Jean-Guy Chrétien

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable attention and what surprised me is how strongly the hon. member for Malpeque supports the Canadian Wheat Board. Like him, I come from the East, from Quebec to be more accurate, and I have four questions to put to the hon. member for Malpeque. These questions could require long explanations but I would be happy with a short answer.

Is the hon. member for Malpeque proud of the Canadian Wheat Board? Does the hon. member for Malpeque think that, in the past 12 months, the Canadian Wheat Board was dynamic enough in finding new markets? Could the hon. member for Malpeque tell us if he believes that the Canadian Wheat Board is democratic enough? Finally, does the hon. member for Malpeque believe that the appointment of members by the government, by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, is today, in 1994, a good thing, as it was in 1949?

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, September 27th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like the hon. member for Brandon-Souris to give me his opinion. In his speech, to which I listened very attentively, he talked about the importance of research and development.

Does the hon. member for Brandon-Souris undertake today to put pressure on his good government to release funds?

I would be satisfied with $700,000 or $800,000 a year for R&D on maple syrup products which, fortunately or unfortunately, come almost exclusively from Quebec.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, September 27th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate our colleague who has just spoken, so optimistically, to Bill C-50. Past events do not, however, warrant her boundless optimism today.

Would the member indicate to this House the minimum number of producers needed to participate in this voluntary deduction scheme at 40 cents and 20 cents a tonne respectively for wheat and barley, in order to raise the $4.7 million anticipated by the Minister of Agriculture?

The Minister of Agriculture estimated that 90 per cent of Western grain producers will participate willingly, but there is, of course, a clause allowing grain growers to opt out if they wish.

My question is as follows. If, five years down the road, only 40 or 50 per cent of producers actually pay for research and development, while the others are benefiting from the fruits of the research, will voluntary participation still be tolerable?

Another of my fears is that a future Liberal government might gradually withdraw from agricultural research and development. This is a constant danger, one we cannot ignore.

I must tell you, Madam Speaker, that I do not have all that much confidence in the Liberal Party when it comes to agricultural research and development.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, September 27th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, as the new agriculture critic for the Bloc Quebecois, the Official Opposition, I am happy this morning to speak to Bill C-50 on the Canadian Wheat Board.

According to the information we received at our meeting this week with Agriculture Canada officials, this bill results from a Western grain producers' initiative. What they want is simple: they are willing to cut back on their profits in order to invest in research aimed at improving the genetic quality of wheat and barley. This bill will allow the Canadian Wheat Board to make deductions from wheat and barley producers' final payment cheques for the purpose of increasing private research funding.

As the single marketing agent for Canadian wheat and barley, the Canadian Wheat Board buys almost all grain produced. Deductions of 20 cents per tonne of wheat and 40 cents per tonne of barley will be made from payments on delivery. These figures were calculated by estimating research needs in millions of dollars and dividing the total by the number of tonnes bought.

As a Quebec farmer, I know much more about beef, pork and milk production than about grain production. So I was surprised to learn that although the bill only refers to wheat, the officials who explained Bill C-50 to us assured us that amendments affecting wheat would automatically apply to barley under the regulations. It also appears that two separate funds will be established, one for wheat and the other one for barley.

The deduction rates I mentioned will be set by order-in-council and not by legislation. This provision could exempt some classes of grain or some provinces. Alberta, for instance, will not participate in the barley deductions since the Alberta Barley Commission already makes such deductions.

Again, as a Quebec farmer, I was also surprised by the fact that deductions are optional. Officials said they were very confident that grain producers would participate based on the current rate of participation in the Alberta Barley Commission deductions program. We, in Quebec, have a similar process for marketing and advertising milk, but participation is compulsory.

A method like the one proposed here would not work in Quebec. As you see, we are really distinct in every way. With this 90 per cent participation rate, the commission intends to collect $4.7 million, of which $3.8 million is for wheat and $900,000 for barley, according to the estimates.

