André Bellavance

[Agriculture, January 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, just before the holidays, the Minister of International Trade said, in a lengthy interview, that we need to get rid of supply management because it hindered international negotiations at the WTO. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board said the opposite to farmers.

My question today is simple. Who is presenting this government's real position? Is it the Minister of International Trade, who wants to get rid of supply management, or is it the Minister of Agriculture, who says he wants to keep it?

[Committees of the House, December 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, by referring to ideology he has hit it on the head. This government has an ideology. At the beginning of my remarks, I said that nothing about the Canadian Wheat Board file was off the cuff. The ultimate goal is to obtain the result the government wants and talks about openly. I believe that it is not hiding anything. What it wants is a free market for everything, in all fields, on all issues. It wants the least intervention possible.

I once heard the Minister of Industry in this House, refusing to defend the bicycle industry, right in his own riding of Beauce, where there was a bicycle manufacturing plant. They are washing their hands of it. They want to let the free market do its work. If you cannot keep up, if you are not competitive, it is because you are no good and you should not be doing what you are doing.

They refuse to intervene in any way to protect our markets. Yet, we have the right to do that in accordance with the laws of the World Trade Organization. That is the ideology of our government. So, it is not complicated. The impact on a province like Quebec and for a riding like mine where there are so many dairy producers is that the agricultural economy of Quebec would be run into the ground. It would be finished.

When I say that 40% of the Quebec agricultural economy is supply managed, I think that I have answered the question.

It is strange because the people who have the same ideology as the Conservative government, the Montreal Economic Institute, which is where the Conservative Minister of Industry comes from, often tell us that from time to time they conduct studies that show supply management does not make sense; that we should put an end to that practice and that we should open our markets to everyone.

They quote the example of what has happened in Australia. I am sorry, but what has happened in Australia in terms of dairy production has meant that, first, there are many fewer dairy producers than there used to be because they no longer have supply management. Moreover, because of the opening of markets, those dairy producers are making a lot less money than they used to. It must also be said that large processors have now taken the place of small family farms. That is not what we want in Quebec.

[Committees of the House, December 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his judicious comments.

When he refers to Mr. Pellerin, he is quite right. When I first talked about the concern expressed in Quebec regarding the actions being taken by the Conservative government against the Canadian Wheat Board, obviously, the leaders of the Union des producteurs agricoles were the first who came to see me and tell me they were worried about what was going on in western Canada at the time. That is why we have spoken out vigorously, in the parliamentary committee together with the member for Malpeque, an NDP member and, in fact, the entire opposition, to start making this government understand the enormous importance of the message they are sending on the international scene.

That is why I just said—and I want to emphasize this for the hon. member—that when the minister says in committee that in any event, no matter what happens, the government is going to sign an agreement at the World Trade Organization, we think: fortunately, the other countries have not signed an agreement. This is unfortunate for the developing countries, because the current Doha round is meant for them. So we are reduced to hoping that the negotiations will fail each time, because we are afraid that our own government will be dropping its most important tools for collective marketing: the Canadian Wheat Board and supply management.

I agree with the member, but I do not have his answer, because it is up to the minister to answer. What is being done at present to the Canadian Wheat Board—why would the minister not do it with supply management?

International pressure has always been heavy, at least since we have had supply management and the Canadian Wheat Board. Canada has always been asked, in negotiations, to drop its two collective marketing methods.

As the member said, if we are going to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board, and ultimately try to dismantle it, in the next stage, the pressure is going to be aimed solely at the supply management system. We therefore have good reason to worry. We are entitled to wonder about this and to be very worried, and we would be irresponsible not to do so, as opposition members, because we have to worry about what will happen to supply management next.

[Committees of the House, December 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Malpeque for raising this issue in the House today. There is no doubt that the Canadian Wheat Board is currently in jeopardy as a result of certain actions taken by the Conservative government for some time now.

Regardless of their party colours and whether they are federal or provincial, governments are often accused of acting off the cuff. I heard the parliamentary secretary say earlier that this government was being accused of acting hastily in this file. I agree with him. This was not done in haste. This was not off-the-cuff. It has been a long-time goal of the Conservatives to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board. This was not off-the-cuff.

We need only look back to 2002. On an opposition day, the current Prime Minister—at the time, a Canadian Alliance member of Parliament—moved a motion that already referred to freedom of choice. It must be understood that it is pure rhetoric to talk about freedom of choice, when what it really means is to impede the collective marketing system chosen by western farmers.

