Jean-Guy Chrétien

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would like to cordially congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture for his contribution to the debate today the purpose of which is to expose the unjustness of the particular treatment that the government will unfairly give to the west.

I found it particularly entertaining, since he knows the farming sector so well, when he talked about cows producing astronomical quantities of milk. I am proud to announce that in 1990, the champion milk producer, a Holstein cow, lived in my riding, in the parish of Plessisville.

I would also like to say that the parliamentary secretary certainly must frequent different dairy producers than I do. I have with me a photocopy of an editorial by Claude Rivard which was published in the newspaper Le producteur de lait québécois . Mr. Rivard is no small fry. He is the president for Quebec and vice-president of Dairy Farmers of Canada. Obviously, the title of his editorial is ``The federal government's heavy hand''.

I would now like to contradict what the parliamentary secretary said regarding research and development in the farming sector. Mr. Martin's axe has not just nicked dairy and transportation subsidies. The government has announced that it intends to completely withdraw from all dairy control programs within three years. How can we produce world champion cows with no control in the sector? Research and development are the cornerstones of dairy production.

Had it not been for previous governments investing public funds in genetics and milk recording, we would still be like some Latin American and South or North African countries. Within three years, the federal government will have withdrawn from the industry and be quite proud of itself.

In 1990, the top dairy cow in Canada was in the parish of Plessisville. Yet, in 1995, the government cuts funding. It announces plans to cut it completely within three years.

The hon. parliamentary secretary raised another interesting point in his remarks. He said, and this is true, that, in Ontario, milk production is about 50 per cent for industrial use and 50 per cent for drinking. In Quebec, this is not the case, of course.

Does he not realize that years of relentless work have gone into milk pricing? We are in the process of narrowing the gap and, 16 or 17 months from now, on August 1, 1996, we should have achieved uniformity in milk pricing.

However, by cutting $1.51 per hectolitre off the price of industrial milk, he just increased the price differential between the two again. Of course, milk producers are digging into the temporary equivalent stabilization fund but there is hardly any money left in this fund. I know what is going to happen. The government will boast, saying: "We did not raise taxes; we did not have the heart to do that". It cuts its tax transfers to the provinces, forcing the provinces to cut their transfers to the municipalities and, in turn, the municipalities will be forced to increase our property taxes.

What will milk producers do come August 1? They will go to the Canadian Dairy Commission and ask that the price of their industrial milk be raised. Then, milk processors will raise the price of butter, cheese, yogurt and ice cream by 25, 30, 35 cents a pound. And the government will say: "But we are not increasing taxes". What it takes away from one group, this group has to make others pay for.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have here an article from Le Droit the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is described as ``a lion transformed into a mouse''.

If farmers had been attacked, or struck, or knocked about when he was a member of the Opposition, the Liberal Party whip would have made the exact same speech as the one he just gave, but in reverse. Here it says that the member from the other side is inflexible in the area of agriculture, he refuses any measure affecting the farmers who make up a good portion of his constituency, including Réjean Pommainville.

I have here a paper, Farm and Country , which is the equivalent of our La terre de chez nous in Quebec. It says this measure will cost farmers $56 per head of cattle. You heard me right, $56 per head of cattle. Farmers in his riding have 60 head of cattle each on average, and Réjean Pommainville has 75. Multiply these figures by 56 and you will reduce the deficit that the Liberals, among others, have generated year after year since 1970.

I have here notes from the press conference held last week by the president of the UPA, the Quebec Union des producteurs agricoles.

He spoke about the subsidy for industrial milk. I suggest my colleague, the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, phone the UPA and get information on this. I will gladly give him the number if need be, like he did two weeks ago on Sunday when he gave us a phone number where the information given was exactly the opposite.

The UPA's notes say this: $5.43 by hectolitre, a 30 per cent cut over two years; I am honest, I say it. This does not represent 80 cents or even 90 cents. I would invite him to do the calculation: $5.43 multiplied by 0.3 represent a $1.51 reduction by hectolitre.

