Benoît Tremblay

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the issue is Quebec's support for western grain transportation subsidies. We must realize that agricultural organizations in Quebec never opposed the measure, as you said, and, on the contrary, supported it for years.

It is far from certain that the federal government has the means to continue subsidizing this area to the same extent. To me, one thing is clear: when the federal government implemented measures concerning energy, western Canada reacted very strongly and demanded changes which eventually were made. In my opinion, it is very clear that Canadian regions, with each totally different economies, now must work things out among themselves and stop waiting for the federal government to do it.

The longer we waited for the federal government, the more and more centralized the decisions became, even though the economies of each of the regions have grown increasingly differentiated. The economic space in which we sell our products is becoming more and more differentiated. Therefore, each region needs its own strategy, and that is what the rest of Canada urgently needs to understand. Do not expect the federal government to do it.

The mandarins in Ottawa, who like to delude themselves that they know the truth, will continue to set the game plan and will continue to think that they know what is best for Canada. It is time for the regions to wake up: they need to create their own transportation policies. They should no longer wait for the federal Minister of Transportation to do it. In any case, this is Quebec's firm belief, and I think that, after analyzing the situation, each region will also see the urgent need to take their affairs in hand.

I think that the vote planned on the sovereignty of Quebec this year, which I predict will be for sovereignty, presents a golden opportunity to reorganize economic relations. For example, a few years ago, Canada's economy exported 20 per cent of its output to the United States. Now, we have far surpassed 30 per cent and are even nearing 40 per cent. Therefore, a reorganization is urgently needed, but the federal government will not initiate it. Regions will have to take their affairs into their own hands.

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Lévis. The show put on these past few weeks reflects how completely outdated our parliamentary institutions are when it comes to public financial management and economic policy.

After the session reopened, when questioned by the official opposition, the Minister of Finance systematically refused to answer any question dealing with public finance, arguing that we would have to wait for the budget to be tabled, a budget prepared in the strictest secrecy as budgets are. Yet, once tabled, the budget speech has nothing short of force of law, since the government majority is forced to support it without debating it in detail.

In our system, the vote on the budget amounts to a confidence vote, as a negative vote would immediately result in the government stepping down and general elections being called. It follows that any member of the government majority who dares to vote against this budget would face immediate expulsion from the caucus and would have to sit as an independent member thereafter.

That is why every Liberal minister and member will stand by each and every page, line and word of this budget, although many of them would call for major changes were they given the choice. The budget preparation and adoption process is getting us nowhere fast. It has to change. We will come back to this in the coming weeks. That being said, because I have very little time, I will get right down to the subject of today's debate.

We have talked at great length, these past few days, about the impact the budget will have on the various population segments that will bear the brunt of the proposed cuts and tax hikes. We too, in the official opposition, have seen through the media campaign designed to make this budget out to be the beginning of a new federalism, when in fact the federal government is passing the buck to the provinces, while maintaining decision-making power in its own hands.

After spending shamelessly in fields of provincial jurisdiction, the federal government still displays the same arrogance by announcing that it will keep on levying taxes, that it will no longer pay the bills, and that it will force the provinces to make the necessary cuts to put the fiscal house in order. Although it may look innovative, this budget uses old recipes which are typical of the federal government's approach.

The financial markets were quick to figure out the government's ploy. After an initial positive reaction which lasted about 22 minutes, the value of the dollar started going down again, while interest rates resumed their upward trend. The financial markets realized that the federal government's consolidation was minimal and that true leadership will have to come from the provinces.

The fact that Ontario's credit rating was put under review the day after the tabling of the federal budget is a direct consequence of that budget. Its impact on Quebec's public finances will also be considerable. However, since this is the referendum year, the real consequences will only be felt next year.

The government's ploy was not any more successful from a political point of view. That the Leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, who was desperately counting on this budget to prove federalism's flexibility, prefers not to comment at all at this point is quite revealing. Maybe he realized that although the federal government has pulled out financially, the same duplication persists, generating the same problems and the same inefficiencies.

This budget has yet to be fleshed out by a thorough restructuring of the federal government. As a society, we have not improved our ability to respond to people's needs and to meet the challenges of economic growth and job creation.

