Roger Gaudet

[Supply, November 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague opposite.

During oral question period this afternoon the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food lost his cool and said it was the Bloc Québécois that would prevent a delegation of MPs from attending the WTO meeting from November 28 to December 5, in Hong Kong. It seems that we are the ones who want to have an election. I think it is Quebeckers and Canadians who want to have an election. That is my first point.

Second, I have been here for three years now and for three years I have been listening to the government say it is going to resolve the softwood lumber issue. For three years the Bloc Québécois and the opposition have been giving the government advice in order to make progress on this issue and resolve it. However, again today, the minister said it would be done soon. Third, on November 27 and 28, the first nations meeting would not be compromised and, four, the funding would be approved.

I believe the government has a good alternative for resolving all these issues before an election. If we refer to the motion by the New Democratic Party on this opposition day, it reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, during the week of January 2, 2006, the Prime Minister should ask her Excellency the Governor General of Canada to dissolve the 38th Parliament and to set the date for the 39th general election for Monday, February 13, 2006; and

That the Speaker transmit this resolution to Her Excellency the Governor General.

My colleague could still spend Christmas and New Year with his family. I would like his opinion on this. I believe it is a good alternative for everyone.

[François Lanoue, October 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, October 23, the Joliette art museum will open an exhibition on the life and times of François Lanoue.

François Lanoue was one of a dying breed of well-educated clergy who devoted their life to defending their culture, language and roots. Born in Saint-Jacques-de-Montcalm, where the Acadian spirit is still very present, he was ordained in 1943. After a brilliant career at the Joliette seminary, Mr. Lanoue took on various pastoral responsibilities in the parishes of this diocese.

The exhibition offers a profile of this man through works of art and photographs that evoke his remarkable intellectual journey.

Former premier Bernard Landry and former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, who were both taught by Father François Lanoue, have agreed to be the honourary hosts of this exceptional event.

I invite you all to attend this exhibition and become better acquainted with the great man who was Father Lanoue.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting no.

[Liberal Government, May 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is a tainted government and no longer deserves public confidence.

It lacks vision and has insulted the intelligence of Quebeckers by thinking it could buy their conscience. The people of Quebec are not prepared to forget.

When we are elected, we come here to serve the public. The Liberal government has instead chosen to work for its own personal gains in utter disregard of any moral obligations. By hiding the truth, the Liberal government has worked against Quebec and against Canada.

The Liberal government has lost every speck of integrity, no longer deserves to govern and must stop clinging onto power.

[World Trade Organization, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House what supply management, or SM5, is all about. Supply management is a tool enabling milk, chicken, turkey, hatching and table egg producers to achieve the best balance possible between supply and demand for their products across Quebec and Canada.

This way, producers only produce just enough products to meet Canadian needs and avoid producing surpluses which would then have to be cleared at a loss. This planning process, coupled with import control and a mechanism that enables producers to negotiate collectively a price based on their production cost, assures them of a stable and fairer income, without governmental subsidies.

At the request of dairy producers in Quebec and Canada, who met with the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant and me, it was agreed to add the following to the motion. Allow me therefore to read the new, amended Motion M-163:

That, in the opinion of the House, in the current World Trade Organization negotiations, the government should not agree to any concession that would weaken collective marketing strategies or the supply management system and should also seek an agreement establishing fair and equitable rules that foster the international competitiveness of agricultural exporters in Quebec and Canada.

That is what the Dairy Farmers of Canada asked for to help exporters. Let me read an excerpt from the press release of Grey, Clark, Shih & Associates, Limited, International Trade & Public Affairs. It reads as follows:

The Canadian government must do more at the WTO to ensure a better balance in agricultural trade.

Ottawa, April 14, 2005.

“The Government of Canada must be more firm in its negotiations on agricultural trade at the WTO, because the current framework of negotiations will not make it possible to alleviate the imbalances between participating countries. If the ties between subsidies and tariffs are not taken into consideration, this will perpetuate and worsen existing imbalances in the WTO rules that apply to agricultural trade”. This is what Peter Clark, from Grey, Clark, Shih & Associates, said during the presentation of the findings of a study sponsored by Canada's dairy producers. The presentation was made yesterday, in Quebec City, at the annual general meeting of the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec.

Peter Clark used empirical data to demonstrate that the subsidies granted in countries like the United States allow their producers to better absorb the impact of tariff reductions. In 2003, American dairy producers benefited from direct and indirect support to the tune of $13.8 billion US. This means that the subsidies that they receive from federal, state and local governments account for about 40% of their revenues. These subsidies have the effect of restricting access to the U.S. market. The United States is advocating tariff reductions, because it can restrict access to its market, while trying to export American products abroad.

In conclusion, all political parties in this House must agree with motion No. M-163, as amended, to protect our five supply management groups, which do not cost Quebec and Canadian taxpayers a penny.

[World Trade Organization, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I agree.

[Canadian Livestock Industry, March 8th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, very honestly, I thank the hon. member for her question.

However, I do not think there is any link. The American government's dice have been loaded for many years, so that it is no longer possible to reach an agreement with the U.S. on almost any project, such as the missile defence shield. Whatever has happened with the Americans, we have no agreements with them.

We have not been able to win an argument with the American government as a full-fledged G-8 country. That is what amazes me the most. As a G-8 country, we are unable to thump our fist on the table and say that we, too, are as capable as anyone else. But no, we are at the mercy of all those countries, especially the United States.

[Canadian Livestock Industry, March 8th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary and I appreciate his congratulations. Still they have not yet found solutions because if we go back to what he was saying earlier concerning dairy products, they allowed in soy oil and cheese sticks that could possibly have brought in over $1 billion for farmers from 1997 to 2002.

