André Bellavance

[Furniture Industry, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, after cutting 80 jobs in February, Shermag announced yesterday that it is permanently closing its furniture manufacturing plant in Victoriaville, resulting in the definitive loss of 95 more jobs, another harsh blow to the region.

Does the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development realize that concrete measures are needed and that it is urgent to reinstate a permanent assistance program for older workers directly hit by these increasingly frequent plant closures?

[Usinatech, May 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate a Melbourne company, Usinatech, which recently came away from the Reconnaissance Estrie awards ceremony with honours in the manufacturing sector category and honourable mention in the human resources development category.

Usinatech is one of the largest employers in the Richmond area, with over 200 employees in its three plants.

Founded in 1986, Usinatech specializes in precision millwork, mostly for the vehicle manufacturing sector.

This is not the first time the merits of president Rudy Pelletier's company have been recognized. In 2004, it earned both the Amethyst award for supplier of the year, and the STIQ merit award in recognition of its skilled work force.

The staff and management of Usinatech are a source of pride to the community of Melbourne and to the entire riding of Richmond—Arthabaska.

[Sponsorship Program, May 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, with this kind of attitude, the Liberals will lose the vote of confidence on May 18. The government has to recognize that, despite its claims, this business is not limited to a few individuals. Rather, there is talk of an organized network, which dropped over $2 million into the Liberal Party's secret fund.

Why is the government not assuming its responsibilities and putting it all in a trust, as the House ordered it to do in April?

[Sponsorship Program, May 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the joke has gone on long enough. The Liberal meter shows over $2 million in tainted money going into Liberal Party coffers, money that was used in contravention of the Canada Elections Act. Given all this inappropriate activity, it is time the money were put somewhere safe.

Why is the government not putting into a trust fund the over $2 million identified to date by all of the witnesses as being used to swell the slush fund of the Liberal Party of Canada?

[Sponsorship Program, April 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the facts are there. Claude Boulay, who campaigned for the Prime Minister, revealed that he pocketed a hefty 17% commission on that contract, simply for passing it on to Pinnacle.

How can the Prime Minister, who said he was sorry yesterday, explain that he turned a blind eye to all the rules so his “dear Claude” could pocket several tens of thousands of dollars along the way—a voluntary lack of vigilance, no doubt?

[Sponsorship Program, April 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, during his testimony, Claude Boulay said that the Department of Finance imposed Pinnacle on him as the subcontractor for a contract exceeding half a million dollars, without a call for tenders. A document addressed to his policy adviser, Karl Littler, supports the fact that this contract had been discussed with the former Minister of Finance at a meeting on December 21, 1995.

In light of such revelations, how can the Prime Minister still say he lacked vigilance and that he is sorry? Is he sorry he got caught?

[Property Rights, April 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in this debate this evening on Motion M-227 introduced by the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville. The hon. member said the following in his motion, which I am pleased to read so that those watching us can understand what we are talking about this evening:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should ensure that full, just and timely compensation be paid to all persons who are deprived of personal or private property or suffer a loss in value of that property as a result of any government initiative, policy, process, regulation or legislation.

The question I asked the member for Yorkton—Melville was not innocent. I asked him, since the motion was especially vague, whether it referred to a number of other bills. In light of his answer, I must say that, for the moment, the Bloc Québécois has not determined what position it will take, because this motion could affect a number of other statutes. If so, this may affect several of the Bloc's critics and, clearly, it would be out of line for me to take a stand on their behalf this evening, at first reading of this motion. We are reserving our position for now, however, the member raised many interesting points when he made his motion and above all when he gave striking examples, particularly with regard to Mirabel and the farmers. I will mention other examples in the course of my speech.

So, if we want to get a good grasp of the situation, it must be said that the federal government has the power to restrict the property rights of Quebeckers and Canadians, of course, and even deny them those rights or decrease the value of their property. This is a possibility. All too often, the rules on compensation lack a proper legislative framework. That is why I asked the member earlier whether he was talking specifically about the Species at Risk Act, because, as I said earlier, this is one instance where the rules on compensation lack the proper legislative framework. I might have the opportunity, in a moment, to talk about the ins and outs of this legislation.

