Lost his last election, in 1997, with 36% of the vote.
National Defence April 25th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Defence.
We know that Quebec is being shortchanged by $650 million each year in the distribution of defence funds. In a recently televised report on this unfair distribution of military spending, which appeared on Radio-Canada's Enjeux , the minister indicated that total fairness was a luxury his government could not afford.
How can the minister be so ill-advised as to consider treating Quebec fairly to be a luxury?
Supply April 4th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I can only tell members of this House that dairy producers will obviously feel insecure. Other agricultural producers also have their own problems, but I wanted to talk specifically about dairy producers today since we have agreed that we should discuss all sectors of the agricultural industry. In this sector, there will be a 15 per cent decrease in revenues, which means, of course, that prices might or certainly will increase.
I would also like to tell you that farmers, including dairy and other producers, often have to keep investing and taking risks after working for so many years, hoping for better things to come. Before the farmers came the pioneers who cleared the land on which our country is built, and we always had two agricultural policies in Canada because we always had two completely different systems.
As I was saying earlier, Canada and Quebec have two different systems. Once we recognize that fact, it will be much easier to negotiate. I think that Quebec has always been disadvantaged compared to western Canada, and we have the figures to prove it. I am not saying that western producers do not have any problems. Of course they have very serious problems, but so do dairy and other producers in Quebec and they cannot be left at a disadvantage.
Supply April 4th, 1995
It is painful for the Liberal Party whip to hear the truth. Yet, he represents an agricultural riding from Ontario. He should understand the issues to which I am referring and which exist in his predominantly French speaking riding.
Since 1958, the dairy industry has always been protected and supported under the Agricultural Stabilization Act, which was passed by a Conservative government. In 1986, Ottawa approved a long-term dairy policy and authorized payments, to dairy producers, of $6.03 per hectolitre of industrial milk having 3.6 kilograms of fats. That policy was implemented under the Conservatives.
In 1991, the Conservative government abolished the Agricultural Stabilization Act and replaced it with the Farm Income
Protection Act. That ended federal support to the dairy industry, since this industry was excluded from the new agreement.
In its November 1992 budget speech, the Conservative government announced its intention to reduce by 10 per cent the level of subsidies to the dairy industry, and to apply similar reductions to all subsidies and payments to the agricultural sector.
Starting with the August 1, 1993 dairy year, and following that decision, the federal government therefore reduced payments to dairy producers from $6.03 down to $5.43 per hectolitre. This is tragic.
So, this Liberal government simply had to confirm the agricultural policy of the Conservatives to gain authority to set the subsidy at $5.43 per hectolitre, starting with the April 1994 to March 1995 fiscal year. The more things change, the more they remain the same.
The Conservatives used to run things and now the Liberals are in office, but things have not changed at all. I am really amazed when I read the government's objective in Part II of the Main Estimates 1995-96, under Agriculture and Agri-Food, Canadian Dairy Commission, on page 2-8, and I quote: "To provide efficient producers of milk and cream with the opportunity of obtaining a fair return for their labour and investment and to provide consumers with a continuous and adequate supply of dairy products of high quality". Is this what a 15 per cent cut in revenue a year will achieve? No.
How inconsistent can the government get? It is as if milk producers are not efficient and are obtaining too high a return for their labour and investment. Go work on a farm for a week and you will see how tough it is, how long the days are in an industry where working hours are not tallied up. Worse still, with this statement, the government is trying to reassure us that the supply of dairy products will not be affected and that consumers will even be able to benefit from this decrease in consumer price. And there you have it. A little something for everyone. What arrogance.
I have a final point to make today.
Why is the federal government, the Liberal government, on the one hand, providing a package of transition measures to the tune of $1.6 billion for owners of prairie farm land in Western Canada because it is terminating the freight-rate subsidies, but on the other hand, is implementing no such transition measures for Quebec farmers? Why have Western producers been given an advantage over their Quebec counterparts?
Why does the federal government always apply a double standard when it has to protect the interests of English-speaking Canadians. Is that not just another sign that Canada is in fact made up of two countries? Is that not a sign that there are two countries in Canada, one in eastern Canada and one in western Canada? The issue is not related to racism, but to the fact that we have always had two different policies, since agriculture is not the same in these two different regions. When we look at things, we realize that Quebec has always been put at a disadvantage.
Supply April 4th, 1995
I cannot accept the fact that the government wants to dismantle this system, since it will jeopardize national security in Quebec and in the rest of Canada, and leave us vulnerable to the actions of speculators on international markets.
How many generations of men and women worked to clear the land? Thanks to their efforts, that land is now fertile and it provides us with an abundance of products of all kinds. But the Liberals want to sacrifice that.
Is it because Quebec controls 48 per cent of the industrial milk market that the Liberal government wants to stop providing the basics to dairy producers? Or is it simply that the Liberals in Ottawa are continuing their crusade against dairy producers, through the implementation of detrimental agricultural policies, defined-
Supply April 4th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, agriculture is still the basis of the rural economy in Quebec and the rest of Canada. In Quebec, almost 50 per cent of farmers' income comes from supply-managed products such as milk, eggs, chicken and turkey. Industrial milk accounts for 27 per cent of agricultural production in Quebec. Farmers and dairy producers in my riding, whether they live in Marieville, Saint-Césaire, Roxton Falls or Béthanie, are worried.
