André Bellavance

[Maude-Aimée Leblanc, September 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Maude-Aimée Leblanc, from Windsor, who won the national junior girls golf championship this summer in New Brunswick.

Ms. Leblanc, who represents the Asbestos golf club, delivered a brilliant performance, finishing seven strokes ahead of her nearest competitor with a score of 288 after four rounds.

The 2006 season was very rewarding for Ms. Leblanc: she also won the Quebec junior championship and participated in the Canadian professional golfers' association women's championship.

I would also like to point out that she was awarded a bursary from Purdue University in Indiana, where she intends to continue her studies.

Maude-Aimée Leblanc, the new champion among girls under 18, has shown tremendous determination and I wish her all the best in her quest for success.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, September 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, over a month ago, the American border was closed to exports of Quebec potatoes after golden nematodes were found in a field south of Montreal. Producers took the necessary steps to prevent the nematodes from spreading, including washing their products and equipment.

Will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food comply with Quebec's demands and exert all due pressure on Washington to lift the embargo on exports of Quebec potatoes? He just recently met with his American counterpart, and I imagine they discussed more than just the weather.

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

No, Mr. Speaker, that is not enough, and I said so in my speech. I gave quite a convincing example regarding housing. It is pointless to make impressive sounding announcements in the budget when in fact, when we look closely, not much is left, as the hon. member just showed. It shrinks, like when I do my laundry. Sometimes I get the wrong cycle and add water that is too hot or put my clothes in the dryer when I should not. There is what is happening here too, when things in the budget shrink a bit.

In the government’s four priorities for reserves, there was maybe $150 million for the 2006-07 year. In the end, all that remains for social housing is $30 million. That is far from enough because just in Quebec aboriginals need an immediate 8,700 housing units, which would require a billion dollar investment. I could extrapolate for all the other priorities too, and the serious shortfalls would be obvious.

As I have already said in other regards during interviews or here in the House, this government came in here after the election with its five priorities. I am our agriculture critic. However, agriculture is not one of these priorities, nor is the environment, and I can say as well that anything related to social programs also does not number among these priorities. It is the same, unfortunately, for the first nations. They too, apparently, are not included in the five priorities of the Conservative government. That is obvious this evening.

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to learn that Ghislain Picard, the chief of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec, is in discussion and dialogue with the government. The opposite would be truly insulting for Mr. Picard. I hope that the government will continue those discussions.

Incidentally, what I said earlier responds to the hon. member’s questions. I said, and I have not stopped saying, that this agreement was not perfect. He has just listed certain shortcomings of the agreement. The Kelowna accord can be improved. We have always said so, as have the aboriginal peoples. The accord posed some problems for a number of them. However, I repeat for the benefit of the hon. member who may have missed parts of my speech: there was a concrete agreement on the table, signed by the first nations, the premiers of Quebec and the provinces, and the Prime Minister of Canada.

There is money and there are elements which advance the cause of the aboriginal peoples in education, in health, and even economically. So why would this government not improve on the accord?

The hon. member is part of the Conservative government. If he has any observations to make, let him make them to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I am not the one he should be addressing them to. He is in the government; he appears to be on the right side. Let him go tell this minister and his prime minister that there are certain problems to be resolved in the Kelowna accord: let them correct those problems, let them improve that accord, and we will support them.

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the hon. member for her question.

I would not say it is extraordinary because for years the Liberal government could have done better and much more for the aboriginal people. It is unfortunate that they did not think to conclude such an agreement before the election. However, I agree with the hon. member when she says we must not wait for a perfect agreement, or perfect for the government in any case. This was an important first step for the first nations.

As I was saying earlier, in Quebec, it was felt that this was not a solution and that there should have been more consultation with all the stakeholders, namely the aboriginal peoples. However, once the agreement was reached, the premiers, the leaders of the national aboriginal peoples and the Prime Minister of Canada had nonetheless put something concrete on paper. For once it was concrete, it was real, there was money involved and efforts were made to advance the cause of the aboriginal peoples, the Inuit and the Métis.

Accordingly, I think the current Conservative government should not have torn up this agreement and reneged on its word. It should have kept this accord and even improved it, if it is seeking perfection, as the hon. member says. I think there was, in fact, room for improvement.

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

He may be outraged and get all worked up, but I clearly explained earlier in my speech that Ghislain Picard, the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, and the Quebec Native Women's Association expressed their reservations about the Kelowna accord and decided not to participate.

I have here a press release issued on that topic. However, as the member is fully aware, once the agreement was signed, there was money on the table and this represented a step in the right direction.

One can express disagreement with an accord and then accept it after the fact, once it is a done deal. One moves forward and, building on this first step, one continues to negotiate to go even further and reach, quickly if one can, the best possible agreement.

