Jean-Guy Chrétien

[Department Of Agriculture Act, October 19th, 1994]

Only 10 per cent.

[Department Of Agriculture Act, October 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the hon. member for Durham had to say when he talked about financing for intergenerational transfers. I will comment very briefly and would appreciate the hon. member's comments as well.

I know quite a few farmers who need a very substantial line of credit. The problem is, however, that the bank or credit union charges very high interest rates on this line of credit, because it does not pay for the farmer to mortgage his farm, his house or part of his property to get the loan.

I am reminded of one of my friends who bought a quota in the spring, a very substantial quota worth $35 per kilo of butter fat, not produced, and then ran into some bad luck. He had to replace, and he had not budgeted for this, his baler, bale-catapult and four-wheel drive which all broke down at some point, and at the end of the haying season, he had to replace his mower-conditioner as well.

This was money he had to spend right away. He could not afford to waste three weeks looking around for financing. He needed the money yesterday. He could not afford to wait, because every minute counts when the haying season is under way. So he increased his line of credit and had to pay much higher interest.

Perhaps the hon. member for Durham could suggest that his government set up some form of assistance, so that farmers could have a line of credit based on their income as reported on the previous year's tax return. The interest would be paid largely by the Farm Credit Corporation or else the FCC, which he mentioned earlier, could provide financing in a few cases when farmers are hard pressed. As I said before, a farmer cannot afford to wait six months. The money would have to be available within a week.

I would appreciate the comments of the hon. member for the Liberal Party.

[Department Of Agriculture Act, October 19th, 1994]

Not any more, you say? But they did. Stop kidding me, they did. They closed down some post offices.

How about the road conditions. You could tell me: "The province of Quebec has jurisdiction over this issue". It is true, but what did you do four years ago? You cut transfers to the provinces. What did Mr. Ryan, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, do? He transferred $500 million of expenses to the municipalities. Municipal governments do not have the money, the technology nor the know-how to maintain the smaller municipal roads.

Can you imagine the 1,500 municipalities of Quebec each buying a grader, a salt-spreader, a small bulldozer and a backhoe. It does not make any sense!

I know where the Minister of Finance is heading! Of course, it is not the Minister of Agriculture, but his good old buddy. The Minister of Finance will cut transfer payments to the provinces. He is paving the way for this announcement. He has promised not to increase taxes, but last night, on the news, he did say that they never promised such a thing. In the red book, there was a promise-but now they have discovered a gaping hole. They will not be able to fulfil their commitments; they will need more time.

I can see where he is heading! He is going to transfer part of the federal deficit to provincial and municipal governments, again at the expense of rural Canada.

I visited a small town whose 500 residents are concerned with gas supply. Standards for gas tanks are very strict and since it is too expensive and not cost-efficient to dig out old tanks and replace them by new ones, gas is not sold there any more. These people must drive 15 kilometres to buy gas. That is what it means to live in rural communities.

As for government services, since regional offices are not cost-efficient, they are closed down. People will just have to go to the city. As it happens, MAPAQ services were closed in Disraeli. Granted, Ottawa had nothing to do with this but these services were closed and people must now go to Thetford. If you need to have an autopsy carried out on a dead animal, you can no longer go to Sherbrooke. You have to go instead to Saint-Georges de Beauce.

These are small irritants people have to live with in rural areas. People are telling us it is not fun any more to live in the country, and that they want to move to the city to earn a living. Young farmers are fewer and fewer.

What has the Liberal government done this past year? After all, it will be a year next week since it took power. What has it done to help young farmers? Nothing.

One thing we must recognize is that this bill to change the name of the department includes amendments to update the real mission of Agriculture Canada. Therefore, this measure is part of a vast process of reorientation and redefinition which the government is going through with respect to this department's future.

It is in that context that during the next year, the Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food will try to redefine the future of agriculture in Canada. Let me tell you that this is a big challenge because considering the current economic and political conditions, one thing is sure, and that is that it is absolutely necessary to find a direction for the future of agriculture.

I submit that our discussions on Canadian agriculture must be based on the following three factors: First, the willingness to respect the provinces' priorities. I tell you, Mr. secretary of state, that if the priorities of the provinces are not respected, you are sure to fail. Second, the recent trade deals signed by Canada, in particular GATT and NAFTA. And third, the ability to balance the interests of the various regions fairly. It is not without reason that Quebec's farmers have great difficulty naming the federal Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. There are hidden reasons and I know them.

