Guy Côté

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague for his presentation. If there is one thing this government is particularly good at, it is creating general discontent in all of the provinces. They are very adept, in fact, at stirring up discontent just about everywhere in Canada.

The hon. member has given a very good explanation of the past and future effects of the new equalization agreement with Saskatchewan. The government refuses to acknowledge the fiscal imbalance.

Does the member think that finding solutions to the fiscal imbalance might improve the situation, for Saskatchewan in particular, in the context he has just described?

[Finance, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member appears to lack ideas and solutions, we will offer her some.

In agriculture, we recently participated in a meeting with the UPA. One proposal was that the allowable capital gains deduction for agricultural property should be raised from $500,000 to $1,000,000, only for transactions where the farm would continue in operation. That is a first step.

We also propose that Ottawa extend the regulations regarding rollovers to all members of the immediate family under 40 years of age. That is another measure.

Yet another proposal is that an agricultural transfer savings plan be established to enable farmers to accumulate a tax-sheltered retirement fund. The government could also make a contribution, as it does for education savings plans. This contribution would be conditional on continued operation of the farm after the transfer. That is another step.

It has been proposed that the rules surrounding property ownership be made more flexible, in order to enable young farmers to obtain a larger share of a residence owned by a company, or to use their RRSPs to acquire a farm business. That is another measure.

We also propose that the federal government transfer a recurring amount to the Quebec government to encourage young people entering the agricultural sector. Those are some of the proposed measures.

This government is lacking in ideas. It does not know what to do with its money.

[Finance, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this government's action in connection with social housing is easily stated: no action. It is as simple as that.

In the last federal election campaign, the government committed to between $1 billion and $1.5 billion annually for five years. However, this is totally ignoring the fact that the government pulled totally out of funding new social housing in Canada between 1993 and 2001. This withdrawal deprived those in substandard housing and the homeless of approximately 160,000 social housing units, more than 40,000 of those in Quebec.

At this time, Canada Mortgage and Housing has an accumulated surplus of $2.4 billion, and this should be up to $6 billion by 2008 if the trend continues. The main reason for this surplus is that, since 1998, almost all of the proceeds, and in some years all of them, from insurance activities were allocated to capitalization rather than the creation of new social housing.

In 2001, 17.6% of renters paid 50% of their income for housing. According to the popular action front FRAPRU, at the present time 111,000 Quebec households are allocating more than 80% of their income to housing. In spite of a surplus that for this past fiscal year alone added up to $9.1 billion, the government is doing nothing about social housing. That is the situation.

[Finance, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. She will understand that 20 minutes is a rather short time to cover all the mismanagement by this government. I did refer to how the employment insurance program is managed, how poorly managed it is by the government. As we speak, the effect of the management of this program is that many EI recipients no longer qualify for benefits.

Everyone knows—it was stated repeatedly in this House—that $46 billion was taken out of the fund and put into the government's general revenue to finance various measures, including debt payment. As incredible as it may sound, the EI program has become a tax on employment. Every now and then, there is talk about lowering taxation for all Canadians and Quebeckers. Lowering those amounts would have been one way to achieve that.

The gap experienced in the seasonal industry is very real in our regions. Because the measures are not tailored to that reality, people are facing certain periods without any income.

As part of unanimous reports, we made very specific recommendations with respect to employment insurance, parental leave, accessibility for young people, women and seasonal workers, but the government turned a deaf ear. That is most unfortunate. The fact is that the proposals contained in proposals heard at the Standing Committee on Finance are along the same lines as the unanimous report tabled in May 2001 by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.

This government will have to make a point to listen to those from the cities and from the regions alike who, unfortunately, need employment insurance benefits from time to time.

[Finance, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, last June, during the election campaign, the Bloc Québécois made a tour of Quebec promising Quebeckers a number of things. The Bloc Québécois is a party which, unlike the members opposite, intends to keep its promises. On June 28 the commitments of the Bloc Québécois were overwhelmingly endorsed by Quebeckers.

Since September, I have had the privilege of sitting on the Standing Committee on Finance. From September to December we heard from many people representing economic, social and community organizations. They told us what they thought should be done in the budget the Minister of Finance will soon be presenting.

After these consultations, the committee put its proposals on the record in the report of the Standing Committee on Finance. The Bloc Québécois issued a complementary dissenting report detailing the directions it wanted to see taken.

