Paul Crête

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, why is the opposition, through its amendment, asking the government to redo its homework? Because spending cuts are often made in the wrong places or simply mishandled. Let me give you an example. It was decided to eliminate transportation subsidies in eastern Canada. It is understandable that, after several years, this program had to be reviewed.

However, according to Transport Canada documents, the transition fund that will replace these subsidies cannot be used to help shippers or to invest in roads and other transportation infrastructures on a cost-shared basis. There may be interesting projects in the two options offered but what is important in the region affected is to ensure that the money will be used to achieve what should be the real objectives: to direct industrial development and to ensure that the new industrial structure can handle the challenges of the 21st century.

That is why the opposition is submitting a very constructive proposal to the government. The opposition is proposing that this fund-which amounts to $78 million in Quebec, $121 million in New Brunswick, and so on in the other Maritime Provinces-be used not only for the road infrastructure but also to establish a business assistance fund that will help develop the second and third stage processing sector or simply help business adjust to technological changes. It is important to invest in roads but they are only one aspect of industrial development.

If we put all our eggs in the same basket, we will end up with a road network that will have to be maintained over a certain number of years. The government is experiencing difficulties that do not augur well for the future but by investing in business, by establishing a fund from which companies could borrow money that they would have to repay later, the fund could last for

5, 10, 15 or 20 years and have a permanent impact on economic restructuring in eastern Canada, especially in eastern Quebec.

Suggestions like this lead us to call on the government to redo its homework and take a few more months to work through the bill aimed at making the changes needed to implement the budget.

Let me give you another example of this type of situation. In the next few months, we will see what I would call the automation of Canada Employment Centres. It is rather paradoxical that, next year, the so-called Human Resources Development Department will be focusing in a major way on replacing workers with machines. Computers will be made available to the jobless in some places. I can clearly detect in that the approach taken with seniors and voice boxes. But the people who deal with unemployment centres may not know how to work automated systems.

Citizens will be further removed from civil servants, aggravating the problem of individuals becoming file numbers and having a tendency to abuse the system. So, instead of striving for realistic goals, this measure will be counterproductive because machines are replacing people. The human resources sector differs from the car manufacturing sector in that robots can be used to build cars but, if you want to help individuals find work and reenter the workforce, it is essential that they establish good contacts in terms of professional counselling and feel that the people they deal with at the employment centre are able to help them with their personal circumstances.

As I recall, when I was touring with the committee on the Axworthy reform, someone came to me with a proposal that I think would have been much more appropriate than these changes. What of it was now up to the users, the UI recipients, to evaluate or assess the services they receive? Perhaps that, based of the information provided by the users, the government would abandon this reform, or at least make sure that the human element is not removed, and plans for adding new technologies.

I would also like to list a few areas where we urge the government to go back to the drawing board. It was decided to reduce to nil-that is no small cut-funding for agencies involved with public participation in and awareness of international development. Every organization with a mandate to make Quebecers and Canadians aware of the importance of international co-operation will not be getting a penny more. This was done in a very cavalier fashion. The organizations were informed by phone and, in my riding, the CREECQ received written confirmation after it had taken effect.

It is rather insulting and appalling for organizations dedicated to ensuring that there is a future for co-operation. On the downside of this decision is the fact that these organizations also drew a parallel between poverty in our part of the world and in the South. It made it clear that everything is interconnected and that choices made in Northern countries create poverty in the South. We often have the same attitude towards our underprivileged as we do towards third world nations.

These organizations made sure people were aware of the reality. Given the government's current tendency to copy the American model, which entails the disintegration of the middle class, it is easy to figure out that it wants to get rid of those who question its social measures.

This appears to be a very bad decision which will result in Quebecers and Canadians being less aware of the need to provide international assistance.

I also want to mention the abolition of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. This is another example of an unacceptable announcement. No ministerial statement was made. It was during a debate that we were informed that the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women would disappear. This is another case of getting rid of those who question the government's actions regarding those who are in difficulty and who need a more flexible society.

The last example which I want to give relates to agriculture. The subsidy for industrial milk is reduced by 30 per cent. This means that either producers or consumers will be affected. And which consumers will be most affected if the price of butter goes up? It is those who have less disposable income. When the price of a pound of butter goes up 10 or 15 cents, that increase is not felt by those who earn $60,000, $70,000 or $80,000, but it has a direct impact on the budget of the poor, who have no choice but to reduce their spending even more.

