Lost his last election, in 2008, with 1% of the vote.
Canadian Dairy Commission Act May 16th, 1995
We could say plenty about Western wheat, Madam Speaker.
I will say this, if the Reform Party does not want an economic marriage, it can refrain, but as a politician, I say that we are going to have a real marriage, a marriage that is economically and politically sound.
Canadian Dairy Commission Act May 16th, 1995
Annually. Eight hundred million dollars worth.
Does the West-
Canadian Dairy Commission Act May 16th, 1995
Madam Speaker, I think our western colleague overlooked the fact that Quebec buys $800 million worth of beef.
Canadian Dairy Commission Act May 16th, 1995
Madam Speaker, it will be a pleasure to respond to the hon. member for Vaudreuil. I wish the hon. member would remember what I said. When I referred to marriage, I meant an economic marriage, and I would like to point out that today, as many as 60 per cent of businesses in Quebec and Ontario are involved in joint ventures, and that Ontario has a $3.8 billion trade surplus with Quebec.
Just a minute, Madam Speaker, just a minute, please. Will Ontario ignore us overnight? Will Ontario and the other provinces in Canada turn down economic ties overnight? Hardly likely. Globalization is the order of the day. But let us continue.
Just because we are talking about agriculture, we do not need more fences. There will be no fences tomorrow. These are the figures I wanted to mention in the House when I spoke earlier, and I repeat, this is an economic marriage regardless of the outcome for Quebec. With respect to agriculture, which was supposed to be my topic today, there are no borders, no fences. And I may add that yes, this will be a good economic marriage.
Canadian Dairy Commission Act May 16th, 1995
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to answer this question because, in reality, our colleagues from Ontario, our neighbour, have nothing to worry about. They know very well that they have a good thing going with Quebec, and Quebec knows it too.
I do not believe that the day after Quebec's separation, should that day come, Ontario would say: "From this day on, we are going to ignore you, ignore your businesses, your dairy businesses, your imports and exports". I do not believe it because my colleague opposite knows very well that two provinces, two good provinces, Quebec and Ontario, which have always had good trade relations, are not going to erect walls at their borders, even when it comes to agriculture, I might add.
My colleague also knows very well that, as things stand now, such a move would cause Ontario to lose thousands of jobs and millions and millions in revenue. Therefore, I think that a married couple can always make some kind of alliance and come to some kind of agreement. I would like to add that we are all sensible people, whether we are from Quebec or from another place in Canada. We are all very reasonable and very talented. Should Quebec separate from the rest of Canada, I would be worried in the least. We will continue to have very good trade relations. I assure you. I thank my colleague for raising this excellent question.
Canadian Dairy Commission Act May 16th, 1995
Madam Speaker, my party's position on Bill C-86 is very clear. We support this bill, which enables milk producers to meet the requirements contained in the international trade agreements signed by Canada. This bill provides for the creation of a national pooling system of market returns which will help support the export of milk products.
Among the interesting proposals, we notice that, from now on, the Canadian Dairy Commission will manage a common fund made up of returns from the sale of dairy products. Previously, the commission deducted levies from producers' pay cheques. With this bill, the commission will ensure that the provinces fund exports proportionally to their milk quotas. For instance, Quebec which exports more dairy products than the other provinces, will be assured that producers will share equally in the risks and in the costs of the system, as was the case under the old levy system.
On April 4, I mentioned in this House that six provinces had signed a memorandum of agreement aimed at merging their milk supply systems. This bill is being tabled while Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have signed a memorandum of agreement providing for the common marketing of industrial milk and fluid milk in these six provinces. Even if the provinces keep their present quotas, there will be only one class of milk and one price and no more distinction between industrial and fluid milk.
Quebec has played a major role in the signing of this agreement, I want to make that clear. I want to mention it because, even with the upcoming referendum on Quebec's future, the other provinces recognize the importance of an economic union with Quebec. Federalists say that, if Quebec separates, it will lose its present part of the quotas. I say this is false.