So, if a farmer has a quota of 2,500 hectolitres, it means a contribution of $3,775 to the reduction of the deficit that the member himself helped to create and, on top of that, he is cutting the transport subsidy for feed, which is estimated at $10 per ton. If this farmer buys 71 tons to feed his cows that will produce 2,500 hectolitres, he will have to contribute $710 more.

So, for the farmers in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, the average contribution is $4,485. The lion, the member of the rat pack who got to be well known while in the opposition has become a mouse. He should go and meet the people from the UPA, he should visit the live animals auction houses to see the big disappointment that the Liberal budget has created throughout Quebec and throughout rural Canada.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear from the remarks of my colleague for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup that La Pocatière is in his riding.

Let me remind you again that agricultural research and development is vital. It is the key to success. It makes the difference between a country where there is food self-sufficiency and a third world country that continually has to import food to feed its people.

My main reason for my interest in sheep is the DLS breed. Some researchers, particularly researchers from La Pocatière in conjunction with their colleagues from Lennoxville, in the vicinity of my hon. colleague's riding of Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, and my own riding of Frontenac, succeeded in genetically producing a new breed of sheep which will leave its marks on the future of sheep breeding in Quebec and Canada.

What is even more disappointing for the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup is, of course, the fact that, after a fire at the experimental farm, the federal government, typically lacking in vision, spent nearly $7 million to repair and rebuild buildings used among other things for sheep breeding. Now, in this budget devoid of comprehensive view, it is announcing the closure of this research station which, incidentally, was the oldest in Canada and Quebec.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I may remind you once again that in October 1993, Quebecers and Canadians opted for a change, but especially Quebecers.

Before 1984, there were 74 Liberal members in this House, similar to the member I just heard. Today, Mr. Speaker, there are at least 53 members of the Bloc Quebecois who are prepared to rise in this House to condemn inequities. During the last election campaign to which the hon. member referred earlier, I followed him around for a few days, but he was always hidden away, while I was around his riding. I often went to L'Encan Lafaille et Fils.

I suggest the hon. member go and talk to the farmers next Monday, at L'Encan Lafaille in Coaticook, and ask them what they think of the Martin budget on agriculture. This guy does not have a clue about what is going on. He should go and talk to the UPA on Bourque Boulevard, just outside his riding, near Magog, and find out what the UPA in Sherbrooke has to say about the

Martin budget, especially the cuts in the dairy sector. He should read La terre de chez nous and find out what the farmers think about his government, and he will realize they are not very happy.

Why not talk to the farmers he did not meet during the election campaign, because he refused to have a debate? He does not talk about it, he tries to evade the issue, and when Quebec was represented by 74 members, 74 sheep, this attitude did a lot of damage. In concluding, I suggest the hon. member go to Bourque Boulevard. Next Monday, and if he does not know how to get there, I will go with him, he should go to L'Encan Lafaille, to talk to the farmers. Then he might realize what is really going on.

It is all very well to have a bunch of lawyers, but a bunch of farmers defended by farmers is even better. So I would urge the former president of the Quebec Bar Association to take a stand in favour of agriculture.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I really wanted to take part in this debate because, as you know, my colleague, the hon. member for Champlain, sits on the Standing Committee on Agriculture. In the past, he has always demonstrated a keen interest in agriculture.

However, I would like to hear his comments on the issue of research and development. As he mentioned, unfortunately for the province of Quebec, two research stations will be closed, one at L'Assomption and the other at La Pocatière.

I remember the day I was sitting on a committee on agriculture with the hon. Eugene Whelan, as a guest witness. You must have known him very well, since he has made a significant contribution in this area. He used to say to us: "Each dollar we invest in agriculture has a $7 return."

I would ask the hon. member for Champlain whether he would agree with the hon. Eugene Whelan and, if so, how he can justify the cuts the Liberal government has made in agricultural R & D?

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank heartily the Minister of Agriculture for making the time in his heavy schedule to participate in this debate on agriculture today.