These directions have also been validated by the people of Quebec. My hon. friend from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and I travelled around Quebec specifically to meet representatives of groups and organizations in Quebec, in order to make certain that what we were going to propose to the Minister of Finance truly represented the best interests of Quebec.

Now, let us not fool ourselves; bringing down a budget is a very intense time for any legislature, especially with a minority government. Unlike the members opposite, we intend to vote in accordance with what we have promised to our constituents and not to make promises only to change them later. We made firm commitments during the last election campaign and there is no question that we will go back on our principles.

That said, if the upcoming budget does not contain a certain number of elements that satisfy the concerns of Quebeckers, we will be obliged to vote against it. The ball is now in the court of the governing party, and more specifically in the court of the finance minister.

How can the Minister of Finance ensure that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of his budget? There are certain elements to guide him in his considerations, and he knows them already because my colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, talked to him this morning about the subject. With your permission, I shall review the list of these subjects.

First, we are talking about an issue that has been well explained to Quebeckers in recent months, namely the fiscal imbalance. As recently as today, we were talking about a very hot and important issue, with spring just around the corner, and that is the employment insurance program. The environment and the Kyoto protocol are issues that will have to be settled, or regarding which concrete measures will have to be taken to move them forward.

Then there is agriculture. This is a critical sector for Quebec. We even used an opposition day to debate it. The Minister of Finance will have to take action in this area.

Unfortunately, during the holiday season, we were confronted with some very sad events, such as the tsunamis that hit some regions of the world. Canada's international aid will have to increase significantly.

All too often, the government's reflex is to infringe on the jurisdictions of the provinces and of Quebec. This budget will have to include concrete measures while respecting the Quebec government's jurisdictions.

As regards social housing, the situation is catastrophic. For the past ten years or so, the government has almost completely withdrawn from this sector. Again, the budget will have to include means to improve the plight of those who need social housing units. Of course, and the Bloc Québécois has raised this issue on a regular basis, additional support will have to be provided to francophone and Acadian communities.

We are open to discussions on all of these issues. However, I want to make it clear that on budget day all Bloc Québécois members will be present in the House.

We will not renege on our election promises; the people of Quebec would find it inexcusable.

Unless the government takes concrete action to correct the fiscal imbalance, improve the employment insurance program, establish an independent fund and support all the other measures I mentioned, we will be voting against the budget. Then, it will be up to the Prime Minister to explain to the public why he is not committed to the interests of his fellow citizens.

Moreover, this is a government which keeps piling up surpluses year after year while maintaining that these were unforeseen. We are talking about some $60 billion since 1997. I hope that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance will not try to have us believe that they cannot afford to help their fellow citizens.

The fiscal imbalance is a major issue for all provincial governments and for Quebec. The Liberal government half-heartedly admitted that Quebec and the provinces were facing financial pressures, of course. We are not afraid to call a spade a spade. We had a motion passed in the House of Commons, which was one more step toward identifying and presenting the federal government with practical solutions to deal with this fiscal imbalance. I am referring to the establishment of the Subcommittee on Fiscal Imbalance, on which I will be representing the Bloc Québécois. Incidentally, our report will be tabled in this House on June 2, 2005, at the latest.

In the meantime, concrete and meaningful action will have to be taken as part of budget 2005, in February. The fiscal imbalance has an impact on how other governments, and Quebec in particular, are managed. Quebec had no other choice but to increase funding in health, at the expense of its other mandates, including the one for education.

The conference held last September saw the federal government finally agree to contribute close to 25% of the costs assumed by the province. Bear in mind, however, that transfers specifically for education continued to drop during that time. We are now talking about a federal contribution representing some 12%, or $9 billion per year Canada-wide.

Such underfunding in education has many effects that may not be felt in the short term, but quite certainly have an impact in the medium and long terms. We will have a less qualified workforce that will be less able to meet the needs of an ever-changing market.

Another effect of the fiscal imbalance is in this government's management of equalization. Once again, the government has imposed its solution on the various provinces, which have had no other choice but to accept it. Yet, there are a number of ways to improve the equalization program. The Bloc has proposed many, such as taking into account the fiscal capacity of the ten provinces, not just the five, as at present. Furthermore, the floor and ceiling provisions need to be eliminated and the representative tax system approach needs to be fully respected. The measurement of fiscal capacity has to be based on reality, not on figures decided in advance.

More importantly for the governments and for Quebec, the equalization calculation must not be unilaterally changed by Ottawa. If a change needs to be made, it will be made following discussion and only over a five-year period, in order to ensure stability.

