André Bellavance

[Agriculture, May 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec often has a better system. Yet, it is always penalized. The Quebec agricultural minister shares farmers' concerns and hopes that there is flexibility such that assistance can be directed first to those areas that need it most.

Can the minister promise Quebec and the provinces the flexibility needed to ensure that money is given first to the farmers who need it most?

[Agriculture, May 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the day after the government announced financial assistance in the budget for the agricultural sector, we learned that a portion of this sum would be allocated through the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program by retroactively applying adjustments to the current method of calculating inventories. The UPA demonstrated that, if this is the case, there is a good chance that Quebec might not receive any money.

Can the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food guarantee that his department will ensure that the intended portion of this financial assistance will be given to Quebec farmers and that they will not be penalized by the calculation method?

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I prefer this question to the previous one because I know the member well and I know that he is a staunch defender of agricultural producers in his riding, whom I had a chance to visit during the land use tour. We met members of the Union des producteurs agricoles. We even met some in Îles-de-la-Madeleine, where there is not as much agriculture. These people are very active and dynamic. I truly appreciate his question.

He is quite right: this crisis is unprecedented. The budget does not offer a panacea or any extraordinary sums. Agricultural producers asked for more than that.

The Bloc was worried that only the $500 million promised would be handed out, but a billion more has been allocated. This is a step in the right direction. However, as I said earlier, we have concerns about how the money will be distributed and how the allocations will be parcelled out to the provinces. We have to make sure that producers who need it can have access to the money right away. We would like the government to clarify what is happening with this.

In Quebec, another farm shuts down every week because of this serious agricultural income crisis. The member knows it and the government ought to understand it. All of these closures are worrisome. The government should consider the situation immediately and come to a decision sooner rather than later.

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. It makes me laugh to hear the Liberals, who were in power for 13 years, listing everything that is bad in this budget, when they could have taken care of many of the problems that they are speaking about today with the billions of dollars in surpluses they accumulated over their years in power.

There is quite a credibility problem, in my view, when I hear the Liberals complain about what is happening now in the House of Commons. In addition, they are in the middle of their leadership race now and should therefore not try to make me believe that they are ready for an election after three months when we know very well or at least suspect—even though I am not the greatest political analyst in the world—that the Conservatives would return to power one month after the election with a budget very similar to this one.

We would then be back to where we started. And even though the Bloc has worked very hard to have the fiscal imbalance finally recognized, this recognition would probably be lost. For us, that is one reason not to defeat this government. Still, it is a transition budget. We are not going to let our guard down. When the next budget is tabled, we will see who has the last word.

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber for allowing me to share his allotted time. I would also like to congratulate him on his work during the budget--given his role as deputy finance critic--in cooperation with the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who for years has been working very hard to improve Quebec's position in terms of finances, and will continue to do so until sovereignty is achieved.

This budget marks the first time that we have seen the notion of a fiscal imbalance included. This is one of its positive points.

At home, the local media asked me about the budget. I replied that, like any budget, it has some positive aspects and some negative. I will focus on some of these points here today, particularly concerning agriculture, since I am the critic for the Bloc Québécois.

On the plus side, this budget sets out seven commitments including eliminating the fiscal imbalance by 2007. The Bloc Québécois is no stranger to this issue. On the contrary, the work that our party leader and my colleagues have done on this has paid off. This government understands that it is a minority and that it cannot be authoritarian like the last government was. Fortunately, this government has listened to some of our requests.

I had the opportunity to meet with several people over the weekend, namely mayors. They were satisfied with the supplementary $1.5 billion for infrastructure. We were talking earlier about municipalities. In matters of infrastructure, money is always an issue. It is always very appreciated when the federal government, through our tax money, can contribute together with the provincial and municipal governments to improving community infrastructure.

However, this budget also has a negative side. Anything to do with the environment is quite worrisome. Some money is being allocated, but it is not clear. We do not know what it will be used for. We know that this government wants to destroy the Kyoto protocol and that worries us.

Earlier I heard an hon. member talk about employment insurance. There is nothing in this budget on that either except for a vague allusion to an older worker assistance program. For the rest, we are still looking for measures on employment insurance in this budget. Unfortunately, it is true to the Conservatives' line of thinking not to be really concerned about the less fortunate.

We must also talk about industrial sectors that are deteriorating under globalization. Let us take for instance the clothing, textile and furniture sectors in my riding. My constituency went through job losses because of the inaction and inefficiency of the previous Liberal government. The current government did not think to add anything in the budget to help these deteriorating sectors.

As far as the $1,200 per child allowance is concerned, unfortunately, despite backlash from the Bloc Québécois and all the good advice coming from Quebec, this allowance is still taxable. My advice to families is to put money aside. When they file their income tax return they will have to pay tax on this allowance.

As I was saying, I want to spend the next few minutes on agriculture. We know that there is a very serious problem with farm incomes. There was a demonstration right here at Parliament on April 5. There were very good reasons for it. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is forecasting a 50% drop in farm income in 2006 in comparison with 2005 and an 81% drop in comparison with 2004. In addition, farm debt has risen 90% since 1995. Producers are in it now over their heads. We must help them get their heads above water.

The budget plan is to spend $1.5 billion on agriculture, of which $1 billion would be in 2006. We still have some concerns, though, about how this envelope will be allocated. We need to specify how this money will be paid out. Unfortunately, neither the budget nor the minister have dropped a single word about this since the bill was introduced here in the House of Commons.

