Jean-Guy Chrétien

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member for Verchères, is absolutely right. This reminded me of what my Reform Party colleague said earlier about high prices.

I went shopping with my wife on Friday evening and I saw Prince Edward Island potatoes at a price which was exceptionally high for the season. Three years ago, there was an oversupply of potatoes in New Brunswick. The Canadian and New Brunswick governments of the time bought the potatoes to bury them in an open dump. On the CBC news, they showed us hundreds and hundreds of thousands of tons of potatoes being bulldozed

into a hole while we could have fed the starving people of the world with those vegetables.

To support the price of potatoes, our two governments had bought the farmers' production. They deliberately kept the potatoes from being marketed precisely to create scarcity. Sometimes we talk about environmental protection. Well it is certainly not very clever to bury potatoes, and not even make compost, when you think there are millions of people, tens of millions of people who cannot even eat a meal a day. And here, in New Brunswick, three years ago, we buried hundreds and hundreds of thousands of tons of potatoes.

When we talked about supply management, do you not think that a supply management system for potatoes would have been much better? Of course in Quebec, we could produce 25 per cent more milk if we wanted to. But why produce 25 per cent more milk if you cannot sell it?

[English]

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my distinguished colleague from the Reform Party for his very pertinent question. Nevertheless, as you know, three agricultural sectors in Quebec are covered by supply management: poultry, eggs and milk. Supply management in these three fields is so well structured that every month delegations from the UPA, the Quebec farmers' union, receive invitations from other countries that want to know how we could have set up such an effective supply management system.

Mr. Speaker, do you know that without this supply management system in Quebec and in Ontario, no farmer could make a living from producing poultry, eggs or milk? Why? Because we would have been invaded by the Americans. Last week, the president of the UPA told me that he visited a farm in the United States that raises 100,000 steers a year. A hundred thousand!

He told me that Quebec does not produce 100,000 steers a year. Down there, a single huge farm produces more than Quebec does. But once agriculture in Quebec and Ontario is killed off, prices would not be set by government bodies in Quebec or Ontario but by American farmers. The independence of a country is at stake.

When a country cannot feed its people, it is weak. If we want a strong country, this strength must be based on an agricultural system that is competent, productive and also versatile. Thanks to supply management, farmers enjoyed some security and could invest and acquire farms and make them profitable. As for milk production, because I am more familiar with this field, I could tell my distinguished colleague that some farmers have been bled white. They have mortgaged their farm to buy the right to produce-they have bought quotas.

This past weekend, I met one of these farmers, who estimates that his quota is worth $750,000. Three quarters of a million dollars and he is afraid that when the tariff system is well in place, quotas will lose their value. Quotas could eventually disappear.

I have been asking the same question to Agriculture Canada officials week after week. I even asked the agriculture committee and I was told: "Time will tell. One thing is sure: no problem is to be expected for the first six years". But what about the seventh year or the tenth? When a farm producer has borrowed huge amounts to buy this piece of paper allowing him or her to have 25 or 30 more cows but is told: "Look, ten years from now, your $750,000 quota may not be worth a penny", is that reassuring? Would you find it encouraging, Mr. Speaker, if you were told: "Your pension plan that you have accumulated here, at the House of Commons, will not be worth a penny, six or seven years down the road"? This is hypothetical. It may be worth something, but then again it may not. You would be concerned, I am sure you would.

Farm producers need reassurance. When you see a farmer with a production quota worth $1.5 million or $2 million and they come and tell him: "We expect no problem for the first six years. Later on, we will have to see", take my word for it, supply management becomes awfully important.

On predatory pricing, I cannot say that I share the views of my colleague from the Reform Party, which reflect a lack of knowledge of the situation in Quebec. To get a one cent per litre increase, milk producers have to go before a Quebec government agency called dairy commission where consumer associations, the farm producers association and the Dairies' Association are represented, and negotiate. "Our production costs are such and such, and there has been no increase in the past six months to a year". Consumers say that milk already costs too much and that its price should be reduced, not increased. Farmers want a five-cent increase. And then you have UPA representatives trying to come up with a compromise. Finally, farmers ask for a five-cent increase and often get only a one-cent increase.

