André Bellavance

[Committees of the House, October 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this important debate this evening. The member for Malpeque has done excellent work in committee presenting the ins and outs of this issue. That is why we supported the second report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food. I would like to read it to you.

It seems to me that any talk of a referendum, of free choice, is a very important democratic issue. It is important to allow western producers to make that free choice, and the best way to do so is through a referendum. That way, we will know exactly what they want with respect to the future of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Here is the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food:

That the government prior to any legislative or regulatory action affecting the mandate of the Canadian Wheat Board as it is currently constituted under the Canada Wheat Board Act, submit through plebiscite to all those eligible to vote in Canadian Wheat Board elections, a clear and direct question asking whether those eligible to vote support or oppose the single desk selling provisions of the Canadian Wheat Board.

That is the subject of today's debate. I think it is very important for us to give that choice to the producers who want it. As you know, the Canadian Wheat Board is one of two very important collective marketing tools in Canada, the other being supply management, which I could obviously discuss in more detail.

Currently, we are under attack from WTO member states—especially the United States and the European Union—because of the Canadian Wheat Board and supply management. Now we are also under attack from our own government, the Canadian government. It has been in constant attack mode since it made its famous promise in the last election campaign and even before then, in 2002, when the Prime Minister himself introduced a motion in this House to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board.

The Conservatives' free market ideology is not news here. However, for some time now, they have been implementing a process to undermine and even destroy the Canadian Wheat Board.

As I was saying, the attacks are not only coming from other countries, but also from within our own country. If this tendency persists, we, in Quebec, are very much afraid that, after the Canadian Wheat Board, the next attack will be on our supply management system.

And I know what I am talking about since I, along with the leader of the Bloc Québécois and people from the Union des producteurs agricoles in Quebec, took part in a meeting, here in Ottawa, with ambassadors from around the world. Representatives from the European Union were present and, for them, it was clear that there was a serious problem at the WTO with regard to marketing, and the culprits were the Canadian Wheat Board and our supply management system.

Pressures targeted at these two marketing tools still exist and we want to eliminate them. We have been doing a lot of explaining and have been able to convince more and more countries, particularly African countries, that were also present at that meeting, and some European countries, that these are not subsidies to our farmers but tools that allow them to get the best possible price at no cost to the government. I am mostly talking about supply management because in the case of the Canadian Wheat Board, there were irritants that were eliminated to comply with other countries' requirements at the WTO.

This election promise about free choice and a dual market was made by the Conservatives. In my view, free choice means letting producers decide for themselves what is good for them. That is the attitude one must always have in politics. Forcing one's ideology or anything else on others is not the way to go, but it is necessary to go out there to get a better understanding of what people want and what they need. As legislators, we will then be able to propose bills or amendments or plans that will really meet their needs.

In the past few hours we have seen another example of that on the part of this government. The Bloc Québécois introduced a motion concerning an adjustment program for older workers. It consisted of measures to help older workers who have lost their jobs because of mass layoffs. The response of the government was something of their own ideology, something that, in their opinion, was the best solution, a kind of program that pleases neither the workers nor the Government of Quebec because it does not take account of the real needs and demands of those workers.

They are proceeding in somewhat the same way in the case of the Canadian Wheat Board. In the committee, I have even heard government members say something along the lines of “We are not going to let the majority decide for the minority”.

It seems to me that in a real democracy it should be the exact opposite. In fact that is the way we conduct our elections. When a majority wants to retain an organization such as the Canadian Wheat Board, we should make certain that it is not dismantled or knocked down.

Earlier, the parliamentary secretary referred to a survey by the Canadian Wheat Board. He provided some numbers that suited his argument. There are other numbers. This is a quite recent survey from March and April 2006. The figures in the survey are quite significant.