There is nothing wrong with amending the act governing the Department of Agriculture with a view to planning the direction that Canadian agriculture will take in the future. However, before redefining anything, it is important to ensure that the provinces' work plans are fully respected.

In Quebec, this consultation and orientation process concerning the future of agriculture has already begun. Following Quebec's development model, the various players in the agricultural community have undertaken an extensive reflection effort. Let us just mention the États généraux du monde rural and the Trois-Rivières Summit which resulted in a series of real commitments. Quebec took the lead in laying down the principles on which that province's agricultural future will be built. It would be inconceivable that the federal government, the Liberal government, would establish national standards that are inconsistent with its own priorities and development goals. There-

fore, it is essential that any initiatives undertaken reflect the priorities set by the provinces.

Another problem that should be examined is the provisions in the free trade agreements affecting Canada. With market globalization, we recognize that all trade areas will have de redefine their orientations. The main goal is to allow farmers from Canada and Quebec to be able to compete internationally. Agriculture is an important and well established industry in Quebec as well as in Canada. It is essential that it remain so and that we take greater advantage of its export potential.

It is all very nice to export, but it is even better to export processed products, commonly referred to as value-added products. We have just been told that value-added exports are stagnating whereas we are exporting wheat that we import later under a processed form, for instance as flour. Japan is doing that to us. The Japanese buy our wheat, refine it and then re-export it as flour. If Japanese are bright enough to mill our wheat and resell it to other countries as flour, I wonder why we could not do the same here at home. This would provide jobs to our people, and in so doing we would be promoting job creation and economic recovery. We need more than mere words, we need action. We have to get going.

GATT and NAFTA herald deep changes in the workings of international trade. That is why Quebec and Canada must have a clear and specific agenda.

It is important at this point to mention negotiations on durum wheat. My colleagues in the Reform Party dealt extensively with that in the agriculture and agri-food committee. Those negotiations should teach us a lesson. If our arguments are flawed, and if our action plan is defective and outdated, we will knuckle under to major league players like the United States.

The government and the agriculture department had an ideal case with durum wheat. They had all they needed to play a good hand of poker, but they ended up sharing the pot. This does not bode well for the future. It is therefore becoming urgent that we plan our strategies and solve the difficult problem of Canadian trade deals. I ask the Minister of Agriculture: Which comes first, GATT or NAFTA? Let me say this once more. Which takes precedence?

I do not want to hear anything like sometimes it is the GATT and sometimes it is the NAFTA and in some cases neither one because they are equal. Which one takes precedence? As long as this question remains unanswered, any assumptions on the markets for agricultural products will only be a smoke screen.

When we talk about negotiations, the issue of regional disparities always comes up. Agriculture is one of the best examples of this dead end debate. The heart of the problem is that in a negotiation process, you must compromise in order to make gains you consider crucial. You cannot win it all, but you cannot lose it all either. How can we speak for the key sectors of all provinces with one single voice?

Canada is a vast country and, as my colleague the hon. member for Richelieu said so very well, it is quite a job to govern a country. How could we speak for the key sectors of ten provinces and two territories with one single voice? The GATT negotiations are a striking example of the fact that one voice cannot speak for all regions of Canada. In Western Canada, the priority is grain exports; in the East, it is quota controlled productions.

There is no denying that Canada's failure with regard to Article XI.2(c) of GATT is a good example of these opposite interests. In December, a few months after being elected member of the federal riding of Frontenac, I went incognito to a meeting organized by UPA in Saint-Georges-de-Beauce-I remind you that I am also a farmer. At that time, the GATT negotiations were going full steam. I wanted to find out the farmers' opinion on the matter. I walked in and, although I was recognized by a few people, I could sit in a corner with a few friends and listen to the chief economist of UPA. This man is a professor at Laval University and also the owner of a dairy farm in the Drummondville area. He explained very simply what the negotiations involved.

I must say that the 500 producers present at the meeting were very concerned. The older farmers especially were worrying about their retirement, because their milk quotas represented their retirement savings. Clearly they worried about their future: "I invested in milk quotas. I was counting on the sale of this quota to retire". They were unable to give him a satisfactory answer.

Most farmers do have RRSPs. Today, during question period, the finance minister was asked once again if, in the next budget, he was going to tax RRSPs. His answer was neither yes nor no.