During the last election campaign, the Minister of Finance was an ardent supporter of reducing the deficit through economic growth and job creation. In a matter of months, he has become, at best, a poor accountant. What happened? The present Minister of Finance is largely responsible for the mess we are in today. After an election campaign full of promises that were close to being misleading, he was incapable of doing anything at all, starting with his first budget.

Remember that during the election campaign, the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois proposed a credible plan for reducing federal spending by $10 billion, while the Liberals promised to deal with the deficit through economic growth.

Remember that after the election, the Leader of the Opposition urged the government to act quickly by setting up a special committee of the House of Commons that would determine what

cuts were necessary and make them part of the government's first budget. The government refused.

I may recall that after this government's first budget was brought down, the Prime Minister was telling people everywhere in Canada that no new cuts would be necessary to meet his objectives for reducing the deficit. And now that we know what is in the second budget, we cannot really say that the Prime Minister was lying but there is no doubt that he misled Canadians about the real challenges they could expect.

Today we are paying a very high price for this government's refusal to act decisively in its first year. The loss of credibility on financial markets is reflected today in the astronomical level of real interest rates we have to pay. According to the Minister of Finance, in 1995 we can expect interest rates to be 4 per cent higher for the short term and 3.6 per cent higher for the long term than was forecast in the 1994 budget.

If we only consider the cost of servicing the federal debt, higher interest rates will an additional $7.5 billion, although the deficit is not as high as forecasted in 1994. Unfortunately, there are other consequences as well. The level of real interest rates forecast in this budget cannot be sustained when we consider that the Canadian economy is functioning well below its capacity.

Allow me to quote a short sentence from page 21 of the government's budget plan, but which the Minister of Finance took great care not to quote in his budget speech:

The good economic performance in 1994 and 1995 will substantially reduce, but not eliminate, the amount of spare capacity in the economy. Spare capacity will persist through 1996 as real growth slows-

This is what the Minister of Finance hides in his fine speeches. He who promised to resolve the deficit problem through economic growth and job creation, today predicts that Canada will still experience an amount of spare capacity in the economy in two years' time. This is the real drama of the Canadian economy.

By refusing to act in the first year of its mandate, the government has clearly complicated the essential job of ensuring sustained economic growth. If we want to get out of the rut in which we find ourselves, the provinces must not be content with shouldering the cuts imposed on them by the federal government, they must insist on a complete reorganization of the way the Canadian economy is managed.

Keeping policies on economic innovation and adjustment centralized flies in the face of the very different needs of Canada's regional economies. What is the federal government doing in manpower training, in the area of fishing, for example? The complete fiasco in this regard should prompt the federal government to hand over responsibility to the coastal provinces as quickly as possible.

Clearly the systematic review of the roles of the federal government must no longer be conducted only in secret by federal mandarins. In the case of Quebec, I know we will soon have a favourable referendum. I hope the other provinces in Canada will take the opportunity to develop a framework that suits their needs and those of their people.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. Given our time constraints, I would refer him quickly to the ten recommendations by the Bloc Quebecois which he may read himself instead of my listing them now.

I think it is clear that if we want everyone to put his shoulder to the wheel, and that is what these recommendations are based on, people must share the same concept of fairness. In our recommendations, clearly, we denounced tax situations which are totally unacceptable. I think fairness is the essential foundation upon which dialogue and the will to work together are based. I am referring for instance to family trusts, to the delay in reviewing the Income Tax Act in regard to resource companies, and to the fact that they are now to be given up to $1.2 billion. It is therefore an issue of fairness.

There is also an issue of effectiveness which involves occupational training first of all. Even if jobs are presently being created in certain sectors, we know that occupational training must definitely proceed at a faster pace to allow people to take those jobs.

My time is up, Mr. Speaker; as you can see, I could have gone on a few minutes more.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think people realize I was referring to the budget proposals of the Reform Party. As I was saying, they forgot to include a huge prison construction program which would probably be the only job creation component of their party's platform.

Of course we are concerned. I think we have reason to be, and we share their concerns as we share those of many Canadians.