On the other hand, I would like to remind the Minister of Agriculture that there is a new dynamics in Quebec, in Canada and in this House in particular. I can remember in the years 1968 to 1970 and up to the 1984 federal elections, Quebec was represented in this House by 74 Liberal members and one Conservative, in the person of my friend Roch LaSalle. There was nobody to denounce inequities. That hurt the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, is it an attempt to set the West against the East? Is it an attempt to set the Maritimes against Quebec when we, Bloc members, elected representatives of Quebec, rise in this House to say, for instance, that Quebec's share of the $3 billion budget for agriculture in 1993 was $372 million, or 12.4 per

cent. That is not even one eighth of the agriculture department's budget. Yet, taxes paid by Quebecers account for 23 per cent of the budget as a whole.

By denouncing inequities, are we trying to pit the West against Quebec? In the old days, the 74 Liberal members did not rise in this House to do so.

I am doing my duty today by stating loud and clear that $300 million of federal agriculture expenditures went to Quebec in 1980, as compared to $1 billion to Western provinces, and $410 million as compared to more than $4 billion in 1987.

There are about 18 Liberal members from Quebec at present. When will the new member for Brome-Missisquoi for example rise in this House to defend the interests of the Brome-Missisquoi farm producers? Never. Is it an attempt to set the Maritimes against Quebec to state in this House that, from 1980 to 1987, federal expenditures on agriculture have grown six times slower in Quebec than in the rest of Canada?

The list of inequities goes on and on. I would like the Minister of Agriculture to give Quebec farm producers the same treatment given farm producers from his region, Western Canada.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will comply with your instructions willingly and I would like to stress that I always send my salutations along with the Speaker's to the dignitaries who are acknowledged in the gallery behind me.

I was saying just before you intervened that the links between Quebec and Canada would be cut if Quebec voted yes in the referendum. Trade between Quebec and Canada-get a load of this, my friends across the way-is over $80 billion per year. This economic integration alone is justification for maintaining some kind of economic tie between Canada and Quebec or Quebec and Canada. Isolating the case of milk quotas to show that Quebec would lose its exports, and that the opposite would not take place, is pure bunk.

Quebec dairy farmers play a leadership role in the present supply management system. With about 48 per cent of industrial milk quotas, Quebec is the main supplier of dairy products for the whole of Canada. For example, did you know, hon. colleagues, that 40 per cent of Canadian cheese consumed by the rest of Canada come from Quebec? It is with this in mind that we must consider the future.

We will soon have to make a decision regarding the future of Quebec. I strongly believe that no matter what we decide, it is in the best interest of the rest of Canada, as well as of Quebec, to co-operate in order to preserve the dynamism of our agricultural sector. On Wednesday, March 29, we had very concrete proof that this co-operation goes way beyond the political level. This did not happen a century ago, this was last week. Dairy farmers in Quebec and Canada signed a memorandum of agreement integrating the marketing of industrial and consumer milk in six eastern provinces. I would like to name them: Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. I would remind you that Newfoundland is not part of the supply management system.

An agreement was signed to create a common market between these six provinces. Under this agreement all farmers in these provinces will receive the same amount of money for their milk and will have a common quota. You have to understand that an unfair practise had existed for years. A farmer who had an industrial milk quota sold his milk for up to 10 per cent less than what he could have gotten for consumer milk. If two identical cows had been branded, one for consumer milk and the other one for industrial milk, the farmer would have gotten less for the production of the latter.

In less than 18 months, this inequity will have disappeared. We had this distortion, and it was not in Central America or in Central Africa, but here in Quebec. We had two different prices for the same milk, depending on whether it was to be processed or consumed as such. The six provinces now party to this agreement account for 85 per cent of the Canadian industrial milk quota. This integration will allow them to put in place a single system of milk marketing. In the medium term we can even see the total elimination of interprovincial barriers to milk supply.

The lesson to be drawn from this agreement is that even in a referendum year dairy farmers in Canada demonstrated that they are willing to integrate economically with Quebec. Why should they take the risk of signing this kind of agreement at the present time? Surely because they know that following a yes vote in the referendum, Canada will keep its economic union with Quebec in order to protect its own interests.