If the Liberal government decides to tax RRSPs, I hope that the agriculture minister, totally unknown by Quebec farmers, will stand up and speak with one voice for all the farmers in Quebec and Canada. This is their pension fund. The government changes the rules at the very last minute. This is totally unacceptable.

In Quebec, we believe that the future of agriculture lies in shifting power to the regional decision-making units which are more sensitive to local realities. Unfortunately, shared jurisdiction in agriculture and the very diverse interests of the main agricultural areas in Canada leave very little room for initiative on the part of Quebec farmers.

The Bloc Quebecois believes that sovereignty is the indispensable tool which will allow Quebec agriculture to fare better. I want to stress that bills like the one before us this afternoon are surely very important, but we should keep in mind that there are other urgent issues to deal with.

Bill C-49 reflects the government's desire to make changes within the Department of Agriculture. I sincerely hope that it will meet the provinces' concerns and that the government will not take advantage of this to confuse further the issue of provincial jurisdiction.

To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and his secretary of state that it is not by changing a name that they will solve the agricultural problems in Quebec. It will take the will to change, and things have to change.

[Department Of Agriculture Act, October 19th, 1994]

Indeed, 50 per cent of the Tory caucus. But even there, one out of approximately twenty, and 98 out of 99 in Ontario. Fine. But in Quebec, the results were not so fantastic. Except for the English-speaking ridings and the Outaouais, they were elected in two predominantly French-speaking ridings, apart from the riding of Saint-Maurice which elected the Prime Minister, have elected Liberals. Of course, no expense was spared in Saint-Maurice. And let us not forget that in Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, they won by a very narrow margin. These things must be pointed out.

Nevertheless, I would like to put another question to the Liberal government: What has the Department of Agriculture done to reduce acid rain? As you know, acid rain affects the soil. Year after year, we check the pH balance and we find that the acidity level is too high. When flowers and strawberries grow in crop fields, that is bad news. Children like that, they can pick them. But farmers know very well it means that the pH level is too high and must be lowered, and that costs a lot of money. Lime is getting more and more expensive. The riding of Frontenac is getting acid rain and as we know, this riding and the Eastern Townships are where acid rain conditions are the worst in eastern Canada. This is not because there are industries in Frontenac because we have almost none, except for asbestos mines and a few small and medium-sized firms. The acid rain is not caused by industries in Montreal. A good part of it comes from Ontario but for the most part it comes from the American Midwest.

What have my Liberal friends done to compensate farmers and help them eliminate the acid rain that seeps through the soil? Every year farmers must buy lime to lower the pH level in order to have decent crops. Year after year, farmers see their production costs rise and their gross income decrease.

What has the Minister of Agriculture done and what does he intend to do for farmers with respect to the global warming problems? It is all very well to say that, over the last 50 years, the temperature has risen by 3.2 degrees centigrade. Some people are smiling at the thought of lower heating costs. But the problem is not so simple. Far from it.

The Department of the Environment is not alone in having a role to play. The Department of Agriculture is also in for trouble. What has it done? Nothing. What has the Minister of Agriculture done to reach a reasonable and acceptable agreement between his department and the Department of the Environment? Nothing.

To illustrate, one of my constituents called me last week. He was desperate. Let be tell you briefly what happened to him. Three or four years ago, a fire destroyed his farm, leaving only the foundations. People in my region are very supportive, you know, so we pulled together, we all contributed money according to our means and we organized a bee, as we often do in the Beauce area, and we rebuilt the barn following all the standards set by the Department of the Environment. We had obtained permits to build on the same spot.

A river runs very close to the barn, perhaps 700 or 800 meters away, 1,000 meters at the most. In May, the farmer applied for a permit to the Department of the Environment to build a liquid manure tank. Believe it or not, last week, he was still waiting for his permit to dig a manure pit. Why? "You are too close to the river". After being granted a permit to build a $450,000 barn four years ago, why is he being told today that a permit cannot be delivered because he is too close to the river and why do they make him wait for a permit to dig a manure pit?

You see, too often, it seems as though, in some departments, the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. Merely changing a name will not help to improve foolish situations like this one.

What has the Department of Agriculture done to improve rural services? I was about to say: "Nothing." But another department has chosen to close down some post offices, arguing: "They are not profitable".

