Jean-Guy Chrétien

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the speech made by the most senior member of this House. The hon. member sometimes referred to the budget, sometimes to the speech from the throne, and sometimes to more or less concise interpretations regarding the budget.

I want to remind our most senior member that everything that goes up must come down. While it is true that the Liberal Party ousted the Conservative Party from this House, it is also true that, in 1984, the Liberal Party was severely decimated. What is there about job creation in the recent budget tabled by the Minister of Finance? Nothing, absolutely nothing, except that the government will double the very minimal amount allocated for summer jobs for students.

I am talking about job creation, because in 1993, in its red book, the Liberal government boasted about creating jobs, jobs, jobs. The fact is that when 20 jobs are created in one region of the country, 19 are lost in another region. So, when the government says that 560,000 jobs were created last year, let us not forget that there were massive layoffs almost equivalent in size. Consequently, the unemployment rate remains essentially the same, while at the provincial level, the numbers on the welfare rolls have increased drastically.

I wonder why the Minister of Finance, who is said to have consulted the majority of his colleagues, did not focus on job creation, instead of constantly talking about the deficit. After all, jobs are what people want. This government is no better than its predecessor; in fact, it is worse than the previous Conservative government.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct something that my distinguished colleague from Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle said. Our distinguished colleague who represents a part rural, part urban riding in this House is sticking his chest out and boasting about what a responsible budget this is, stating that it was not raising taxes for individual taxpayers or the big companies, in a word, it is not hitting anybody. There are a few points however in his speech that sound dishonest to me in that not all the truth is being said in some instances.

It is true that it did not raise taxes on fuel, tobacco and alcohol, but will he recognize however that, by going after milk subsidies in its budget, the government will be contributing to making the price of butter go up 28 cents a pound and the price of cheese 50 cents a kilo?

In fact, by eliminating over a period of five years the $4.62 per hectolitre milk subsidy, this government is directly attacking industrial milk producers and indirectly attacking all Canadian consumers, who will see their taxes go up not on alcohol, tobacco and fuel, but on their food baskets, and on butter and cheese in particular. Is that what he calls a responsible budget?

[North American Aerospacedefence Command, March 11th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to be revisiting something that I consider essential and that is denying Canada the right to impose tariff equivalents to replace import quotas on milk, poultry and eggs products. At the present time, the United States are arguing their case before a special panel set up under chapter 20 of NAFTA. The five national organizations dealing with supply management in agriculture as well as the Government of Canada are abiding by the agreements signed under the WTO.

This major trade dispute should be settled come springtime. Is the Minister of Agriculture aware that Canada has a lot to lose in this dispute, more than 138,000 jobs? Should Canada lose before this NAFTA panel, 138,000 "jobs, jobs, jobs" will be in jeopardy.

Is the Prime Minister aware that he is digging his own grave? One hundred and thirty eight thousand jobs, that is enormous. Consequently, what measures is the Minister of Agriculture going to take to win his case before the panel? Could he guarantee this House that he will defend this case as if his life depended on it?

The uncertainty in the agricultural industry in Canada is the reason why so many of our farmers are worried; and considering what the Minister of Agriculture is doing, how can they not to be worried? The government is burying its head in the sand. Is the Canadian government convinced that it will win this fight?

We must not fool ourselves. We must face reality and not hide from it. Above all, we must not hide from the consequences of a potential defeat that would undoubtedly drive many of our farmers to bankruptcy.

I wonder if the minister of agriculture intends, for example, to compensate farmers for the financial losses related to the value of their production quotas. Will the minister of agriculture and his government again go so far as to agree to make concessions to the powerful Americans a few months before the presidential election, as they did with softwood lumber, durum wheat and sugar, for example?

Let us not forget that Canada agreed to make concessions such as setting export quotas and increasing stumpage fees to make our American neighbours happy.

