Jean-Guy Chrétien

[Committees Of The House, June 22nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food have appended a dissenting report to the report that my colleague from Malpèque has just tabled. We wanted to table a dissenting report in order to highlight the inequity that now exists between western and eastern farm producers in Canada.

One thing we pointed out was discrepancies in the abandonment of rail lines. For example, in the west, the public interest is the criterion for closing a line, while in the east, economic cost effectiveness is the criterion. For several reasons of that sort, we had to append a dissenting report.

[Canadian Dairy Commission Act, June 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, what I said was that over the next two years 30 per cent is going to be cut from the subsidies to industrial milk producers: 15 per cent in the 1995-96 budget and 15 per cent in next year's budget. Fifteen plus fifteen equals thirty. The subsidies are being cut by 30 per cent. If the honourable member can prove me wrong, I will apologize to the House.

[Canadian Dairy Commission Act, June 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and an honour for me to speak this morning on a bill that is extremely important to Quebec farmers, particularly dairy producers.

It is also an honour to speak immediately after the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the member for Prince Edward-Hastings, who really is quite familiar with agriculture.

As you know, Quebec alone produces 47.5 per cent of industrial milk. Furthermore, Quebec has always played a leading role in Canada's dairy industry. Quebec does a very good job of carrying out its responsibility as a leader among the other provinces where milk is still produced in Canada.

Canada's present dairy product supply management system was initiated by Quebec residents. Without the determination of Quebec dairy producers in the 1970s, we would not have supply management in this industry and, let me tell you, it would be an indescribable mess.

I am therefore especially pleased to note that the constituency of Frontenac has over 15 per cent of farm producers, the vast majority of whom are dairy producers.

Since we have been discussing Bill C-86 in this House, we have addressed the possibility of changing the Canadian Dairy Commission to a standing committee. Recently, on June 8, we had a chance to hear people who have worked very hard to ensure that this proposed change does benefit the dairy industry in Quebec and Canada, particularly our dairy producers. So it was that we met Claude Richard, president of the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec; his counterpart from Ontario, John Cor; and Richard Doyle of the Dairy Farmers of Canada.

I also visited a great many dairy producers in the Saint-Hyacinthe area: the Martins, the St Laurents, the Gouins, the Vigneaults, the Barils, the Pellerins, the Lessards, the Poulins and the Loiselles.

These farmers explained to us once again the ins and outs of Bill C-86 that will allow the six provinces to come to an agreement.

In light of that information and the answers we have obtained to our questions, I am able today to reiterate to my colleague opposite that the Bloc Quebecois supports Bill C-86.

Without rereading Bill C-86 in detail or clause by clause, I do want to explain what the change consists of, and note that the dairy industry has been required to adjust rapidly to the context of the free trade agreements. The GATT negotiations in Geneva, and the campaign to defend article XI, as well as the discussions about the relevance of maintaining a supply management system, have indicated major upheavals to come in the dairy industry. Clearly, Canada's dairy producers had to find a solution quickly if they were to be competitive in the context of free trade and the globalization of markets. The challenge was a big one.

Bill C-86 will make it possible to implement the agreement signed by the six provinces-Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba-, which, I remind you, produce over 82 per cent of all milk in Canada. This agreement is a solution that will maintain our system and comply with the new requirements of the GATT and NAFTA.

Pursuant to the GATT definition of an export subsidy, under the free trade agreement, dairy producers must eliminate their system of export levies by August 1. That is the problem Bill C-86 solves by making changes to the Canadian Dairy Commission Act.

At present, producers of industrial milk pay a levy of approximately three dollars per hectolitre of industrial milk that is to be exported, mainly in the form of butter and skim milk powder. If we make a quick calculation, three dollars per hectolitre is three cents per litre, which represents approximately 7.5 per cent of the value of the milk and which each producer of industrial milk used to pay in order to promote exports.

Even though it comes out of the producers' pockets, not out of public funds, under the GATT and the free trade agreement, that levy is an export subsidy and, as such, illegal. Starting on August 1, GATT and our partners in the free trade agreement would not have accepted our continuing to operate in that way.

More specifically, this bill implements a national system for pooling market returns that will be used to support the export of dairy products. The pooling permitted under Bill C-86 will comply with the international agreements, while allowing producers to maintain the advantages of the present system.

However, we must be aware that there is a possibility that the United States, which is challenging anything and everything these days, may decide to challenge this two-price policy for milk: one price for milk for the domestic market, and one price for milk destined for export. In that case, the dairy industry in Quebec and Canada could be accused of dumping.

In order to be successful, however, the United States or the country that considered its interests harmed would have to prove that exports from Canada were harming its market. Since our exports are relatively small, and since we export an increasing proportion of value-added processed products, that harm may be very difficult to prove. Bill C-86, which we are discussing today on third reading, is the solution that will enable producers to face the upheavals in their industry resulting from the new international context.

We, the MPs of the Bloc Quebecois, therefore support Bill C-86, since it meets the needs of producers who want to adjust to the requirements of the international trade agreements signed by Canada. Of course there are certain shortcomings in this bill; in-depth discussions are going on, in Quebec at least. Apparently the bill is creating a bit of a problem for processors. The discussions are not sticking on dozens of points, only on a few specific ones, and in a few days there should be-at least we hope there will be-an agreement between the Quebec department of agriculture, the UPA, the federation, and the Canadian Dairy Commission.

At present, the dairy industry is managed partly by the provinces and partly by the federal government, as are many industries that appear to have two heads. In these cases, of course, two heads are often not better than one. At present, the provinces have jurisdiction over fluid milk, and the Canadian Dairy Commission has jurisdiction over industrial milk only. The bill provides for a delegation of powers between the Commission and the provinces in order to administer the pooled market returns. If the agreement were not signed, the Commission would administer the pooled market returns for industrial milk only.