This government's management of the employment insurance system is scandalous. Rather than help people who truly need it, people who are less fortunate and whose families are in crisis, employment insurance has become an employment tax. It is a tax for employers who have to pay contributions and a tax for employees who have to finance this program with their own pay. It is only normal for them to finance the program if they receive the services they are paying for.

We have often talked in this House about the $46 billion taken from the premiums paid by these employers and employees. The government must repay these funds. This is scandalous.

In 2001, there was a unanimous report. In 2004, there was another unanimous report. An independent fund must be created, so that the government cannot just dip into it. Special measures need to be taken with regard to employment insurance for workers in the seasonal industry. Seasonal work is common in the regions but also in the major centres.

There is what we call a black hole. The government can deny it all it wants, but the reality is that this black hole does exist. In fact, all too often, claimants exhaust their benefits and find themselves, for a more or less lengthy period, without access to this type of income support. Since 35% of workers exhaust their benefits, special status must be given to workers in the seasonal industry and there must be a single eligibility threshold of 420 hours. The government must increase the maximum benefit period by five weeks, from 45 to 50 weeks.

This program, by its administration, has become discriminatory toward young people and women. Individuals making an initial application are often young or returning to the labour market and have not applied for EI benefits for two years. These people must accumulate 910 hours of employment in order to be eligible for benefits. This greatly penalizes young people and women. This is truly what could be considered a discriminatory measure.

Such administration has also excluded older workers. Until 1997, there was an adjustment program for older workers who, unfortunately, may have trouble finding another job after being laid off. We have a government where the current Prime Minister, when he was finance minister, dared to abolish this program despite its success. This program should recognize the new realities of the labour market. Some 30, 40 or 50 years ago, the phenomenon of self-employed workers was almost non-existent. Today, 16% of the workforce qualifies as self-employed. There should be a voluntary EI program so that these workers can receive some coverage.

The next budget is also an opportunity for this government to demonstrate that it really does have a political will and a plan in connection with the environment and implementation of the Kyoto protocol. This is a plan that ought to have a long term focus, but short term action. It ought not to exist solely to satisfy the oil and gas sector. This government must invest heavily in the wind energy sector. It absolutely must stress the importance of encouraging the development of wind-powered energy and step up its investment in the incentive program.

In the 2001 budget, the government announced the allocation of funds, but it needs to go far beyond that. We will not accept the government's going back on its promise and offering less than one billion dollars over 15 years.

As well—again in connection with the environment—certain new technologies must be encouraged, particularly the purchase of hybrid vehicles. Why not a tax credit for the purchase of hybrid vehicles, $4,000 per purchaser, for instance, provided a certain number of standards are met? These measures would affect the consumer immediately and would foster a healthier environment.

The way this government is managing agriculture is disastrous. Few countries have abandoned their agricultural sector to the extent that Canada has. Quebec agricultural producers in particular have been the victims of this government in this area of jurisdiction. We are referring to the non-reopening of the U.S. border, the questionable control over the ban on animal meal, the non-regionalization of health practices. With this budget, the government could put in place some measures to benefit this sector.

Furthermore, the Government of Quebec has to compensate for federal injustices. Federal subsidies for agriculture in 2003-04 were $6.7 billion. Of that total, Quebec farmers received only $600 million, or 9.8% of the total subsidy.

Federal government aid packages do not take into account the specific problem of cull cattle in Quebec. Again, the current government does not consider Quebec's claims. Unfortunately, I often feel like I am repeating myself on this. However, maybe one day the government will finally understand.

That is why the Bloc Québécois has many expectations of this budget. Why does the government not take advantage of this budget to help the Government of Quebec facilitate the implementation of a ceiling price of 42¢ a pound? That would provide transitional assistance representing roughly $11 million for the federal government. The federal government absolutely must reinvest in Quebec's agriculture, while respecting the various jurisdictions.

As for international assistance, the government has often promised to increase aid to 0.7% of GDP. It has said so many times, but has done very little. At the rate things are going, this target will be reached in 2032, which is a long time from now. The government absolutely must increase its international aid budget more quickly in order to reach the target by 2015.

The greatest difficulty this government has is in respecting provincial jurisdictions. During the Speech from the Throne we heard the Prime Minister and various members of his cabinet proudly announce that their priorities were the municipalities, health, child care and education.