In the conflict between Cuba and the U.S., the timid behaviour of the Prime Minister and his Minister for International Trade puzzles farmers. Is this what awaits us? One does not play with 138,000 jobs. The government's casual handling of this matter is unacceptable, and the Bloc Quebecois formally notifies this government that it will never forgive carelessness or a moment of weakness in this matter of import tariffs on supply-managed agricultural products.

In closing, the Canadian government has the greatest cause in its hands. Everyone agrees that the Americans will be defeated, so we must not make any concession. Do not blink.

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the producers I had the pleasure of talking to last night and again this morning told me that they were not consulted personally and that they will lose between $4,000 and $6,000 a year because of this measure. Do you want us to believe that dairy producers will accept such a cut? Never.

Will the Minister of Finance recognize that this measure affecting dairy producers is unacceptable and confirms his department's double standard policy, a policy that the Bloc Quebecois has been condemning for nearly three years?

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. When the Crow benefit was abolished last year, the government recognized the importance of that subsidy by providing $3 billion in compensation. The dairy subsidy that the government is about to phase out, as a result of yesterday's budget, is just as important to milk producers. But strangely enough, there is no compensation in this case.

How can the minister explain the unfairness of this measure that will severely penalize Quebec since 50 per cent of Canada's dairy producers are in that province?

[Nafta, March 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Canada and the United States are currently involved in a dispute, under NAFTA, concerning eggs, milk and poultry. The U.S. is invoking chapter 20 of NAFTA to challenge the tariff equivalents obtained by Canada as a replacement to the supply management system in these sectors.

We recently learned that, should Canada's position be rejected by NAFTA's dispute settlement panel, some 138,000 jobs in Canada and Quebec will have disappeared by the year 2000 in Canadian agricultural sectors. In Quebec alone, there are 45,000 jobs at risk.

Given what is at stake, we cannot afford to lose. The Bloc Quebecois will continue to keep a close eye on the government's handling of this important issue.

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that, starting now, Bloc members will be splitting the 20 minutes allocated. As far as I am concerned, I will have the pleasure of sharing my speaking time with my good friend, the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe.

I take this opportunity to mention two major political developments that have occurred since last session, before Christmas, and have resulted in major changes both in the Quebec National Assembly and in the House of Commons.

On the one hand, Mr. Lucien Bouchard was elected leader of the Parti Quebecois, becoming the premier of Quebec, and on the other hand, the hon. member for Roberval was elected leader of the Bloc Quebecois. These two events have added a new dimension to the Quebec national political scene, not as regards the ultimate goal, which is sovereignty, of course, but as regards Quebec's structures.

Mr. Bouchard's reputation is firmly established and, as far as the hon. member for Roberval is concerned, I am convinced that he will ensure that the Bloc Quebecois gets the second wind it needs to carry out its mission, which is to look after Quebec's interests in Ottawa.

This being said, I have spent several weeks in my riding since the holidays. This was an opportunity for me to examine further a number of issues and travel throughout my riding without any electoral concerns. I spoke with people, but mostly I listened.

People are worried, not about the rise of the sovereignist movement in Quebec, contrary to what federalists contend all the time, but about the repressive attitude of this federal government.

They are also worried about the government's famous B plan, the plan to create fear: the fear of partitioning, to the point that there was a demonstration just across the river. There were just a few demonstrators, and the incident turned out badly for our good Prime Minister. Minutes later, the Deputy Prime Minister-this is not just any backbencher-was saying: ``It is those separatists again. It is all their fault''.

As for the drop in air traffic at Mirabel and Dorval airports, the Minister of Finance had this explanation: "If there are fewer planes in the sky and at Mirabel, it is because of the separatists". When a snowstorm hits Quebec or some other region in the country, it is the separatists' fault. And when spring finally arrives and the tulips start to grow, it will of course be thanks to the federalists. When things go well it is thanks to the federalists, but when they go bad the separatists are to blame.

I was really surprised to see that when Kevin Barry Snow, a Newfoundlander, climbed over the fence at our Prime Minister's residence, nobody stated: "Another separatist". That person happens to come from Newfoundland, so the issue of separatism was not raised.

