Robert Bouchard

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, what I will answer is what I heard on November 29 in Saint-Bruno, in my region, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.

Several producers told me that they had a large herd. They must renew it and, since the mad cow crisis happened, they are losing around $15,000 a year and perhaps a little more. This is a significant amount when there are also many challenges and many increases in the costs that they must incur. This is the reality.

Of course, there is some assistance, but concerning cull cows, there is a real problem. It was submitted to me and I submit it in a more particular way. Several producers told me that they were losing many thousands of dollars each year. Obviously, this is significant for a farm.

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the minister may explain why he did not meet the Union des producteurs agricoles in Quebec City, I think he will not speak long enough in the House to convince us. The Quebec people themselves and Quebec producers will not be convinced. He is using an artifice, a smoke screen. He is using the excuse that he had to be here in the House.

He could easily have left for a few hours. We could have held our debate. His presence would have been very useful there. He says he is sensitive to the needs of the people. He could have made this a reality and listened to their needs.

What I am telling the minister is, before the crisis, when producers were selling a cull cow, they were getting $700. Today, they are getting $150. The federal assistance is $320 only for the 16% portion. Each producer renews a herd by 25%. This means there is a gap that is not subsidized, that does not receive any assistance from the government. The loss of revenue to the producer is $230 for each cull cow.

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

It is a pleasure for me to rise in the House today in support of the motion put forward by my colleague from Montcalm, especially since the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region is particularly affected by the mad cow crisis.

There are three ridings in my region which is a very important farming area. The American border has been closed to the Canadian beef for 18 months now. Meanwhile, our farmers have been suffering. They were simply abandoned by the federal government.

Last Monday, I had the opportunity to see that many farmers, dozens of desperate cattle producers from the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, had started to dig a big trench to bury their cows. When it gets to the point where killing off the animals without getting any compensation is better than selling them, we have to wonder. The cattle producers are facing financial ruin. The whole agriculture sector is paying the price.

Allow me to come back to this farm rally that took place in my region on November 29. I attended a function in Saint-Bruno, in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, with one of my colleagues from the House, the member for Jonquière—Alma. Many farmers and leaders from the Union des producteurs agricoles and members from the dairy producers union made presentations. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the president of the farmers and dairy producers' association of my area, Michel Potvin, who is a distinguished and courageous citizen and an exemplary farmer.

Many farmers asked me to convey their message to this House and to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. They are asking the government to give more money to livestock and cull producers, to offer a compensation package for the cull producers and to set a floor price.

As regards a floor price, I will get back to this issue later on, because an agreement was just reached in Quebec City.

So, at that November 29 meeting, I was told about the scope of the despair of producers in my region. They have lost all motivation. Several of them told me that they must actually pay to get rid of their cull cows. They are at the end of their rope. There is no point in them working so hard.

A member of the National Assembly from my region even symbolically helped dig the hole in which hundreds of cows may be buried, since producers are getting hardly anything for them. Indeed, they are compensated for the renewal of the first 16% of their herd, but not for the rest of it.

These producers asked me to convey their message to the House of Commons, and I am doing so very seriously.

I also want to tell the House about an agreement in principle that was just reached. At a press conference held during the UPA's convention, the Quebec minister of agriculture, Françoise Gauthier, announced that the parties have reached an agreement in principle on a floor price of 42¢, as of December 6, 2004. However, Ms. Gauthier warned that the agreement must be finalized before the government will lift the threat of resorting to special legislation.

According to Michel Dessureault of the federation of Quebec beef producers, producers will be have 80% ownership. Moreover, it is provided that producers will be the owners as of December 20, 2004. According to Mr. Dessureault, should the transaction fail, the Quebec minister of agriculture, fisheries and food has promised to pass a special act imposing a price, a volume and the presence of an administrator. It appears that the Quebec government also promised to complete the financing package.

The Bloc Québécois is pleased with this outcome. This is encouraging. The Bloc Québécois also notes that this government and this minister did not provide leadership regarding this issue. Once again, Quebec producers and the Quebec government were left on their own, even after repeatedly asking the federal government and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for help.

