Roger Gaudet

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank my colleague. He has indeed put the finger on the real reason.

Based on Liberal government's record for the past 11 years, farming has been sidelined. Granted, the government provided assistance during the SARS crisis, the drought, the fires in western Canada and the flood in Quebec. Have you noticed that agriculture is never an easy matter? That is the problem with the federal government: the Liberals do not believe in agriculture. It is plain and simple. They do not believe in it; that is why they have taken no concrete action since coming to power.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

No, that is not true. Do not forget that, in agriculture, producers always have to reinvest in their businesses.

Let me provide some background information about the agricultural industry. Under the Liberal government, Canada has become the second industrialized country in terms of cuts to farm assistance, after New Zealand. Liberals have been in office since 1993.

While the Prime Minister was finance minister, assistance to producers was cut by 36%—listen carefully here—, dropping from $6.1 billion to $3.9 billion. With inflation taken into account, assistance was cut by half. That includes assistance not only to Quebec producers, but also to producers in Alberta and throughout Canada. Assistance to milk producers, totalling $120 million a year, was completely slashed by the government.

The Bloc Quebecois is only asking the government to invest in agriculture with full respect for jurisdictions and Quebec programs up until prices for agricultural products are back to a level where producers can earn a decent living. All we want is for producers to be able to earn a decent living.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, the hon. member should have listened to what was said here tonight.

We have said that Quebec accounts for 50% of all milk production in Canada, which means that cull cattle can be found in our province, not in Alberta. I do not have anything against the programs implemented in Alberta, but I want Quebec to have its fair share. That is all we are asking for. Instead of 4%, we want 12%.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank warmly all the voters in the riding of Montcalm who, in the June 28 election, re-elected me with the largest majority in Quebec. My thanks also to all the volunteers who made it possible for 71.2% of voters to vote for me. Thanks again.

Let us come back to tonight's debate. Agriculture is getting a rough ride from Ottawa. Few countries have let their farming sector down as badly as Canada has while the Prime Minister was the finance minister. Today, farm producers have less support than ever, even though they are in the middle of a crisis caused by the slump in prices and the mad cow crisis.

When Ottawa steps in, it is to implement national measures that do not meet the needs of producers in Quebec. The farming sector in Quebec is different from the farming sector in Canada. They are not structured the same way and do not have the same needs.

Quebec was affected in two ways by this crisis that should not have affected it at all.The discovery of a case of mad cow disease in Alberta in May 2003 and the American embargo that followed have resulted in a deep slump for Quebec's cattle industry. If Quebec were sovereign and had control over its borders and health policies, it would not be subject to the American embargo.

The situation is particularly frustrating for Quebec producers who have long been subjected to stricter rules than the Canadian ones, in order to ensure herd safety and irreproachable product quality.

We have been hearing about nothing but asymmetry for the past month. Ottawa, which claims to be open to special agreements with Quebec, ought to waste no time holding discussions with the Quebec authorities in order to decentralize the entire food inspection system and divide Canada into several different health regions. Regionalization of health practices would allow Quebec producers to be spared such a crisis in future and will allow Quebec to showcase its excellent practices.

Here is one conclusive example of the superiority of Quebec's system: cattle tagging. Implanting cattle with tags for tracing purposes was implemented in Canada and in Quebec at the same time. Quebec producers had until June 2002 to tag their cattle. The main differences between Canada and Quebec are as follows. Quebec has a centralized data base. In Canada, the tag distributors keep a record of the numbers assigned to each producer and they submit this information to the data base of the Canada Food Inspection Agency's national cattle identification program.

In Quebec the information is gathered every time the animal makes a move: birth, death, attendance at an agricultural fair, sale to a breeder and so on. In Canada, only birth and death information are gathered, nothing in between.

We can continue. There is the example of the American chicken with Newcastle disease. The territorial approach is good for everyone but Quebec? And yet, Canada itself used this approach less than a year ago.

Newcastle disease is a contagious and deadly viral disease affecting all species of birds, but more specifically poultry flocks. It is probably one of the most infectious diseases affecting poultry in the world. It can decimate an unvaccinated flock. Various American states were affected.

What did the CFIA do? In April 2003, it imposed restrictions on import and entrance into the country, but only the three states affected: California, Nevada and Arizona.

There is as well the case of PEI potatoes of October 31, 2000. The US agriculture secretary banned all imports of potatoes from Prince Edward Island because of potato scab. PEI alone was affected by the crisis.

Ottawa must quickly initiate discussions with Quebec and the other provinces in order to decentralize the food inspection system. If a regional approach to health practices had been in place last year, Quebec producers would have been spared the crisis.

The mad cow problem should have been regionalized and not spread across Canada for no reason. When the problem appeared in France, for example, Italy did not panic. The Italians, however, are much closer geographically to the French than Albertans are to Quebeckers.

Why make Quebec pay for a situation that, at first glance, does not concern it? When a single case of BSE was diagnosed in Canada, all the provinces were affected by the ban placed by our foreign partners. The American ban on all ruminants hit particularly hard, because the States is our only principal purchaser.