During consideration of this legislation, some groups had noted that compensation issues were insufficiently defined. The representative of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, specifically, came to talk to us. Section 64 of this act indicates that the Minister may, in accordance with the regulations, provide fair and reasonable compensation to any person for losses suffered as a result of any extraordinary impact of the application ofthe act.

So what about the ordinary consequences which may, of course, be just as unfortunate? And what, exactly, happens when restricting property rights amounts to expropriation? Mirabel was just mentioned: it is both a good and a bad example. And in cases, for instance, where a piece of land cannot be used because of a declaration by the federal government that threatened species live there? If people cannot expect to be properly compensated, there is a danger they will not want to report protected species on their property.

The member was talking about farmers a little earlier. In my case, I can talk about outfitters. There are 400 of them in Quebec. An outfitting operation might see its access to or use of a lake restricted because of a protected fish species in it. If the compensation to which the outfitter would be entitled is insufficient, he might choose not to say anything. One must be very careful, therefore, when a minister is given discretionary power, namely that of deciding whether any compensation provided will be large or small. We must be very cautious about that.

The Species at Risk Act is intended basically to protect threatened or endangered species and their habitat. This legislation ensures that birds, fish mammals, plants and insects at risk will be given protection. It will also ensure that the government will help endangered species grow in numbers. So much for fine principles. The act applies to fields, forests, wetlands and open water. It must be remembered that there are nearly 70,000 animal and plant species in Canada. It is very important to protect them, and we recognize that.

Nevertheless, I will say in a moment why we voted against the bill, and people will understand quite soon.

There are provisions under the act for compensation for unexpected losses due to unforeseen restrictions on the normal use of the land in question. Compensation would be for losses which cause hardship for land owners and land users. The compensation provisions, however, must not create perverse incentives to inhibit voluntary habitat protection measures in hopes of receiving future compensation.

That was an excerpt from a press release issued by the former Minister of the Environment at the time when he tabled the Species at Risk Act.

We were against this legislation. It was not that we were against protecting species at risk, far from it, but in the view of the Bloc Québécois, protecting habitat is a provincial jurisdiction, while the government across the way, in this legislation, took unto itself the power to intrude on land in Quebec.

I can tell you right now there was no way this could be acceptable to the Government of Quebec at the time or to us. As usual, it is an intrusion. It is not just overlap, it is direct intrusion in Quebec jurisdiction, that is to say, federal police officers can intervene on a piece of property or a reserve. That just does not work in terms of our goal of being a sovereign nation.

When I was giving examples just now, I mentioned the Quebec's outfitters. The hon. member who presented the motion gave the example of Mirabel. We totally agree with him. I would like to use the example of Baie-du-Febvre, because I will end with the Species at Risk Act.

Baie-du-Febvre is in the mid-Quebec region, Centre-du-Québec, where I was born. It is just outside my riding boundaries. As you may know, there are 200 bird species on the shores of Saint-Pierre Lake in spring and fall. They put on a fantastic show. Snow geese taking off and landing at dawn—it is a sight I recommend to everyone. Tens of thousands of birds launch into the sky at the same time.

If the principle of protection were applied there, if land in that sector were expropriated without adequate compensation of the land owners, there would be a problem that the hon. member's motion might help solve.

He talked about Mirabel. That is good. I need not remind you that we have had major differences of opinion with the government opposite on this topic. In March 1969, the federal Liberal government at the time announced the plan to build the Mirabel international airport in Sainte-Scholastique. It submitted a plan to expropriate 97,000 acres, 10 times the area of the largest airports in the world and 27 times the area of Dorval airport.

Later they realized they did not need anywhere near 97,000 acres. This was the largest expropriation Canada had ever seen, an area larger than the city of Laval. More than 3,000 families were affected by the scandal, another scandal. This scandal has been around for a very long time and still has not been resolved, despite the decision by Parliament—the opposition parties in fact—to call for the land in Mirabel to be returned to the farmers or the people who had it stolen from them by the government at the time.

The Bloc Québécois has long been demanding that the federal government fix this mistake, involving individuals whose land was expropriated for Mirabel. For starters, the 11,000 acres of land expropriated in excess of what was needed could be returned. Its development is jeopardized by the temporary nature of the rights of the farmers who are using it. It is difficult for them to convince financial institutions to lend them money to invest in their facilities. Moreover, these farmers are reluctant to undertake expensive projects to improve the land, since they do not know how long they will be able to use it. This debate is not over.