For example, 90% of producers believe that any decision concerning the future of the Canadian Wheat Board should be made by the producers themselves. That is exactly what the member for Malpeque proposed during the committee meetings we are discussing today as part of this motion, to let the producers themselves decide the future of the Canadian Wheat Board. Nothing could be more democratic than that. It is the best way to find out exactly what the producers want.

Moreover, 66% of producers are against any weakening of the Canadian Wheat Board; 63% want the marketing of their produce to be under the exclusive responsibility of the Canadian Wheat Board, and 75%—this is important because this is what we are talking about today—75% want a referendum or plebiscite on the future of the Canadian Wheat Board. In my opinion, those figures speak for themselves.

I have other surveys, if that would please the Conservatives, who do not seem to give much credibility to the surveys done by the Canadian Wheat Board. There is the survey of the National Farmers Union, which says that 76% of farm producers in the west, who are subject to the Canadian Wheat Board, support that organization. We are looking here at rather significant evidence.

So this begs the question: Who is calling for the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board at all costs? In fact, some of our own producers are calling for such a measure. I, myself, am a producer. I respect their views but I am certain that other producers have other ideas. Just look at the survey; it is not 100% everywhere.

I have received hundreds and hundreds of letters at my office from wheat and barley producers in western Canada, but mainly wheat producers, despite the fact that I am a Bloc Québécois member of Parliament from Quebec. They are asking me to stand up for the Canadian Wheat Board. In fact I am sure that all of my colleagues have received letters written by those producers. These are not form letters, many of them are written by hand, and I have read them all, regardless of where they came from. None of those letters was written by someone from an organization or a communications firm. They are genuine letters written by producers to tell me that in their opinion, the Canadian Wheat Board is very important and that it must not be dismantled.

The unfortunate thing about what is happening now is that since this election promise was made in the last campaign, every effort has been made to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board. Bill C-300 was introduced in this House. We in the Bloc Québécois opposed it because, in our opinion, it was the beginning of the end.

Things got even worse for the Canadian Wheat Board with the gag order imposed on it by the ministerial order made on October 5. If you will forgive the expression, I swear that this knocked me on my backside. I did not even think that a minister could make that kind of ministerial order, a gag order that appalling, and imposing censure on the Canadian Wheat Board. But I can read an excerpt from it:

—directs the Canadian Wheat Board to conduct its operations under that Act in the following manner:

It shall not expend funds, directly or indirectly, on advocating the retention of its monopoly powers, including the expenditure of funds for advertising, publishing or market research.

It shall not provide funds to any other person or entity to enable them to advocate the retention of the monopoly powers of the CWB.

The Canadian Wheat Board has quite simply been gagged, and this is a completely undemocratic procedure. The board cannot even defend itself anymore, while the government continues to attack it. In my view, this way of doing things amounts to unfairness and inequality, and it is not even subtle, because the intention is to prohibit it from speaking and defending itself, to gag it. I have never seen anything like this. In fact, we looked a little into what has gone on in the past. We wondered whether ministers had ever done this. We had to go back to 1979 when Russia invaded Afghanistan.

At the time, all Canadian government organizations, including the Canadian Wheat Board, had been ordered not to have any dealings with Russia because of its cowardly attack on Afghanistan.

This was a highly unusual if totally understandable reason, which required that there not be any trade with a country that had just committed such an act.

It was the government’s decision, and that was to be expected. It simply forbade them to have any dealings with this country for a certain amount of time. Obviously, things have changed now. It was understandable at the time that the government would take the action it did.

I would like a Conservative member, a minister or the Prime Minister to tell me that there was a real emergency and it was essential to prevent the Canadian Wheat Board from speaking, that it was necessary to censure it, to gag it and tie its hands. I am not aware of any such reason. There is no precedent proving that this was essential and that this kind of ministerial order absolutely had to be instituted.

There have been partisan appointments to the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board. The steering panel was led by opponents of the wheat board. I spoke earlier about the letters we have received from farmers.