This proves that economic reality is stronger than emotional considerations.

Federalists raise another important issue, namely what will happen to customs tariffs with the U.S.? When renegotiating NAFTA, the U.S. will probably try to get a better deal than they already have, which will not be any different from what is happening right now. Just as Canada does at the present time, Quebec will answer that tariffs are protected by GATT, which is what the agriculture minister tells us every time we ask a question in this House regarding the sugar negotiations, wheat exports, and the tariff issues raised by the U.S. the day after New Year. This very minister invariably answers that GATT agreements take precedence over NAFTA. If this is true in his case, it should also be true for Quebec.

The real threat against the dairy industry and Quebec agriculture does not come from Quebec's possible sovereignty, but from the federal government opposite which is increasingly neglecting Quebec agriculture, and especially the dairy industry. It comes from a total lack of planning on the part of the government opposite and, above all, from the lack of fairness of the budget measures proposed by the Liberal government.

February 28 was a sad day for dairy producers in Quebec and Ontario. On that day, the finance minister announced, in his

budget, a 30 per cent reduction over two years of the federal subsidy for industrial milk. Since Quebec farmers alone produce 48 per cent of the industrial milk quota, it is obvious that they are the ones who are the most unfairly affected.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to use props, but there is in Ontario a farming magazine called Farm and Country. It is the equivalent of Quebec's La Terre de chez nous . Every farmer at least flips through it from cover to cover, if they do not actually read all of it. This week, there is a cartoon on the front page, showing a beautiful Holstein cow and, sitting on a small stool, a farmer who bears a striking likeness to our finance minister. He is milking the cow. His pail is empty. The teat is full of scars. When he squeezes it, all he gets is one lonely drop of milk. This is the kind of future this government is shaping for dairy producers.

Also, last week, Mr. Laurent Pellerin, president of UPA and a great advocate of Quebec farmers, whom I salute today in this House, estimated that the 30 per cent reduction in industrial milk subsidies will cost producers $4,485 over two years. If you allow me, I will take a few seconds to explain how he reached this figure. I would like the agriculture minister to listen very carefully because there is something I want to point out.

Dairy farmers will not receive any financial compensation for these cuts, unlike western wheat and grain producers, who will receive $1.6 billion in non-taxable funds, which is the equivalent of $2.2 billion. But there is absolutely nothing for Quebec and Ontario.

A farmer who produces 2,500 hectolitres of milk per year and who buys 71 tonnes of mash every year to feed his cows will be hurt because, as you know, the feed grain transportation subsidies have also been cut in the East. The Maritimes will be hit hard. The subsidy on 2,500 hectolitres has been cut by $5.43 per hectolitre times 2,500, or $5.43 less 30 per cent or $1.51.

Dairy farmers face cuts of 15 per cent this year and 15 per cent next year for a total of 30 per cent for every hectolitre produced. Next year, they will lose $1.51 per hectolitre. A farmer producing 2,500 hectolitres per year faces a $3,775 cut.

To this must be added the cuts to the feed grain transportation subsidies. The resulting increase for farmers is estimated at $10 per tonne. Farmers will be asked to do their share to correct the past mistakes of successive federal governments that accumulated huge deficits. A farmer buying 71 tonnes at $10 per tonne would add $710 to the $3,775 cut and end up with a $4,485 contribution to deficit reduction.

As you know full well, what will happen in August is that dairy producers will ask the Canadian Dairy Commission to increase milk prices, and I hope that their request will be granted. Dairy producers are not stupid. They do not have to suffer such a major drop in income. The Canadian Dairy Commission will allow them to raise their prices, I hope, to compensate for cost of living increases and the losses incurred.

As a result, consumers will pay much more for powdered milk, butter, cheese, yogurt and ice cream. This is called hidden taxes. Farm and Country , the Ontario magazine I referred to earlier, estimates that every dairy farmer contributes $56 per cow to deficit reduction.

