Jean-Guy Chrétien

[Asbestos, October 21st, 1996]

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

For more than three months, the Liberal government has been showing its irresponsibility by refusing any further involvement in the business of France's banning asbestos. All stakeholders agree that the Canadian government must put more muscle into its response to France on this.

France and Canada both being signatories to the Geneva Convention, including ILO directive 162 on the safe use of asbestos, can the Prime Minister indicate what measures have been taken by his government to remind France of its commitments to the ILO?

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there are certain positive elements in Bill C-60, an act to establish the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and to repeal and amend other Acts as a consequence, which we are looking at this afternoon.

The idea of creating a national agency is a good one in itself. Reducing the duplication in services of the three departments, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Health Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada will bring about savings.

We in the Bloc have long been calling for elimination of the duplication between the various departments. However, the Liberals' strategy of referring this bill to a committee before second reading prevents us from making any constructive amendments to Bill C-60 at this point.

For instance, there seems to be some latent patronage with respect to the appointment of agency executives. Under clause 5, the president and the executive vice-president shall be appointed by the governor in council.

We all know what it means when someone is appointed by the governor in council. These are friends of the government, like former minister André Ouellet, for instance, and we can refer to him by name since he has left the House, who was appointed to an executive position with a fantastic salary. The process is not exactly transparent.

Appointments should be made in accordance with the rules of the House and should be examined before the Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Staff should be hired on the basis of competence, not on a partisan basis. Just because someone is a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party does not mean he is competent. Of course, just because someone is a card-carrying member does not mean he is incompetent, but being a member of the party should not be a conditio sine qua non .

So the Bloc Quebecois cannot give its approval to what is, in fact, an opportunity for patronage, because it would also mean approving of government interference in areas under provincial jurisdiction.

Still on the subject of political appointments, we can read the following in clause 10 of Bill C-60:

10.(1) The Minister shall appoint an advisory board of not more than twelve members to hold office during pleasure for a term not exceeding three years.

Again, this is unacceptable, for two reasons. First, here again it is the minister who appoints those who will sit on the advisory board. Second, this means that Quebec has no guarantees as to its representation on this board.

A little further we read in clauses 12 and 13:

1. The Agency is a separate employer under the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

However, in clause 13, it says:

13.(1) The President has the authority to appoint the employees of the Agency.

Now, the president is appointed on a partisan basis, and he is supposed to appoint the employees of the agency. We will have to see how these appointments are made and whether the process is politically proper.

In clause 16, we read that the agency may procure goods and services from outside the public service, including legal services.

Of course these bills are drafted by lawyers, and a good lawyer looks after his own. So the agency will be able to procure legal services as it sees fit.

In clauses 20 and 21 there are two more issues we could raise. First, if federal agreements are entered into, we must ensure that Quebec does not end up in a position where it indirectly subsidizes the food inspection services obtained from the federal government by a province or provinces.

If a service is provided to another province by the federal government, it will be necessary to ensure that the work done in this province is not done with federal money. Otherwise, Quebec taxpayers will be paying for services in other provinces.

Two examples come to mind, including the RCMP. Everyone knows that, in Canada, two provinces-Quebec and Ontario-have their own police force: the OPP in Ontario and the SQ in Quebec, while the federal government, through the RCMP, provides police services to municipalities and also to other provinces. Well, do you know, dear colleagues, that Quebec foots part of the bill for the services rendered by the RCMP in the maritimes and in the western provinces? Ontario does also.

The federal government recovers only about 75 per cent of the real costs of the services provided, through the RCMP, to provinces and municipalities. The other 25 per cent are paid by all the provinces, including, of course, Quebec and Ontario. Since Quebec pays 24 per cent of federal taxes, it can be assumed that, we are subsidizing 24 per cent of that 25 per cent for RCMP services in provinces and territories other than Quebec and Ontario. This is an example of unfair treatment.

Similarly, Quebec, which harmonized its sales tax with the federal GST four years ago, must again pay 24 per cent of the $960 million which the federal government gave to the maritimes so they could harmonize their provincial sales tax with the GST, while we got nothing. We did not get a cent to harmonize our sales tax with the GST.

Those are two examples of unfair treatment. This agency should not be a further source of unfairness.