[Department Of Agriculture Act, October 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-49 which we are debating on third reading this afternoon would amend the Department of Agriculture Act.

Mainly, this bill adds the term "agri-food" to the department's name. Like the minister, his secretary of state said in his speech on second reading of this bill that it is important to change the title of the act.

This emphasizes that Agriculture Canada's field of activity is not limited to helping farmers. Indeed, their economic future is closely tied to processing, distribution, marketing and of course research and development at all levels of these various products. It is essential to deal with the whole cycle of farm products.

As agriculture critic for the Official Opposition, I can tell you that we in the Bloc Quebecois will not oppose this bill.

Nevertheless, as my colleague from Jonquière said on second reading of this bill, changing the department's name will in no way solve other thorny problems, including overlap with the provinces. What farmers, like pork producers in Quebec, want is not a change in the name of the Department of Agriculture. They do not want a change of deputy minister. What our pork producers in Quebec want is a government that works for them.

For example, regarding pork exports in particular, what has the minister done to clear up the mystery surrounding the reproductive and respiratory syndrome in pigs? Nothing. What did the federal agriculture minister do to reassure the nine countries importing pork, namely Russia, Argentina, Venezuela, Australia, Uruguay, Panama, Korea, Denmark and South Africa? Nothing. What did he do to reassure Quebec's maple syrup producers? Nothing.

Quebec's maple syrup producers do not care whether the department is called the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. What they want is that department to help them sell their product at a fair, reasonable and, above all, stable price. Last Sunday, I met a producer who told me that he had sold maple syrup, in bulk, for $1.62 a pound. Some people and friends told him that this price was too low and that he should wait until the end of the fall to sell the syrup produced in the spring.

So, that person waited until last month and instead of getting $1.62 he only got $1.47, which is 15 cents less. That price does not even cover production costs. These costs keep increasing year after year, while the selling price of maple syrup is almost constantly getting lower. In fact, one can now buy maple syrup for much less than in 1980. This gives you an idea why Quebec producers do not care about the name of the agriculture department. What they want is results.

What did the federal Department of Agriculture do to stabilize prices? Nothing. What budget did it allocate for research and development in the maple syrup industry? None. The result is accumulated surpluses in Quebec, where 90 per cent of all the maple syrup in the world is produced. I come from the region of Plessisville, the national capital of maple syrup; I know what I am talking about and I can tell you that we produce the best maple syrup in the world.

We have surpluses and if the government would only take the trouble to release funds for research, we could surely find some new attractive outlets. Just the other day, the former Liberal Minister of Agriculture, Eugene Whelan-I can give you his name since he is not here-said: "In the agriculture industry, $1 invested in research later yields $7." I told Mr. Whelan: "I am no businessman but I can count. If you can guarantee me a seven-fold return over seven, eight or ten years, I am willing to sell everything I own and to invest the money in your research and development company. I am ready to do it if I am to get a seven-fold return."

What has the Canadian Department of Agriculture done to ensure income security for Quebec farmers in supply-driven sectors such as milk, eggs and chicken? Not much. What has this famous department done to find more new outlets for dairy products, eggs and chicken? Not much. Surely, changing the name of the department will not make it any more efficient. We need to change our ways. We have to be willing to change our ways. The department is not doing anything. And the Bloc Quebecois will keep nagging at it until it decides to act, because the farming community is fed up with this stagnation.

What has Agriculture Canada done or what will it do in the short or medium term to support young farmers, to ease the transfer of family farms from one generation to the next? Nothing.

My neighbour bought a hog farm not far from us. He went to the Farm Credit Corporation, the federal agency, to negotiate his loan the day after New Year's Day and was able to sign the contract the day after Canada Day. It took exactly six months for him to get the necessary financing. I should tell you that he nearly lost the opportunity to buy this farm. And, in buying it, he created a job for himself, for his brother and for another person.

For Quebec's farmers, the Department of Agriculture seems rather sluggish and unwilling to help. So much so that last week, during our recess, whether my government colleagues like it or not, I toured my riding where nearly 20 per cent of my constituents depend directly or indirectly on agriculture for their livelihood and I submitted them to a test. I just love tests. I asked them: "Do you know who Quebec's new Minister of Agriculture is?" Eight out of ten said that it was Marcel Landry, a member from the Gaspé Peninsula, and some of them were even able to name his riding, Bonaventure. Then I asked them: "Could you tell me who the Minister of Agriculture in Ottawa is?" I could not find anyone, Mr. Speaker, who was able to tell me the name of the Minister of Agriculture sitting right in front of me. Nobody could. Perhaps it is because he went too often to Quebec or spoke to Quebec producers in their own language, listened to their concerns, their needs, the solutions they had to propose, I do not know, but the fact is that they do not even know his name. Let us hope that he is better known in his own riding than he is in Quebec within the farming community of my riding.