We also received an e-mail from a communications firm. It was obviously not intended for us. The firm was offering its services to the government to send out chain letters directed against the Canadian Wheat Board. At the same time, farmers were sending out letters in support of the wheat board. This communications firm, on the other hand, said that it could send a certain number of letters a week. Lovely form letters would have been sent out saying that the Canadian Wheat Board was not effective and was not any good. Fortunately, this was exposed and a stop was put to it.

The fact that I have not received a single letter goes to prove that there is no real farmers’ revolt against the Canadian Wheat Board. I am sure that I would have received a great many if this communications firm had secretly been able to do what it wanted and if the government had gone along. I have not received a single letter saying that the writer agreed with Bill C-300 or agreed with what the Conservative government wanted to do with the Canadian Wheat Board. When we found out what this communications firm wanted to do, we hoped to hear the person responsible for this e-mail in committee. We have not succeeded yet in getting this person to appear, but I hope we will soon do so because we have some interesting questions for him or her.

The Conservatives’ determination has not let up and what comes next is worrying, as I said in the introduction to my speech. I said that for us in Quebec the other extremely important collective marketing tool in Canada is supply management. That is not just me talking. I have met with the main stakeholders, including the people from the UPA. We talked about this with the president of the UPA. We talked to him about the Canadian Wheat Board. They too are worried. This government has a free-trade ideology and nothing will stop it.

For example, I could quote the discussions that took place in parliamentary committee with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada before the latest negotiations of the World Trade Organization in Geneva. Whenever we asked him whether he planned to protect supply management, he always said yes. We were very happy with this answer. However, we found ourselves alone, against 148 in Geneva, during the negotiations on supply management. The Minister did not feel very comfortable in that situation.

But he represents a population. Some voted for him while others did not. Regardless, once he is in government, he represents the entire population. He should pull up his pants and defend a system as effective as supply management, even if he is alone. There is nothing to feel uncomfortable about here. What worried me more was the minister’s speech. He said that if there was an agreement in the WTO, Canada would not remain outside that agreement. Canada would not remain alone in its corner and would sign the agreement. To my mind that meant that, if there had been an agreement to begin removing areas of supply management or dismantling it, Canada would have signed.

We have good reason to be concerned considering the Conservative government's attitude.

To give you an idea of how important supply management is in Quebec, I remind members that it represents 40% of the Quebec farm economy. It is the apple of our eye and we are going to defend it tooth and nail. That is what we have been doing since we came to the House of Commons. That is what I, personally, have been doing for over a year, since my leader named me as agriculture critic for the Bloc.

The latest WTO negotiations in Geneva did not produce an agreement. That is almost fortunate. The Doha round was supposed to deal with developing nations. However nothing is being done for them. We hope to succeed in obtaining an agreement that will give those countries a greater access to markets. That is what everyone wants. However, in the case of supply management, every time negotiations reach an impasse we have to heave a sigh of relief. The fact is that successive governments have always said—in promises—that they support us and they are going to defend supply management. When that support is rather lukewarm we have reason to be concerned.

The important thing for the Conservatives is to follow up on their commitment to allow western producers a free choice concerning the marketing of their grain in the export market. What we are seeing, in fact, is the dismantling of single desk selling and, at the end of the day, the extinction of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Yet section 47(1) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act is clear. Any decision seeking to change single desk selling must be made by the producers. I do not understand why the government is opposed to the motion presented by the member for Malpeque since a very clear section of the Canadian Wheat Board Act provides for consultation of farm producers. It is up to them to decide; it is not up to the government.

I mentioned the UPA, the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec, earlier. We met with them, with our leader, to discuss the Canadian Wheat board, even though it does not apply to Quebec. Those people explained to us very clearly that in Quebec there were quite a few voluntary marketing agencies that failed not long after they were created, whether they were set up to market grain, potatoes, apples or greenhouse vegetables. All of those experiments, which date from the 1990s, could not be sustained. The marketing branch of the UPA did a thorough study of this subject. They examined cases where these models had failed, and what they found was that they lacked a critical mass of the product to be marketed, and the corollary to that, participation by producers—

[Agriculture, October 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the minister promised Quebec a fair share, and we are still waiting for it. Last week, the hon. member himself told this House that there would be money. I am still waiting, and producers are still waiting.