Those, then, are the technical changes made to the Canadian Dairy Commission by Bill C-86; I call them technical changes because they are regulations that will allow dairy producers to achieve their objective of adjusting the system as we now know it to the new standards of our international commitments, such as the GATT and NAFTA.

Mainly, we must remember that six provinces have signed an agreement in principle to pool their entire milk supply system. The initiative comes from the dairy industry; that point must be emphasized. The initative comes from the dairy industry, whose producers decided that they had to take the necessary action in order to make the most of the resources available to the dairy industry. The distinction made between industrial milk and fluid milk will be eliminated; the provinces' present quotas will not be changed.

I am particularly proud to state in this House that the concept of single-price milk was initiated in my region, the Eastern Townships, and that the then president of the federation in Sherbrooke was Jacques Blais.

I remember very clearly indeed the initial meetings, at which people wanted very serious discussion of a future single price for fluid milk and industrial milk. Those discussions were lively-and sometimes even physical. I attended one of those meetings and I certainly was not at ease. Those farmers had some powerful arguments. The Eastern Townships played a pioneering role in this debate.

It should be noted that, at the time, there was a difference of more than 10 per cent between the prices for fluid milk and industrial milk. It was practically the same milk. At the time, the farmers were told: streamline your operations; become more productive and more competitive; lower your production costs. And they did.

At the time, you could encounter three tank trucks on the same concession road, which might have only three dairy producers along it. You could see a truck for fluid milk, a second truck for industrial milk belonging to the Coopérative fédérée, and a third truck that might belong to an independent company like Lactantia, for example.

Today on that concession road, there are still only three dairy producers, but only one truck. So we have managed to reduce transportation costs. Fluid milk, the price of which, as I was saying, was 10 per cent higher, is now carried in the same truck. I can even tell you that the same cows, the same milk, and the same consumers are involved, and so, 13 or 14 months from now, the price should be exactly the same.

I have here a document showing Quebec's dairy production, from 1950 to 1994, in fact. In 1994, there were 11,763 dairy producers in Quebec. These 11,000 dairy producers produce pretty well the same volume of milk as was produced in 1970. But wait a minute. In 1970 there were 43,669 dairy producers. That means that, with one quarter of the number of dairy producers, we are producing practically the same volume of

milk. Better yet. If I take one cow as an example-I am sure the member for Drummond will be pleased-, in 1970, the average cow in our herds in Quebec produced 3,324 litres of milk per year-and without hormomes, without being shot up, just through improved breeding and better livestock feed. Look at this: in 24 years, the average cow in Quebec has gone from producing 3,324 litres of milk to producing 5,336 litres. The figure has not doubled, but it is at least 75 per cent higher.

I was reading in La terre de chez nous , the magazine for Quebec farmers, that a 3 per cent production increase was anticipated for the current year. So it is possible to up the quantity of milk given by our dairy cows each year without ``boosting'' or shooting them up, without altering the milk, without risking animal and human health.

I would remind you that the milk produced in Quebec and in Canada is a credit to us. We have some of the cleanest, freshest milk in the world. Within minutes of leaving the cow's udder it has already been refrigerated to a temperature where it can be properly kept. We are proud of that. Our facilities prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that without exaggeration we can increase milk production by 3 per cent without increasing the size of our herds.

The farmers in my riding tell me that if their milk quotas could be upped by 10 per cent per year, they could meet the demand without having to struggle.

What would give me the greatest pleasure would be if all our farmers in Quebec could have a chance to read the text, or a part of the text, that we received a copy of on June 2, 1995, signed by an Assistant Deputy Minister at the federal Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. It was a copy of a letter addressed to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Bob Speller; it is signed by J.B. Morrissey.

A question had been raised by my colleague, the honourable member for Champlain, Réjean Lefebvre of the Bloc Quebecois, and I'm going to read you a sentence from it: " -with respect to expenditures on primary agricultural research relative to research into finished agrifood products, for a period going from 1990 to roughly 1998, the projections, as Table I shows-"

Quebec's farmers are responsible, in terms of Canada as a whole, for about 18 to 19 per cent of agricultural production. Quebec has about 24 per cent of the population and it pays between 23 and 24 per cent of Canada's income taxes.

And at this point I would hope that the farmers in my riding are listening closely, when I talk about the share that this government-and when I say "this government" I do not necessarily mean the party currently in power. Quebec agriculture has always been shafted by the federal system and I have another egregious case here, where Quebec has been cheated year after year.

For instance, in terms of the resources allocated to full-time equivalents in research and development, Quebec in 1990-91 received 12.4 per cent of the total research and development budget allocated among all the provinces by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. In 1991-92 we got even less, and that was under the Conservatives, which is why I say that it is not necessarily the current government. In 1991-92 the Conservatives gave us 12.04 per cent of the total, or let us say 12 per cent.

I would remind you that Quebec's relative participation in this Department's activities is from 17 to 19 per cent, so we are being cheated out of 5 per cent every year. The pattern is the same right up to 1995-96, the current year, where Quebec's share is 13 per cent. At 13 per cent, we are still having a minimum of 4 per cent in research and development resources stolen from us.

It is not the sovereignists, the Pequistes, the Bloquistes, who are inventing these figures. This is an official document. I see here the logo of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and it is signed by an Assistant Deputy Minister of that department.

In October 1993, when I was campaigning during the last election, I said to the people of my riding, "Send us to Ottawa. We will audit the books and we will come back and tell you what we find. If they are giving us too much money, we will tell you that and we will give it back to them. We will be honest with the rest of the country". This document from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada that I have just read to you has its equivalents in all the departments.

Quebec's farmers have to understand that the federal government is not necessarily the modern Messiah. The federal government serves western agriculture well, but when the time comes for it to serve agriculture in Quebec and the Maritimes, there is nothing left in the coffers.

