André Bellavance

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, February 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the amounts in the Conservative budget allocated to the slaughter industry seem to be for new projects only.

Does this mean that the government will give nothing to the Levinoff-Colbex slaughter house, to which producers have recently contributed $30 million in capital? Or can the minister tell us today that this slaughter house will also receive one dollar from the government for every dollar invested by agricultural producers?

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, if the government abandons the supply management system in the DOHA round negotiations, which have presently broken off but will undoubtedly resume at the WTO, all free trade agreements that we may enter into could become problematic at a given point. It is obvious that if the government does not stand up to the World Trade Organization with respect to bilateral agreements with certain countries—where there is talk of playing with tariffs on milk or other products—then, we will be finished. That is where we must wage the battle.

As I said earlier, how can we have confidence in this government when one minister after another said Canada would not be the only country not to sign an agreement at the WTO? Members can read the testimony of the ministers who told us that in committee. This means that regardless of what is in the agreement about agriculture, Canada will sign. Obviously, this government will then have the dubious distinction of having not only threatened the supply management system, but killed it.

I would remind this House that no less than 40% of Quebec's agricultural economy depends on supply management. Of course, in other provinces that also have the supply management system, such as Ontario, Manitoba and New Brunswick, producers are very concerned about what is happening.

The current Minister of International Trade said he wanted to meet with the Director General of the WTO, Pascal Lamy, to reopen the discussions that were interrupted last July in Geneva. This is disturbing, because the wording that was put before the countries threatened the supply management system.

I know that this week the dairy producers of Canada and Quebec will visit all of the members. I am sure that they will teach everyone something. I ask that all of the members in the House listen to them closely because if we are not vigilant on this subject, we risk putting people out on the street. They will be here this week. They will talk to us and it would be worth listening.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my honourable colleague has asked this question throughout the afternoon. Each of my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I have spent long minutes stating that we are in favour of this bill. The answer, therefore, is no; we have no intention of voting against the bill because we support it. I spent about 20 minutes—if not more—explaining the advantages it has for Quebec. The members of the Bloc Québécois were elected for the purpose of defending the interests of Quebec. We are the only ones here dedicated to doing that every day.

In terms of supply management, it is obvious that if there were any threat at all, we would not support such a bill. Milk proteins are excluded from the agreement; the tariff quotas and over-quota tariffs remain unchanged. In other words, products that are under supply management are still protected. Although I stated that we will be vigilant with regard to the bilateral agreement with Switzerland, that will not stop us from voting for this bill which, overall, is good for Quebec companies.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the Liberals as to why they are not intervening. I understand that the NDP wants to boast that it is the new official opposition—and I am only saying that is their boast—but the third party here remains the Bloc Québécois. One thing is sure, Bill C-2 now before us will be sent to committee. This will mean another opportunity to reiterate the problems contained in it, in particular as concerns shipyards.

If this is a matter of national security, it must of course be debated. One thing is sure, it is an economic issue of prime importance. This is why the Bloc Québécois ensured that the committee report included its recommendation that the government stop dragging its heels on the matter and finally adopt a real policy on shipyard development. Count on us to continue to defend that tooth and nail.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 2nd, 2009]

I thank the minister for telling me where the minister is. I know we are not permitted to say he is not in the House. One thing for sure: he went to Davos and said he wanted to meet with the director general of the WTO himself to revive the Doha round. Reviving it for certain trade agreements is one thing, but putting that instrument back on the table, when it has been discussed and it would jeopardize the supply management system, is cause for concern. The Bloc Québécois will be even more vigilant in this regard.

With regard to the present agreement, we will look closely at what happens. Elimination of the 7% tariff, as provided in this agreement, makes it even more necessary that the government take a firm position at the WTO. Supply management is simply not negotiable. We have to say that and keep saying it. We believe that weakening supply management would justify renegotiating the agricultural agreement with Switzerland.

It should be noted that the part dealing with modified milk proteins, which were debated in the House of Commons not long ago, has also been properly examined. Switzerland is a major producer of modified milk proteins. At present, Swiss products are processed to the point that the tribunals have held that they are not agricultural products. They are therefore not covered by the agricultural accords referred to in Bill C-2. In any event, a schedule to the agreement excludes them completely. So milk proteins are excluded from the accord and tariff rate quotas and over-quota tariffs remain unchanged. In other words, products under supply management are still protected. That is what we currently see in practice and it is what we see in the bill. As I said, we will nonetheless be vigilant when it comes to agriculture, because that is our duty.