What did the government do to promote gobal marketplace access for ours producers? I listened carefully a few moments ago to the Secretary of State who said he was going to favour this, to develop that, to open our borders. Our farmers are fed up with talk. They want action.

This afternoon, someone pointed out that next week would mark the first anniversary of the Liberals' coming to office, on October 25. Let me tell you that the Liberals are slapping themselves on the back for winning such a clear majority, 98 seats out of 99 in Ontario, almost a perfect record. One hundred per cent in the Maritimes. There is one lady there who was elected-

[The Environment, October 19th, 1994]

I will be there in less than an hour. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[The Environment, October 19th, 1994]

Yes, like a catechism. They collected all the red books to make huge bonfires. The hon. member for Shefford mentioned this awhile ago, and I suddenly remembered. So the red book became toxic waste, as it were, and they tried to erase its harmful effects from the minds of the people, and they will succeed. Mr. Speaker, you have probably guessed the name of the country and the author.

Speaking of red books, I had one during the election campaign almost a year ago, and then my organizers made the mistake of throwing it out when they were housecleaning. I asked some Liberal colleagues for one, and of course they were quite willing to give me photocopies of part of the red book but never the real red book. Madam Minister, could I make a formal and official request for a red book?

[The Environment, October 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, today I have been given the great honour of hearing the Minister of the Environment respond to the report of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development about the position of environmental commissioner.

Throughout last winter, the members of this committee heard many witnesses who, one after the other, told us how they felt about the idea of creating such a position in order to assess federal programs, activities and legislation, thereby translating sustainable development into something concrete, measurable and quantifiable.

The work done by all committee members was unquestionably very serious and constructive, while the discussions held during our meetings were always frank and honest.

I must pay tribute to all members of the Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, and particularly to its chairman, the hon. member for Davenport, who always showed throughout our discussions a respect-I would go so far as to say an innate respect-for the environment and sustainable development.

The Bloc Quebecois members on the committee, that is, my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Terrebonne, and myself, expressed a dissident opinion on the main directions set by the majority. We did so with the necessary rigour, without partisanship and in the hope of optimizing the resources and expertise already available in the Canadian Parliament.

So I take a certain pride in the fact that the minister accepted the alternative proposal we submitted to her at that time. The minister and the Cabinet agreed to amend the Auditor General Act to outline a function to be assigned to the commissioner. The government decided to make departments more accountable for sustainable development, so that efforts made in this area can be assessed.

Making departments accountable for the environment is the way of the future for sustainable development. The Auditor General, need I remind you, has learned a great deal about environmental assessments. He has developed an expertise in this area over the years and he now performs several environmental assessment functions. The Auditor General has a thorough knowledge of where environmental jurisdiction is shared and where the provinces have exclusive authority.

In a word, the Auditor General has the necessary integrity to carry out these tasks, to give the person appointed all the requisite technical support to meet the objectives and fulfil the ensuing action plans, in order to make sustainable development a reality. Of course, to do this, he will need the financial resources required to implement these objectives, which the minister has surely provided for and will assuredly inform us of in the near future.

We members of the Bloc Quebecois thought it was most important to amend the Auditor General Act to allow the Auditor General to present more than one report a year to Parliament and the people.

A few moments ago, the Minister of the Environment, in full oratorical flight, said that the auditor or the commissioner might tell the government things it did not want to hear. Of course, it hurts to hear that one has done something badly, but to be told it only once a year by someone who has a four-year contract with the Canadian people is not so bad. We suggested that the Minister of the Environment allow the commissioner to make two reports a year, or better yet, to present them as required in case of disaster and not to wait 18 months to bring this disaster to the public's attention. But no, they are still sticking with an annual report.

We members of the Bloc Quebecois thought that it was very important to amend the Auditor General Act so that the Auditor General can report to Parliament as required. If there is an emergency, another report will be presented; if there is another emergency, one or two more reports could be presented.

