René Canuel

[Lobbyists Registration Act, May 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that it is high finance that controls the government.

If Bill C-43 had had more teeth, it could have had the merit of keeping this pack of predators at bay.

The hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm, my Bloc Quebecois colleague, introduced a series of amendments which would have effectively caged them in, but the Liberals rejected them all. How can they possibly hope to control the situation when they, like negligent shepherds, have flung the doors of the fold wide open, turning a blind eye to the hungry wolves killing off every last lamb in the flock, one by one?

Let us not kid ourselves. If Bill C-43 is passed as is, the government will not be able to pry open the stranglehold that the lobbyists have on the affairs of the state.

They will still be able to promote their own interests as they influence major decisions that should be made in the best interests of the people of this country. In the debate on this bill, the very credibility of our democratic system is at stake. We know and we said this earlier, that the public does not have a very high opinion of politicians. This attitude extends beyond elected representatives to include our institutions as well.

With Bill C-43, the Liberal government had a good opportunity to keep its promises and promote the transparency of our political life and our democratic system. Unfortunately, these promises will never be kept if it depends on hon. members opposite. They reject all amendments. They reject all the good ideas my colleagues submitted, although these were proposed in a spirit of co-operation, not as a way to score points.

My colleague submitted amendments based on the concept that democracy is the only valid system of government. We in the Bloc Quebecois believe that democracy is sacred. It is the only system we accept and practice, and we uphold its principles. The aim of democracy is to promote the public good. In a real democracy, governments are elected to manage the country's assets in the best interests of its citizens.

The aim of a genuine democracy is to ensure that all citizens have a chance to pursue their dream of individual happiness. In a democracy, this dream of individual happiness and success could be called the DIH. Today, the only thing that counts for this government is the GDP, the Gross Domestic Product or whatever contributes to the well-being of the financial community, the lobbyists, wolves whose only purpose in life is to feed on helpless sheep.

In a democracy, we all have the right to express our opinions. We have the right to promote and defend our interests, but we do not have the right to do so at the expense of our fellow citizens. However, that is exactly what is happening, and that is why public confidence in our institutions has hit a new low. Lobbyists for the financial sector manage to get government contracts through secret negotiations. They manage to influence government policy to further their own interests.

A good example is the fact that the wealthy in this country hardly pay any income tax. The rich can set up family trusts and avoid paying their fair share of taxes. The reason for this is simple: they have access to government and they use their influence. Our democracy is no longer being run by a group of individuals who have been elected to serve the community. It is governed in the utmost secrecy behind closed doors and on the sly.

We in the Bloc Quebecois agree with the need to restore people's faith in their institutions. I also believe that many of my colleagues opposite feal the same way, but I think the government is not willing to do the job. Since its election, the government has not been particularly transparent. A number of matters hint at the possibility of there being determinant outside influence, such as the matter of the Pearson airport in Toronto, for example.

However, what finally convinced me about the government's lack of willingness was the $400 a plate dinner in Montreal on May 3 given by the Liberal Party of Canada. You will never convince me that only Liberal partisans were involved. There surely were lobbyists there as well. Rest assured, Mr. Speaker, however, that there was no one, not even a Liberal, from Sainte-Irène, and there were no fishermen from Grosse-Roche. The people clearly remember the promises in the red book, but government leaders seem to have forgotten them.

If Bill C-43 were improved, it might mean greater transparency. A stronger bill, one with teeth, could at least increase public confidence somewhat. This was the aim of the amendments proposed by my colleague for Berthier-Montcalm.

In the case of the ethics counsellor, we in the Bloc propose that the person be accountable to the House of Commons, like the auditor general. The ethics counsellor must be independent and have his or her hands free to act, otherwise he or she would be subject to lobbyist influence. It would be a complete waste of time to appoint an ethics counsellor who could be influenced by outside forces. Such a gesture could only increase the mistrust of people for their own institutions.

Moreover, we recommend that there be only one category of lobbyists. Why differentiate? A lobbyist is an individual who,

on behalf of a group or a company, tries to influence the government. Are some motives more commendable than others? Certainly not, Mr. Speaker.

Lobbyists do not seek to improve the well-being of the community, they are hired to defend particular interests or to represent interest groups. I do not believe that creating different categories can be justified. If governing was adding up all the interests at stake, I would understand, but in a democracy, such is not the case. In a democracy, governing is thinking and acting with the best interests of the community in mind, which is contrary to private interests.

Also, we are asking that fees and meetings with senior officials and ministers be disclosed. The public has the right to know that information. Parliamentarians who represent Canadians have the right to know if a senior public servant was influenced regarding some major decisions. We talk about accountability in the public service, but let us not forget the notion of responsibility.

Public servants are paid by taxpayers to serve them. They are not paid to meet the expectations of lobbyists. What is at stake here is the credibility of the public service. Bill C-43 must provide for the disclosure of all meetings with senior officials.