Last spring, the minister said, “In the case of the retroactive fixing of the CAIS program, the Quebec government has already paid out its share”. He also stated that, in his opinion, Quebec “had a better system in place than the Liberal program, which had flaws”.

The minister's way of paying us back is to give us $50 million out of $950 million.

What led the minister to conclude that Quebec should receive only 5% of the funds when it accounts for nearly 18% of Canada's agricultural activity?

[Agriculture, October 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in the spring, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food did not dare confirm rumours that Quebec would receive only $50 million of the $950 million the government had promised in improved farm income support. We would remind the minister that the Government of Quebec, through the Financière agricole, was already using the proper method to calculate inventories and that it therefore should not have been penalized for exercising sound management.

Can the minister justify why Quebec is not receiving its fair share in this case?

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we were very clear earlier on the staggering number of studies presented right here in this House on the issue of older workers who lose their jobs following a massive lay-off. These job losses are often the result of globalization.

We can come up with all sorts of studies, but I think that we in this House can understand that people who come to see us are truly experiencing very serious problems. Also, there used to be such a program, and it was effective and successful. The Liberal government decided to discontinue it, because it was not part of its priorities. Now, after the sponsorship scandal, we know what those Liberal priorities were. But helping older workers was not one of them.

We are seeing the same thing with the Conservative government. I do not know how many studies it will need. We did all the work. Even his own party agreed with us on the need for such a program. Now, they are sitting on the fence and saying that the situation needs to be reviewed again. However, they do not need any study before deciding to spend $17.5 billion on weapons. They do not need any study when the time comes to—

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question which is a very pertinent one.

In my riding, there is an organization called Accès au travail, whose principles are identical, that is to help older workers who lost their job. As I said earlier, we try to find them new jobs but, unfortunately, that is not always possible. That is why we must have an income support program for older workers.

In this case, what is ironic are the mean cuts that have just been announced and that my colleague mentioned. I too remember seeing the Conservative finance minister happily posing with a big smile in front of a huge cheque like those we see in local newspapers when a sponsor gives money. Most of the time, it is for a good cause. In the case of the minister, all the money went to the debt payment. We are not against the payment of the debt, but we must put our priorities in good order. The priorities of the government are not those of our organizations which suffered funding cuts but which exist to help the most in need. In the case of people who want to learn new skills to find a new job I fail to understand and I find unacceptable that the government would make those cuts and refuse to create an income support program for seniors.

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Compton—Stanstead for agreeing to share her time with me. It was very important to me that I speak on this motion introduced by my colleague from Chambly—Borduas. He does remarkable work and I would like to pay tribute to him in this House on this file that should concern all members who represent their people. In fact, I was listening to my colleague, the member for Compton—Stanstead, who gave a thoughtful speech that is totally in line with what the Bloc Québécois has been thinking for years.

I do not understand that some speeches from the members of the Conservative government are completely the opposite of what they were saying when they were in opposition. So, there is a serious problem of consistency between what the Conservative Party was saying when it was in opposition and what it says now that it is in power. What I also find funny is that the Conservatives have a slogan saying that it is a new government. This is an old marketing scheme used by food stores and shopping centres that label their products “new and improved”. However, in the case of the Conservatives, it is not “and improved”, unfortunately.

They call themselves “new”, like the old marketing trick, but that is only to lead us to believe that they are different from their Liberal predecessors. In this specific case, they are not different at all. They are waiting for studies, checking things out. They were in favour before, but now they are not so sure. Actually, considering the speeches we heard in the House today, it seems they are now totally opposed.

I would like someone to explain to me what happened between the time when that party was the official opposition and the time it came into power and why the government is turning its back so cowardly on the older workers who need help the most?

