André Bellavance

[World Food Day, October 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was World Food Day. This year's theme was “Agriculture and Intercultural Dialogue”.

This theme recalls the contribution of different cultures to world agriculture and argues that sincere intercultural dialogue is a precondition for progress against hunger and environmental degradation.

Agriculture still powers the economies of most developing and industrialized countries. Historically, very few countries have experienced rapid economic growth and poverty reduction that has not been either preceded or accompanied by agricultural growth.

Agriculture has to be seen as a way of life, as our heritage, as our cultural identity; it has no price tag.

The Bloc Québécois commends farmers in Quebec and throughout the world. Their contribution to the development of our communities is a worthy one.

[Spirit Drinks Trade Act, October 6th, 2005]

The Liberals are against it. All we are asking for is that labelling and advertising be consistent with the reality. People will not know that products contain GMOs until it says so on the labels.

We saw all the problems this caused with regard to Starling corn. We have concerns about this. Consumers are also concerned about it. They have the right to know what they are buying. When they select a product, they are entitled to read on the packaging what it contains. That is all we are asking.

I want to talk about trans fat now. Our NDP colleagues have done a good job here, and we support them. By 2007, all businesses will have to indicate on food labels the quantity of trans fatty acids in their products. Since trans fat is bad for us, consumers will be able to better decide what to eat and can, of course, make healthy choices. In this respect too, this debate is not a witch hunt. Just because cookies contain trans fat does not mean their sale will be banned. We can eat them. It is a question of moderation.

I started my remarks by joking about pre-dinner drinks, but when consumed in moderation, we are not hurting ourselves or anyone else. Obviously, when we eat or drink too much of anything, we have a problem. The same holds true for this kind of product. If we know that cakes or cookies contain trans fat, perhaps we should eat just one instead of two or eat them less often.

Also, if there are any companies concerned about health, they should offer similar products but without such ingredients. Then perhaps we could select them. Consumers would have a choice, but an informed choice. That is what it is important to remember here.

However, there are deficiencies in Bill S-38. We were not going to give our support without identifying some small problems. The bill before us today has good things but it could go further.

For example, with regard to the policy on labelling and respect for local products, not only must we support protection for appellations of origin and wine varieties, but we must also monitor quality standards for products. In the United States, bourbon, which is a type of whiskey, must be at least 51% corn and has to be produced in the United States. Rye whiskey, which is produced both here and in the U.S., must be at least 51% rye in the United States, while Canada has no such requirement.

According to some documents I have read here and there, Canadian whiskey has to be made in Canada. There is a list of requirements for making a good product. Far be it from me to think or say that Canadian whiskey is not good. However, here it is not required, as it is in the United States, to be 51% rye. This bill could have been used to tighten the rules on manufacturing in order to have the best possible product and for people to be better informed on what that product should be.

We could discuss this at length. However, I just want to draw a parallel between this bill and international agreements. International treaties have been ratified. In ratifying agreements with the United States and Mexico under NAFTA, the European Union under the WTO, and the Caribbean, Canada has nonetheless, yet again, been short on transparency. Let me explain.

The government asks for our approval once agreements have been ratified. This is a blatant lack of transparency toward Parliament and the people who elected us. Voters elected us to Parliament to represent them in examining, considering and passing, or not, bills of all kinds. As for international agreements, there is a democratic deficit that is far from being corrected, even though that was one of the Prime Minister's platforms during the last election campaign. It was simply an empty promise, as we so often get from the government side, since the democratic deficit still exists.

Since we have been asking for this for such a long time, the democratic deficit could have been reduced by allowing democratically elected parliamentarians a voice during negotiations with other countries and the signing of agreements in principle. There are initial steps in international agreements. There are agreements in principle before the parliaments of the countries concerned officially confirm the accord.

In other words, we are asking to participate from the very beginning of the process since, ultimately, it is still Parliament that will accept or reject a bill on an international treaty. The example that comes to mind is a recent one. Previously, I was the assistant to the member for Joliette, who was and still is our critic on international trade. Of course, there were a number of issues relating to international agreements, including one in particular on which we worked very hard, along with the hon. member for Hochelaga, since he had sugar refineries in his riding. Let me explain why I am talking about this.

