Jean-Guy Chrétien

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

In this case, apparently two and two makes four and a little more, it would seem. And now, I will open a chapter which will again be unpleasant for some of the hon. members opposite. The government of Quebec has decided to launch an investigation into the mismanagement of the crown corporation Hydro Québec. I must say that, when I was a teen, Hydro Québec was the pride and joy of all Quebecers.

Unfortunately, today, public satisfaction with this crown corporation of which we were so proud 20 or 25 years ago has sagged so low that obviously it has almost become a source of public shame. But, the government of Quebec was not afraid to launch an investigation. I ask my dear colleagues across the way why they refused to launch an inquiry into the attempted privatization of the Pearson Airport, from which, as everybody knows, the big wheels of Canadian finance made hundreds of millions? Why are you refusing to hold an independent investigation?

Because, my friends, the Conservative majority in the Senate overrode you on this issue. So, who will conduct the investigation now? Four Conservative and three Liberal senators. Of course, I have complete confidence in our senators. The Prime Minister just appointed Mrs. Bacon to the Senate. I have complete confidence, it goes without saying, that everything will be conducted above board and with the transparency that we should rightfully expect.

But, in Quebec, these people would not be selected to carry out such a task. Quebec will select truly independent investigators, who will probe the real wounds. If the wounds are infected, they will be lanced, and the infection will be drained off. I invite my Liberal colleagues opposite to reconsider their decision. If you are blameless, my friends, you have no reason to be afraid. Establish a royal commission of inquiry into the privatization of the Pearson airport. It would appear, however, that both parties, blue and red, are equally involved in this privatization. The numbers would appear to be the same on both sides, and, of course, they are. The situation is a bit like what happens with the leaves at this time of the year. When the wind blows, they turn over and their colour changes. When the blues are close to power, they change colour; when the reds are, they change colour too.

If the party that is currently running the country is blameless, it has nothing to fear. Let it establish a commission of inquiry, following the government of Quebec's proper lead.

To come back to Bill C-75, the federal government's entry criteria are not always what the provinces want. Federal agencies can therefore end up competing with provincial agencies, which may have different criteria.

Here again, rather than eliminate overlap and give the provinces what is rightly theirs, the federal government is insisting on keeping everything for itself.

By keeping the overlap, the federal government reserves the opportunity to intervene in the way we manage our agricultural sector in Quebec.

It is very odd, I must point out, for the department to administer this legislation rather than the Farm Credit Corporation. Although the programs differ, the Farm Credit Corporation already guarantees loans. This, I repeat, is another striking example of administrative duplication. We are not talking any more just of duplication among different governments but duplication within in a single government.

With this duplication, the deficit continues to grow. When we reach the point of paying $40 billion a year just to cover the interest costs of the debt, and the deficit is likely to reach $25 or $26 billion, we are entitled to question previous administrations.

When I was the mayor of my small community before entering federal politics the government of Quebec, which governs municipalities, forced us to balance our budget every year, and I am grateful to the government for that.

A municipality is not allowed to have a deficit, but it can have a surplus. So in the beautiful municipality of Garthby, where I was the mayor, every year we had a nice little surplus. People were happy, and told us they were proud of their town council.

My colleague of Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, behind me, was also the mayor of his municipality for a number of years. He understands very well what I am talking about.

However, if you want a surplus you must do what you have to do for it. When it was time to say no, we said no, and when it was time to increase taxes, we did so. I would never have taken a mortgage on my house to buy food for my family. No one can afford the luxury of borrowing week after week to buy food. Yet, that is what my colleagues across the way are doing. Even worst, the Trudeau government did not know how to count. Unfortunately, the Conservatives were in power for nine years. They wanted to make up for lost time, and we did not stop them.

I was saying that municipalities have an obligation to present balanced budgets. Maybe the government should also consider passing a law which would force it to table balanced budgets. Since to have enough you must have a little more, municipalities used to set property taxes a little higher than they normally would, in order to have a little 1 or 2 per cent surplus, which is quite reasonable.

Consequently, we are not opposed to the amendments put forward in Bill C-75. However, we object strongly to maintaining overlap and duplication, whether they are in the federal government, in the federal machine, or between federal and provincial jurisdictions.

A moment ago, I spoke of the existence of two departments of agricultre for the dairy industry, one for industrial milk, and one in the government of Quebec for fluid milk. It does not make sense.