So, if you come to Quebec or to Ontario, you will realize that farmers do not work 40 hours a week and then rest. They usually work seven days a week, 365 days a year, along with all their family, and still cannot afford to spend three weeks or a whole month in Florida or in Europe. They have to stay on their farm to operate it.

I would now like to give my view of the outlook for supply management. Of course, I would like the government to stand up and tell us what will happen to supply management six or seven years down the road. Farmers have the right to know. In fact, they represent the class of workers in Quebec for whom we should have the most respect. According to statistics for all of Canada, the people who work on farms are those who work the highest number of hours in Canada.

On average, Quebec farmers work more hours than other Canadian farmers, precisely because we have a more diversified agriculture.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague from Verchères for his excellent job in directing the debate on Bill C-57. I want to point out at the outset that the time has finally come to deal with the important matter of GATT.

Bill C-57 allows us to question some aspects of this agreement which remain what I would call grey areas. The purpose of my comments is not to oppose this bill, but to raise questions to show the members of this House that it is essential that we have enough time to consider this bill before approving it.

Quebecers have been open and in favour of free trade for a long time. You will recall that Quebec stood alongside the U.S. among the first free trade supporters and that, without their support, Canada might have refused to sign the free trade treaty. You certainly remember that, in the 1988 election, when the free trade agreement with the U.S. was the main election plank of the Conservative Party led by Mr. Mulroney, the former Tory leader found his staunchest allies in Quebec.

Despite the misadventures encountered by the Conservative Party during its first mandate, Quebecers gave their overwhelming support to the Progressive Conservative Party precisely because it advocated tree trade with the U.S. Quebec showed consistency by greatly facilitating the signing of NAFTA, and it now favours extending this agreement to other countries in Latin America.

It is not hard to see the logic behind this attitude. It is crucial for Quebec's small and medium-sized businesses to secure access to larger markets. Like all Quebecers, I am prejudiced in favour of free trade and therefore in favour of Bill C-57 before us today. What I would like, however, is enough time to look at it carefully, and the Liberal government's railroading of such an important bill is unacceptable.

When several major powers with sometimes conflicting interests sit around the negotiating table, we realize how difficult it is to please everyone. In the current economic context, it is essential to agree on how to develop free trade mechanisms. That is why this agreement can, if it is used properly, provide a basis for future trade negotiations.

The potential increase of $755 billion in international trade between now and the year 2005 is the most convincing guarantee of the positive impact of that agreement. The Final Act of the Uruguay Round signed on April 15, in Marrakesh, meets some of the expectations of Quebec and Canada. However, as regards agricultural issues, that agreement is far from making Quebec producers happy.

The structure of GATT has always differed from that of most major UN agencies. Even though Canada was among the 23 original members, it is now at the same level as the other 107 member countries. It is at the mercy of talks dominated by three major players: The United States, Japan and the European Community.

Like all the other members, Canada is somewhat subjected to the priorities and decisions of these giants, particularly the United States and the European Community. Yet, when a sector as important for Quebec and Canada as agriculture is targeted, the federal government must react and stand up for our producers.

Canada did very poorly when it came to protecting the interests of agricultural producers, regarding article XI, because it was trying to do two different things. Article XI essentially allowed Ontario and Quebec dairy producers to benefit from their supply management system. That initiative was obviously extremely important to them. In the east, producers wanted to keep their supply management programs, while in the west, they wanted new markets for their grain. Given its political situation, Canada tried to please both groups at the international level. In the end, it lost some of its credibility and more. The government found itself caught between a rock and a hard place.

As regards article XI, the government could not let down Quebec producers in the current political context. On the other hand, grain exports have very significant economic spin-offs. When you negotiate, you have to make concessions in order to make gains on those issues which are important to you. However, in order to do that, you must first define your priorities.

This example of double-edged sword is clear evidence that we have to put our house in order. The problem is a major one. How can only one voice protect the diverging interests of western and eastern producers?

The fight on Article XI also undermined Canada's credibility with its own agricultural producers. Indeed, the government tried to be reassuring by explaining that, in the short term, higher tariffs would provide producers subjected to quotas the same protection as under article XI. However, the government was silent on the medium term and the long term.

Even though the tariffs proposed by Canada to GATT were not opposed, there is no guarantee that we will not find ourselves in a perpetual trade dispute once they are implemented.