Here is another example. In the Magdalen Islands, the UPA arranged for a special quota so that the Islands could be self-sufficient in egg production. A special quota was awarded to an egg producer in Etang-du-Nord. Now that assistance to eastern grain transportation is being abolished, the price that this egg producer will have to pay for meal will shoot up by over $50 a tonne. Is it going to be more cost-effective for the Magdalen Islanders to import eggs from the mainland or to continue to import meal?

Many more crazy situations like that can be found in Quebec. No, the federal government is not a Messiah, and when Quebecers want information or help they head first for the Quebec Ministry of Agriculture. Last week I just asked a number of farmers whether they knew the name of Quebec's Minister of

Agriculture. Eight out of ten of them could name him, but not one out of ten could name the federal Minister-he is completely unknown. When people do know his name, they massacre it so that if you did not know it yourself you would not be able to decipher it.

It is a pity to have two Ministers of Agriculture for the same farmer, the same cows. One of those ministers is very expensive to keep and never, ever, gives Quebec the share to which it is entitled.

Whether you look at it in terms of Quebec's proportion of the population, which is 24 per cent of the Canadian total, or in terms of the percentage of income tax we pay to Ottawa, or in terms of GDP directly related to agriculture, Quebec is not getting its fair share.

Worse still, it is the taxes Quebecers are paying to the federal government that are paying, compensating, the western grain producers so that they can diversify and compete against us in our own province, and we are paying with our money for the privilege of getting booted on the backside. You all know that 80 per cent of Quebec's farmers are in livestock production. When I say livestock production, of course I include eggs and dairy production, because to get eggs you have to raise hens.

The opposite holds true in the west. There it is grain production that predominates. But diversification is changing the stakes. Obviously it is easier to work six or seven months a year and then to garage the machinery and wait for spring to start work again, crops and seed-if you raise livestock, it is not five days a week, it is seven out of seven, 365 days a year. It would be unthinkable for any of our dairy farmers or egg producers in Quebec to treat themselves to vacations in the south the way some of those western grain farmers can, for two or three months, you will agree with me on that.

So it is a choice, and the choice has been entirely decided by successive governments in Ottawa. Eastern Canada, Quebec, Ontario and the Maritimes, were directed into livestock production while the west grew grain; that was the arrangement and it was accepted. The building of the railway that tied the country together was of course done to satisfy the farmers.

So the dairy farmers know what a fair deal is, and in the budget and in Bill C-76, which passed a couple of days ago, we identified unfairnesses and we criticized them in this House on more than one occasion, such as the way the industrial milk subsidy is being cut by 30 per cent, in two 15 per cent cuts. The budget makes it clear that the remaining 70 per cent will be done away with sooner or later. No compensation is provided for, no $300 or $400 million is going into an adjustment fund for our farmers, to help them change direction.

In August our farmers will be going on a pilgrimage to the Canadian Dairy Commission to request an increase to compensate for the subsidy cuts. The result will be that you the consumers will be paying more for milk, butter, cheese, yoghurt, ice cream. Just as with gasoline, the increase will be greater than the increase in the cost of living. The government is washing its hands of the whole affair and saying, "Oh, we are not raising taxes. The prices of butter and cheese and yogurt and ice cream are going up, and gasoline taxes are pushing up the cost of gasoline". And it proudly announces, "We have not raised anything". The consumer price index is going up by 2.9 per cent. There has not been an increase like it in four years.

We are very comfortably installed in this House or elsewhere in Canada discussing the benefits of the pooling arrangement agreement reached by six provinces, but the negotiations that led to the agreement should not be left unmentioned. I want once again to emphasize the hard work done by people from my region, as Quebec had a strong voice in the negotiations, particularly the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec and its president, Claude Rivard, its vice-president, Jean Grégoire, and their senior economist, Guylaine Gosselin.

One question came up repeatedly during the committee's hearings, and that was: why have only six provinces joined the pooling agreement? We were told that certain provinces were taking advantage of the opportunity to get the CDC to review the way it treats them, that others did not operate the same way at the provincial level and that the jump involved in pooling all their milk with the other provinces was too great. But the most interesting thing to emerge from the discussions was that these six provinces are powerful enough without the rest, because they represent, as I mentioned earlier, 82 per cent of total milk production. So the other provinces can always join later, and their abstaining, at the moment, will not jeopardize the success of the agreement as it now stands.

This historic agreement will have a much more far-reaching impact than appears at first glance. If we take the example of Quebec, in 1996 the dairy producers should enjoy an increase in income varying from 60 to 70 cents per hectolitre. And because of GATT, Canada will have to accept imports of butter this year, which will probably affect quotas.

Since the six provinces will be spreading out the market variations over all the milk produced, the impact will not be felt too strongly, because it will not be just one province that has to absorb the costs. More clearly, if there were to be more butter or cheese imported into Canada from other GATT members, each of the provinces could see its quota drop by, say, 1 per cent. It

would not be just one province that was affected. The same thing would happen if, for example, consumption, or our exports, went up: it would not be just one province that saw its quota increase but all the provinces.

I could perhaps remind you that under this agreement dairy quotas will no longer be confined to one province. A dairy farmer in Quebec could buy an Ontario quota, or a Nova Scotia quota, or he could sell his quota in Alberta. And if ever too great a proportion of our quota were to go outside the province, the province could withdraw for a year or for the current year, as soon as 1 per cent was reached. So no province could have more than 1 per cent of its quota siphoned off, unless it was willing to sell its quota to other provinces.

In conclusion, I want to recall the political context that underlay the signing of this agreement. This kind of arrangement may well turn out to be a prototype for similar agreements in other sectors, since its basis is the one that is likely to predominate in the years to come. Why? Because it is an economic agreement.

The agreement banks on the advantages that all partners will derive from working as a team. With a referendum coming up this very year, the producers in many provinces have not hesitated to enter into an association with Quebec, because it is in their best interests. When it comes down to reality, not some hypothetical disaster situation, it is clear that logic counts for more than political considerations.

