Jean-Guy Chrétien

[Dairy Farmers, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, given the Prime Minister's reply, will he assure us that Canada will not hesitate to bring this issue before a WTO panel, if the Americans push the issue?

[Dairy Farmers, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Canadian dairy farmers are urging the Canadian government not to give in to Washington, which is trying to pressure the government into going back to the negotiating table for tariffs on dairy products, following the implementation of the new GATT agreements.

Does the Prime Minister plan to tell President Clinton that Canada intends to unequivocally defend farmers and to tell him in no uncertain terms that Canada has no intention of negotiating any reduction in the tariff rates approved in the GATT?

[Young Offenders Act, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, worried about the federal government's unwillingness to intervene while Canadian customs tariffs are under attack from the U.S., I questioned the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food last Friday. What I was asking the minister to do was to ready his

guns and get down to confronting the Americans on the yogurt and ice cream issue.

Let me remind you briefly of the cause for my concern. According to U.S. commerce secretary, Mickey Kantor, Canada is in breach of the North American free trade agreement when it imposes tariffs varying between 100 and 300 per cent on ice cream, yogurt, eggs and poultry exported to the U.S. On the other hand, under the GATT agreements, customs tariffs should be going down gradually over the next six years.

That is where I start having a problem with the Liberal government's inaction. The minister stated that the Canadian government was determined to defend dairy and poultry producers. I wish I could believe the government, but if it acts in the future like it did in the past, after seeing what it has done to Article XI of the GATT agreement, I must say that I can only doubt the good will, the genuine willingness of the minister and his government.

In response to my question, the minister also reiterated his government's support to the Canadian supply management system. In my sense, nothing is more uncertain than the Canadian government's willingness to fight for our supply management system. I would not be surprised if the government's feebleness on the ice cream and yogurt issue were the price to be paid to the Americans for resolving the conflict over Western wheat last summer.

One way to settle this dispute that may very well, in my opinion, degenerate into a trade war is to stop putting our heads in the sand and fight for recognition of GATT's precedence over NAFTA. All we have said so far is that GATT should indeed prevail, but we do not say it too loud to keep our American partners from hearing us.

Three days ago, the minister gave me the following answer: "If the United States has a different point of view and wants to take a run at us, we obviously cannot stop it from taking a run at us, but if it does, we will defend ourselves with everything we have". Incidentally, what do we have to defend our farmers with?

I do not think the minister has any effective means to defend our farmers because he has not gone to a GATT panel that could settle the Canada-U.S. dispute. Allow me to quote the Federation of Dairy Producers of Canada: "Unfortunately, the U.S.-based controversy surrounding the GATT and NAFTA regulations on tariff quotas has reached such proportions that our dairy producers are increasingly doubtful that Canada will succeed in negotiating a bilateral agreement that will benefit them". This quote does not come from me.

In a news bulletin, a few moments ago, I heard Claude Rivard and the vice-president of the Quebec milk producers' federation at a press conference here in Ottawa beg the government to show some guts and take action.

[Agricultural Subsidies, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, can the agriculture minister give us at this time the assurance that all farm producers in Canada will be treated equally and that the measures he will be putting forth will not allow Western producers to use federal subsidies to compete with Eastern producers?

[Agricultural Subsidies, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Just days away from budget day, the federal minister of agriculture talks about reviewing all agricultural subsidies, and those for grain transportation in particular. He plans to replace existing rail carrier subsidies with direct assistance to Western grain producers.

Will the agriculture minister confirm his government's intention to stop paying rail carriers subsidies and start subsidizing Western grain producers directly instead? And if so, can he undertake before this House to-

[Customs Tariffs, February 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Since the legal position in this dispute is straightforward and clearly established by the Uruguay Round and there is nothing to negotiate, are we to understand that the government's weakness in this matter, which affects Quebec in particular, is the price to be paid to Americans for having resolved the conflict over western wheat last summer?

[Customs Tariffs, February 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the agriculture minister. Milk producers in Canada should be able to count on the government standing up for their interests in respect of the Canadian customs tariffs disputed by the United States. If its past record is any indication of what is to come, one might fear that the government may give in to pressure once again.

Are we to understand from the remarks of his colleague for international trade that Canada is preparing to drop yogurt and ice cream, thereby creating a significant gap in the supply management system?

[Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-61, immediately after the presentation by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings, especially since the hon. member, until quite recently, operated a big farm in his own riding and is an expert on the subject.

The purpose of the bill before the House today is to provide enforcement options to deal with persons who violate certain laws that regulate health standards and the quality of agricultural products sold in Canada and, of course, Quebec.

This legislation, as we just pointed out, will affect eight acts and their regulations, including the Canada Agricultural Prod-

ucts Act, the Meat Inspection Act, the Fertilizer Act and the Health of Animals Act. With Bill C-61, the government establishes what are referred to as AMPS. AMPS stands for administrative monetary penalties system. Throughout this debate, when we refer to AMPS, that is what we mean. The purpose of Bill C-61 is to extend the range of enforcement options available in legislation administered by the Food Production and Inspection Branch.