All this is to tell you that we kind of wonder why the reaction to this budget is relatively positive in English-speaking provinces, while it is negative in Quebec. The media gave us the answer yesterday. Thanks to the federal system, Quebec is the province with the highest proportion of poor in the country. After 125 years, that finding alone would be enough to convince me that we must change systems and have control over our development as a whole. This is essential.

Whether in the context of an annual budget such as this one, or in the context of a more fundamental decision, Quebecers have a very different vision of development. This is why we want the federal government to do its job properly, while we are still part of that system. We are asking it to go back to the drawing board and to reconsider a number of legislative provisions which will have to be passed to implement this budget. We also hope that, when the time comes for Quebecers to make their fundamental decision, they will realize that a new system is essential for their development and also to change things which can no longer be tolerated in Quebec.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the speech made by the member for Shefford on the impact of the dairy subsidy reduction on farmers was most interesting, but I would like some clarifications. According to my calculations, is it not possible that the elimination or the reduction of this subsidy might result in an increase of up to 30 cents in the price of a pound of butter? Again, it is the working poor who would be hardest hit by such an increase.

For someone who earns $50,000 a year, a 30 cent increase in the price of butter is no big deal, but for a single parent who earns $10,000, $12,000 or $15,000 a year, having to pay 30 cents more for each pound of butter makes a big difference. Is this not what might happen so that, in the end, it is the consumer who will have to pay the price, which means that low-income Canadians will be more directly affected than others?

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity provided by the comments the hon. member for Frontenac just made to lay stress on how illogical this decision was. A few years ago, the federation of purebred sheep breeders made a decision on where its artificial breeding centre would be located. They chose the experimental farm with a mandate for ovine breeding in Canada, namely La Pocatière. They decided to locate their insemination unit in La Pocatière, so that there would be a direct link between researchers and the industry, which would promote efficiency.

New breed development was just mentioned. This is precisely the type of work you can expect any experimental farm involved in production to perform to develop more productive breeds, groups of animals or individual animals. All kinds of research can be conducted on sheep to ensure they can compete and will enable us to break into the New Zealand market from which we are currently importing. No one here can tell me today that it makes more financial sense in the long term for Quebecers and

Canadians to keep importing sheep from New Zealand when we have been working for 20 years towards self-sufficiency.

Now that we are halfway there, the federal government is taking the wind out of our sails, without any consultations. No one had heard about any such plan before budget night. The industry is raising up against this plan and asking the minister to reconsider his decision, meet with the survival committee to ensure that sheep production will be allowed to continue with adequate research and development assistance and that the experimental farm in La Pocatière can remain in operation.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise you right off that I will be splitting my speaking time with the hon. member for Shefford.

I am using this opportunity to speak on this agricultural day to draw attention to a highly questionable decision taken by the federal government in its recent budget.

On budget night, it was announced that the experimental farm at La Pocatière would be closing. As it is located in my riding, it is clear I find the closure unacceptable and will prevent it from happening. What surprised me most was the justification given for the closure in the Department of Agriculture's estimates. According to the estimates for the agriculture department, the facility is being closed because sheep and lamb are low priority products. I would like to prove otherwise to this House.

In my region, the agri-food development strategy was made a priority for the entire regional county municipality of Kamouraska. The lower St. Lawrence regional co-operation and development council incorporated it as one of its priorities as well. Up to this point, you might argue that this is normal, as it is a matter of regional interest. However, even the Canadian Sheep Federation together with the Fédération des producteurs d'agneau et de mouton du Québec feel that the Government of Canada is abandoning without justification a type of production that is in full development.

Why do we say this? Are these empty words, or are they based on some reality? My research indicates that, between 1976 and 1992, we increased our rate of self-sufficiency in Canada from 23 per cent to 45 per cent. In other words, during these years, sheep production took on a larger role in the economy and contributed to Canadians' wealth. More than that. Between 1971 and 1991, the herd increased by 8.7 per cent. In Quebec, between 1971 and 1991, the number of animals grew from 88,000 to 121,000-an increase of 37 per cent.

Therefore when the Minister of Agriculture says that this is a low priority product, I am hard pressed to find justification for his position, since both production and consumption have substantially increased. The market is expanding as a result of significant levels of immigration in Quebec and Canada. Indeed, for many cultural communities, lamb is part of their culture and part of their traditional food.