I will compare this to something happening in Quebec, even though I have been criticized many times for drawing this comparison. However, you will see that people are finding parallels between what is happening with the Canadian Wheat Board and with the supply management system in Quebec.

The last Conservative election platform included their plans to end the single desk model of the Canadian Wheat Board. This really is the culmination. As I said, quite a process has been established to put an end to the Canadian Wheat Board's single desk model.

Since the election, it has continued. They have established a committee whose membership comprises only those who oppose the Canadian Wheat Board. This way, when people from the board were invited to sit on the committee, they discovered that the committee intended to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board's single desk model.

In addition, there was the famous ministerial order preventing Wheat Board management from defending the Wheat Board. That is rather ironic. The last time a government used a similar order in connection with wheat was when the Russians invaded Afghanistan, in the 1980s. Since the Canadian Wheat Board traded regularly with Russia, the government ordered an end to wheat shipments to Russia because of the activities in Afghanistan. It was obviously for a valid reason. Today, however, there is no justification for such an order.

Representatives of the board are in fact taking the government to court over the matter. I will not discuss this further, even though we have parliamentary privilege here. One thing is sure: the Conservatives intended to eliminate this single desk. When a member represents farmers, and his minister tells him that he can no longer do so, there is a serious problem.

Bill C-300 was introduced in the House of Commons by the chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food—a Conservative member, of course. The aim of that bill was also, ultimately, to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board.

Just recently, there was the famous letter to Mr. Measner, the president and CEO of the Canadian Wheat Board, which was discussed at length earlier. In the letter, he was told he had to honour the government's position or see his head roll on December 14. He was threatened with dismissal if he failed to follow the line of the Conservative Party. I understand and I am not denying that the Conservatives and even this government are entitled to have objectives and to want to change things. Because it is democracy that decides. However, I have a problem when people are intimidated and democracy is abused.

Furthermore, according to section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, it is clear that the farmers, the western producers of wheat and barley, must decide their own future. If we really put in place, as suggested by the motion of the member for Malpeque, a democratic process enabling people to vote and recognizing the result of that vote, democracy will prevail.

However, that is not at all what the government is doing in this case. As I said, I have no issue with the fact that the Conservatives, in their election platform, in their election promises, in their way of doing things—in certain cases—say that they want freedom of choice, that they want to offer this or that to farm producers. So be it.

However, there is a way of going about things. At present, in the case of the Canadian Wheat Board, democracy is being denied.

Furthermore, this denial of democracy will continue because a large number of farm producers will be excluded from voting if there is a plebiscite. We know that the minister announced that there would be a plebiscite or referendum for barley producers, who do not represent the majority of producers in the west; wheat producers are in the majority. We do not yet know why wheat producers will not have the right to a plebiscite. However, one thing is certain—a number of farm producers will be excluded from the vote, according to the government. They are lining up their ducks to ensure, or at least attempt to ensure, that they take the vote. I find that this government's way of doing things is absolutely unacceptable.

On December 5, the president of the Canadian Wheat Board, Mr. Measner, held a press conference to denounce the Conservative government's position on the Wheat Board's future. Earlier, I said that Mr. Measner was the CEO, but he is the president. He maintains, and rightly so, that the government should hold consultations on the future of the Canadian Wheat Board as soon as possible. That is why we are discussing this issue today.

In fact, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food has passed a motion introduced by the member for Malpeque, calling for a plebiscite on this issue and demanding that producers themselves determine the future of the Canadian Wheat Board, their collective marketing tool. That is what we are discussing today in this House.

Mr. Measner says that he has to defend the interests of producers over those of the government, and that is his job. He could also lose that job because he is doing it well. That is what is happening. He said, “I find it quite ironic that I have been asked to pledge support for the government's policy of marketing choice, which is not the law. In other words, if I continue to obey the law, I will be fired”.

For its part, the government is maintaining that all government appointees are expected to go along with the government's position. If the approach to this issue is not tantamount to dictatorship, then I do not know what is.

The majority of members of the CWB's board of directors, who are elected by producers, want to keep the single desk model set out in the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Moreover, on Sunday, four out of five board members were elected. They are in favour of maintaining the Canadian Wheat Board as is. I think that the message to the Conservatives is clear.

In previous discussions in committee and in the House, it was said that the Conservatives were doing what they pleased, that they should not flout section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act and that they should not ignore the opinion of producers. To that, the Conservatives replied that, on January 23, they had been given a mandate that entitled them to do what they were doing.

