Claude DeBellefeuille

[Agri-food Industry, April 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the consumers are confused. They say so themselves and they say so publicly.

The Minister of National Revenue is just like his government. Despite growing evidence, he continues to stubbornly refuse to review the 98% rule. It is a ridiculous standard. There is growing evidence, yet the government is obstinate in its insistence on imposing a standard that does more harm than good. The government has to change that standard immediately. What is it waiting for?

[Agri-food Industry, April 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the 98% rule has just made another victim. Leahy Orchards, the largest applesauce producer in Canada, is located in my riding; it will have to invest $200,000 this year alone to change its labels because the sugar content of its products exceeds 2%, even though 100% of the apples it uses come from Quebec and Ontario.

Will the government reverse its decision before the industry is made to spend money needlessly to comply with a standard that makes no sense?

[Agri-food Industry, April 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Bonduelle Canada, for example, a company in my riding, is losing its right to the “Product of Canada” label because there is more than 2% sugar or salt in some of its products. But the creamed corn found on most grocery store shelves is made of corn that is 100% grown in Sainte-Martine, Quebec.

What is the government waiting for before it revises its 98% rule, which is extreme and inflexible, so the processing industry can use the “Product of Canada” label and retain its competitive advantage?

[Petitions, April 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to present a petition signed by 5,600 people from all over, from my riding and from elsewhere in Quebec, who are asking the Government of Canada to talk to American authorities and persuade them not to pursue a planned expansion of the Westville landfill in New York State across the border from the riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry.

[Goods and Services Tax, March 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, there is over $6 billion in outstanding issues between Quebec and Ottawa, which is also refusing to help the forestry industry. Meanwhile, the federal government has had no problem coming up with $4.3 billion to compensate Ontario and $2.7 billion to help its auto industry.

Will the government recognize that this injustice is due to the fact that the federal government is here to defend Canada's interests at the expense of Quebec's?

[Goods and Services Tax, March 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to compensation for harmonizing with the GST, the fiscal imbalance remains a major issue for Quebec. We are still waiting for the federal government to come up with the $1.3 billion for post-secondary education and social programs. There is a shortfall of $1 billion for equalization and $250 million for the treatment of Hydro-Québec revenues.

Why is the Conservative government unable to correct the fiscal imbalance with Quebec, when it can pull $4.3 billion out of a hat for Ontario?

[Nancy Leduc, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the 2009 Winter Special Olympics were held last February 7 to 13 in Boise, Idaho in the United States. Over 3,000 athletes from 85 countries competed in seven sports.

Ten athletes from Quebec took part in these games, constituting the largest Quebec representation since the event was created in 1977.

One member of this delegation was Ms. Nancy Leduc, of Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, in my riding, who participated in the snowshoe race event. Ms. Leduc, with her coach Ms. Johanne Noël, went through a stiff regimen of five days’ intensive training per week to prepare for this competition. Her efforts and perseverance bore fruit, for she returned home with three medals, one gold and two bronze.

On my own behalf and that of the Bloc Québécois, I salute Nancy. She is an example of courage and determination for us all.

[Standing Orders of the House of Commons, March 13th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak about the motion by the member for Beauce. This motion aims to amend the House of Commons Standing Orders with regard to private member's business. More precisely, the motion aims to amend the way in which Senate private members' bills are dealt with by the House. I would like to summarize the situation.

Currently, the Standing Orders state that when a Senate private member's bill is sent to the House, any member can sponsor the bill and undertake its first reading in the House. Once it has undergone first reading, the bill immediately drops to the bottom of the order of precedence for second reading in the House. A member who sponsors a senator's bill does not lose their place on the list for consideration of private members' business. They can therefore, when their turn comes, introduce another bill or motion of their choice.

The member for Beauce is proposing that Senate private members' bills receive the same treatment as House of Commons private members' bills. If a member chooses to sponsor a Senate bill, he would have to, henceforth, use his turn on the order of precedence for Senate bills and could not introduce another bill or motion. The government has already attempted to justify this change by telling us that the House has been inundated with Senate private members' bills. Let us take a closer look at this claim.