We must understand that, at present, the Canadian economy is operating at about 92 per cent of its potential without inflation. This means that there is room for another 8 per cent increase in production without causing any increase in inflation in Canada. How did that come about? You must know where you are coming from to know where you are going. It is simple: the 1980s saw two major recessions aimed at breaking the cycle of inflation. Because of a total lack of co-operation between the various regions and economic agents in Canada, the rate of inflation was allowed to rise during the 1970s and into the early 1980s, when it averaged 12 per cent. It was just plain insane. The Bank of Canada used the big stick because people capable of managing the Canadian economy in co-operation, like in Germany and several other countries, could not be found in this place. That is why the big stick of interest rates had to be used.

So, interest rates skyrocketed and precipitated a major recession, which in turn caused unemployment to increase sharply and, of course, inflation to fall from an average of 12 per cent to 5 per cent. Economic recovery was under way, but we never recovered from the jobs lost. In 1989, the Bank of Canada decided once again to aim for zero-inflation, at a time when the average rate of inflation was about 5 per cent. It did meet its target, but at what price? By jacking up interest rates so as to stifle the economy in Quebec and Canada. So much so that our production rate fell down to 90 per cent. It fell so drastically that for the next three years, the economy grew only marginally. There was no real economic recovery in Canada while the United States had already recovered.

So, this is a duly-considered policy, because of the lack of co-operation in this country. This must be pointed out, even though it is not at the forefront any more, now that inflation has been curbed for a little while, but this inability to co-operate, to work in co-operation in this country is still a problem.

Think back to the 1980s when the Economic Council of Canada and other agencies made it clear economic co-operation was urgently needed in order to curb inflation. As some of you may remember, at the beginning of his mandate, Brian Mulroney organized a great Canadian forum to initiate a consultation process, which was a failure, but achieved his inflation-fighting goals by using the stick approach. Ontario was very prosperous at the time but it let its spending get out of control and now finds itself saddled with an annual deficit of $10 billion. We were never able to make people listen to reason.

Part of the problem is that we have to realize our economic potential as soon as possible without causing inflation. That is why we need economic growth. We see that, in the last year, government revenue went up by between 7 per cent and 8 per cent because more people are working and therefore paying more taxes. UI benefits went down not only because of the cuts but also because more people are working. We still have a way to go before realizing our full potential.

On the other hand, the actions taken by the Bank of Canada and the stick approach that was used have made the Canadian dollar very volatile. Our dollar went from 69 cents to 87 cents, then back to 70 cents. We are playing with foreign investors' nerves by allowing the value of our currency to fluctuate by 25 per cent. This does not make any sense. We must hold economic consultations so that these fluctuations can be avoided.

If Canada's interest rates are what they are today, it is partly because of the debt, but also because confidence in the Canadian dollar has been shaken by our inflation-fighting policy.

I am not saying that it would have been better not to do anything about inflation. The problem is that we must use different methods to fight it. Many people say that we are living above our means. This is partly true. There is a very simple way to find out: one only has to look at our balance of international

payments. And now, with our dollar at 70 cents, we have restored that balance, to a great extent.

The challenge for investors and Canadians alike is to determine if we can hold on long enough. Our tourism deficit has gone down, and this year we will have a very substantial trade surplus of $17 billion, but we still have a cumulative debt on which we pay about $30 billion annually in interest payments to foreign investors.

Even if we start living within our means, compared with other countries, we have to keep paying, because at one time we spent more than we could afford, and now we are stuck with interest payments we have to pay abroad. This situation has to be turned around as well.

What makes people worried? Why was Moody's worried last week, for instance? Did Moody's say: Listen, social programs are too expensive? Not at all. Moody's said: Structural reorganization is necessary. For instance, there are practically no more fishermen left, but the Department of Fisheries and Oceans still has the same number of employees. The department has more employees that we have cod. This does not make sense.

The same thing happened at the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. The national energy policy was abolished in the early eighties, but they kept the same number of employees they had when they were still managing this energy policy.

The federal government has increased its involvement in a wide range of sectors-and not only in areas under provincial jurisdiction-to the extent that it is no longer economically feasible. We need a major reorganization, and of course we are looking forward to the budget.

Relations with the provinces are a problem, not only because structures are unwieldy but because they are inefficient in some areas. Years ago we came to the conclusion that manpower training was essential, and in this particular area there was no agreement at all between the federal government and the provinces-and not just Quebec-and there is no way we can act effectively.