There is an interesting aspect to this agreement: it does not make the same mistakes that other Canadian agreements did. For example, NAFTA and the agreements with Costa Rica and Chile—two bilateral agreements—all have a bad chapter on investments, chapter 11, which gives corporations the right to bring proceedings directly against a government if it adopts measures that reduce their profits. The agreement before us, which we have been discussing for several hours, contains no such provisions.

I would like to point out that I worked with a member who was responsible for international trade. I was the deputy globalization critic. Some examples of chapter 11 action were absolutely ridiculous, and they must not be repeated. For example, in Mexico, an American company decided to take a municipality to court because it had adopted a bylaw prohibiting the development of a disposal site. Under chapter 11 of NAFTA, the company argued before the NAFTA tribunal that it would lose profits if not allowed to set up its disposal site at that location.

The municipality was taken to court under chapter 11 of NAFTA. I doubt that that is what the negotiators had in mind during NAFTA talks, but the pernicious effect of that part of chapter 11 led to that kind of completely unacceptable situation.

Fortunately, there is no chapter 11 in Bill C-2. The agreement with the European Free Trade Association covers only goods, not services. Therefore, we will not be forced to open public services to competition, whether provided by the government or not, because they are not included. Also, financial and banking services will not be exposed to competition from Switzerland, which has a very well-known banking system, or Liechtenstein, which is a true haven for the financial world when it comes to taxation and anonymity. None of that is included in this bill.

As my colleague from Sherbrooke just explained during questions and comments, the same is true of government procurement. The government is perfectly free to prefer Canadian suppliers, except as provided in the WTO agreement on government procurement. It would obviously be pretty ridiculous for the government to give itself a certain amount of latitude and then decide not to use it. We therefore want the federal government, which is the largest purchaser of Canadian goods and services, to prefer Canadian suppliers and show some concern for the spinoff effects of its procurement.

There was some discussion of this today in question period. We have to comply with the rules of the World Trade Organization, but there is absolutely nothing to prevent us from favouring local suppliers. The Americans are a problem for us now with their steel, but that is because they are not complying with some of the WTO rules. In other cases, though, when we have an opportunity to prefer our own employers and companies, we should do it and we should not hesitate.

One of the government’s first announcements after the election was the purchase of 1,300 trucks for the Canadian Forces, and the contract was quickly awarded to an American company. In my view, the Quebec company Paccar du Canada Ltée could very easily have filled this kind of order. Under the national security rules, the government could have ensured that such a contract was awarded within Canada. That would not break the WTO rules. We have to be very vigilant about other countries adopting extremely protectionist measures, but at the same time we are perfectly entitled to take steps to favour local suppliers, especially in these times of economic crisis. I cannot see why we would fail to take advantage of this right, especially when we are not contravening the WTO rules.

I spoke a little earlier about our shipyards. We are very concerned about some aspects of them, but we can still agree on a government policy if only the Conservatives would open their eyes and make an effort to ensure that the shipbuilding industry is not penalized too heavily by this bill. We are still concerned, however, about the future of our shipyards.

At present, imported vessels are subject to a 25% tariff. This is a form of protection, of course. However, under the agreement, these tariffs will gradually decrease over three years and will be completely eliminated in 15 years. Nevertheless, the government still has the flexibility to avoid the rocks and reefs that this kind of agreement could present and keep our shipbuilding industry afloat.

Our shipyards are far less modern and in much worse condition than Norwegian shipyards, for example. Norway has made massive investments in modernizing its shipyards, whereas the federal government has completely abandoned ours. If our borders were opened wide tomorrow morning, our shipyards could be wiped off the map. Yet for economic, strategic and environmental reasons, we cannot let our shipyards disappear.

Imagine the risks to Quebec, for instance, if no shipyard could repair vessels that ran aground or broke down in the St. Lawrence, which, I would remind the House, is the world's foremost waterway.

For years the Bloc has been calling for a real marine policy, and for years the government, whether Liberal or Conservative, has been dragging its feet. Now that the agreement has been signed, time is of the essence. We cannot waste any more time, since, as we have already heard, in three years the tariffs will begin diminishing and in 15 years the existing tariffs will be completely eliminated. The Bloc Québécois made a specific recommendation in committee on the matter. The recommendation reads:

The Canadian government must without delay implement an aggressive maritime policy to support the industry, while ensuring that any such strategy is in conformity with Canada's commitments at the WTO.

That was the only recommendation made in the report on that bill, which at the time was numbered C-55, and is now known as Bill C-2.