Surprisingly enough, not a single Liberal member rose in this House to denounce the 328,000 flights. As we read in the newspaper last week, these trips cost nearly $1 billion in travel expenses. I have the newspaper article in front of me: the 328,000 flights taken between April 1993 and March 1994 cost taxpayers $275 million so that Canadian Forces members and senior officials, in particular officials at the Department of Transport, could travel.

In closing, I urge dairy farmers in Ontario and Quebec to look out for the ordeal that this government will inflict on them in the next 24 months.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

moved:

That this House denounce the government for reducing the general budget of the Department of Agriculture by 19 per cent and milk subsidies by 30 per cent and for converting grain transportation subsidies into direct subsidies to Western farmers, thereby enabling the latter to diversify and enjoy an unfair competitive advantage over farmers in Eastern Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure this morning, as agriculture and agri-food critic, to start the debate on this opposition day on agricultural issues because we in the Bloc Quebecois believe that these matters must get all the attention they deserve.

With the cuts it set in motion, the federal government recently gave the impression that the agricultural sector is of secondary importance.

I would like to thank my colleagues who agreed to speak today in the course of this opposition day on agriculture. They are the hon. members for Joliette, Champlain, Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, Shefford, Matapédia-Matane, Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, Lotbinière and Québec-Est.

You will note, Mr. Speaker, that, with the exception of the hon. member for Québec-Est, all of them represent ridings with a high percentage of farm producers and a wide variety of farm types. Therefore, should you take the time to listen carefully to all the speeches, you will be fully versed, by the end of the day, in Canadian agriculture and, especially, in Quebec agriculture.

Accordingly, with the motion we are putting before this House today, which you have just read, we are strongly criticizing the cuts the government is preparing to make on the backs of farmers. In addition to slashing in the agricultural sector, the federal government is wielding an axe there, completely indiscriminately.

I will take the liberty of reading word for word the motion tabled in the House today by the official opposition: "That this House denounce the government for reducing the general budget of the Department of Agriculture by 19 per cent and milk subsidies by 30 per cent"-this is a direct attack against the 12,000 dairy farmers of Quebec-"and for converting grain transportation subsidies into direct subsidies to Western farmers, thereby enabling the latter to diversify and enjoy an unfair competitive advantage over farmers in Eastern Canada"-and, of course, farmers in Quebec.

We denounce not only the cuts, but the Liberal government's lack of long term vision for this sector. I see the Minister of Agriculture across from me. I salute him and invite him to spend the entire day in the House to discover what Quebec MPs think of his recent budget and his vision for agriculture in Quebec and Canada. All he is succeeding in doing is throwing the market off balance with inappropriate compensatory measures.

It looks like a wind of concern is blowing through the Liberal camp. They are trying to target the agricultural sector by waving the spectre of the catastrophes that will befall us when Quebec achieves sovereignty. We will therefore take this opportunity to set the record straight.

Of all the spectres being waved by the federalists, milk quotas are, by far, the one most often hauled out of moth balls to frighten the farming community. Just recently the paper, La Terre de chez nous , and the daily, La Presse , described in length the disasters awaiting farmers in a sovereign Quebec, according to an agronomist.

Also in La Presse , a columnist said that sovereignty is dangerous because, if Quebec voted yes in the referendum, its supply management system would be dashed to pieces.

The Council for Canadian Unity has made milk quotas the cornerstone of its campaign of fear targeting the farming sector. It says that if Quebec separates, it would lose its milk quota for sales to Canada immediately-not tomorrow or the next day but immediately. That hits home harder and is scarier.

Seriously now, is that really the no side's strategy? The conclusion to be drawn from this line of argument from federalists is that they have no idea how the dairy industry in Canada and Quebec works.

What saying that sovereignty would be catastrophic for Quebec's dairy industry shows most of all is that federalists have found no other way of scaring our farmers. The biggest myth going around is that Quebec's industrial milk quota would be cut at least in half-that hits home even more-forcing many dairy farms in Quebec to close. We all know that Quebec producers have 48 per cent of the industrial milk quota while 25 per cent of Canada's population lives in Quebec. Now, several farmers from Quebec, who have gone to the trouble of coming here to listen to us today, are in the gallery facing me.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 3rd, 1995]

Yes, for shame, Mr. Speaker.