This money will then be used to subsidize research on improving the genetic quality of wheat and barley. Also, increasing the yield per acre makes the varieties more resistant to diseases and parasites and helps find new varieties to better meet new market requirements.

The first question that comes to our mind is of course the funding that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada allocates to research on wheat and barley. We are told that the budget for it now is $18.7 million. If so, why must producers fund parallel or complementary research out of their own pocket? Do not misunderstand me. I think it is quite laudable to encourage farmers to take charge and proceed with the solutions that they know are best for them.

Nevertheless, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada should not shift its responsibilities to the private sector nor should it be dependent on the private sector. Last week, the Department of Agriculture tabled a bill that, among other things, clarifies its mandate by specifying the department's involvement in research and development. Despite this restructuring, western grain growers conclude that they have to pay twice to benefit from research that meets their needs.

All taxpayers, which of course includes farmers, already pay $18.7 million for research and development on wheat and barley. Nevertheless, farmers will have to invest $4.7 million more to orient the research to their priorities. The department explains that funding for research and development is going down and that the private sector must take over. In the future, will the Liberal government lower its share to increase the contribution from the private sector, namely farmers?

Certainly, research and development is the key to remaining competitive on foreign markets. Initiatives such as this must be encouraged and the participation of the private sector, producers and industrialists, must be increased so that more research and development is carried out. But I think it is fundamental for the government to play its role and to finance agricultural research and development equitably. Earlier, I asked the hon. member for Matapédia-Matane if maple syrup producers in his riding had problems disposing of their production.

In my riding, and more specifically in Plessisville, the world capital of maple syrup, we have a surplus. I urge the federal Department of Agriculture to promote research on maple syrup and sugar in order to find new markets. Surpluses are enormous. Our producers must sell their maple syrup for roughly the same price as they did nine or ten years ago. Production costs are constantly increasing, while the selling price remains the same or is even lower than before.

In any case, what we are looking at this morning is the financing of a private research group, namely the Western Grains Research Foundation, which has already looked at the issue. Private financing of research offers some benefits to that sector. It meets specific needs identified by those who finance that research. On the other hand, the information gathered may remain confidential. Regardless of what we may think, the reality is that those two factors may influence grain producers.

The budget allocated by the department is insufficient. That department is all in favour of finding new markets, but it does not provide the necessary tools to that end. The money spent by the department on research and development for wheat and barley is not in line with priorities in that sector. This second finding shows a certain lack of understanding of the industry's needs.

I will conclude by emphasizing the importance of avoiding-and the minister alluded to that issue earlier-any duplication or overlapping between the department's research projects and those of the private sector. As the member representing the Quebec riding of Frontenac, I know what I am talking about when it comes to duplication and overlapping.

The most recent example is the referendum held in 1992. Quebecers are very familiar with the issue of duplication. We pay double and we keep our mouth shut. Last week, at a briefing on this bill by Agriculture officials, we were told that research initiatives will be discussed with the stakeholders in that sector, precisely to avoid any duplication or overlapping. It seems that the projects to be financed will complement each other but, unfortunately, the legislation is totally silent on that aspect.

Right now, we support Bill C-50, except for a few minor details. When the time comes to review this bill section by section for the benefit of western farmers, we will try to coax the Liberal government, the minister, as well as the new parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Beauséjour.

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Champlain will also discuss Bill C-50 in a few moments.

[Department Of Industry Act, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with attention to the hon. member for Davenport, who I see as a man full of fine qualities who spends a great deal of energy protecting the blue planet. I have no doubt that the hon. member for Davenport made his allegations in good faith, but I have serious reservations about his party.

You know, when I look at a government that revels in big words such as sustainable development and plays on people's emotions by talking about global development and mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren, I am puzzled.