Shortly before the last election, the Liberal government signed a free trade agreement with Costa Rica almost in secret, since we were not even aware of this initiative. We did not know that a free trade agreement with Costa Rica was being negotiated. That agreement sought, among other things, to remove tariff barriers on sugar. The Bloc Québécois and sugar companies in Quebec fought against that part of the agreement. We were experiencing some problems because the world market for sugar was heavily subsidized. Moreover, we did not have access to the U.S. market, because the Americans were very protectionist regarding this product.

Earlier, I was pleased when the NDP member raised the softwood lumber issue. When the Americans decide that they want to protect one of their markets, they do not beat around the bush. They are even prepared to kill or jeopardize a particular industry in other countries, including Canada, its main economic partner, to achieve their goal. So, the Americans did the same thing with sugar. It is out of the question for Canadian sugar to transit through the United States.

It was obviously a major concern for the Quebec sugar industry. Costa Rica is not currently a threat to our sugar industry, but it could be one day. In fact, it has the capacity to produce more and more sugar. But that is not necessarily the problem.

In reality, the federal government is currently negotiating—always in secret, but we are increasingly aware of this because we are on the lookout—with four other Central American countries that are major sugar producers: Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala and El Salvador. Here is an example where Parliament will be presented with a done deal once an agreement is reached. This agreement will threaten an industry, whereas if we are consulted right from the start, perhaps this agreement will not take the same shape.

This could and should have been done with Bill S-38. As democratically elected parliamentarians, we should have been involved in the negotiations right from the start.

In closing, I want to say that we support market liberalization. However, with specific regard here to foreign subsidies, American protectionism is creating an imbalance that should have been resolved before the agreement was signed.

In the case of Bill S-38, the agreements signed under NAFTA and the WTO will promote the exchange of spirits and wines between the signatories, while protecting the local products of each. That is why, despite its deficiencies, we support the principle of the bill, as I stated earlier.

[Spirit Drinks Trade Act, October 6th, 2005]

I must thank my colleagues, and even some across the way, for their signs of approval when I raise that point.

So there are some terms that have to be protected: butter, milk, cream and cheese. Strangely enough there is no protection for them at the present time. Changes are, however, in the cards with Bill C-27. Obviously we are in favour of very clear labelling in order to protect our good local products.

Take fruit juices as another example. Strange as it is, “100% fruit juice” on a label must mean that the container has 100% juice inside it. Even if it only says “fruit juice”, that is the only thing that can be there.

That is not the case with dairy products, however. There is no such obligation at this time. So supermarkets can sell something labelled “buttered popcorn” when no butter is listed among the ingredients. It is just a marketing ploy to attract a buyer who thinks he is getting something extra: butter. Sometimes he does, and sometimes he does not. So we need to look at the list of ingredients every time.

We can buy a cream pie that contains no cream. That too exists. It can be found at the supermarket. We know that ice cream can be made using butter fats instead of real cream. The labelling is misleading. Fortunately, this will change thanks to provisions included in Bill C-27, which has yet to be passed.

Obviously, the idea is not to prevent certain products from being manufactured or marketed, but rather to regulate their labelling, so that consumers know exactly what they are buying. Popcorn without butter is still popcorn; but if there is no butter, the label should not say something different. It will no longer be permitted to use the word on a label or in a trademark. Manufacturers will not be allowed to write on the label that the popcorn is buttered if no butter was used. That is what we want and wish for. Bill S-38 on wines and spirits provides for similar protection.

With respect to dairy products, according to a Quebec dairy producers survey, dating back to 2001, when they read the word butter on products at the grocery store, a majority of consumers tend to think that the products contain butter. That is a reasonable assumption, because we are used to reading information and relying on it. But in such cases, as I said earlier, it is simply a marketing ploy to have consumers believe that they are selecting a good dairy product when it is not the case. We must always be wary of what is written on the packaging.

We had another long debate on the labelling of GMOs, genetically modified organisms. Naturally, the Bloc Québécois is spearheading efforts in that area.

Another, more recent survey, conducted by Léger Marketing and released in May 2004, shows that 91% of Quebeckers and 83% of Canadians are in favour of mandatory labelling for GMOs.