In closing, I can assure my colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food, that despite all these small flaws, we will vote in favour of this bill at third reading. This will accelerate the process. Yet, we will do so without much enthusiasm, because it is not in the interests of our farmers, in the long term. In the short term, it is not that bad.

I extend an invitation to my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, to visit Quebec. His is probably not as busy as his boss, and he could come to explain this bill. For my part, I will explain it to the farmers of my riding. They do not know very much about this measure. Is is incredible how often we have to explain to our constituents measures that are taken by the federal government, but that people are totally unaware of, especially in agriculture.

I spent a week in my riding, and when I meet farmers in my capacity as agriculture critic, which I have been for seven months now, I like to ask this trivia question: "Who is the Minister of Agriculture in Ottawa?" Only rarely do I get the right answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise this morning to participate in the debate on Bill C-75 at third reading.

As we said earlier, the purpose of the only amendment to the Farm Improvement and Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act is to double the number of loans guaranteed under this act.

As the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food explained so well, this change simply increases the limit of guarantees on loans made by banking institutions. The current limit is $1.5 billion. Bill C-75 would increase this limit to $3 billion.

This increase is said to be in line with the increased needs of many farmers and would facilitate access to financing.

Our position on Bill C-75 has not changed. To benefit our farmers and make their lives easier, we in the Bloc Quebecois will support the amendment proposed by Bill C-75. We therefore endorse raising the limit from $1.5 billion to $3 billion.

However, I wish to point out that, although we support Bill C-75 for our farmers' sake, this short term solution is not the one favoured by the Bloc Quebecois.

In the current federalist context, the provinces face the "mission impossible" of obtaining even a minimal degree of autonomy from the federal government, which is trying to take one power after another away from the provinces through its spending power. That is why we must support this temporary solution, to allow the government to go forward with Bill C-75 so that farmers in Canada and Quebec can have access to more funds, of course.

Although this is a fundamental aspect, I want to draw your attention to the duplication bills such as this one generate. The real question we should ask this morning is not whether the limit established by the Farm Improvement and Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act is high enough, but whether the program itself is basically sound.

According to Agriculture Canada figures, the increased demand for loan guarantees justifies the amendment proposed by Bill C-75. Farmers must, of course, have access to financing in order to improve or expand their facilities. We are not questioning this fact. The question we must ask this morning is, "What is the most efficient way to meet farmers' needs?"

In Quebec at the present time, there are three organizations that help farmers secure financing or can do so. There is the Société de financement agricole, which is under provincial jurisdiction, the Farm Credit Corporation, under federal jurisdiction, and the bill before us today, to amend the Farm improvement and Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act, the latter also coming under federal jurisdiction.

This is a fine example of this government's and this country's mismanagement. You have two different wickets at the same level of government offering loans to the same group of people.

Let me share with you what three farm producers from the federal electoral district of Frontenac told me when I had the chance to visit them a while ago. One of them described the problems he encountered trying to get funding to expand his family farm.

I phoned him this morning and took a few notes, because I wanted to be able to quote specific figures. I asked him if he was aware of the three choices he had. And that, I must point out, contradicts what my colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, said a moment ago. He told me he was aware of only two sources of funding: the Société de financement agricole and the Farm Credit Corporation.

I said: "There is a third one, you know", and I gave him the seven or eight letter acronym. "Pardon my ignorance, he said, but I had never heard of this Farm Improvement and Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act until 8:20 this morning, when you told me about it". And this is a farm producer who had been negotiating with both the Société de financement agricole and the Farm Credit Corporation for five long months, from December to May. This is a good example of duplication.

If this government wishes our farm producers well, why does it not have a single wicket? At present, there are three choices, three wickets, and the third one, which we are debating this morning, is all but unknown to Quebecer producers. To decide whether to borrow from the Quebec Société de financement agricole or the federal Farm Credit Corporation, in many instances, our producers must set out on long and difficult consultations with financial institutions to make sure they get the best deal possible.

I asked that farmer: in the end, did you go to the Farm Credit Corporation or the Société de financement agricole? The Liberal members opposite, who are supposed to represent farmers from the Pacific to the Atlantic, should listen carefully. That person said that the best option for him was to go to the Société de financement agricole, which is under Quebec's jurisdiction.

