Jean-Paul Marchand

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995, April 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member.

How does he see the role of members from Quebec who support this bill? Does he think that members from Quebec who support this bill are defending Quebec's interests?

[Winnipeg Jets, April 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I gather that the answer is "yes" for the Winnipeg Jets.

Is the minister in a position to confirm that, depending on the results of the provincial election in Manitoba, the federal government could contribute as much as $20 million?

[Winnipeg Jets, April 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification.

The future of certain Canadian team franchises in the National Hockey League may be jeopardized by financial difficulties and limited markets. According to some sources, the Minister of Human Resources Development promised to give the Winnipeg Jets $10 million in federal funds for the construction of a new amphitheatre.

Does the minister responsible for Western economic diversification confirm that discussions took place or are under way to grant $10 million to build a new amphitheatre for the Winnipeg Jets?

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead.

What he said is true. Quebec farmers will likely have a greater share of the province's revenues, money that was not available to them before because it was distributed elsewhere. But once

Quebec becomes sovereign, farmers will have the chance to receive more money from the government.

We must also recognize the strength of the UPA and of Quebec farmers. Our province is certainly the best organized province in the agricultural industry in Canada. It is in excellent shape. It is well structured. Farmers have a good knowledge of their trade which will allow them to take advantage of new markets, particularly of the new American market that is opening up. If I am not mistaken, under the new agreements, we will have access to 5 per cent of the American market. Therefore, Quebec farmers are in a good position to take advantage of Quebec's sovereignty.

I would like to come back to the issue of milk quotas. Dairy producers must understand that Quebec will not become independent overnight after a victory in the referendum. There has to be a period of negotiations. The current agreements, such as the GATT and NAFTA, will stay in place. There will be negotiations between Canada and Quebec and they will not necessarily be conducted sector by sector, farmers with farmers, bankers with bankers. These will be comprehensive negotiations between Quebec and Canada. A framework will have to be established, and when the parties are able to look at the situation rationally, without letting their emotions interfere, the rest of Canada will understand that, in the agricultural industry, Canadian producers will have to maintain a good relationship with Quebec producers in all sectors in order to protect themselves against unfair competition from Americans.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

This is why Quebec farmers must also assume their share of the risks involved in that venture. Obviously, there are some concerns. Achieving Quebec's sovereignty will not be a breeze. Nobody said it would be. However, in the middle and in the long term, there is no question that Quebecers will benefit from such a move. This is no question about that.

There is a transition period which raises several issues, including for the farming community.

Indeed, farmers too wonder what will happen once Quebec opts for sovereignty.

The hon. member for Lotbinière answered some very important questions earlier. The government is resorting to fearmongering when it says that Quebec dairy producers will lose all their quotas. Such arguments are not reasonable and are obviously based on emotions.

Quebec buys beef from Alberta, grain from the western provinces, corn and soya from Ontario. We buy a lot more outside the province than we sell. Do you think that, all of a sudden, the rest of Canada will refuse to buy our butter or our cheese, and that Quebec will no longer buy beef from Alberta? Of course not. It is totally unreasonable to think that the rest of Canada would force us into such an unfair situation.

I certainly believe that sovereignty will be beneficial to Quebec farmers.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Quebec has paid between five and seven billion dollars out of its own pocket in support of agriculture in Western Canada and the rest of Canada. If only Quebec farmers had benefited from such investments in their province, Quebec's agriculture would have been even stronger than it is, and that does not include the Crow rate, which cost the federal government between $600 million and $800 million a year. These

investments in western grain transportation were very discriminatory and they were made solely in favour of western farmers.

A quarter of that money came from Quebec and statistics show that, during the last 15 years, Quebec lost two billion dollars more. These are huge losses. When the federal government announces the elimination of the Crow rate and talks about a compensation package, it only has in mind western farmers, the constant winners for 15 years, with the grain subsidy and the unfair federal investments in agriculture. Quebec has always lost out. The unfairness is blatant, even more so when one recognizes that Quebec farmers earn on average about $25,000 for their very hard work.

A farmer can work up to 80 hours a week. He works the equivalent of two jobs for a total salary of $25,000. So, the 30 per cent cut in milk subsidies and the 15 per cent cut in farmers' revenues are a blow to milk producers. It is a blow because their revenues are not that high. The inequity is obvious and we have discussed the subject at length.

The overriding theme is that Quebec, in practically all areas, has always been subjected to this sort of unfairness. Even though the other members in this House will not admit it, Quebec has been a cash cow for the rest of Canada. This is obvious in every sector, whether it is the sale of goods and services, or the research sector. As regards the latter, over the last 15 years, Quebec has been getting, on average, 10 to 15 per cent of research investments. Ontario was the big winner, with an average of 50 per cent of the total federal assistance. Again, Quebec lost money.

I could give you a whole list of examples where Quebec was the loser, but I will stop here. At some point, Quebecers will have to put their foot down and say: "Enough is enough! We are fed up with these injustices".

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would gladly let my hon. colleague from Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead speak but, as you so rightly said, I am the member for Québec-Est. My riding of Québec-Est is an urban riding. I am not from a rural but an urban riding. I know of a number of farmers in my riding but they are all retired.

I nonetheless appreciate the importance of agriculture. I know that agriculture is one of the pillars of the economy, particularly in Quebec, which is about to become a country. Agriculture is a basic economic sector. I also learned a thing or two about this sector from working, a few years ago, for Agriculture Canada minister Eugene Whelan, who was considered as one of the greatest ministers of agriculture in Canadian history.

