Jean-Guy Chrétien

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the member for Lincoln for his great speech. Of course, his speech was typical of Liberal supporters who, of course, will fully approve, whatever the content of the Minister of Finance's budget.

A recent opinion poll suggested that barely four per cent of Canadians trusted their politicians. Unfortunately, the quality of our members of Parliament and ministers, the present Minister of Finance in particular, is no help in improving this meagre four per cent our constituents are giving us. With four per cent, we might just as well say we are in the basement. Since the margin of error is plus or minus three per cent, one might wonder whether it is one per cent or seven per cent. If it really is one per cent, it could mean only their friends.

Speaking of credibility, Mr. Mulroney, on taking office in 1984, said: "Let me run this country for 20 years, and you will not recognize the country". We put our trust in him for nine years and, in fact, after nine years, Canada-or Quebec-is almost unrecognizable.

When Mr. Mulroney took office, the Liberals had accumulated a $250 billion debt. Oddly enough, this morning, not one member opposite mentioned that fact. Yet, these Liberals are the ones who created this outrageous deficit of $250 billion.

Mr. Mulroney took over the government with a deficit of $250 billion and brought it to $500 billion. Two years and a few months after the Liberals came back in office, the amount is over $600 billion-from $500 to $600 billion. It seems that the bigger the deficit, the less scary it is.

The member for Lincoln should also understand that these Liberals are ruining our reputations as politicians. The Deputy Prime Minister, the member for Hamilton, promised to resign if, after twelve months, the GST had not been scrapped. What did she do? Yesterday, she did not hesitate to vote against a motion, a silly motion, I must say.

In this budget-and I would like the member for Lincoln to tell us why-the Minister of Finance did absolutely nothing to reform the tax system in order to eliminate the numerous tax shelters that allow people to pay less taxes, something he himself is an expert at. On the contrary, he targeted the unemployed, farmers, women and young people. This is the future the Liberal Party is preparing for us.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 21st, 1996]

Now, there is a friend of mine.

[Supply, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I remember very well that, in the report he submitted 12 months ago, the auditor general, Mr. Desautels, talked about $6.6 billion in unpaid taxes. Most of this $6.6 billion in unpaid federal taxes was owed by very wealthy people and large corporations.

There is no need to spend $700,000 or $800,000 on friends of the government to find ways to collect the money owed us. One of my neighbours owed money to the government, so they seized his assets. He was an ordinary man of modest means. They seized his assets, sold his pick-up truck and gave him about $100 that was left over after they collected their taxes. No review committee is needed to go after this $6.6 billion. Only $200 million was recovered after a year. This is no cause for celebration.

[Supply, March 19th, 1996]

You will have to wait for a long time.

[Supply, March 19th, 1996]

You also put 500,000 people out of work; therefore, the end result is zero.

[Supply, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, of course, I will not go as far as to commend the Minister of Finance for this initiative, which I think is phoney. I remember very well that, last week, the Secretary of State for Agriculture, no less, told me they had consulted with dairy producers before cutting their subsidies by $8,000 a year on average.

He seemed to suggest that dairy producers had agreed to let the Minister of Finance cut their subsidies by $8,000 a year. In fact, dairy producers were not consulted. I simply wanted to draw an analogy with the phoney consultation our good Minister of Finance is in the process of setting up.

He is travelling all over the place to sell his ideas, which we are already familiar with. Earlier, my distinguished colleague from Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies talked about numerous Canadian companies that get incorporated in islands with very low tax rates, including the Bahamas. The Minister of Finance, who is listening to us, knows exactly what I mean, since he himself takes advantage of some corporate tax loopholes.

The consultations they are about to hold remind me of those that took place in the dairy industry. A few days before the referendum-and I would like my colleague to comment on this-Laurent Beaudoin was interviewed on Maisonneuve à l'écoute . In response to Mr. Maisonneuve's question, the Chairman and CEO of Bombardier revealed that they had paid no income tax in the last three years and that he could not even remember the last year in which they had paid taxes.