The Conservative policy of leaving companies to fend for themselves could be disastrous for shipyards, and we expect the government to give up its bad policy. We call on it to table a real policy, by the end of the year, to support and develop the shipbuilding industry. Given the urgency, we will not be content with fine talk, something the government specializes in. We need a real policy that covers all aspects of the industry.

Those are our concerns. There will always be some. As I said, the pros and the cons of any agreement must be weighed. Of course, the four countries we are talking about are not the biggest European economies. However, what is interesting about this free trade agreement is that it could be a foot in the door for an agreement with the European Union. That is the real issue. The Quebec government is currently lobbying and having discussions about a free-trade agreement with the European Union. A free trade agreement with Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein is all well and good, but we have to be aware that it is very limited. Together, these four countries represent 12 million people and about 1% of Canada's exports. So, we are not doing the majority of our business with these countries. The real issue is the European Union, with its 495 million inhabitants—that is a much different story—who generate 31% of the world's GDP. The European Union is the strongest economic power in the world.

Since we are very dependent on the United States in matters of trade, this openness to Europe might be a very important alternative for the economy of Quebec and Canada. Canada is altogether too dependent on the United States. We send over 85% of our exports there. The slowdown in the American economy together with the explosive rise of Canadian petrodollars in contrast to the greenback, brings home the fact that our dependency weakens our economy. Quebec has lost over 150,000 manufacturing jobs in five years, including over 80,000 since the arrival of the Conservatives and their laissez-faire doctrine. It is wake-up time. An agreement with the European Union could reduce this trade dependency on the United States.

This vital diversification should not be undertaken first with China or India—countries from which we import eight times and six times respectively what we export to them. The first priority should be the European Union. This is the only way we will be able to diversify our markets and lessen our dependence on the United States. In addition, the fact that Canada has no free trade agreement with the European Union significantly reduces our business competitiveness in the European market.

In conclusion, this is a most important undertaking. The bill has shortcomings, specifically with regard to shipyards, but this can be resolved. There is no reason to ignore all the benefits that might accrue from an agreement with these four European countries, especially since, as I was saying, it could potentially lead to a free trade agreement with the European Union.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in the debate on Bill C-2, the Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. This agreement includes Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland.

This free trade agreement will liberalize trade of non-agricultural goods. My Bloc Québécois colleagues have already had the opportunity to discuss this bill today. They have said, and I agree, that we support the bill. Quebec is likely to benefit greatly from this free trade agreement. This trade agreement could benefit certain Quebec industries. I am thinking of the pharmaceutical industry in particular. In weighing the pros and the cons, it is clear that we have to support this kind of bill. Yes, this could be a cause for some concern in the shipbuilding industry. I will discuss that later in my remarks. My colleagues have also mentioned it. We know that the NDP member who just commented on the bill expressed some serious concerns about the shipbuilding industry. However, the government should take certain measures to eliminate any cause for concern.

I think that one of the bright spots is, as I said, the pharmaceutical industry. It would be in Switzerland's interest to produce prescription drugs here so that it can penetrate the American market. We also know that Switzerland's pharmaceutical industry is very advanced, and so is Quebec's. The industry is more dynamic and better developed in Quebec than anywhere else. For example, for Swiss pharmaceutical companies wishing to gain access to the U.S. market, setting up shop in Quebec will be an economically attractive proposition. The pharmaceutical industry is more advanced in Quebec than anywhere else in Canada.

My colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé also mentioned nickel. We already export nickel to Norway, and Canada's largest mine—the third largest in the world, if I am not mistaken—is in Ungava, Quebec. This free trade agreement could make that market very relevant, very interesting and very profitable for Quebec.

The same is true of aluminum. Again, Quebec is a world leader. Naturally, Iceland comes to mind as a signatory state which also imports considerable amounts of aluminum. It would definitely be in the interest of Quebec smelters that such an agreement be entered into.

I would like to touch briefly on agriculture. While Bill C-2 does not deal with agriculture, there are bilateral agreements concerning the agricultural community attached to it, which will therefore be implemented. In reality, these bilateral agreements will have little effect on agriculture in Quebec. It was nonetheless important to make sure that the agreement would not create distortions in Quebec's agricultural economy.

That having been said, we will keep a close eye on the agricultural agreement with Switzerland. Indeed, a bilateral agreement with Switzerland which would be implemented through this bill provides for the elimination of the 7% tariff on dairy products imported from Switzerland.

