Jean-Guy Chrétien

[Agriculture, December 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's rural regions voted yes in the October 30 referendum. Following that, the federal Minister of Agriculture showed up at the UPA congress and said that he got the message. This is quite the change, considering that the last federal budget dealt a direct blow to the agricultural sector.

Producers are asking that Quebec's programs not be tampered with, and that federal spending in the agricultural sector be spread fairly. The minister has his work all cut out, given that he only spends 10 per cent of his budget in Quebec, that he still managed to close three research centres in the province, including the one in La Pocatière, and that he also reduced dairy subsidies by 30 per cent.

I do not know what gimmick the minister will use to try to prove that Ottawa looks after Quebec's agricultural interests. But I do know that the facts speak for themselves and that agricultural producers are not dumb.

[Recognition Of Quebec As A Distinct Society, December 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today is important for me personally, as a Quebec nationalist and as a member of the Bloc Quebecois in this 35th Parliament, as I have an opportunity to participate in this debate on the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society, even if all that was tabled before this House was a motion.

Before starting my remarks, I must say that it is rather late, in 1995, almost 1996, to realize that Quebec is different from Ontario, from the west and from the maritimes.

I remember, of course, the great statement of love tens of thousands of Canadians outside Quebec made on October 30. I clearly remember New Brunswick Premier Frank McKenna coming and telling us, on the one hand, that he loved us. On the other hand, he toured industries on the periphery of his province, saying: "Come and do business with us; we love our Quebec friends". He was trying to steal our industries away from us. Love, yes, but as long as it is profitable. The Canadian federation has been extremely profitable to Ontario in particular for several centuries now.

By putting forward these proposals for change, including the one dealing with recognizing Quebec as a distinct society, the Prime Minister of Canada acts on the promise he made himself to trick the leader of the Bloc Quebecois before he leaves. The Prime Minister said: "I dream of the day when I will rise in this House to vote for Quebec's recognition as a distinct society and smile as I watch the Leader of the Opposition vote against it".

This is the Prime Minister speaking, a member from Quebec, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice, who, unfortunately, does not travel to Quebec often enough and, as a result, is literally out of touch with the francophone public opinion in Quebec. Twenty days before the referendum, like Claude Garcia, he was telling everybody: "We are going to crush the Quebecers and have a 65 per cent victory". Can you see how out of touch from his home province this man is?

That was a petty thing to say, a much too petty strategy, but it is true to form for the Prime Minister and member for Saint-Maurice.

This motion recognizing Quebec as a distinct society is not the result of a sensible reflection with the interest of the country or the betterment of the Canadian and Quebec society in mind, let alone a major change to save the country.

No, the Prime Minister's reflection was not based on these noble intentions, but rather on the desire to get back at the Leader of the Opposition and to discredit him.

Revenge and discredit are inappropriate guides at a time when the survival of two nations is at stake. But neither the people of Canada nor the people of Quebec are fooled by the Prime Minister's scheme or by the Deputy Prime Minister's crocodile tears.

The people understand that this distinct society proposal that was cobbled together even before the committee made its recommendations and that has been revealed as phoney, this motion that recognizes Quebec's distinct society in such a superficial way is outdated and is no longer an issue in Quebec for both sovereignists and federalists who want serious changes.

Again, this shows how the Prime Minister is totally out of touch with Quebec reality. His fanaticism prevents him from understanding the message sent to him on October 30 by the people of Quebec.

In this regard, even partisan federalist newspapers are criticizing the Prime Minister. In the November 29 edition of La Presse , for example, Alain Dubuc writes, and I quote: ``The Chrétien government's first timid effort mostly shows that it has great difficulty in understanding what is happening in Quebec and Canada and, above all, in accepting changes that we see as inevitable''.

They all agree that recognizing Quebec as a distinct society only through a declaration in the House of Commons does not resolve the underlying problem. Even entrenching this later in the Constitution no longer satisfies the aspirations of Quebecers.

