Jean-Guy Chrétien

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 20th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague from the government party. It is quite surprising since on the front page of this morning's Le Droit , a veteran of this party is described as a lion that turned into a mouse.

How things change. When the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell sat on this side, he was a member of the so-called "rat pack". He was a very dedicated member, especially for his constituents, including the many farmers in his riding. The article says that the hon. member "was uncompromising on agricultural issues, denouncing all the measures likely to affect the farmers making up a large part of his constituency. Today he never opens his mouth".

My colleague from the Liberal Party has 1,001 good things to say about the budget tabled a few weeks ago, for which we now have to provide borrowing authority. He is currently sitting on the government side. In four or eight years at the most, he will find himself on this side of the House, or elsewhere looking for employment. However, with some members of his party finding themselves again on the opposition side, he will rediscover his old rhetoric as a member of the opposition. I ask him whether he is really sincere in listing all the good things about the budget?

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague from Burin-St. George's is an outstanding parliamentarian, and he regularly demonstrates his skills when he takes the floor.

The thing I disapprove of is that his party and, to a certain extent, the hon. member for Burin-St. George's himself, talk out of both sides of their mouth. I would like to give an example, that of the Canada Labour Code reform and precautionary withdrawal from work.

I do not need to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the family unit is the most valuable asset of any country. In May 1994, the Bloc Quebecois tabled a motion supported by the governing party, the Liberal Party of Canada, in order to raise the compensation for pregnant women to the 95 per cent level provided by the Quebec CSST. Right now, it stands at 60 per cent.

A discussion paper on the Canada Labour Code reform is being circulated at this time, and the Liberal Party of Canada did not include that motion, which it supported in May 1994, to give substantial assistance to pregnant women who must ask for precautionary withdrawal from work in order to carry their pregnancy to term and protect their unborn baby.

Like the rest of us, the hon. member for Burin-St. George's is certainly aware of the importance of the family unit, that is a wife, husband and children-the complet unit. The children will be the work force of tomorrow and will pay for our pensions. That natural asset of our country is now declining.

We moved a motion that the hon. member's party supported, but what we see and hear in the House today is just a lack of courage, and double talk, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, the hon. member for Burin-St. George's is the one who will have to clarify his party's position. I hope he will set the record straight, because this is an important motion on the equality of women.

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Québec for having introduced this most important motion in the House this morning. I expecially like the part of the motion which refers to: "-inaction regarding the adoption of concrete measures to promote the economic equality of women in federal areas of jurisdiction."

Would the Secretary of State for Training and Youth be prepared to make a commitment before the House this morning that she will take steps at the highest levels of her party to ensure that women will not be affected more than men by the 45 000 job downsizing over the next three years?

She said earlier that women accounted for 52 per cent of the Canadian population. Will the ratio be higher than 52 per cent when those 45 000 civil servants lose their jobs? Will there be many more women than men among those people?

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague from Saint-Hubert raises an issue that is both sensitive and real.

Indeed, in Quebec like everywhere else in Canada, women are clearly under-represented in the judiciary. I have vivid memories of the 1984 election campaign where the leaders of the four federal parties were proposing gender equality. The govern-

ments that have been in power since that time have done nothing, or almost nothing in this respect.

My colleague from Saint-Hubert asked a question of the Minister of Justice who will obviously avoid giving an answer. I would like to ask my colleague from Saint-Hubert if, in her opinion, the federal government demonstrates the will to achieve, within a reasonable time frame, equity in appointments to the bench.

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the comments on the budget made by my colleague from Burin-St. George's. Of course, the hon. member found a very simple way of explaining the deficit Canada is now facing by using the vivid image of the discussions he had with his wife. I could tell him that I too had similar discussions at home, but I also went to my constituents to sound them out while Parliament was in recess.

My constituents often tell me that what they want to see most is the federal government setting an example of good management. I have a few examples, such as MPs' pensions. It is surprising that our old hand from Newfoundland made no mention of members' pensions and that his leader said "give me one day and I will solve the problem of MPs' pensions".

Unfortunately, I would like to tell you about the case of the windows in the building on the other side of the river. Madam Speaker, you are interrupting me. Unfortunately, good management is what this government is lacking. There is no vision of the future.