Imagine, Mr. Speaker, according to the Conservatives, everyone who voted for them on January 23, was in favour of later dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board, when we know that people choose to vote one way or another for a number of reasons. You, yourself, are an MP, Mr. Speaker. I believe that in your own riding—and you have been there for some time—people surely have voted for you in one election and not in another for their own reasons because a party promised something that, in their work or family life, was very important.

In my opinion, we have to look at a party's entire platform and not just one topic, in order to say that since people elected us it is entirely acceptable to act a certain way because it was their choice. Well, wait just a minute. We are talking about the Canadian Wheat Board here and wheat producers. I do not think that all these people voted for the Conservatives. And even if they did, they voted for a government. This was not a plebiscite, like we would have on a specific issue. There is a difference between voting in an election and voting in a referendum on a very specific issue.

I do not think it is correct to say that we can do whatever we want because people voted for us in the last election. I could do the same. I too was democratically elected on January 23 and in 2004. In my riding, I am not about to say that I can do whatever I want or whatever I think because the people have spoken and that is the end of it.

I still have to go meet people, talk to them and discuss things with them—as I do every weekend—to get a feel for what the population wants. I know my region well and I have to represent what the majority of people in my region want. That makes perfect sense, and the government should do the same.

Bloc Québécois members have no desire to endanger a collective marketing tool used by 85,000 wheat and barley producers in the west. I talked earlier about comparing them to Quebec producers. We were also accused of knowing nothing about this because we are from Quebec. Earlier, I heard people tell folks from Prince Edward Island and Ontario to leave them alone. I am sorry, but as the NDP member said just now during questions and comments, I get hundreds and hundreds of letters from western producers asking me not to forget about them.

Obviously, I do not represent people from the west. As my party's agriculture critic, I think I have a responsibility—as do all members of this House—for all of the issues that come before us. If we do not take a stand, or if we do not pay attention to all of the issues that come up, how can we look in the mirror every morning and tell ourselves we are doing our jobs and accomplishing the work for which we are being paid?

Like Quebec producers, I—as agriculture critic and defender of the interests of Quebec agricultural producers—fear that the Conservative government will go after another one of Canada's very important collective marketing tools: supply management. We know that 40% of Quebec's agricultural economy depends on supply management. I am talking about dairy, egg—for eating and for hatching—poultry and turkey producers.

So, these people are very concerned about what is happening at the moment. We know exactly why the other countries criticize us during WTO negotiations. They are critical of these two collective marketing tools, which are not, however, subsidies. We in the Bloc Québécois even invited the ambassadors of various countries to come here in order to explain to them just what supply management means. Increasingly, people understand and are interested in what is happening in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada where supply management is used.

Despite all that, during negotiations, these two tools are always blamed for all the ills. They are tools that countries wanting to take over our markets would like to see destroyed. If the Conservative government approved or arranged the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board, other countries would be delighted and would want to know about the state of supply management. This is why this matter is of such concern to us.

Let us consider the comments by the minister, who told us in committee that, no matter what happens, if there is an agreement at the WTO, the government will have to sign it. It is the “no matter what happens” that sets off an alarm bell for me. I tell myself that, if we have to make concessions on supply management, the government will simply dismantle it and thus throw the entire farm economy in Quebec into disarray.

We can certainly not allow such a message to go out . When the minister says this in committee, his remarks are public and heard by people throughout the world following the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. We are in the age of globalization, with the Internet and so on. With such technology, people are well aware of what goes on, of what the minister and members are saying, and we must weigh our words carefully when we say that Canada will sign an agreement in the end, regardless.

Furthermore, the Director-General of the World Trade Organization, Pascal Lamy, said that concessions will have to be made sooner or later by both the Canadian Wheat Board and the supply management system, because that is what other countries are demanding.

I am sorry, but we were elected and we are here to defend our gains, especially when it is entirely reasonable to do so. As I said, there is no government subsidy, at least, none concerning supply management. As for market access, perhaps we could begin discussing that once the other countries are on a level playing field with us. In fact, the average Canadian market access for other imported products is approximately 5%, while in other countries, average market access is 2.5%

Once these individuals from the United States, Europe and elsewhere achieve the levels we have reached here, perhaps then we can begin discussing or looking at what we can do.

For now, I think our market is open enough that we can maintain the system as it is.