I was happy to hear that, and I asked him how he came to that conclusion. It is not because he is a PQ or BQ partisan. He made that decision simply because it was the best option. He told me about contacting other lending institutions, namely the Royal Bank, the National Bank and the caisses populaires, and how he managed to get for his $750,000 loan a rate which is 0.75 per cent lower.

I am proud to say that our farmers have now become businesspeople running small businesses requiring investments which are often in excess of one million dollars. Consequently, they have to do some calculations, to think carefully and to choose the option best suited to their needs. This morning, that farmer also told me that this 0.75 per cent lower interest rate would result in annual savings of $6,000 to $7,500. He added that, by using these savings to lower the borrowed capital, he will, over the next 25 years, save an enormous amount of money, which is in the six figures.

This is the story of a farmer who talked to me this morning about these three borrowing options, one of which he was not at all aware of. I fail to see why the government is so intent on duplicating existing structures, with the result that in the same city and region there are two offices to deal with the same group of farmers.

Another friend of mine, who is involved in the dairy industry, said, in reference to the 50/50 split between industrial and fluid milk, that dairy producers were privileged in that they have two ministers of agriculture. One, whom they do not know, does not understand them and looks after two teats-that is, those which give the industrial milk-and the other one, whom they know very well, Marcel Landry, the Quebec minister of agriculture, who is a Quebecer like them, who is accessible, who can be reached any day, who understands them, and who visits them not just once a year, but whenever they want to see him.

Can the same be said of the federal Minister of Agriculture? Unfortunately, he never has time for people from Quebec, but he always manages to make time for western grain producers. It sounds a little like the Supreme Court, this tendency to favour to the West.

I agree that these three agencies-the Société du financement agricole, the Farm Credit Corporation and the FIMCLA we are discussing this morning in this debate on Bill C-75-offer programs that differ in a number of respects, so they do not interfere with each other. That is the impression we get initially. However, if we take a closer look, we soon realize that farm producers would be better served if all these programs could be accessed in a single location. It would be much more efficient to have programs that are complementary but with the same requirements, than to face filling out three different applications because the criteria are not the same.

If for instance the Société de financement agricole had access to the resources of the two other agencies, it could offer new programs. The SFA could become a single wicket centre. For years, the federal government has made a habit of making certain programs unnecessarily complex and in some cases almost inaccessible. A good example in Quebec is manpower training, where we are losing $265 million because two levels of government are involved. And even worse, our people do not get full value for the money that goes into these programs. There is a lot of interfering and shoving, and the neediest members of our

society end up having to pay for this exercise in futility. Need I repeat that manpower training is a provincial matter.

In fact, a province like Quebec, may decide to set criteria that are not compatible with what the federal government has decided to do. These criteria may be better adapted to the province's needs and current situation but not fit into the federal mould.

Let us assume that in Quebec, the Société du financement agricole has standards that are stricter than those of the FIMCLA referred to in Bill C-75. By setting up parallel programs, the federal government would undermine what the provincial government is doing, in this case the Government of Quebec, and if the province's objective is part of a strategy to develop the agricultural industry, that is just too bad.

Let us assume that the SFA wanted to do something about the alarming increase in farm debt by adopting certain criteria.

But it would not really be free to implement its decisions, because some federal agency would come along and decide that this would conflict with its priorities. Period. Once again, the federal government, with its unlimited power to spend, has the bigger end of the stick. To hell with the deficit. In 1970, this country was almost deficitless. And now, 25 years later, it is saddled with an accumulated deficit of over $550 billion, and need I remind you of the unpleasant fact that, during those 25 years, with the exception of the nine year Conservative reign, this country has been governed by the Liberals.

[Business Development Bank Of Canada Act, May 29th, 1995]

This is indeed a disgrace. What is even more regrettable is that the federal will, once more, impose the same medicine to all the regions of Canada. Well-meaning civil servants will decide, from Ottawa, what is good for the regions and other civil servants, also well-meaning, will apply the decisions made in Ottawa.

Decentralization is presented as the way of the future but Bill C-91 shows that the federal government has no use for regionalization. The Government of Quebec is trying to decentralize certain powers and give regions the money they need to exercise them. Bill C-91 goes blindly in the opposite direction. At a time of cuts, when money is getting scarce, with Bill C-91 the federal government is opting for a less cost effective solution simply because it will get increased visibility. This is very sad for taxpayers.