Under this system, an inspector from the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food will be able to impose penalties when regulations are violated. This procedure would obviate the need for going to court, so this is also a matter of alleviating the burden on the judiciary system.

After reading the Auditor General's comments on inspection procedures, it is clear changes were necessary. I realize that these changes are not directly related to the changes recommended in the Auditor General's report, but this may be a first step.

I may remind the House that in his latest report, the Auditor General of Canada pointed out that resources were being wasted as a result of the incredible confusion with respect to inspection standards. A document from the Food Production and Inspection Branch tells us that the government expects to cut $44 million in this sector over five years, including $22 million in the next budget, which the minister will be bringing down a few weeks from now. After the by-election in Brome-Missisquoi, of course.

It would be worthwhile knowing the savings, which my colleague from Prince Edward-Hastings did not mention, the amount of the savings generated by this new approach and whether these savings are included in the cuts mentioned earlier.

We must be very careful to avoid imposing drastic cuts that could affect the quality of inspection services. At the risk of digressing briefly from the context of the bill we are currently considering, that is Bill C-61, I will take the liberty of adding that I have received a lot of mail from small meat-packing firms concerned about possibly having to pay inspection costs themselves.

The members of the Bloc quebecois will be keeping a close watch, at the appropriate time, to ensure the government does not dump the costs onto small businesses. That is the end of my brief digression, Mr. Speaker.

The fact remains that the AMP system provides for the imposition of fines, but through an administrative process. An AMP cannot lead to either a criminal record or imprisonment. The main objective of the system is to ensure compliance with the law, it appears. It is not intended to impose heavy fines as the result of an offence.

The system invites negotiation much more than severe penalties. In fact, to my understanding, it provides an alternative to public officials who must ensure compliance with legislation. The principle is clear: the intention is to reduce the number of legal proceedings and to provide more satisfactory solutions to carrying out the law.

Representatives from the agricultural sector have already pointed out that overly excessive fines were sometimes imposed for offences and that officials sometimes had to simply overlook certain mistakes. The flexibility of the AMPs could lessen the problem.

What Bill C-61 provides that is new is an alternative solution for the offender. Once an individual is found guilty, he has a number of options open to him. He can contest his guilt with the minister within a prescribed time frame and under certain terms of the regulations. If, on the other hand, he accepts the guilty verdict and pays the fine, the amount of the fine is automatically cut in half.

In our system of justice, the presumption of innocence is a fundamental right. By giving the offender this option, the accused is in effect threatened with having to go to trial and having to hire a lawyer to defend himself, with all that entails. He is simply told to pay up and be quiet. We oppose this principle which would require the less affluent to admit their guilt even though they would like to proclaim their innocence. The implementation of this measure could create a dangerous precedent.

I would like to compare this possibility to a personal experience of mine. I was stopped by an officer of the Sureté du Québec; I was certainly at fault, driving at 141 km per hour. The officer said, very kindly, "Sir, you were doing 141 but we will say 135, that will save you this much, you will save that much".

Once he gave me the ticket, I of course wrote out the cheque as soon as I got home and sent it off right away and, in so doing, admitted my guilt. As another example, one of my friends was once ticketed in a different but similar situation, for failing to come to a stop, although he was sure he had stopped properly.

He decided to plead not guilty but he too, poor fellow, should have written out a cheque as I did to get some peace of mind. He had to appear three times in court in Thetford Mines. The first time, the case was postponed because the judge was not in a good mood. The second time, the officer failed to appear. He had informed the court, but there had not been enough time to inform my friend; the third time, he won.

Yes, he won, but the money he saved did not make up for the costs incurred since he missed nearly three full days of work, not to mention his travel expenses and what he paid for his defence.

So, you see, I am more or less convinced that many of our fellow citizens will simply pay, even if they are not at fault, they will pay immediately to receive the 50 per cent reduction. What a deal!

You know that for a $2,000 fine, the fine is reduced by 50 per cent if paid in cash. So, for that reason, I strongly suspect that many people will pay forthwith to avoid costs which, in my opinion, would be much greater. It is a basic right and it must still be respected. As the hon. members opposite have said so well, we live in the world's most democratic country, so we must not let this wonderful democracy run wild, even though it sometimes seems, in my opinion anyway, to only hobble along in some cases.

Therefore, we are against the principle which obliges the less well-off to admit their guilt, even though they would rather claim their innocence. Applying this measure could set a dangerous precedent because the other available option, if the fine is $2,000 or more, is to reach an agreement with the minister. Applying this alternative solution is simple. If the minister accepts-the decision is discretionary-offenders can considerably reduce or even cancel their fines if corrective measures are taken to comply with the regulations in the future, that is individuals or businesses will see their fines reduced by $1 for each $2 they invest to improve their methods, businesses, ways of doing things or working, whether they buy new equipment or give new training to their employees.

Therefore, for each $2 invested in their businesses, $1 is taken off of their fines. This means that for each investment made to comply with the department's regulations, their fines are regularly reduced by 50 per cent. Thus offenders are able to negotiate their sentences. Our judicial system does not lend itself, in my opinion, to this kind of negotiation. When people make mistakes, they must bear the consequences.