Of course, there is the attitude taken by Canada's chief negotiator at the WTO, which is why the Bloc Québécois moved a very important motion before this House, to ensure that no concessions would be made concerning supply management during these negotiations. The negotiator himself said that his hands were tied. Personally, I think that is very good news. Indeed, farm groups thank me every time I meet them. The Bloc Québécois and every member of this House all deserve their thanks, since the motion was passed unanimously.

I receive expressions of thanks from all over, whether from New Brunswick, where I recently met with farmers, or from Ontario, or from a woman farmer in Calgary. I point this out because, of course I receive thanks from Quebec, but I would like to emphasize just how important it was to farmers everywhere that we unanimously passed here in this House the motion to protect supply management. This must be recognized.

Collective marketing is very important in Quebec. As I mentioned, we have supply management, joint plans and cooperatives. All of this serves to protect farmers’ income. Farmers have an absolute right to organize the marketing of their products, and that includes organizing to join forces to obtain the fairest possible market. That is what western producers did. They decided, all together, that they would put in place a marketing tool known as the Canadian Wheat Board.

As I already stated in a previous speech, I do not believe that we should say that is the way it is and nothing should ever change. However, there is a way of making changes and that should be with the agreement of the producers themselves. It is up to them to decide.

That is also what the members of the Fédération des producteurs de cultures commerciales du Québec did. One of the few times that the minister was angry with me was when I spoke about the Canadian Wheat Board. I imagine that he was quite irritated that someone from Quebec talked about this issue. The minister wondered what we would say if that were imposed in Quebec. There is no need to do so because the Fédération des producteurs de cultures commerciales du Québec decided to set up a collective marketing board. Granted it is not the Canadian Wheat Board, but it is nonetheless a marketing tool. If people want to sell their grain for human consumption, they must belong to the board. That also goes for milk producers.

I have been told I am comparing apples and oranges. Not at all. A Conservative member told me that if he wanted to produce milk, he would. Careful, it does not work that way. First, one has to be a member of the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec, which is a collective marketing system since it is all part of supply management. A producer has no choice but to comply. He has to buy quota and follow those rules as well. It is all a collective. No one can just do what they want. We cannot take our milk and go sell it in New Brunswick, the United States or something like that. Not at all. Someone comes to collect the milk that has been produced. The producer has a quota, which has to be respected, but at least the producer is sure to have a stable income. The consumers will be assured of stable pricing. These are the advantages, or some of the advantages, of supply management.

As I was saying, last year, these cash crop producers created the Agence de vente du blé de consommation humaine in Quebec. This new agency ensures that the Fédération is the only agent authorized to market wheat for human consumption in Quebec. It was inspired by what is already happening in other types of farming in Quebec, whether it be with milk, maple syrup, pork, beef, etc. It is through a democratic process that such sales agencies come to be. Producers are called on to vote on their creations. That is how we do things in Quebec.

The same is true when one decides no longer to participate. It is also up to the producers to decide on ending these sales agencies. Contrary to the Canadian Wheat Board, the Fédération des producteurs de cultures commerciales du Québec does not own the production and has no tie to the government. That is the difference.

Quebec has also expressed support for the Canadian Wheat Board. We have only to think of the testimony by the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec before the committee. UPA representatives came to tell us that a comparison could be drawn between supply management and the Canadian Wheat Board. When I was the first to raise this possibility or this concern in certain English-Canadian media, I was described as some sort of hothead and accused of mixing apples and oranges. It is funny, though, that since then, many stakeholders, such as the UPA, have told the committee that this is indeed a danger.

Saskatchewan's Minister of Agriculture and Food told the committee that and wrote to me to say that I was right. Manitoba's Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives also made the same assertion before the committee.

I applaud what they are doing in Manitoba. They are going to hold a plebiscite on the Canadian Wheat Board.

I think that the Conservative federal government should take note of what is being done elsewhere and take a democratic approach. With a plebiscite, people could choose and decide what they want to do. The government should hold a plebiscite of all wheat and barley producers in western Canada.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, December 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and his colleagues should have read their press review this morning.

In the wake of recognizing Quebeckers as a nation, UPA president Laurent Pellerin is calling on the minister to be consistent, open and flexible, and to recognize the distinct nature of Quebec agriculture.

Does the minister not agree, in order to prove that the recognition of Quebeckers as a nation was not just meaningless words, this recognition must be acted on, with specific programs that reflect the distinct nature of Quebec agriculture?