[Spirit Drinks Trade Act, October 6th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the timing is perfect to talk about wine and spirits, since it is about time for a drink. I want to assure the House here that I did not have a drink before beginning my speech. My mind is always very clear when I am working. As we know, there used to be a bar in this place. I think hon. members know that. Perhaps that explains why some questionable bills were passed in this House. Be that as it may, this government is still passing questionable legislation, even though there is no longer a bar here.

Enough joking. I am pleased to address Bill S-38, an Act respecting the implementation of international trade commitments by Canada regarding spirit drinks of foreign countries. The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of this bill. There are several good reasons to pass this bill on the implementation of international agreements already signed by the European Community, the United States and Mexico, under NAFTA, and the Caribbean countries.

This bill is consistent with Quebec's policy on labelling and the recognition of local products. In Quebec, as we know, there is more and more emphasis on transparency and consumer choice. There is a great debate at the present time on new legislation regarding the designation of local products. In our view, in fact, the word “terroir” or local site should be protected. It should be a registered designation of origin that is used advisedly. That is what the debate is about because the Government of Quebec's bill was not satisfactory in the eyes of people in the farming sector.

However, it is a step forward. We hope that the debate will prove fruitful and people will succeed in getting adequate protection. My riding is involved, among other things, in a lot of fine cheese production. The French protect the trade names of their cheeses and we would like to do the same. When a product becomes more and more popular, there is a danger that it will be copied. A little earlier, the Conservative Party member mentioned certain scotches that had been copied. It is the same for all agri-food products.

That is why we need to push harder and harder both to protect our products and to inform consumers. These two reasons go hand in hand.

This bill will also enable consumers to choose wines and spirits in an informed way because they will know their real origin and nature. For example, Bill S-38 states that Scotch whiskey can be sold as such only if it was distilled in Scotland. That is only common sense, but it had to be written somewhere in a law. Armagnac and cognac come from France and can only be sold under these names if they have been produced in the regions of Armagnac and Cognac. It is the same for tequila, which is a product of Mexico, and bourbon, which is a product of the United States. These trade names must be protected in order to dissuade fraudsters and copiers, as I said earlier.

Television and the media often mention copiers or people who have produced knock-offs, especially in the area of fashion. Nowadays, products of any kind are copied, whether watches or food products. It is important, therefore, to ensure that products can be protected.

This agreement will help our exports on European markets—that is the good news because we also have an interest in being able to export our fine products there—while our internal measures are maintained, such as the ability of wineries to operate sales outlets that carry only our own products. This will not prevent us from doing what we need to do on our own territory.

The same thing applies to Quebec's requirement that all wines sold in grocery stores must be bottled in Quebec. We would never have let such a thing get by. If we notice a problem as we study a bill, I assure my colleagues that we will deal with it. I have said that we were in favour of the bill in principle, but we are just at the initial stage now. We will make sure that everything is in line with Quebec's requirements.

It is, I repeat, important for the consumer to be protected. There has been some talk of recognizing the specificities and peculiar characteristics of the various terroirs. Bill S-38 also suggests a clearer labelling policy.

Consumers are entitled to know exactly what they are buying and consuming. Quebec feels strongly about this. I am speaking of Quebec as a whole, the consumers, the producers and all the stakeholders who are concerned with this situation.

One need only think about the situation with dairy products. I will repeat what I have said many times: my region, the RCM of Arthabaska, has the highest number of dairy producers in Quebec. I am therefore very much aware of what is going on in that field.

[Gasoline Prices, September 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I was referring to concrete measures to deal with rising fuel costs, and the answer I have just heard has no connection to that.

With gas at $1.05 a litre, it is estimated that additional costs to Quebec producers this year will be $52 million. Imagine what the situation will be when it is up to $1.40.

Will the minister come to the defence of farmers once and for all, and demand that his government compensate them for their additional expenses as a result of higher fuel prices?

[Gasoline Prices, September 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, because of the rise in fuel prices, farmers have to pay more to heat their homes and greenhouses, dry their grain and run their machinery.

UPA president Laurent Pellerin is urging the federal government to help out farmers who were already having a hard time before fuel prices started to spiral upward.

