Paul Crête

[Canada-United States Tax Conventions, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

The new Canada-United States tax convention came into effect on January 1, 1996. It penalizes low-income earners by depriving them of 25 per cent of their American pensions. On May 6, the minister assured us he was looking into the matter.

Since the minister recently met with his American counterpart, is he now in a position to give the assurance that a satisfactory solution to this matter will be found before the end of this year?

[Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, October 31st, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting to have the opportunity to speak on

the act to establish programs for the marketing of agricultural products. First of all, I think it is important, especially in light of the amendments proposed by the Reform Party, to realize that the basic principle that matters here is that agriculture is a unique and very different industry, and that it has to be dealt with as such.

A well targeted approach must be used so as to not do this industry a disservice in trying to put it on the same playing field as other industries. Agriculture, as you know, is dependent on the weather, markets, all kinds of factors that are intangible and difficult to predict.

The Reform motion seeks to delete the clause enabling the minister to buy, sell or import agricultural products so that prices will be more stable, thereby improving marketing conditions. My reaction, after meeting with farm producers in my riding over the summer, is that the Reform Party is displaying a rather blatant ignorance of several industrial sectors. There are many areas of the agricultural industry where such measures are required.

There are indeed many areas, be it maple syrup, potato or milk production, where the government must have a handle to regulate the market. Otherwise, the situation will revert to what it was 15 or 20 years ago. One year, producers make good money, but the next year their profits drop and the operation has to close down. This is not good for anyone involved, neither for the family business nor for the economy at large.

It is imperative that this amendment be defeated so that the minister may continue to exercise a regulating role, ensuring some stability for our economy and our agricultural industry. Just compare the typical farm producer, in Quebec and Canada to their counterpart in the U.S., where they practice this kind of extreme competition without any government involvement, and you will see that the economic situation of American producers is definitely not as good.

American farmers are much more dependent on economic cycles. By comparison, in Quebec and in Canada, we have managed to develop an agriculture which, although it is not easy and requires a lot of effort and sacrifices on the part of farmers, allows them, through stabilization policies, to carry on their operations. Quebec was a pioneer in this regard. It has been periodically and systematically involved, to provide good conditions to its farmers and make sure that succeeding generations would take over farming operations.

Amendments such as the one proposed today by the Reform Party would also have the effect, in the medium term, of creating a great deal of uncertainty about agriculture. This is an industry in which a bad year, or a surplus that cannot be disposed of, creates a serious problem. People simply cannot invest their life in such an industry.

The Reform Party should go back into the field. It may not represent the same type of farmers as we have in Quebec, but its amendment is certainly not very appealing.

The other aspect is one that does not necessarily concern our farmers, but is nevertheless important from a moral point of view. An amendment such as the one proposed by the Reform Party would impede international assistance, in that the Canadian government would no longer have the means to take action in emergency situations around the world, when it is necessary to ensure that populations have food in situations of crisis.

We have to maintain the image developed over the years by our country. It is generally agreed that Canada does a lot at the international level. There are many flaws to work on, but the general principle must be maintained. Unfortunately, the amendment proposed by the Reform Party would not allow us to meet that objective.

I also want to stress the fact that we must give particular attention to small producers. This summer, I met with producers, including some from the maple syrup industry. Maple syrup production is an industry with big and well-organized chains that offer interesting product lines. However, we should promote home-made products that could be exported.

Obviously, maple syrup is one such product, but if we wanted to set up a guaranteed vintage program, for example, like the ones for wine and other products, if we wanted to single out our product and obtain a higher price because of the quality or special characteristics of maple syrup from a particular area, for instance, we still have quite a long way to go.

Governments are very sensitive to lobbying from groups of well organized stakeholders, but the people who can help small rural companies to grow must still make a major effort. They must be given access to foreign markets, and I hope that a bill such as the one we are about to pass will be a help and not a hindrance.

In summary, the government must be able to maintain its role of protecting the income of farmers. The government must not be prevented from buying up surpluses, from taking the necessary time. In this connection, we have a very interesting example. A few years back, there was a surplus of apples. The federal government bought up a large quantity of them and was then able to resell them to a company that makes juice. In this case, the producer got his price, the government was able to cover its expenses and, in addition, the juice was produced in Quebec, in Canada.

This allowance for a regulatory role meant that jobs were maintained, production kept up and the link between the person doing the processing, producing the apple juice, and his market was

also maintained. The market is therefore not disrupted, resulting in greater stability for the agricultural economy.