The Liberal government has missed the boat and neither the Leader of the Opposition nor the members of the Bloc Quebecois will be embarrassed to vote against this motion. On the contrary, adopting this motion would be a major setback in Quebec's path to its recognition as a people.

As Gérald Larose used to say, we do not want to be bothered with distinct society any more. What we want now is to be a normal, quiet people.

Quebec is sick of these meaningless slogans, of being a society at the mercy of Ottawa's and English Canada's whims, of a Prime Minister who denies ever having said what he said, both before and after he says it.

If the official opposition accepted this motion, Quebec would be seriously weakened since, as everyone acknowledges, Ottawa's distinct society proposal does not go as far as the Meech Lake accord and the Charlottetown accord, which both Quebec and the rest of Canada rejected.

The Prime Minister's motion through which the House would recognize Quebec's distinctiveness cannot in any way be considered a response to the demand for change expressed by Quebecers in the October 30 referendum. We must keep in mind that, a little over a month ago, 50 per cent of Quebecers voted in favour of Quebec's sovereignty, while the other 50 per cent voted for a major renewal of Canadian federalism.

The motion before us falls short of Quebecers' aspirations. It is unacceptable, for both sovereignists and federalists.

Once again, the Prime Minister of Canada has made the wrong decision, as all Quebecers and Canadians know. That is why I think that the Prime Minister will not find it so funny on election day.

In closing, one can laugh at a people some of the time, but not all of the time.

[Political Party Fundraising, December 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would, first off, like to pay tribute to the member for Gatineau-La Lièvre for tabling this motion. Although very timid for a party like the Bloc Quebecois, the motion is revolutionary for the Liberal Party of Canada.

For the benefit of those watching us, I will take the liberty of rereading the motion:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of reviewing and reforming funding for political parties.

It is very little. In fact, it is almost lip service. However, when I looked in the May 6, 1994, issue of Hansard , I found words, in the context of a similar debate, that were quite surprising coming from a federal Liberal. I will quote some of them.

"I maintain, and I am not the only one, that the way political parties are funded leaves much to be desired". A certain former prime minister currently under investigation is suing the Government of Canada. If we had a good policy on funding

political parties in this country, I am sure this sort of situation would not arise.

For over two years now, Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting in your company in this place. The people in my riding claim my salary is high. But, for me to become a millionaire in politics, someone will have to augment my monthly income.

And yet, I know people who have done nothing but politics and who are said to be millionaires tens of times over. They probably know how to manage their pay better than I do.

I would, however, like to quote in passing a few extracts from the speech by my colleague for Gatineau-La Lièvre. I remind you that he went to the right school, my colleague for Gatineau-La Lièvre, because he sat in Quebec's National Assembly. He said:

No companies, no legal, architectural or engineering firms. We all know the gamut of contributors to party funds. There is no need to elaborate. I do not think that large contributions are made out of love for democracy. We must absolutely look at this issue. I say this as the member for Gatineau-La Lièvre.

The text I have just quoted is on page 4019 of the House of Commons Debates for May 6, 1994.

Clearly the member for Gatineau-La Lièvre knows what he is talking about, because I took the liberty of checking with the office of the returning officer to see how the member for Gatineau-La Lièvre financed his electoral campaign in 1993. These figures are official, and anyone can go and check them with Elections Canada. In this member's case, individual contributions totalled $15,168, which represents 55 per cent of his financing, and corporate contributions amounted to $12,311, or 44 per cent.

I also took the liberty of checking in the riding of Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister's riding. Individual contributions accounted for only 25 per cent, whereas corporate contributions accounted for 33 per cent. One union contributed $5,500, and, obviously, funds were transferred to him from his party, given that he was in their good graces.

Obviously, when we know who is funding the party in power, we can think about their intentions. On October 3, 1994, the Quebec City paper Le Soleil ran a headline to the effect that the Liberal and Conservative parties could thank major corporations for funding the political parties. I will give you a few examples. Listen carefully, Mr. Speaker, I think this is worthwhile.