On another note, the cuts to social programs, particularly the UI program, have major repercussions for workers. The unemployed are helpless, and feel that they are perceived as being at fault. Indeed, this government does not target unemployment but the unemployed. It punishes them by shortening the benefit period, by reducing the amount of these benefits, and by forcing people to work longer to be eligible for these benefits. This is not what Quebecers need. They need jobs.

During the last election campaign, some people all dressed up in red and carrying a red book kept saying: "Jobs, jobs, jobs. We will create jobs". The official unemployment rate may not be up, Mr. Speaker, but look at the offloading onto the provinces going on. It has led to a dramatic increase in the number of welfare recipients.

I had the opportunity to meet women and men from my riding, and it is very clear to these people that the Liberal government is overwhelmed and cannot cope with the major issues that concern all Canadians. Not only do they think that this government is out of touch with reality, they also feel that it has lost the confidence of Canadians and that all it can do is create a feeling of insecurity.

One of my constituents in the municipality of Coleraine made the following apt comment to me on the weakness of this government: "You know, Mr. Chrétien, this government does not know what tax fairness means. They did not have the nerve to tax family trusts or to abolish tax shelters for the rich, but instead they dump on ordinary folks, the elderly, the unemployed, self-employed workers, particularly in the fishing and forest industries".

During the last referendum campaign, I saw Laurent Beaudoin being interviewed on RDI. The host asked him "How much tax did you pay last year?" His answer was: "We paid no taxes last year". "How much in the way of taxes did Bombardier, the biggest company in Canada, pay two years ago?" Mr. Beaudoin replied: "None". He was then asked "What about three years ago?" The answer: "We did not pay any taxes". When asked "What was the last year for which you paid any taxes, Mr. Beaudoin?" he replied candidly "I do not remember." So much for tax fairness, Mr. Speaker.

This government has created an atmosphere of uncertainty. We hear rumours that the minimum age for old age pension eligibility will be raised to 67. You can imagine how worried the people in my riding who are 63 or 64 years old are. The government is toying with taxpayers, and this must stop, and stop immediately. The people of Frontenac are vigorously voicing their opposition to this government; there have been public demonstrations, with no holds barred in their criticism of this government.

In October 1995, the Liberals raised considerable hopes with their "jobs, jobs, jobs". Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that in the month of November 1995 alone there were 40,000 jobs lost in Canada?

The Liberals will reply: "But we created 50,000 jobs." Yes, they created 50,000, but 90,000 businesses or individuals closed down or lost their jobs. What is of interest to us is how many jobs were really created. I have a document here prepared by the Liberal Party on job creation and economic renewal during their first year. "Implementation of the national infrastructure program, which will create 90,000 direct jobs in two years." Not true. These are only figures with which they want to impress their supporters, but when the calculations are made, we realize that there is nothing to them.

I have a report from Le Soleil here which says that the Prime Minister will need to work twice as hard, keep major promises at the mid-point of his mandate. Among the promises that have not been kept-one to which the minister has just referred-there is the replacement of the goods and services tax, the GST. The Deputy Prime Minister and member for Hamilton East said: ``Give us a year in power and the GST will be scrapped''. Now two years and four months have passed and all that we have managed to get from the Minister of Finance is that the GST will undergo a name change and that they will hide it away, like hypocrites. People will keep on

paying taxes like before, but without noticing them. That is what the Liberal Government is in the process of imposing upon us.

[Agri-Food Sector, March 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what it did in the area of lumber, could the Liberal government promise not to make any concession to the Americans, but rather to use all its resources and all the means at its disposal to force the Americans to abide by the rules of the WTO?

[Agri-Food Sector, March 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Once more, Canada is having a commercial dispute with the United States with regard to the agri-food sector. Some 138,000 Canadian jobs are at stake, including 45,000 in Quebec.

Could the government commit itself to do its utmost to make sure that custom tariffs determined by the World Trade Organization in the area of milk, poultry and egg productions are not tampered with in any way because of false American claims?

[The Constitution, December 12th, 1995]

The Bloc Quebecois is very honest.