Someone should tell the Prime Minister that he is in the wrong level of government and that he would be better off in a provincial legislature or even in Quebec. This government has a growing habit of extensively interfering in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. Unfortunately, it can get away with doing so because of the fiscal imbalance and the massive surpluses it hides from this Parliament.

Sometimes the government invests in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. Thus, it infringes on Quebec's jurisdiction, for example in the matter of parental leave. This dispute has been going on since 1996. In May 2004 we had the announcement, as if by chance, two days before the election campaign began, that there was an agreement in principle. Still, today, we have not yet seen the result of this agreement in principle.

The federal government has not withdrawn its appeal to the Supreme Court. What is it waiting for? Once again, Quebec is the loser. The Government of Quebec wants to establish a better system for Quebec parents, and the federal government refuses to hand over the funding it is owed to bring this about. The government must not take the parents of Quebec hostage, out of sheer partisanship. That is offensive.

If there is one program that is envied by many, it is the daycare program. Having been a member of the board of an early childhood centre in Quebec, I can say that it is an exemplary program. The provincial governments as well as the federal, should learn from it. Still, it is important for the federal level to transfer money to the provinces without imposing national standards that might run counter to what already exists. All the more so because, according to the latest OECD report, Quebec has the best day care system in Canada.

In conclusion, I wish to remind the Minister of Finance that we will support his budget if he listens to the demands of Quebeckers. If not, we will vote against it.

[Auditor General Act, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am a new member, and, as such, it is with emotion that I stood the first few times, but I am very happy today to support Bill C-277, which was tabled by my colleague from Repentigny. In fact, this bill is meant to lower the unfortunate level of public cynicism towards politicians.

We have before us a government that pretends to promote transparency. We have before us a Prime Minister who pretends to be a champion in the fight against the democratic deficit. We have before us a finance minister who says it is respectful to provide faultless management. I am happy that Bill C-277 gives the government an opportunity to practice what it preaches.

This bill will give back to the House and to the members of Parliament some control over the management of funds, which had been removed from the scrutiny of Parliament, something that started back in 1997, when the Prime Minister, then Minister of Finance, began to hide billions of dollars in different foundations. That way, he could remove these funds from public debate and distort his real manoeuvring room. Huge sums of money were involved.

I was making a quick calculation this afternoon. An amount of $9.1 billion was transferred within a number of foundations. If you add to that the $9.1 billion surplus for last year and the estimated $8.9 billion for the current year, we have a total amount of more than $25 billion that has been concealed from public debate in this House.

A government member was talking a moment ago about the work done by external auditors within the framework of their duties. I must say that my colleague from Repentigny has quite aptly explained the difference. I would still like to come back to that aspect.

Let me give you a few quick examples of the difference between the work of an external auditor and the work the Auditor General could do when it comes to the auditing of foundations.

In 1997, the Canada Foundation for Innovation has received a subsidy of $3.651 billion. As of 31 March 2004, that foundation still held $3.122 million. This means that, over a seven-year period, that foundation only spent 14 % of its budget.

Of course, an external auditor will look at the figures, examine everything and, at the end, I suppose, conclude that effectively, according to generally accepted standards in external accounting and audit, all the figures are correct. On the other hand, the Auditor General, in such a case, could make recommendations. She could tell the government that is not normal for a foundation after seven years to have spent only 14% of the budget allocated to it by the government.

The same goes for the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. As we know, the Bloc has opposed this foundation specifically because it was impinging on Quebec's jurisdiction. The scenario is somewhat similar. Only 20 % of the budget allocated to the foundation was spent since 1998. That is 20 % in six years. We can ask ourselves why the finance minister of the time, who is now Prime Minister, wanted so much to allocate these funds to the foundations since, clearly, they were not ready to hand out the necessary sums.

However, there is worse still, and this is incredible. In 2001, $350 million was allocated to The Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology. Today, as of March 31, 2004, this foundation still has $347 million on hand.

Listen to this next one, because it is truly mind-boggling. In 2001, Canada Health Infoway got $1.2 billion in financing from the federal government.

On March 31, 2004, the foundation had $1,202 billion. Not only did it not spend the money obtained from the federal government, but it made even more money.

In the mean time, incredible needs have been mentioned since the return of the House. There are people living in extreme poverty in Canada and in Quebec. I will not go back over the opposition day of the Bloc Québécois. I think that we have demonstrated that the federal government is not doing its job.

