Gilles Duceppe

[Softwood Lumber, June 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in Quebec, since the beginning of the softwood lumber crisis, some fifty businesses have been affected and 9,000 workers have lost their jobs.

Does the minister realize that the softwood lumber industry is a victim of the financial strangulation strategy of the United States, which intends to drag out the process so that Canada cannot hold out until the end?

It is high time, now that victory is at hand, for the government to help the companies and the workers to hold out until the end, and not to give in, even with an interim agreement, as it did in 1996. That would be going back to square one.

[Softwood Lumber, June 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, ten days or so ago, Canada submitted a counter-offer to the United States in the softwood lumber dispute. Although there were plenty of rumours, the Minister for International Trade, who has always called for a total return to free trade, has not yet indicated what that Canadian proposal contained.

Can the minister assure us that Canada will not conclude any agreement that will voluntarily limit its exports, as was the case in 1996?

[National Defence, May 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, he ought to have listened better in committee, because the committee did not agree with the decision reached, far from it.

The United States will not be negotiating just for the fun of it. It is all very well for the government to say that no final decision will be reached without cabinet approval, but that argument does not hold up. Once these negotiations on Canadian participation in the missile defence plan are under way, this will mean that a decision has already been reached, and all that is left to do is set the terms. That is the real situation. A vote would have to be held here in this House before cabinet—

[National Defence, May 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the public, the House of Commons, even the Liberals themselves, are divided on the U.S. missile defence plan, and yet we have the Minister of Defence announcing that the government will be negotiating Canada's participation in a defence system about which we know virtually nothing.

How can the government justify the negotiations that are beginning with the United States on the missile defence plan, when it has received no mandate in this connection, either from the House or from the public?

[Softwood Lumber, May 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, a solution was suggested a long time ago. In the meantime, at the Béarn sawmill in Témiscamingue alone, 300 workers will be laid off on Saturday as a result of the softwood lumber crisis.

The hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, during a visit to this riding, stated that the government should take steps to help them with a phase two, once the WTO's final decision had been handed down. But that makes no sense. Steps should be taken before then. Because the danger is that no one will make it to the final decision. Victory is certain, but the sawmills will be closed. The victors will be no more.

Will the government act, today? This situation calls for immediate action.

[Softwood Lumber, May 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, since the softwood lumber crisis began, some 50 companies have been affected in Quebec, and 9,000 workers have been temporarily or permanently laid off. The worst is yet to come, since the U.S. industry is already talking about imposing other sanctions, despite the WTO's decision.

The president of the Quebec Forest Industry Council, Jacques Gauvin, wonders if there will be anyone left standing at the end of this conflict.

Will the government finally come to the realization that loan guarantees must be given and employment insurance benefits must be improved so as to allow businesses and the industry to survive these difficulties?

[Government Contracts, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Alain Renaud claims to have been merely a tool of certain important people. I would remind the minister that the sponsorship program, which was used to finance the Liberal Party, his party, was created by his own government.

With such an interconnected system, can the Minister of Public Works today deny that the important people referred to by Alain Renaud are past or present members of this government?

[Government Contracts, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in 1998, the numbered company belonging to Alain Renaud, a leading Liberal organizer, gave $63,000 to the Liberal Party of Canada. Not long afterward, a company owned by his brother Benoît received a sponsorship contract for $390,000, an excellent return on the investment. Alain Renaud's defence of this was, “We are not the ones behind this, some important people are involved”.

Since Alain Renaud was just one of the cogs in the wheel, can the Minister of Public Works tell us who within government was controlling the Liberal Party money machine that the sponsorship program represented? Who are these people—

[Government Contracts, May 26th, 2003]

Speaking of the RCMP, Mr. Speaker, in the sponsorship scandal, RCMP Commissioner Guiliano Zaccardelli refuses to say how many files have been turned over to the federal police; he refuses to say how many investigations are under way; he refuses to say if there have been any charges; the same goes for the Solicitor General.

By refusing a public inquiry, is the Prime Minister not using the federal police to cover up a scandal that shows his government and his party in a bad light?

[Government Contracts, May 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the sponsorship scandal is expanding. An internal Public Works report informs us that certain advertising agencies, having pocketed generous commissions, helped themselves again, and often without any bidding process, by awarding subcontracts to subsidiary companies, companies owned by family members, or friends of the Liberal regime.

Since the internal report speaks of a whole web of companies, and the strands of that web are so tightly woven with the Liberal Party, will the Prime Minister admit that a public and independent inquiry is needed to shed light on the sponsorship scandal?