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, December 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, at the 82nd UPA convention yesterday, like me, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food heard farmers' requests to adapt programs to the needs of Quebec farmers, especially in the grain, pork and dairy sectors.

In this context, does the minister intend to change the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program, or CAIS, so that it can truly meet the needs of farmers, as he has so often promised?

[Main Estimates, 2006-07, November 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I will spend my minute trying to convince the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, who has always run down asbestos. As one of my colleagues just said, he is narrow-minded when it comes to this matter—this matter in particular. However, there are limits to demagogy. I also said that in my speech.

I did not talk about nine countries that banned asbestos, but 37 countries. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre talked about 40 countries. We can verify whether there are three more. This means that two thirds of the countries worldwide use chrysotile. In my opinion, all these people and all these countries do not live on Mars, but on planet Earth. There are 37 countries that banned it—let us say 40 countries to make the hon. member happy—but two thirds of the entire world happily uses chrysotile.

As far as figures are concerned, the 137 member countries of the International Labour Organization unanimously passed Convention 162. Convention 162—and the hon. member must be familiar with this— recommends the strict regulation of chrysotile and limits its recommendation for a prohibition to the use of amphiboles.

[Main Estimates, 2006-07, November 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, what we have just heard is partisan politics. It was not at all my intention to denigrate what was done previously. I recognize the work that was done by Marcel Masse. I worked as a journalist in the Bois-Francs—Érable region. I know the Thetford Mines area well because the radio station that I worked for was located in Thetford-Mines. I do not denigrate what has been done in the past.

All that I was saying was that the predecessor of my honourable colleague for Mégantic—L'Érable, Marc Boulianne, had done extraordinary work. Indeed, in committee we had succeeded in moving forward this matter that had been stagnant for years. Obviously, we were looking for ways to move this issue ahead. Moreover, by presenting a unanimous report, it can be said that the Bloc Québécois did good work. There was no embarrassment. Personally, I admit that members of the other parties voted with us.

I also recognize that the member for Mégantic—L'Érable can provide support for this issue within his government. The member crows about being in power. With his Quebec colleagues he stands up nearly every day during the time for statements by members to say that the Bloc Québécois can not do anything. It is not true that we can do nothing. The voters, democratically, have just elected a Bloc Québécois member in Repentigny. The Bloc Québécois has represented that riding since 1993.

So, I believe that good work is being done. I want to state, with no hint of partisan politics, that good work can be done on both sides of the House. I offer my hand to the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, not to give him a slap in the face as he has just tried to do with me. I ask him to work with us so that we can advance this issue. I do not believe that the communities in either of our ridings want to hear petty partisan squabbles such as we have just heard. I think also that the 1,500 workers there expect that we will defend their interests and work for them and with them, all together. I would hope that members of all parties will work together to advance this issue.

[Main Estimates, 2006-07, November 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, personally I was very interested in this evening’s debate, especially when I read the motion by the member for Winnipeg Centre, who is the anti-asbestos knight par excellence in this House. Unfortunately he is a master of demagoguery when he talks about asbestos. I can understand that this file raises a lot of emotion, particularly since the member himself says he has worked in an asbestos mine.

I have the great privilege of having in my riding the municipality of Asbestos, where the largest opencast mine in the world is located, namely the Jeffrey mine.

I still know many employees who work in this asbestos mine personally. It is true that people were affected by illness during the 1950s and 1960s.

It is the same as with a lot of products; people work with them and there are not any safety standards because people are not very familiar with the product and its eventual effects on their health. Asbestos is not the only product to have unfortunately led to health problems and deaths.

For example, when I was a student, I spent the summer working for painting companies. You will tell me that we are not going to ban paint. No, of course, except that, because I was a young student and I wanted to show my bosses that I was game for anything, I did not always put on a mask and I did not always protect myself adequately. I sanded furniture and we painted it, and then I walked around. It must be past suppertime, so I can talk about it. At night, when I blew my nose, there was sometimes stuff in my handkerchief the colour of the furniture we had painted during the day. I do not think that this was very good for my health. I think that, when workers are properly protected, as has been the case for many years, they are safe. Furniture-painting companies were not banned.

We have to beware of demagoguery, especially when we are addressing the public in this House.

I will be told that many politicians who have sat in this House have engaged in demagoguery, but I wish to speak out against the comments made tonight by the member for Winnipeg Centre, comments he will no doubt continue to make.