Does the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food intend to pressure the Prime Minister to introduce some concrete measures to help the farmers cope with the rise in fuel costs?

[Agriculture, September 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to open this new session on behalf of my party, the Bloc Québécois, especially since I have been appointed the Bloc Québécois critic for agriculture and agri-food.

I want to emphasize the work done my predecessors in this position, who have done an outstanding job, and particularly the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant for standing up for Quebec farm producers. I am convinced that we will be building on all the work that has been done so far. Farm producers in Quebec can be sure that I will always stand steadfastly behind them in their battles.

I am pleased to take part in this debate on Motion No. 253 put forward by the hon. member for Vegreville—Wainwright. I know that he has been fighting for this for a number of years. I certainly understand where he is coming from.

I shall not list every name these creatures go by, because there are many. Suffice it to say that these are rodents that can cause various kinds of damage, which the hon. member estimated at $200 million. Millions of dollars in damage has indeed been caused to crops, in Alberta and Saskatchewan in particular.

These rodents would be harmless if there were not so many of them. Wherever they proliferate, there are serious problems. The member who introduced the motion said this earlier. I clearly understand his reasons in this regard.

We know that these rodents eat any vegetation they find underground. For example, they destroy fruit trees, tubers, and garden bulbs. Furthermore, when these rodents dig holes, they damage machinery. In digging, they create small mounds of earth and damage can occur when machinery travels over these mounds.

These animals also dig burrows in dikes, and this is dangerous for flood-containment structures. All of this to say that even such a small animal can cause major damage.

So I understand the battle the member has been waging since the most effective product to date, 2% liquid strychnine, was banned in Canada. In passing, this product has also been banned in the United States and a number of European countries. The latter concluded that the danger within their jurisdiction was too great to permit the use of this product. Canada reached this same conclusion several years ago.

Why has this specific product been banned? It is highly toxic to animals, as well as to humans. Fans of detective novels will recall that it was often referred to by Agatha Christie as a poison used to eliminate one's enemies. In fact, it is extremely toxic to humans.

In fact, 2% strychnine concentrate is an acute and dangerous poison. It causes death in humans, as I said. Allowing free access to this product would be irresponsible, given its level of toxicity and possible use by criminals. Obviously, I am not talking here about farmers, but about people who might decide to use it to commit some type of crime.

There are alternative products. We also heard about them during the first two speeches. Since banning strychnine, the government, in collaboration with producers and the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan, has tried to develop a pest control strategy with regard to this rodent, also known as Richardson's ground squirrel.

These governments currently support the marketing of fresh baits made from strychnine but mixed to 0.4%. Admittedly, this mix is less effective than the 2% concentrate. That goes without saying.

It is important to conduct studies on alternative products. The Pest Management Regulatory Agency, or PMRA, has re-evaluated the available data on strychnine and is consulting stakeholders on its use as we speak.

This was mentioned earlier. I have here a document called “Re-evaluation of Strychnine, Proposed Acceptability for Continuing Registration”. It includes information on participating in this 60-day consultation for anyone who so desires. I invite all interested farmers and stakeholders to take part in this consultation, which is another step toward finding a lasting and tangible solution.

As I was saying, it starts today and will last two months. I hope a solution will be found that satisfies farmers and does not put public health at risk.

Health Canada, through PMRA, must ensure that pesticides do not pose any unacceptable risks to humans, other animals or the environment. However, farmers cannot simply be left to deal with this scourge on their own. In the summer of 2001, problems caused by ground squirrels in some areas of Alberta and Saskatchewan were so bad that the governments of those provinces asked for and received permission from PMRA to use 2% strychnine solution again.

This permission was granted for that season only since there was a truly terrible proliferation of rodents. The agency was quite careful about the availability and use of the product and that is where there is a problem with the hon. member's motion. He is asking only that the product be put back on the market as it was before without any restriction. Therein lies the risk.

In 2001, only agricultural officers in Alberta and pest control specialists in Saskatchewan were allowed to distribute the product. It was therefore highly and very stringently regulated. Producers and farmers were, however, able to use the product which is, as I have said, the most effective one we have at this time to control the spread of rodents and the serious damage they cause. Things would have been worse if the old product had been used.