The largest contribution was to the Conservative Party in the amount of $216,000. It was made by a company recorded only as T'ANG Management Limited. Give me one good reason why this company gave $216,000 to the Conservative Party, led by Ms. Campbell. Give me one single reason. The member for Gatineau-La Lièvre said in May 1994 that it certainly was not out of love for democracy.

If it is not out of love for democracy, does it fly in the face of this democracy? In the red book, the party opposite me made the commitment to change the way political parties were funded. Brian Mulroney decided to do the same thing a week before the 1988 elections. He did nothing.

In the Conservative Party, there was a member as courageous as the member for Gatineau-La Lièvre, François Gérin, the former member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead. Not only did he advocate that political parties should be funded exclusively by voters, he applied this principle, rejecting any contribution from law, engineering or architectural firms, businesses, large or small, or unions. Unfortunately the member for Gatineau-La Lièvre did not do the same in 1993 since he accepted quite generous contributions from corporations of his riding and elsewhere.

This morning, the Royal Bank of Canada announced net profits of $1.3 billion. Why do banks make that much money? Because they have connections in government. By feeding Grits and Tories alike, they are not taking any chance. They are sure to be on the right side and to have favourable laws. For instance, the Royal Bank of Canada gave $88,700 to the Liberal Party and $85,300 to the Conservatives in 1993. Banks are not taking any chance.

Do you think that this party is serious about modernizing political funding? What was this same party doing just six weeks ago in Quebec? It flouted Quebec democracy by throwing money left and right three days before the referendum to arrange a big love-in. This nearly reached the no side's spending limit. Unfortunately it will not be accounted for. All they will get is a $10,000 fine.

They paid the salary of civil servants and teachers for that day. They closed schools and offices to allow civil servants in Hull and Ottawa to go to Montreal so they could show their affection, which lasted for an hour or so. Democracy was not respected in Quebec on that day. Some no side posters were even put up illegally.

The Reform Party is not without guilt either. It will be remembered that, in 1993, they accepted $25,000 from the Canadian Pacific and $10,000 from John Labatt. Naturally the sums were more modest but the corporations knew that the Reform Party had no chance whatsoever of coming to power. The Liberals had a heyday and they welcomed the opportunity. I hope the Prime Minister will not be prosecuted or come under investigation 4, 5, 6

or 10 years from now. If we believe in democracy, we must make a certain effort.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, November 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's thinly disguised threats to the CBC, which he accuses of not fulfilling its mandate as a promoter of Canadian unity, are an attack on the freedom of the press.

It is therefore not surprising that the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec has launched a petition aimed at preserving the independence of that crown corporation. The FPJQ feels that the Prime Minister has questioned the corporation's independence from the government.

For the Bloc members, there is nothing ambiguous about the message between the lines of what has been said by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the minister of fisheries: the CBC is vulnerable to government pressure.

Now one wonders whether the scope of the budget cuts is not a form of reprisal by the Prime Minister, who has never accepted the change in the CBC's mandate and sees it as nothing more than a propaganda organ.

[Auditor General Act, November 20th, 1995]

He won in Bonaventure, but he lost in the Magdalen Islands. Close to 60 per cent of the voters on the

Islands voted against him. There is one Liberal member of the Quebec legislature, Georges Farrah, however, and one in Ottawa, who barely got 40 per cent. That really requires a colossal amount of nerve.

I was teaching ecology at the Disraeli comprehensive high school when several million dollars were spent there. The Liberals were not in government at the time, of course; it was the member for Sherbrooke who was acting as Minister of the Environment. He had organized a television show in prime time Sunday evening, coast to coast, paid for by the taxpayers, on the Green Plan, six billion dollars over five years. That turned into five billion over six years, and got watered down and watered down, until today no trace remains. Nobody knows what became of the Green Plan.

In the schools we showed videotapes of it, which provided our young students with some glimmer of hope about the environment and sustainable development. Now it has been junked. In the waste basket. And that is where the environmental commissioner is headed.