Let us return to the budget of the Department of Natural Resources. The motion tabled by the member of the NDP aims very simply to cut funding to the Chrysotile Institute. This is a credible agency that has demonstrated courage and determination since 1984 in the face of often hostile criticism coming mainly from Europe and South America, where they produce substitute fibres. It must be said that all this lobbying, this entire anti-asbestos campaign, originates in countries that manufacture substitute products. They want to sell those products, cellulose or other products of the petrochemical industry at the expense of chrysotile. That is what is going on now and has been for years. We have to recognize that and it needs to be said. When I say that they are practising demagoguery, it is because they hide these facts.

The push comes not just from these countries, but also on the domestic level, as can be seen in the incessant destructive efforts of the member for Winnipeg Centre, who tries to throw people into panic every time there is mention of asbestos.

Despite everything, thanks to the efforts of the Chrysotile Institute as well as those of the PROChrysotile movement, the communities of Asbestos and Thetford Mines have been able to survive. That is very important. The PROChrysotile movement brings together the communities of Asbestos and Thetford Mines in Quebec—where the asbestos mines are located—the mayors, federal and provincial elected members and especially the workers in those mines. In spite of that, some 37 countries have banned the use of asbestos in all its forms. That means that two-thirds of the countries in the world are now using chrysotile fibre.

The NDP wants to cut off funding to an agency whose president, Clément Godbout—who is well known in Quebec—has spent his life defending the rights of workers. He has dedicated his life to the interests of workers because in an earlier period he was the leader of the most powerful labour union in Quebec, the FTQ. Clément Godbout is not just anyone. He would never have agreed to defend a product that kills workers.

Yes, asbestos has killed, and we will hear all kinds of figures, studies that talk about 100,000 deaths from cancer caused by asbestos. I personally know people who have worked in the Jeffrey mine, because I am their member of Parliament. Yes, members of their family have regrettably been made sick because of the work that they have done with asbestos.

We are not talking about the same product. As I said previously during questions and comments, at that time there were amphiboles that are now prohibited. That was the product that unfortunately got into the lungs and stayed there. Biopersistence studies show that those products were not soluble and that the fibres remained within the human body. As a result, over a period of years, even decades, that could unfortunately develop into cancer. Today, that is no longer the case because that product has been prohibited for 20 years. The new product is chrysotile. It is bound within cement. I have seen the chrysotile pipes that are used for water mains. These products are far superior to other products available on the market. For example, steel will eventually rust. In my opinion, that is not very good for one's health. Chrysotile in cement will remain intact for years and years, for hundreds of years. The product is not volatile. It does not shed fibres and it does not cause any human health problems.

Is it possible that Clément Godbout would wish any harm to come to the workers at mines in the Asbestos area and in Thetford Mines? Is it possible that he would condone the use of a product that is harmful to the health of workers and users? The answer is obvious. Furthermore, I would like the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre or his caucus to invite Mr. Godbout to talk about chrysotile. He is passionate about the subject, knows the file very well, and can explain in detail the ins and outs of the issue.

I repeat, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre and his party are engaging in demagoguery, pure and simple, and deliberately confusing the public by not making the distinction between the asbestos of the 1950s and 1960s, and chrysotile. I do not mean to insult anyone, but either they are ignorant, or they are being dishonest by confusing the two products. It is one or the other.

I know the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre and I do not believe he is ignorant. In my opinion, he is acting deliberately and in bad faith, because he supports the “ban asbestos” movement, which is using to its advantage the thousands of deaths caused by asbestos. We do not deny this. However, a new discussion is needed today because we are no longer talking about the same product. There is nothing to hide here, and I would not deserve to be a member of this House if I were to rise here today to defend a product that kills people. Even people working in the mines, whose parents developed cancer and died, now support chrysotile. We must therefore not confuse the public.

I am sure the 1,500 workers form the Jeffrey asbestos mine and the LAB Chrysotile mining company in Thetford Mines would also be very happy to meet with the NDP members to explain to them the difference between amphiboles and chrysotile.

I will provide some more information about amphiboles. As I was just saying in layman's terms, amphiboles find their way into the lungs and, because they are not soluble, can cause asbestosis and cancer. Exposure to amphiboles is very dangerous. That is why this product has not been on the market for 20 years. There are people who have been affected but not by the product we have today, which is currently produced by mines in the Asbestos area and in Thetford Mines. This product is known as chrysotile and looks like cement. It is encased and solid as a rock.