At this point in time, the government must again authorize the use of the product, but within very stringent standards. It must allow an exception of this kind every time the situation gets out of control, until such time as effective alternative solutions are found.

We cannot, however, be in favour of the hon. member's motion as presented for the reasons I have just given. The motion is too broad and lacks any framework or directive on specific use for the eradication of rodents, for example the amount allowed for baiting traps or whether it is to be used underground only.

As we know, above ground use of a 2% solution was allowed for 20 years, from 1968 to 1988. People then came to realize that birds could eat it and die from it. When the decision for underground use was made, that was already less dangerous, but the intent is still to limit widespread distribution of this product.

We cannot vote in favour of this motion , but we do call upon the government to complete its consultations and studies as promptly as possible so that producers will at last have access to an effective solution that will also protect health and the environment.

I hope as many people as possible will take part in the PMRA reassessment of this product. I hope it will not take years for producers coping with this problem to be able to obtain a product that is as safe as possible for human health —although it is of course still a poison—while still allowing them to halt the spread of these very destructive rodents.

[Kyoto Protocol, June 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the last two speakers, I think that, finally, with the Bloc Québécois, we are hearing the voice of reason. I know that the Chair may not comment on this, but it may find it interesting all the same. I hope that the other colleagues will reconsider their position on Motion M-162, which was introduced in a very timely fashion by my colleague from Vaudreuil-Soulanges.

I want to read this motion to ensure that my colleagues understand it:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should cede to the government of Quebec, with full financial compensation, complete responsibility for implementing the Kyoto Protocol within its jurisdiction.

The Conservative member who preceded me was talking out of both sides of his mouth. He said he could not support this motion, but twice in his speech—I was listening closely—he said that if the Conservatives won the next election, they would let the provinces opt out with full financial compensation if a federal measure were unsuitable. I heard this twice. However, his party opposes Motion M-162. This is quite contradictory. Perhaps, after I speak, the Conservatives will change their position.

To put it simply, this motion is the result of the futility of Project Green, which I now call the Liberal government's project red. This plan was tabled on April 13. It is filled with contradictions. It has raised numerous concerns, not only for the Bloc Québécois, but also the Quebec government, the three parties in Quebec's National Assembly, environmental groups and all those working to keep our planet, air and water clean. These people are very concerned about the plan tabled by the Minister of the Environment on April 13.

Project Green does not allow Canada to fulfill its commitments for 2008-12. If there is one thing about the environment that everyone agrees on, it is that the federal government's approach to implementing the Kyoto protocol is a dismal failure. Have the objectives been achieved? I want to take a few minutes to talk about this.

The objective was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6% between 2008 and 2010. What actually happened was that in recent years there has been a 20% increase in greenhouse gas emissions. In order to meet its objectives, the government will now have to decrease emissions by 30%. Because of the Liberal government's lackadaisical attitude, we are a long way from the 6% we ought to have achieved in the next few years.

The focus of the plan at this time is more on polluter-paid than polluter-pay. The proof of this lies in some of the programs included in this plan. The Liberal Government's climate change action fund is such that the taxpayers' money ends up being used to help out polluters. These polluting companies now wanting to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions—which is normal, everyone must do their part—will have an opportunity to use the money of the taxpayers, that is all of us, to implement a plan to achieve that objective.

This plan also favours companies which are in a position to make major reductions. This disadvantages others which have made reductions at their own expense for some years. In Quebec there are many such industrial and manufacturing companies.

For example, on one of my tours I met with representatives of cement companies right here in Ottawa. They told me they had already been involved in measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for some years. If that is the case, and improvements have been achieved, too bad, because the federal government will not make any effort to compensate them for past costs.

Companies that have done nothing all these years, and now have no choice, are going to be able to attain their objective by helping themselves from the taxpayers' pockets. That is absolutely unfair, I am sure we agree.

There is another program, the partnership fund, which will be used to fund the closing of coal-fired plants in Ontario. Once again, Quebec taxpayers' money will be used to finance this, when these same taxpayers have borne the whole cost of constructing hydroelectric plants themselves.