Come on. Quebec will keep the supply management process, mainly because it is in the interests of milk producers in other provinces. If the federalist threat were true, Quebec products would create a very harsh competition for dairy farmers from the rest of Canada and there could even be a shortage of these products on the Canadian market.
The fearmongering campaign of the federalists caught on rapidly in Quebec. One of their key arguments is the threat that a sovereign Quebec will lose half of its industrial milk quotas and that thousands of dairy farms will be out of business in Quebec. Roger B. Buckland, a vice-principal at McGill University, suggested in the Opinion rurale column of the March 2nd issue of the magazine La Terre de chez-nous that the United States would drive many dairy farms to the brink of bankruptcy.
According to him, the United States would refuse to maintain the tariffs agreed to under GATT in an agreement which would make an independent Quebec part of NAFTA. He argues that sovereignty would have a negative impact on Quebec dairy farmers since, within Confederation, they supply 48 per cent of the industrial milk sold on the Canadian market when Quebec has only 25 per cent of the population.
Fortunately, the same publication also ran a reply from a sociologist, Stéphane Paré, in its issue of March 30 to April 5. Here are some excerpts from this reply:
"Will Americans swallow us? Will they take advantage of the situation to make NAFTA prevail over GATT? Will Canadians produce more milk and will Quebecers have to reduce their production? Quebec, even if it separates, will remain a signatory to GATT, at least that is the way we interpret international law. It is called "state succession", and it means that the successor state abides by the laws and obligations of the country it was part of previously.
Mr. Buckland, I can just see you rushing in to argue that the rule of successor states does not necessarily apply. You are right. In fact, this is one of the reasons why I believe that Canada would be interested in siding with us against Uncle Sam. Canadians know very well that, without Quebec, they would be an easy prey for the Americans. Therefore, they would see the advantages of sitting down with Quebec to negotiate. If there is a possibility that Chile could join NAFTA, I fail to see why the signatories would be harder on Quebec. We must keep in mind that, for the U.S., Quebec is a more important economic partner than France is, for example. As for the fate of dairy producers in
Quebec, you should know that they do not need Quebec's independence to disappear. All they have to do is to let Mr. Martin do his thing".
Rational arguments always prevail over fear, and Quebecers will not be fooled on the day of the referendum. Why claim that a sovereign Quebec would not be allowed to trade with the rest of Canada, when we know that Canada's dairy production is an economic reality? Trade between Quebec and Canada exceeds $80 billion.
Do you think that it would be in Canada's interest to cut all ties to an independent Quebec? If Quebec loses, how can Canada expect to gain? The need to maintain a Quebec-Canada economic zone is obvious.
The agreement in principle reached between the six provinces that we referred to earlier is an increasingly relevant case in point. Dairy producers in the other provinces know that Canada will maintain economic ties with a sovereign Quebec. Economic reality will prevail over feelings of emotion and vengeance. Furthermore, the Quebec government is committed to maintaining a quota system, which it sees as essential to both producers and processors.
We know that scrapping this system would not be in the best interest of any dairy industry in Quebec and Canada. As the Bloc Quebecois demonstrated during the official opposition day on agriculture, excluding Quebec from the quota system would expose dairy producers in the other provinces to the fierce competition of their Quebec counterparts, in addition to creating a shortage of dairy products in those provinces.
GATT rules virtually preclude the imposition, by Canada, of restrictive measures to prevent Quebec dairy products from getting in. These rules seem to be open to a legal challenge. So, we will leave it to the lawyers.
Maintaining a common economic zone within the dairy industry will make it possible to resist pressure from the United States. Quebec and Canada will have to join forces if they want to counter constant American opposition to custom tariffs on our dairy products. The bill before the House, Bill C-86, will probably be challenged by the Americans.
It should not come as a surprise to us to hear that the U.S. are accusing Canada of dumping by reason of the fact that Canada intends to promote low prices for milk in dairy products for the export market. However, it will be up to our neighbours to the South to prove that Canadian exports have an injurious effect on their market. This will not be an easy task, for our products are exported in small amounts and generally processed.
