Jean Landry

[1992 Referendum, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Quebecers paid for the 1992 referendum twice. First, they along with all other Canadians paid for the referendum in the other provinces and, in addition, they alone paid for the referendum in their own province, Quebec. The outgoing government in Quebec sent the federal government a bill for $26 million to correct this injustice.

My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Does the federal government intend to honour its debt to Quebec or not and will it pay the $26 million that it owes?

[Intergovernmental Affairs, June 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party of Canada teamed up with the previous government on the late Charlottetown Accord. The Liberal government, for its part, has still not said whether it intends to reimburse Quebec for the $26 million taxpayers paid twice for this referendum. That is probably the new type of harmonization this government carries out on the backs of the provinces.

Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs not admit that, before getting into a new, hypothetical referendum scenario to put Quebec in its place again, the federal government should pay off its debts before anything else?

[Budget Implementation Act, May 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened earlier to the speech made by my colleague and there is one thing that I would like to add first, namely that the way they are going now, if they cut where they would like to, he would not even be able to afford an artificial leg for his three-legged horse.

But the tenth point he made was about eliminating all abuses to the UI system and I would like to comment on that. You know, we all agree that people should not be abusing this program. However, I would like him to tell me first what percentage of claimants abuse the system and second, since unemployment insurance is financed by the men and women of Canada, of Quebec, are we going to penalize all the members of a family with ten children, let us say, when only one is guilty? I have a logical answer to that and I would like him to clarify the tenth point he made, when he said that we must put an end to all abuses of the system. Does it mean that it is necessary to penalize all the people of Canada and Quebec?

[Budget Implementation Act, May 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's remarks and I have a very short question for him.

During the election campaign, seven months and a few days ago, the Liberals told Canadians and Quebecers that they would not touch social programs. Could he explain why, after seven months and a few days, they have decided to cut those programs when they probably could have cut elsewhere and not harm the most vulnerable members of our society? I would like to know what he has to say about that.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as I was getting ready to speak, I listened carefully to what the member for Lévis said about Bill C-17. I would like to ask him a question. Did he or his party do something about Bill C-17 with the government? Did they try to find a solution to this problem?

Let us make no secret about it, some people, Canadians and Quebeckers, will be hurt by this law. Let us not forget that even those who are working today do not know if they will be out of a job tomorrow.

It is very important and I would like the member for Lévis to tell us if the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, on which he sits, offered a concrete solution to this problem.

My second question is: How will we announce these cuts to Canadians? Will the member invite all Canadians and Quebecers to rally against this law? What does he intend to do?

[Budget Implementation Act, May 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the member for Lévis said on Bill C-17. I spoke on this subject myself and I would like to ask the member for Lévis a question.

My first question is-

[High-Speed Train, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and again concerns the referendum on the defunct Charlottetown Accord. In 1992, this referendum cost Canada the modest sum of $145 million. The federal government paid $105 million, while Quebec paid $40 million under its election legislation. Need I recall that this means Quebec spent more than its share? In addition to the $40 million, Quebec spent one-quarter of the federal expenditures, or $26 million. So altogether, Quebec spent over $66 million, far more than any other province.

Quebec is therefore entitled to put in a claim to the federal government for reimbursement of these $26 million, its Canadian share, since it had already spent its provincial share.

As I pointed out in the House on May 4 this year, no payments have been made by the federal government to the Quebec government so far. However, the issue has been raised several times by the Government of Quebec, the Bloc québécois and the Parti québécois. Personally, I asked the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of Canada for some explanations on May 4. I repeat, in terms of dealing with the issue, the evasive response of the minister was certainly not satisfactory.

The behaviour of the federal government certainly defies all logic. Barely a week before the federal election, on October 19, 1993, in response to a question by the Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly, the former minister responsible for Electoral Reform, Marc-Yvan Côté, who is a federalist, thank you very much, maintained that there was a commitment by the federal government to reimburse the cost of this referendum. Mr. Côté pointed out several times that he had submitted several requests to the federal government and had done so on the basis of a commitment made by the previous Conservative government to reimburse the Quebec government.

This injustice to Quebec is an issue not only for sovereigntists in Quebec but also for the federal government's federalist friends. The Quebec Government has been patient, but we have now been waiting for 18 months.

How can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs explain the fact that no decision has been made regarding the reimbursement of this amount of $26 million? It is, in fact, a legitimate request which the Quebec government has made several times. How can the minister explain the unfair decision he is making by having Quebecers pay more than their share of a referendum on the renewal of the Canadian federation?