During his election campaign, he said he would speak out, loud and clear, for Quebec and for the riding of Brome-Missisquoi. However, he has kept a very low profile, not bothering to speak out even once to defend the interests of the farmers in the riding of Brome-Missisquoi, a riding that has so many outstanding farms.

As I said before, not a penny of tax will be collected on those $1.6 billion. And in addition to the $1.6 billion, there is another $300 million, but the government does not even know how it will spend it. Nevertheless, an additional $300 million has been provided, to be included in the budget over the next five years.

Every time we see an example of inequity or injustice, we intend to rise in this House and vigorously condemn the government. And I urge my colleagues from Quebec to avoid a recurrence of what happened last week, when Quebec's entitlement to its fair share of seats in Parliament was attacked and to rise in the House and say no, we will not go below 25 per cent. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi rose in the House and

was applauded by his anglophone colleagues when he joined in the attack on his own Quebec.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that I agree with my two colleagues, the hon. member for Ahuntsic and the hon. member for Bourassa. Indeed, we all know Armenians who directly or indirectly experienced the hardship suffered by that nation.

Let us now turn our attention to Bill C-76, which was carefully reviewed by our critic, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, who knows a great deal about public finances, particularly at the federal level. Bill C-76 seeks to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled by the Minister of Finance. I want to discuss the impact of that budget on the agricultural industry, which is one of the most seriously affected.

The proposed cuts are far from having an equal impact on the various regions of the country. The Liberal government has abdicated its responsibility toward the agricultural sector. It is abandoning one of the most dynamic industries in Canada and in Quebec. The agri-food sector accounts for close to 10 per cent of our GDP, 15 per cent of the total employment, and almost 25 per cent of the surplus of goods. Between 1987-88 and 1994-95, the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food's estimates was reduced by a whopping 33 per cent, and that includes the subsidies provided under the WGTA. We are talking about a 33 per cent reduction in financial resources; this is one third of the total budget over a five-year period.

If you look a little farther down the road, it is estimated that, by 1997-98, the agriculture and agri-food budget will have diminished by 58 per cent. This is ridiculous. This morning, I was looking at a publication called Farm and Country , which is sent to Ontario farmers. The cartoon on the front page showed a beautiful Holstein cow with a farmer sitting on his little stool and trying to milk the cow. But nothing was coming out.

If this government continues to slash in that sector, this could well be the fate of Canada's agriculture and agri-food industry.

As a percentage of total government spending, amounts allocated for agriculture have dropped dramatically. In 1987-88, the total budget for agricultural and agri-food, as a percentage of the budget for all government envelopes, was 3.5 per cent under the Conservative government. In 1994-95, the fiscal year that ended yesterday, it was 1.6 per cent. In 1997-98, it is expected to be only 1.2 per cent.

This government seems to have cut itself off completely from the agricultural sector. We have said so before and we will say it again: it is outrageous to treat the agricultural industry this way.

If we look at the kind of cuts that will be made, it is clear the government does not have its priorities straight. Furthermore, it is not prepared to deal with the problems and consider the long term impact. Bill C-76 repeals the Western Grain Transportation Act, the WGTA. The legislation will be replaced by a series of measures that will continue to regulate grain transportation, despite elimination of the Crow Rate.

Included in this budget is compensation for western producers who are affected by this cut. The government intends to offer $1.6 billion to owners of farm land, to partially offset the drop in land values that will result.

Interestingly, even if a producer did not grow wheat during the past year, he will be entitled to compensation. I see the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi across the way. I am anxious to see whether he will react to this injustice, in a country where we now have two classes of farmers: those who are compensated to the tune of $1.6 billion, not taxable, while dairy producers in his own riding will suffer cuts averaging $4,485 and get absolutely nothing.

Yesterday, he was in Cowansville, the riding of Brome-Missisquoi, to sing the praises of his government's policies. I assume he did not say a word about the unfair treatment of our Quebec farmers as opposed to western farmers.