This is perhaps what agriculture needs the most. Yes, we have good producers, yes, we must adjust in terms of research and development. The government has done some things that we did not like. We must not, however, lose sight of the important fact that if we compare agriculture in our country to that in other countries, there are certain advantages that we want to keep. We will not improve the situation by creating uncertainty for producers.

This is why the Bloc Quebecois will be voting against the Reform Party's amendment.

[Seniors, October 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, single persons between the ages of 60 and 74 are being discriminated against in that they are not eligible to a seniors benefit like their fellow citizens of the same age who receive spouse's allowances.

Such discrimination on the basis of marital status goes against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Minister of Human Resources Development argues that Canada cannot afford to make changes to its program to correct this injustice. But the minister must see reason and decide to implement fair and equitable measures.

Right now, he is hiding behind the new seniors benefit, which is not slated to take effect before the year 2001.

Our society must not put up with this kind of discrimination any longer.

[Railway Transportation, October 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

Last Thursday, rail workers in Montreal again raised the alarm and demanded a moratorium on the dismantling of the rail network in Quebec. During the year that is coming to an end, more than 2,000 jobs have disappeared in Montreal, bringing to over 10,000 the number of jobs lost in the past 10 years.

What will the minister do to stop this hemorrhage resulting from the federal government's iniquity?

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this closing debate on the bill dealing with manganese-based additives.

It is important to clearly understand the objectives of this bill. Manganese is one of the elements found in MMT, which is added to gasoline. The bill seeks to ensure that manganese can no longer be added to gasoline.

When we hear names of chemical products like this one, our initial reaction is often that we must absolutely eliminate all dangerous elements. In this particular case, the government originally had three arguments to support its bill.

First, it claimed that MMT was a threat to health. However, this argument was rebutted by Health Canada and is no longer valid.

Second, the government said manganese was also harmful to the anti-pollution systems in automobiles. This claim is no longer valid either, since it was contradicted by the ruling of a U.S. court. Indeed, the same issue surfaced in the United States and, following a court ruling, it was realized there was no evidence supporting the claim that manganese was dangerous.

The third claim, which is the really trickiest one, is that the bill to prohibit manganese would help harmonize our policies with those of the Americans. In fact, it will have precisely the opposite effect.

The manganese currently found in gasoline is produced by Ethyl, a U.S.-based corporation which, following the introduction of this bill, instituted proceedings against the Government of Canada, something which could end up costing close to $300 million to the Canadian government, under specific NAFTA provisions. As you know, NAFTA is the North American Free Trade Agreement that binds Canada, the United States and Mexico.

So, the Government of Canada knows that, by passing this bill, it will put itself in a difficult position, given this court action, which is definitely not frivolous in nature. This is an action being brought under NAFTA sections 1110, 1106 and 1102 and, moreover, supported by a letter from this Liberal government's international trade minister to the environment minister advising that it would be better not to follow through with this legislation because the action against us is very risky. Odds are that we lose in the end.

It is obvious that if Parliament does pass this bill, that would amount to deciding to invest that sum of money and this would lead to expenditures that could have been avoided. These are mistakes the government should not make.

I do not think that we are in a position to pour $300 million down the drain, saying odds are that we will lose but that we are going ahead, nevertheless. Why? Why, when the argument that this threatens health has been refuted by Health Canada, when the argument about the antipollution systems has been dismissed by an U.S. court ruling on the issue, and when it has been established that there is no danger for pollution control equipment.

Instead, we will have a legislation which will aggravate the relationships between Canada and the United States. Why then is the government still going ahead with this legislation?

The answer is an old answer in Canada, it has been there for a very long time. This government has a strong majority from Ontario, and its aim is to foster the economic development of that province at the expense of the six other provincial governments, including Quebec National Assembly, which has unanimously called for the postponement of this bill.

The ministers involved, the Deputy Prime Minister and the present environment minister, are all from Ontario, and they have decided, come hell or high water, to have the government endorse that view even if it is not a good bill for all Canadians. It is a bad bill, because it is going to poison relations between Canada and the United States.

In the context of NAFTA, when countries have to negotiate, there is always give and take. When our case is not good, as with this bill on MMT, we have to give the Americans something in exchange.

Proceedings could be initiated against us, and we would perhaps have something to pay if the American company maintains that Canada is in breach of NAFTA. We will have to pay that money and give something in exchange to the Americans. What will be the target of these concessions? Will it be like in the softwood issue? Will we lose as much in another area? All in all, the present government is not acting responsibly in pushing this bill through.

