André Bellavance

[Request for Emergency Debate, February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to stand up for agricultural producers who have been left behind through the insensitivity of this Conservative government—I am talking about hog and beef producers.

“The situation we are in is untenable for producers.” Those are the words of Jean-Guy Vincent, the president of the Fédération des producteurs de porcs du Québec. The article appeared in La Terre de chez nous on January 31, 2008.

The livestock industry is currently going through a crisis caused by the rising dollar and rising cost of inputs, combined with a major drop in the price of meat, in the case of pork, and additional costs for managing and disposing of specified risk materials, in the case of beef producers.

There are several reasons why an emergency debate is needed, and I am satisfied that in your great wisdom, Mr. Speaker, you will recognize this urgency. First, there is the silence of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food in response to the letters they have been sent by producers. And then there is also the unanimous first report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food recommending that transitional measures be put in place to alleviate this crisis, along with longer-term measures to improve the competitiveness of the industry.

This situation cannot go on. Some producers have handed their keys over to their financial institutions, or are about to do so, many of them having stretched their credit to the limit. That is why the Bloc Québécois is asking that an emergency debate be held on this serious crisis.

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you. That is what I thought.

Since I have about two minutes left, I will immediately get to the conclusion of my speech on Bill C-20.

I am going to sum things up rather quickly by saying that the government is trying to do indirectly what it cannot achieve directly. The bill provides for the consultation of electors in a province with respect to their preferences for the appointment of senators to represent the province.

The Bloc Québécois feels, as does the vast majority of Quebeckers, that even if it is reformed, the Senate will remain a useless institution. We cannot insult the other place here, but one thing is sure. This is not meant as an insult, but in Quebec it is widely believed that we really do not need the other place.

Initially, the Senate was supposed to be a chamber of sober second thought that also protected regional interests. That is why it was created in the 19th century. Regional equality in the Senate was supposed to counterbalance representation in the House. However, it seems that partisanship has gained the upper hand over regional representation, thus rendering null and void the purpose of the other place, which has a tendency to follow the lead of the House of Commons. This is what we call—and some of my colleagues have pointed it out—duplication. Heaven knows that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to any form of duplication, and particularly so in the case of the Senate.

How can this government justify having a Senate whose responsibilities would be much like those of the House of Commons, at a cost of $81 million per year?

This was my introduction to set the stage for the rest of my speech. In short, we are totally opposed to this bill.

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know how much time I have.

[Canada Elections Act, February 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, that is why we support the principle of Bill C-29. The government introduced this bill supposedly because several candidates in the Liberal Party of Canada leadership race borrowed large sums of money in order to circumvent the limits on contributions. What the government is not telling in all this is that its own leader, the Prime Minister himself, failed to make complete disclosure of contributions for the 2002 leadership race.

On October 2, 2002, the Globe and Mail reported that the Prime Minister had spent $1.1 million on his race for the leadership of the Canadian Alliance. It stated further that he had published an incomplete list of contributions.

We on this side of the House would be very interested to know what the total amount of these contributions is exactly. Who were the contributors for that leadership race? This government wants an election to be called. It ran in the last election on a platform of openness and transparency. It should do the same in the next campaign. We would like to know.

[Canada Elections Act, February 11th, 2008]

I thank my colleagues for their expressions of sympathy, but it was just a temporary setback, Mr. Speaker. I won my seat in 2004.

To make a long story short, after the election campaign, I no longer had a job, and I was in a lot of debt. As any responsible person would do, I made sure I repaid that debt. It never occurred to me that my party should take on that responsibility.

Of course, I had received an election rebate, because my expenses were in order, but I had still borrowed money, because in our riding, the party did not have much money at the time. Things have changed a great deal since then. There must not be very many cases where candidates, at least Bloc Québécois candidates, do not repay their debts. If a party were saddled with all its candidates' debts, the party supporters would not be very happy.

Earlier, one of my colleagues was saying that in his riding—and it is that way for the most part in Bloc Québécois ridings—supporters quite often give small amounts of money. We have a multitude of supporters who take part in fundraising activities. They organize spaghetti nights at $10, $20 or $25 a head as a fundraiser because in our culture, we do not rely on big companies, even though the legislation has now changed for the better—thankfully.