The Bloc Quebecois notes that, had Quebec been sovereign and controlled its own borders and health policies, it would not have been hit by the American ban.

The president of the UPA, Laurent Pellerin, came to the same conclusion during a press conference held on May 21, 2003, when he said:

If we were separate provinces each with its own distinct inspection system and if we had a more regional approach to product marketing systems, only one province would have to deal with this problem.

The current situation is especially frustrating for Quebec producers who, for a long time, have had a series of restrictions for the very purpose of ensuring the health of their livestock and the quality of their products.

Quebec has not imported any product from countries considered at risk for BSE contamination for years now. Moreover, BSE detection procedures were implemented and there has been mandatory reporting of the disease since 1990. Since 1993, well before the 1997 federal ban, Quebec cattle producers have been prohibited from using animal meal to feed their livestock.

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 mad cow disease crisis encompasses all these problems. It reflects the drop in income for farmers, the impact of a globalization movement that creates instability, the need for national rules that would promote the harmonious management of agricultural markets and, finally, the gap between the strict demands imposed on Quebec producers regarding traceability and the less stringent ones imposed on foreign competitors.

This crisis particularly affects all the producers in Quebec. What the cattle breeding and cull industry wants the most is the implementation of a minimum price. The assistance programs are not adapted to the reality in Quebec. The federal government implemented programs to help producers survive the crisis. Producers who raise cattle for meat are concentrated in Alberta and receive compensation for all the animals they slaughter. In Quebec, most cattle producers are dairy producers who slaughter cows that do not produce enough milk. Those cows are called cull. Every year, producers renew 25% of their herd. Unfortunately, the federal program compensates them for only 16% of their herd. While the price of their cows has dropped by 70%, they receive compensation for only two-thirds of the cows they sell. The federal government has to improve its program for cull as soon as possible.

This morning, producers from Saguenay and Lac-Saint-Jean handed over two cows to the SPCA. This week, six Abitibi producers handed over their keys to their financial institutions. A month ago, another producer from the Beauce region sold everything at half price.

In the Speech from the Throne, there is only wishful thinking. What is needed is a slaughterhouse in Quebec to respond to the needs of producers, because stocks will be huge on December 31, 2004. This is no longer a scientific problem, it is a political one. We must ensure the opening of the American and foreign markets, that is Japan and South Korea. At the same time, we must think about softwood lumber and get the American border opened.

The government needs to make a commitment toward agricultural sectors. Agriculture contributes undeniably to the vitality of rural regions, both in Quebec and in other Canadian provinces. 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.

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.

[Agriculture, May 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Food Inspection Agency recently decided to reinstate a rule on transporting compromised animals and did not bother to notify hog producers about it. As a result, a number of them were heavily fined and feel they were caught in a trap.

What measures does the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food intend to take to bring the Food Inspection Agency to order and make it stop this abusive and prejudicial treatment of farmers in my region?

[Income Tax Act, May 4th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-303, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (travel expenses for a motor vehicle used by a forestry worker).

The summary of the bill says:

This enactment amends the Income Tax Act. It provides that a forestry worker may, under certain conditions, deduct motor vehicle travel expenses from income where the taxpayer was required under a contract of employment to use the motor vehicle to travel to and from the taxpayer’s ordinary place of residence and the taxpayer’s workplace or the employer’s place of business.

The enactment also provides that a forestry worker may, under certain conditions, deduct from income

(a) the interest paid on borrowed money used to acquire the motor vehicle; and

(b) such part of the capital cost of the motor vehicle used by the taxpayer as is allowed by regulation.

I am very pleased to be able to take part in the debate on this bill in the House. It is the third time that my colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques brings this issue back. I would like to explain again, for the benefit of members, the reality that is experienced by some forestry workers in Quebec and Canada.

Here is a concrete example from my region. In my riding, some people have to go to work for a week at a time at the other end of the province. I live in the Berthier—Montcalm riding, and people there go to work in the forestry industry in Abitibi, on the North Shore, or elsewhere. Their vehicle is essential to their job. They use it to travel to the area concerned and for their work once they get there.

We have realized that, in the present situation, with no income tax deduction for these workers, there is no incentive to go to work. In the current context, with the lumber crisis and enormous pressure to drive down the cost of labour, a worker does not have much left at the end of the year.

The situation is the same for everybody, for those who work in the forest and for those who work in plants. All those involved in the forestry industry in Quebec and Canada are having a hard time, particularly with the softwood lumber crisis. There is less and less money to support families.

In 2000, my colleague wrote to the then finance minister, who is now the Prime Minister, to ask him to consider the possibility of restoring tax fairness for those people. I met with people from my riding, but I realized that similar situations existed throughout Quebec, particularly in the forestry regions.

There are people in these regions who work in forest management territories. These territories have shrunk because there is less cutting going on. This forces workers to travel further to find work. In so doing, they have to assume heavy costs that are not tax deductible.

In February 2000, my colleague wrote the Minister of Finance, who is now the Prime Minister. This is what he said in his response:

What constitutes a reasonable level of expenses for motor vehicles is a complex issue that requires a thorough study. The review of this issue and of other components of the tax system concerning motor vehicles is still going on. We will inform you of the results as soon as it is completed.