It cost a fortune, but we are very proud of it. We are happy that our taxes were used to construct hydroelectric plants. The problem, however, lies in the fact that we have heard that they will now be used to pay for the closure of coal plants in Canada's richest provinces. We have no choice. But we paid for our hydroelectric plants ourselves. Everyone is wondering why we should pay so that a province as rich as Ontario can assume its environmental responsibilities.

The climate fund will be used to buy credits abroad. My colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who is familiar with the matter, spoke at length about it. I have to say I read his speech on the subject in order to be able to explain it myself. The 2005 plan provides no limit for the purchase of credits abroad. With taxpayers' money, the federal government can buy a huge amount of these credits, which I might call pollution entitlements.

The government should let the major polluters unable, or, worse, unwilling to reduce their emissions—there are some of them, unfortunately—buy their own credits. The money the government would thus save could go to ecological projects here. That would make sense. The major polluters that do not want to or cannot reduce their emissions should buy these credits with their own money, and not with public funds.

We are not opposed to buying credits. We understand that some businesses simply cannot meet these objectives, at least right now. The purchase of credits would appear to be the solution providing some form, as it were, of acceptable compensation.

If the government did not stick taxpayers with the cost of these credits, it would have money to invest in green energy. The Bloc is known for being strongly in favour of wind energy and all the alternative energies, which are becoming increasingly efficient and lower priced. I hope that, one day, they will replace all the polluting energies. Ontario's decision to close its coal plants is a step in this direction. It is a good decision. The problem is that it is the taxpayers who are footing the bill.

I must also mention the unfortunate agreement between the federal government and the auto industry, which we have discussed endlessly. This is a serious problem. Does the auto industry really need government assistance? I am not talking about employees. For example, the GM plant in Boisbriand could have really used some help. I am talking, instead, about assistance to fight pollution.

There is an agreement to reduce emissions by 5.3 megatonnes, which is not very much. Cars are responsible for no less than 17% of all greenhouse gas emissions. Based on that figure, the auto industry should be cutting emissions by 8.5 times the amount I indicated earlier, of 5.3 megatonnes, for a total reduction of 46 megatonnes. This, clearly, would make a difference.

Furthermore, no regulatory framework is set out in this agreement. No penalties are imposed. Everything depends on the goodwill of the industry. Yes, we presume that people, including the auto industry, will act in good faith, but we should not be naive. I do not want to be unkind, but I think that the Minister of the Environment is being naive here. A mandatory approach is required. We need some mandatory measures signifying a real political will to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

I will conclude by mentioning the tax measures that for the past 10 years or so have resulted in a 33% increase in tax incentives for the oil and gas industries. I remind hon. members that these industries are responsible for 55% of the emissions. That is another problem.

To sum it all up, it is an unfair plan for Quebec and its companies.

It is highly important that Quebec be able to divide the weight equally among the various industries. It is a simple question of logic. Quebec is best able to determine the appropriate measures for reducing its own greenhouse gas emissions.

The Bloc Québécois realized that a long time ago. That is why in October 2004, we introduced a motion for the federal government to give full compensation and full responsibility to the Government of Quebec for implementing the Kyoto protocol on its own soil. The Bloc Québécois is also calling for an implementation plan for this protocol that: reduces greenhouse gas emissions in Canada by 6% of 1990 levels, which is the objective Canada promised to achieve between 2008 and 2012; applies the polluter-pay principle, for which the Minister of the Environment's Green Plan causes some problems that I mentioned earlier; and, finally, is fair to Quebec.

That is why I am asking this House to pass Motion M-162.

[Committees of the House, June 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on chrysotile asbestos, a very important natural resource for the regions of Asbestos and Thetford Mines.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Committee requests that the government table a response to this report.

[Logilys, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the entire staff of the firm of Logilys in Victoriaville, which was recently recognized for the quality of the French in its ProDoc software at the Gala de la Francofête.

It was cited in the category of information technology, application and software for small and medium organizations.

Logilys, whose president is Pierre Brochu, is an example of the importance of developing regional economic diversification. It is a computer company with acknowledged expertise in consultation, analysis and the development of specialty applications.

It serves manufacturers, engineering consulting firms, companies providing rental services for facilities, halls and sports fields, and charitable organizations.

The Bloc congratulates the entire Logilys team on its work and its concern for the quality of the French language in an ever changing field.