Rest assured that our prize cow in the Plessisville region will still be a prize cow, even after a "Yes" vote in the referendum. There are those who would like to frighten people by saying, "Your quotas will not be worth anything, your cows will get mastitis, they will injure themselves grazing, they will have more trouble calving in the spring". These are scare tactics, and increasingly our dairy farmers realize this.

One scare tactic the federalists use a lot is saying that if Quebec becomes sovereign, its producers will immediately lose their sale quotas in Canada: that is not true.

In conclusion, I would like to say that the Bloc Quebecois is proud to be associated with Quebec's dairy producers and to endorse Bill C-86 in this vote at third reading, for the good of all dairy producers everywhere in Canada. And I hope that Canada will give Quebec more of a share in research and development funding. The people who will not go beyond 12 per cent and who laugh at our farmers should be ashamed of themselves, especially when they visit our farmers or turn up at auctions, Encan Lafaille for example, and swagger around trying to impress people and then come back here and make fun of them. They laugh at them and will not go beyond a miserable 12 per cent.

[Canadian Dairy Commission Act, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise this afternoon to discuss Bill C-86 and more specifically the amendment proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Vegreville.

First I would like to make a statement that contradicts my colleague's assertions about supply management. When you want to fill a glass with water, it's easy, you turn on the tap. If you want the glass to be filled right to the brim, you take care to turn off the tap just at the right moment for the glass to be filled up; if you only want half a glass, you turn off the tap when the water reaches halfway.

In the early 1970s, farmers, provincial governments and processors got together and introduced what is now generally referred to as supply management. Regulated supply management in the dairy industry is profitable for all levels. First of all it is profitable for the farmers, who are the base of the dairy pyramid.

Previously, our producers found it much more advantageous to produce milk in May, June and July, when their herds were at pasture. In those three months they could make a better profit on their milk while in the winter it was less profitable, more costly, to produce milk. The result was that consumers and processors ran short of the raw material, milk, that was needed for a full year, so that there were periods when there were no fresh dairy products the way we always have now.

Today dairy producers are assured steady income throughout the year, and not just for one defined portion of the year. Consumers can get fresh butter and cheese every day, thanks to competent management of dairy production. And processors can run their plants all year round and not just for a few months.

I have to say to my colleague from Vegreville, who has visited dairy producers in southern Ontario who want to keep the existing arrangement, that this is not in compliance with the agreements we have signed with our international partners.

We are not in compliance with our GATT commitments and we have to modernize, we have to position ourselves by the start of August to respect the agreements signed by the Canadian government with the 140 other GATT members.

The amendment moved by the hon. member for Vegreville does not, given the present system, constitute a change that gives more powers to provinces, as its wording might suggest at first glance. Given the system as we know it, this amendment would simply limit the effectiveness of the consultation process that exists at the present time through the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee.

Currently industrial milk is managed by the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee. The committee is made up of the chairmen of all the provincial milk marketing boards. The Canadian Dairy Commission just chairs the committee. The committee operates on a consensus basis and in case of dispute on any point that requires unanimity, the budget for example, a preliminary management committee will be struck.

If consensus is still not possible after three meetings of this committee, the majority decides. As in any good family-you know this, Mr. Speaker, you are the father of a family-there comes a time when someone has to wear the trousers and make the decisions. If after three meetings unanimity is not possible, the majority decides. In no case does the Canadian Dairy Commission have a right of veto.

Moreover, it is important to point out that the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee has never, in living memory, failed to reach agreement. That means that the Canadian Dairy Commission cannot impose its views on representatives of the provincial boards. So why include in the bill that their agreement is necessary?

There are some other anomalies in the wording of this amendment. It refers to amending a clause affecting the Canadian Dairy Commission. That commission has jurisdiction over industrial milk only, while the provinces are responsible for fluid milk.

The proposed amendment means that the Canadian Dairy Commission can exercise certain powers only with the agreement of the provinces in which the power is to be exercised, but the provinces have no say with regard to industrial milk. Most importantly, when the amendment refers to agreement by the province, it does not seem to take into account the fact that the provinces do not sit on the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee.

Provincial representation is provided through the provincial marketing boards. Thus paragraph (a) of the amendment adds nothing to Bill C-86, because it refers to a level of government that, under the present system, has no direct jurisdiction. Since the agreement needed under paragraph (a) of the amendment will be that of the marketing boards, we now question whether paragraph (b) of the amendment is relevant.

In my opinion, there is even a problem of interpretation with the bill itself and with the principle underlying the amendment; since the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee operates by consensus, why include in the bill that the commission can exercise the powers mentioned therein only with the agreement of the boards?

Even if the provinces had jurisdiction in the area to which the amendment refers, the amendment's reference to either the provinces or the boards would not succeed in achieving a majority whereas, at present, as I was saying, the committee operates on consensus.

For these reasons, we of the Bloc Quebecois would ask our colleagues to oppose this amendment proposed to us this morning by the hon. member from Vegreville, who represents the Reform Party on the agriculture committee.

Overall, maintaining the system as it now operates beyond August 1 would be illegal. The government, in consultation with the provinces, reached agreements with the vast majority of them, with the result that today six provinces out of nine participate in milk marketing. Six provinces agreed to sign the memorandum of agreement. Those six provinces, including two important ones, Quebec and Ontario, produce 82 per cent of all the milk in Canada.

At present three provinces have signed partial agreements, but on very specific points, still hesitating to jump in with the six other provinces. They are the three western provinces: Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, which together produce 18 per cent of Canada's milk, an average of 6 per cent each, if we do a very simple calculation.

I am delighted that in 13 or 14 months at the outside, milk producers in all parts of Canada will be paid a single price for their milk. There will be no more discrimination between industrial milk and fluid milk.