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the speech on the budget given by our colleague for Central Nova. However, I must confess that I detected bias in her comments. This hon. member must be on the same team as the Minister of Finance.

She said a few minutes ago that she saw the budget as a source of jobs-there is nothing to be seen. There is absolutely nothing there, less than nothing for job creation in this country, on the contrary. The only good thing the Liberal government has done to create jobs was the $2 billion, which became-because it was a tripartite program-$6 billion.

That was the only good creative thing where jobs could be created, and it should be said that the jobs were temporary. There was $200 million left, and they were threatening to cut it. And the hon. member for Central Nova is telling us that jobs will be created out of this budget. On the contrary, there is nothing.

She spoke of the deficit and of the debt which had become huge, a major problem for the country. This is true. I, however, would remind her that, in 1970, when her team was running the country, the deficit was almost nil-$1 billion and some. It was "improved" again and again. There were of course Mr. Clark's nine months and the preceding government's nine years, but today's $550 billion debt, on which we pay $50 billion in interest a year, is the child of her own party, except for the nine years the Conservatives were in government, before the Liberals returned to power.

I conclude by asking my colleague how she is going to justify to her constituents the fact that they have widened the gap to obtain parity in industrial milk and unprocessed milk in Nova Scotia?

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Vaudreuil is to be commended for the stand he took in his speech on this budget. He is to be commended, but I am somewhat critical of his choice of words. I think he should check the definitions in the dictionary, and I am referring to the fact that he called this a "courageous budget".

I would like to remind the hon. member for Vaudreuil that during the last election campaign, the Deputy Prime Minister made the following promise: "Give me a year, and we will get rid of the GST or at least make some changes to improve it. Give me a year, and if we do not, I will resign". Fifteen or sixteen months later, nothing has changed. The only suggestion the finance committee made was to hide it, to camouflage it and make it a little less blatant.

The hon. member's leader, the Prime Minister, the leader of his own party, the Liberal Party of Canada, said: "Give me a day, and I will make some thorough changes in the pension plan for members of Parliament". Fifteen or sixteen months later, nothing has been done yet. And what is on the table is a mere shadow of pension reform.

The present Prime Minister said during the election campaign: "During our first term, I will not raise taxes or personal income tax". So what did he do in last year's budget? They raised $500 million by de-indexing old age security pensions. What did they do this year? The hon. member for Vaudreuil must know that they raised, or will raise, $500 million by taxing every litre of gas an extra 1.5 cents.

But this is the question I would like to put to the hon. member for Vaudreuil, who has a number of dairy farms in his riding. He must be aware of a consensus among dairy farmers in Canada on one milk, one price. By removing 15 per cent of the subsidy on industrial milk this year and another 15 per cent next year, the government is widening the gap. How will he explain to the dairy farmers in his riding that the gap is getting even wider?

And how can he explain to the farmers in his constituency, and I say this in concluding, why in the west, now that the Crow subsidy worth $560 million has been abolished, farmers will receive $1.6 billion in compensation tax free, when our dairy producers will lose 30 per cent of their milk subsidy without receiving any compensation whatsoever?

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I may recall this is a ratio of 6 to 1. How can the Liberal government justify this inequity which deprives Eastern producers of any form of compensation, although they will be the first to suffer as a result of competition from Western farm producers who are being subsidized by the federal government to diversify their production?

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.

In its budget, the government intends to spend $3.5 billion to compensate Western grain producers for eliminating the Crow subsidy which totals nearly $600 million annually. This compensation will be a direct incentive for the diversification of agricultural production in Western Canada.

Considering current budgetary constraints, how can the Liberal government justify replacing a grain transportation subsidy of $560 million with financial compensation and guarantees totalling $3.5 billion?

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, you are right, I have very little time to answer a question that would require a good 15 minutes. At any rate, I can tell you that, as far as several of my constituents are concerned, and many Quebec voters, including farm producers, this budget is totally unfair and is an example of mismanagement.

Let me remind you again, Madam Speaker, that the oldest research station, in La Pocatière, was closed after $7 million was sunk into it. It had not even been inaugurated yet.