Of course in Quebec the situation is even worse. Why? For the simple reason that Quebec was Canada's first industrial heartland. This means we had more mature industries in the railway sector, shipbuilding, and so forth, than in other provinces. When these industries started shrinking, new industries came in. There was a very substantial restructuring of our economy, but we did not have manpower training to ease the transition for a machinist from the railway sector to the aeronautics industry. There were no resources to provide for that transition. The situation was worse in Quebec for the very simple reason that we had a much larger share of Canada's old economy.

The problem is now becoming acute in Ontario, because while Quebec's economy has largely been restructured, Ontario has a problem with its own mature and very mature industries like the automobile industry, where like recovery is temporary, and the steel industry. They now have to cope with problems that Quebec experienced 10, 15, or 20 years ago, problems we were never able to solve with the help of the federal government.

Reorganization is needed, and here I am speaking from the Canadian, the federalist point of view. I am not talking about being capable of developing our aspirations as a society. I talked about it this week in the debate on the Young Offenders Act, when referring to the fact that Quebec's perspective was entirely different from that of the present Minister of Justice. I could have elaborated on this, but there is a big problem, even if we wanted to stay in Canada.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think that when they read the motion introduced by the Reform Party, many Canadians, Quebecers and foreign investors would agree.

I think the target to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP within two years is an absolute minimum. In fact, it will not be that difficult since this year, the deficit is expected to be two or three billion less than forecast.

The trouble with the Reform Party's proposal is that it is accompanied by a series of proposals to reorganize the government. We agree with some of them but on the whole, it reflects an ideological vision that focuses on government operations and government spending and ignores all other aspects of the economy.

To Reform members, any government is a problem, except for policemen and prisons, because if we look at how they want to amend the Criminal Code, soon 10 per cent of all Canadians will be in prison and they will need accommodation. Pretty soon it will be like California, where the biggest budget item is not health care but police forces and prisons. In Canada and Quebec, we still prefer to see more money spent on health care and education than on prisons and police forces.

They forgot to include a huge prison construction program in their budget.

[Young Offenders Act, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the government of Quebec submitted an analysis, which I could give my colleague. It was tabled with the House justice committee. Very clearly, it says first that this bill is not justified. Reasons are given for increasing sentences. Sentences were just increased in 1992, when Kim Campbell was the Minister of Justice. In 1992, she increased sentences for young offenders.

We have yet to see the results. Now we are giving in again. We are trying to be like the people of California, or just about. Their biggest budget items are prisons and the police. We want health and education to be the biggest items here, not prisons and the police.

In the bill, sentences are being increased. What is more serious in this bill from the standpoint of young people? One very important point is that, from now on, detention will be almost impossible for young people who have not committed serious crimes against individuals.

For example, young people involved in car theft networks or even in drug or cigarette trafficking, who have not been caught committing crimes against individuals, but who need to be withdrawn from their surroundings, must be detained for rehabilitation. The bill will restrict the ability of those in these situations who must intervene and remove young people from their surroundings so that they do not become hardened criminals.

On the one hand, unfortunately, sentences are being increased, while on the other, offences for which such sentences can be imposed are being restricted. Basically, however, if the system is adequate-which is unfortunately not the case in all provinces-being in custody allows for the young person to be extricated from criminal surroundings and rehabilitated before it is too late. The other aspect which seems absurd to us is that a 16 or 17-year old will have to prove that he should be heard in youth court.

First of all, I would like to point out a misconception which I hear on a regular basis from members of the Reform Party. In certain cases, young persons might clearly fare better before an adult court than under the Young Offenders Act because the Young Offenders Act also provides for extended sentences in certain cases to allow for rehabilitation and, very often, such young persons are removed from a series of measures instituted to help them, but also to supervise them.

I listened to what was said and at times I found it quite astonishing. Putting young persons into custody under the present system is no picnic for them, but it provides for good supervision and gives them a chance to make a fresh start for themselves. The bill refers to rehabilitation; the preamble has been changed. Nothing in the amendments provides for improved rehabilitation. Changing the preamble and including all the measures which appeal to the Reform Party will not improve the act.

