André Bellavance

[Member for Newton—North Delta, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member confirms that the Prime Minister was informed, but what we want to know is when.

Does the Prime Minister realize that, by refusing to answer this very simple question, he is himself raising questions about what really happened in this matter?

[Member for Newton—North Delta, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister could save everyone a lot of trouble and make the RCMP's job easier by simply answering our questions about the timing of when he became aware of a member of Parliament trying to sell his support.

Could the Prime Minister tell us why he is stubbornly refusing to answer this very simple question? When exactly did he learn that a member wanted to get something in return for supporting the government?

[Supply, June 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer would be yes. That is exactly the problem with the government. We must constantly ask for emergency measures after the crisis has developed.

The government had all the time it needed to put safeguards in place. I am thinking of the textile industry crisis. That is a file the member for Joliette knows very well. We have had 10 years to put in place safeguard measures. Without going so far as closing our borders, we could have implemented some measures to help the textile industry to adapt. That industry could have become competitive with Asian countries and others that are conquering world markets with their textile and apparel.

During 10 years, nothing happened. Then, we realized that something should have been done.

That is the problem with this government: it does not have a vision.

[Supply, June 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary will have to do her homework once again. I believe she is sincere when she says that she has asked her government for support measures for older workers. I know there are textile industries in her riding and that this is very important to her. However, there is work to be done.

We must be very careful. We are not against training programs for a certain category of workers who are laid off. On the contrary, it is for the better if most workers in an industry that closes its doors find another job after having received training. We are well aware that most workers still have many years to give society by working. We are not interested in putting them on leave.

However, we must also be aware—and the federal government is not, because it abolished the POWA in 1997—that there is a certain other category of workers who cannot find another job, despite two or three years of training. They will not be able to do so. They worked 30 or 40 years for the same business. Perhaps they are less educated than some other colleagues. We know that the best solution to ensure that these people live with dignity is for them to benefit from a program that will help them bridge the gap until the age of retirement.

It is not that complicated. This is not something that is impossible to achieve and that will cost an arm and a leg. We showed that this was possible. This is what we are asking the government.

We are asking the parliamentary secretary and her colleagues to support us on this.

[Supply, June 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Joliette for agreeing to share his time with me. It was a close call.

I am happy to take part in today's debate, which we owe to my colleague from Chambly—Borduas. I thank him for moving his motion because my riding, like the ridings of many other members, is deeply affected when older workers are victims of mass layoffs. I think that no one here, no matter on which side of the House we sit, can remain unmoved by a mass layoff. We may not have the same approach to solutions but we all make efforts to find some.

The minister said that she supported my colleague's motion. Of course, that is good news. However, there is a glitch. Even though we are glad to have the support of the minister, we hope that she will be able to convince the Prime Minister to support it too. We must not forget that he is the one who abolished the Program for Older Worker Adjustment in 1997, when he was minister of Finance.

Let me read the motion quickly:

That, in the opinion of the House, due to the increasing number of factory closures associated with globalization, the government should establish a strategy to help older workers who lose their jobs, a strategy that should include income support measures.

As I mentioned earlier, I am very pleased that all parties support this motion. It is high time for the government to take concrete steps to help older workers who are laid off.

I also remind Liberals who support this motion, that they are well known for making promises and not keeping them. We want concrete measures. This strategy has to be put in place now.

We want an income support program for older workers. We want this POWA program to be part of a comprehensive support strategy for older workers. We do not want small pilot projects like the ones mentioned by the parliamentary secretary, the minister and her colleagues since the beginning of this debate. These initiatives are not only insufficient but also far from meeting the current needs of the older workers who have lost their jobs.

Why do we need a specific measure for older workers affected by a permanent major layoff? I will quote what the Canada Employment Insurance Commission had to say on that subject in the report it tabled last March. This report states among other things that:

Although older workers enjoyed considerable employment growth in 2003-04 (5.8% unemployment rate), it is widely acknowledged that once unemployed, older workers may face challenges becoming re-employed. Older workers are over-represented among the long-term unemployed, representing 21.3% of this group and only 12.5% of the labour force.

The Liberal government claims that it is helping older workers with the pilot projects I talked about. The main goal of those pilot projects, created to address massive layoffs, is to train laid-off older workers. However, experience has taught us that older workers are not very likely to pursue this type of training. These projects are therefore clearly inadequate.

The Canada Employment Insurance Commission went on to say that:

Older workers tended to remain unemployed longer—33.6 weeks compared to 23.3 weeks for workers aged 25 to 54. In general, older workers had lower education levels than workers aged 25 to 54 (39.1% of older workers had less than high school education, compared to 18.9% of workers aged 25 to 54)—

We must face the facts. Training is pointless for some older workers. They are in dire straits. We know that, if these older workers are unable to find another job before their benefits run out, they will be forced to apply for social assistance.