This makes it all the more important to protect the supply management system at the WTO. A quota increase in a context where the in-quota tariff was abolished would expose our dairy producers to increased competition from producers in countries which, unlike Canada, subsidize their industry, their milk production. The Bloc Québécois motion asking that the government oppose any outside quota tariff cut or tariff quota increase was passed unanimously, as we know, by the House of Commons.

There is cause for concern at present because, even though the Doha round was interrupted, we know that the states involved have yet to come to an agreement.

What we saw last July was cause for concern, to say the least. The document presented to the country in fact talked about lowering tariffs and increasing the number of products entering Canada. That threatened producers who are under supply management in Quebec and Canada: milk, poultry and dairy producers. That is why we passed the unanimous motion in the House of Commons in 2005: to preserve the supply management system in its entirety.

Last July, we saw in that document that a shift was starting to happen. As well, the Conservative ministers, one by one, gave us to believe that Canada was going to sign an agreement with the WTO in any event—we know that. The former ministers of agriculture and international trade both stated that Canada would not be the only country out of 148 not to sign an agreement. This was a serious concern for people under supply management in Quebec and Canada.

The present Minister of International Trade is in Davos at the moment, if I am not mistaken, or he has been to Davos.

[The Budget, January 29th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, my colleague will see what happens when we vote on the amendment to the amendment. At 6:30 this evening, the Bloc Québécois will present the unanimous motion of the National Assembly of Quebec. All Quebec members in this House should vote for this subamendment. We shall see who truly defends the interests of Quebec when we vote this evening.

[The Budget, January 29th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, there is assistance for communities. Amounts are yet to be calculated, but the economic statement refers to per capita assistance for communities in trouble. The communities most in need are those dependent on forestry and manufacturing industries, particularly in Quebec, but also in Ontario. However, it came to light that, on a per capita basis, Alberta would receive more for every job lost than would Quebec. That is why we can say that the budget as well as the former economic statement favour western Canada.

We could also talk about tax measures and the tax cuts always given to major oil companies. The Bloc Québécois had asked that this assistance be reduced or even completely abolished. Big oil companies absolutely do not need tax cuts in these turbulent economic times. However, this government refused to touch the tax breaks given to help its friends in western Canada and its friends the oil companies.

[The Budget, January 29th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, we sat for such a short time before the Prime Minister abruptly decided to prorogue Parliament that I do not know whether I had time following the election to thank the voters of Richmond—Arthabaska. I would like to do so now before I get into my remarks on the budget. Naturally, I am very pleased that they have placed their confidence in me for the third time in a row, with an even bigger majority than before. I want to assure the people of Richmond—Arthabaska that they can count on me to fight, tooth and nail, on their behalf.

I would like to note that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant.

We are here today to talk about the budget. The Bloc Québécois' subamendment is, of course, a major one. In light of the current crisis, we expected the Conservative government to take the needs expressed by the people into account. Quebec's National Assembly wanted to contribute its two cents to the budget consultations, and that is why the assembly—the Liberal Party of Quebec, the Parti Québécois and the Action Démocratique—decided to move a unanimous motion, which the Bloc Québécois has proposed in its subamendment today. This is further proof that there is only one party in this House that truly stands up for Quebeckers' interests. That party is the Bloc Québécois, and we have decided to vote against the budget.

The motion by Quebec's National Assembly, which the Bloc has presented today, asks for help for workers, communities and businesses affected by the economic slowdown, and financial support for struggling sectors—particularly the manufacturing and forestry sectors, of course—similar to what the government decided to do for the auto sector in Ontario. The government promised Ontario no less than $4 billion in assistance, but is giving just a few million dollars to the manufacturing and forestry sectors in Quebec. That is a really big difference.

We also want to see improvements to the employment insurance program. The government has brought in certain measures. We are not against increasing the benefit period from 45 to 50 weeks. However, Quebec's National Assembly and Quebec as a whole want improved access to employment insurance. Today, in 2009, 53% of Quebeckers who contribute to employment insurance are not entitled to benefits. That was our basic demand with respect to employment insurance, but the government refused to discuss the issue.

We are also talking about keeping equalization calculations the same. The fact that the government insists on changing the equalization calculations means that this year Quebec will lose close to $1 billion and could lose as much as $2 billion next year. For this reason alone we cannot vote for this budget. Obviously, Quebec's National Assembly has opposed and will continue to oppose a national securities commission.

The Conservative government has made choices that favour Ontario and the west, at Quebec's expense. We understand that the government is attempting to win more seats in Ontario and western Canada in order to obtain a majority. And this budget is padded with gifts for these parts of Canada.

