André Bellavance

[Disposition of Abolition of Early Parole Act, February 14th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal member who just spoke always defends his opinions very fervently. He is often very convincing but, this time, he has convinced me of the Liberal Party's inconsistency on this issue.

In September 2009, the Bloc Québécois introduced Bill C-434 on the abolition of automatic parole after one-sixth of a sentence is served. We asked for the unanimous consent of the House. The Liberals and the NDP supported us but the Conservatives did not. We reiterated this request on March 4, 2010. Once again, the Liberals and the NDP supported our request but the Conservatives did not.

Now, just when we have managed to convince the Conservatives, all of a sudden, the other two parties have done an about-face for all sorts of reasons. The hon. member has presented arguments. He said that it will cost a lot of money to keep certain people in prison. Why were these arguments not discussed in the House when we asked for unanimous consent and obtained their support?

Everyone agrees that we must abolish automatic parole after one-sixth of a sentence is served; however, for reasons I do not understand, things have changed. I would like the hon. member to explain to me why, all of a sudden, they no longer agree with this.

[Petitions, February 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be presenting a petition asking the government to give the Société d'habitation du Québec the necessary public funds to complete its low-income-housing renovation plan. A number of municipalities have also shared their concerns with me about the 30% budget cut imposed by CMHC.

I would like to thank Jacqueline Boisvert, who circulated this important petition in my riding.

[Disposition of Abolition of Early Parole Act, February 14th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I will certainly ask the minister a question, but I have something to say about the fact that we have always had unanimity in this House regarding the abolition of this measure, just not all at the same time. That is what is rather distressing in this case, especially since I just heard my Liberal colleague say that his party had already called for the abolition of automatic parole after one-sixth of the sentence has been served, and all of a sudden they are asking why. Now is the time to take action.

In 2007, the Bloc Québécois proposed a justice plan—we were already talking about it. We believe that even though these crimes are considered non-violent, they are extremely violent. Families have been completely destroyed by fraudsters, by white collar criminals. There are people who were involved in the sponsorship scandal and who got out of prison very quickly, so the justice system also got a bad reputation because of this automatic parole.

Action has been needed for a long time. When we introduced a bill for the first time, the Conservatives refused to have it fast-tracked. Now that we agree, the Liberals and the NDP are refusing to fast-track the legislation, even though they had already agreed to do it before.

There is a problem, and I would like to ask the minister whether now is the time to leave partisan politics aside. At some point we have all agreed that this measure should be abolished, so we should ensure that this happens to help restore public faith in the justice system.

[Economic Negotiations with the European Union, December 14th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, my colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain raised a very important point when he said that in its negotiations, the Canadian government should listen to what the provinces and municipalities are calling for. I will quote a statement made by the Minister of International Trade that was published in the Canadian Press on August 20 and that my colleague knows well since he is the international trade critic. It is recent; we were starting to talk about negotiations. He had a rather haughty and dismissive attitude towards the provinces and Quebec.

With each round, the situation is different. Sometimes one province drags its feet and another is very ambitious, and vice versa. There is no sustained level of participation from the provinces, but there could be an improvement in some respects.

Regarding Quebec he said:

It is not so much a matter of blocking significant issues as it is a matter of tone and lack of ambition.

Not the greatest thing to hear from the Minister of International Trade. We are happy that Quebec is participating in the negotiations, but we know that Quebec often ends up out in the hall and not at the negotiating or decision-making table. For the good of the people of Quebec, I wonder if the member thinks it would not be better for Quebec to be there as a country, as a negotiator, so that it can defend its own interests instead of hearing the minister say such things about Quebec.

[Economic Negotiations with the European Union, December 14th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, the hon. member for Malpeque is quite right. The agricultural sector and farmers under supply management get very worried every time there is a trade agreement. It is even worse when, for the first time, the government leaves supply management on the table. They certainly would not be so worried if it were not there. The hon. member for Malpeque and I are much better suited than the parliamentary secretary to say what farmers think because we meet them almost every day. We both sit on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food and are both the agriculture and agri-food critics of our respective parties.