The reopening of our borders is a federal responsibility and it remains a priority. As for financial compensation, it is still necessary. We will see in the coming days what producers are asking for. Let us not forget that Quebec producers absorbed the $241 million losses, after compensation.

No matter how often the federal government and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food repeat that they intervened many times with the American government, they cannot blame others if they have a faulty traceability system. One can point to Quebec's system, a model that was applied well before that of the federal government.

The government has put in place an assistance plan which does not adequately cover Quebec producers. According to data from the beef producers, the Fédération des producteurs de bovins, only $90 million have been received from Ottawa since the crisis broke out. It goes without saying that these are meagre amounts, considering that the beef producers' lost incomes, for the period from May 2003 to December 2004, totals $391 million.

If the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food had travelled to attend the convention of l'Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec, the province's agricultural producers union, he would have heard what I heard directly from the very producers in my region. It is totally unacceptable for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to evade his responsibilities in such a way and, as a pretext, claim that he absolutely must be in the House of Commons to justify his decision not to speak to Quebec's producers. Nothing forced that minister to be present in the House of Commons all day, all the more so because the motion tabled by the Bloc Québécois will not be voted on before December 7.

This is not a very common situation. I have personally seen people who are about to lose everything, not only their business, but also their family.

Often times, entire communities are affected by the crisis goes beyond economic boundaries and affects the social behaviour of people.

I want to offer my support to farmers in my region, in my riding and in Quebec.

[Housing, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, on November 22, I met with officials from the organization Loge m'entraide, in my constituency.

They made the following request: federal investment in social housing should be 1% of total expenditures, or $2 billion annually. This request is in line with our position, and I am conveying it to the government.

Some families are spending up to 80% of their income on rent. In the city of Saguenay, it is the case for 2,500 households, or close to 11% of tenants. Considering the surplus generated by the CMHC, this is enough to be upset, because it is a social injustice.

According to Loge m'entraide, the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region needs $20 million, including $7 million in my riding, to build social housing units.

The federal government must increase its transfers for housing—

[Tourist Industry, November 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in 2000, the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean tourism association took part in a Canadian pilot project on extending the tourist season.

Its purpose was to make it possible for tourism industry workers to work for longer periods and the industry to open new markets.

Unfortunately, this program has not been renewed for the next two years, although doing so would enable 180 workers and 35 companies to reach the break-even point. I cannot understand why the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development is delaying the go-ahead on this program, which has already proven itself, costs a mere $600,000 and has generated $4 million in spin-offs.

The minister needs to give the go-ahead right away to these workers who are worried at seeing the agreement termination date of December 10 approaching. This is an opportunity for the government to demonstrate its desire to contribute to the development of the regions of Quebec.

[Agriculture and Agri-food, November 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Union des producteurs agricoles is again calling for assistance. The losses sustained as a result of the mad cow crisis are wreaking terrible havoc. Despite the compensation packages, dairy farmers for example are being hit by losses of $15,000 per farm, on the average.

What is stopping the government from implementing the solutions proposed by Quebec's farmers and offering them proper compensation, as well as contributing, with the provinces, to setting a base price for animals sold to abattoirs?

[Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, November 17th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I am not in a position to comment on what the member opposite just said. However, I would like to clarify my comments about the emergency plans. Indeed, I described the facts surrounding the flood that affected the Saguenay region in 1996.

The government opposite is often tempted to interfere in the jurisdiction of Quebec and other province. These past few days, we have been discussing—I will digress for a moment—the establishing of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

The real disaster in case of a major natural calamity in a region of Quebec would be to have, in addition to an emergency plan established by the Government of Quebec and delegated to the municipalities, another emergency plan established by the federal government. I can tell you that that would be very bad, even unacceptable and inconceivable, given the necessity to act extremely fast in such cases.

In any emergency situation, there has to be an order of command and direction, and it must order remain one of the responsibilities of Quebec. All the government services in place for security and safety purposes must fall under Quebec's emergency plan.

[Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, November 17th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, of course there needs to be cooperation. I can well imagine an independent Quebec. An independent Quebec would have its own organization to fight organized crime, as it did to fight biker gangs.