All the arguments have been presented. They have been repeated in the House, and they have been made by the six provinces that condemn this bill. Unfortunately, there is a huge representation of Liberals from Ontario, who ensure that the interests of the province take precedence over the interests of the whole country. That also creates environmental concerns.

It is important to realize that banning manganese would increase the emissions of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere by 5 to 20 per cent. This is being avoided thanks to the presence of manganese in MMT, but if we ban this substance, there will be a significant increase.

There is something else that defies all logic; this bill will create a lot of problems throughout the years. The government has decided to go ahead with this bill even if there is no health hazard, even if it does not improve anti-pollution systems, even if it could cause trouble with the United States, even if it could cause environmental problems, because the Ontario Liberal majority has managed to impose their position on their caucus.

In conclusion, we have before us a bill which, at first glance, did not seem to create any problems, but upon closer examination, we have come to realize that the Government of Canada, the Parliament of Canada, would, by passing this bill, make a decision that would undermine the Canadian economy and cost taxpayers a lot of money.

The next time the people will be asked to tighten their belts for cuts in UI benefits, we will have yet another example of $100 million, $150 million, $200 million, $300 million, we do not know how much for sure, spent on legal opinions. We have received opinions that clearly indicated Canada's position is not very tenable under NAFTA.

For all these reasons, I will again urge the members of this House to vote against this bill, because it is not in the best interests of all Canadians.

[Air Transportation, October 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the minister's actions speak louder than his words. If the 365 day policy is as rigid as the minister claims it is, how can he justify waiting more than 412 days before imposing his rule and withdrawing the Prague route from Air Canada, on the very day Air Canada was setting the date for service to Prague?

[Air Transportation, October 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

We read in this morning's Le Devoir that the Minister of Transport is using a new diversionary tactic in an attempt to reassure his Liberal colleagues about his favouritism for Canadian Airlines. As the article says, the minister's arguments do not bear close scrutiny. The minister does not mention that he is limiting Air Canada's access to Canadian's traditional market, while he is throwing Air Canada's traditional markets wide open to Canadian.

Rather than referring to the policy of the former government, can the minister explain his own double standard policy to us, one which has Air Canada losing Prague after 365 days, while Canadian has nearly two years to provide service to India, the Philippines and Malaysia?

[Hazardous Materials, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to the motion by the member for Burnaby-Kingsway, which strikes me as an interesting one. We could even say that it is a good opportunity to point out where the work of parliamentarians can have an influence on departments when they are a bit slow to implement something.

We have a member who has just told a minister, a department with several thousands of employees, that they perhaps should have done something a little sooner, the question having first come up in 1991. Some things could have been done and the motion introduced is certainly interesting from many points of view.

It should be noted that what we are talking about is implementing a test site to ensure that computerized data about hazardous materials can be made available very rapidly to fire fighters called to accidents.

It is a rather complex situation, because it also involves the provinces. There is WHMIS in Quebec, which concerns the handling of all hazardous materials, and these various programs must be linked up so that the computerized system works and so that everything is done legally and in accordance with provincial jurisdiction.

It is understandable that the member for Burnaby-Kingsway has included the word "rapidly" in his motion, because Transport Canada has been slow to act. This is clear from the letters of support he has received from the International Association of Fire Fighters and the Canadian Police Association. It is something that people have been waiting for.

These are the groups who have been dealing with the problems for a long time now, those with the expertise, because, in the case of hazardous materials, it is important that the information be available in the first five minutes after they have been informed of an incident.

It is also important to have very precise information, on electrical and mechanical systems, for instance, anything that can help avoid a misstep that would create a problem worse than the original one.

For some time, Transport Canada depended on the CANUTEC telephone system, but now it is obvious this is not enough. What is needed is a faster, more suitable, more accurate system which provides us with access to the computerized tools developed in recent years. There is no excuse for being behind the times, like

dinosaurs, particularly in areas where vital actions have to be taken quickly.

I feel that this is all the more vital because there are volunteer fire fighters, as well as professionals. This summer, I attended the KRTB (Kamouraska, Rivière-du-Loup, Témiscouata, Basques) fire fighter competitions. About ten different fire brigades were involved. It was easy to see just how vital physical dexterity, courage, tenacity and endurance are to a fire fighter.

I was thinking, as I examined the motion of the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway, that it was important for this type of service to be made available to people who perform these duties on a volunteer basis, and quickly.