At any rate, we know that all European GATT members subsidize their dairy exports. Canada is not there yet. Therefore, there is no reason to worry too much. However, if Canada were to act on the federalists' threat to break off any ties with an independent Quebec, the American ogre would be sitting pretty. The federalists also threatened Quebec dairy producers with the loss of tariffs negotiated with the U.S. under NAFTA if and when Quebec became sovereign. Come on.
The U.S. appetite for international trade is well known and I am convinced that they will not change their ways with a sovereign Quebec. Naturally, they will try to get more than they already have and to renegotiate the agreement with an independent Quebec. But the fact of the matter is that this is already going on now with Canada. Like Canada, Quebec will reply that customs tariffs are protected by GATT.
The Americans are putting the pressure on and will continue to do so, whether Quebec becomes sovereign or not. However, they do understand that money talks. With exports of $14 billion and imports of $27 billion to and from Quebec, it is not the economic considerations involving Quebec's dairy industry that would keep Americans from signing a new free trade agreement with us.
There is currently very limited trade between Quebec and the U.S. involving the dairy industry, because of high tariffs. It is easy to see that we would have a new free trade agreement without having to make concessions on agricultural tariffs. So, where is the catastrophe for the Quebec dairy industry in a sovereign Quebec?
Where is the catastrophe, if it is wrong to claim that a sovereign Quebec would lose half of its industrial milk quota, which would result, if we are to believe the fearmongers, in the closure of thousands of dairy farms in the province? Where is the catastrophe, if it is wrong to claim that sovereignty would adversely affect Quebec producers, because they provide 48 per cent of Canada's industrial milk production, while accounting for only 25 per cent of the country's population? Where is the catastrope, if it is wrong to claim that Quebec dairy producers will lose the benefit of the existing tariffs with the U.S., under NAFTA. Where then is the real threat?
The real threat was tabled by this government not long ago. The real threat for Quebec's dairy industry is the last federal budget, as I said a few moments ago, when I quoted a Quebec sociologist. Because of that budget, the federal subsidy for industrial milk is reduced by 30 per cent over a two year period.
We mentioned earlier that Quebec accounts for 48 per cent of Canada's industrial milk production. So, who do you think will bear the brunt of these cuts? It is pretty easy to figure out. These cuts amount to a loss of income of $3,775 for an average size dairy farm producing about 2,500 hectolitres of milk. This means a 15 per cent loss of income for a producer with a net income of $25,000. And this is not taking into account the
increased feed costs, following the elimination of transport subsidies for grain and feed. Quebec farmers have been left high and dry. The finance minister's budget does not provide any compensation for them, even though they are the most affected by it.
This bill will allow producers to adjust to the requirements of international trade agreements signed by Canada. As we said, this is why the official opposition supports Bill C-86. However, the problem confronting our daiary producers is certainly not solved, given the obstacles set in their way by the finance minister's budget.
What gives me hope however is the agreement in principle signed by Quebec, Ontario and the four other provinces to pool their milk supply system. This shows that a sovereign Quebec would not be isolated for mere emotional reasons, when it is economic considerations that really count.
Gas Pumps May 15th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Industry not agree that, by having gas pumps inspected only once every six years, he is failing in his duty to protect consumers, who can then fall victim to any malfunction of these pumps?
Gas Pumps May 15th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. We learned this morning that 13 per cent of gas pumps across Canada do not give accurate readings, which translates into unjustified additional costs to customers.
Does the Minister of Industry confirm this information and what does he intend to do to remedy this situation, which is prejudicial to consumers?
Farm Improvement And Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act April 24th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-75, an act to amend the Farm Improvement and Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act.
I believe I am going to please the government by saying that its plan to increase loan guarantees to $3 billion is an excellent one. However, if it thinks the criticisms will be coming after the compliments, it is quite right. Let us first turn to the positive aspects. In fact, the change is only raising the guarantee ceiling for loans made by financial institutions, to keep up with the demand.
According to data provided by the Department of Agriculture and Agrifood, the programm is very efficient since its cost is very low. It costs $1.5 million a year, which reflects losses due to loan default. We are talking about 1 per cent of guaranteed loans as a whole. This means that with a $3 billion ceiling, the annual cost should rise to $3 millions, which is quite acceptable.