In order to get social assistance, they have to qualify for it. So, first they will have to get rid of their assets. These people have worked their entire lives for a house, land, a car and maybe even a cottage. However, before they get social assistance, their last resort, they will have to get rid of everything. It is humiliating for these people, who have often worked 20, 30 or 40 years even in same place and they have to apply for social assistance. This is not a solution.

POWA was an acceptable solution until 1997. Now, we want it reinstated.

We know that some sectors are harder hit than others as a result of globalization and competition from Asia. I am thinking of the textile and clothing industries, among others. Some of these industries are in my riding. I say “some” because there used to be many more. Unfortunately, as a result of competition from Asia and the federal Liberal government's lack of vision, many of them have had to shut their doors.

There is a crisis in the textile and clothing industries, that goes without saying. These industries have to adapt to a new trade environment. On December 31, 2004, the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, which had been in force since 1995, expired. The end of this agreement meant that the Canadian and Quebec borders were now open to imports, particularly from China, which are mushrooming. And it is the same for other countries.

To add fuel to the fire, the United States, the primary destination for our exports, concluded a series of agreements facilitating the import by that country of clothing manufactured abroad using American fabrics, which has decreased access for clothing manufactured using Quebec and Canadian fabrics.

Textile plants are often the main if not the only business of any size in a number of communities. Do I need to mention Huntingdon again? My colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry, who sits near me in this House, has spoken considerably of it. He has fought tooth and nail for his people, and I congratulate him on it. The fight is not over. This community has not finished fighting for its survival. It is a tragic event when six businesses in the same sector close at the same time. We can imagine the terrible situation the people and their families are facing.

I would like to speak briefly, as well, about the furniture industry. Where I come from, in Victoriaville, the firm Shermag has just announced it is laying off 175 people in July, when the company will shut down completely. Competition from Asia is again the source of problems.

In this House, I asked the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development what she could do. I requested that a POWA be set up. She did not rise to answer. The Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec responded, telling me that his department did not target this type of business. That is the answer I got. That is the answer our workers got from this government. I have not given up. I will continue to hammer the same message home. This response indicates an insensitivity that is totally unacceptable.

In addition to POWA, I proposed constructive solutions to help the furniture sector. I asked the government to ensure that Asian countries complied with WTO regulations. I called for more power for the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal in order to speed up the complaint process. If it takes two years to investigate unfair trade practices, workers can end up in the street long before a conclusion is reached.

I called for the creation of tax credits for innovation. Respect is due to the furniture sector, which is undertaking research and development. In many cases, this has not been accepted. I also asked for an accelerated write-off for manufacturing facilities, which would make other investments possible.

I made a quick aside to talk about Shermag, in my hometown of Victoriaville, because this is something that is very near and dear to my heart. I will now come back to POWA.

Still in my riding, and I always like to give local examples because there are plenty, a few years ago the workers of the Jeffrey mine in Asbestos were also hit by massive layoffs They could also have benefited from a program to help older workers. When I met them during the election campaign, they suggested an improved POWA. It is a proposition that the Bloc Québécois fully supports. We know that a coalition of labour unions, the CSD, the CSN, the CSD and the FTQ, have presented an improved POWA. It is important that we talk about it.

I will conclude by saying that this improved POWA would give older workers benefits allowing them to keep their assets. For the coalition, it is very important that older workers are not faced with an economic downfall forcing them to give up any asset acquired during their life. The support provided by this improved POWA should be equal to the income replacement rate under the EI program, and a minimum threshold should be established, as provided in the POWA since 1987.

I want to mention that the Bloc Québécois has seen a good number of its motions adopted in the House. For those who are wondering what the Bloc Québécois is doing here, I would remind them that not too long ago, we have had several of our motions adopted on issues such as the mad cow crisis, the textile industry, supply management, the judicial appointment process, and so on.

However, I would like this motion to be unanimously adopted in this House.

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Madam Chair, I thank the hon. member for his relevant question and for supporting supply management.

As I said earlier, the use of milk substitutes alone results in an annual shortfall of $70 million for Quebec dairy producers, and of $175 million for Canadian producers. This is a very concrete, current and unfortunate impact.

The hon. member gave a good example, namely the softwood lumber issue, regarding which some countries, that is the United States, do not hesitate to apply protectionist measures to protect their industry. Of course, in the case of softwood lumber, we and just about everyone else, including American consumers, think that the United States used what could be termed as delaying tactics. It is possible to apply some measures without completely closing the borders.

Back home, we just witnessed something very sad. A furniture manufacturing plant just shut down. Over a period of a few months, 175 workers have lost their jobs. As we know, the furniture and textile industries are two sectors that are experiencing problems and for which it would be possible to apply some protectionist measures to protect them from the Asian competition, without totally closing our markets.