One might think that rural fire fighters will not run into major fires and major problems, but then the railway comes to mind. All that is needed is one train wreck, since the rail lines cut through the whole region, one incident with a hazardous waste spill. Without the necessary information , we would find ourselves in a very touchy situation in which volunteer fire fighters, children's fathers and mothers, could find their lives in jeopardy if the wrong steps were taken.

A society can be judged by the protective services it offers. Those who are supposed to intervene in hazardous situations should have access to a quick and effective source of information so they can provide a satisfactory service.

This is an interesting motion that will compel the government to take action as soon as it has been adopted. Awareness of the problem has already increased thanks to today's debate and to the vote that will follow so that this motion can be put into effect.

To the Bloc Quebecois, it is also important to ensure that this test plan is implemented in accordance with provincial jurisdictions, taking into account the practical aspects of operations and of quick intervention, but to ensure that data bases are made available to those who manage the system so that the information is available and this sort of service is provided in the proper way, it will be necessary to guarantee free access to information and to ensure this is done in accordance with existing legislation.

For instance, after testing the site in British Columbia, we cannot afford to wait six months, a year or two years until it can be used in Quebec, just because the provincial jurisdictions were not taken into account. This aspect must also be considered when establishing the test site, so that here in Canada we will be able to establish something similar to what is already being used in the United States. The system will provide the kind of service that will help us avoid major accidents involving humans, sometimes loss of life or financial loss. The service will help people who already serve the public and are prepared to face hazards in the course of their daily lives.

In this context, Parliament would do well to support a motion of this kind, especially since the Canadian government seems to be dragging its feet. It is not a bad idea to do some moving and shaking to ensure that this project gets off the ground.

One wonders if we had a system where jurisdictions were clear cut and the responsibilities of all concerned were clearly identified, whether this type of action would not have taken place more quickly, because there would have been one authority responsible. There would be no passing the buck. I hope that some day we will have that kind of system, for the benefit of Quebecers and Canadians.

But meanwhile, the motion presented by the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway is a very interesting one. I think it deserves support. In concluding my speech, I move:

That the motion be amended by adding after the word "should", the following:

", in agreement with the provinces,".

So this experiment should be carried out to reflect the responsibilities of all levels of government so that, in the end, we will have a better way to protect both fire fighters and all those who may be involved in disasters as a result of accidents across this country.

[Oceans Act, October 10th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak to the bill on Canada's oceans, because this is an important strategic tool of which Quebec will be deprived. We have a very good case in point. This bill will regulate the setting of fees for services including ice breaking and navigational aids like buoys on the St. Lawrence. There is already a unanimous consensus in Quebec against the measures proposed in this bill. Since this is a federal jurisdiction, we must express Quebec's views and let the House know that this bill will reduce the competitiveness of all the industries along the St. Lawrence.

The government made an important, deliberate choice in deciding to reduce by 50 per cent its involvement in the area of transportation. Transport Canada is in the process of divesting itself of its port facilities. It is proposing that local authorities take responsibility for the future of port facilities. This could be an interesting proposal, because it has done such a terrible job for so long that, if it gives these facilities back to the local authorities, they will at least have control over the decisions affecting them.

I think it was malicious on the part of the government to, at the same time, make the Department of Fisheries and Oceans responsible for setting the fees to be charged for services on the river. On one hand, they are asking local authorities to take over the facilities and telling them: "Make them viable so we can do something interesting with them in the future. On the other hand, we will continue to set fees for services on the river and impose significant increases". As a result, boats, stevedores and transport management workers will face new choices in the future and wonder whether they would be better off going through New England, through U.S. ports on the Atlantic side rather than through the St. Lawrence.

One might say: "The opposition party condemns this, that is all does". That is the position of the Société de développement économique du Saint-Laurent, which raised the matter in a letter to the Minister of Transport.

This corporation represents, according to this list here, at least 30 different organizations, including members of Quebec's aluminum industry association and some big names like Alcan Aluminum, the Alouette aluminum smelter, and so on. It also includes the Association des armateurs du Saint-Laurent, the Association des industries forestières du Québec, the Administration de pilotage des Laurentides, the Bateau-Mouche du Québec, stakeholders from various areas.

The Act respecting the oceans of Canada will give the federal government, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada in particular, the authority to raise fees, putting into question the competitiveness of port facilities along the St. Lawrence River. That is why this bill absolutely must be opposed, because it takes away from Quebec a major development tool which is also used everywhere along the St. Lawrence seaway.