You know, Mr. Speaker, right now there is still a discrepancy of more than 10 per cent between prices for these two types of milk. The odd thing is that it is often the same cow that produces the milk. One day she produces fluid milk, the next day industrial milk; one day that cow is 10 per cent more profitable, the next day she is being milked at a 10 per cent loss. You have the same standards for cleanliness, the same care, the same cooler, or ball tank, of milk. You have the same cows, the same

dairy producer, of course-and there is a 10 per cent difference. That is unaccceptable.

If we go back 30 or 40 years, it was logical and even acceptable that there be a 10 per cent discrepancy because fluid milk producers had to be much more careful, they had to produce 12 months every year, and they were subject to supply management: if they produced too much milk, they could not sell it.

In closing, then, I ask my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois to oppose the Reform Party's amendment. In fact, I have just learned that the party in power does not agreee to this amendment either.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your careful attention to my remarks.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, June 8th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, you will agree it is quite an honour for the official opposition critic for agriculture and agri-food to speak to a bill introduced by the Minister of Agriculture himself.

The purpose of Bill C-92 is to amend the Canadian Wheat Board-often referred to as the CWB-Act. It proposes to change the way transportation costs are shared by Prairie wheat and barley producers. As a result, prices paid by the CWB to farmers will more closely reflect actual transportation costs.

Currently, the calculation is based on the distance between the farm and so-called pooling points. In other words, from the farm to the port of delivery. The two pooling points are now Vancouver and Thunder Bay. The cost of shipping grain through the St. Lawrence Seaway from Thunder Bay is paid by the Wheat Board. This means the cost is shared by all Prairie producers, irrespective of the port they happen to use or their geographical location.

Of course the port of Thunder Bay does not have the facilities to handle large ocean-going vessels. Wheat and barley will be loaded onto ships that can negotiate the locks and the Great Lakes, and the wheat will be transhipped in one of the ports on the St. Lawrence. The bill does not say which ports. It just says "in the lower St. Lawrence region". The lower St. Lawrence is pretty big. The hon. member for Beauséjour will appreciate that these ports could include Sept-Îles, Baie-Comeau, Trois-Rivières, Quebec City, and Montreal. And there are other ports along the St. Lawrence.

For instance, it could be Baie-Comeau. The grain will then be transferred to huge ships with up to three times the capacity of those coming from Thunder Bay.

The cost of shipping grain through the St. Lawrence Seaway from Thunder Bay is paid, as I said earlier, by the Canadian Wheat Board. This means the costs are shared by all Prairie producers. Producers from the western Prairies who send their grain west to the port of Vancouver are paying part of the cost for farmers from the eastern Prairies whose grain is shipped through the St. Lawrence Seaway. In other words, western Prairie farmers are subsidizing eastern Prairie farmers.

Bill C-92 will shift the pooling point from Thunder Bay to the St. Lawrence Seaway. You will remember, Madam Speaker, if you were listening carefully, but I will repeat, nevertheless, that it is not spelled out which ports along the St. Lawrence Seaway will be part of this new pooling point, but I am told it might be Sept-Îles, Baie-Comeau, Trois-Rivières, or Quebec City, and possibly other ports along the St. Lawrence.

In this way, eastern Prairie farmers who send their grain through the St. Lawrence Seaway will pay the real cost instead of being subsidized by western Prairie producers. This change will have an impact on the price Prairie farmers will get for their grain.

The amount the CWB pays all wheat and barley producers in general will increase. It will increase because the CWB will no longer pay the cost of transportation from Thunder Bay to the St. Lawrence Seaway, since transportation costs are combined and deducted proportionately from market revenues distributed among all producers. This will affect prices.

In the future, they will be calculated from St. Lawrence ports, rather than from Thunder Bay. Producers in Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan shipping their grain east will pay increased domestic shipping costs, because they will now have to assume the real costs of shipping via ports on the lower St. Lawrence and not just via the port of Thunder Bay.

However, producers in western Saskatchewan and Alberta will no longer have to subsidize a part of the domestic transportation costs of producers living further east. Farmers in the western prairies have been saying for years that the Canadian Wheat Board's choice of Thunder Bay as the point of departure for exports to the east was unrealistic and meant additional and unfair costs for them. I agree with them. Farmers in the eastern prairies have always been aware of this anomaly, but are, understandably, somewhat anxious about the way it is being changed, because it will certainly lower their returns.

This change could take effect this August 1-in two months and three weeks, approximately-if Bill C-92, which we are discussing this morning, is adopted. The bill would indeed affect the returns of producers in various regions. A producer in the eastern prairies living in Brandon, Manitoba, for example, will have a $5.81 a tonne decrease in returns. He was previously dealing with the port of Thunder Bay, but will now have to use a port on the Lower St. Lawrence, which will decrease his returns by $5.81 a tonne.

When there is talk of a decrease of $5.81 per tonne, you must admit, Madam Speaker, that things are getting lean. Producers'net returns are being pared to the bone. The initial freight deduction would increase from $20.34 per tonne to $31.14 per tonne. However, due to a $4.99-almost $5-per tonne higher return from the CWB because of the elimination of the pooled shipping costs, the net effect would be a $5.81 per tonne decrease in returns. If you subtract $20.34 from $31.14, you get $10 and some loose change, minus the $4.99 per tonne producers will not have to pay, hence a decrease in returns of $5.81 per tonne, as I said before.

Obviously, when you look at it on a per tonne basis, it does not amount to much, but for a big grain producer, it adds up to a very substantial amount. The first example was located in the eastern portion of western Canada, in Manitoba. However, if we go further west, and take the example of a producer located near Calgary, Alberta, his return would not decrease but increase by $4.99, let us say $5 per tonne.

And yet, in Calgary, the initial freight deduction would remain the same at $22.19, because freight is still deducted to Vancouver only. However, with the increase in the CWB pool return because of the elimination of the pooled shipping costs from Thunder Bay, since all producers were contributing an additional amount, the net effect for producers in the Calgary area would be a $4.99 per tonne increase in returns.