I believe that the member's motion does propose a way to right this terrible wrong. Consequently, despite the fact, as I said at the start of the debate, that the Bloc wants to reserve its position for the moment, there are some interesting points in the motion, which we must consider more closely first. As Motion M-227 proceeds through the various stages, that is what we will do.

[Property Rights, April 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville for his speech. When it is my turn to speak, he will understand that we agree in principle with the motion, but I want to ask him the following question.

To me his motion seems rather vague. He spoke at length about the Species at Risk Act and I think his motion is particularly concerned with that act. However, I would like him to elaborate on whether he is simply generalizing or whether his motion is related to other bills.

Can the hon. member elaborate on whether his motion concerns specifically the Species at Risk Act, whether he has other intentions in mind, or whether other legislation could be affected by this motion?

[Parrainage civique des Bois-Francs, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to extend heartfelt congratulations to the entire Parrainage civique des Bois-Francs team on winning the Hommage bénévolat-Québec award in the organization in action category.

This agency from my riding of Richmond—Arthabaska will receive its award at an official ceremony tomorrow evening at the Quebec National Assembly.

Parrainage civique des Bois-Francs recruits volunteers and pairs them up with people who are intellectually challenged in order to create strong bonds of trust, caring and friendship.

This award is a testament to commitment to the community and will raise the profile of Parrainage civique des Bois-Francs in the region.

[World Trade Organization, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to thank my colleague from Montcalm and my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant for bringing forth again an issue that is so important, especially for me.

As you surely know, this is not the first time that I rise in this House to speak to this issue that affects my riding. There are about 1,400 supply managed farms in the Centre-du-Québec region and about 760 in the Estrie region. These are the two regions that border my riding of Richmond—Arthabaska.

In the Arthabaska RCM, there are 397 dairy, poultry and egg farms. There are 137 supply managed farms in the Val-Saint-François RCM and 90 in the Asbestos RCM. All this to say that this is an important issue in my area. We hope that the government and the other parties in the House will feel the same and support Motion M-163.

A good part of my local platform—and I was the only candidate in my riding to have one—dealt with agriculture, and much of that addressed supply management.

We met with SM5 people during the election campaign and everyone was quick to sign the SM5, with the exception of the Liberal candidate, who took some persuading but eventually did so also. It must be kept in mind, moreover, that all party leaders here now signed it during the 2004 election campaign.

Members of all parties, Conservatives, NDP and Liberals—no need to add the Bloc Québécois, since our leader is well informed on this—need to remember that commitment that they signed on during the 2004 election campaign. We hope that they will respect that commitment by supporting Motion M-163.

In my platform, I pointed out the vital importance of agriculture to my riding. For example, the Arthabaska RCM is the top-ranking milk and cattle producer in Quebec. We are renowned for the quality of our dairy production and a number of exceptional cheeses are made in our region. I am sure my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant will back me up on that, being a connoisseur of goat's milk and other types of cheeses.

In recent months, agricultural producers have been in trouble, not only as far as mad cow is concerned, but also supply management and access to markets. These are all matters of concern to people in the agricultural community, not just in my area, but throughout Quebec and even in the rest of Canada.

Much of what is produced in my region is governed by supply management, milk, chicken and eggs for example. In fact, dairy products account for 50% of the entire agricultural production of central Quebec, so supply management is vital to these farmers.

So that hon. members will have a proper understanding of what this is all about, I will just give a quick overview of supply management. It has three basic components: limiting production through a quota system, regulating prices, and maintaining the balance between supply and demand by keeping the borders closed through the imposition of high import duties on poultry, eggs and dairy products.

I should make it clear that it is essential that the three elements co-exist; if one falls, the whole system crumbles. This is what we have been fearing for some time. In 2003, we nearly ran into difficulty at Cancun. We did have problems, but fortunately the supply management system survived. It is, however, still in a precarious position.