All this to say that Bill C-277 introduced by my colleague from Repentigny, gives to the government an opportunity to act where, until now, it has only talked. I sincerely hope that the government members will support the effort by my colleague in the committee as well as in the House, so that Bill C-277 may be passed. This is really important.

Also, we must not forget that these foundations established by the government are not subject to the Access to Information Act. There must be a specific provision in their financing agreement for the members of Parliament to be allowed to use the Access to Information Act and find out what is really going on within these foundations.

It has been mentioned that the Auditor General did an excellent job in the last few years. I said earlier that foundations cannot be scrutinized by members of Parliament. Actually, in April 2002—this is quite a while ago, and we again return to the lack of leadership in the government—the Auditor General wrote in her report called “Placing the Public's Money Beyond Parliament's Reach” that, in her opinion, the information provided to parliamentarians about the foundations “is not adequate for parliamentary scrutiny”. She concluded that “the foundations had been placed beyond the reach of effective ministerial oversight and parliamentary scrutiny”.

Knowing that, is it surprising that those who do not get the chance to listen to our proceedings daily tend to be cynical? I wish more people in Quebec and Canada could follow our proceedings as regularly as possible, because I hope, somewhat naively I suppose, that they would view the politicians with less cynicism. But their cynical view of the government and its party would increase immensely. Maybe the government would then really work in the best interest of the people instead of wasting its time in different ways and failing to resolve problems.

I hope the House will pass Bill C-277.

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I feel a little sad having to take the floor today to speak about an issue I hoped would be settled several months ago.

I want to tell the House once again that the minister is hiding behind double talk. His reason for not going to meet the Quebec producers in Quebec City does not stand up.

The Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier riding is not far from Quebec City. Unfortunately, the agriculture and agri-food minister probably is not familiar with my region.

I will help him learn more about it. A little earlier, I called a producer in my riding whom I met several times in the past few weeks and months. His situation is desperate. He is about to lose his farm. Why? Because the minister does not do a thing to help him. That is what is going on today.

The minister will not meet farmers. He is not doing anything to help them. He is giving them ridiculously low sums of money, often in the wrong place. He has no leadership to offer.

Unfortunately, leadership is not this government's strong suit. Examples of this abound. Let me quickly give a few.

Today, even if it was somewhat off topic, we talked about the softwood lumber dispute, which, as we speak, is still not resolved. Part of the problem can be explained by the government's lack of leadership, of which this is a good example.

Let us take another example. During the U.S. President's visit, while the Prime Minister had said that they would not talk about missile defence, Mr. Bush put it on the agenda. That is known as leadership. One can support the policies of the President of the United States of America or not, but at least he is capable of showing leadership, something sorely lacking on the other side of the House.

What exactly is leadership? Today, the Government of Quebec showed some. How? We learned today that an agreement has been reached. Quebec's Minister of Agriculture, Françoise Gauthier, announced that the parties had reached an agreement on a floor price of 42 cents that would become effective, as far as we know, on December 6.

However, Quebec,s Minister of Agriculture made it clear that the agreement had to be final. Otherwise, the Government of Quebec would exercise leadership and bring in special legislation. That is an example of what an independent Quebec could do if it did not always have to contend with the federal government.

What else will this agreement in principle achieve? Producers would own 80% of slaughter capacity and this agreement states that ownership would take effect on December 20. In any event, the Quebec minister was very clear: if this transaction should fail, she promised there would be a special act to establish price, volume and an administrator. Now that is leadership.

Unfortunately, it has come to this. We cannot say this enough today; the minister is not doing anything. At least this situation is starting to get resolved for Quebec producers. We are pleased about that.

Unfortunately, this comes without federal support. Once again, this government is abandoning Quebec. It is unbelievable. Every time there is an opportunity to help Quebec, this government hides, does not take action, beats around the bush, studies the matter, comes up with a plan, has a process in development, but at the end of the day, it does nothing.

As we have mentioned many times today, producers have suffered enormous losses in the past year and a half. Initiatives by the Government of Quebec have not fully resolved the situation. Financial compensation beyond what Quebec is currently providing is needed to support our producers.

I say this in case the rumours of the past few days are true, that the border will reopen within the next six months.

Once again, this is an opportunity for the government to show some leadership. Unfortunately, judging from past experience, we can wait for a signal from the federal government for a long time, and I am certain today that no signal is coming, especially since the minister did not go to Quebec City today. Once again, he will find some excuse not to act.