In Quebec, we are systematically opposed to it. All institutions, departments concerned and interested parties know that it is taking us in the wrong direction.

[Young Offenders Act, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Young Offenders Act, amendments to which we are discussing today, reaches deep into the fabric of our society. When we

decide to amend this act, we must try to better express the ideals, values and objectives of our society for the young people who have committed crimes.

We must remember that the very existence of a young offenders act is an expression of Canadian society's desire to offer young people an alternative to the Criminal Code, which applies to adults. Our society is aiming not only at stopping and penalizing the criminal behaviour of young people, but also at giving them training to help them learn and adjust. For this reason, responsibility for administering the Young Offenders Act does not rest with the judicial system alone, but also with the social services set up by the various provinces.

In Quebec, organized services for young people in trouble and young offenders date back to the establishment of the first industrial and reform schools in the second half of the 19th century, that is, even before the federal Parliament adopted the first juvenile delinquents act in 1908.

More than 8,000 social workers from various professions currently work in youth centres in Quebec. They are involved annually with 85,000 young people and their families, including nearly 22,000 young persons who are referred to them under the Young Offenders Act. These experts represent an extraordinary resource we would be wrong to forgo.

We are in the curious situation in the House today of discussing a bill to amend the Young Offenders Act in third reading, when almost all those making representations before the House Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs had asked that the adoption of these amendments be delayed.

These people all asked the Minister of Justice to move immediately on to the second phase of his plan of action-an in-depth evaluation of the present act and its application-before making such substantial amendments to the act.

Based on this evaluation, the amendments proposed by the justice minister could be reviewed and all members could vote with the full conviction that they are giving the parties involved in fighting youth crime the legal tool to do so, while at the same time promoting deterrence and rehabilitation.

Why is the justice minister refusing to take this logical step? Can the minister convince us that the amendments he has proposed must definitely be passed without delay?

In preparing my statement, I was struck by the fact that none of the stakeholders I met would feel any better equipped to fight youth crime if the amendments proposed by the minister were passed. On the contrary, they are convinced that their job would be even more difficult, both in respect of the public and the young persons themselves.

For instance, increasing sentences for serious offences may create a false sense of security among the public, although past experience gives us no reason to expect that such a measure would have a positive effect, either on the level of crime or on recidivism among young persons.

Moreover, by basically limiting detention orders to offences involving serious assault with bodily harm, the act would deprive the judicial system and social workers of an instrument sometimes necessary to the rehabilitation of certain young persons for whom recidivism, schooling, family and personal situation and other circumstances must be taken into account. In short, a prison sentence may be appropriate in certain cases even if the offences in question did not entail serious personal harm.

In other words, we can assert on the basis of present findings that passing this act would not provide any greater measure of social protection and that the quality of supervision for certain young persons would suffer. The question which naturally comes to mind is the following: Why is the Minister of Justice bent on pushing through so quickly an act that all those concerned doubt will be effective?

Many people think the answer to it is that the Minister of Justice has given in to a small but very vocal group that favours lex talionis, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". This group is reacting to the small glimpse they have gotten of juvenile delinquency and to the knowledge they have gleaned from the media of certain extreme but very rare manifestations of that criminality, such as crimes against persons. Left to its own devices and fanned by radio talk-show hosts, this fraction of public opinion is demanding that draconian measures be taken against juvenile delinquency.

By giving in to such pressure, the Minister of Justice shows that he pays more attention to what radio talk-show hosts say than to those working in the sector. Has he forgotten that his primary mission is to propose effective laws to Canadians that enforce our ideals of justice?

We are very disappointed that the Minister of Justice has abdicated his primary responsibility by proposing repressive and ineffective amendments inspired by ultraconservative opinions on social policy first propagated by the Reform Party, then apparently adopted by the Liberal party as their own.

The Bloc Quebecois believes that we can and must channel the legitimate concerns of the population towards a better understanding of juvenile delinquency and towards a willingness to apply adequate preventative and deterrent measures, as well as effective rehabilitation measures for young offenders.

The minister promises that he will take that approach later, while forcing us to adopt amendments which go against the spirit of the very approach he proposes. The members of this

House must understand that the amendments proposed by the Minister of Justice reflect a policy and values that are fundamentally different from those underlying the act itself.