This letter was dated June 2, 2000. At the time, he expected a response in the subsequent months and that the situation could be corrected in the next budget if the government decided to follow up on his request. Moreover, the bill that was introduced at the time would have improved matters. The member had hoped the government would support it in order to help forestry workers.

Unfortunately, the then finance minister, the new Prime Minister, never deigned to follow up on the response he had given before. When the minister said, “We will inform you of the result as soon as it is completed”, my colleague expected to receive information, but it never came. We never received it. We had to do additional research.

The Income Tax Act is very clear:

At any time, the distance admissible as a business expense is the distance between the employers' office and the forest camp office and the cutting site, provided the forestry worker received instructions at the office of the camp. At no time is the distance from the worker's home to the stump admissible.

So, people are put in the position of having to use a motor vehicle, something essential to their work and required of them by their employer. They have to use it to get to their job, which is often hundreds of kilometres away, but get no tax deduction for this. The cost of this vehicle, one that is often hard on gas, is quite high because a person needs a powerful vehicle for that kind of terrain. You know how expensive gasoline is these days.

All the expenses to get to the work site weekly, once calculated from the mathematical and economic point of view, may convince them that it is not worth going to the job. So, society ends up with people on its hand who would rather be working but are instead remaining unemployed and sometimes end up on welfare because they are in an area where there are no jobs or opportunities to make use of their skills.

For that reason, I hope that Bill C-303 which we are discussing today will gain the support of most of the members of this House. The other times it has been debated here, some were in favour and some were not. Unfortunately, we did not have the outcome of the studies undertaken by the Department of Finance available to us then.

Today, with the budget just behind us, we know that forestry workers earn their living by the sweat of their brows. Yet they see the federal government once again with an $8 billion surplus. Next year, it may be as high as $10 or $11 billion. These workers have to cope with a very restrictive employment insurance program, and are often unable to get enough weeks of benefits on top of the weeks they have worked to secure an income all year. Once again, we have been waiting for this bill since 2001.

In the cases that I am talking about, forestry workers who often work away from home find that it is unacceptable that a government that has such a huge surplus does not encourage them to work when they want to do their job and, indeed, this job must be done. There may be a manpower shortage. This is absurd. There are people who would be available to do this work, but they cannot, because the financial bottom line will be negative at the end of the year if they have to go to work and pay for all the costs.

It is this situation that the current bill is designed to correct. I hope that it will be passed and that the tax laws will be changed accordingly. There must also be a different interpretation of the regulations, so that workers who want to work, who want to make a living and who are forced to travel long distances do not have to assume a portion of the cost, which is unacceptable.

In conclusion, I would like to say that I expect members of this House to be particularly sensitive in these times where, because of the softwood lumber crisis, people are going through very tough situations. The financial survival of families is on the line. Often, this situation, this imbalance, this lack of acknowledgment of the tax expense means the difference between maintaining the independent small business, self-employment and quitting the job.

This is why I would like forestry workers to get the acknowledgment they deserve. I would also like them to be given the satisfaction of being able to work, of bringing an income home and of supporting their family. They have developed skills in this sector, and employers are waiting for them to do the work that must be done.

I cannot conceive that members of this House could deny a tax credit to workers using their own vehicle as a tool. I would hope that, at a time when these workers are going through such a serious crisis, we can show some sensitivity. It would be a good opportunity for all the members in this House to support the forest industry by approving the tax credit requested. It could come from this year's surplus.

[Agriculture, April 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to softwood lumber and the missile defence shield, there is another matter that deserves special attention: mad cow.

During his upcoming visit to Washington, will the Prime Minister spread the word that there was only one case of mad cow in Canada and that the Americans can open their borders not only to young animals but also to animals over 30 months of age? This affects cull cattle producers, most of whom are in Quebec.

[The Budget, March 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I read in the paper that a UFO was sighted by the Prime Minister. I just wanted to point out to my colleague that I am not the one living on another planet.

My question is for the hon. member for Ottawa West—Nepean. She said that, since 2000, one million Canadians have been removed from the tax roll. Why is that? Is it because the EI plan does not allow them to accumulate enough insurable weeks of work? We should not forget that we are now paying down the debt with the EI fund surplus.

I would like to know what is in the 2004-05 budget tabled on March 23 for seasonal workers, and what the governing party is doing for them. What is in that budget for all these men and women in Quebec and Canada? What is in there for seasonal workers?

[The Budget, March 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight. One of my Liberal colleagues said earlier that I was living on another planet, but I read in the Journal de Montréal this morning that Prime Minister Martin had seen a UFO.

[The Budget, March 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why my colleague, when he talks about paying down the debt, does not say a word about tax havens. Apparently, the Prime Minister has a few for his former companies, and I think there should be fewer tax havens. Would it not be faster for the debt to be paid down by all those who benefit from tax havens? Last year alone, I think about $20 billion went into them.

I would like to have the hon. member's comments on this. I would like to know whether we would pay down the debt more quickly if all those who benefit from tax havens paid their fair share.