I believe we will cooperate with English Canada that will form a country. There will be cooperation and sharing of information. However, Quebec will, of course, have its own set of rules.

This afternoon I wanted to warn this government, those who will be responsible for this law, that Quebec has specific responsibilities concerning disasters. My intervention was mainly based on this.

Quebec has exceptional expertise in this field. I experienced it. I can therefore talk about it. I have trouble seeing a government or a minister intervening in this area of jurisdiction which belongs to Quebec when it comes to implementing an emergency plan.

There is an entire structure to assist people facing a disaster, be it a flood or an ice storm.

[Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, November 17th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin for his presentation. He talked like an expert on the topic.

I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-6, which seeks to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

My party supports the bill. However, it has some concerns regarding measures that could jeopardize the delicate balance between security and the freedom of Quebeckers and Canadians.

We will recall that on December 12, 2003, the Prime Minister created the portfolio of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, which combines the activities of the solicitor general aimed at protecting Canada from natural disasters. The department ensures policy cohesion among six agencies, namely the RCMP, CSIS, the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canada Firearms Centre, Correctional Service Canada and the National Parole Board.

Looking at Bill C-6, we realize that the minister has huge powers. He plays a leadership role relating to Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness while respecting the Prime Minister's prerogative in matters relating to national security and the statutory authorities of other ministers.

The minister establishes strategic priorities for and coordination of portfolio agencies, while respecting their distinct mandates, cooperates with provinces and foreign states, and facilitates the sharing of information among public safety agencies as authorized under current Canadian law.

I will now talk about emergency measures in case of disasters. In 1996, I personally lived through the Saguenay floods. When a major disaster happens, concrete measures must be taken quickly.

I speak about them first hand having spent all my professional life in Chicoutimi where I was involved in emergency measures planning. In case of an emergency or a disaster, my role was to coordinate.

We all remember the July 1996 flood in the Upper Saguenay, the Lower Saguenay and the majority of the municipalities of my riding, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, including Chicoutimi, La Baie, Laterrière, Lower Saguenay, Anse-Saint-Jean, Ferland-et-Boileau and other cities and communities outside my riding, like the city of Jonquiere and other surrounding municipalities, with a population of about 160,000 persons. This area includes two large basins collecting water used to produce electricity. I am of course talking about the big Lake Kénogami and the big Lake Ha! Ha!

For almost a week, we had heavy rains in the region covering the Upper Saguenay, all the cities that I just mentioned, and the Lower Saguenay. The two basins overflowed of course. They filled up just like this glass would fill up if I were to put it under a tap. It would of course fill up, and then it would overflow.

Rivers and waterways helped to drain off the water, but because of the dams holding back the waters, the basins were flooded and expanded. Large communities located on those waterways and basins were flooded. We had to relocate a lot of people. That brings me to the importance of quick emergency response.

This happened on a Saturday when I was on holiday. The public safety authorities in my area and the emergency planning committee called me. We got together to evaluate the situation. After a few hours, of course, the situation was so bad that already there was a real overflow. We immediately contacted the mayor of Chicoutimi who was an active participant in emergency planning.

A few hours after becoming aware of the situation, he declared emergency measures in Chicoutimi because of the flooding and the overflow of the main reservoir. In the case of Chicoutimi, it was Lake Kénogami. Other municipalities in similar locations made the same decisions at about the same time: to implement emergency measures or to implement an emergency plan, which meant evacuating the population, setting up structures to accommodate and feed them, and all the other details such a plan requires.

A great deal of cooperation is also required among all levels involved. Since I am here in this Parliament, which has responsibility for the federal services available in my region, I can state that I am aware of this great collaborative effort and the great responsibility these emergency plans entail. They are implemented by Quebec emergency preparedness, by a delegation in each region. The emergency plan, under the direction of the mayor of the municipality and all the municipal departments, is where the responsibility remains. The federal services in that area were the army—we have a base at Bagotville, in Haut-Saguenay—and the RCMP and weather services. These all put themselves under the leadership and responsibility of the emergency measures plan. As far as the army was concerned, more specific measures were involved, and it was mandated to look after a specific area of intervention.