Secondly, care must be taken to ensure that clause 71 does not open the door to any other form of federal interference in areas under provincial jurisdiction. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture said, and I quote: "Bill C-60 states that the compensation to be paid to cattle owners following the destruction of their animals or things under the Health of Animals Act must be taken from the Consolidated Revenue Fund".

For example, if your herd is hit by brucellosis and a decision is made to destroy the whole herd, the Consolidated Revenue Fund must compensate the loss. The CFA goes even farther, considering that the cost incurred for cure, quarantine, cleaning and replacement of damaged or destroyed goods, restocking, etc., should be included and mentioned in the bill, and included in clause 71. Such a clause will guarantee that farmers will not be disadvantaged because they reported their cattle to be ill.

As agriculture critic, I worked with a farmer living near Rivière-du-Loup whose flock developed scrapie. The quarantine imposed was not 40 days, as most Canadians probably think, but five years. During this time, the farmer could not sell, kill, eat or make money in any way with his sheep. Most farmers must withdraw from business when confronted to that situation.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois will propose a series of amendments to Bill C-60 to try to improve it. We will also invite the government party to co-operate so this bill will benefit the general public.

[Co-Operatives, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak about the national co-op week.

As you probably know, the co-op movement has existed in this country since the beginning of the 19th century. The first co-op was a mutual fire insurance company that had its roots in a rural area. However, at the dawn of the 20th century, co-ops no longer restricted their activities to this sector. Indeed, many co-ops were active in sectors such as egg grading, cream processing and grain marketing. The fact is that, in the agricultural supply and marketing

sectors, co-ops were the primary promoters of the Canadian co-op movement.

In Quebec, the biggest promoter was undoubtedly Alphonse Desjardins who, in 1900, founded the first credit union, in Lévis. As we know, the Mouvement Desjardins is now one of the largest financial institutions in Quebec, with assets totalling several billions of dollars. I would be remiss in not mentioning the base, the foundation of the co-op movement, as well as the spirit that guides it. Mutual help, democracy, fairness, solidarity, equality and autonomy are all values that reflect the co-operative movement and the people that are part of it.

In this national co-op week, I want to pay tribute to all those who believe in the co-op movement, who support it, and who play an active role in it. I simply want to thank them.

At the end of 1993, the number of co-ops in the country was estimated at close to 10,000. Therefore, it makes sense to say that the co-op movement plays an increasingly important role in terms of shaping our society and our lifestyle. Whether it is marketing and supply co-ops, production and service co-ops, or financial co-ops, the economy benefits through co-operation.

In 1993, the business transactions of marketing and supply co-ops totalled over $8.8 billion. These co-ops had assets worth about $3.1 billion, and close to $1.2 billion was financed personally by the members. At the same time, the social solidarity and co-operation generated close to 18,000 full-time jobs.

As a former member of the board of the Caisse populaire of Garthby, and the Caisse populaire of Disraëli, and as former chairman of the board of the Société mutuelle contre les incendies du comté de Wolfe, I am aware of the importance and the strength of the co-op movement.

I should also point out that it is in the riding of Frontenac, which I have the honour of representing, that we find the largest co-op of maple syrup producers in the world. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to its members, on behalf of my voters.

[Oceans Act, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, under the Constitution Act of 1867, there is a division of powers. There is little doubt that navigable waters come under federal jurisdiction, since many people in this huge country could use waters like the St. Lawrence River, the Richelieu River or the Ottawa River, too name only a few. We agree with that.

However, I mentioned a moment ago some lakes in Northern Quebec. There are thousands and thousands of lakes and rivers which, I am sure, are totally under Quebec jurisdiction. The minister is trying to assume control of navigation on lakes by requiring the registration of boats, and I am not prepared to accept that. We must condemn such action.

I remember the former Liberal Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, who, little by little, assumed powers which were not federal to start with. His philosophy was a weak Quebec and a strong Canada, the goal was to bring the provinces down to the level of small municipalities. These was your goal, was it not? You were in this House at the time. We will not let you do it. We will not let this government do it and I can guarantee that we will make sure that Quebec jurisdiction is fully protected.

Once again it is shameful that the Liberal Party, using its majority in the House, should impose a fee structure so ridiculous that it will require registration of all boats and penalize children who are simply going to play on the rivers and the lakes. The Liberal Party will be held responsible for penalizing young people, in Quebec and elsewhere in this huge country.