However, during the bilateral talks on durum wheat, Canada made concessions in order to avoid prolonging the dispute by going before a panel.

What will Canada do when the Americans revive the debate on quota production and tariffs on yogurt and ice cream, for instance? Who will decide whether GATT or NAFTA takes precedence? These issues are still unclear.

We need assurances that the government is prepared to answer some very specific questions. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that during the last election campaign, in the fall of 1993, the Prime Minister, the leader of the Liberal Party, was travelling across Canada and saying: "I will not sign NAFTA unless everything is reviewed from A to Z. And I will negotiate". A few weeks after he was sworn in, the Prime Minister went on a short trip to the United States, came back and quickly signed NAFTA.

Just another instance of the past being no guarantee of the future.

What will Canada do when the Americans revive the debate on yogurt and ice cream, for instance? Who will decide whether GATT or NAFTA takes precedence?

We need assurances that the government is prepared to answer some very specific questions. We must go to committee to assess the impact of this bill. We must also keep abreast of steps being taken by our principal trading partners to conform to GATT. The Canadian government should be able to tell us, for instance, whether it and the American government agree on the definition of dumping.

Although we realize that our agricultural policies must conform to our international trade agreements, the government must not take advantage of our obligation to conform to GATT to justify certain measures to reduce the deficit. In many cases, Canada has already reduced its domestic subsidies by more than 20 per cent, which means that for this round of talks, it has met its commitments for subsidy reduction.

If we look at the amendments to the WGTA to harmonize it with GATT requirements, a number of issues are still outstanding. We still do not know whether the Crow benefit will be transferred to producers or how that will be done. This matter should be dealt with immediately. The Minister of Transport, who has been responsible for the Crow so far, announced last

spring that he would not renew the subsidy. His colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, was quick to announce that his department would be responsible for the subsidy and would, we may assume, make it more effective by making certain changes.

Since that time, the minister has asked the Producer Payment Panel to examine the question. This review led to recommendations about which the minister has not said a word yet. About the Crow's Nest Pass Rates, he told the magazine Le Coopérateur last June: ``Although this problem has been around for many years, we must, for various reasons, tackle it without delay. Not the least of these reasons is the GATT Agreement''.

We, however, still do not know anything about the minister's intentions. It must also be pointed out that Quebec and Canada will benefit from stronger trade regulations. In the last 15 years, several member states, in particular our American neighbour and the European Community, made excessive use of protectionist measures. Clarifying the GATT regulations on the definition of the types of subsidies that are allowed, compensatory or prohibited and the use of countervailing and anti-dumping duties largely favours an international system based on relationships dictated by law rather than force. For smaller states like Quebec and Canada, this strengthening of trade regulations is a safeguard against giants like the United States.

There may be many advantages to an agreement such as the one we are discussing this afternoon. In any case, there is no doubt that, given the internationalization of markets, we must take our place on the international scene and take advantage of trade treaties. Agriculture is only one component of the agreement but its place in Quebec's and Canada's economy does not allow us to minimize the impact of measures affecting this sector. Losing Article XI will require us to restructure our agricultural sector. However, only the future will tell us whether these adjustments were worthwhile. I still think that the grey areas or outstanding problems justify our asking that some aspects of Bill C-57 be clarified in committee.

Furthermore, I find it hard to understand why it is so urgent to conclude this debate when the two giants, the U.S. and Europe, are taking their time. The Americans are moving slowly since some members of Congress are in the middle of an election campaign and this type of agreement is not very popular with voters. Europeans, for their part, have turned this into a power struggle between the European Commission and the Council of Ministers. If this bill is really acceptable, why is it so urgent?

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your attention, and I must again in closing point out that my colleague from Verchères is doing an admirable job of dealing with this matter, for which he is responsible, in order to defend Quebec's major interests.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member of the Reform Party said so well, Canada is a big country. And in this big country, there are wide differences in both views and geography. The same applies to agriculture.

Throughout his speech, my Reform Party colleague had a lot to say about grain producers, the Western Grain Transportation Act and hopper cars that ride empty in order to get the subsidies, but at no time did he mention the problem of Eastern producers, or only in passing. Most of these producers earn their living under a supply management system.