The benefits of the supply management system are twofold in that it provides a decent income to our producers, while not creating distortions on world markets. As I said a moment ago, the federal Liberals have been claiming for years to support supply management. However, whenever that system was challenged, the government continued to undermine it.

Earlier, my eminent colleague, the hon. member for Joliette, referred to butter oil. Therefore, I will not elaborate, but I will say that this is just one example. There is also the example of cheese sticks, regarding which the member for Joliette also made representations, at the time, to the former Minister of International Trade, who is now the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This was an endless saga, as is the case whenever the government yields to lobbies that leave Quebec dairy producers to fend for themselves, as was the case then.

As regards butter oil, I want to point out that the federal government decided that this type of oil was not a dairy product, thus opening the border to imports. Over a five year period, between 1997 and 2002, these imports increased by 557%. This is no joke. It represents a loss of half a billion dollars for Quebec dairy producers.

I read the papers this morning, as every member of Parliament should, and I saw that this issue is still being reported today, April 15, 2005, in the daily La Presse :

—Quebec dairy producers...want to slow down the massive entry into Canada of dairy ingredients that come primarily from European countries.

These milk substitutes are increasingly replacing milk and cream in the manufacture, among other products, of cheese and ice cream. According to the president of the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec, Marcel Groleau, this substitution results in an annual loss of $70 million for Quebec milk producers.

The federation received the support of Quebec's agriculture minister, Yvon Vallières, who is also the MLA for Richmond, in my riding. He recognized that import controls on butter oil blends can be easily bypassed by importing a product containing 40% butter oil and 51% sugar. Here is what Minister Vallières said on this subject, and I quote:

This product is imported duty free into Canada, but if the dairy content was 1% higher, a 212% duty would apply.

We defend supply management in Quebec, but we expect the federal government to do the same, which, unfortunately, is not the case. This is the reason why we are debating Motion M-163 in the House today. We hope that, when it is time to vote, members will understand why we brought forward this motion.

All this information regarding the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec found its way into the paper today because that organization held its annual general meeting yesterday and the day before. You can be sure that supply management was discussed at that meeting.

In conclusion, producers have asked the Canadian government to use the rules provided in trade agreements to restrict imports of these ingredients into the country. They have done so by invoking section 28 in particular of the WTO agreement that deals with this. In invoking this section, Canada could establish new tariff quotas that would make it possible to maintain these imports at the current level and to increase them by a maximum of 10%. In the press release of the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec, its president, Mr. Marcel Groleau, says:

We are asking the Canadian government to use the right that the WTO has granted it and to immediately invoke section 28 to limit the damage. As a champion of supply management, it must do so without delay. This is urgent!

It is not I who is saying this, it is the president of the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec himself who says so, and I think that he knows quite a lot about the issue.

He concluded by saying, “It must put an end to the erosion before irreparable damage is done”.

I think we just heard someone who, having worked for so long in this sector, knows what he is talking about. We would like the government to pay urgent heed to this call.

I also dug out a very interesting study on the matter. It found that the dairy supply management system in Canada is a good model that needs to be maintained. While the World Trade Organization agriculture negotiations are threatening the foundation of this system, the study shows that the system benefits farmers just as much as consumers and the government. The study was conducted by Daniel Mercier-Gouin, director of Groupe de recherche en économie et politique agricole, GREPA, and professor of agri-food economics and consumer sciences at Laval.

In his study, Mr. Gouin makes four observations. I will list them. First, he observes that the prices paid to Canadian farmers for milk are stable and higher than the prices paid in the other countries in the study. Second, he observes that the favourable and stable prices paid to Canadian dairy farmers do not necessarily mean an increase in the price of milk for the consumer. On the contrary, the three countries with supply management, Canada, France and the Netherlands, saw the lowest increases in consumer prices between 1981 and 2002, the period under review.

Third, the researcher points out that the countries heading toward deregulation of their dairy economy—New Zealand and Australia—are those where consumer prices have increased the most. They are also seeing an increase in the aggregate margin of dairy processing and distribution.

Fourth, in conclusion he shows that the incomes of Canadian farmers are better protected and that Canada is one of the countries with the lowest government subsidies.

If other studies are needed, others exist. However, I think this is quite conclusive. I invite all the parties to vote in favour of Motion M-163.