The intent is to water the thing down so much that it will end up in the waste basket and thousands, hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent and-

I would like to tell you about an example given by a friend from East Broughton, who said to me on the day after the referendum "It is a bit like bringing water from several kilometres away. You start with a big pipe and you end up with a tiny one at the other end; there is surface tension, leaks here and there along the way". We know what it is like in the federal pipeline system with its leaks here and there, you get to the end of the pipe and there is hardly any water coming out, no water pressure, nothing left. Everything got lost along the way.

It is the same thing, what we are asking of you, my friends across the way. "Mind your own business, but mind it well. And when something is not your business, not within your area of jurisdiction, then butt out and stay where you belong".

It is true we all breathe the same air, we all drink the same water and we all walk on the same ground. When you came to Montreal on October 27 to tell us you loved us, at taxpayers' expense, of course, we let you breathe our air. When we come to Ontario, you let us breathe your air.

This is how we want to live. So stay home, and when it is a provincial matter for Quebec, mind your own business. We are quite capable of minding our own business, better than you are.

An agreement was signed with the United States to develop the Great Lakes. It is working out fine. We get a report every two years. That is fine. It is having no effect on the United States' environment. You are not going to meddle with American environmental jurisdictions, why do you want to meddle with Quebec's? We will not tolerate it. That time is long gone.

When your jurisdictions are involved, look after them, but keep out of our space.

Having said that, I again call for an apology from the hon. member for Davenport, who showed disrespect for my colleague for Lotbinière.

[Auditor General Act, November 20th, 1995]

He was scared. He was so scared on the evening of October 30 that he was shaking all over. "I should never have made empty promises".

[Auditor General Act, November 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, for more than a year, I had the opportunity to sit on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development chaired by the member for Davenport. I have to admit that, up until about ten minutes ago, I admired the member for Davenport. Unfortunately, I discovered this afternoon, in the speech he just made, that he had a total lack of respect for my colleague, the member for Laurentides, specially when he asked her if she needed a psychiatrist.

It was a low blow and I think the member for Davenport should apologize. He really went a little too far. During all the time that I sat with him on the environment committee, I always noticed his honesty and his judgment as a politician, particularly in environmental matters.

It is therefore with great pleasure that I stand in this House to speak to Bill C-83, an Act to amend the Auditor General Act.

It has been a few weeks since we last talked about this bill in the House, so I should take a few minutes to review its contents briefly.

Bill C-83 amends the Auditor General Act to achieve five objectives which I will sum up quickly.

Firstly, to ensure that environmental considerations in the context of sustainable development are taken into account in the Auditor General's reports to the House of Commons.

Secondly, to require the appointment of a Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

Thirdly, to impose requirements for responding to petitions received by the Auditor General about environmental matters under federal jurisdiction-and I repeat it for the benefit of the member for Davenport-under federal jurisdiction in the context of sustainable development.

Fourthly, to require monitoring and reporting to the House of Commons on petitions and the extent to which departments have met the objectives, and implemented the plans, set out in their sustainable development strategies.

And finally, fifthly, to require that departmental sustainable development strategies be prepared and tabled in the House of Commons.

On a technical level, the adoption of this bill will require the implementation of a number of things. First of all, there must be an appropriate definition of sustainable development. I will come back to that later.

But I will say to the hon. member for Davenport, who got carried away a few minutes ago, that the government has been in power for two years. A sunken barge has sat in the waters between Prince Edward Island and the Magdalen Islands for 25 years now. At the end of June, we learned quite by accident that there was an important quantity of PCB tainted oil in the sunken ship. The barge has been there for 25 years and the Liberals were in power during most of that period, except for the nine years of the Mulroney government and the nine months of the Clark government.

It is easy to boast about sustainable development, but that barge was supposed to be refloated this year and nothing has been done. They chose the wrong solution because it was cheaper, but I can guarantee you, as does my colleague for Davenport, that, once the Irving Whale is refloated, when we get the bill the cost will be more than if we had chosen the better solution to begin with.