Obviously, it is never perfect, but Ghislain Picard is now asking that the Kelowna accord be implemented. Perhaps the hon. member is not in contact with Ghislain Picard, but the Bloc Québécois is. Since we sit in Parliament, we asked that the accord be implemented, on behalf of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, and the Quebec Native Women's Association. We stay in touch with them, we know what they want, and they want us to support this motion. The hon. member should do the same.

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this debate on the Kelowna accord.

I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Indian and Northern Affairs. Immediately after I was elected, I was deputy critic for Indian affairs together with a former hon. member, to whom I wish to pay tribute today, and that is Bernard Cleary. He was the first aboriginal person from Quebec to be elected to the House of Commons. He was a negotiator for the aboriginal community for over 40 years. Today, he still works with aboriginal peoples. What went on in the first nations communities was always important to him. He worked very hard for the Inuit, the Métis and so on. He is an extraordinary man with whom I had the great pleasure of working. I would often tease him and call him a great sage because he was a little older and he had a white beard. He thought that was quite funny. I always felt that he taught me a lot about the vision of the first nations since he himself was an aboriginal person, as I indicated.

If I may, I will reread this important motion:

That the House recognize the urgent need to improve the quality of life of Canada’s Aboriginals, First Nations, Inuit and Métis, living both on and off reserve, which requires focused and immediate initiatives by the government in areas such as health, water, housing, education, and economic opportunities and, especially, immediately moving forward with the implementation of the Kelowna Accord with its full funding commitments.

It is important to put back on the table what we are talking about this evening. The first nations were keenly disappointed during the presentation of the first Conservative budget, which purely and simply annuls the Kelowna accord. The government chose to make piecemeal announcements. Take, for example, housing on reserves. The budget allocates only $30 million in reality. If we assume that the government is also distributing the $150 million that was promised for 2006-07, in the four priorities it established for reserves, this equals $30 million for housing. When we consider the needs, this $30 million is a drop in the bucket.

In Quebec alone, aboriginal people have an immediate need for 8,700 housing units, which would require an investment of $1 billion. The Conservative government has spent the day talking about the investments provided for in the budget. I know because I listened to most of the debates. The Bloc has nothing against these investments—far from it. But the first nations in Quebec and elsewhere are extremely disappointed, even devastated. They were expecting to receive $811.5 million for 2006-07. By turning its back on the Kelowna accord, the government is going back on the promise that was made. The fact that another government is in power does not alter the principle of the matter. Giving one's word—and, even more so, the signing of an accord by a government—is extremely important, especially to aboriginal peoples, who keep their word. As I mentioned previously when I spoke about my colleague, Bernard Cleary, these people place a high value on respect for individuals and on keeping promises. They are therefore convinced, and rightly so, that an agreement in due form was reached between their nation and Canada on November 25 in Kelowna, when the first ministers met. To the aboriginal peoples, seeing the government reject this agreement out of hand is another snub, another promise broken.

In Quebec, the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador and Quebec Native Women want the Kelowna accord, as ratified on November 25, 2005, to be implemented. The accord provides for investments of more than $5 billion over five years to “close the gap between Aboriginal peoples and other Canadians in education, health, housing and economic opportunities”.

Like any agreement, this one is not perfect. Earlier, I spoke about the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador and Quebec Native Women, which had set clear guidelines or expressed reservations about this accord. Today, because the accord was reached, they would like it to be implemented, in spite of everything. As I said, it is not perfect. We have found that it does contain some irritants—that frequently happens when the federal government sticks its nose into certain issues. For example, we have found intrusions into the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces over education, of course, where the agreement refers to off-reserve initiatives within the public school system

The federal government has no say in that, and even less in what happens off reserve.

The first nations have also identified some problems with it. The funds announced were not determined with the aboriginal peoples, nor were they equivalent to the required amounts estimated by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. As everyone no doubt remembers, the commission estimated adequate funding to be $1 billion per year for 20 years. That is a lot more than the government was planning to give.

This report was submitted to the federal government ten years ago. This is its tenth anniversary, but I do not think there is much worth celebrating because this is yet another report that the federal government has relegated to a dusty shelf. Not only is the new government keeping it there, it has decided to simply cancel the accord signed last November 25.

This shows to what extent the federal government has abandoned first nations. The Kelowna accord was a step in the right direction—a small step. Unfortunately, the current government has taken a step backwards.

Before the agreement was finalized, the Bloc Québécois supported the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador's position and that of the Quebec Native Women, who, as I said earlier, were critical of the fact that the approach to narrowing the gap between quality of life for first nations and other groups did not address the root causes of the problems aboriginal peoples are experiencing, which causes include the lack of fair access to lands and resources and failure to respect their rights. Furthermore, the pan-aboriginal approach and the lack of community consultations to target certain issues was likely to maintain the first nations' cycle of dependency.