We are not against logic. According to data also obtained from Agriculture and Agrifood Canada, in 1994-1995, more than 17 000 loans were made under the Farm Improvement and Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act, for a total of $475 million. The total value of guaranteed loans is getting close to the $1.5 billion limit.
The demand and the service provided fully justify the increase in the guarantee limit. We are not against this measure, which allows farms to have access to development funds without the government having to give grants, which come right out of taxpayers' pockets.
However, a dose of constructive criticism will be good for this government which does not realize, or chooses to ignore, that overlap costs money to the taxpayers, who are already overtaxed, and that it could be avoided.
In fact, this measure perpetuates the overlaps between the federal government department, the Farm Credit Association and Quebec. Through the Société du financement agricole, Quebec provides the same services as its federal counterpart. Yes, more overlap. In one ear and out the other. The population got the message, and most importantly, understood it. Overlap.
And regarding the case that we are discussing today, we should specify that there is an overlap not only in activities, but also in the way things are done. Loan guarantees have their place, but they increase the debt load of businesses. Everybody recognizes the importance of evaluating a business's potential and its market before offering more loans. Too heavy a debt load makes a business unable to compete. That is why we maintain that Quebec is in the best position to identify which sectors of its economy are experiencing growth and to establish policies regarding access to credit.
Obviously, these policies are geared to the development strategies elaborated in collaboration with the sector. In its latest annual report, the Société du financement agricole du Québec points out that it creates and develops new programs in collaboration with representatives of the financial and farming sectors. Quebec has established a tradition of consultation on farming issues with the États généraux du monde rural in 1991; the consultation committees which were formed during the Trois-Rivières Summit in 1992 following the consensus reached on the priorities for the agri-food sector's development in Quebec; and lastly, the Trois-Rivières Summit itself.
Quebec has the expertise required to take the program under its wing, of course, with the corresponding transfer of funding. The federal government would save a department desperately in need of saving a great amount of money. Was the Department of
Agriculture and Agri-food not one of the hardest hit by the last round of budget cuts?
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is one of those hardest hit by downsizing. It does not make sense to maintain duplication and make cuts in areas where duplication does not exist. Inspection services will now charge a fee, although we have three overlapping inspection services. Where does the money come from to pay for these services? From the private sector, which ends up paying the price of duplication.
The minister must be aware of the fact that officials who helped draft this legislation on farm improvement and marketing co-operatives loans admitted it was competing with equivalent programs in Quebec. For the benefit of those who may not be that familiar with the Société de financement agricole, I would like to comment briefly on its farm loan operations.
This is taken from the agency's latest annual report. The Société de financement agricole authorizes and guarantees loans and credit openings. Farmers can obtain guaranteed loans up to a maximum of $800,000, while the maximum for loans at reduced rates is $200,000. The interest rate for guaranteed loans is based on the residential mortgage rate offered by financial institutions. Farmers now have the option of selecting a one-year, three-year or five-year term, at a rate locked in for the duration of the term selected.
During the 1993-94 financial year, the Société de financement agricole granted 4,682 farm loans totalling $353.3 million, which represents an increase of 12 per cent in the number of loans and 39 per cent in the total amount. Out of the total number of loans, 3,305 representing $279.6 million were granted at the reduced rates provided under the financing program.
Furthermore, the Société de financement agricole authorized the transfer of existing loans, representing another $39.5 million. The total amount of loans and transfers was $392.8 million.
In other words, Quebec already offers these services. It is in a better position to understand what is involved, thanks to a consultation model unique in North America. Agricultural partners in Quebec have given a lot of thought to sustainable regional development.
The Société de financement agricole is closer to the farmers and to the markets. It is in a better position to develop a consistent credit policy based on economic development strategies identified by the parties concerned. If Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada lets the Société administer the loan guarantees to which Quebec is entitled, duplication will no longer be an issue.
Bill C-75 may be worthwhile to farmers in the rest of Canada, but I have some reservations about the impact of this program in Quebec. Is the Canadian government going to say yes to a farmer whose loan request has just been turned down by the Société de financement agricole? If a project review was done by experts, is the federal government going to do another one? We are still stuck in the murky waters of federal duplication, lack of efficiency and interference.