Once again I urge the government to sit down with the provinces and talk strategy with its partners. You are not the only government in this country. There are other provinces, there are two territories. Do you think that the other provinces are willing to give up their jurisdiction? I do not think so. If you give an inch to the federal government it will take a foot and if you give it a foot it will take every last body of water.

I hope the government will review its positions and will reread the notes from consultations it held throughout the country, since more than three quarters of those who were consulted are opposed to Bill C-26.

This reminds me of the Prime Minister, who said last week that General Boyle was the best and that there would not be a new defence minister every 12 months, as under the Conservatives. He insisted on defending his general and his defence minister, and today, the whole house of cards is collapsing. I think you and I, Mr. Speaker, could get a bet going on how long General Boyle will keep his job. Will he hang on till the end of the week?

In conclusion, I urge the government to show some humility by withdrawing large portions of Bill C-26, particularly with regard to the registration of craft on small bodies of water under provincial jurisdiction.

[Oceans Act, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague had only listened to my whole speech, and not only to the parts he did not like, he would know that I think some components of Bill C-26 are commendable.

However, for this strategy to be implemented successfully, we had better define the relations between partners clearly. Why is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans interfering in provincial jurisdiction once again? There is Lac Aylmer, big Lac Saint-François, and Lac Bisby, where the water is barely 18 inches deep. You want to have licences for pedal boats? This is utterly ridiculous. These taxpayers will never see a coast guard officer.

I can just imagine the Minister trying to get teenagers of 14, 15 or 16 years of age to take a training course on the basics of pedal boating. Are you seriously trying to run the country, Canada, by interfering in such a blatant and clumsy way in areas under provincial jurisdiction?

Then there is Saint-François River, that I used to go down on a makeshift raft when I was a kid. Will children at play have to get a $5 to $20 licence from the department when everybody knows that, according to the user pay principle, we should pay for services we get, patrols for instance?

In this regard, I named the bodies of water where the coast guard mighty be seen, but in my riding, in all of the Eastern Townships, we never see a coast guard officer. What we will see is collectors. To begin with, the fee for a pedal boat will be $5 but, again, in five, six or seven years, $5 will escalate to $60 or $70. This is utterly ridiculous.

This is why we in the Bloc Quebecois are afraid of these new fee setting powers, and why we did not hesitate a moment to vigorously condemn Bill C-26; of course, all of us in the Bloc Quebecois will vote against it. I sincerely hope that the Liberal government will sit down and go over the consultations it held, as well as those held by the coast guard, and change its mind. To err is human, and going ahead with this piece of legislation will be one of the worst mistakes the government has made over the past two years.

In spite of a few good things in Bill C-26, when you look at the whole thing, it is glaringly obvious that it must be defeated.

[Oceans Act, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand today to speak on Bill C-26, an act respecting the oceans of Canada.

Many speakers have dealt with this bill since it was introduced in Parliament, and everything would indicate that, true to the spirit of his party and of the government, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will refuse to entertain the amendments proposed by the official opposition.

It must be said that the Prime Minister and his cabinet have a tendency to draft legislation without taking into account the official opposition's criticisms and analyses, which are all the more significant since they often represent the concerns of those most affected by the actions of the government, and that the government responds only to the large corporations that give substantial amounts to the Liberal coffers. The lobbyists that gravitate around the government are so powerful that we have to ask ourselves who really runs the country. Is it the Prime Minister, from his offices in the Langevin Block, or the Yonge Street moguls?

In any case, there are so many examples of this that it would take all the time allocated to this debate to list them all. I propose to examine Bill C-26, before the House today, and you be in a better position to understand my point of view.

The rules proposed by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans are certainly commendable in many respects. Setting up a system of standards to regulate the marine sector and allied industries demonstrates a willingness to harmonize the government's vision with the outlook of the major players in this field. However, if we take a closer look at the main elements of this bill, we see, surprisingly, that this is not the case.

Let us take, for example, the pleasure craft registration plan. If the minister limited this scheme to the registration of merchant vessels and tourist ships, it would provide for a better control of shipping. In this perspective, the government could ensure a logical and accurate classification of craft. But this is not the case. The minister is proposing to have all types of craft registered, whatever their intended use. Can you imagine the costs related to such an initiative? I think the minister's idea is totally absurd and suggests a certain lack of vision on the part of his advisers.