Therefore, I do not see why, in the agriculture sector, which is faring a lot better than some others, we would not use the measures available to us to protect our supply management system.

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Madam Chair, we would have to ask the minister if that would be doable and profitable under those circumstances.

I certainly do not believe that leaving the negotiating table at a time when the supply management system is threatened is a good approach. Who will defend the supply management system, if the minister has left the table? We have to be present but firm. The same is true of members of Parliament; we have to be present in the House. If I am not in my seat, I cannot speak on behalf of the dairy producers in my region.

My position is just the opposite of what the hon. member suggested. The minister has to be at the table. Both the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food have to be firm in these negotiations.This does not mean flouting WTO rules. It means using those means available to us to defend our supply management system and our agriculture. The supply management system does not benefit only Quebec, it also benefits the other provinces across Canada.

I do not understand why the ministers are so timid, when they have a tool to negotiate. We gave up article XI of the GATT in 1994; now is not the time to give up those tools we have left. By applying article XXVIII, the farm producers' wishes could be met, and our system would truly be defended.

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Madam Chair, I know we must not comment on the presence or absence of members of this House, but I am pleased that the parliamentary secretary to the minister and the minister himself have heard my speech.

What I said is a reflection of what I have heard from the agricultural and dairy producers in my region. The parliamentary secretary has just said that we must not be too hasty, that care must be taken with article XXVIII and we must be careful not to do just anything. I can understand that certain strategies need to be adopted. Can he nevertheless understand on his side that the agricultural producers who come under the supply management system have been begging for help for ages? He is well placed to realize that all manner of awful problems have been cropping up. Agriculture is in crisis at this time.

What we are asking this government to do is to use a protective measure that all countries can use. Article XXVIII can be used right now to face up to the WTO. That is what the agricultural producers are calling for. I do not see why we need to wait. These people are begging for help. Action must be taken now.

The parliamentary secretary has said that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said he did not exclude the possibility of recourse to XXVIII. As far as I am concerned, things are not going either far enough or fast enough.

Returning to the article I have been holding in my hand from the start, from the June 2, 2005 La Terre de chez nous , which bears the title “Milk ingredient imports—Canada will not invoke article XXVIII”, that is the crux of the matter. What we are asking the minister is to invoke article XXVIII, it is as simple as that.

In an independent Quebec, the supply management system would be far better defended than at present. In Quebec we hold it dear to our hearts. Such is not the case for the Liberal government. We have proof of that in the examples it gives us. People are still on a tightrope; the supply management system is still fragile.

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I have to say from the outset that I am here by obligation. Do not get me wrong. It is not because my whip, my parliamentary leader or my party leader forced me to be here. Rather, it is an obligation because of the Liberal government's lack of results regarding supply management. This is why I insisted on taking part in this take note debate on supply management this evening.

As I have already said repeatedly whenever we talk about agriculture, I am myself the grandson of farmers, of dairy producers. My riding is adjacent to two large administrative regions. There are no less than 1,400 supply managed farms in the Centre-du-Québec region and about 760 in the Eastern Townships. It is very important for me and for producers back home that we can talk once again about supply management in a take note debate in the House.

So, if I am here by obligation, it is not because I do not want to or because I am forced to be here. It is because this issue has been dragging on and producers are again calling for help. The response to their call is disappointing to say the least.

For example, there is the Minister of International Trade, who rejected the demand of dairy producers, who had given the federal government until May 25—this is very recent—to invoke article XXVIII before the WTO. I have with me a newspaper called La Terre de chez nous , which is read by many people in the region and all across Quebec. I want to read a short excerpt. This is from an article published on Thursday, June 2, 2005. It reads as follows:

The federal Minister of International Trade is afraid he might jeopardize supply management if he takes the measures that dairy producers want him to take to end the uncontrolled trade of milk derivatives.

The Quebec federation of dairy producers is hardly enthused by the minister's timidity.

This is from the producers themselves. They are very concerned by the lack of firmness of two ministers, namely the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, regarding supply management.

According to that newspaper, the Minister of International Trade is afraid to upset his allies, even though the latter do not hesitate to challenge our supply management system to protect their own agriculture industry. As for us, we are always afraid. We have that holier than thou attitude. This is what is happening with this issue.

The minister is sending dairy product manufacturers a very damaging message, namely that they can continue to use the derivatives currently used in dairy products. These include butteroils, about which a lot was said this evening, caseins, and protein isolates. I will not list them all. These byproducts are exempt from any tariff control. Such ingredients literally replace milk in products such as ice cream, yogourt and cheese.

I come from a major cheese producing region. Just think of Lactantia or Fromage Côté, recently acquired by Saputo. We have large businesses, as well as smaller ones producing cheese more like a cottage industry. The producers end up with tons of unsold milk powder because of the increasing use of milk byproducts.