Then why cut in this area? We must understand how important research and development are for any industry. The dairy industry in Quebec, Ontario and Canada was not built on nothing. Research was done to make animals more productive, to improve milk quality and to manufacture better secondary products.

As for lamb and sheep, we were in the process of doing the same. I am going to give you some examples of research projects which were being carried out at the experimental farm in La Pocatière, so that you can understand that what is done there is not harebrained research, but something very concrete, which was going to help the industry.

For example, the farm is working on enriching the diet of ewes with three lambs instead of two, because this means an increase in productivity. This is very concrete. This is something which lowers production costs and would allow the industry to compete with New Zealand and Australia on world markets.

Then, there are studies on regulation of the reproductive cycle. Software for flock management is even being developed. Computers are now used in this agricultural sector, as well as in many others. It seems important to me that such research be carried out. Refusing an industry like sheep production the research advantages given to other sectors is like telling producers who invested in that area that they might as well quit.

Here is another example. The experimental farm was studying the use of canola oil-cake as a feed for sheep. For those who may not know it, canola oil-cake is what is left after the oil has been extracted from canola. This kind of research benefits westerners, because sheep farming is becoming more popular in western Canada, and also benefits eastern Canada because canola is produced there. It has nationwide applications and would cost less than some other feeds currently on the market.

These research projects are concrete examples. They are examples proving that that particular farm had a country-wide mandate to support sheep farmers. The federal government closed this facility because it considers sheep as a low-priority product. Was that decision reasonable in today's context where

farmers are being asked to diversify and to be ready to respond to changing markets?

Considering that sheep farming is the most ecological kind of farming and that it permits farmers to use land which can be used in no other way, was closing Canada's only research centre on sheep farming, the experimental farm at La Pocatière, a logical decision?

I think that the decision was a major blunder, and each budget probably contains one. The Bloc never said that Canada's budget should not be cut, we are simply making suggestions regarding where to cut. But cutting research and development funding for an industry that is progressing is like robbing Peter to pay Paul, and it will probably backfire on us.

We are inclined to call it another example of Canadian federalism. The least competitive sheep producers will inevitably have to call on stabilization programs more often. That will put more pressure on the Government of Quebec. We find this kind of decision unacceptable and we target it in the first part of our motion when we state that we "denounce the government for reducing the general budget of the Department of Agriculture by 19 per cent".

If the 19 per cent was cut from sectors which did not jeopardize future production, we could have seen what kind of impact the cuts would have had. But how can a government claim to place a high priority on job creation yet cut over 400 research and development jobs in Canada's farming sector-30 of which were located at La Pocatière, in the Kamouraska region-and systematically cut high paying jobs which stimulate economic development?

After cutting 30 jobs in agricultural research, biology, technology, unskilled labour, how can they justify announcing that 25 jobs were created in another sector the following week? This decision appears to be some kind of a nonsense.

I think I know the basic reasons for the choice. They gave experimental farms specialized mandates, for example, sheep farming at La Pocatière. They invested around $7 million there over the past few years. They rebuilt a sheep barn that had burned down. Then they suddenly decide to close the facility. Because only one experimental farm had this mandate, the others do not really feel that they are affected. They began to sever the strong ties between this farm and the local economy.

I believe that part of the mandate could have been maintained in this area. Nowadays, there are numerous stakeholders, and I will name a few who are not members of the Bloc Quebecois, and may not even be known separatists or sovereignists. I will give you an example. Officials from the La Pocatière agricultural technology institute, where the farm is located, Laval University, the Quebec sheep breeders' association, the two national federations I mentioned earlier, the Quebec agriculture department, all these stakeholders are asking the minister to meet with them so that they can explain to him why they think he is making a mistake and why he has to change his mind.

I hope that the agriculture minister will have enough sense to listen to their arguments and to look for solutions allowing research and development in the sheep industry to continue and to expand, so as to provide support for producers and keep one of the oldest farming areas in Canada going, with a flourishing experimental farm in La Pocatière as its bet for a prosperous future.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the hon. member mentioned one item which I find very relevant. He wondered why we are so dependent on imports and why some regions in Canada are not self-sufficient.