Allow me to reiterate to the House our position regarding the motion, which states:

That the House reiterate to the government the importance of implementing a real income support program for older workers that would apply to all older workers in all economic sectors, in all regions.

In each of our ridings, older workers face tough situations when plants close because of globalization. I cannot fathom how we can tell the people who come in our riding offices that we do not agree with this motion.

I would like to provide a brief explanation of the former POWA, the program for older worker adjustment, which ran from 1988 to 1997 and was abolished by the Liberals, as we mentioned a little earlier in this House. The former finance minister simply decided to drop workers and older workers.

From 1993 to 1996, I was an assistant to a Bloc Québécois MP. In my riding, lots of people with specific needs came to our office asking for help after massive closures, business closures. Those people were unhappy then, just as people are unhappy now.

At the time, those workers could take advantage of an assistance program that was designed specifically to help them and, as I was saying earlier during questions and comments, was the exception to the rule. We should keep that in mind when talking about this kind of program. These people were not asking for handouts then, and they are not asking for handouts now. They are just asking for help getting through the transition from losing their jobs and having problems finding something else, to the moment when they can retire without having depleted all of their resources.

A Conservative member said earlier in this House that when someone loses a job, there may be a long period of unemployment and the person must find another job. Fine. But when someone does not find another job, what happens once EI benefits run out? In Quebec, it means going on welfare. To be entitled to welfare, you may not own a house, a car, RRSPs, and so on. You must therefore use up a large part of what you own in order to qualify for welfare. When you are approaching retirement, it is a fine thing to find yourself in that position, emptying your pockets, when you know very well that this kind of program does not cost much and can help a particular category of people.

At that time, workers aged 55 to 64 who were eligible because they had lost their jobs as a result of a major and permanent layoff were offered benefit payments. How did this work? As I have described, a bridge was put in place between employment insurance benefits—it was called unemployment insurance at the time and that was more appropriate, to my mind—and, eventually, the pension plan. As I said, this is not charity, it is an exception for workers for whom new jobs cannot be found.

Figures show that in 1996, 11,700 people received benefits under POWA, the program for older worker adjustment, following 900 closures.

Not everyone could decide to retire a few years early because they lost their job. That is not how it worked. There were very specific criteria. That is what we have been working on for several years. We worked together on it with the Conservative members and the NDP members. Unfortunately, today, the Conservatives have left us.

Since the program ended we have had only pilot projects. Under the Liberals, there was an incentive to return to work, among other things. Some people benefit from those measures, of course, and so much the better. I am convinced that the vast majority of people who lose their jobs want to find another one. In any event, I meet people who do. I have seen people who worked in the furniture industry, in the textile industry. At the Jeffrey mine, back home in Asbestos, people have lost their jobs, very often because of globalization, and they want to find another one. They do not come to see us to get benefits under a program because they want to retire rich at government expense. Quite the opposite.

Some people can benefit from these measures. We are quite pleased when, after taking a course, for example, they manage to find another form of employment. However, we must be aware that there is a category of workers for whom it is much more difficult to find a job very quickly.

As I was saying earlier, during the questions and comments period, some people can benefit from an income support program and work at the same time, just as it is possible when receiving employment insurance benefits. I have myself already been an employment insurance recipient. I had found a job which was not full time, but which allowed me to return to the labour market. I would declare my work hours for employment insurance purposes, which left me with less employment insurance benefits and more pay. I finally managed to find a permanent job. I was not 55 years old and I was able to find another form of employment. However, it is not as easy for some other people, and I think that we must be aware of that.

Under the Conservatives—my colleague from Compton—Stanstead touched up on the subject earlier—we are talking about a short-lived and restrictive support program which in no way meets the needs of older workers, since it excludes many sectors and many regions. A real program is called for not only by the Bloc Québécois, but also unanimously by the Quebec National Assembly. Earlier, my colleague from Chambly—Borduas spoke about what was done by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. This committee approved the implementation of a program for all sectors and all regions. We are not asking for a discriminatory measure such as the one mentioned by the government.