The minister's bill proposes a fee schedule based on the type of craft, ranging from $5 to $35 annually. Would it really be

necessary and appropriate to register one's pedal boat for $5 a year? I ask the question, Mr. Speaker, and it has nothing to do with the minimal costs involved.

Of course, the first year, Canadians will be told they must pay a $5 annual fee to register their pedal boat. So it may be $5 the first year, but since the government will have the self-financing of this registration system as a short term objective, I can assure you that, within five years, the cost of registering a pedal boat will no longer be $5, but $20, $25 or $30 annually. But the government is not telling us that now.

It is nice to know that ridicule never killed anyone because if it did, while we are debating this absurd idea, all the flags in this country would be lowered at half-mast and Canadians would be in mourning for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

But let us get back to what interests us, rather than the minister's state of mind. Setting aside the legislative excesses of the minister himself, this bill is the result of public consultations. At least, that is what the minister says. According to research done by the Bloc Quebecois, three quarters of the witnesses that appeared before the fisheries committee said they were against the introduction of this legislative measure. The Canadian coast guard itself carried out a series of consultations in which almost all those interviewed were against the proposed fee structure.

If you are still with me, and I am sure you are, you should see the connection with my introduction very easily. I continue.

In no way has the coast guard taken into consideration the representations and testimony heard during its consultations. From this point of view, what makes the minister think he can draft even the most elementary bill? I put the question again.

With a consultation process that was biased from the beginning, it was inevitable that they would come up with a hodge podge of vaguely logical standards that are so ridiculous as to defy comprehension, which in the end is rather typical of the present government and its leader.

Furthermore, one is entitled to wonder how appropriate it is for the coast guard to register all pleasure craft for control purposes, when this body, which reports through the department, only patrols the St. Lawrence, the Saguenay, the Richelieu and the Ottawa rivers.

Why should the coast guard take it upon itself to tax pedal boats on the Lac de l'Est, when the coast guard will never in its life be seen on that lake, its work in Quebec being limited at present to the St. Lawrence, the Saguenay, the Richelieu and the Ottawa rivers.

They would have us believe that the user pay concept is involved, but what about the thousands of lakes and the hundreds and hundreds of navigable rivers in Quebec? In my region, for example, there is Lac Aylmer, little Lac Saint-François, big Lac Saint-François, Lac Bisby, Lac Rond, Lac à la Truite, Lac William, Lac Bécancour, and Lac Bolduc by Saint-Méthode, where people will eventually have to pay to register their rowboats, 6 h.p. outboards, and pedal boats, but where no Canadian coast guard officer will ever be seen.

The real reason, the reason the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is trying so desperately to keep from us, is very simple. Furthermore, the coast guard official from Quebec mentioned it. He came right out and said it: "We are $14 million short in our operating budget". I bet that getting the missing $14 million will cost the coast guard some $16, $18, or $20 million in administration costs, salaries and paper work. That is administration as this government sees it, and clear proof of what the federal government really has in mind, and particularly of its roundabout way of getting what it wants.

Still, I never would have believed that the government would stoop so low as to make people register pedal boats, rowboats or kayaks. Why not those little rafts that we probably all built as teenagers in May, then left to rot away on shore when fall came around? And all for the purpose of cost recovery.

Of course, people might well support charging registration fees for seadoos or high power launches. But imposing a fee for a sailboard, when the coast guard provides no services to its owner, might be overdoing it just a bit. And they dare bring up the concept that is so popular right now: user pay.

The minister does not even stop there; he proposes a pleasure craft handling course, and fines, somewhat along the line of the firearms safety courses that are given everywhere in the country. Could the department be intending to make the owners or operators or rowboats and pedal boats take training? You can see just how silly it could all get.

I cannot help but be amused at the idea of my children having to take a pedal boat handling course, or my son Martin having to pay a fine for having done some fancy acrobatics on his sailboard. Of course he would have to have been caught in such an act on the St.Lawrence, Richelieu, Saguenay or Ottawa rivers, for the coast guard does not, of course, patrol Lac Aylmer behind my house, nor indeed other lakes such as big Lac Saint-François or Lac de l'Est.