Sustainable development, what a trendy expression. It is useful if one wants to get reelected, of course. But why did they not apply it in the two years since their election? Of course, the Liberal Party sed up a fine committee-the Easter-Gagnon committee-that went to the Magdalen Islands and self sufficiently told to the people to step aside, that they would refloat the barge.

We can refloat it, they claimed. Give us 12 months, and we will refloat it. How much did it cost us to have the Gagnon-Easter mini caucus go around making political points?

The member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine learned his lesson with the last referendum. The islands' voters showed the member who had promised to resign if the no lost in Quebec where the door was.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I am intervening today in this House on Bill C-96, an act to legally establish the Department of Human Resources Development.

This is a long way from the agricultural portfolio for which I am usually critic for the official opposition, but the significance of the changes brought in by Bill C-96 requires me to speak out.

Application of this bill would be disastrous for Quebec, and I must defend the interests of my constituents first, but also those of all Quebecers.

What the government is preparing to do by going ahead with this bill is quite simply unacceptable. Bill C-96 is a tool with which the minister intends to broaden his powers once again, going over the heads of the provinces to do as he sees fit.

This bill enables the minister to ignore the provinces by establishing direct links with local organizations or individuals of his choice. What we are to understand from this is that when the federal government speaks of decentralization, it is merely replacing the salaries of federal employees with grants to local organizations, thus retaining total control over program standards.

With Bill C-96 it is absolutely clear that the federal government does not intend to respect this area of provincial jurisdiction in any way. We in Quebec will not allow this to happen.

Once again, this reminds me that, only hours after the last referendum, the Prime Minister of this country, the leader of the party across the floor here, the Liberal Party, the one that started off promising no changes, nothing on the table, after the conference on the UN, said there was no question whatsoever of proposing any changes. And with that great declaration of love, paid for by all of us of course, that put any possibility of decentralization, any possibility of change, on ice.

This bill was already prepared, of course, but it is totally contradictory to what the Prime Minister of Canada had suggested.

In reaction to Bill C-96, a proposal was made by Claude Béland, with the support of Ghislain Dufour, a person who cannot be accused of defending the sovereignist cause. As you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, Ghislain Dufour does not run with the sovereignists, but with the party across the floor. He asked that the SQDM unanimously adopt a resolution demanding that the federal government transfer the budgets it allocates for manpower training to Quebec and that it not establish a parallel structure to the SQDM.

Henri Massé, secretary general of the FTQ, also pulled no punches in his attack against this federal plan. "We no longer want the federal government butting in where it has no business to be-that is, manpower-and going over our heads to implement a parallel structure".

Still in connection with the referendum campaign, Victoriaville, in the next riding to mine, Lotbinière, had an important visitor, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, representing a Montreal riding whose name escapes me.

I know that an Ontario resident who has a riding in Montreal happens to be our Minister of Foreign Affairs. He told about fifteen people at a public meeting in Victoriaville that it was Quebec's fault if there was any duplication. Now really! Sure, that is what he said. He did not realize it but there was a reporter-he thought he was alone, no media-who only had a tape recorder and the next day they played his tape of the minister's speech on the radio news.

It really takes colossal nerve and then some, to go to Victoriaville, in the riding of Lotbinière, and say it was Quebec's fault if there was any duplication. Now that is a clear case. Let them stay home. We do not want them. The Liberal predecessor of the PQ government, under Robert Bourassa and then Daniel Johnson, unanimously adopted a resolution asking this government to stay out of manpower training. They just do not understand. Two structures and deficit upon deficit.

In fact, one of my constituents from East Broughton, Clément Paré-I asked his permission to mention his name-told me: "People do not understand. It is like a well at one end of my property. I take a pipe to bring the water from the well down to the bottom of my property. The further I get from the well, the more likely I am to get leaks, and I also lose pressure". It does not take a university degree to understand that.