Biopersistence studies show that chrysotile is safer than replacement fibres from countries that wish to ban chrysotile, such as France and Chile, which produce ceramic cellulose and fibres. These are replacement products for chrysotile and they remain in the human body longer. Thus, they are more dangerous than chrysotile.

However, during a certain period, public opinion in Europe was galvanized. We can certainly all remember the home insulation trend. Unfortunately, there are still houses with asbestos insulation on some Indian reserves. The insulation used at the time was flaky and so it was possible to aspirate it. That product is dangerous, and must be banned and no longer used. It is no longer produced. Nevertheless, people still think of asbestos as volatile particles that float through the air. Today, even NASA buys chrysotile for its space shuttles because of its resistance to the high temperatures in the atmosphere and the stratosphere.

I am no astronaut, but if NASA uses such a product then it must be reliable.

I also must point out that there is no serious study showing that chrysotile, used safely, represented any health risk at all. The only people who claim to have studies showing the contrary are the industries I was talking about earlier, the petrochemical industries that manufacture chrysotile substitutes. I mentioned cellulose products and ceramic fibres.

By not making the distinction between amphiboles and chrysotile, I would say that the NDP is misleading the public. And that is the problem. People have had it with this demagoguery, this state of panic created by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre. I say the NDP, but if an hon. member of the NDP stood up to defend chrysotile, I would be most happy, but unfortunately I have not heard from any of them.

This is like telling someone to stop drinking cognac, an alcohol, because it is dangerous to drink ethanol, another alcohol. What we are talking about tonight is the exact same thing. Of course one has to drink cognac in moderation and be careful to drink prudently, just as one must use chrysotile safely. That is what is recommended by the Chrysotile Institute, an agency that uses this small sum of $250,000 from the federal government to do research on the safe use of chrysotile. It also defends the product and its workers from their detractors.

The Chrysotile Institute does not deserve to have this $250,000 cut, as the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre would like. It deserves to be encouraged by the federal government. In my opinion, its budget should be increased. Earlier it was said that the Government of Quebec invested money, as does the industry and the federal government. This allows the Chrysotile Institute to survive. However, this budget needs to be increased.

For instance, the Chrysotile Institute recently held a very interesting international conference in Montreal on developments in scientific research. It would have been worthwhile for an NDP member to attend. The event attracted people from around the world. Doctors of all kinds, highly educated people, explained the latest findings on chrysotile. Needless to say, it was revealed that scientific studies show that, as I have been saying, chrysotile poses no threat to human health when used safely.

Moreover, the motion is erroneous. I just want to mention that as well. I do not know whether that means it is out of order. The $250,000 that comes from the federal government does not come from Natural Resources Canada alone. Half comes from the Economic Development Agency of Canada. The Department of Natural Resources contributes $125,000, and the Economic Development Agency of Canada contributes another $125,000. I do not know whether the member noted this difference.

I invite the government to support the Chrysotile Institute instead of making cuts to it. We should listen to the recommendations adopted unanimously—I repeat, unanimously—by the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. The former member for Mégantic—L'Érable always rose in this House to defend chrysotile, as the Bloc Québécois has always done and will continue to do. It had called for these recommendations that Canada establish a national policy on the use of chrysotile. I myself introduced these recommendations in this House. There are only three, and I will read them:

That the Government of Canada adopt a national policy on chrysotile that will provide information about and promote this product as well its safe use.

The second recommendation reads as follows:

That the Government of Canada undertake a comparative study of the hazards of replacement fibres for chrysotile.

The third recommendation reads as follows:

That the Government of Canada:

a) carry out a national and international public awareness campaign promoting the safe use of chrysotile;

b) promote the use of chrysotile in its own infrastructure.

There has always been a contradiction here, even though people from all parties voted unanimously for these recommendations. The Bloc Québécois had pointed out that, in calls for tender, for example, Public Works and Canada Post always stipulated that contractors must not use chrysotile or asbestos. There were always very strict standards in that regard.

On the other hand, the members of the government said they defended chrysotile. There were even members who come from mining regions, for example, Mr. Binet, a former member for Frontenac—Mégantic. But in the end the government was talking out of both sides of its mouth at once.

Besides, we are still waiting for some tangible results from this government in power that boasts it can do everything. Luckily the Bloc Québécois is there to do the work. If we had not done that, nothing would have moved as far as chrysotile is concerned. What we are awaiting now is action. After saying that we were in agreement, we are awaiting something tangible from the government, namely the implementation of these recommendations.