I just mentioned the less subtle measures in this bill. I could have taken an entirely different approach to demonstrate the absurdity of the proposed legislation. The hon. member for Gaspé broached the subject, without getting the slightest bit of attention from the minister. At best, certain amendments may be discussed, but the impact of that exercise is predictable.

The federal government, through its Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, has once again shown its lack of concern for public consultation. The public disagrees with the principle of this bill, and the government insists on adopting it regardless. One wonders about the real motives of this government, in the course of an exercise that has been under way for nearly a year.

We can readily conclude that the federal government is once again trying to invade the jurisdictions of the provinces, not only by wanting to control vessels on the waterways of Quebec and other provinces but also by setting certain environmental control standards, which clearly gives more extensive powers to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans while diminishing the role of the Department of the Environment.

The minister is intent on duplicating controls within the federal government itself, at a time when we are all desperately trying to limit and reduce this phenomenon as it occurs between the central government and the provinces. No doubt about it, the minister is going through a serious power crisis, which may explain the leadership problems within cabinet and the Prime Minister's failure to make him see reason.

Before I finish my speech, I would like to draw your attention to a situation that is even more critical and revealing of the government's intentions. Bill C-26 does not make it incumbent on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to reach agreement with other members of cabinet, any more than with officials of the Department of the Environment. This situation could lead to the kind of overlap and duplication that has not existed so far but will with the forthcoming passage of Bill C-26, since the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, on the basis of the mission he has given himself, will be able to appropriate the role of the Minister of the Environment as he sees fit.

The federal government would have the public believe it is intent on putting its financial house in order. Why not call a spade a spade? The people of Quebec are starting to understand what the federal government is really driving at and it will soon be in a position to establish its own rules, and I for one certainly hope so.

Instead of chasing after people with pedal boats or rowboats using them for recreation on provincial waterways such as Lac Saint-François, Lac William, Lac du Huit, Lac à la Truite or Lac de l'Est, in my riding, the Liberal government would be better off ensuring that the 2,000 jobs in our asbestos mines can be kept.

Instead of going after young people, instead of asking that boats such as pedal boats be registered, what is the government waiting for to invest equivalent amounts of money in defending the asbestos industry, to fight against the type of misrepresentations that were aired on TV5 in the special report called "Amiante: 50 ans de mensonges"-50 years of lying about asbestos?

To conclude, I again urge the government to listen to its ambassador to France, who only two weeks ago suggested it launch a major campaign to promote the safe use of asbestos.

[Asbestos, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked an answer from the Prime Minister himself since this issue affects 2,000 jobs in my region. Furthermore, it is the Prime Minister himself who should be holding talks with the French President.

Since the World Health Organization recently pointed out the risks associated with the use of asbestos, will the government finally wake up and take vigorous action to promote within this organization the safe use of asbestos, as provided for in Directive 161 adopted by the WHO in Geneva?

[Asbestos, October 1st, 1996]

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

Last week, federal officials met with the mayors of the towns in Quebec's asbestos-producing region and the main stakeholders in this sector. During this meeting, no federal official was able to specify what financial support the government could provide to fight the French decision.

What is the Prime Minister waiting for to financially support Quebec's strategy to defend the safe use of chrysotile asbestos?

[Asbestos, September 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on July 3 this year, France announced a ban on the use of chrysotile asbestos on French territory.

Faced with this situation, the Quebec government has prepared a very specific action plan. The strategy includes developing counter-expertise and organizing an international seminar on the safe use of asbestos.

However, the federal government has yet to do anything concrete to save 2,000 jobs directly connected with the industry in my region, aside from the Prime Minister's personal commitment to speak to President Chirac.

Only three months remain before the French ban takes effect. This government's failure to act is trying the patience of the people of Frontenac. The Prime Minister should rally to the Quebec government's action plan and invest the funds necessary to save these 2,000 jobs. This is an emergency, and the Prime Minister should act now.

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

-because he had to work the next day.

Now, we wanted a triple E Senate. Efficient, not asleep on the job. When I used to hire people to work on our farm, if I had found the guy I was paying to clear stones asleep on the job, he would not have worked for long.

Thank you for your kind attention, and long live a triple E Senate, maybe.