The legislation includes a code of conduct for lobbyists, but no real means of enforcing it. This is like putting up a sign saying "No wolf allowed" in front of the sheep barn. Is the government so naive as to believe that such a sign will keep the wolf away? Is it so naive as to believe that a mere code of conduct with no enforcement measures will help rehabilitate our institutions?

[Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, May 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the Minister of Human Resources Development has lost control of the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy. Not only is this strategy not creating jobs, but it is encouraging workers to quit their jobs to take advantage of the benefits of the program.

Processing plants are complaining about the departure of a number of their employees and of the costs this entails. The minister prefers to stick his head in the sand and continue extolling the virtues of his program. The representatives of the fishermen even came to Ottawa last week to complain about the program's ineffectiveness.

The minister must recognize that his program is not working, that he is gobbling up billions and that the federal government on its own is incapable of resolving the Atlantic fishing crisis.

[Supply, May 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, since my hon. colleague is talking about workers, on behalf of 250 women of my riding, I will read a few sentences for his information: "We live in a rural area where the situation keeps getting worse, especially for the last year and a half. Our villages are having problems: young people leaving, a deficient and deficit ridden economic structure, a saturated job market,

high unemployment, reduced public services and an aging population". Forty-one per cent of the families in the area are poor or very poor, whereas the poverty rate is 28 per cent for Quebec as a whole.

What this government lacks is a vision for society. There is absolutely nothing. There was the infrastructure program to create jobs, but we do not hear about it any more. It is coming to an end. This morning, a deputy minister came to present a forestry plan: budget cuts of 57 per cent over a three period for the Canadian Forestry Service; downsizing of 410 positions, one third of the workforce; closure of 11 regional offices. And then they pass on the bill: because there is no work, they cut unemployment benefits and the provinces are left to do the dirty work.

Those women and those men are deeply disappointed. They are disgusted. At this point, they say that we lie tothem. We are told: "You sovereignists are blocking things". Quite the contrary, we are part of the federation. Here is my question: Is there any way in this country to create jobs instead of forcing people onto social welfare, onto unemployment insurance, especially in rural areas where things are surely more difficult?

[Supply, May 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, when the government dumps some responsibilities on to the provinces without also sending them the money to face these responsibilities, there is a huge problem. We know that there are 800,000 unemployed people and welfare recipients in Quebec. In fact, there are 800,000 welfare recipients alone. My riding of Matapédia-Matane alone accounts for almost 40 per cent of them. That is totally unacceptable. My question is: Unless my colleague is able to accomplish some great miracle, how can the government offload some responsibilities while, at the same time, tightening the belt?

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member asked a question, but I think the answer is pretty obvious, because as you know, when we need something, we go to whoever has what we want. At one point, Russia was ordering wheat from us. We were capitalists and they were communists. They did not care about borders. They came to buy our wheat because it was good wheat and the price was right.

When people say Canada had been very good for Quebec, my answer is this: our farmers are telling us this has got to stop. These are not my words but theirs. I speak on their behalf, since when we are elected, it is our duty is to speak on behalf of our constituents. I talked to farmers and they told me to say what I just said. This is no joke, this is dead serious. I speak for the farmers in my riding, and they say it is practically impossible to live with this kind of system.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

It is impossible to pay too much attention to agriculture, and especially to young farmers. A nation that is not self-sufficient in agriculture must be considered part of the third world. A country that does not give top priority to agriculture does not understand anything.

When game became scarce, mankind turned to farming to survive. Nothing has since replaced the food taken from the land. However, in order to grow this food, farmers must work hard, invest money and take risks. Farmers do face great risks, as they have done for generations. They are willing to assume terrible risks.

These people have attained sovereignty on their land. They own their land. They sow their fields with whatever grains they please. They breed whatever animals they please. Their work does not bind them to a fixed schedule, but one thing is sure, they have put in an incredible number of hours. They are ready for a country of their own.

According to a poll commissioned by the UPA, the results of which were released on November 22, 1990, at the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, 73 per cent of farmers were in favour of sovereignty-association, 73 per cent.

On September 2, in the middle of the election campaign in Quebec, the president of the UPA, Laurent Pellerin, argued in the presence of Premier Daniel Johnson that there is not much more to fear from sovereignty than from the current situation, what we have gone through over poultry and continue to got through every day in our trade relations. That is what the president of the UPA said.

Indeed, farm producers have met great challenges over the years, moving from traditional to industrial farming, facing international competition, computerizing their businesses, learning new production techniques and keeping up with all the new advanced technologies. They are ready to take up the new and great challenge of becoming the kings in their own castles, masters of their own houses, in other words, sovereign.

To those who claim that, in a sovereign Quebec, agriculture would be profoundly disrupted, our producers reply that the future of Quebec's industry is conditioned much more by market development than by the advent of a sovereign Quebec.

Those who think farm producers from the rest of Canada are unlikely to go for maintaining supply management are wrong. We all know that, to maintain the revenues of all dairy producers, each province must preserve the supply management system.

We doubt that it would be in the interests of the rest of Canada, particularly Ontario and the Maritimes, to eliminate the supply management system, which is still the only adequate income security system for farmers. Should that system be eliminated, markets would open up and, to be sure, the rest of Canada would be the biggest loser.