In this regard, he shares the view of the Canadian Sheep Foundation which claims: "The Canadian government is abandoning without any reason a production in full expansion". How can the hon. member explain his government's decision to discontinue its research and development assistance to an industry whose self-sufficiency, throughout Canada, has gone from 23 to 45 per cent since 1976? Why are we informing the sheep industry that we are abandoning our research and development efforts, that we intend to rely even more, if possible, on imports?

How can the minister justify such a decision? We are not talking about protecting the Quebec market only, but about the conclusions of the Canadian Sheep Foundation, which is astounded by the decision.

My other question to the hon. member relates to shared jurisdiction. How can he explain that, in La Pocatière, where an agricultural technology institute run by the Quebec government and a federally-funded experimental farm are located, we are closing the farm without even informing the Quebec government, without proposing any other use for the buildings? Is that not another example of the major negative impact of shared jurisdictions such as the one that exists in agriculture?

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech, who wishes that, the next time, the Bloc will table an opposition motion on other aspects of agriculture. In the last year, the Bloc Quebecois raised the issue of agriculture on two different opposition days. If the Reform Party wishes to do so, it can use its opposition days to debate this issue.

We can probably agree on one point, I think. The 1995-96 estimates provide for the elimination of 429 jobs in the research and development sector of the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. The department's staff will go down from 3,454 to 3,015.

We know that jobs in the research and development sector help build the future, but they are also career development jobs held by people with university degrees, technical training or some other more practical training, and these people help their industry develop and prepare for the future.

I wonder if the Reform member shares my view, which is also that of the Canadian Sheep Federation. The federation feels that the federal government is abandoning, without justification, a production in full development. Indeed, this government decided to pull the rug out from under sheep producers by completely withdrawing from the R and D sector of the sheep raising industry. Consequently, that industry, which must face market globalization and international competition, finds itself without any support regarding the development and the improvement of its products.

Does the Reform member feel that such penny-pinching on the part of the Department of Agriculture is a good solution? Would it not be wiser to maintain R and D support at its current level, or at least delegate that responsibility to Quebec and the other provinces, so that they can develop their agriculture? Why would the federal government withdraw from a whole sector of agricultural production after supporting it for years? Is this not an unacceptable decision? Is the Bloc not right in raising this issue in the House?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to explain, as requested by the hon. member in his speech, why our motion asks for a six-month's postponement for this bill.

Quebecers and Canadians are starting to realize what this budget is about and to notice the very real impact of this budget and the severe cuts it contains. Let me give a few examples. I was told earlier that the people in my riding and other ridings in Quebec agreed with these cuts. So what are these people doing? They call us to ask questions about certain decisions. I intend to ask the hon. member about that.

First, they decided to cut funding, without prior notice, to all agencies engaged in international co-operation, across Quebec and across Canada. No more money will be given to international co-operation agencies. Why did they do that? Because they want to keep them from making a connection between poverty in the South and poverty in the North and from realizing that they will have to develop some kind of solidarity between the two, because this government has no truck with solidarity. All it does is increase the gap between rich and poor, and that is what the members of an agency in my riding called CREM are starting to realize, and there are plenty of agencies like that across Canada.

Another example. They decided to cut all experimental research on sheep. All ovine research in Canada, some of which was being done at the Experimental Farm in La Pocatière, for an industry that is developing rapidly, now that sheep growers are increasing market share in Canada. It is now 25 per cent. It has been going up for several years. They say that the funding freeze will save money in the short term. The result: no more research and development, which means that people in Quebec and Alberta who raise sheep will have to go it alone. It is no longer the government's business. And you call that useful cuts and the right thing to do? Maybe you should have taxed the banks first.

I have another example, and I would appreciate your comments. The latest news is the decision to make cuts at Canada Employment Centres: terminals instead of people. Do you think that is a wise decision? Would you not agree that a six-month postponement is a good idea after all?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that during a recent election campaign his constituents told him certain things. There must be farmers in Brome-Missisquoi and I would like to know whether they told him they would like to see a 30 per cent cut in the dairy credit.

This will drive up milk prices and penalize low-income families. Did anyone tell him that when he was seeking the votes of farmers in Brome-Missisquoi?

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995, March 27th, 1995]

I will repeat, then, that if the Reform member raised the issue of Saskatchewan, but failed to defend the province as he should have, it is not my problem. We were elected to defend the interests of Quebec and defending the interests of Quebec entails ensuring that we will have a minimum to look forward to, in the future, in Canada.