Now there is a member for Mégantic—L'Érable who is on the government side. We are also waiting for him to take some action and lend us a hand in moving this file forward.

For a long time now pressure has been exerted so that chrysotile is not included in the list of hazardous products in the Rotterdam Convention. The leader of the Bloc Québécois, my leader, has even accompanied ambassadors from various countries during the worst of the crisis affecting this industry on tours of our mines. So we have been defending this file for a long time. At present one member is suggesting quite simply that we cut funding to an institute that is doing an honest job and that obviously takes into account the safety of its workers. I outlined the pedigree of its president, Clément Godbout, awhile ago. This is proof that these people are obviously not there to promote the use of a hazardous product.

I would also like to point out that, for a party that says it is leftist and defends the workers, it is doing a poor job of defending this file. It is pretty ironic. The NDP member who asked that these funds be cut is doing a poor job of defending the workers.

Here is an example of what the steelworkers union, always prompt to defend workers’ health and safety, thinks of chrysotile. This is from a letter signed by René Bellemare, who is in charge of health and safety with the steelworkers union. His job consists of defending and protecting the health of workers who belong to his union:

—I want to tell you where we stand regarding chrysotile asbestos and its by-products. We have long been advocating the safe use of chrysotile asbestos. We base our claim on many reasons such as:

...Prohibiting amphibole-asbestos;

Prohibiting friable asbestos material--notoriously dangerous to human health;

Demanding that chrysotile asbestos not be substituted with products having unknown health effects;

Developing an action plan in managing buildings, which, in the past, were fire-proofed with sprayed-on asbestos, rather than systematically and immediately removing asbestos-containing materials.

Scientific research conducted by recognized specialists and international organizations acknowledge the safe use of chrysotile asbestos;

Several chrysotile asbestos products (i.e. chrysotile-cement, fire retardant material, brake linings, friction disks, etc.), can be manufactured and used safely;

Those are the examples he gives. He goes on to say:

As mentioned above, through the battles fought by the labour movement, for the most part in Quebec, we have been able to ensure safe working conditions in our mines and in our mills.

...Anti-asbestos groups have emerged throughout the world and we maintain that, in order to fully understand this issue, we all have the moral obligation to keep an open mind and weigh the many impacts that this will have on workers, their families and on future generations.

He closes by saying:

We firmly believe that we must fight for the safe and controlled use of chrysotile asbestos and all other fibres in this country and throughout the world. Banning chrysotile asbestos completely is in no way a desirable answer.

René Bellemare is in charge of health and safety with the United Steelworkers of America, and that is what he had to say about chrysotile asbestos.

Every time people attack my community, Asbestos, its mine, the people of Quebec who work at Thetford Mines and LAB chrysotile, every time that happens, people can count on the Bloc Québécois and on me because I will rise. I would never dare to represent the riding of Richmond—Arthabaska—to represent its citizens and to run in the elections knowing that the entire community is under attack—if I did not rise in this House to defend it.

[Main Estimates, 2006-07, November 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Richmond—Arthabaska, as you said so well, is a riding where people will find the Jeffrey Mine in Asbestos. Recently, the people of Asbestos had to turn their attention to a short-lived debate: some people wanted to change the name of the municipality of Asbestos because of everything that has happened internationally, including the bad reputation asbestos has had for many years.

We have just been subjected to an exercise in pure demagogy by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, who, yet again, is being the anti-asbestos champion par excellence. I did not think we could find in Quebec or even in Canada—he comes from Winnipeg, of course—someone who would run down the product of asbestos as much as the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre just did.

I am insulted on behalf of the entire population of Asbestos. It is a proud community that has decided to keep its name on the grounds that the product it now produces is called chrysotile.

Since the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre said he worked in an asbestos mine, he must know very well that the products that were extracted in the 1950s and the 1960s were amphiboles. Houses that were insulated with asbestos, with the friable products, contain fibres that stay in the human body for a long time, according to studies on biopersistance, and do cause asbestosis, cancer, etc.—in short, health problems. Today the product in question is called chrysotile. It is like cement. This product does not crumble and it is totally safe. It has to be used safely.

I would like the hon. member to tell me whether he knows the difference between the two products because what is being made today, in Asbestos and in Thetford Mines, is no longer an amphibole; it is chrysotile. It is not the same thing and the people of Quebec defend this product.

I would like the hear the hon. member say a few words about this.