Like the other 74 federal MPs from Quebec, I received a bag of milk powder, which I took to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food on April 27, with several of my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois. The minister was not in his office, but we were let in anyway, which was already something. We were able to leave our bags of milk powder.

Obviously, this was a symbolic gesture, both on the part of the farm producers who brought the bags to our offices and on our part when we took them to the minister's office. It may have been symbolic, but it reflected the crisis faced by our dairy producers, who are increasingly worried.

For example, dairy producers in Quebec are losing $70 million annually—across Canada losses total $175 million—because of imported milk byproducts. These are revealing numbers. They are pretty impressive. These same producers lost 50% of the ice cream market, just because of the use of butteroil. It can only get worse, if the Liberal government keeps sitting on its hands. It is also important to know that imports are on the rise. We are talking about $2 million a month. This is definitely not a passing phenomenon, far from it.

These milk byproducts are coming from countries, mostly in the European Union, which massively subsidize their farm production and exports. As we know, our producers do not receive any such subsidies. I call that unfair competition, plain and simple.

In addition, consumers do not even benefit. If, at least, consumers paid less for one kind of ice cream because of certain products in it, it might be said that consumers were the winners. it would be unfortunate for farm producers, but there would be one winner at least. But that is not even the case.

The processors are the only winners. The ingredients cost less, it is true, than the real milk products. However, the cost of ice cream made with butteroil, for example, rose at the same rate as that of the good ice cream made with milk or cream only.

I encourage consumers to read labels carefully when they buy dairy products. If you see the word “milk” or “cream”, you have a high quality dairy product and you are helping dairy producers in your region, regardless of where you live in Canada. When you read the label, you will sometimes see the words “modified milk ingredients”. These are magic words appearing on the labels of cheese, yogurt and ice cream. This shows that substitute products were used. These products come from the European Union and the United States.

I encourage consumers to make enlightened choices. If you want to help farm producers, buy products made with milk and cream. You will be helping people here. The government can also help them, and that is what is lacking.

The future of the supply management system is in peril. The Liberal government, as I mentioned earlier, remains nervous about the course of action to take. However, I remind it that it supported a motion by the Bloc Québécois, Motion M-163, which I had the pleasure of speaking to on April 15 in order to defend supply management. This motion called on the federal government to make no concessions in present and future WTO negotiations that would weaken the system. The motion was passed unanimously in this House. Perhaps the government should be reminded.

The Government of Quebec has also called on the federal government to do what is necessary to remedy the situation by preventing substitute products from circumventing tariff controls.

The supply management system is not complicated. It provides a minimum salary to producers by avoiding distortion in world market prices. There is consensus on it in Quebec. Ottawa has never been vigorous enough in its defence in international negotiations.

Consider, for example, what happened in Cancun in 2003. We almost lost supply management. African nations ultimately rallied around Canada in order to save supply management. We were very concerned at the time. We can go back even further. We were also very concerned in Marrakesh in 1994, because the government gave up article XI of the GATT. This article provided some protection, but I will not go into detail. One thing is clear, however. We had not listened to producers, 40,000 of whom had come here to Parliament Hill two years earlier in 1992 in order to ask the government to save supply management.

I do not know if other major protests are needed, such as those held recently where bags of skim milk powder were distributed and then passed on to the minister. If we need 40,000 of our dairy producers again, I will be happy to tell them there will be another major protest, in order to make this government think.

The only remaining protection is article XXVIII of the GATT, which the Minister of International Trade refuses to invoke. I read this earlier in a June 2 article in La Terre de chez nous .

Who will defend the industry if the ministers of International Trade and Agriculture and Agri-foods refuse to do so? Unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois is unable to sit at the WTO negotiating table. So, we are defending it here, along with the other opposition parties, of course. Sometimes this works, because we did succeed in unanimously passing Motion M-163. Also, the Liberal Party and some of its members are making interesting speeches. However, there is often a big difference between what people say and what they do.

As far as we are concerned, Quebec would be best placed to do this. However, we will have to become a nation in order to have a seat at the WTO. All in good time. Obviously not everyone agrees, but the situation requires immediate action. And right now, it is up to Canada to defend supply management. We respect this for now, but the time has come to step up to the plate and take action.

I will close by saying that if the government truly wants to defend supply management, it must immediately invoke article XXVIII of the GATT, before the WTO, in order to introduce new tariff quotas and maintain these imports at current levels up to a maximum of 10%. This must be done. Thank you for your attention.

[Furniture Industry, June 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the employees of Shermag, in Victoriaville, asked the government to get involved. This furniture manufacturing plant will shut down in July, resulting in the loss of 175 jobs. Yet, the only answer we got this week from the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec was that his department does not target this type of business. As for the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, she did not have anything to say.

When will the government take action by setting up, for example, a permanent program for older workers? When?