I hope that the tariffs that will eventually be substituted for supply management will be high enough to protect our farmers in Quebec and Ontario, including dairy, poultry and egg producers. These tariffs are supposed to go down by 15 per cent, while all tariffs will reach 36 per cent over a six-year period.

My question for my Reform Party colleague is this: How does he see the position of article XI in the GATT negotiations, which raises the question whether the markets of farmers who depend on supply management will be sufficiently protected? I realize that since the hon. member lives in Western Canada, he was more intent on the needs of his own constituents, and I understand that, but Quebec is still part of Canada-for a little while yet, I hope.

I would appreciate the hon. member's opinion on supply management and tariffs, as well as his party's position on these issues.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, during his main speech, the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings said earlier that supply management could be maintained. And then he started to talk about higher tariffs that could protect farmers working in a supply managed industry. Every member in this House knows full well that the supply and demand oriented farming industry is concentrated mainly in Quebec and in Ontario and that supply is regulated by quotas.

In order to reassure me and to reassure our farmers, be they involved in dairy farming, poultry farming or egg production, can the hon. member tell us what will happen to their quotas?

Again last week, I met a big dairy farmer who told me that he evaluated his quota at $750,000. He feared that the value of his quota would decline, even maybe down to nothing after six, seven or eight years. He said: "Mr. Chrétien, my quota was my pension fund. If it is not worth a thing tomorrow morning, I have lost my pension fund". If he loses his quota, this would be a hard blow to the real value of his farm.

I would like the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings to reassure us, since, as you know, Quebec accounts for 48 per cent of all dairy production. Of course, most Western farmers are not subject to supply management. For these farmers, GATT is obviously a marvellous thing, but for Quebec farmers, it may not be so wonderful.

[Petitions, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the municipal council of Plessisville, I am pleased to present a petition with 60 signatures.

The petitioners want the Canadian government to inform the municipal council of Plessisville before procedural changes that would affect the local employment level are made. Also, these petitioners ask that equitable home mail delivery service be maintained for all residents of Plessisville.

The residents of Gérin-Lajoie, Trudel and Dupont streets must be treated fairly. They are not second-class citizens and are therefore entitled to the same postal service as other residents of the town.

I am pleased to support these users of the postal service and Mayor Jacques Martineau of Plessiville, in the riding of Frontenac.

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party to which the hon. member belongs is planning on reducing the deficit to 3 per cent of the GDP within two years. Of course, the last time we had an annual deficit equal to 3 per cent of the GDP was 20 years ago, in 1974. I would like to remind the members that we started to have deficits around 1970, when our country was run by a Liberal government under the leadership of Mr. Trudeau. You certainly remember that, Mr. Speaker.

Year after year, the deficits started to grow and the Liberal government began to play Santa Claus. It made promises. The deficits continued to grow to a point where the current deficit exceeds 6 per cent of the GDP. Our country is on the brink of bankruptcy, and if we do not want to mortgage the future of many generations to come, we will have to change our mentality.

I ask the government member who just spoke if it is a change in mentality when the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the member for Hull-Aylmer who is sitting on the other side, takes a government plane, a Challenger, to go and give two small lectures in the United States at a cost of $170,000 to Canadian taxpayers. Is it a change in mentality when we send a delegation of F-18s and F-16s to Florida to play war games? The William Tell competition cost no $2 million.

Is it a change in mentality when the Prime Minister tells us that the CSE does not spy on Canadians even though there is a building here in Ottawa housing over 1,008 employees whose job is to do just that at a cost of between $250 and $270 million a year? Is it a change in mentality to have all these duplications of services for the same people? We had a good example of that just recently. Last year, Ontario created the position of Commissioner of the Environment. Last week, in a statement, the Minister of the Environment announced the appointment of another Commissioner of the Environment here, in Ottawa.

As for manpower training, we lose $250 million a year just with Quebec. Both governments want to train the same worker. That costs $250 million a year. It is Mr. Bourbeau, the former Quebec minister, a Liberal minister, who said that, not me.

Will there be a change of mentality on the Liberal side? Will we still let the very rich take advantage of tax shelters and pay very little, if any, income tax, thanks to the family trusts where we could find a couple of billion dollars. Will there be a change of mentality on the Liberal side? When they attack the needy and those who lost their jobs, when they cut off those on welfare, when they bleed the poor and let the rich get richer, will that be a change of mentality?