Under Canada's current supply management system for industrial milk, which was established in 1990, Quebec farmers receive almost 48 per cent of Canadian industrial milk quotas. Forty-six per cent of this milk is sold in the other Canadian provinces, for a total value of $400 million at the farm level and $1 billion on the market. In Quebec, some 2,900 dairy farmers are involved in industrial milk production, while processing translates into some 4,000 regular full-time jobs. This shows how important this sector is to us.
Under the federal budget tabled by the Minister of Finance in February, industrial milk producers in Quebec will lose 30 per cent of their income over two years. This means that industrial milk producers will see their income drop by 15 per cent the first year and another 15 per cent the following year.
How can this budget measure not involve heavy financial sacrifices for farmers and rural communities in Quebec and Canada? How can the rural structure not suffer radical changes? Rural realities are in stark contrast to Liberal government policies favouring the development of new markets and income security for farmers. Paradoxically, according to the federal Liberal government, these budget measures are aimed not only at stabilizing producers' prices and income in light of global trends, but mainly at reducing farmers' dependency on government.
The reality is that the agri-food industry in Quebec and Canada does not carry much weight in international negotiations on market access. In other words, the federal government would rather sacrifice a whole sector of its economy in order to preserve other comparative economic advantages it has managed to negotiate with the U.S. and other industrialized countries. I understand this cold and purely economic strategy, whereby the men and women who make these products are mere statistics. The only thing that counts is the dollar figure on their production.
However, there is a world of difference between understanding something and accepting it. I cannot accept the fact that farmers, whether in Quebec or elsewhere, are victims of the system. I cannot understand why financial speculators now have the upper hand, at the expense of those who have been feeding us for generations.
Turkey March 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, if the minister wants to be taken seriously, at a time when it has come to light that civilians have been hurt in the Turkish offensive, does he intend to refer the matter to the UN's Security Council and to immediately suspend all negotiations regarding the sale of our CF-5 jets to Turkey?
Turkey March 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Last Friday, the government repeated that Canada was very concerned about the Turkish military offensive against the Kurds in northern Iraq and said that it would meet with the Turkish ambassador regarding the issue. Today, there is every indication that Turkey firmly intends to carry on with its forays.
Will the minister confirm whether Canada has indeed raised this issue with other NATO members, as the Minister of National Defence led us to believe last week, and will he tell us what measures Canada and NATO intend to take to make Turkey see reason?
Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96 March 24th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, present-day Canadian federalism is a dead end sheet. In the year 2000, the cumulative deficit will be $800 billion, and Quebec Premier Jacques Parizeau said not so long ago that it was high time for Quebec to get out of this system, and that if Quebec decided to stay, their taxes would go up.
In his presentation the hon. member gave us a very clear picture of the current situation. What he said this morning is exactly what all Quebecers are thinking.
Is it not time for Quebecers to consider getting out, to consider doing what the Premier of Quebec suggested?
Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96 March 24th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the comments made by my colleague from the Reform Party and I would like to tell this House that the difference between the Reform Party and the Liberal Party is that the former apparently wants to make cuts and take away from this country's middle class and low wage earners, while the latter have hesitations. They do not know whether they should make the wealthy pay more taxes. They do not dare.
During the last recess, I had the pleasure of meeting with one of my constituents, a wise old man, who told me that the rich will end up paying for the deficit because the middle class is overtaxed and the poor do not have any more money. The question I want to ask my colleague is this: Does he not believe that the time has come to collect the money from those who have benefited the most from this system in the last 30 years, namely Canadians and Quebecers who have money today and do not pay their fair share, by taxing them?
Supply March 23rd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I will simply answer that, in the current system, if you are a francophone and you want to get on in the Canadian Forces, you have to become anglicized. You do not have a choice.
I will not mention by name the many generals I met who are francophones but, as far as I am concerned, have become anglicized because they had no other choice. If you look at the composition of the Canadian Forces, francophones can be found in numbers in the lower echelons, but there are fewer and fewer as you move towards the top. Take Canadian generals for example. Among the 136 general we have in Canada-by the way it is inadmissible to have enough generals to lead 250,000 men when all we have is a small army-there is only a handful of francophones. And these francophones had to be twice as good as their anglophone counterparts to make general. And that is unacceptable.
It is true that we have more francophone generals in the army. On the other hand, you will notice that there are very few francophones among the top brass in the air force and the navy, and that is a shame. Someone mentioned earlier that only in Quebec can bilingual schools be set up. That is not true. We can see what is going on in Kingston; it has received much media coverage recently and the press does report hard facts. Kingston is a city where it is difficult for francophones to live. It is so.
By contrast-I would like to point out to my colleagues who may not be aware of this-in Quebec, the minority, which accounts for approximately 20 per cent of the total population, has its own elementary and secondary school system, its owns hospitals, two major universities in Montreal, namely McGill University and Concordia University. This minority also has a university of its own in the Eastern Townships. There is no comparison between the way Quebec has traditionally treated its minorities and how the rest of Canada does.
The rest of Canada has a long way to go to catch up to Quebec's way of treating its minorities since the beginning of the Canadian Confederation. I think that the military college in Saint-Jean is important as a symbol and, as such, if we are serious about Canadian bilingualism, it should have been preserved. I think it should have remained open. It was decided to abolish it, to do away with it. I maintain that this may be the worst decision made by this government. It could make even worse ones; its mandate is not over yet. But this far, this is certainly the worst. And the worst of it all is that they know it. They know that this was a bad decision and they have to live with it.