I remember a time when the former prime minister, during a leadership race that was more like a coronation, received $100,000 from the Irving Oil Corporation. I can assure you that I have never received that kind of money, even when the legislation allowed it. Where I come from our supporters would be insulted if they were told that all the money they raised was going to be used to pay off a candidate's debt, if the candidate defaulted, because it was the party's responsibility to do so.

Bill C-29 is not a bad bill, since it corrects some of the shortcomings in the Accountability Act, the former Bill C-2, which the government wanted to pass so quickly that it unwittingly, or not—I am not sure—forgot the ethical problems.

That was at a time when the Conservative government probably thought, as many analysts did, that their mandate would last a year or a year and a half. They presented a few priorities—I believe there were five at first—saying they would start with that. In the two years the government has been in place, it has not seemed sure what direction to take. Nonetheless, I believe it does know: it wants to go back to the polls because it does not have any plans that would enable it to go on much longer.

The government thought it would not last long. It wanted to quickly fulfill its so-called promises, but in its haste it left out some parts. That is why we now have Bill C-29: to fill the gaps.

Bill C-29 seeks to prevent individuals from bypassing campaign financing rules.

Since I am being signalled that I have only two minutes left, I will be brief.

The Bloc Québécois believes it is necessary to regulate loans in order to prevent people from getting around the financing limits. In fact, it is ironic that this government is presenting such a bill, since the Conservative Party is currently being investigated by Elections Canada, which is refusing to rebate the campaign expenses for 67 Conservative candidates who ran during the last election campaign. There are nine members from Quebec, two ministers from Quebec and a secretary of state from Quebec. The latter is not really a minister, although he has a limousine. A secretary of state is not considered a real minister. Those people are among that group.

Here is how they do it: money is transferred to the ridings for advertising. It was supposed to be for local advertising, but in reality, it was used for national advertising. The candidate who received the money never once saw his face on television or in the media. It really was for national advertising. The riding associations sent money back to the national level to pay for the advertising.

This strategy allowed the party to raise its limits for campaign spending by $1.2 million. That is a considerable sum, which is why it is so important at this time, on the eve of a possible election campaign, to avoid this kind of ploy, and ensure that the Conservative Party cannot repeat the same gimmick, which allowed them to have higher spending limits for campaign advertising than any other party normally would have.

I would like to point out that the Conservative Party accused the NDP and the Liberals of doing the same thing. However, Elections Canada said that those parties really gave their candidates an opportunity to have local advertising. That is the difference.

[Canada Elections Act, February 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-29, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to loans). The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of this bill. However, the government has brought back some measures that we had already amended in committee.

The Bloc Québécois reserves its decision regarding the final vote on this legislation. I will be brief in dealing with its content.

The bill provides that all loans to political entities, including mandatory disclosure of terms, and the identity of all lenders and loan guarantors, must be uniform and transparent. Also, unions and corporations, save for some exceptions, would be prohibited from making contributions under the Federal Accountability Act, and also from lending money. The amount of loans, loan guarantees and contributions that individuals can make cannot exceed the limit prescribed in the Federal Accountability Act, namely $1,100. Finally, only financial institutions and political entities would be allowed to make loans beyond the contribution limit, and only at commercial rates of interest. The rules for the treatment of unpaid loans to ensure candidates cannot walk away from unpaid loans would be tightened. The bill also provides that loans that remain unpaid after 18 months would be considered political contributions.

The problem is with the last point. Riding associations—or, in the absence thereof, the party itself—would be responsible for paying back debts that their candidates fail to reimburse. Several of my colleagues here in the House, particularly my Bloc Québécois colleagues, have said how absurd that is. In fact, the government introduced this motion, as well as two others, to counter three amendments made by the opposition parties in committee. By putting this motion forward, the Conservative government is rejecting the Bloc Québécois amendment.

Political parties—and I think we have heard this several times now—would become responsible for debts contracted by their candidates. The problem with the governing party's motion is that political parties are not really involved in contracts between candidates and their financial institutions. In Quebec, that is between the candidate and his or her bank or credit union. Political parties do not get involved in that aspect of their candidates' election campaigns.

With this motion, the government is trying to make parties responsible for their candidates' debts, which is completely illogical because parties cannot limit their candidates' spending. There is a limit, a cap, but candidates may borrow money for their own campaigns at their own discretion or that of their organizations. The party is not involved in the transaction.