When I see, for example, a ship that has been lying at the bottom of the Gulf of St. Lawrence for 24 years and that is still leaking part of its cargo every day; when I see a government that leaves thousands of lights on 24 hours a day when the offices are empty; when I see overheated rooms; when I see the lawn in front of the Parliament Buildings being watered right after it rains or a few hours before heavy rains are forecast; when I see the quality of the water in the St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes get increasingly worse; when I see that the $5.8 million that was to be spent on cleaning up the St. Lawrence in Phase I of the St. Lawrence Action Plan was actually invested in Miramichi, New Brunswick, several hundreds of kilometres away from the St. Lawrence River, these denunciations raise questions in my mind about the seriousness of the Liberal Party now governing Canada.

The question I could ask the hon. member for Davenport is this: Can you, sir, who show very good judgment particularly on environmental matters, guarantee that the party of which you are an active member will be as serious as yourself in the years to come, when you know as well as I do that time flies and that we are falling behind with regard to sustainable development?

[Tribute To The Late Gaston Péloquin, September 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sadness that I rise today in this House to pay tribute to a colleague and a friend whose loss affects us all. The accidental death of our colleague Gaston Péloquin is a terrible blow to his son, his family, his friends, his constituents and to us all. Quebec and Canada have lost a member of Parliament who was honest and very dedicated to the cause in which he believed above all. Gaston Péloquin, who was elected to this House in October 1993 as the member for Brome-Missisquoi, did his job with loyalty. He defended his constituents' interests with his usual determination and paid special attention to the needs of the poorest. We all recognized his legendary availability to these people. His approach to politics never raised any doubt about the sincerity of his personal convictions.

He always believed in Quebec and was never afraid to denounce the injustices suffered by Quebecers. I knew Gaston Péloquin personally for many years. He was a warm and endearing person, as I realized while touring the Eastern Townships during the 1993 election campaign. We spent several days travelling through five ridings. Gaston was the leader of the group informally set up in the motor home of his friend Jean Bégin. He took pleasure in doing his job well.

I shared an apartment in Hull with Gaston for 10 months during the last parliamentary session. We had many opportunities to confide in each other. His always lively comments and well-expressed ideas showed him to be extremely sensitive. The closing of the Hyundai plant was a striking case in point. I saw all the efforts that he made in this matter so that families would not lose their livelihood. He was very sorry for these workers when this plant closed, but he had done all he could. As a former teacher of English as a second language who maintained a lifelong interest in education, he very often talked to me about the school he headed for two years in Haiti. He shared the Haitian people's problems and human misery, and he was very proud to bring back from that country his son Pascal who is now 16 years old and had become his main reason for living.

Gaston Péloquin leaves a big void that will be hard to fill not only in the House of Commons but also in the riding of Brome-Missisquoi. On behalf of Bloc members and the great region of the Eastern Townships, I offer our heartfelt condolences to his son Pascal, his family and his friends. We share with them the sorrow of losing a loved one. Goodbye, Gaston.

[Sulphur Dioxide Emissions, June 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as the Official Opposition critic on the environment, I want to salute the federal government's initiative in signing yesterday in Oslo the new UN protocol on sulphur dioxide emissions.

The new international agreement sets for the first time emission quotas for each country based on nature's resistance capacity in each of the signatory countries.

The approach used in the protocol shows once again that countries, peoples and regions facing the same problem must sometimes apply different solutions taking into account their environment and social characteristics. It goes without saying that this is in line with the aspirations of Quebecers, who believe that the Quebec government should have all the powers of a sovereign state while co-operating with its neighbours on international issues.

The signatory countries have different goals to reach in the coming years. I would like to give you a few examples. Germany plans on reducing its sulphur emissions by 87 per cent compared with the 1980 levels by the year 2005, by renovating the obsolete factories and thermal power plants of the former East Germany.

Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Austria will join in this effort by reducing their emissions by 80 per cent by the end of the century.

Greece and Portugal will only have to reduce their emissions by 3 to 4 per cent because their soil is rich in limestone, which neutralizes the acidity of sulphur dioxide naturally. This approach is more interesting than that of the 1985 Helsinki

Protocol, under which the signatory countries had to cut their sulphur emissions by 30 per cent compared to the 1980 levels by this year.

Canada, for its part, must create a sulphur dioxide management zone including the Atlantic provinces, southern Quebec and Ontario.

