.

[Asbestos, October 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the government is busting its britches because it is spending $500,000, whereas Quebec has already committed more than $2.7 million, and the previous federal government had even spent nearly $13 million to help the asbestos industry in the late 1980s.

Is the Liberal government waiting until asbestos is banned everywhere in Europe and some 2,000 Quebec jobs have vanished before it takes any serious steps to save this industry?