It seems that the minister did not want to amend the law that way. If our understanding of this is correct, two separate annual reports will be published, dealing with two different aspects of sustainable development: one for the departments and the other for current activities affecting the environment.

Hopefully, the bill to establish a commissioner responsible for the environment will be more specific and will provide a clear idea of what is involved.

The environment minister acknowledged the contribution and concerns of Bloc members regarding the position of commissioner. We will continue our critical but constructive work in committee during the review of this legislation.

Sustainable development and the environment must become priorities for the federal government, the provinces, the territories and the municipalities.

Our concern for the environment is real and permanent. Recent measures taken by the minister, including the proclamation of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the proposal regarding an integrated management policy on toxic substances, seemed to be motivated by a stand-offish attitude.

However, establishing a dialogue and harmonizing policies with the provinces are essential to promote sustainable development.

Our environment is too important and too fragile to start arguing over issues of jurisdiction. True sustainable development can only occur by co-operating with the provinces, not by antagonizing them or acting alone.

We feel the minister is making a mistake and will not help the environment at all if she does not enlist the participation of the provinces in various federal initiatives. The minister must make sure that the efforts to provide a healthy environment for future generations are not wasted.

I am sure the minister will agree that our environment is too important to avoid a dialogue with her provincial counterparts.

In conclusion, I once again say to the Minister of the Environment that she can count on the support of the Bloc Quebecois regarding any policy, provided that she respects provincial jurisdiction and that she avoids overlapping.

Her colleague, the Minister of Finance, used a very vivid metaphor, when he said that jumping over a bar three feet high does not look like much, but if you happen to be standing six feet down in the hole, it is quite a challenge. It means you actually have to jump nine feet!

Well, the minister can always count on our support, but Madam Minister, you will have to recognize provincial jurisdictions, and especially Quebec's, and you will have to avoid overlap, something Bloc Quebecois members on the Environment Committee have said repeatedly. Of course we did not always get our way on the Environment Committee, but considering the announcement made by the Minister of the Environment today, we were probably the only two members-after three or four months of debate, who were right, because from the very beginning our position was that the environment commissioner should work with the Auditor General.

Perhaps the Minister of the Environment will appreciate the following story. When I was a little boy, in a certain country they had a red book that was read by everyone. Children grew up reciting passages from the red book. Of course, Mr. Speaker, they later went to the other extreme-

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the bill we are debating today in the House is a perfect example of the measures which we strongly oppose and which explain why many Quebecers have come to embrace the sovereignist option. That is why I support the amendment of my colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata to withdraw this bill and refer its subject matter to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. The purpose of this amendment is, of course, to prevent the House from proceeding to second reading of this bill, which deals with the concept of promoting the Canadian identity. A basic reason why we are opposed to this bill being debated now in this House is that many ethics problems have not been resolved yet.

When we talk about promoting the Canadian identity, it goes without saying that the mandates and subsidies of the various government agencies will support this goal. Such is the case with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which should logically promote a big and beautiful Canada, but especially a united Canada.

A declaration made by the Prime Minister of Canada on June 18 leaves no doubt as to the directives given to the CBC. The Prime Minister said: "There is a law governing the CBC's operations and I will ask them to obey this law. Among the obligations outlined in the law is that of letting people know about Canada's advantages".

They would ask a broadcaster to voluntarily provide biased information in order to fulfil a mandate given by the Canadian government. It is very difficult to swallow. During an election campaign, for example, the air time allocated to the main political parties is monitored to the second. If one party gets more coverage than another, the news room will soon receive a telephone call from the party that feels slighted. This golden rule is the only guarantee that the population will be shown both sides of the coin.

Reflecting his leader's thinking, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said in 1977: "I cannot see the CBC taking a neutral stand to show both sides of the issue. During the referendum campaign, employees must stand squarely on the pro-Canada side".

Mr. Speaker, as this statement shows, our Minister of Foreign Affairs was already advocating in 1977 that this Crown corporation-24 per cent of whose operating expenditures are being paid by Quebecers-should take a biased position. Today, this same Minister of Foreign Affairs travels around the world preaching a healthy democracy, which he would flout here in his own country.

I saw him last Sunday in Haiti with President Aristide extolling the benefits of democracy. If democracy is healthy in a country like Haiti, why would he deny that this same democracy is just as beneficial here in Quebec, in Canada? It is very dangerous for the future.