The hon. member for Malpeque is quite right when he says this is not the first time that supply management has not been well protected internationally in the negotiation of agreements like this. It almost happened already. In July 2007, there were texts on the table; the hon. member gave some figures a little while ago. The proposal at the WTO reduced Canadian tariffs by at least 23% and increased imports of sensitive products by 4%.

After the failure, fortunately, of the texts presented in July 2007, the two Canadian ministers who were there, the Minister of Agriculture and the former Minister of International Trade, former Senator Fortier, said they were very disappointed. In the texts they were looking at, there were things that might have been good for Canadian trade in general but we know for sure would have been catastrophic for supply management. There are reasons, therefore, why we think that when supply management is on the table, danger looms.

I would like to hear what the hon. member for Malpeque has to say about this.

[Economic Negotiations with the European Union, December 14th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, the minister said nothing about supply management or agriculture. Supply managed farmers are very concerned and are wondering why Canada, for the first time in the history of international free trade agreement negotiations, has left supply management on the table.

I would like to quote Steve Verheul, Canada's chief negotiator:

It is up to the European Union to make proposals that may relate to products under supply management.

So it is appropriate to be concerned.

My question is for the minister. Why, for the first time ever, leave supply management on the table, especially when the negotiator for the European Union, Mr. Maurizio Cellini, says that the Europeans are interested in the cheese and poultry markets?

That obviously opens the door to negotiations that might spell an end to supply management. We have seen this attitude previously from the Minister of International Trade in relation to other free trade agreements, such as the transpacific alliance, which is getting increasing attention. The minister even said himself that he was prepared to negotiate supply management. In fact, La Presse Affaires published an article saying so on November 16.

I would like the minister to explain himself on this point since he said that he did not want to jeopardize supply management and is prepared to negotiate. I would especially like him to confirm, once and for all, that the Bloc Québécois's 2005 motion will be honoured and that there will be no increased market access or a drop in tariffs.

[Agriculture, December 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the last cattle slaughterhouse in Quebec, Levinoff-Colbex, is threatened with closure. Farm producers who injected $30 million have already done their part to save this business, which employs more than 300 people. Levinoff-Colbex got off to a rocky start after it was bought by producers, but anticipates that it will break even next year.

Will the Minister of State for Agriculture do his part and announce at least an extension of the program to support slaughterhouses in removing specified risk materials or SRMs?

[Farm Family of the Year, December 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, on December 2, the family of Robert Fortier and Marie-Paule Provencher from Saint-Pierre-Baptiste in the Érable region were named farm family of the year by the Fondation de la famille terrienne as part of the 86th UPA conference.

This award is given out each year to a family that, from generation to generation, has preserved and inspired values unique to farming in Quebec.

Robert Fortier and Marie-Paule Provencher have been married for 67 years and have 15 children, all of whom have helped with the work on the farm. The couple's sons started farms on neighbouring land and the seven family farms now cover 1,950 acres and have 9,700 maple taps, 360 beef cows, 121 dairy cows and some horses. Approximately 4,300 hogs are also raised each year. Working in a spirit of co-operation, the family members share the labour and machinery to ensure that their respective farms operate smoothly.

I would like to sincerely congratulate the family of Robert Fortier and Marie-Paule Provencher for their remarkable contribution to the development and sustainability of Quebec agriculture.

[Ensuring Safe Vehicles Imported from Mexico for Canadians Act, December 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member the same question that she asked me when I spoke about the bill. Why does she feel that it took the government so long to come up with legislation? The Conservative government is always in a rush. It pressures the opposition parties and even accuses them of not acting quickly enough when it comes to its bills. It bogs down some committees with bills, specifically justice bills. What does she think are the Conservative government's reasons for being so pushy?

[Ensuring Safe Vehicles Imported from Mexico for Canadians Act, December 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond very quickly. I completely agree with the hon. member. We must be more and more strict in terms of vehicle emissions. As I said in my speech, some provinces, such as Quebec, have been making an effort, but, unfortunately, they have only studied the situation. The legislation has not yet been implemented. We want to start looking seriously at emissions, especially for older vehicles, even if it means taking vehicles off the road if they do not meet the stricter standards. Automobile manufacturers are able to produce vehicles that pollute less, and they have demonstrated that over the years. There is no reason for them to be lax.