We have not changed our minds. Even though we support the Liberal Party's motion, we, the Bloc Québécois, feel that there must be concrete solutions adapted to the realities facing diverse aboriginal peoples so that the inequalities affecting their communities can really be fixed. As in all things, money alone will not solve all of the problems. The first nations must be part of the discussions so that we can break the vicious cycle of the federal government's paternalistic approach.

In spite of all this, and because we are committed to this issue, we have taken concrete action to ensure that the accord is implemented. At the beginning of May, my colleague for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, now the Bloc Québécois critic for native affairs, tabled a motion at the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, which was adopted. We also supported Bill C-292, a private members' bill pertaining to the implementation of the agreement between representatives of the federal government, the Quebec government, provincial governments and national native leaders.

I repeat, implementing the Kelowna accord is taking a step in the right direction. This is why we should support—and I am calling on all members of Parliament to do so—the motion before the House.

Do I need to remind the House that the unemployment rate for aboriginal people is 19% compared to the national average of 7.5%? The unemployment rate on reserves is far worse—29%. The average income in Canada is $25,000—not a substantial amount—but is only $16,000 for aboriginal peoples.

What about the serious shortage of housing, estimated to be between 20,000 and 35,000 units? Despite claims by the government, which has presented projects or money to help, this housing crisis is actually worsening, with a shortage of 2,200 units per year. Off-reserve, basic housing needs are 76% higher for native peoples. In the north, the figure rises to 130%.

And what about health? Infant mortality is 20% higher among aboriginals. The suicide rate is three to eleven times that of other Canadians. The Inuit are particularly afflicted by this absolutely terrible tragedy.

Will the Kelowna accord solve all these problems, deal will all these inequities? Unfortunately, no. However, native leaders, invited for the first time to the first ministers' table, signed this agreement. The provincial premiers and, of course, the Prime Minister of Canada also signed it.

Thus, it is a question of principle, a question of respect. What is at stake is the respect of aboriginal peoples, the first nations, the Inuit and the Métis for the promise made.

I encourage the House to adopt the motion.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate on Bill C-300, which was introduced by the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, who is also the chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, and with whom I truly enjoy working.

That said, today we are talking about a different issue. We will not necessarily be on the same wavelength about his bill, which is no doubt the product of his very serious and thorough effort. He truly believes in the arguments he has put forward. However, it is not because one believes in something that one is right. We, the Bloc Québécois, have some concerns about this bill that I will discuss during the time I have been given.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act (direct sale of grain). If this bill were to be adopted, it would authorize grain producers to sell grain directly to certain specified associations or firms engaged in the processing of grain, and transport grain for the purposes of those sales, without having to pay a fee to the Canadian Wheat Board.

As I said earlier, we cannot support this bill because we have concerns about some things we found out. Many people were involved in this file, but that does not mean there was unanimity. I agree with the member who introduced the bill that there are major differences of opinion. The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food studied the issue. We have concerns that prevent us from moving ahead with this bill. I believe that it would weaken a collective marketing tool used by 85,000 barley and wheat producers in the west.

As the Bloc Québécois agriculture and agrifood critic and a defender of the interests of Quebec farmers, I am afraid to see the Conservative government go after another collective marketing tool. Hon. members will have guessed that I am talking about supply management, which Quebec holds dear and which, as we know, accounts for 40% of farm income in Quebec. I mention this because every time people attack the Canadian Wheat Board at the World Trade Organization, they are also attacking supply management. If we open the door to dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board, I am really afraid that the federal government will prompt other countries—and will itself decide—to dismantle the supply management system. If that happens, the Bloc Québécois will fight tooth and nail to prevent the supply management system in Quebec from ever being modified.

I will talk very briefly about what the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said about this issue. When he appeared recently before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, he said that in the end, Canada stands alone on supply management. It was even implied that there had been a vote of 148 to 1. In fact, there was no vote.

Clearly, the other countries have always tried to challenge the supply management system. To me, the fact that Canada was alone did not mean that it should give up and get rid of a system it has always defended. The minister implied that he planned to be flexible, because Canada would have to get along with the other countries and eventually sign an agreement.

I was once a union president, and I have also been a grievance officer. When I am not happy with an agreement, I do not sign it. If an agreement is bad, we do not sign it. We have to stand up for what we believe, and we have to defend our farmers. In this case, we have to defend supply management. That is what the minister should be saying.

There were also the comments by the WTO director general, Pascal Lamy. He came to Montreal to bring pressure to bear, saying that we need to start looking at what is going on with the Canadian Wheat Board and supply management, and that concessions need to be made. I do not think we have any lessons to learn from Mr. Lamy. I do not know whose interests he is serving, but he wants an agreement in the end. In any event, he wants Canada to bow to the dictates of the other countries, the United States and the European Union in particular.