It goes without saying that all the initiatives affecting this management zone will first have to be approved by the provincial governments concerned. With respect to the sharing of environmental responsibilities, we know that the initiatives against acid rain in Canada are put forward by the provinces, which pass regulations by negotiating voluntary agreements with polluters.

The federal government, for its part, tries to reduce the acid pollutants that make their way into Canada, from the United States for instance.

Problems such as acid rain call for the co-operation of all stakeholders. Sulphur dioxide is a colourless and very odorous gas. It comes mainly from oil and gas processing, mineral smelting, and coal and heavy oil combustion. Each day, the chimneys of our incinerators spit out tons and tons of this gas into our atmosphere.

Many reports have been made on the very harmful effects of acid rain, especially on forests and particularly Quebec's maple trees, as well as the problems for human health that can in many cases lead to increased sensitivity among those who suffer from asthma and bronchitis and make breathing more difficult for some people. We must also mention the deterioration of green spaces and the damage done to very valuable cultural artifacts.

I think that there is a very serious problem with the Oslo Protocol: the United States did not sign it. You know as well as I do that the United States is a huge consumer, and whoever consumes produces waste. As Lavoisier said so well, in nature, nothing is created and nothing is lost. And, as if by some unfortunate chance, warm winds from the United States blow regularly towards Quebec.

I seriously wonder how come the Minister of the Environment was unable to convince our powerful neighbour to sign this Oslo agreement. She just said that she will go to Washington next month, so I hope that she will return with good news for Quebec because you understand as I do that the acid rain we have does not come only from Quebec smokestacks. Most of it comes from Ontario or the United States.

Clearly, for Canada this means that the scope and effectiveness of the protocol will be less. Indeed, it is essential to co-ordinate action on both sides of the border.

According to the 1992 report of the Sub-Committee on Acid Rain of the Standing Committee on the Environment, although a unilateral Canadian program to fight emissions that cause acid rain is morally or politically defensible, any permanent solution must include the United States. That is why we support the environment minister's efforts, which coincide with Quebec's interests, in her talks with the American authorities about acid rain.

The Bloc Quebecois is proud of this Oslo convention but we also have high hopes for the environment minister's visit to Washington next month.

[Jeunes Du Monde, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, some collective gestures are welcomed with enthusiasm and admiration. Students in the town of Thetford, in my riding, have raised $5,500 in support of people in Rwanda and Burundi, showing their generosity and compassion.

This initiative sponsored by a youth group called Jeunes du Monde was such a success that these young people, mostly high school students, are challenging other Quebec areas and the rest of Canada to match their efforts. If the 600 high schools in Quebec were to meet this challenge, they would raise over$3.5 million on behalf of these two civil war-torn countries.

The Thetford experience may only be a drop in the ocean, but it is small gestures like this one which change the world.

[Canada Wildlife Act, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that I am delighted to speak on Bill C-24 immediately after my colleague from Thunder Bay-Atikokan because both of us have been sitting on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development for several weeks now and he is one of the members of the committee who have made a very significant contribution to the committee by his attendance and his comments.

In the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, we reviewed at the same time as Bill C-23, Bill C-24 to amend the Canada Wildlife Act. This act was passed in 1973. The purpose of this act was to enable the government to conduct wildlife research and in conjunction with the provinces, undertake various activities related to wildlife conservation and interpretation as well as the protection of wildlife habitat and endangered species.

Apparently, only minor changes have been made to this act since its coming into force. As in the case of Bill C-23, we are simply proposing amendments to ensure the act keeps up with the times. That is why we, from the Bloc Quebecois, are jumping on the government band wagon and supporting these measures to protect our wildlife more effectively.

One of the most important changes in my view is that, as soon as it comes into effect, the act will protect-and that is the important part-not only any animal other than a domestic animal, but also all living organisms, and that covers a lot.

Living organisms include not only animals, birds and fish, but also those tiny unicellular microorganisms, you know, the kind that you cannot see with the naked eye but play a major role in the food chain.