By increasingly linking sentencing to the seriousness of the offences committed as the sole factor, these amendments thwart the search for measures consistent with both the seriousness of the offences and the needs of the young offenders. This search is the very basis for the existence of a Young Offenders Act distinct from the Criminal Code.

How can they ask us to renounce today the underlying principles of a law that is supposed to undergo a thorough review in the coming months?

We are well aware of the inconsistency in the approach proposed by the Minister of Justice and will vote against these amendments. We know, however, that the bill is at the third reading stage and that, unless it is withdrawn by the Minister of Justice, it will be passed by the government majority, probably with the support of Reform members.

Therefore, I ask the Minister of Justice straight out to reconsider his position and initiate his proposed review of the Young Offenders Act now before this bill is passed.

I am confident that such a decision would be widely supported across Canada, and it would be the only acceptable option from Quebec's point of view. In Quebec, this bill was opposed not only by those who work with young offenders but by the Quebec government, which expressed its opposition very clearly through its Minister of Justice, its Minister of Health and Social Services, and its Minister of Public Security.

As early as June 14, 1994, Roger Lefebvre, as the then Minister of Justice and on behalf of his colleagues, the Minister of Health and Social Services and the Minister of Public Security, told his federal counterpart about his deep concerns regarding Bill C-37. Quebec's position, together with a detailed analysis of the bill, was relayed to the federal deputy minister as early as September 12 and tabled before the House of Commons justice committee.

Let me read the main conclusions of this analysis: Bill C-37 does not resolve the problem adequately; Bill C-37 is unfounded; Bill C-37 is full of inconsistencies and ambiguity; Bill C-37 has undesirable and unjustified effects in terms of service organization and principles as well as in clinical and financial terms.

Quebec's position on this bill could hardly be clearer and more devastating. I want to emphasize the fact that this position was developed by members of the previous Cabinet in Quebec, a Liberal Cabinet, and that it was fully endorsed by the present Party Quebecois government. Therefore, there is no doubt that this position reflects a very large consensus in Quebec society.

The federal justice minister must understand that, should the amendments contained in this bill be passed, the justice, health and social services departments as well as those primarily responsible for their enforcement in Quebec would then be forced to put into application amendments to the Young Offenders Act that they unanimously denounced and against which the vast majority of members from Quebec would have voted.

This brings to light a serious situation where the Canadian majority would impose upon the people of Quebec values and directions to which they object.

This situation appears all the more unacceptable that most witnesses from the rest of Canada and even federal justice analysts agree that Quebec is in fact a model in combatting youth crime and rehabilitating young offenders.

While the youth crime rate in Quebec compares favourably to the rate in the other provinces, the number of cases transferred is much lower than it is in the other provinces. There are only 9.4 per cent of referrals in Quebec, with 25.4 per cent of the youth population between the ages of 12 and 17.

This is due to a large extent to the enforcement measures put in place in Quebec and a more extensive use of the alternative measures program. In addition, the emphasis put on the Youth Protection Act and its enforcement in Quebec makes it possible to deal with difficult family circumstances without resorting to the Youth Offenders Act. In short, Quebec has developed an integrated and efficient approach and the other provinces should follow suit.

How are we to explain to our fellow Quebec citizens that, if this bill is passed, we will have to abide by the wishes of the federal Parliament even though these amendments were rejected unanimously by the Quebec departments and officials in charge of enforcing them?

Of course we will have to mention the constitution, although the hon. member for Shawinigan and Prime Minister of Canada does not like it when we bring this up. Well, according to the Canadian constitution, the Young Offenders Act is a federal matter, although its implementation is up to the provincial governments.

Quebec will have to submit to the will of Parliament in this respect, until we change the constitution or decide to draft our own constitution, as a sovereign country.

Some members or observers may think I am just using this debate to promote the sovereignist option by stressing the differences between Quebec and the federal government. That is certainly not the case, since I have asked the Minister of Justice to delay the passage of this bill and to proceed with a review that would be beneficial to all the provinces of Canada.