The federal government would rather withdraw from social programs and use taxpayers' money to intrude needlessly on Quebec structures designed to deal with small and medium size businesses. These political choices are not made in the interests of regions but rather in the interests of the federal government. Therefore, I will oppose Bill C-91 because I respect the work done by the Government of Quebec and by regional stakeholders, and because I also respect the choices they have made. Using these means to foster the popularity of the federal government among the people cannot be justified.

I could mention all the duplications that are already costing taxpayers so much because they always end up paying the bill through their municipal, school, provincial and federal taxes. Let us take for example manpower training. It should come under provincial jurisdiction. Yet, because of this duplication, the federal government spent needlessly, in Quebec alone, $265 million in administrative costs. We are literally stepping on each others toes.

I have no objection to the federal government meddling in provincial affairs. It can show off its spending power all it wants. But it should start by paying its own debts. We had to fight, in this House, to obtain that the federal government pay its share of the 1992 referendum, a promise made by the previous Prime Minister that the present Prime Minister wanted to renege on.

The native crisis in Quebec cost hundreds of millions of dollars and we are still negotiating the federal government's

share. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, rest assured that the Bloc Quebecois will oppose this bill that we consider totally useless.

[Business Development Bank Of Canada Act, May 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues before me did a good job explaining the subject matter of Bill C-91. Therefore, I will only say that it is mainly aimed at transforming the Federal Business Development Bank, commonly known as the FBDB, into the Business Development Bank of Canada.

To create this new entity, the government is not amending the Federal Business Development Bank Act; it is introducing a new piece of legislation, Bill C-91.

I will deal with three aspects of this bill. The mandate of the FBDB, as we know it, will be extended. Consequently, the

modified FBDB will no longer be solely a financial institution geared to last resort funding. From now on, the new Business Development Bank of Canada will be able to provide complementary funding to other financial institutions.

Second, it will now be easier for the Business Development Bank of Canada to enter into agreements with public and private partners, either at the federal or provincial level, to set up financing syndicates.

Third, the bank will have financial instruments, such as shares, which will enable it to increase its capital without depending on government funds.

I will therefore focus on the disastrous consequences of this amendment on regional development. Unfortunately, it would appear that, under the guise of regional development, Bill C-91 is the new way the federal government has found to once again interfere in provincial affairs.

As in many other areas, it has not been clearly established whether regional development is a provincial or a federal responsibility. Some provinces, such as Quebec, have long demanded exclusive powers in this area. As you might expect, the federal government has always refused to recognize regional development as a strictly provincial responsibility.

At each round of constitutional negotiations, this claim was summarily rejected. However, under Quebec-Canada framework agreements the federal government had made a commitment to the Quebec government to limit its regional interventions.

The Economic and Regional Development Agreement for Quebec came to an end in December 1994 and the federal government refused to renew it. Clauses 20 and 21 of the bill will make the Business Development Bank of Canada more visible in the outlying regions since it will have the authority to sign agreements directly with other federal departments, regional agencies like the conseils régionaux de développement, and, eventually, with the corporations de développement économique and even with individuals.

If the bank can deal directly with local stakeholders, it could have a negative impact on provincial strategic plans since it could induce the CRDs to model their priorities on Ottawa in order to get money. Therefore, the bill disregards the joint efforts made by the provincial governments and the local business community. Once again the federal government comes trampling in, saying: "Make way, here we come with our spending power!"

Let me remind you that this famous spending power has given the federal government a debt which now stands at $550 billion. Let me remind you also that this $550 billion debt has been accumulated largely, if not totally, over the last 25 years. And except for a period of nine years, who were the leaders of this country during those last 25 years? We all know that the Liberal Party of Canada was in office during those years. That is what spending power gives us. They meddle in everything and often spend ill-advisedly. Just look at the facts. In the present case, a simple name change will cost Canadian taxpayers millions.

[Canadian Dairy Commission Act, May 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide a little background on the dairy industry in Canada. In the 1960s, there was no supply management in the dairy industry. Farmers were producing as much milk as they wanted.

In the summer, when they were out to pasture, dairy cows produced three or even four times as much milk. The milk was put into containers commonly called milk cans. To keep the milk fresh, these cans were placed in the spring or the river nearest to the barn. At 9, 9.30 or 10 a.m., depending on the transporter's route, the cans were picked up on tripods along the road.

The truth be known, freshness left something to be desired. Processing plants were drowning in milk in the summer, but come winter, farmers were having a more difficult time; in order to produce the milk, they had to buy meal, ingredients, inputs. It was not really worthwhile to produce milk in the winter. So they produced the maximum in the summer and stopped producing in the winter.