It remains to be seen whether the opinion of the minister I just told you about has evolved since 1977, but I doubt it. What the Prime Minister and his Minister of Foreign Affairs said amounts to favouring, for example, the no side during the next referendum campaign, either by giving them better air time or by boycotting events favourable to the sovereignists. It amounts to asking Bernard Derome to look disgusted when mentioning the benefits of having a sovereign Quebec.

Such an attitude means one of two things: first, all Radio-Canada employees are federalists, or at least lack some professional ethics and agree to give a biased view in their media coverage; second, Quebecers do not realize that democracy is beingcheated. For all those journalists, news desk officers, producers,

technicians and others who have contributed to establishing Radio-Canada's reputation as a serious and credible organization, these comments are outrageous and reflect a blatant lack of respect for the right of Canadians and Quebecers to be informed. In fact, such comments jeopardize the credibility of Radio-Canada's news bulletins.

On top of these horror stories, the daily Le Devoir reported last April that the gap between programming budgets for the French and English networks is constantly increasing. There is no alternating here: every year the gap gets greater. Last year, the difference was $76.4 million. Indeed, Radio-Canada's budget was $69.7 million, while CBC got $146.1 million. And then Radio-Canada is being told how to present its news bulletins. There are limits to taking advantage of Quebecers.

To say that a nation is defined by its culture and its language is stating the obvious. We will continue to fight relentlessly until we get all the necessary tools to ensure Quebec's cultural development. Quebec's interests cannot be the same as that of a population with a different culture. The best example of this is the recent film released on the events which occurred in October 1970, to which the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine referred this morning. The producer, Pierre Falardeau had to defend his project because a Liberal senator campaigned against it, claiming that Telefilm Canada should not have to support such projects. Political schemers and movie producers do not have much in common.

In conclusion, the mandate given to the Department of Canadian Heritage goes totally against Quebec's will. We urge the government to recognize Quebec's distinct and specific character and we will keep doing so.

[World Food Day, October 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I have the pleasure of joining our voice to that of the hon. member for Beauséjour, the Secretary of State for Agriculture and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans. Water is the source of life. Everyday, on our blue planet, a third of the population goes hungry and every day, four out of ten people go thirsty or do not have access to proper drinking water.

It is said that human beings can go without food for around 40 days as long they can drink. But without food or water, they die within four days. We cannot live without water and if we compare the Earth to a grapefruit, a pinhead would represent our water supply, 98 per cent of which is made up of salt water, which leaves us with only two per cent considered freshwater. We are not taking very good care of this two per cent found in lakes, rivers, streams, clouds, glaciers, and underground springs.

No later than yesterday I saw someone putting out a cigarette butt by throwing it in a toilet bowl and flushing it out. What a shameful waste of water! Here in Quebec and Canada, groundwater, the water table, is getting deeper and deeper and is often of questionable quality. One must keep in mind that one litre of

gasoline, diesel fuel or oil is enough to pollute one million litres of groundwater.

I am very happy to see that Quebec City will be host to the 170 FAO member countries for a convention, next October.

I would also like to take this opportunity to stress the importance of the work carried out by the many organizations involved in finding lasting solutions to world hunger. Despite our collective wealth, hunger is a problem we know at home in Montreal and other major Canadian cities.

I want to congratulate the World Food Day Association of Canada which, through its numerous activities, helps raise the awareness of Canadians and Quebecers regarding world hunger.

I would also like to encourage farmers to share their experience by participating in joint projects with other countries. The Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec has set up projects of this kind, showing a sense of solidarity which I believe augurs very well.

Finally, 18 months or two years ago, I was shocked by a piece of news coming out of the home province of the secretary of state, which is the potato capital of the country. As he will no doubt remember, there was an overabundance of potatoes and to keep prices up, both governments had found an ingenious trick. I must specify that it was the previous government. Anyway, they decided to buy the potatoes and bury them in a dump. I wonder if the member recalls this incident. It did not happen on the other side of our planet, but in New Brunswick, 18 months or two years ago.

I cannot forget the photosynthesis formula I was taught in grade school; you too will remember that we were told that on Earth there are three life-giving elements: water, air and earth. I will remind you that without water for three to four days, it is the end of this world for us.

Therefore, it with pleasure that the Bloc Quebecois joins the hon. member for Beauséjour in saluting the World Food Day Association of Canada.