How can the minister explain his decision given the results of the referendum which was overwhelmingly defeated, contrary to what the Liberal Party of Canada wanted to see? Are we to understand from the behaviour of the minister and his government that Quebecers must pay more dearly than the English provinces of Canada its rejection of this agreement? Everyone knows that several other Canadian provinces also rejected the

Charlottetown agreement and the situation with Quebec is still unresolved.

Finally, I come to the conclusion that for some federalists equity does not have the same meaning if it applies to English provinces or to Quebec. The longer the federal government waits before reimbursing the $26 million the Quebec government is entitled to, the more this double standard will become obvious to the Quebec population.

[Agriculture, May 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my colleague is referring to production or overproduction. At one point, there were quota problems in the dairy industry and I remember quite vividly farmers dumping milk in creeks. I believe the dairy industry in Quebec is trouble free at this time.

I am not looking for problems where there are none. I like to deal with problems as they arise and find solutions to them. I have always maintained that there are no problems, only solutions. You can rest assured that when Quebec and Canadian farmers encounter a problem, they will confront it head on and seek out a solution together. They will not turn a blind eye to it. Have no fear, they will be open, honest and to the point. Our farmers are capable of adjusting very quickly.

[Agriculture, May 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to answer his question because I have the impression that on learning of a sovereign Quebec, farmers or, to go even further, cows will give less milk on account of being afraid. That is not the case. I would like to set the record straight. You can rest assured that whether it is Quebec or the other provinces, it has never been said that for years there have been tariff barriers between Quebec and

Ontario or between other Canadian provinces. No such thing has never been said to the Canadian people, but today it has to be said. We had not even become sovereign, and yet there were tariff barriers between Canada's provinces. Did that make sense?

Do not worry, the agricultural sector will not be any worse off in a sovereign Quebec. There will be agreements, but we will not be dealing with barriers. In the agriculture committee, we were told that if cows ever gave less milk, there is a new hormone, on which a one-year moratorium has been imposed. We said no to protect human and animal health. Wait a minute! Technology is so advanced, and we are being pressured by multinational pharmaceutical companies. You can rest assured that at that time there will not be a problem with supply and demand or the lack of milk.

I can tell you that, as far as milk is concerned, whether it is Canadian or Quebec milk, it will always be easier to sell without BST, unlike what comes from the U.S.A. You can tell me in a year from now, when the current moratorium is lifted.

[Agriculture, May 10th, 1994]

I will gladly answer this question, Mr. Speaker. You know, when I quoted figures in my speech earlier, it was to impress upon this House and this government that, regarding supply, Quebec has often been cast aside.

We were talking about supply and demand. As a result of the GATT agreements, the agricultural sector will suffer many losses, not only in Quebec, but across Canada.

I would also like to say that it makes me sad when I see, as I did recently-and I want to come back to this because this is the starting point, the signing of the GATT-farmers' associations were formed to oppose it. While some aspects were beneficial, protection had to be sought against other aspects. It is like when you make a deal; there is no point giving and giving, you have to keep something for yourself.

That is the point I was trying to make in my speech. We have been giving too much and for no reason. We are worth a lot in Canada and in Quebec.

As far as quotas on milk are concerned, I can tell you that farmers have been asking what will replace them. One of them told me: "Look, I will loose everything within a few years because my quota which was worth so much will not be worth anything any more because of free trade, of the GATT". Canada should have negotiated protective clauses.

I would have to do the same thing if I owned a business and dealt with other countries or had employees. In any case, we have to protect ourselves and our interests. In so doing, we are protecting all Canadians and Quebecers.

But rest assured this is not over yet and I think it will do more harm than good. We are told to think in terms of globalization, but as I said in my remarks earlier, we must also be competitive. Let us not forget that unless we are able to compete on the global market, we will do very poorly.

I believe that Providence and common sense are both required in this matter, even if it is politics or agriculture. I also believe that we must always strive to obtain as much as possible and the best deal possible for Canada and Quebec. That is why I chose that angle in my remarks, saying: "Look, Quebec has traditionally received less for grain transportation like all the rest". I could have gone on for 20 minutes. Let me tell you that as a Quebecer and a member responsible for representing the people of Quebec and Canada, I will do my very best to get as much as possible for them and protect our interests, instead of giving it all to the Americans or other foreign countries.