All this shows the need for collaborative efforts, and there certainly was cooperation. An emergency measures plan was put in place, and put in place promptly. As a result, the population was spared a good many problems.

I was also able to see what help was provided by the various players in society. As you remember, all of Canada was made aware. In my region of Quebec, the population was mobilized to help our community, our people. When a disaster hits, political allegiance does not count any more.

I can bear witness: there is simply cooperation and it is important in this type of situation.

Indeed, who is in a better position than the people who live in regional county municipalities and who work with the Government of Quebec to monitor the arrangements made to ensure the safety and the operation of those emergency measures.

Let me go back to the emergency measures. In municipalities, they are periodically reviewed. Needless to say, when an emergency plan is redone, it is as if, tomorrow morning, a disaster will happen. That means that some people are in charge in that structure and their telephone number and address must be available so that they can be contacted rapidly.

The Government of Quebec has established public emergency measures in cooperation with community stakeholders in order to have in place the means to better forecast such incidents. The Government of Quebec has the tools to manage the procedures to be followed in case of a disaster in the province.

At home, we had the flood, the flood of 1996 and the ice storm of 1998, which have contributed to making the population aware that it was exposed to certain risks.

These two events also gave rise to serious questions as to the ability of the Quebec civil security system to ensure adequate protection of people and property in the case of major disasters.

The Quebec government thus elected to have both these events analyzed by a scientific and technical commission called the Nicolet commission. This body made recommendations, of a technical, as well as a legal and legislative nature. It led, on December 20, 2001, to the creation of a new law which replaced the Act respecting the protection of persons and property in the event of disaster. The implementation of this legislation concerned citizens as well as businesses, municipalities as well as the government.

Today, Bill C-6 seek to create a national security structure. Its objectives are legitimate and we understand them. We simply want to stress that the Government of Quebec possesses a department of public safety which is already in tune with the situation in Quebec and that public safety comes under the jurisdiction of Quebec.

Nonetheless, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C-6. We remain concerned, however, by measures which could imperil the balance between the security and freedom of Quebeckers and Canadians, as well as by intrusions into the public safety activities of the Government of Quebec.

Today, I ask the Liberal government to explicitly recognize in this bill respect for the jurisdiction of Quebec. On June 28, Quebeckers and Canadians demanded changes in the way the country is being governed and more compromise in our policies.

The availability of a Canada national safety policy might lead the federal government to interfere in areas of Quebec's jurisdiction. It is time for federal intrusions in the areas of jurisdiction of the provinces and of Quebec to stop.

Today, the federal government spends more in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces than in its own areas of jurisdiction. We must draw a line somewhere to avoid confusion.

Fortunately, concerning emergency plans, as I was saying, this has not happened, nor will it, I hope. Emergency plans come under the jurisdictions of municipalities, and municipalities are the creatures of the Quebec government. Emergency plans become the responsibility of the Quebec government.

We believe in the principle of Bill C-6, because it will allow for better cooperation between the various government organizations. It will facilitate the exchange of information between the various public safety organizations that enforce Canadian laws.

However, we have some concerns about the exchange of information between organizations and states, because this may have an effect on Canadians' right to privacy.

Since 1993, the Bloc Québécois has steadfastly denounced the ever-increasing federal interference in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. We were elected by the people to represent their interests. We are in favour of this bill, but we will ensure the respect of jurisdictions and of citizens' individual freedom.

I conclude by reminding members of the House that the Quebec government must still be responsible for the implementation of emergency plans. Under these plans, there must be cooperation and integration of the federal government services that we find in a region affected by a disaster.

[La Société des fabricants régionaux du Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of the constituents of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord to salute a dynamic network of entrepreneurs from my riding and my region.

La Société des fabricants régionaux du Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, known as SFR, is celebrating its 10th anniversary this year and has nearly 100 heads of manufacturing companies as members. The goal of the society is to promote goods made in the Saguenay—Lac Saint-Jean region and it also develops strategies to face the challenge of globalization.

The Saguenay—Lac Saint-Jean region is going through difficult economic times. And yet I believe the initiative of these businesspeople shows that we have dynamic human resources and that we believe in our abilities.

Congratulations to the SFR.