Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Champlain.
I am pleased to take part in this debate. The motion before us today brings out two realities. The first is the government's loss of control over certain spending. The second concerns what could be done with this money to help people face all the crises in the agricultural sector.
In her report, the Auditor General revealed a whole series of irregularities in the management of certain programs, such as the sponsorship program, where $252 million went to meet the Liberal government's needs for visibility in Quebec. In the same report, we find that the Liberal-connected communications firms received commissions worth around $100 million, often just for moving a cheque from one hand to the other. This was done by circumventing all Treasury Board rules.
I must also say something about poor management at the Royal Canadian Mint, which went from a profit of $23.1 million in 1999 to an operating loss of $6.6 million in 2002. During that same period, the salaries of senior managers rose by 45%. That happened without any annual reports to Parliament ever mentioning these increases, which were certainly substantial.
There was also the strange disappearance of $3 million paid out in another visibility-enhancing operation, in which Groupaction and Groupe Polygone were apparently involved. Where did that money go?
Let us now look at federal propaganda, for which there seem to be two criteria: the excessive quantity of money involved and the concentration of such spending in Quebec. Let us look at some estimates for one year, say 2001-02: government advertising, $270 million; Canada Day, $5 million; Queen's Jubilee secretariat, $11 million; Communication Canada, about $50 million; and $43 million for propaganda related to the sponsorship program.
These expenditures total $379 million. To this amount, we should add various initiatives of the Department of Canadian Heritage relating to multiculturalism and grants by the Privy Council to organizations such as the Council for Canadian Unity. I think we are getting up near the billions of dollars.
With respect to advertising, according to data from the Nielson Advertising firm, quoted in Robert Bernier's latest book, entitled Un siècle de propagande au Canada , in 1999, the Government of Canada was the number three advertiser in the country, behind General Motors and BCE, with advertising expenses of $97.1 million for the year.
According to information obtained through a question on the Order Paper, the federal government spent $270 million on advertising in 2001-02. Add to that its huge investments in other communications activities for establishing its legitimacy. In 2001-02, advertising and communications expenses were approximately $422 million.
Between 1993 and 2002, the budget for organizing Canada Day increased dramatically, from $2.4 million to $6.8 million. Year in year out, Quebec receives $5 million for its celebrations, or 70% of the federal budget. That is what comes of the insatiable Liberal obsession with visibility.
During that time, farmers are going through a very difficult situation and need help. In 2003, farm incomes dropped to the lowest level in three years. Cattle farmers have seen their income drop by more than one-third. Cull sells today at 30% of last year's price. Yet, the government is taking a long time providing farmers with the help they need.
The program for cattle farmers ended on December 31, 2003.
Under the cull cow program, producers are not getting any compensation for 35% of their cows. While this is going on, Ottawa is looking forward to a huge surplus of $7 billion to $8 billion, it is spending money on useless propaganda as though there were no tomorrow, and it is mismanaging everything that it gets its hands on.
Rather than putting the public service at the service of its friends, the government should adequately fulfil its responsibilities towards farmers. This is why I support the motion of the Conservative Party.
I would like to remind hon. members and the public that the Bloc Quebecois played a key role in uncovering this scandal. If Quebec had only been represented by Liberal members, this scandal would never have surfaced. Since May 2000, the Bloc Quebecois has asked over 450 questions on this issue. My colleague, the hon. member for Rimouski--Neigette-et-la Mitis, raised it on May 12, 2000, with a question on the use of front men at Communication Canada.
There is another example of mismanagement. I am referring to the gun registry program. The gun control legislation was passed in 1995, despite the reservations of several provinces.
Quebeckers, who were marked by the tragedy that occurred at École polytechnique, in 1989, still strongly support the program. Incidentally, the Bloc Quebecois supported the bill when it was passed.
However, the Canadian Firearms Program has seen many technical and budgetary excesses. According to the December 2002 report of the Auditor General, the implementation costs of the program, which were originally estimated at $2 million—the program was supposed to be self-funding through the collection of licence and registration fees—will be in excess of $1 billion by 2004-05, or 500 times more than the original estimate. We are talking about cost overruns that may now be at over $2 billion.
The Bloc Quebecois feels that the management of this program is a total fiasco. Still, we should not compromise the objective of protecting the public by making cuts to this program. It is clear, however, that it must be better managed.
Finally, there are too many useless expenditures in Ottawa. The federal government is very rich, too rich. With so much money, it could easily fulfil its responsibilities, but it prefers to spend uselessly.
The Léonard committee set up by the Bloc Quebecois to examine government spending estimated that it would be possible for the federal government to save $5.7 billion per year, without—and I emphasize this point—cutting services or transfers to the public.
At a time when agricultural producers are starving to death, the provinces cannot make ends meet and the health system is subject to incredible pressure, the wasteful ways of the Liberal Party are scandalous.
A minority government could not take such liberties with taxpayers' money. It is up to the voters to decide if they want these wasteful ways to continue. Recent polls indicate that voters are tired of the Liberals' lax attitude.
The mad cow crisis continues, and the assistance programs are insufficient. Despite the partial reopening of the American border to beef imports from all parts of Canada on August 8, the majority of Canadian beef production is still subject to an embargo. In addition to rising costs and problems selling their cattle, producers are getting one-third less for their animals than last year.
The federal assistance package for cattle producers expired on December 31, 2003, and the government is slow in making an announcement, even with a significant surplus.
Producers of cull cows, an industry mainly in Quebec since the ridings in central Quebec represent 47% of all dairy production, have seen prices for their animals drop yet again. Last week, cows were selling for 18¢ per pound at auction, 70% less compared to last year. However, the federal cull cow program compensates these producers for 65% of their cattle only. They have to absorb the remaining 35%. That is what they are being told.
The money needed from Ottawa to provide cattle producers with temporary emergency assistance is approximately $300 million. This is more or less equivalent to the funds invested in absolutely nothing through the sponsorship program.
If the government has the money to satisfy its hunger for visibility, it can find the money to help our producers through the crisis affecting this important industry.