I think the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food should go off together on a crusade to the United States. If memory serves, during the crisis of September 11, 2001, the United States was on its knees begging Canada to strengthen security. Why is it that today, because of one poor little mad cow, our whole agricultural industry has been brought down? What I would like would be for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to set out on a crusade with the Prime Minister and other important ministers. I am just wondering if the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is really a minister or if he is just a pawn the government has put in place. It seems to me that he does not get support from the rest of the cabinet. He is always all alone in his corner. So I am really wondering whether or not he has been forgotten.

[Canadian Livestock Industry, March 8th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I wish to share my time with the hon. member for Joliette.

Agriculture is being manhandled by Ottawa. Few countries have abandoned their agricultural sector as much as Canada did when the Prime Minister was Minister of Finance. Today more than ever, agricultural producers are less well supported, even though we are in the midst of a serious agricultural crisis caused by tumbling prices and the mad cow crisis.

When Ottawa intervenes, it establishes Canada-wide measures that do not meet the needs of Quebec or the other provinces. In fact, Quebec agriculture and Canadian agriculture are different. They are organized differently and do not have the same requirements. These measures are structures which only get in the way of helping farmers.

This crisis has struck Quebec twice as hard. It should not have affected Quebec at all. The discovery of one case of mad cow in Alberta, in May 2003 and the American embargo that followed have plunged the cattle industry in Quebec and other provinces into the depths of despair. If Canada were divided into health areas and controlled its borders and its public health policy, it would not be hit by the American embargo nation wide.

I want to warn the government's negotiators at the WTO by reading them a letter from the President of the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec.

Dear readers,

The negotiations on agricultural trade at the World Trade Organization, or WTO, will intensify in 2005. The framework agreement on agriculture was ratified in July, and members countries are now negotiating the terms and conditions. This could have a major impact on our agriculture and, consequently, on our food sovereignty.

For Canada, the main issue is the future of its fair agricultural model: supply management.The freer trade advocated by the WTO is threatening one of its pillars, namely import controls. We must not forget that the world dairy ingredients and products market is used to dump subsidized surpluses which, in the absence of effective controls, will take over our market.

Our model benefits society as a whole, not only the producers. It deserves to be maintained. Why? Because its allows producers to make a living from the market , without any subsidies. It fosters small family farms and very reasonable consumer prices. The public purse, regional economy and consumers all benefit from supply management.

The 1994 WTO agreement is already surreptitiously undermining supply management because Canada failed to take appropriate action in this respect. Following this agreement, imported dairy ingredients escape customs control and replace locally produced milk and cream in our dairy products at the expense of dairy producers and the natural quality of our products.

Like any other country, Canada must assume its responsibilities, using every means at its disposal to ensure better control at the borders. It is in the interest of the industry and consumers, who have the right to expect quality dairy products made in Canada, at an affordable price.

The letter is signed Marcel Groleau, president.

All this to say that Canada must immediately commence negotiations at the WTO and protect our industries, such as the milk, egg and turkey industries, which belong to the GO5.

Each dollar generated by the milk industry creates $26 in economic activities. One job on a dairy farm generates 1.5 jobs in the rest of the dairy industry. In Quebec, this industry alone employs 45,000 people, while in Canada, the figure is over 100,000.

During our negotiations with the WTO, I am asking the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and his staff to be careful and to protect our agriculture, which is not costing them anything. This is important.

The main problems that have confronted the agricultural sector in recent years are: the income crisis; the globalization of markets; the reviewing of joint plans at the World Trade Organization; and increasingly more stringent environmental regulations on food safety, which adversely affect Quebec producers who must face foreign competition.

The government has to make a commitment to the agricultural sector. Agriculture makes an undeniable contribution to the vitality of rural regions, both in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.

Being able to rely on a domestic and independent food supply contributes to the sovereignty of our nations. This is evident now more than ever and we must pay particular attention to the problems that Quebec and Canadian agriculture is facing. The government must commit to ensuring the harmonious development of agriculture and guarantee that agricultural activity will provide a fair remuneration for the work of men and women who make their living at it. This is more than wishful thinking. It requires a commitment, a real and feasible plan, for concrete solutions are what we have been waiting for since the discovery of the case in May 2003. None has yet been forthcoming.

This government has just shoved agriculture aside. If I remember correctly, the last three agriculture ministers have not been able to make their government, the Liberal government, see agriculture's importance for this country, or the importance of this continuing crisis, which is impoverishing our farming men and women.

Each of them has done his world travelling, Canada is, however, a member of the G-7 or G-8 and they have not been able to get the Canadian border opened up for beef exports. What means have they been using? Not a one. They have found no solutions for solving the problem, in the short term, the medium term or the long term, just ad hoc measures that solve virtually nothing.

There was a cross-Canada tour with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food in January 2005. They found there was a shortfall of $2.1 billion, so what solution did they come up with for the producers? Nothing. Nothing at all. Nothing but promises. They have been making promises for 12 years and one of these days this will catch up with them.

As the critic for agriculture, I would like to do everything I can to defend the interests of Quebec producers and farmers. We must not forget that, when agriculture is well, all is well in the best of all worlds. If they need me, I am here for them.

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for my hon. colleague from Sault Ste. Marie and concerns supply management. This may be an opportunity for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to find information to help resolve part of the dispute. We will remember that the supply management system is a Canada-wide initiative.

Take butter oil, for example. From 1997 to 2002, imports increased by 557%. Had it not been for these imports, our producers' incomes would have been more than $500 million higher.

Second, the same is true for cheese sticks. These were a source of income that did not cost the government a cent.

Third, several producers told me about a 7¢ a litre increase for farmers, but not for the industry or the retailers. These are three solutions at no cost to the government. I cannot fathom how, in the 11 years it has been in office and with the number of civil servants working for it, the government did not think about that.

I would like to hear the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie on this.