Our farmers cannot compete currently with American and European producers. We know the situation well. The latter benefit from huge subsidies. I have some figures here. In Canada, for example, the subsidies amount to about $192 per capita in American dollars. In the United States, it is $317 per capita, and in European Union countries, it is $304.

In certain other countries, agricultural subsidies are even higher. In Japan, they are more than $400 per capita.

We are unable, therefore, to get a level playing field with countries that are also members of the World Trade Organization.

In Quebec and Canada, the farm sector has lost more than $6 billion in four years. That is a lot of money. The average annual net income per farm has been barely $5,600. It is a historic low, and that is what we heard from farmers when they came to Parliament Hill. My colleagues in the Bloc Québécois and I marched with the 3,000 producers from Quebec who came to Ottawa to demand their share from this government just before the budget was brought down.

The Bloc Québécois demanded and obtained a take-note debate the day after this farmers’ demonstration. That evening, the government got several messages. The current programs are not filling the gaping hole in farm incomes. We need an aid program that will enable farmers to survive until a new strategic framework is adopted for agriculture, something this government promised.

The marketing structures, such as supply management and the Canadian Wheat Board, have to be supported and maintained by the government. We are very concerned about this. One need only consider what is happening at the moment to the dairy producers, with the whole debate on milk proteins. Imports are going to lead to the loss of more and more money for our dairy producers. Those losses could reach $500 million per year. Yet this government, like the previous one, does not want to acknowledge the problem.

We are beginning to see demonstrations in Quebec on this subject, and I want to warn the government right away to be on its guard. Quebec farmers too are very concerned about what is happening. Import restriction is one of the pillars of supply management. We are in the process of weakening that pillar. We even risk the collapse of the entire supply management system if we do not formally acknowledge the situation and use the means at our disposal: we can utilize article 28 of the GATT, or we can change the regulations governing the way that milk proteins are imported into Quebec and Canada.

I now close my parenthesis and continue.

With regard to the farmers’ demands, they have made it clear, both here and prior to the budget speech, that the funding granted should be flexible enough that Quebec and the provinces can set up and finance the appropriate mechanisms.

As I was saying, these key points were demanded before the budget. Now that we know that $1 billion will be paid out to help farmers make the transition to more effective farm income stabilization and disaster relief programming, we need to know under what criteria that money will be made available.

The minister has decided to invest the billion dollars in the Canadian farm income stabilization program. That means the money will be distributed through that program, after an evaluation of or retroactive adjustments to inventories. However this method raises certain concerns. I met recently with members of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, of which Laurent Pellerin, the president of the UPA, is the vice-president. Under this method, the aid will cover only the steep annual decline in prices.

So we wonder what will happen, for example, to the grain growers who are most affected by the farm crisis. This method may well be of no use to them, because the grains and oilseeds sector is subject to slower, long-term price reductions. Neither will the horticulture sector benefit from the use of inventory evaluations, since market gardeners do not carry their inventory forward from year to year.

Also according to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the differences between accounting systems could deprive Quebec farmers of the allocated funds. Quebec farmers have not forgotten that they received only $42 million of the $755 million distributed under the last federal assistance program.

The minister and his parliamentary secretaries, one of whom is an hon. member from Quebec, have crowed about that $755 million. Yet it had been announced by the previous government and simply carried forward by the Conservative government. The government should be careful, for Quebec is quite aware that it has not received its fair share of that money.

I close by saying that the Bloc Québécois joins its voice to that of the agricultural producers in calling for the government to distribute the announced aid fairly between the provinces, and to really direct it to those who need it most.

[Agriculture, April 28th, 2006]

While grain producers in the U.S. get massive subsidies and report record profits, our farmers are waiting for the support promised by the Conservatives.

What is the minister waiting for to give financial help immediately for the spring seeding and to begin to reform the agriculture strategy framework?

[Agriculture, April 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday cash crop farmers from Mauricie dumped seven tonnes of corn at the regional office of Farm Credit Canada in Trois-Rivières. These farmers are at the end of their rope since their incomes have dropped by 80% over the past two years. Seeding time is about to begin and there is an urgent need to take action. For more than three years, the farmers of Quebec have been asking the Canadian government to help them contain the crisis.

My question is simple: does the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food intend to respond favourably to their request?

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, April 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we had the same problem with cheese sticks. The Bloc Québécois had to fight for two years with the previous government before it took any action. Under article XXVIII of the GATT or by way of regulation, the government has the power to put an immediate stop to any increased imports of dairy by-products.

Can the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food not announce immediately that his government is going to put a stop to this import of dairy proteins, which is urgently needed by dairy producers?

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, April 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to this farming income crisis is the significant increase in milk protein imports, which are significantly reducing the number of outlets for milk from our farmers and requiring them to reduce their production quotas themselves.

Why does the government not use its authority to put an immediate stop to this increase in imported milk by-products in Quebec and Canada?

[Agriculture, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I will be very brief. The Bloc Québécois has always been concerned about the plight of young farmers. I am pleased that the member raised the issue of grain producers, who are also suffering greatly in Quebec. Many of them were on Parliament Hill. I assume the member heard them too.

With respect to the CAIS program, it is clearly not working. This has been said over and over, and I think everyone agrees on this. We are here tonight to discuss the income crisis. We must resolve it immediately. We must offer targeted assistance.

I hope that the member and his party will support our request to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, who was here tonight to talk about it. This is something that should be important for them. We must help agricultural producers experiencing an income crisis. We need that support now.