André Bellavance

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, June 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, while the government is proceeding with consultations on the next agricultural policy framework, criticism is already being levelled at its programs. The AgriStability program put in place by the Conservatives is a carbon copy of the former income stabilization program. According to the UPA, the AgriStability program is a failure because it does not take production costs into account.

Will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food correct this situation and ensure that AgriStability truly supports income?

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, June 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech and for pointing out the complacency and, even worse, the fact that the Liberals are again sitting on their hands when it comes to this budget. What is even more pernicious, in addition to the fact that they are keeping the Conservatives in power, is that it allows the Conservatives to add all the elements mentioned by the member because they know that the Liberals will let the budget pass. The bill will, among other things, deregulate the postal service and confirm the pillage of the employment insurance fund. These are elements that should not be in a budget, which has become an omnibus budget bill, as previously stated by my colleague from Hochelaga, our finance critic.

As my colleague asked, why do the Liberals not realize this? Yesterday, they could have voted for the amendments to withdraw these pernicious elements from Bill C-9. They at least would have taken a stand. They have again shown that they are incapable of doing so.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, June 8th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Hochelaga what he thinks about the Conservatives’ attitude during questions and comments. They make speeches about Bill C-9 and then they plant questions every day in question period. The government boasts about Canada’s economic situation and compares itself to the Greeks or other governments, as if it were responsible for the relatively calm conditions here.

This is the same government, though, that in the 2008 election denied an economic crisis was imminent. Now we hear Conservatives all over the place saying we managed to survive the economic crisis thanks to all they did.

Can the hon. member tell me what they are talking about? Is it the measures to help tourism in Huntsville and Toronto by building an artificial lake and so forth to attract tourists from who knows where? What measures can the government claim to have taken, other than the $10 billion to help Ontario’s automobile industry, so that Canada would survive the crisis better than most others?

My colleague is an experienced economist. Can he tell me whether this is a result of government action or rather of the global economic situation?

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I would like the minister to respond to this question more specifically because we cannot leave things as they are. Some countries have already banned chrysotile. Several groups in Canada are against chrysotile, and it is becoming increasingly difficult for that industry to show its worth and demonstrate that chrysotile can be used safely.

Is it not time to be more proactive and demand greater accountability from the users and importers of chrysotile? Expanding the Chrysotile Institute's mandate could prove that stakeholders in this industry recognize the importance of using chrysotile safely and that they are taking concrete action abroad to ensure that it is being used safely. This could go as far as being presented as an additional service provided by Canadian exporters at the time of sale.

In the course of negotiations with countries that are often developing countries, we could even provide added value by offering to go to those countries to train the workers in order to ensure that chrysotile is being used safely. It is not enough to say that chrysotile can be used safely; it must actually be used safely, both for the workers in this industry and for the people who will have it.

Is the minister prepared to consider any investments in that regard?

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2010]

Mr. Chair, earlier I was talking about how bad reputations, unfortunately, are often caused by the hon. members of this House. The minister mentioned that we used chrysotile in the past as well, just as we used other natural resources without knowing their inherent danger to human health or the environment. This has also created a certain reputation. Nonetheless, we have corrected that situation.

The minister talked about the Chrysotile Institute. I have talked to many stakeholders from the Chrysotile Institute and to restore this reputation, many of them have formed a coalition quite recently. The chambers of commerce—in the minister's region and in my region—and the three main unions in Quebec have also joined this coalition for the safe use of chrysotile. That was how the idea for rebuilding the reputation of chrysotile in the world got started. We must push the spirit of the existing memorandum of understanding on the safe use of chrysotile further. This could eliminate any doubt on its safe use in the export markets.

My suggestion to the minister—and I would like him to comment on this—would be to broaden the Chrysotile Institute's mandate to include more concrete action abroad. Many people say that countries that buy and import chrysotile should be responsible for the safety of their workers. Some developing countries have ultramodern plants. That is the case in India, where Mr. Coulombe, president of the Jeffrey mine, visited a number of factories. However, it is not the case in other countries. Workers are still at risk, and that has to change.

I believe that the Chrysotile Institute could ensure that teams of experts are set up on the ground over there, without doing this itself, to supervise the production of materials using chrysotile at the importer's site.

I wonder if the minister is open to this possibility. It would require sufficient funding, of course, from Chrysotile Institute backers, the federal government, the industry itself and the Government of Quebec, which could all increase their contributions to the Chrysotile Institute to help fund its new mandate to go train experts on site, thereby ensuring more supervision and restoring chrysotile's reputation.

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2010]

Mr. Chair, since we are talking about the estimates this evening, I have a few suggestions of investments for the minister.

First, I would like to address some comments that were made by the NDP member, the party's natural resources critic, regarding chrysotile. It is always the same old thing when the NDP talks about this issue. I just want to mention to the House that when attacks are made against us, as politicians, they do not affect only us. The minister and I are the only members who have chrysotile mines in our ridings. This affects all of the workers there and our constituents to the point where things can sometimes get completely crazy.