Once again, it is the Bloc Québécois that has championed the rights of the most vulnerable in this House. The income support program for older workers was proposed by my colleague from Chambly—Borduas. As I said at the beginning, he has been working tirelessly so that people in terrible straits will at last have the benefits they deserve.

I would remind the House that last June 9 there was a motion calling on the government to establish a strategy to help older workers who lose their jobs. This strategy would include income support measures to deal with the increasing number of factory closures associated with globalization. Before that, on April 6, the House unanimously passed the Bloc Québécois subamendment to the Speech from the Throne concerning a strategy for older workers that should include income support measures.

We have done the work and we are now asking the House to pass this motion so that we can move forward and give those older workers the right to retire with dignity.

How much would that cost? It was mentioned in this House. It would cost the federal government around $55 million the first year and $75 million after that. In fact, as was the case for POWA, which was in place from 1988 to 1997, it is estimated that the government should pay 70% of the bill. How much is this if it would allow workers to make it to retirement with dignity, given that we are announcing a surplus of more than $13 billion? We are spending more than $17 billion on armaments, and we just cut $1 billion in programs for those most in need, women’s groups, museums, literacy and the voluntary sector. I cannot believe that we are unable to put in place an income support program.

Back home, I was touched by the closure of Shermag, a furniture company, for which we talked about such an income support program.

That is what I have been asked to defend here in this House. I repeat my request and I ask the House to support this motion.

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member if he really understands the goal of the motion. Does he understand that the implementation of a program for older worker adjustment, or POWA, does not preclude the implementation of other measures to help certain workers go back to work? I hope he realizes that we are not asking for charity.

Of course, there is a category of workers who want nothing better that to be able to take classes and go back to work. The category of workers that this motion is aimed at is the hard to place workers. That does not mean that, during the period between end of employment—when they can benefit from POWA—and retirement, they could not go back to the labour market. These people could, of course, earn money for their work and it would be deducted from the POWA amount right up to their retirement date. One does not preclude the other.

Does the hon. member fully grasp the purpose of this measure? Does he understand that the workers are not asking for charity, but for an appropriate program, and that their reasons are motivated by the exception and not by the rule?

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Joliette, who was the Bloc Québécois critic for international trade for quite some time. He is very familiar with the file concerning the Quebec bicycle industry, which has been having a very hard time.

The Minister of Industry and hon. member for Beauce, where there is a bicycle factory, refused to provide any assistance to help this industry get back on its feet, or to help the workers of this industry as they face the reality of globalization.

How does he think this Conservative ideology reconciles everything that is happening in the bicycle industry, while it is impossible for businesses to restructure themselves? At the very least, POWA must be put in place. This minister, the Minister of Industry, belongs to a government that is dragging its feet in the POWA file. I would like him to talk about the ideology behind this kind of decision.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, September 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like someone serious to answer me.

“There will be money”. What does that mean? This government has been in power for eight months and the agricultural income crisis still has not been resolved.

I want someone serious to answer me.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food wants to talk about money. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food promised that Quebec would get its fair share of the $950 million budget for agriculture. However, Quebec's producers got only $50 million because of the method for calculating inventories, which the minister has described as “the best system around”. What a nice way to compensate Quebec's producers.

How did the minister come to the conclusion that Quebec should receive only 5% of the money, when Quebec represents 18% of Canada's agricultural activity?

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, September 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, thousands of Quebec producers are mass mailing postcards to convince the government to listen to the concrete proposals they have developed to end the ongoing agricultural income crisis.

Producers are demanding concrete measures adapted to the realities of their different products.

Will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food finally implement temporary measures until the 2008 review of the Agricultural Policy Framework by introducing a new agricultural income stabilization program to mitigate the damage caused primarily by foreign subsidies?