It covers plants like hay or clover, large trees like century-old oak trees as well as the tiny, delicate flower which lives but a short season. Bill C-24 will ensure that not only animals are protected but plants as well, so that all living organisms will be protected from now on.

Twenty years ago, people probably did not see the need to protect animals and their habitats. But it is now crystal clear that it would be illogical to protect the white-headed eagle, for example, while destroying its environment. This new provision will allow us to promote sustainable development, as my colleague explained earlier.

I would now like to explain the life cycle in very simple terms. Earth, the blue planet, is made up of two kinds of elements: living and non-living. Living elements include the sun, which is Earth's main source of energy. We find in the air non-living gases including CO2 or carbonic gas. The soil and the minerals it contains are other non-living elements. Finally, water is another non-living natural resource which is very abundant in Quebec and Canada.

The sun, water, carbonic gas and the mineral salts found in the soil are four non-living elements which cost absolutely nothing. These four elements sustain living organisms, which grow, reproduce and die. These plants are called producers because they produce their own food. These producers are eaten by herbivores, which are in turn eaten by carnivores or omnivores. These carnivores and omnivores are in turn eaten by more powerful carnivores or omnivores. My colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, you and I are at the top of the food chain. We, of course, are at the top of the pyramid.

From now on, Bill C-24 will protect all living organisms. Water, earth, light and air are set aside. Let us hope that these non-living elements will not be lacking in the future. It is all profit since plants, including the clover that grows, cost absolutely nothing.

I would like to take a few seconds to give you an example of a food chain. Carbonic gas, water, minerals salts in the soil and the sun make clover grow. The clover is eaten by grasshoppers; the grasshoppers are eaten by a frog; the frog is eaten by a grass snake; the grass snake is eaten by a racoon. Now what animal could be eating the racoon? Perhaps a coyote or a wolf, and so on and so forth.

You see, the higher you go up the food chain, the bigger and more powerful the animals are, but there are fewer of them, fortunately. Mr. Speaker, imagine if there were more coyotes or wolves than hares in a given territory or ecosystem. There would be a short-term imbalance, that is for sure.

So I continue. Bill C-24 will also allow us to create national wildlife reserves by regulation in the area going beyond the territorial sea. At present, it is limited to the territorial sea, which only extends 12 nautical miles from our shores. With this bill, the limit would be extended to 200 nautical miles.

This extends the area in which we can act, since the marine ecosystem and its biodiversity are now almost totally neglected, as far as protecting their habitat is concerned. According to Environment Canada experts, the potential of this area is huge. Just take the areas with high concentrations of marine birds and the places where whales reproduce and feed.

Just as in the bill that we adopted a few minutes ago, Bill C-23, the minister could designate classes of persons as wildlife officers with this bill that we will probably pass, since the Bloc Quebecois will give its consent, of course. So I quote part of the bill:

The Minister may designate any person or class of persons to act as wildlife officers for the purposes of this Act and the regulations.

I am pleased to note that in this bill, just as in Bill C-23, the designation of provincial officers is subject to the agreement of the provincial government concerned. Since this provision whereby the minister can designate wildlife officers is the counterpart of the one in Bill C-23, with respect to game officers, the answer obtained in committee as to whether the minister could appoint a hunting or fishing association, for example, as wildlife officers is still valid.

I was told then that it could be done, but that such associations could have limited powers. Still rather sceptical about the benefits of this provision, I contacted the Quebec wildlife conservation officers' union. The president of the union, Paul Legault, told us about the situation in Quebec, since similar powers have already been given by the Government of Quebec under the Wildlife Conservation Act.

In 1978, when private clubs in Quebec were abolished, a decision was made to appoint wildlife conservation assistants to perform the duties of the wardens of the now defunct private clubs. Originally, these assistants were supposed to be the eyes and ears of the wildlife officers and had no title or function as such. Over the years, expectations increased, but nothing was done about improving the training and supervision of these people.