A candidate can therefore go into debt. Say a candidate borrows $60,000 from a bank or credit union. The party cannot stop candidates from doing this. Legally, candidates can do this. The party would then end up with that candidate's debt, as well as that of other candidates who, unfortunately, cannot or will not pay the money back. This is akin to a law allowing someone to borrow money without informing the guarantor. When the credit union manager asks for the name of the guarantor, the borrower could say that it is his neighbour. The neighbour would then be responsible for the debt if the borrower did not pay it back. That makes no sense at all.

Of course, it would be wrong to assume that all the candidates in an election are dishonest. On the contrary, I hope that the vast majority are honest. But we are opening the door to a situation where someone runs for election, goes deeply into debt and does not win a seat. He knows that if he cannot repay his debts, the party will be saddled with the debt. A political party would be in serious difficulty if even a few people could not or would not shoulder that debt.

When I fought my first election campaign, the Bloc Québécois in Richmond—Arthabaska did not have much money in its coffers. I was chosen as the candidate on the day the 2000 election was called. I had to borrow money. I took out a loan to fund my election campaign, and I knew what I was getting into.

I knew that after the election, I would be in debt. I hoped to get elected so that I would be able to repay my debt fairly quickly, but I lost by about 300 votes that time.

[Canada Elections Act, February 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just finished answering the question of the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi about these election expenses that pose a problem to Elections Canada. The Conservative Party is suing Elections Canada. I think the purpose of this suit is to keep the lid on something that is looking increasingly like a scandal, for as long as possible.

I would like my colleague to comment on a statement made by the second in command at Elections Canada, Janice Vézina, in this dispute between Elections Canada to the Conservative Party. In a written statement, Ms. Vézina argued that the Conservative Party failed to comply with the Elections Act by making its local candidates share in the cost of its national advertising, which, of course, allowed the party to spend more than permitted by law. As a result, the Conservative Party exceeded its spending limit by more than $1 billion.

Does this whole saga not show how the old political parties act instinctively? This is taking us back to the days when some parties had dead people voting for them. Once again, all sorts of tricks are being used to achieve their own ends and exceed the limit on election expenses.

[Canada Elections Act, February 11th, 2008]

Sorry, Mr. Speaker. I had a little surgery last week and rise a bit more slowly, but do not worry because I will be ready for the next election and fast on my feet.

I have a question for my colleague from Saint-Jean, who gave a very interesting speech in 10 minutes, as he himself said. He was not able to cover the entire issue, but never mind, there will be several Bloc speeches on Bill C-29.

I wanted to ask my colleague what he thinks about the fact that the opposition parties made some very interesting suggestions in committee to improve this bill. It is up to us now in the House. The government brought three motions forward, of which two are totally unacceptable. I would like my colleague to tell us more about one of them. It says that when candidates incur debts, their political party is responsible for them. The Conservative government is keen on this and I would like to know what my colleague from Saint-Jean thinks.

[Canada Grain Act, February 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Chief Government Whip, I should not rise to speak. If democracy were dictated by this government, since I am from Quebec, I would not have the opportunity to speak on behalf of producers from out west or anywhere else. What is happening is not an act of the Holy Spirit. These are proposals and questions put forward by the producers.

I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary—who attended the committee meetings when the Canadian Grain Commission and the changes to be made were being discussed—why did most of the committee's recommendations not find their way into this bill?

[Hog and Beef Industries, February 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this week we were treated to some responses that were upsetting, to say the least, from the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and his parliamentary secretary about the crisis in the hog and beef industries. The minister's recycled announcements and the parliamentary secretary's trip to Paris are not the solutions that Quebec hog and beef producers are looking for.

The President of the Fédération des producteurs de porcs du Québec, Jean-Guy Vincent, has publicly criticized Ottawa for remaining silent, and added that if the federal government does not respond soon, the producers will protest on the Hill. Is the minister trying to push the producers to the limit before he takes action?

The president of the Fédération des producteurs de bovins du Québec, Michel Dessureault, is calling on the government to act quickly on the solutions proposed by producers. The minister must respond to this urgent request and implement transitional measures to give hog and beef producers the money they need.