It could have a major negative impact on all shipping to Ontario. Behind all this are choices to be made and, in a way, the federal government has chosen to fail Quebec in that respect. While a completely different decision could have been made, a choice was made to protect the bureaucracy. There is an major clean-up to do with regard to icebreakers and in the federal St. Lawrence River management system.

Take for example the fact that all icebreakers in the Atlantic region operate out of Halifax. This may be very interesting for people in the maritimes, but icebreakers work mostly in the St. Lawrence and every time they have to fill up, they must go back to Halifax. This is strange, because it is from Halifax that the Irving corporation controls oil operations.

Why is such a situation not corrected? Why did the department not clean up its act? Instead of asking for a fee increase, it might have been better to do a cleanup inside and to say: "We have to review the coast guard issue. We have to see if we can provide the same services at a lesser cost, or in a different way".

This is not what the act will do. It will make sure that the bureaucracy is being taken care of, at the expense of the businesses that have to live with these economic realities. We are talking about cost for icebreaking and fees for navigation aids, buoys. What is tragic is that this measure jeopardizes the reform of port activities in Canada.

The parliamentary transport committee is currently travelling across Canada regarding Bill C-44. Everywhere it will stop, people will tell its members, as was the case in Vancouver, where the issue was not icebreaking but dredging costs: "You are generating costs to us that will kill any desire on our part to take over the facilities you are offering us".

Same thing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Let me give you a concrete example. In Cacouna, the port development corporation has already issued a letter of intent to the government and it is prepared to take action, to negotiate with the federal government. In fact, negotiations are about to be undertaken, and consultations are already taking place on a regular basis.

But the biggest fear in that community is not so much over what is going on at Transport Canada-in fact dealing with transport officials can be interesting-but rather how the port will be affected by the new fees imposed under the Oceans Act and the increase in fees.

There are so many negative consequences involved that people often say: "Let us take a little more time before making a decision". We should look into this, because these are questions that SODES, the St. Lawrence Economic Development Council, asked the Minister of Transport. because it would appear that he listens better.

They have a vision, and I think the government should have kept all these services under the authority of a single organization. This way, decisions could have be made in a more rational and co-ordinated fashion. Right now, there is something machiavellian about the system. We would think that the separation between the two departments was to ensure that the local community remains responsible for the facilities and picks up the tab for related services. These are very bad choices the federal government has made and it does not look good.

These questions that have remained unanswered so far come from the St. Lawrence Economic Development Council. The official opposition is not the only one asking questions. How will these changes affect the selection of operators? Will businesses and industrial sectors be forced to close? Will the higher fees result in services being provided elsewhere than on the St. Lawrence River?

Are there financial losses involved for these businesses, not only losses resulting from closures but also other types of losses? Will the investment potential be affected? This is a fundamental question. The decisions that will be made under the marine act will affect economic choices in 5, 10, 15 or 20 years. Major corporations such as Alcan, which is a member of SODES, do see this.

This is the type of issues people wonder about. With its Oceans Act, the federal government deliberately chose to take this strategic tool away from Quebec and this is why we must oppose the bill. The government must absolutely redo its homework and give the federal transport department responsibility for user fees again, so that there will be only one decision maker, who will take into account all the economic criteria, before making a choice.

It is not true that we only have to subsidize coast guard icebreakers. The decisions made must take into account the economic reality as a whole, and we must make sure that, in the end, no additional damage is done through a fee increase, which would mean more costs to the economy as a whole and also to the governments involved.

In conclusion, the bill should be rejected. It is not a measure that will serve the interests of Quebec, and this is why the official opposition will vote against it.

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the bill establishing the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for a number of reasons. The first is that it is a fine example of the good faith shown by Quebec's sovereignists in their belief in the importance of having a free and open economic association in Canada for the future.

With the federal government, we have a situation where three departments, Health Canada, Agriculture Canada and Fisheries and Oceans, have, for many years now, in the course of their activities, been stepping on each other's feet. We also have horror stories to tell, which, I hope, will no longer be the case with the new legislation. In any event, let us hope that these changes will help to improve matters. I will give you an example.

It concerns a farmer in my riding, a producer of pure-bred sheep, who, last year, was the victim of a completely inexplicable change in behaviour from the Canadian bureaucracy.

In the past, when there were signs of illness in his flock, or in the flock of any other producer, the exposed animals were put down, and the producer was compensated accordingly.