The results are not encouraging. It seems these individuals were not very productive and often had a conflict of interest, since they had to enforce the regulations but were also earning a living as hunting and fishing guides.

Imagine, an outfitter who is your guide and at the same time acts as a wildlife officer. If you give him $200 or $300 a day and have nothing to show for it, I imagine you would fire him right away so he has to deliver or else he will lose his customers. This creates a very ambiguous situation.

Incidentally, less than one violation report is filed per assistant annually. At this rate, some assistants do not file any reports at all. Some file one or two, and if some assistants file ten reports, there must be quite a few who do not file any at all. So the Government of Quebec is reviewing this system.

There are also a number of shortcomings in the system itself, and I will name three: the selection process suffers as a result of criteria that are not strict enough; the training program is too short and is not adapted to the needs of the assistants; finally, there is no mechanism to follow up the work being done by the assistants.

However, as in the case of game wardens, there are not enough wildlife officers to enforce the legislation. That being said, we might as well admit we have to appoint more staff to ensure compliance.

According to the Bloc Quebecois, it would be useful to take certain steps to avoid a situation where wildlife officers do not have the required qualifications and thus lose their credibility. That is why we suggested the same amendments to the Standing Committee. As I explained earlier, and this happens regularly, our amendments were defeated. We will not vote against Bill C-24, but I think accepting our two amendments would have benefited the legislation.

I will repeat them quickly. The purpose of the first amendment was to ensure that individuals designated by the minister have received appropriate training. This amendment is particularly relevant since the Quebec experience has shown this is an important part of the problem. The purpose of our second amendment was to make the designation of this category condi-

tional on approval by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

Both amendments were defeated, but I remain firmly convinced of the importance of taking a closer look at this kind of appointments. According to Mr. Legault, the rather careless approach to appointing assistants has caused quite some friction with the public, because some individuals "play the enforcer". As I mentioned earlier, and I will repeat this for the benefit of hon. members opposite, when you appoint a whole hunting association as wildlife officers, there may be a couple of people in the group with more brawn than brains, who use their brawn in a way that may discredit all wildlife officers. That is what I meant by playing the enforcer.

The request to get new partners involved is more and more pressing, but there must not be a shifting of responsibility onto citizens' shoulders. Nevertheless, it is essential to do something about the inadequate protection of wildlife, and I believe that Bill C-24 does meet that objective. Good will and good laws are not sufficient to adequately protect our environment. Those two elements alone are like having good tools but no carpenter to use them.

In conclusion, education is the best solution and the best tool to protect wildlife, flora, habitats and ecosystems. The government must understand that, instead of 2,000 or 3,000 wildlife officers, we need 27 million such officers in Canada. Indeed, every one of us should be a wildlife officer, and when we witness things which are damaging to our environment, we should have the courage to confront those who are responsible for such action.

Of course, we run the risk of being insulted, but this is the price to pay if we want to do our share. In the long term, this would be a welcome investment in publicity, particularly when you think that every day the government and the Minister of Finance must make new cuts to lower our national deficit. Let us start in school by telling our young ones that they, and their children, will inherit what is there now. Let us educate them and, in two or three generations, the mentality will have completely changed. It will be centred on sustainable development and biodiversity.

[Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, June 13th, 1994]

Just like houseguests, as the hon. member for Trois-Rivières pointed out. It can be quite a burden, and there is nothing in Bill C-23 to provide financial assistance for individuals who have to accommodate these animals for extended periods.

I hope that our senior officials, under the instructions of the Minister of the Environment, will look at regulatory measures and other ways to reach agreements that will make this legislation very effective.

The legislator should take advantage of the experience of users to make these laws far more effective. It seems we will go ahead with Bill C-23, which I think is a step in the right direction towards protecting our migratory birds. However, as was pointed out earlier, the agreements are with the United States and Mexico. We should extend such agreements much further south, because we have birds that migrate very far south, and we could protect them so they are not killed in the south. These agreements must be concluded with our neighbours on a nation-to-nation basis.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the Bloc Quebecois will fully support the Liberal government on Bill C-23.