Furthermore, Quebec already faces duplication through the presence of the Farm Credit Corporation, which reports to Parliament through the Minister of Agriculture. In Quebec, we have shown that the Société de financement agricole is capable of managing the loan guarantee program. The rest of Canada could benefit from the expertise of the Farm Credit Corporation, which is the largest long term lender in Canada. A document provided by the FCC itself indicates that it has the human resources and expertise required for agricultural financing.
In addition to providing traditional loans, the FCC can now finance diversification projects on the farm or value added agricultural businesses off the farm. In addition, the FCC can now administer programs and services jointly with federal agencies, provincial governments and other lenders.
Our colleagues opposite will again tell us there is no duplication. Officials have said that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's program was not duplicating the activities of the Farm Credit Corporation, since it did not offer the same program. We are always hearing these arguments. Once and for all, will this government not understand that these arguments do not hold water? Let us look at the thing objectively. Since the industry seems to consider the program valid, why does the Farm Credit Corporation not use its own resources to provide it?
The FCC has the capability, with a staff of over 760 people working out of six regional offices and 101 district and rural offices. The FCC loans portfolio includes some 55,000 accounts valued at $3.3 billion.
It is therefore biased, dishonest and wrong to say that there is no overlap between the activities of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Farm Credit Corporation. It has, I repeat, all it needs to offer the program elsewhere than in Quebec, where the Société de financement agricole can do the job.
The federal government talks of single window here and single window there. However, when it comes to making it operational, it is another story.
Here is the situation. The government takes a perfectly logical step.
Under the terms of the act, once the $1.5 billion limit is reached, the government is no longer obliged to guarantee loans granted by lenders. This obviously prevents new loans from being accepted under the Farm Improvement and Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act.
So we agree that it is necessary to amend the legislation to raise the limit of the five year loans to three billion dollars. We agree on the benefits of such a measure: it will make credit readily available to farmers and marketing cooperatives, for a wide range of farm improvement projects.
Furthermore, borrowers will get good interest rates and requirements concerning their equity will be lowered. The program encourages investments in new kinds of machinery, new technologies and different agricultural ventures, as we see more and more in my riding where there is an ostrich farm, for example. On those points we agree with the government. But the idea loses much of its appeal because this government is unable to tap into existing and competent resources to manage the program.
We have shown repeatedly, and not only today, that Quebec is in a better position to identify growth sectors in its economy and to implement credit access policies reflecting the development strategies established in co-operation with the community. Yet, with the Farm Improvement and Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act, the federal government competes with comparable Quebec programs.
In Quebec, the Société du financement agricole has all the necessary expertise to manage the program. Elsewhere in Canada, wherever the Farm Credit Corporation has offices, there are also adequate resources for that program to be offered. So we are once again in the vicious circle of overlap and duplication where there is no logic.
In spite of a drastic downsizing of the public service, the federal government is not restructuring its activities efficiently. There is still some useless overlapping within its administration. Today, we gave yet another example of that. The public will have to bear the consequences. So we say stop, enough is enough.
Supply April 4th, 1995
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond to my colleague from Malpeque. He spoke about equity. He admitted in his speech that an inequity problem had existed for a long time between Quebec and the rest of Canada.
He said that he used to be a farmer in the Maritimes. He knows full well that, a few years ago, potatoes from the Maritimes were fully subsidized for export to the Quebec market, while Quebec farmers had to pay transportation costs for their potatoes. Farmers in Quebec and the Maritimes were competing for the same Quebec consumers. If we are going to talk about equity, we should really do so.
With regard to transportation, the Crow rate has been eliminated, but some compensation formulas are still unfair to Quebec. Twenty-five years ago, I was too young to be involved in politics but some politicians, in whose footsteps I have followed, have told me: "Jean, you will see when you grow up how difficult it is to fight the federal government". I now realize that what I was told 25 years ago is still true today. All I am asking the government is to be fair to Quebec and the rest of Canada.