During the second session of the 37th Parliament, in 153 sitting days, four Senate private members' bills were introduced in the House. In the third session of the same Parliament, in 55 days, four Senate private members' bills were also introduced in the House. In the 38th Parliament, in 159 sitting days, five Senate private members' bills were introduced compared to six in 175 sittings days in the first session of the 39th Parliament. This rose to nine in the 117 days of the second session of the 39th Parliament.

I do not see a drastic or dramatic increase in the numbers, especially since certain bills, such as the one on heritage lighthouses, have come up more than once, because they keep dying on the order paper. That observation led me to question what the member's real motives are for proposing these amendments to the Standing Orders.

We are all aware that this government is obsessed with reforming the Senate, without consulting Quebec and the provinces. We are all aware of the government's desire to drastically and unilaterally reform the Senate, failing which they have threatened to abolish it. The government wants to carry out this Senate reform bit by bit, through several bills, rather than amending the Constitution, which is what it should do. In that regard, I would remind the House that the Canadian Constitution is a federal constitution. There are therefore very good reasons for ensuring that a change in the fundamental characteristics of the Senate should not be affected by one Parliament alone, but rather be part of a multilateral constitutional process involving Quebec and the provinces. Furthermore, on November 7, 2007, the former Quebec intergovernmental affairs minister, Benoît Pelletier, reiterated Quebec's traditional position by stating:

The Government of Quebec does not believe that this falls exclusively under federal jurisdiction. Given that the Senate is a crucial part of the Canadian federal compromise, it is clear to us that under the Constitution Act, 1982, and the Regional Veto Act, the Senate can be neither reformed nor abolished without Quebec's consent.

On that very day, Quebec's National Assembly unanimously passed the following motion:

That the National Assembly of Québec reaffirm to the federal government and to the Parliament of Canada that no modification to the Canadian Senate may be carried out without the consent of the Government of Québec and the National Assembly.

Getting back to the motion moved by the member for Beauce, given the situation I described, we have every reason to question the government's motives. Is this an attempt to muzzle the Senate? It certainly looks that way. If the government were serious about Senate reform, it would proceed with a constitutional amendment. But it is reluctant to take that approach because it knows as well as we do that Canada's Constitution cannot be amended.

Over the past two years, it has tried to introduce reforms through a series of possibly unconstitutional bills, which it failed to move through the legislative process. As a result, it has resorted to attempts to weaken the Senate's power by changing the Standing Orders. This government is stooping to new lows.

In addition, given the blatantly partisan tactics with which this government is familiar, I also wonder whether it would be in such a hurry to amend the House of Commons Standing Orders if the government held a majority in the Senate. Somehow, I doubt it.

All that is to say that the Bloc Québécois will not support the motion by the member for Beauce. Although we feel that the Senate is a useless institution that should be abolished in a round of constitutional talks, we have to live with the fact that, for the time being, this institution exists and is an integral part of Parliament. Consequently, we feel that the Standing Orders, especially as regards relations between the two houses of Parliament, should not be amended lightly without a serious study of the impacts of the proposed amendments.

We are of the opinion that the appropriate forum for such a study is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Until the committee has looked seriously at this issue, there is no need to amend the Standing Orders. Consequently, the motion by the member for Beauce is premature, in our opinion.

[Standing Orders of the House of Commons, March 13th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the motion from the member for Beauce touches on a subject that is very, very worrisome. It is so worrisome that it is currently being studied by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that I sit on and that has representatives from every party in this House. We began a serious study because there are considerable issues with the amendments to the Standing Orders proposed by the member for Beauce.

Does the member not feel that his action is a bit premature at this time, given that his motion or proposal is being studied by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs? Does he not find it a bit premature to put forward a motion on this since the entire Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is studying this very seriously?

[Forestry Industry, March 13th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary should know about the position of Quebec's foresters association.

Luc Bouthillier, a professor at the department of wood and forest sciences at Laval University, explained that nothing in the agreement, no specific clause or provision, prohibits loans or loan guarantees, and that, whatever we do, the United States will always use the same argument as grounds for challenge. He added that doing nothing is worse than risking a challenge.

Instead of docking and dodging, will the government help this industry in urgent need of help?