André Bellavance

[Canadian Agricultural Loans Act, May 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the Bloc Québécois plans to support this bill.

However, following the parliamentary secretary's speech, a few questions came to mind, especially when he said that young farmers all across Canada were consulted. He even referred to a young farmers' organization that fully supported this bill. I would remind the House that consultations did take place here and there across Canada. Consultations were held in Longueuil, Quebec, over the holidays from July 18 to August 11, 2006. I would like some clarification, however, from the parliamentary secretary. I looked carefully through the department's documents—and I have the consultation paper here—but I do not see the Fédération de la relève agricole du Québec anywhere among those invited to the consultation in Longueuil. If it was invited, it did not attend. One thing is certain: I spoke to the president of that federation last week, and he said he was not consulted. He even issued a press release on the matter, saying that the bill looked promising, but he would have liked to have been consulted.

How is it that this government can pride itself on doing a lot of consultation? If they did the same thing as with the “Product of Canada” label, the consultation was completely inconclusive. In fact, neither the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec, nor the Coopérative fédérée, nor the Fédération de la relève agricole du Québec were included in that consultation in Longueuil. I would like the parliamentary secretary to give us some details about that so-called consultation. It appears that some people were missing.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, May 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it would be great if the real Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food could come out of his shell and meet with poultry producers on the ground. They will tell him that his measure is out in left field and that this rule does not make any sense.

The Minister of State for Agriculture told producers, and I quote: “We will review any wording you are not happy with.” He said that. Yet in this House, he says—and he said it again just moments ago—that the government is going ahead with this.

Who will have the courage to admit that this new rule is a mistake and must be changed? Who?

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, May 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, following on the heels of vegetable producers and food processors, poultry producers in Quebec have expressed their concerns about the “Product of Canada” label. Because of a trade agreement with the United States, Canada has to import 3% of its chicks. The new rule prevents poultry producers from marking their products with “Product of Canada” because of this 3% that is imported, which violates the 98% Canadian content rule.

Will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food stop being so stubborn and review this ridiculous rule?

[Agri-food Industry, April 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Jonquière—Alma has forcefully defended the new regulations concerning the “Product of Canada” label at the expense of his own region and its agri-food industry. For instance, the chocolate made by the Trappist monks in Mistassini, produced in Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, can no longer be considered to be a product of Canada, because the cocoa beans and sugar it contains are imported.

Does the minister realize that his decision hurts the agri-food industry and that his stubbornness will cause irreparable harm to many producers, including those in his own riding? He should stop telling us he might make changes. He should either make them or let the real minister do it.

[Business of Supply, April 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan.

For the past few years, he has been the deputy finance critic for the Bloc Québécois. He is also our revenue critic. Therefore, he knows first-hand that the Quebec government—and even the National Assembly as a whole—regularly adopts motions, including as regards this issue. It is very obvious that, in Quebec, there is a will to harmonize the GST.

However, there are also other issues—and that is why I referred to my colleague's responsibilities within the Bloc Québécois—concerning which the federal government, whether Liberal or Conservative, is simply thumbing its nose at Quebec by refusing to give our province what is owed to it. It is our tax money that is in Ottawa's coffers, but it is always extremely complicated to get our due, particularly when it comes to the equalization program. There is still some money that has yet to be paid for the ice storm.

I wonder if my colleague could tell us about other instances where the Conservative government, and even the previous Liberal government, did not respect the rights of Quebec.

[Organic Products, April 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to organic products, Quebec has put in place an organization and regulations to ensure the authenticity of products and guarantee that consumers can have full confidence in them. The federal government is about to adopt regulations that will compromise the credibility of organic products by allowing foreign countries to certify their own products, which will be sold with the same logo as those certified in Canada.

Will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food immediately correct this absurd situation or will he dig in his heels as he did with “made in Canada” labelling?

[Emmanuelle Ouellet, April 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to welcome to the Hill today Emmanuelle Ouellet, the winner of the third MP for a day competition at the Cégep de Victoriaville. As part of their course on political life and regimes, participants had to write an essay on the issues involved in the recent political crisis in Ottawa. By so doing, they were able to explore all the facets of the issues, and they were required to use some creativity to present realistic solutions.

This non-partisan competition seeks to foster an interest in politics and helps to raise awareness among young people about the realities of life as a parliamentarian, as well as to showcase the work politicians do and politics in general, always, of course, with a critical eye.

I would like to thank Mr. Jean-François Léonard, a political science and geography teacher at the Cégep de Victoriaville, with whom I set up the competition. My thanks also go to the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste du Centre-du-Québec and La Capitale Centre-du-Québec for their contributions to the $500 scholarship awarded to Emmanuelle, a young woman with a promising future.

[Agri-food Industry, April 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State (Agriculture) says the government consulted stakeholders in the agri-food industry before setting the 98% threshold for use of the “Product of Canada” label. Given the outcry from producers, processors and consumers, we might well ask who agreed to such an illogical decision.

Rather than stubbornly holding to a measure that has been criticized from all sides, why does the minister not follow Quebec’s example and adopt a more realistic threshold? In other words, does the minister realize that his rule makes no sense and that there is still time to change it?

[Agri-food Industry, April 22nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are determined to move ahead with the unrealistic limit of 98% in order for a product to be labelled “Product of Canada”, despite the concerns of the agri-food industry, which fears that this rule will have irreversible repercussions, particularly loss of market share. The Minister of State (Agriculture) says he has held consultations, but no one agrees with this rule, not the producers, not the consumers, not the processors. In my opinion, consultations were limited to his caucus.

Does the Minister of State (Agriculture) realize that his decision is doing considerable harm to the entire agri-food industry in Quebec?

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, April 20th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, more than a month ago, I asked the Minister of State for Agriculture about the $50 million in the budget for slaughterhouses. I spoke about the Levinoff-Colbex slaughterhouse, in which cattle producers in Quebec have reinjected $30 million. But producers are still waiting for the Conservatives to make good on their election promise to help them in their project. The minister told me not to lose faith. I am trying not to, but producers want to know what criteria apply to this program.

Does the minister finally have details to announce to producers about the program that will allow Levinoff-Colbex to get its share of funding?