Jean-Guy Chrétien

[Canada Grain Act, December 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Mackenzie is to add standards for public carriers. It would prescribe that grain carried by a public carrier must first have been weighed and cleaned and its quality designated.

According to the Canadian Grain Commission, no amendment is necessary since this is already being done in most cases and always when grain is destined for human consumption.

As a result of the proposed amendment, smaller producers who ship feed grain would see their costs increase unnecessarily. If there had been complaints that the quality of feed grain was below acceptable levels, the motion would be justified. Since that is not the case, at least as far as I know, I do not think it would be useful to oblige producers to spend more on precautions that are absolutely unnecessary. If most of these producers happen to use private carriers and the motion therefore does not affect them, it will then have no effect at all, since public carriers would only carry grain for human consumption.

According to the Canadian Grain Commission, this grain is already cleaned and weighed and its quality designated. So we have their guarantee that grain for our own consumption is

being handled in the way specified by the hon. member for the New Democratic Party.

Furthermore, if small producers also have to conform to these procedures, their costs will go up, although we have no reason to believe they should be more regulated than they already are. And if they use private carriers, they will not be affected.

I therefore fail to see the relevance of the motion presented by the hon. member for Mackenzie. That is why the Bloc Quebecois will not support the motion, since all wheat for human consumption is very well regulated and perfectly safe.

[Canada Grain Act, December 5th, 1994]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-51, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 42 to 45, on page 2, with the following:

"4.(1) The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the committee of the House of Commons that normally considers agricultural matters, shall designate one of the commissioners to be chief commissioner and another commissioner to be assistant chief commissioner."

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I rise in the House to speak to Bill C-51. The bill was discussed at length in committee, mainly so that we could provide some clarification.

The House will recall that the purpose of this bill is to clarify some procedures with respect to contracts concluded by the Canadian Grain Commission with grain elevator operators and producers.

I will first comment on the amendment I proposed to improve Bill C-51. The amendment in question does not affect the main thrust of this bill. According to the government, the bill will impose greater responsibility on grain producers to secure payment for their grain from elevator operators and grain dealers licensed by the Commission. The government is telling producers: Look, you know how this works. We now have to make some adjustments to make things work more smoothly.

The amendment I am proposing to Bill C-51 is along the same lines, in that its aim is to provide for more effective and, above all, more transparent operations.

The proposed amendment affects the government body that is involved in all these operations, the Canadian Grain Commission-and more specifically, section 2 of the bill which concerns the appointment of the chief commissioner and the assistant chief commissioner of the Canadian Grain Commission.

The section reads as follows:

The Governor in Council shall designate one of the commissioners to be chief commissioner and another commissioner to be assistant chief commissioner.

Before the amendment provided in Bill C-51, the governor in council only designated the chief commissioner. Bill C-51 adds the appointment of the assistant chief commissioner to this section. The motion I am presenting this afternoon in the House would involve the Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in the process.

As amended, the section would read as follows:

The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the committee of the House of Commons that normally considers agricultural matters, shall designate one of the commissioners to be chief commissioner and another commissioner to be assistant chief commissioner.

The governor in council appoints the seven commissioners of the Canadian Grain Commission. Of course, if you want to be naive-I remember very well how the commissioners were appointed under the previous government. I have some friends who sat on the Immigration Commission, and I can assure you that the Conservative Government did not appoint any Liberals. These were well-paid jobs. You were paid to work not too hard for five or six years, depending on the appointment.

The Liberal Party will be no exception. In appointing these commissioners, it will make sure to select good red commissioners, making partisan appointments. What we would suggest is to enhance slightly the role of the MPs sitting on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Our proposal is that, within the committee, which is-need we remind you-dominated by the Liberals, the Liberal Party could nominate a chief commissioner and an assistant chief commissioner. The Liberals are in the majority on the committee, but at least we would get the impression that the opposition parties had a say in deciding which of the seven commissioners would make the best chief commissioner.

I sometimes wonder if committees are not used a little bit like so-called occupational classes in a school, where you stick less-gifted or motivated students who nevertheless have to attend school.

But here, if we want our committees to have a degree of credibility, we must give them responsibilities and roles to play. With this motion, the Bloc Quebecois would give them some role to play and slightly reduce this shameless partisanship.

As it currently stands, the clause allows these appointments to be made unilaterally by the Governor in Council, that is, by the government.

You will understand that it is out of concern for transparency that I am suggesting that the government consult the appropriate committee so as to appoint the best qualified people to run the Canadian Grain Commission.

I think it is only fair to say that the credibility and importance of the commission are well established. That is why is must raise above any partisanship and the best qualified individuals, regardless of their political colour or affiliation, must be put in charge of it. Such a unilateral approach has often led to unfortunate situations in the past.

A competent person can be appointed to be chair, only to be replaced by someone who is a little closer to the party forming the new government. I imagine that certain very political positions can only go to people who agree with the government's policies and can implement them. But I do not feel that CGC positions fall in this category.

Furthermore, when someone is fired for partisan reasons, the tab for breaking this person's contract is often picked up by taxpayers. If this person worked on implementing initiatives, we hope that the whole process will not come to a stop while we wait for someone else to be appointed and start carrying out the new policies.