This method constitutes a form of economic discrimination in the sense that individuals and businesses with bursting wallets will barely feel the impact of the sanctions, while people who are innocent, but have less financial means at their disposal, could pay bigger fines than their rich neighbours, sometimes for lesser violations.

We also have no idea of how the offenders' compliance costs will be estimated, or of what will happen if suppliers inflate prices. If we want to give businesses incentives to invest, let us do it through tax programs or through other means, not by negotiating sentences.

Another thing that bothers me is the power given to the minister and, by extension, to his employees. The minister will use his own employees to ensure compliance instead of the courts. They will be the masters of the destiny of those who have committed violations. They decide if there has been a violation, label it as minor, serious, or very serious, set the amount of the penalty, decide on the cases in which the tribunal may intervene and approve or reject compliance agreements. It seems to me that this is being done and that it could be detrimental and could lead to the obvious risk of political interference, not to say barefaced patronage.

These officials will have full authority to determine whether or not there has been a violation, and if so, the degree of fault. Who will decide if the fine is $2,000 for a minor infraction, $10,000 for a serious infraction or $15,000 for a very serious infraction? The decision-making process is therefore decentralized and the minister claims that the regulations remove any risk of arbitrary decisions. Because they are seen by the department as essential to an equitable application of penalties, it goes without saying that a draft of the regulations must be made available to the members of the committee studying this bill.

I am also somewhat bothered by the independence of the tribunal responsible for hearing the complaints of those named in notices of violation and for reviewing the decisions made by the minister or his officials. This reminds me, if I may digress again, of the meeting last week of the 19 Quebec Liberal members with the president of the CBC to discuss coverage of the referendum campaign in Quebec. It is terrible, Mr. Speaker, the political interference of this government in information. When we speak of democracy in a country such as ours, the first thing this should call to mind is the right to accurate, truthful and unbiased information. When a Liberal party caucus meets with the president, it is not to tell him: Cover the referendum, but do not slant it in favour of the Yes side, slant it in our favour because we are the ones who pay you, who set your budget and who will reappoint you to your position. And, for that matter, we are the ones who appointed you to it in the first place.

I also heard in the fall in this House that the minister of heritage had written to a quasi-judicial body, the CRTC, which reports through his department. The minister had written so that one of his constituents could obtain a licence. And the Prime Minister excused him by saying that he was not alone, that eight other ministers had written-

[Petitions, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, from the Plessisville seniors club, one of the largest seniors clubs in my riding.

The vast majority of members of this club pray that Parliament will defer its intention to install voice mail systems to reply to inquiries from senior citizens. I myself did a test run this week, and it is very difficult for seniors.

I support totally the petitioners from the Plessisville seniors club.

[Immigration Act, February 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, on December 15, I asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to tell us why the Canadian government let the United States unilaterally change the classification of products with a high sugar content. I should point out that, because of that decision, Quebec and Canada stand to lose 2,400 jobs.

The minister replied that Canada was opposed to the position taken by the United States and had made representations to the U.S. department of agriculture.

For those who work in the sugar industry and who are trying to keep their job, these platitudes mean absolutely nothing. Since these changes occurred before the signing of GATT, the federal government should have taken action then. It should not have waited until it was too late and then use its commitments to GATT as an excuse.

The minister also told us at the time that the Minister for International Trade was in touch with his U.S. counterpart to make the Canadian position abundantly clear, which was very reassuring at the time. It is nice to talk, but it is even better to act.

Along with such evasive answers, the minister also promised that the best interests of Canadians and Quebecers would be protected swiftly and efficiently.

It would appear that the lion has shrunken to a pussycat when confronted by the American giant, since it seems that the restrictive measures taken by the Americans have been in place since January 1.

It is increasingly clear that Canada is the lightweight in these bilateral negotiations. The sugar issue will follow the red wheat and durum wheat issues on the list of good examples of the federal government's spinelessness.

The federal government accuses us left and right of criticizing without making any suggestions. When I raised this issue last December, I strongly suggested that the minister submit the issue to the GATT panel. At that time, he replied that the Government of Canada would take all of the steps necessary to protect Canada and Quebec from measures taken by the Americans of which he disapproved. Since the government who is supposed to be protecting us is scared of its own shadow, we Quebecers have to defend ourselves, and there is not much time.

Worse yet, we learned today in a Canadian Press report that the United States intends to challenge Canadian tariffs on dairy product, egg and poultry imports.

Since we have lost the fight with regard to durum wheat, sugar, ice cream and yogurt, I fear for our producers and our processors. In one corner, the Minister of International Trade, a cocky little scrapper, and in the other corner, the American trade representative, Mickey Kantor, who knocks out our minister, our defender, our leader in the fight for our economic rights.

The sugar industry has already lost 2,400 jobs and will lose several thousand more. That is exactly what the Liberals wrote in the red book: jobs, jobs, jobs. They were right in the sense that-