If the Minister of Justice says no, I will have to conclude that we are faced with two different philosophies regarding youth crime and that the rest of Canada, by using the powers conferred by the constitution on the federal Parliament, is forcing on Quebec an approach that it cannot accept. I think that young people in Quebec who are in trouble deserve a more satisfactory response than the one proposed by the Minister of Justice, which draws its inspiration from the repressive and ultraconservative policies that come to us from Western Canada.

In any case, the Bloc Quebecois will do everything in its power to stop these policies at the Quebec border. First, by voting against this bill, and then by maintaining our support for sovereign status for Quebec, which would give it exclusive legislative powers.

[English]

[Committees Of The House, February 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to mention that the hon. member for Gaspé, who is vice-chairman of the fisheries committee, was present each time the committee sat, went to all of the hearings in communities out west and was very active in the drafting of the report.

Since he is absent today because he is a member of the important committee on the draft bill on Quebec's sovereignty, I will present the Bloc Quebecois' dissenting opinion. Overall, the Bloc Quebecois agrees with the committee's report and agrees that responsibility for processing and marketing freshwater fish should be transferred to the provinces.

However, we have a problem with the conditions of the transfer. Since the committee recommends that responsibility be transferred, we think that now is not the time to change the rules on marketing freshwater fish, before even consulting the First Nations, the provinces and the territories which will be affected.

Therefore, given the difficulties fishermen in remote areas are experiencing, the Bloc Quebecois recommends that, at the first possible opportunity, the federal government jointly study with the provinces and the territories the possibility of granting special vending permits to remote communities throughout the transition period.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I did not hear anything of consequence in my colleague's intervention. As for his attempt to tell Quebeckers that he likes them better than their members of Parliament, I will let them be the judge of that.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Edmonton Southwest for his comments and question. Of course, you can approach this debate on the general principle armed with technical data, but we will have an opportunity later on, in committee and at third reading, to talk about the more technical details, especially the GATT provisions regarding this issue. Canada cannot unilaterally change existing or agreed upon rules. We will have an opportunity to discuss this some other time.

In general, in Canada, we have a whole series of protected industries, although to a lesser degree than previously. The member may know that because of subsidies, transportation costs between Ontario and the maritimes are much lower than between Montreal and Louiseville, which is only 30 kilometres away. Subsidies are going to be decreasing because they will no longer be allowed on the world market in which we must compete.

The member also knows that for the past few years, it has cost billions of dollars to support grain producers and that in view of the present financial situation, it will soon no longer be possible to provide the same level of support. Trade negotiations are aimed at reducing grain subsidies in all the countries.

The same is true of production quotas. We are aware of it; indeed, it is planned under the GATT agreement. Nothing comes as a surprise. The GATT agreement provides for quotas to be replaced by tariffs which will gradually decrease.

What you are saying is that should Quebec become politically sovereign, Canada could unilaterally decide to speed up the reduction of tariffs, which is already provided for under the GATT agreements. My answer is that we have the GATT rules. You can always try it; we will see what happens during the GATT negotiations, unless Canada wants to withdraw from GATT and isolate itself from the rest of the world. The rules are there. Of course, farmers will have to adapt.

You know what the problem is. Assistance to help farmers adapt is completely ineffective.

I can tell you that last week the Bloc Quebecois met with the president and the executive director of Quebec's Union des producteurs agricoles. The executive director is a well known economist who has, on a number of occasions, advised the American government on agricultural issues and who knows the agricultural side of international trade very well. He is quite prepared to deal with the realities of GATT and the international scene and is aware that agriculture in Quebec will have to adapt, as it has in other countries.

As I am sure you know, the GATT agreements provide for a certain number of stages and, within a certain number of years,

these trade barriers will have to be lowered. But, as you know, there is also the problem of the quality of what we are feeding animals. When is a chicken a chicken? Is the quality of milk nowadays, with all the new hormones, the same as it once was? It has reached the point where we wonder whether we are looking at a chicken or a chemical product.

So, there are problems with respect to the quality of animal feed and of milk. A well known French scientist has said that, for the first time in the history of the world, we are beginning to wonder if science is serving mankind. For decades, until the atomic bomb, we were not in any doubt. Now we are asking questions about the food supply, in vitro fertilization, the list goes on. We are wondering if science is truly serving us. Before liberalizing all food trade with the United States, we must stop and think about the health of Canadians.