So, I am familiar with this inequity issue that was discussed at length today. It is well known that Quebec farm producers were treated less fairly than those from the rest of Canada, and Western Canada in particular. The latest budget tabled in this House by the Liberals provides a most glaring example of inequity. It is plain obvious.

While Western producers are very generously compensated-we are talking about $2 billion-subsidies paid to milk producers in the East are being cut by 30 per cent. I must say that this is nothing new. There was much talk about this here today. Quebec has not been getting its fair share for ages now.

Had one quarter of federal spending for Canadian agriculture been going to Quebec, since it is normally calculated on a per capita basis, Quebec would have been much better off. Instead, Quebec got 10, 12 and sometimes as much as 15 per cent, but never a full 25 per cent share of federal spending. According to my calculations, on this basis, Quebec's shortfall for the past 15 years, since 1980, is between five and seven billion dollars.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Hypocrisy.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 3rd, 1995]

Indeed, we have abandoned this sector. That means that the standard of living of these people will go down. And who are these people earning an average of $10,161 per year? They are single-parent families, widows, seniors, and handicapped people. We are asking the most vulnerable people in society to make contributions that they cannot make. It will push these people further into squalor than they already are. Are these measures fair for Canadians?

I can accept, along with everybody else in the House, that real measures must be taken to reduce the deficit, but not at the expense of the most needy, the most vulnerable. In its budget, the government directly attacks, head on, blindly, the families and individuals who are the weakest and most vulnerable in society, and hits their essential needs. It is like saying to the weakest, infants, babies, children, that they will have to eat less. It is like taking away from these people their ability to meet their most basic needs.

It is unfair. I am for debt reduction, but why did the government not take the $300 million from the banks in its budget?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 3rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the budget brought down by the government should be given points for public perception, and the federal government for improving its image. The impression is given that the government has hit hard. The impression is given that it has reduced the deficit and done everything it possibly could to turn Canada's economy around.

I heard a number of comments in this House that were extremely frustrating for me. One was that this budget was fair and equitable, hard but equitable.

According to the press clippings I read after the budget was tabled, those who complained loudest were the banks, who said it was a very harsh budget.

All the banks said that this government hit their profits very hard, including the president of the Royal Bank. Which means the government came down very hard. In fact, in the budget the banks were asked to contribute $50 million annually, but only for two years, which means a total of $100 million.

Consider that last year, the six chartered banks made a net profit of 4.3 billion dollars. I am talking about net profits, what the banks have left after covering all their expenses and salaries. These are net profits: pure profit. The banks raked in 4.3 billion dollars last year alone for their shareholders and owners.

When the government says in the budget that the banks will be asked to contribute $50 million for two years, this means barely 1 per cent of their net profits for last year. This is all part of a general trend we are seeing in a government that is probably following the example of its Conservative predecessors by supporting the wealthiest in our society. That is very obvious. In fact, not only is the banks' contribution towards paying off the debt extremely small, their taxes have been going down compared with the kind of profits they make. There are statistics and studies that show this very clearly.

I am, of course, referring to those who are among the wealthiest members of our society. The president of the Royal Bank, Mr. Taylor, pocketed over $2.5 million in salaries, bonuses and loans last year. The story is the same for other bank presidents.

Very clearly, this government favours the rich, and the rich are getting richer with this budget and the government's mentality. The proof lies in the fact that the government did nothing about family trusts, that it did not tighten corporation tax credits, and that even subsidies to Canadian business were reduced by only 60 per cent over three years. All this to say that the government has demonstrated its intention to protect the strongest and richest.

If we go to the other end of Canada's social map, we see this government's hard-heartedness, its immorality and its lack of a sense of justice in cutting $300 million in the public housing sector in its budget. Cutting three hundred million dollars in this sector means asking society's most vulnerable people to pay a share three times that of the banks. People who live in public housing earn an average of $10,161 a year-a very long way from Mr. Taylor of the Royal Bank, who earned $2.5 million last year.

In the public housing sector, the government has called for cuts of $100 million this year and the next three. This means that, since 1994, not a single cent has been spent on new housing construction.

Since January 1994, this government has put the key in the door, has not invested a cent in new housing projects even though the demand for low-rent housing has continued to increase. There are 80,000 homeless in Canada, the most beautiful and the best country in the world, as some members of this House would say. Yet this country has 80,000 homeless. Canada needs 600,000 new housing units. Yet not only has this government not invested a cent in new housing, it has cut $300 million from the social housing budget.

That is no longer cutting the fat. However, cutting $50 million is hardly even trimming the fat from the banking industry. Cutting $300 million for social housing is not trimming the fat, it is cutting to the bone with an axe. They are asking the most needy and vulnerable in society to cough up even more than the president of the Royal Bank of Canada. Is that what you would call a fair and just budget? I ask you, Madam Speaker. Not in my opinion. Any Liberal who rises in this House to say that it is is guilty of the greatest hypocrisy of all times, because there has never been a bigger need for social housing in the history of Canada, and it is a basic need.

A $300 million cut to social housing represents a 10 per cent cut in the annual operating budget of each low-rent building in Canada. That means that the window that lets in the cold will not get repaired this year. The roof will go unrepaired. That means that the building itself will continue to deteriorate.