Allow me to digress for a moment. It is difficult in Quebec, particularly in my region, to talk about agriculture without referring to forestry. Most of our farmers have some woodland on their farm. In many cases, if used properly, that woodland can provide a supplementary income which can sometimes be relatively substantial.

Again, the federal government will hurt these farmers. The Eastern Quebec Development Plan, which was to be renewed for three years, was only extended for one year.

This will result in a shortfall of more than $13 million over a two-year period. The federal-provincial agreement, which will end in 1996, is also in bad shape. As you know, these federal-provincial agreements have been in place for 25 years and their continued existence is now uncertain, unfortunately. Foresters and farmers are very concerned.

Investing in agriculture is an obligation, while investing in forestry is a necessity. It is a plus, an investment. It is not a donation. The ministers of agriculture and natural resources are yielding to the finance minister who, in turn, yields to the multinationals. The problem is: who governs the country? It is the multinationals. Occasionally, the Minister of Finance will give his opinion, but it is just an opinion. Earlier, some members opposite accused us of being partisan; sure, because we represent our people. We are quite willing to be accused of partisanship because we truly look after the interests of those whom we represent.

What will happen is disturbing, if not downright frightening.

We have a moral obligation to feed ourselves, as well as others, because the Gaspé Peninsula is a vast territory. If we were given the tools to invest in our agricultural land base, we could feed thousands, perhaps millions of people. All we need is a bit of help. As I said earlier, people in our regions are used to

taking risks and putting up with an unpredictable climate, various diseases and fluctuating interest rates. They are survivors. They can once again meet the challenge with pride and dignity.

People need more than bread: they need more than figures and financial statements. Quebec farmers know that what people need above all are dignity and pride. Should we deprive ourselves of the life enjoyed by free nations, which deserve to be free, merely because we are a minority in North America? Based on what logic or what decree should the Quebec nation deprive itself of what is vital to other nations? Farmers know our history well. They know that there was a winner and a loser.

I will conclude by saying to my fellow farmers: you should not have any complexes: your past performances are a guarantee of future success. Your land is yours. All you have to do is give yourself a country. That country is called Quebec.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Frontenac, for putting forward this opposition motion on agriculture. This is an extremely important day for all farmers in Quebec and across Canada.

I see that there are not many members across the way. They may not come from another planet, but I do not know where they come from.

People have been hit very hard by the budget. My colleague from Frontenac said earlier that none of the farmers he has spoken to was happy with the budget.

They claim that the budget is acceptable, that it is a good budget. I do not understand where these members come from.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask a very simple question. Why is it that the budget did not bother the multinationals too much. From what I have heard, the banks are not overly concerned by that budget. It is not the rich who are worried about it, but the poor.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments made by the hon. member. She said repeatedly that the budget was tough. It is very tough indeed. To try to reduce the deficit to pay off our debt is very laudable. We must do it.

I represent the rural riding of Matapédia-Matane, where I recently met with some local groups. In my region, unemployment matched with employment security is the norm for 35 to 40 per cent of workers. I discussed the budget with these various groups. The students did not understand. They told me: "How can we possibly pay more for post-secondary education"? They do not accept that.

I also met farmers who have herds of 30 to 35 dairy cows. They told me that the situation in the region did not make any sense. The Liberal member who accompanied me has a herd of 225 milk cows, which is not quite the same. For farmers, the budget means a loss of $5,000 over two years, or $2,500 per year, or 15 per cent for two years.

I also met unemployed people. A former Liberal member, Mr. Bona Arsenault, once said that people were lazy. Let me tell you that people in my region are not lazy. They are energetic. They want to work. Given the opportunity to do so, they will work as hard as anyone. The unemployed are very worried.

Why is it that, by contrast, some business people do not seem very concerned. The hon. member referred to banks. The government will get $100 million from the banks.

[The Budget, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. You talk about duplication. I want to know what duplication has been eliminated over the past few years. None.

Another point. I agree that Quebec has a high debt. However, for years and years, decades and decades, the federal government has been transferring money to Ontario and to other provinces for research and development, while the money it has been transferring to Quebec has been in the form of unemployment insurance benefits. One thing is sure: when one region is without work while research funds are sent to another, there is something wrong.

Regarding sovereignty, I want to say that even though our debt is high, we can handle it, and that we are prepared to pay part of Canada's debt, because we are part of it and we have a moral obligation to do so. If I were on the other side of the House, a government member from Ontario, the maritimes or the west, do you know what I would say to the Bloc? I would say: "If you want to leave, go".

Why try holding us back? Why tire yourselves out in the effort? We are convinced, I am convinced that we are able to manage our debt intelligently and at the same time help to pay off yours.

Then what more do you want? I, myself, have never understood why the rest of Canada is saying: "Why not you stay with us. This is terrible. It is going to cost you". We are going to spend a few million dollars on the referendum. But how much are you going to spend? I rephrase my question. If we are so poor and have so many problems, why are you so desperate to keep us in the federation?