Last year, the regulation was changed, and we spent a long time looking for an explanation. Now, the affected animals are placed in quarantine. That is all very fine and well when you have large flocks, like they do out west, where there are some very large operations. But, when you are looking at small operations, such as in Quebec right now, this jeopardizes the producer's reputation and it does so for several years. There could have been an error at a given time, but small operations must not be shut down and, because of one error, producers prevented from continuing to operate. This was an example of too many cooks spoiling the broth. Certain policies do not necessarily apply in the same way, say as between Quebec and western Canada, but it could be the Maritimes. It could be different between large and small centres. We must continue to have latitude.

Therefore, we are in favour, if the food inspection issue can be simplified, and if there can be harmonization so that our operations can be as competitive as possible

The other horror story I would like to tell you is about a small abattoir in my riding, which slaughters a number of different types of animal. It has been systematically hit hard by the department, almost picked on, with a demand that it comply overnight, or nearly, with exactly the same standards as a multinational meat packing plant would have to meet. This causes problems, for it can mean the death of small businesses. Solutions to problems of this kind must be found.

So, if creation of a federal food inspection agency enables us to do away with these picky standards, and to have more appropriate behaviour by inspectors, as well as fewer rules to make problems for organizations, all the better.

There is no question of doing away with food safety standards. Everyone agrees that we need topnotch safety standards, which are exactly what is required for consumer satisfaction, but at the same

time, we must not place businesses in situations that cannot be remedied in the short term. They must be given time to make adjustments, and the type of market they are in also needs to be take into account, so as to not necessarily apply the same standards to a multinational as to a small business.

This is where Bill C-60 falls down. It is a bill which will return management of food inspection once again into the hands of people who are not necessarily experts in the field-which seems to be a trend with this government. There is a good deal of latitude concerning partisan appointments to the board which will administer the act, and corrections are therefore required in this aspect of it.

Indeed, we intend to work on this. I would like to quote the position taken by the Quebec government at a conference of the ministers concerned by the creation of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Quebec, in a show of good faith, said the following: "The Premier urges the ministers concerned to ask that the Canadian food inspection system's implementation group recommend ways to set up a Canadian food inspection system that respects the jurisdictions of all governments". So this was an honest gesture.

In other words, we were saying: At last you are streamlining your operations by having only one agency instead of three. So if you do that properly and respect the jurisdictions of all governments as reflected in a future agreement, we are showing our good faith and are prepared to sit down at the table with representatives of the federal, provincial and territorial governments.

Interestingly, this attitude is inspired by the European Union model, a kind of common legislative basis. If it works, it will be an example of how partnership, for instance, could work between a sovereign Quebec and Canada. It could be a very interesting exercise, and we have already had an example of this-although Diane Francis and the Financial Post may not agree-in the dairy production sector, where Canada's major dairy provinces, with the exception of British Columbia, have created an open market. Irrespective of the status of the Quebec government, there would be this open market, which would continue to develop now and in the future, so that the system would work effectively.

The same option is on the table now. When we say that the sovereignists want to help build a satisfactory economic market in Canada, this is a concrete example.

So we agree with creating only one agency, provided it respects the jurisdictions of each sector. I think that if the federal government does its streamlining but on the other hand continues to infringe on Quebec's jurisdictions, we will not have solved a thing. It will then be up to the federal government to deal with this. However, if creating the agency helps to clarify the situation, if it helps make our businesses more competitive and allows for the fact that the local slaughterhouse in Saint-Pascal-de-Kamouraska cannot be expected to meet the same stringent standards one would apply to a multinational, it could be an interesting development.

But in that case, it will be necessary to respect the various jurisdictions. If the federal government says it is wall to wall from Vancouver to Halifax and the same standards apply everywhere, we will be stuck with the same problems. However, if the government streamlines its operations by creating an agency that will respect the jurisdictions of all concerned and apply standards that are satisfactory to this province within the provincial context, we may get some interesting results.

In concluding, to achieve this the federal government will have to eliminate the partisan aspect of the way it appoints the people who will manage the system.

The commission which will be responsible for management will probably be strongly influenced by the position of the government. People appointed by a province and, within the agency, people coming from a province but appointed by the federal government and provincial authorities could still work at cross purposes. Jurisdictions will have to be clearly respected.

We have an opportunity before us. Sovereignists from Quebec are open to trade with the rest of Canada, they trust Canada and showing their good faith. If the federal government changed some aspects of its act and reviewed its operation, we would have before us an interesting model which could be exported and which would bring Canadians to understand that sovereignty and partnership are the way of future not only of Quebec but of Canada as a whole.