That is what was happening on our farms during the 1960s and early 1970s. In 1970, 1971 and 1972, milk producers got together with government officials and set up standards, agreements. They said that there is no use producing too much milk if we are not able to use it and if we cannot sell it outside the country.

They came up with supply management, that some people are decrying so strongly here in the House. Supply management requires a farmer to now produce 12 months a year, on a monthly basis. Our dairy farmer cannot keep the cream and give the whey to others. He has to produce milk in summer, fall, winter and spring. Therefore he must manage his herd in such a way that cows will calve all year long. He can non longer take advantage of geographical or climatic factors.

In that regard, I would ask my Reform colleague to explain the second point that his colleague and friend so brilliantly explained yesterday in this House. The agriculture critic and member for Vegreville outlined the four points his party's dairy policy. I would like to have the second point explained further this afternoon.

I quote: "Second, Reformers acknowledge that the agriculture industry, including supply managed sectors, is moving toward a more competitive market driven system". Where can there be any competition if a farmer is told that he has to produce 1,000 litres of milk for the local dairy, while one of his neighbours has to produce 1,100 litres, and the other has to produce 900?

Where can there be competition when, for milk of the same quality, one farmer is paid 47 cents a litre and another 46 cents, because he is a member of the Liberal Party, the Reform Party or the Bloc Quebecois? How can producers compete with one another under such circumstances, if they have to produce milk

of the same quality? I would like my Reform colleague to explain his view on competition.

[Canadian Dairy Commission Act, May 16th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, my distinguished colleague and member for Malpèque is an expert in dairy production, and I have considerable respect for him.

The Federation of Dairy Producers of Canada decided to comply with the provisions of NAFTA-and NAFTA is the reason we are here debating Bill C-86 this afternoon-because the $3 levy per hectolitre of milk could have been reduced by 15 per cent a year. However, GATT determined that, as of August 1, 1995, this $3 deduction from the income of industrial milk producers would be illegal under the NAFTA agreement, because it would be considered a direct export subsidy.

This is debatable, but since it seems we do not want to overly upset the Americans, we bowed to their demands. We still do not know which takes precedence-GATT or NAFTA-so we comply with the requirements of NAFTA.

Under this agreement, we obtained an extension in order to become legal. As the member for Malpèque pointed out, the quota may be negotiated between provinces. The hon. member for Malpèque could buy part of Quebec's quota to expand his farm. Better yet, if he wants to swell his coffers, he could sell his quota to Quebecers, who could take his quota from Prince Edward Island and bring it to Quebec.

I think this is a very good point in Bill C-86, given that, in the agreement signed by the farm producers of the six provinces, if, for example, Prince Edward Island sees its milk quota vanish like snow in springtime after the 1 per cent sale, it can temporarily withdraw from the agreement it signed with the other five provinces.

What I want to find out from my colleague for Malpeque, who is very familiar with agriculture across Canada, is: what is going to happen to the three recalcitrant provinces? I will not go so far as calling them separatist, but I would like to know what we can give these three western provinces to get them to sign the agreement with the six other provinces, since they produce barely 18 per cent of Canada's milk.

[Canadian Dairy Commission Act, May 16th, 1995]

Annually.

[Canadian Dairy Commission Act, May 16th, 1995]

Question. Question.

[Canadian Dairy Commission Act, May 16th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Vaudreuil talked about the target price for industrial milk, which is essential to producers of powdered milk, for example, or frozen pizzas with cheese; this class of milk is sold at a lower price. He talked about the targeted price for that milk. I would like him to elaborate on that.

Secondly he spoke about NAFTA and GATT. I often ask Liberal Party members as well as Reformers which of the two agreements should take precedence. Would the hon. member for Vaudreuil not agree that his government should seek to determine which should take precedence?

For example, the three dollar levy per hectolitre of milk was partly consistent with GATT. It could have been reduced each year by 15 per cent, while, according to NAFTA, it will have to be totally eliminated by August 1, 1995. Which one is right? Is it

GATT or NAFTA? If the hon. member for Vaudreuil does not know, would he not be tempted to suggest to his minister of agriculture that he seek a determination of whether GATT or NAFTA takes precedence?

[Canadian Dairy Commission Act, May 16th, 1995]

Then 30 seconds will not be enough.