I realize that all this talk about increasing and decreasing returns might be very technical for my colleagues in the House. But the many western grain producers who are listening to us this afternoon understand perfectly well what I am talking about. They know what it means to gain or lose $5 a ton; it is not an inconsequential amount. If they sell a ton of wheat for $135, a difference of $5 represents an additional income, or a loss, of 3.5 to 4 per cent, and a difference of 3.5 or 4 per cent is very important. Unions are fighting these days for new collective agreements with a 2 or 3 per cent wage increase, and they often have to go through several months of strike to get that.

Since we of the Bloc Quebecois came to Ottawa, 18 months ago already, our position on the transport subsidies has always been very clear. We strongly support deregulating. A system which conceals true prices with subsidies given left and right only brings the type of results we see today, that is a major distortion of markets. And that is exactly what we experienced.

The rail system, as it now operates, is proof enough of that. The criteria used to determine if a railway line should stay open are not the same in the west and in the east. In Western Canada, surprisingly enough, and I want to point this out to my Quebec colleagues in particular, a railway line is supposed to operate in the best interests of the public; in the east however, and especially in Quebec, it must be cost effective.

Let me mention the case of the Quebec Central Railway line which goes from Sherbrooke, through Lévis, to Vallée-Jonction and then from Vallée-Jonction to Lac-Frontière and St-Georges de Beauce, a total distance of 382 kilometres. Quebec Central always neglected its clients and gave poor service on that line; so it lost its clients one after the other. In my opinion, this was planned, to prove to the National Transportation Agency that the Chaudière-Vallée line was not viable. Finally, last year at about this time, Quebec Central, through its parent company Canadian Pacific, requested and obtained permission from the National Transportation Agency to abandon this line.

Of course, politicians, economic stakeholders and the regional county municipalities protested against this abandonment because, once more, we in this great and beautiful country of ours were up against distortions and double standards.

A secondary line similar to the one I mentioned which goes through Thetford and East Broughton, in my riding, would not have been abandoned in the west even if it had not been viable, because it would have been in the public interest. There is a double standard.

The result is that some railway lines, in Quebec especially, which served small and medium size municipalities were abandoned to offset the financial losses of other secondary lines in the west. Needless to say, we will be supporting Bill C-92, because we are in favour of people paying the real cost of transportation, and because we want to put an end to the market distortions that we presently have.

This morning I was at a sitting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture where we heard witnesses representing dairy farmers. I knew that a litre of milk cost about $1.06 but this morning I learned that there was a threshold price of 98 cents, below which the retailer cannot sell his milk, and a ceiling of $1.09, above which the same retailer cannot sell. Most consumers believe that the dairy producers get about 70 cents or 75 cents on this amount of $1.09.

Could you tell me, madam Speaker, what portion of the $1.05 or $1.09 that you probably paid for your litre of milk yesterday goes directly to the producer? This is not a trick question, Madam Speaker. You do not have the slightest idea, and this is not surprising. If I were to ask the same question to the vast majority of my hon. colleagues in the House, most of them would not be able to tell me what portion goes directly to the dairy producers.

Personally, I thought that the producer was getting 50 cents, but it is not even that much. This morning, we were told that the producer was getting 56 cents. You might say that it is more than 50 cents, but on that amount, the producer must pay the transportation costs from his farm to the dairy, or 18 cents. So, if you deduct 18 cents from the 56 cents, you end up with 38 cents.

So the producer gets 38 cents for each litre of milk he produces. Did you know that big dairies have to pay some fees to the retailer to be able to place their product on the display racks? You did not know that. It is very costly.

So a producer gets 38 cents per litre and the dairy will pay up to 20.5 cents to the store owner. The farm producer must feed, milk, and tend the cows, and keep them in a clean environment, which is costly and brings him only 38 cents per litre, whereas the retailer gets 20.5 cents per litre. This is totally unfair. Unfortunately, the vast majority of consumers are not aware of these facts.

I see my colleague from Charlesbourg, who is a veterinarian, and who treated several dairy herds in his practice. He was probably not aware of the fact that dairies have to give 20.5 cents to be able to sell their milk.

I would also like to point out that, in Canada, almost 80 per cent of the markets are shared between four main distributors, four main grocery chains. So they can decide, for example, whether they want to have the products of a particular dairy in their store or not.

In the end, who foots the bill? The consumers. Every year, I see dairy producers asking for an increase. I suppose that in August, the Canadian Dairy Commission will be hearing from the dairy producers that they want to get an increase. They will explain, in great detail, the effects of the 30 per cent cut in subsidies, which will come into effect in a few weeks or a few months, as well as the increase in production costs. I can assure you that the increase will be much more than only a few cents and a small fraction. The increase will have to be justified, when in fact there is no need to justify it to anyone.

I want to get back to Bill C-92. Furthermore, the amendment made to the bill does not involve taxpayers' pockets in any way. In fact, what it involves is a change in the system that affects only the grain growers. So, it is only a matter of setting transportation costs more fairly to reflect reality.

Though we can easily see that this amendment is more suited to the wishes of producers in the western part of the prairies than of those further to the east, we would be severely judged if we interfered in the internal business of grain producers.

However I have doubts about some clauses. By lowering returns of eastern prairie producers, Bill C-92 could well cause a reduction in quantities of grain shipped through the St. Lawrence Seaway. It would be very useful to know the extent of this possible reduction in order to be able to prevent the loss of too many jobs in the ports of the St. Lawrence Seaway.

I would appreciate very much if somebody on the other side, and I am thinking in particular of my colleague and friend for Beauséjour, could respond to this legitimate concern of stakeholders.

The other curious aspect of this bill is that it allows for the use of the grain transportation adjustment fund which, worth $300 million. Around $100 million could be allocated to ensure a smooth transition. At the outset, a $300 million fund over a five-year period was put aside for western grain producers. But in the next three years $100 million will be spread between Thunder Bay and the ports of the St. Lawrence Seaway and there is talk of spending some $40 million for the 1995-96 crop year starting at the end of summer.