For example, there are exchanges between teachers from France and Quebec. The Government of France barred a teacher from taking part in an exchange with a teacher from Thetford Mines because there is a chrysotile mine there. There has been asbestos in that municipality forever. I remember speaking to the French ambassador regarding this issue. Things have gotten to that point. We are shooting ourselves in the foot. Earlier, we heard comments, though fortunately they were brief, regarding this issue.

I want to share some interesting points with my colleagues. In March, the Geological Society of America held its annual meeting in Baltimore. After the meeting, there was a debate in a workshop on asbestos. There were health scientists present, but also scientists who specialized in mineralogy. One of these experts, André Lalonde, a mineralogist and dean of the Faculty of Science at the University of Ottawa, came from the region. He said the following in response to the debate: “Historically, doctors have misunderstood asbestos. We cannot blame them, since they did not study mineralogy...[however,] all of these minerals have different chemical formulae and crystalline structures...and the proof that [the misunderstanding] is still present today is that people still talk about asbestos instead of talking about amphibole or chrysotile”, which are different fibres. I am not an expert, but that is what an expert had to say about this topic.

Mr. Lalonde tells us that amphibole is a highly carcinogenic type of asbestos, but a number of studies have proven that chrysotile, the type of asbestos used in Quebec, is not. I say that in response to what we heard earlier and what we hear quite regularly, from the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre in particular.

A recent CBC report—which is odd, because there have been all sorts of other reports—talked about chrysotile. It said that the U.S. Department of Health had a list of dangerous products showing that chrysotile ranked 119th out of a total of 275. Nickel, which we find a lot of in Canada, in Ontario in particular, ranked 53rd on the list of most dangerous products. Lead, which Canada also exports, is second on the list. On a list of dangerous products, we can add lead and nickel. Aluminum, phosphate and oil are also on the list, as is mercury.

I wonder whether the NDP will one day want to eliminate the development of those natural resources as well. Obviously, they are not here to answer that.

I would like the minister to say a few words about that and then I will continue speaking.

[Agriculture, May 31st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the National Bank of Canada may not renew financing for Levinoff-Colbex tomorrow because details of the federal plan to help modernize slaughterhouse facilities, and especially to manage specified risk materials, are not known. Because of SRM regulations imposed by the Conservative government, the slaughterhouse has lost $4 million per year since 2007.

Will the minister finally inform beef producers of the program eligibility criteria and the amount of financial assistance, and tell us what form this assistance will take, if it ever arrives?

[“MP for a Day” Competition, May 31st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to welcome Frédéric Michel, a student from the Cégep de Victoriaville, who won the 2010 “MP for a Day” competition.

This competition is part of a course that studies political life and systems. Its main goal is to interest youth in politics and allow them to learn more about public life.

This year, students had to write about the challenges related to agricultural policy. This gave them the opportunity to explore many of the issues faced by the agricultural sector.

I would like to thank Jean-François Léonard, the political science and geography teacher, with whom I organized the competition. I would also like to thank the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste du Centre-du-Québec, the Sévégny-Baril duo from La Capitale as well as the UPA Centre-du-Quebec for their contributions to the scholarships awarded to Frédéric and the students who came in second and third, Maxime Labrie and Sarah L. Desrochers.

[The Economy, May 31st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion moved by the member for Calgary Centre regarding competitiveness. We did exactly the same thing all members will have done before commenting on this issue: we weighed the pros and cons. Unfortunately for the member who moved motion M-518, there are considerably more cons than pros, and the Bloc will therefore be voting against this motion.

There are two parts to this motion. We have no problem with the first part, which talks about recognizing “that improved competitiveness will continue to stimulate economic growth and create jobs for Canadians”. No one can be against that. The part we have a hard time with is the part that talks about continuing “to diversify and expand markets for Canadian goods and services by encouraging investment in Canada through lower corporate tax rates...”. This is wishful thinking on the part of the Conservatives.

We are not against tax cuts for certain companies, but businesses in the forestry sector, for example, are not even earning a profit. Even though they are being told that the government will lower their taxes to help them be more competitive, they are already not paying any taxes, since they are not earning any money. For many businesses, this solution is completely ridiculous under the circumstances.

In his motion, the member also suggests maintaining a stable economy and signing free trade agreements. The Bloc Québécois has made its position on bilateral agreements clear: we do not support them. We support multilateral agreements and we think that the Conservative government should focus on that rather than on signing agreements like the one with Colombia, a country that does not respect workers' rights, the right to freedom of expression or the environment. That is the kind of agreement this government wants to sign, but we think it is a bad idea.

Everyone knows that the economic future of Quebec and Canada depends on making our industries more competitive. The Conservative government's strategy, which focuses almost exclusively on corporate tax cuts and signing more bilateral free trade agreements, is not the right one.