He has done nothing. The government has done nothing. After a year and a half of our producers being in crisis, the government still has not found a way to convince the United States to reopen its border. If the government had been a little more proactive, we would not still be talking about this situation today. Solutions have been presented here in this House. Regionalization of agriculture sectors is one solution.

If the government had wanted to, it could have implemented that solution long ago. Again, I know I am repeating myself, but this government must understand that it lacks leadership. A single case of mad cow disease in Canada was enough to paralyze all our exports, from Vancouver to Newfoundland, from all municipalities throughout Canada and Quebec. The fact that health regions have not yet been regionalized is inexplicable.

On May 21, 2003, the president of the UPA, Mr. Laurent Pellerin, made a harsh criticism of the government when he said, and I quote:

If we were separate provinces each with its own distinct inspection system and if we had a more regional approach to product marketing systems, only one province would have to deal with this problem.

It would certainly have been a difficult situation for that province and I hope that, at the very least, the federal government could have helped this province to deal with the situation. But, again, allow me to be skeptical. The federal government has shown, in each case, how ineffective it is.

Yet, there are simple solutions. We hear about financial compensation. There is no use in trying to convince producers in Quebec that the federal government cannot help them. It had a $9.1 billion surplus last year, and if my memory serves me well, we are talking about a $8.9 billion surplus for this year. Based on past predictions by the finance minister, the amount of this year's surplus is likely to be significantly higher. I have no doubt about that.

Not only has the federal government lacked leadership on this issue, but I am also convinced that it has been an obstacle to its solution. We should not forget that the federal government has rejected requests by Minister Gauthier for a floor price. On June 15, 2004, the agriculture authority stated that it did not have the power to force Colbex-Levinoff slaughterhouse, among others, to buy cull cows from the Fédération des producteurs de bovins. At the same time, the authority acknowledged that the federation could impose a floor price on animals it was selling, but that cattle remained subject to the auction process, which means that prices could go lower than the floor price.

At the time, the UPA and Minister Gauthier had asked that the federal government use the Agricultural Products Marketing Act to set a floor price. That was a few months ago. Why did the federal government not act immediately? No, it did nothing. That is why, on November 29, Minister Gauthier stated that she did not have the federal government's consent to set a floor price for all of Canada.

Once again, the interests of the producers in Quebec were sacrificed, and that is unacceptable. This point was made many times today, and I make it again.

Yesterday, I met with producers from the UPA. I travelled to Quebec City to meet them. It did not take me 72 hours. I made it back here in plenty of time to attend and take part in the debate on our motion. Do not tell me that the minister could not have done the same. That is incredible, and terribly offensive.

Earlier, I spoke with a constituent of mine who is a farm producer. The minister should go to my riding and meet him, because this producer wants to talk, he has things to tell the minister and he is not in a very good mood. I suggested that he listen to the debate, and he is listening. Unfortunately, he could not afford the luxury of watching us on CPAC, because he had to work on his farm. I interrupted his work, but I said, “Look, this is important. The minister is in the House and he does not want to go and talk to producers in the regions. Here is an opportunity to listen to him”. His answer was, “I know, Mr. Côté, that he did not come to see us”.

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Yes, it is the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell as I was just reminded. I am sorry to see him today acting as a screen behind which the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food can hide. I am even more sorry to hear him confess the government's powerlessness in the face of this crisis.

The member was saying a while ago that he is part of the milk caucus and that there is a meeting every second week. Therefore, for the last 18 months, there have been approximately 40 meetings. The member was asking us to give an example of what does not work in the government program to help farmers.

I will give him an example. Among those he has cited as receiving government aid, he mentioned slaughterhouses. Has nobody told the member that, right now, the slaughterhouses in Quebec do not need help from the federal government and that the ones in need of help are the producers?

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, like all the members of this House, I have an enormous respect both for the integrity and the years of service of the member who just spoke. However, I have forgotten the name of his riding.

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this has been mentioned several times today, but I think it must be repeated until the minister understands well. If he had really wanted to meet producers in Quebec City, he could have gone there. He could have gone there last night, during the day yesterday, this morning; he could leave right now and get there before supper time to meet these producers. However, the minister is hiding in the House. This is too often a reflex of this government. When it is time to answer questions in the House, they are not here. Today, it was time to go and meet producers and, this time, he hid in the House.

Since the minister did not go to Quebec City, I doubt very much that he went to Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. I would like my colleague to tell us a little about the situation in his riding. The minister must understand how the situation is serious for our producers.