You must be uncomfortable. Your hands must be shaking when you vote in favour of legislation cutting funds for the little people, including UI recipients, when you let millionaires, even billionaires avoid taxes entirely. There is no need to consult anyone.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, you acted somewhat like King Solomon, which is very much appreciated.

I listened with much interest to the Minister of Human Resources Development, who, of course, was not about to criticize the budget of his colleague, the Minister of Finance. It was to be expected. However, I could criticize the member from Acadia, a riding that is not, relatively speaking, the richest of the country-no insult intended for its citizens-because his government is reducing the deficit largely at the expense of the little people.

It is for a good reason then that, in his own riding, the government's budget as well as its UI reform are being criticized. Are there any measures on tax shelters in the budget? No. Does the budget contain measures to tax big corporations, and I take the liberty of quoting the president of Bombardier, who does not remember the last year he paid one cent of tax to the federal government? What is there in the budget on major corporations-and the Minister of Finance himself is right in there-who register their boats in the Bahamas? There is absolutely nothing against that.

What is there in the budget for job creation, which was the Prime Minister's slogan-"Jobs, jobs, jobs". Nothing, except for the meagre $60 million more or the $60 million already earmarked for summer career jobs for students. There is nothing for job creation. This budget does not get a passing grade.

I invite the minister to take a few minutes to try to explain to his constituents, among others, how this budget is fair and equitable, particularly for ordinary people.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing surprising about what my distinguished colleague told this House. Just this weekend, milk producers were asking me: "Why are Bloc members the only MPs rising in the House of Commons to represent our interests?" I can understand their feelings.

I had our research staff dig out the following information. New Brunswick-represented by only one opposition member, a Conservative-accounts for 1.25 per cent of all industrial milk production. There is not much point in making tremendous efforts. Nova Scotia, 1.32 per cent, all Liberals. I have not seen one Liberal member rise in this House to oppose the government. Prince Edward Island, 1.91 per cent. All Liberals anyway. They are playing dead. Saskatchewan, 2.49 per cent; Manitoba, 3.76 per cent; British Columbia, 4.31 per cent; and Alberta, 6.52 per cent.

The members representing these provinces cannot be relied on, especially Liberals. There is, of course, the leader of the Conserva-

tive Party who represents a riding in Quebec. I shall direct the following question to him: "Hon. member for Sherbrooke, why do you not rise in this House to defend the interests of your constituents?" He remains as mute as a maggot.

As for the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, who boasted about coming to Ottawa to defend his farmers, these producers, whom I met, asked me: "What is our MP doing for us in Ottawa?" My answer was: "He remains as mute as a maggot. He does not say a word in your defence". That is true. Take a look in Hansard and show me when he rose in this House to defend his farmers. Never.

Ontario produces 30 per cent of all industrial milk in the country, while Quebec produces 47.57 per cent.

I did not see a single Ontarian rise in this House, not one, but that is understandable: 98 out of 99 are Liberals. They are buying their finance minister's budget. They will applaud it even if it is no good. That is why only Bloc members are rising in this House to represent the interests of Quebec milk producers.

What our producers will be forced to do is to go before the Canadian Dairy Commission to request a price increase. If they do not, some of them are facing bankruptcy, while others will literally be working for peanuts.

Did you know that each 10 per cent increase in the price of butter entails a 7 per cent drop in sales? All this because a number of consumers will no longer be able to afford to buy butter at the price it will have to sell for.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, to pick up where I left off, I was in the midst of condemning the unfairness of the finance minister's last budget. I was saying that nearly 50 per cent of Canada's industrial milk comes from Quebec, and that the farmers in my region produce 10 per cent of Quebec's industrial milk.

I was also saying that the Minister of Finance will cut Quebec dairy producers' income by five to seven per cent. I was demonstrating how unfair it is by using the rule of three-and I urge dairy producers to listen closely to my reasoning. Last year, the Minister of Finance paid close to $3 billion to grain producers in western Canada in compensation for eliminating grain transport subsidies. The Liberal government gave $1.6 billion out of this $3 billion to individual grain producers, depending on the size of their farms. Again, this $1.6 billion was not taxable and, by giving $1.6 billion to grain producers, the government will save $560 million in the future. As a result of eliminating dairy subsidies, the government will save $160 million in Quebec. If, in order to save $560 million, the government spent $1.6 billion, how much should it pay dairy producers in compensation for the $160 million in cuts? Using the rule of three, I arrive at some $400 million.