I have never represented Canada in the House. I represent a riding in Quebec which is part of Canada and I hope that it will cease to be a part of it in the very near future. The Parliament of Canada will be sending a clear message to Quebecers if it decides that Quebec does not deserve 25 per cent of all seats. A message that Canada will give us no minimum guarantees, that we are not one of the founding peoples and that we do not even deserve 25 per cent of the seats in Parliament.

If Parliament votes against our proposal, it would mean that Quebec deserves less protection than Prince Edward Island, because Prince Edward Island has a guarantee under the constitution. And it does have, for its population, a very large guarantee indeed. And the people of Quebec will always remember this clearly, whether from within the current system or from their own sovereign state.

I invite the Reform Party to come and just try to sell its opinion to Quebec that we do not deserve 25 per cent of the seats. Quebecers will be quite clear in their reply, particularly to Reformers but also to any other party which would come to Quebec with the message that we in Quebec, who founded this country, do not deserve 25 per cent of the seats. I look forward to seeing the day that the Liberals come to Quebec to say that they rejected our proposal.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands told us earlier that he was very concerned about the legality and constitutionality of this clause. I would urge him to vote on this amendment based on the substance of the issue and to let the Supreme Court determine the validity of the argument. It is not for us to interpret whatever decision the government makes on this issue.

I would also like to remind my colleagues in this House of the remarks made by a true Canadian visionary, Mr. René Lévesque. During the 1970s, Mr. Lévesque said: "If we stay in this system as it is now, we will shrink. With the ever increasing majority, we will always remain a minority and will never have the opportunity to become a nation within this country".

For us, the proposal on the table is the least we need to see if you are ready to treat us on an equal basis in this society and to accept a minimum number of changes.

When the hon. member said earlier that a constitutional amendment might be needed, well, if this is what it takes to guarantee equality to francophones in Quebec and the whole population of Quebec, then it is up to you to introduce it. If you do not, you will be burying you head in the sand and giving Quebecers even less hope for a future within Canada than they have now.

I would like to point out that the first time my grandfather voted in his life, he voted for Laurier. This was the first he voted. He would often tell me this story, and he was very proud of it. The prime minister, then only a candidate, used to travel by train and stop in every municipality on the way. From the last car, he gave a short speech in each municipality, and it was on the basis of this that people voted.

It was then that my grandfather understood that the debate in Canada would always be about who best answered the question "Will French Canadians be treated as the equals of English Canadians?" This was how he saw the situation. He used to say that the British North America Act had been signed by Quebec, by Quebecers, because they felt it gave them a minimum of security with respect to their expectations.

The same man, several years later, voted for what was called the Bloc populaire. This party was no longer talking about equality in Canada. This came after a very significant moment in history when the importance of the 25 per cent was brought home. It was when Quebecers voted in an overwhelming majority against conscription, but had it shoved down their throats anyway.

Our great fear is that without this guarantee in the future, you will treat us more than ever like a minority, systematically reducing our representation to 15, 12, 10 per cent and maybe even achieving what some might like to see happen. But if we do not get this commitment from the present government-and I think that the proposed amendment is an amendment in principle-it will be a clear message, a very symbolic and significant sign that Canada no longer wants Quebec, no longer wants it to play the role it has always played since the introduction of the British North America Act.

In voting on this amendment, the Liberal majority, and Reform members too, because we are told that it is a free vote for them, will be making an important statement. Furthermore, I have the impression that there are among the ranks of the Reform Party a few hon. members who will, on their own, decide that the amendment is very acceptable.

In conclusion, I would say that this type of amendment is one of the very reasons for our presence here. The Bloc was elected to defend the interests of Quebec, to let Quebecers see the machinations of the system, because if we had not been here, this amendment would not have been tabled. If the Bloc Quebecois did not form the official opposition, if it were not a significant party in the House of Commons, there would never have been a debate on this issue. Our question to the federalists is this: "Are you ready to let Quebec take its rightful place or do you want to put it in its place?" I hope that you will make the right choice.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, to start with, I would like to respond to the Reform Party's contentions. Just because you neglected to come to the defence of your people in Saskatchewan, we do not have to follow suit in Quebec. We were elected to defend the interests of Quebec.