Several people came to testify before the Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, and I remember very well one witness who was very interesting and especially quite eloquent. A lady told us her story. She said that she used to sit on the CGC and that she was fired when the former Conservative government took office. Until we find evidence to the contrary, the Liberal Party resembles the Conservative Party in all respects. It will not hesitate either to get rid of someone even if that person is doing a good job.

The members opposite will respond that they do not engage in such practices. If all their decisions in situations such as this are devoid of partisan considerations, they should be happy to shout it from the rooftops today. As nothing lasts forever, they should think about their successors who will have total faith in them.

Incidentally, this approach would also avoid many recriminations since representatives of all political parties would have their say on who is appointed to these two positions, in the Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

In closing, I urge once again all members, at least all members of the Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, to vote in favour of this motion.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Liberal Party who just spoke presented several arguments to the effect that the WTO is supposed to be very beneficial to Canada's foreign trade.

He said that it will benefit farmers, the export of our natural resources, high-tech industries, and also our processing industries. Can it really be beneficial across the board?

He is known to be straightforward, and rightly so. Could he take a few seconds, a few minutes of his time to tell us in which areas it would be less beneficial?

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech the hon. member for Erie just made and I was surprised to learn that the John Deere tractor I own was probably built in his riding. I would also like to remind my hon. colleague from Erie that, in 1988, Quebecers showed the most support for international trade, and especially for NAFTA.

In fact, in more than 62 out of 75 ridings, the vast majority of Quebecers elected the Conservative Party which had made NAFTA the cornerstone of its 1988 election campaign. Of course, where agricultural products are concerned, Quebecers are extremely well positioned in supply-managed sectors, like poultry, milk and egg production. To replace supply management, the GATT agreement provides for what is commonly called tariffs that can reach up to 360 per cent in some cases.

As the previous speaker pointed out, these tariffs will be in place for the next six years, and this six-year period is crucial if our farmers are to adjust and take their place on the market.

Of course, in case of disputes, we will be able to present our case to the panel. This panel is fine, but among our representatives we need to have good negotiators who can stand tall instead of crawling in front of our opponents and saying: "We have already lost", even before beginning to defend the interests of the people they represent.

I recall three particular incidents where I have not been impressed at all by the way our representatives have stood up for us. First, there was the softwood lumber dispute, then the hog dispute and most recently the durham wheat business, which especially affected Western Canada.

I am concerned about the guarantee and I would like the previous speaker, my colleague from Erie, to reassure Quebec farmers that the people who will represent them before these panels will be up to our expectations.

[Budgetary Policy, November 28th, 1994]

Certainly.

[Budgetary Policy, November 28th, 1994]

Terrible and terribly wrong.

[Budgetary Policy, November 28th, 1994]

So go ahead. Sound management is what we expect from you.

[Budgetary Policy, November 28th, 1994]

Why does the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood not talk about sound management? I will always remember when we had work done in the sixth concession road in my parish-and I will close on this-, all local truckers were hired to widen the road by laying 12 inches of good gravel. Of course, the trucks were not fully loaded so some taxpayers asked me to do something about it. I told them that it was not us but the provincial government that was paying. When they heard that, they went away reassured. Today, whenever Canadian taxpayers hear that expenses will be paid at a higher level, they feel as though the money will come from the sky. Yet, you never say anything about sound management. Very often $175,000 contracts could be carried out for $20,000 or $25,000.

[Budgetary Policy, November 28th, 1994]

My question is this: I know that the Liberals want to preserve family trusts and tax shelters for their friends because they need them to fatten up their election fund.

[Budgetary Policy, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we have been listening all day to speakers from both sides of the House expressing their views on how to run this country rationally. We are presented with the following alternative: on the one hand, cut services, social services naturally, and on the other hand, increase taxes. Never was sound management mentioned.

When I was mayor of Garthby township, we were required to bring down a balanced budget, because municipalities were not allowed to have deficits. When I see a government trying to play Santa Claus, wasting public funds, being generous, extremely generous and acting in such a way that the next two or three generations will have to pay for this generosity today, I cannot help but worry about the fact that we need to borrow in order to pay current debt charges.

I could give this Liberal government a number of examples of sound management. But last year, before Christmas, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and member for Hull-Aylmer travelled aboard a government jet to go and deliver two ten-minute conferences on the benefits of sound government management, at a cost of $170,000. Also, the restaurant on the 6th floor of this building lost $2 million last year, and most of this deficit is due to the fact that senators and members forget to pay before leaving. Apparently the waiters do not run too hard after their clients either. Two million dollars.

The operation of the other place costs $65 million each and every year. The government could manage a little better. When I hear that good taxpayers owe government $6.6 billion are these friends of the regime? I do not know. Corporations, companies, small and medium size businesses owe $6.6 billion. The government is forced to borrow today because it is dirt poor, yet it does not collect what is owed. A government that is unable to collect its assets does not deserve to govern the country.

Mr. Speaker, I think that you too were the mayor of your municipality, so you know full well what happens to voters who do not pay their property taxes. After three years, their property is sold off to pay taxes.