This fund was meant to help producers adjust to the new situation, not to maintain the illusion, I repeat, the illusion that freight subsidies are still in place. Fortunately the agriculture minister said a few words about that earlier.

You know, in Quebec, we thought that this government was much more generous towards western grain producers than towards farmers in the east.

Western farm owners or tenants will receive $1.6 billion in direct subsidies. Considering that, in the west, 35 per cent of farms are leased, will this money be given to the owner or the tenant? No decision has been made yet. This $1.6 billion equals $18 an acre, and it is tax-free. Quite a gift.

If you find a $100 bill in the street, you put it in your pocket and do not declare it on your tax return. This is about the same thing. It is a gift, a present from the Liberal government.

Personally, I think it is too much, but grain producers think it is not enough. Liberals saw that in the Manitoba elections. They were almost sure to win, but only managed to get a few of their candidates elected. A real slap in the face. I have more fingers than I need on this hand to count the Manitoba Liberal members. My colleague for Chicoutimi reminds me that there are three of them.

According to opinion polls, the Liberal Party of Canada seems to be very healthy. We could try to find reasons for that. But once in the booth, it seems that Canadians often change their mind. We will see tonight, at 8 o'clock, if the policies and openness of this government really reflect reality when we know the results of the Ontario election.

A few weeks ago, in Ontario, Ms. Lyn McLeod was on cloud nine survey after survey; some of them gave more than 55 per cent of the votes to her Liberal Party. I remember that many of my colleagues in this House were bragging during statements by members. They were saying that Ontarians are intelligent, nice, that they know what they are doing, so they will vote for Lyn McLeod and the Liberal Party in Ontario.

Today, Ontario Liberals have changed their tune. Now, they say that Ontarians are being exploited, that they are naive and do not get the message. That is funny, they are not nice Ontarians any more. Six weeks ago, they were beautiful, nice, smart and today, they are not as much.

There are 99 federal ridings in Ontario. Only one is represented by one of my Reform colleagues, 98 out of 99 are Liberal. Does that really reflect reality? I do not think so. I had the opportunity on several occasions to go to Toronto in the last months. I was able to see that the Liberal Party was not enjoying the fine reputation that some here seemed to be bragging about.

I am inviting the hon. member for Beauséjour to my apartment tonight to watch the election results on the French information network in a friendly atmosphere.

To complete my remarks on Bill C-92, the $100 million to be allocated for adjustment purposes should be available only over the next three years. Farmers should not become dependent on this fund-it should not become a kind of antibiotic-since we might as well go back to the WGTA we have lived with for 98 years, which everyone wanted to revoke but did not dare do so for fear of creating uncertainty.

In three years, this $100 million will be gone, but it would be a shame if producers were left high and dry. This approach may simply delay the problem for three years. Why is this fund not used to really help people adapt or take early retirement?

We in the Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-92, to compensate a little for market distortion, but this does not mean in any way that Bill C-92 does not have flaws that could perhaps be corrected.

Since I still have a few minutes left, allow me to get back to the problem facing most farmers in Quebec, Ontario and the maritimes. I referred earlier to the amounts the federal government is going to give western grain producers. There is a tax-free $1.6 billion, the $300 million adjustment fund to be spent over five years, and another $1 billion to promote agricultural exports.

The Minister of Agriculture is being very honest. He said earlier that the main purpose of reducing, of revoking the WGTA

is to diversify western agriculture and create value-added industries. Nothing could be better than creating value-added industries for our agricultural products. This is not a Canadian invention. All the countries in the world want added value, not for Canada but for themselves.

The proof is that Japan does not buy canola oil; it buys canola and makes its own oil, fats and margarine. That is quite normal. The Japanese are not crazy. I understand perfectly what they are doing. They come here and buy our wheat, but do their own milling and make their own flour. They do not buy wheat flour in bags. They do the value adding in their own country. They do not come here and buy loaves of bread just to please us. They buy wheat from us and bake their own bread at home.

We will have to play our cards right and, more importantly, be innovative in creating new products and carefully protecting the manufacturing processes, so that no one can come and copy them. So, every one is in favour of value adding, but the concern Quebecers and Ontarians in particular have is that federal subsidies could be used to diversify western agriculture, which would then compete with us on our own markets. I discussed this matter with two colleagues from the Reform Party; one is from Western Canada and the other from Ontario.

Of course, that is more or less what they are up to, but as long as I sit in this house, rest assured, Madam Speaker, that I will look after the interests of the people of Quebec, particularly those of the riding of Frontenac whom I represent. At the risk of ruffling the feathers of our western colleagues, I will say out loud what we, Quebecers, know how to use our brains.

I should point out that there is a new phenomenon at work in this House, and I hope that the people of Quebec will not repeat the mistake they made in 1970, 1972, 1976 and 1978, when they elected to this place 74 Liberal members-you are right, Madam Speaker, to whisper the figure to me-out of a maximum of 75, the exception being my pal Roch LaSalle, who had to run a one-man opposition from Quebec in this place.

We have seen what good it did Quebec to be represented by so many good Liberals, who were supposed to stand up for us. Just think of the War Measures Act. My hon. colleague will no doubt remember that, while there were only a handful of FLQ members, 498 people were arrested without any warrant, and detained for weeks. Tactics used in Russia and others totalitarian states were applied in Canada in the days of the good old Liberal Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

Léopold Corriveau, the member who represented my riding at the time, voted for the War Measures Act, a bludgeon law only fit for totalitarian states. Yet, any time a totalitarian state implements such measures, the Canadian government, the world leader of democratic governments, is the first to protest and make representations against them.

Last week, in the region where I live, young people from my village were collecting money to buy postage stamps to send letters to Latin-American countries, on behalf of Amnesty International, asking that prisoners of conscience, not to say political prisoners, be released.