The leader of the Bloc Québécois has reiterated his trust in me by appointing me as the agriculture critic once again. On this topic, we cannot stay silent on what the government has done and, above all, what the government has not done. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food was no different from his colleagues when he revealed what was in the budget before it was read. Obviously he did not reveal the details because, as the saying goes, “the devil is in the details.” Hearing that there will be $500 million in the budget for agriculture makes people happy at first, of course. They think there will be some money to help them. But, when the details were unveiled, we all got a surprise. For those who know the Conservatives though, it really was no surprise. The member for Lévis—Bellechasse kicked off his marketing campaign with a statement before the budget was read. He comes from an agricultural area and should know a little bit about the needs there. He said that his government would fill agricultural needs. He put on his rose-coloured glasses and said:

Farmers should—

Notice the use of the conditional in that sentence. The member chose his words carefully and he was right to do so. What came next showed that his government is less than willing to truly help the people who grow our food.

He said:

Farmers should have access to new funding to increase their slaughter capacity. This is the perfect opportunity for our government to support our beef and pork industries, as well as other producers. Our economic action plan should [he is still using the conditional tense] include a flexible program for agriculture. Such a program should help farmers tackle the challenges of the market and exploit significant opportunities in each province and territory.

The agriculture sector was quick to react and respond to this sort of wishful thinking, because there was a real disconnect between what the minister had announced and the actual details in the budget. The title of the press release from Quebec's Union des producteurs agricoles says it all: “A budget that's way off track”. That is what the Union des producteurs agricoles had to say.

“This budget is disturbingly insensitive to the agricultural community,” said Christian Lacasse, president of the UPA, in this press release. “By excluding income support measures where the need is greatest, the government is completely changing a program that was supposed to be flexible.”

I mentioned earlier that the member for Lévis—Bellechasse had said that producers would have a flexible program, a good program. The government completely ignored the recommendations of Quebec's agricultural community.

“A program that each province can adapt to its own particular agricultural reality is obviously a good thing, but it must be properly funded and targeted,” the president of the UPA went on.

As for assistance for the slaughter industry—because that, too, was announced in advance—the government has overlooked Levinoff-Colbex, which is located in Saint-Cyrille-de-Wendover, in the riding of my friend from Drummond, who is also quite familiar with this issue. It is the only major cull cattle slaughterhouse in eastern Canada. Beef producers have just recapitalized to the tune of $30 million and expect the government to apply the same rules for capitalization as for new projects: one dollar of government funding for every dollar of private investment. Consequently, $50 million over three years is not nearly enough.

It is still not known whether Levinoff-Colbex can benefit from this program, and there have long been calls for government money and support to help this slaughterhouse survive. I would remind members that it is the only one of its size left in eastern Canada.

I would like to read another excerpt from the UPA press release:

“Major financial support was also required for the forest industry, which would have needed at least double the investments announced just to keep going—”

That is what the UPA had to say. A number of my colleagues in the House will cite people from various sectors who are totally dissatisfied with this budget. Two of my Bloc Québécois colleagues issued a press release today concerning women's groups that were completely overlooked by this budget.

Continuing with agriculture, the Conservative government had the nerve to appropriate the names AgriFlex, or agri-flexibility, invented by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and its partners, such as the Fédération des producteurs de cultures commerciales du Québec. The central idea behind the concept is that the viability of the family farm can only be maintained if farmers had programs in place allowing them to plan for the long term.

The government did not include measures to ensure income security, the very essence of what farmers are asking for. Flexible regional funding is needed in order to ensure support for programs like Quebec's farm income stabilization insurance program, which insures farmers against catastrophic income shortfalls caused by unstable world prices, regional market conditions and other factors beyond their control.

The government opted for smoke and mirrors. It has been raising expectations, of course, ever since the election campaign. While campaigning, they talked about a plan totalling $500 million over four years. But in the budget, that turned into $500 million over five years, a small difference of only a few million dollars. The bubble has burst.

One thing is crystal clear: this government has abandoned Quebec; this government has abandoned Quebec farmers with this budget.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, January 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government's budget is unacceptable for farmers, who say it completely misses the mark. The government is deliberately ignoring the needs clearly expressed during the election. The president of the Union des producteurs agricoles, Christian Lacasse, denounced it as a budget that shows a troubling insensitivity towards the agricultural community.

How dare the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food claim to implement the AgriFlex program, while excluding measures to ensure income security, which is what Quebec farmers are clearly asking for?