The Liberal government is imposing a $400 million penalty on dairy producers, if we want to be as fair to them as to grain producers in the west.

The agriculture minister stated earlier that he had consulted with dairy producers. With all due respect, what he said is wrong. Last weekend, I toured five ridings and met with dozens of dairy producers. I have here a statement showing that, for all of January, the Canadian Dairy Commission paid a dairy producer in my riding $506 in subsidies.

Would dairy producers accept losses of $7,000 or $8,000 a year? No way. What the minister should tell us is that he indeed consulted, but with milk processors, not dairy producers.

Dairy producers managed to adjust to competition by reducing costs.

Today, they are being rewarded with cuts of five to seven per cent, which represent average losses of $8,000 per dairy farm in Quebec. The government is being unfair.

This government told us that it had not raised taxes. That is true. It will, however, raise the cost of the food basket, including dairy products like butter and cheese. The cuts imposed by this government will translate into a price increase of 28 cents a pound for butter and 50 cents a kilo for cheddar cheese.

I therefore condemn the 1996 budget as unfair to dairy producers across Canada.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, since 1970, Canada showed discipline by setting up a supply management system in the agricultural sector. Over the last 25 years, dairy, poultry and egg producers had to show self-discipline and comply with strict rules under this supply management system.

These producers have quotas which they must reach but not exceed. Everyone benefits: the producers, the processors and the consumers. Producers are guaranteed a stable price for their product, and processors benefit from a reliable, quality and stable supply; As for consumers, they benefit from a very high quality product at a fair and reasonable cost.

But then our good Minister of Finance decided to get involved. In March 1995, one year ago, he announced that subsidies to industrial milk producers would be reduced by 30 per cent over a two-year period. Twelve months later, the same Minister of Finance, a Liberal member representing the urban riding of LaSalle-Émard, once again targets industrial milk producers, and particularly Quebec's 12,000 industrial producers, who provide close to 50 per cent of the country's industrial milk.

To make things worse and even more unfair, in his 1995 budget, the minister not only reduced the subsidy by $560 million, thereby committing an injustice, but he also allocated close to $3 billion to western producers.

And in order to save the full amount of the milk subsidy he is abolishing, in order to save $160 million, he comes up with nothing to compensate the milk producers. These folks should not expect to be defended by Liberal members of this House.

I recall the Liberal candidate who won the election in Brome-Missisquoi, who is sitting here. There he is, looking at me obviously. He went around his riding saying: "I am going to Ottawa to defend you, to represent you", and this was in a largely rural riding. What does he have to say about these unfair cuts to milk producers? He remains silent. He does not say a word. And again on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, I visited five ridings to meet with milk producers. They asked me: "Where are our government members in Ottawa?" Let us face it, MPs from the western provinces and the Maritimes will not be heard defending milk producers here. They hardly have any in their provinces: 50 per cent of milk producers are in Quebec and 30 per cent in Ontario.

But in Ontario, of 99 MPs, only one is a member of the Reform Party. I ask the 98 Liberal MPs from Ontario, what have you said in defence of your industrial milk producers? Nothing. We have not heard a peep out of you.

Last year, you managed to find $3 billion in compensation for western grain producers, but for milk producers in Quebec and Ontario, you came up empty.

So, the only ones you will see speaking out in this House against this unfair situation are the members of the Bloc Quebecois.

I remember very clearly at the time of the last referendum in Quebec hearing the leader of the opposition, a Liberal, say in the riding of Portneuf: "You cannot vote no, you are getting a subsidy from the government in Ottawa for your industrial milk". As it happens, I have been to see one of my friends, a producer, who told me about the subsidy he received for the month of January.

Mr. Speaker, would you like me to continue after question period?