I still admire Pauline Julien, but I admired her even more when I was a teenager, for her wonderful songs. Her husband, the late lamented Gérald Godin, was jailed under the War Measures Act. That very feeling man told himself: "In the next election, I will run against the man who contributed to having me unfairly imprisoned, and I will win". That man was one of your friends, Robert Bourassa, in 1976. He was soundly defeated in a French-speaking riding of Montreal's east end by Gérald Godin, who had been illegally jailed under the War Measures Act. That legislation had been supported by 74 Liberal members, with only one opposing it. This is a real shame.

Quebecers' motto is "Je me souviens", I remember. We do remember, but we are very ashamed.

I am pleased to participate in the debate on this bill, but it makes me relive all these episodes, and all the injustices done to Quebec in the past.

I do hope that the day is soon coming when Quebecers will have a country of their own, collect their own taxes, draft their own legislation, and manage their own affairs as they see fit, and I also hope that there will be nothing untoward that we would live to regret for the rest of our lives. Liberal members opposite will have to live with the War Measures Act of 1970 for the rest of theirs.

[Supply, June 7th, 1995]

At $2,000 per plate.

[Supply, June 7th, 1995]

Look at Ontario.

[Agriculture, June 6th, 1995]

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

The Bloc Quebecois has affirmed many times in this House that the Minister of Agriculture must treat all producers fairly, including Quebec producers, regarding the Crow rate issue. The minister remained vague on the issue and, when the 1995 budget was tabled, we saw that the compensation offered to eastern dairy producers was not fair.

Does the Minister of Agriculture realize that western producers will be compensated for the loss of the Crow rate subsidy, but that eastern dairy producers, who will also be hit with cuts, will have to face the consequences of the budget without compensation?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, June 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, On May 16, I asked a question to the Minister of Agriculture about an article published in the Montreal daily La Presse , in which it was claimed that some dairy producers were illegally using recombinant bovine somatotropin. The minister tried to be reassuring by saying that his officials were investigating the allegations, and that he would inform me of their findings.

That was over three weeks ago, and I have yet to hear from the Minister of Agriculture or his parliamentary secretary. When the minister is asked what he intends to do to solve the issue, he points out that it is not the manufacturers of the product who do not comply with the moratorium, but the producers who dismiss the directive.

That answer clearly shows that the minister's primary concern is neither the reputation of dairy producers, nor the safety of consumers. The overriding consideration is big money.

It is very sad to see that no one will protect the producers and the consumers in this most important debate.

The minister clearly told us that he did not care by repeating for the umpteenth time that it is his colleague, the Minister of Health, who will make the final decision. It is too easy to just pass the buck. The Minister of Agriculture has a responsibility to dairy producers, not to rich pharmaceutical companies.

Why does the government leave a doubt as to the quality of our dairy products, considering that our producers must slow down their production and that the quality of our milk is recognized worldwide?

In my opinion, there is absolutely no reason for a Minister of Agriculture to close his eyes to acts that tarnish the excellent reputation the Quebec and Canadian dairy industry has built for itself over the years. Why does the minister allow companies like Monsanto and Ely Lilly to continue in the hope of making a fortune and having us drink milk containing a synthetic hormone?

What is on one side of the scales is becoming increasingly clear. Consumers do not want to drink milk containing recombinant bovine somatotropin at the moment, producers see no need to use the hormone and studies on the safety of the product are not conclusive.

Why put off extending the moratorium, then? Our guess is that there is no clear, explainable or public reason on the other side of the scales. Try explaining to a parent that his or her children are drinking milk that is more or less safe for purely economic reasons.

Statistics obtained in a study by Optima Research indicate very clearly that a high percentage of consumers will stop buying milk if it contains recombinant bovine somatotropin. Why in this case is the minister not protecting the interests of producers by putting pressure on his colleague in the health portfolio to put an end to the hopes of the pharmaceutical companies? I know very well that this whole matter is one of big bucks. Are there politicians or perhaps senior public servants with hidden interests?

Past certifications by Health Canada provide no assurance. They include breast implants, urea formaldehyde and thalidomide.

If it approves the use of recombinant bovine somatotropin for dairy herds, will Health Canada agree to compensate dairy producers for all consumer claims as the result of health problems arising through the consumption of dairy products?

In closing, I would ask why this government does not follow the example of the European Community and declare a moratorium until independent studies can really examine this hormone in depth? Should they ever come out in favour of its use, then and only then, could we start using recombinant bovine somatotropin.

[Farm Improvement And Marketing Co-Operatives Loans Act, June 2nd, 1995]

According to my colleague from Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, there is none. He is not totally wrong, because in Quebec, our Minister of Agriculture is Marcel Landry. It is Marcel Landry, and not the Minister of Agriculture whose name I will not tell, because the House of Commons Standing Orders prevent me from doing so. Therefore, I am not contributing to his promotion in Quebec.

All kidding aside, the parliamentary secretary should come to Quebec, and I would bet my bottom dollar that, out of ten farmers, not one would be able to give the name of our Minister of Agriculture in Ottawa. Quite often, those who can give it say it wrong and only give his last name.

Farmers in our province are much more attached to Quebec than to Ottawa, and I must say that I am proud of it. I am very proud of it. And the day will soon come, I think, when our farmers will understand that it would be so simple, instead of having three options for borrowing money-two of them being federal-, to at least combine them. It would be cost effective. This would be a good way to save $25 or $30 million without it hurting too much.

The other day, I was listening to the Minister of Finance say to his colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot: "Give me some areas where I can make cuts, where I can save some money". I am giving you one, the farming industry. Combine these two possible options for borrowing money. You will save at least $25 or $30 million. Taxpayers would be thrilled. Also, farmers would save time and effort. Instead of having to check which one would be best, they would have to see only one. The ideal solution for our farmers would be to keep only one of the two, the Quebec one: the Société de financement agricole du Québec.

Thank you for your attention and, in concluding, I would like to mention that we will vote for Bill C-75, because we cannot do otherwise.