He talks about market access and says we need to be increasingly open. That is the goal of every market. When we do business, we want other markets to be open, just as we are prepared to open ours. But in this case, there needs to be a level playing field before this happens. Five percent of the entire market in Canada is already open to foreign products, while on average 2.5% of the markets in the U.S., the European Union and the other countries are open. As far as hatching eggs are concerned, we already allow 20% of the product to come from other countries.

At some point, before holding discussions and making concessions, everyone needs to realize that these figures do indeed exist and that other countries still are not as open as we are when it comes to market access.

Let us also talk about the attitude of Canada's chief negotiator at the WTO. He is still having a hard time living with the motion on supply management passed unanimously on November 22 by the House of Commons. Fortunately, the Bloc Québécois had this motion passed to protect our supply management system.

All these concerns make me worry about a domino effect if this type of bill is passed and the Canadian Wheat Board is dismantled. I fear that the next target will be the supply management system.

Collective marketing is very important in Quebec. I have spoken at some length about supply management. In addition, there are the joint plans and the cooperatives. All of this serves to protect farmers’ income. This is a unique instrument of governments, and is not comparable to a subsidy. There are even some emerging countries, notably in Africa, that are beginning to take great interest in this. It is a very good thing, given the income stability for farm producers, as I was saying earlier, and also because it ensures a fair price for consumers.

Furthermore, 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 producers have done with the Canadian Wheat Board. That is also what the members of the cash crop producers, the Fédération des producteurs de cultures commerciales du Québec, did last year, when they created the wheat sales agency called the Agence de vente de blé à consommation humaine du Québec. With this new agency, the federation becomes the only agent authorized to market wheat for human consumption in Quebec. This is modelled on the way other products operate in Quebec, such as milk, maple syrup, pork and the cattle industry. Such selling agencies are emerging through a democratic process. The producers are called upon to make a decision on their product. That is what the cash crop producers have done. They have asked themselves by what means could they get a fair return in selling their wheat for human consumption. Their interest was drawn by examples in other kinds of crops, and they created this compulsory selling agency.

Unlike the Canadian Wheat Board, the Federation of Quebec Producers of Cash Crops does not own the crop and has no government affiliation. All the same, the Quebec wheat sales agency is disturbed that it is being associated with the criticism directed against the Canadian Wheat Board at the WTO.

To challenge the agency is to attack not only the collective wheat marketing instrument that has just been created, but also the Quebec act respecting the marketing of agricultural, food and fish products. That act permits our producers to join forces to create a collective marketing agency.

Therefore, our position is to defend at all costs the existence of publicly-owned corporations as discussed at the WTO negotiations, for if the government abandons the Canadian Wheat Board, the entire collective marketing system may be weakened. I spoke earlier about the domino effect. This bill opens the door to attacks on all fronts, on all sides, against our collective marketing system.

With this bill, as with all of its policies concerning the Canadian Wheat Board, the Conservative government's intention is to offer farmers the freedom of choice. This might appear entirely democratic. In fact, we are talking about varied opportunities to sell their grain. In 2002, the current Prime Minister proposed a motion to eliminate the Canadian Wheat Board. Voluntary marketing is being proposed. However, that does not work, which is unfortunate for the member who is presenting the bill. A few people have tried this and experience has shown that the balance of power between sellers and buyers does not exist if the selling agency is not compulsory. Yet, some western producers want changes made to the Canadian Wheat Board, as we have heard. However, a great deal of contradictory information is circulating about this, specifically concerning what producers really want. Here are some results from a National Farmers' Union survey, which was criticized earlier by the Conservative member behind this bill, although the survey is nevertheless entirely scientific: 76% of producers support the Canadian Wheat Board and 88% want to have the final say in deciding the future of the Canadian Wheat Board.

In my opinion, before we agree to vote for such a bill, we should do what was decided in parliamentary committee, namely, allow producers to decide through a referendum, by plebiscite, and hear what they really think.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, June 14th, 2006]

The Minister knows very well that the one does not prevent the other. He can have his meeting with the dairy farmers and the processors, and he can take a stand and defend the dairy farmers. Despite the powers he now has, the minister is incapable of standing up on this issue.

With such an attitude, how will he be able to suitably defend the agricultural sector when the time comes to defend supply management? This is a fine signal the minister is sending to the other countries!

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there is less milk in ice cream and less milk in cheese because increasing use is being made of dairy by-products from elsewhere, instead of real domestic milk, in the manufacture of these products. If nothing is done to control imports of protein concentrates, up to 25% of the Canadian milk protein market will be lost, and the lost revenue will amount to over a half a billion dollars.

What is the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food waiting for to limit imports of dairy by-products, so as to offer real protection for the dairy producers of Quebec and Canada?