In closing, I ask whether the Liberal Party will again play Santa Claus, make nice promises and mortgage our future? It is all very well to want to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent, but it will require more than mere wishes. Il will require courage, yes, courage, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about it. The Liberal Party will have to be very courageous, but I question their courage, because their past actions do not bode well for the future.

I would like to hear my hon. colleague opposite defend her party.

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the interesting comments made by my distinguished colleague, the hon. member for La Prairie. I want to ask him if he finds it normal that a government running a country on the verge of bankruptcy tolerate having accounts receivable of $6.4 billion and a revenue minister who does not do much to recover that amount?

Does the hon. member finds it reasonable that a government on the verge of bankruptcy play war games and spend $2 million in just 48 hours?

Does he find it reasonable that the parliamentary restaurant, on the sixth floor of this building, incurred losses of $2 million last year presumably because its clients, including senators and others, would leave without paying their bills?

Does he find it reasonable that a government running a country on the verge of bankruptcy would have an agency such as the CSE, which has over 1,000 employees and an annual budget of 250 to 260 million dollars? These people are not all spies but, seemingly, several of them are.

Does the hon. member find it normal that this same government accept the fact that large amounts of money in family trusts are exempt of normal taxes?

Since my colleague used to be an alderman in his home town, I also want to ask him if he agrees that the federal government should follow the example of municipalities and table a balanced budget? If the government insists on playing Santa Claus, it should not do so at the expense of future generations. Instead, it should have the courage to raise taxes. It is easy to be generous when you know that it is the third or fourth generation down the line which will have to pay for the goodies handed out now.

Finally, does he find it normal that a government borrow, often from foreign countries, to pay the interest on the deficit for the current year?

There are several questions. I would appreciate it if the hon. member for La Prairie could answer most of them.

[Social Security Programs, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what the member for Guelph-Wellington said about the reform of social security in Canada.

Last weekend, I spent several hours meeting groups of my constituents in Frontenac and when they were told that the country is on the brink of bankruptcy, with an accumulated deficit of $550 billion, some of them reminded us that this monstrous debt was created not by the Conservatives but by the Liberals, a government to which the present Prime Minister has belonged practically since his youth.

Remember that this $550-billion debt was not created overnight. The deficits began to pile up in the early 1970s, in the Trudeau era, and now a real climate of fear is being created throughout the land; people are almost made to feel guilty for collecting an allowance for their children or an old age pension or a welfare cheque. Some feel guilty, as though they were cheating the country, but they are not.

Most of these social measures were brought in by a Liberal government and now it will cost a fortune in advertising and cross-Canada tours to try to make the electorate swallow the pill. I asked my constituents on the weekend what they proposed to reduce this famous deficit. Since it was in the news, they said why not cut the $2 million for the Robin Hood, William Tell and Top Gun exercises.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, you will tell me that $2 million is a drop in the bucket. Yes, a little snow does not stop a locomotive, but billions and billions of flakes of snow will stop the whole train. You see, $2 million are being spent so that some sixty of our soldiers can go and have fun in Florida.

Two weeks ago, we were told that $2 million a year were spent on the restaurant here on the sixth floor while senators and MPs invited their constituents and friends for lunch and forgot to pay before leaving. Two million a year; it is a real disgrace! It is really shameful, and then we hear that politicians are unpopular. With things like that, the voters in Frontenac are right to question politicians' good will.

I wonder if the member for Guelph-Wellington could give us her opinion, her own, not her government's which I already know, but her own opinion on tax shelters or family trusts which contain billions of dollars that could be collected from wealthy individuals.

[Social Security Programs, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if my colleague from Ahuntsic could help me reassure senior citizens, especially those living alone.

In the town of East Broughton, in my riding, there is a lady called Mrs. Lessard, who calls me just about every week in need of reassurance. Again last Friday, she called my office to tell me that she could hardly make ends meet. She reminded me once more that the Liberal government had been elected on the promise to get rid of the GST. She told me that she had postponed filling up her oil tank in the hope that the GST would disappear before winter. But she realized that she could wait no longer and had to have her tank filled; and, of course, she had to pay the infamous GST plus the QST.

Once again, I would ask the hon. member for Ahuntsic to help me make senior citizens, especially those living alone, feel more secure.