"It is the same in Ottawa. You pay taxes to Ottawa, the money goes from East Broughton and Frontenac and is sent to Ottawa, some of it gets lost on the way, and then it goes back down

to East Broughton and to Thetford, and some more gets lost, and we are left with the crumbs". That is the kind of system we have: duplication throughout.

Mr. Speaker, I told you the story about the well and I saw your knowing smile. This is a very good example. I think my constituent, Mr. Paré, has very good judgment, and that is probably why he voted and worked for the Yes side in his beautiful municipality of East Broughton.

As I left my riding this morning, I stopped in Weedon to get some gas, and I noticed the Pepsi-Cola vending machine had been struck by a car. So I told the garage owner: "Too bad about that. Your Pepsi machine is broken already". He replied: "Yeah, sure, it was not big enough". In fact, it was huge, standing there outside the garage. Actually he was joking when he said: "It was not big enough". I said: "Too bad, it will cost you a few dollars to repair that". He said: "Oh, that does not matter". So I said: "How come?" He said: "It does not belong to me, it belongs to Pepsi". You see, Mr. Speaker? It belongs to Pepsi, so it does not matter.

People often react the same way to Ottawa. When I was the mayor of a small municipality, I remember we spread eight inches of nice new gravel on the sixth line. My constituents who were, of course, a small group, came to complain that the municipality was spending too much money. I said: "No problem. You are not paying for it". They said: "How come?" I said: "The money comes from the province". They said: "So you got a grant, Mr. Mayor?" I said: "Yes. I got it through our MNA". They said: "Great, the money comes from Quebec! It is not our money".

So you get the same reasoning when it comes from the federal government. When it comes from the federal government, it comes from somewhere on this planet, nobody knows exactly where. My point is that when the Minister of Foreign Affairs, this Ontarian who represents a Montreal riding, when he said in Victoriaville that if there was any duplication, it was not the federal government but the Quebec government, it really takes a colossal nerve.

The board of directors of the Canadian Institute of Adult Education has also condemned the Liberal government's initiative. The CIAE strongly objects to Bill C-96. The Bloc Quebecois is not alone in its opposition to Bill C-96. With this bill, the federal government has demonstrated a flagrant lack of respect for the aspirations of the provinces and especially those of Quebec in matters of education, manpower training and development.

With all these agencies and many others that are opposed to Bill C-96, the government of Quebec condemns outright the federal Liberal government's insistence on going ahead without considering the needs expressed by the groups concerned. Quebec Employment Minister Louise Harel reacted as follows to Bill C-96: "This is an outright refusal on the part of Ottawa to consider the consensus that exists in Quebec and was repeatedly expressed by the previous administrations of Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Johnson and by the present government headed by Mr. Parizeau, a consensus on the need to patriate all programs and budgets for manpower adjustment to Quebec".

In concluding, I want to point out that the Quebec Liberal Party, when it was in power, demanded that the federal government withdraw from this provincial jurisdiction.

[National Citizens Coalition, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, just ten days after our Canadian neighbours rallied in Montreal on the eve of the Quebec referendum, the true face of English Canada is already emerging. The National Citizens Coalition is launching an ad campaign to express its deep-seated opposition to the concept of distinct society status for Quebec.

After the provincial premiers backed off last week, the NCC's 40,000 members are now clearly opposed to what they consider as unfair preferential treatment for Quebec. This is a bitter disappointment for Quebecers, who were deeply touched by English Canada's show of affection at Canada Place, three days before the referendum. Where have all our friends gone?

[Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, November 1st, 1995]

No, we will not support it. I find it disturbing, Madam Speaker.

Its purpose is commendable. To take your own example, Madam Speaker, you get a $225 speeding ticket for driving 140 kilometres an hour and you pay it. If you pay it, will your fine be cut in half? No. And that is a good thing.

As my colleague who was president of the Bar in his region, the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, knows full well, the substance of the bill is valid. However, the possibility of negotiating fines-not up, of course, but down-raises serious questions regarding the viability of administering Bill C-61.

For these reasons, I will, in closing, remind you that the Bloc Quebecois will not join the government in supporting Bill C-61.