Many sectors are going through such a difficult financial period that tax cuts are of absolutely no use in helping them develop new business plans. At the beginning of my remarks, I mentioned forestry companies. In Quebec, these companies are in dire need of access to cash so they can refinance, invest in modernizing their production equipment and start making money again. Once again, companies that do not make a profit do not pay taxes.

To deal with future economic challenges and compete with foreign companies that often benefit from significant advantages with respect to the cost of labour and weak environmental regulations, we have to focus on cutting-edge economic sectors, such as aerospace, green energy and high value-added products.

To support the development of these sectors and make the economies of Quebec and Canada more competitive, we recommend major investment in research and development and adequate financial assistance for industry stakeholders to help them modernize their facilities and develop new products. Unfortunately, none of that appears in the motion from the member for Calgary Centre.

We also recognize the key role that small and medium-sized businesses play in Quebec's economic development. I come from a region, a city, where there has been a proliferation of small and medium-sized businesses over the years. We have done relatively well, touch wood. These small and medium-sized businesses have given us the economic diversity needed to weather economic crises. However, this does not mean that we can sit on our laurels. We believe it is imperative that the federal government invest enough money to promote development and innovation when it comes to small and medium-sized businesses.

We do not agree with the increasing number of bilateral trade agreements. We believe that the government should instead be making an effort to restart multilateral negotiations, which are really the only way to encourage truly fair globalization.

The Bloc Québécois calls this globalization with a human face. It respects workers' rights, environmental rights and the general public, which is so often affected by development. In some countries we could even talk about reckless development, which requires limits to be set before a free trade agreement can be signed. Then they will realize that we will not accept things being done any way they please.

If we dissect the member's motion, we see those infamous tax cuts. Lower corporate taxes make sense when the economy is strong and exporters are looking for a comparative advantage. But they are practically useless during a crisis, and economists agree on that.

While it gave no less than $10 billion to save Ontario's automotive industry, the Conservative government is promising a mere $100 million over four years in its 2010 budget to help the forestry industry get through the worst crisis in its history. I will not dwell on the inequity created by the last budget, which was supported by the Conservative members from Quebec. Many of them come from forestry regions and yet they accepted the last budget's serious bias in favour of the automotive industry over forestry.

This funding for the forestry industry, which is going through a cash crisis, is not nearly enough to allow it to invest in the tools and production equipment needed to boost its productivity and competitiveness and make it profitable again. The Conservatives think that this industry should be happy to pay less tax. For the third time: if a business is not making a profit, it is not paying taxes either. This is not good news. It is not news at all. It is not a solution for the forestry industry. It is utterly ridiculous.

What is more, the money the Conservatives are investing in innovation in SMEs is totally ridiculous. The March 2010 budget allocates a measly $40 million over two years to just 20 projects across Canada. Needless to say that this is nothing but smoke and mirrors. These measures will simply not cut it when the time comes to modernize SMEs to make them more competitive.

As far as investment in research and development is concerned, after ending Technology Partnerships Canada, the main federal support program for research and development, on December 31, 2006, the Conservatives only partially reinstated it in May 2007. They simply changed the name to the strategic aerospace and defence initiative.

This new program is less generous than the previous one and is geared only to aerospace and the defence industry. As for other leading-edge sectors, such as pharmaceuticals, production technologies, environmental technologies or new materials, there is nothing left for them in this program. We were led to believe that the government was reinstating a program to help during the economic crisis, but in fact, it made cuts to some of the technologies that could have benefited from this type of research and development program.

In his motion, the hon. member could very well have called for reinvestment in research and development, but he did not. In other words, in the government's economic policies on the crisis, it made Quebec pay the price.

Given the nature of Quebec's industrial base, it is Quebec that is suffering the most from the Conservative's laissez-faire attitude.

In order to get the Bloc Québécois' support, the hon. member should have thought about adding policies to help not just the forestry industry, as I was just mentioning, but also SMEs and manufacturing industries, which were completely left out of the last budget. Such a motion could have paved the way to improving this situation.

That is not the case, and the Bloc Québécois is therefore opposed to Motion M-518.

[An Action Plan for the National Capital Commission, May 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Shefford. It is a concern that all members should have. Once again, we have shown that we alone defend the interests of Quebec.

We have been debating this issue for a long time, particularly today. I would remind my colleague that, in 2006, the Bloc Québécois presented a paper on the integrity of Quebec's territory. Based on the fact that the current government has promised to respect Quebec's jurisdictions, we expect all activities of the National Capital Commission concerning Quebec to be subject to the approval of the Government of Quebec. That is not the case.

Although the federal government and the National Capital Commission consider the Outaouais and the Ontario side as a single entity, we consider Gatineau and Ottawa to have their own identity. The residents of the Outaouais region living within Quebec's territory will say the same thing. Gatineau Park must be considered part of Quebec's territory and the Government of Quebec must control this territory.

Our own interests are not being looked after. The National Capital Commission must recognize that, on the Quebec side, the Government of Quebec and the City of Gatineau are better positioned to meet the needs of their citizens.