Pierre Paquette

[Canada Grain Act, April 18th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, again, I do not question the hon. member's good faith and interpretation. The information that I have dates back to last Friday afternoon.

When I was returning to my riding, I spoke with Marcel Groleau, who is the president of the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec. He told me that, last week, at a meeting with the three ministers to whom I referred earlier, they had been told there was no possibility in that regard. Perhaps this is a negotiating position and they will try again. In any case, I will draw Mr. Groleau's attention to the reply given to the hon. member's question.

My hope, and I am not being partisan at all and I think the hon. member will agree with me, is that this issue can be settled as quickly as possible, ideally before the election, because we do not know what may happen afterwards.

[Canada Grain Act, April 18th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I believe we are saying the same thing. We know that butter oil is quite simply a subterfuge for getting across the border. The government is aware of this, so it seems to me that we ought to come up with a solution fairly promptly.

There has, however, been a 324% increase in imports of this product since 1996. It supplies 47% of the requirements of the ice cream manufacturing sector, thereby depriving dairy producers of $52 million in revenue. When it comes to milk components, the Dairy Farmers of Canada association has suggested a route to the government, which would be to use article 28 of GATT. I think this is something that needs some serious thought.

I am pleased that the hon. member is looking after this and I have confidence in him, but according to the information I have received, the ministers of International Trade, Agriculture and Finance have all said no to the dairy farmers' proposal to use article 28 to change tariff lines, wholly in keeping with the WTO rules. If the hon. member wants to do something useful, I think he ought to again approach the ministers responsible in order to get them to at least look very seriously at the possibility, one which the Dairy Farmers of Canada have documented very well, of using GATT article 28 to change the tariff lines for milk components such as casein. I am very pleased to hear that the hon. member is working on that, particularly since he has a lot of influence within the Liberal Party.

[Canada Grain Act, April 18th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in this debate on C-40, although the bill has little impact on Quebec and Quebec agriculture, I have to say right off. However, it allows us to look at a number of matters pertaining to agriculture and WTO negotiations.

I must say right off that we will support the principle of this bill, as it arises from a decision by the dispute settlement body of the WTO. In addition, we believe that international trade law must apply. We wish the American authorities were as vigilant as the government in this specific matter. I would point out that the WTO ruled against the American government with respect to the Byrd amendment. Since then, the U.S. government has still not budged, and we have been obliged therefore to implement a series of retaliatory measures, with the help of other countries, in order to force the Americans to move.

Obviously, we consider it entirely reasonable for the Canadian government to make the adjustments necessary pursuant to the decision by the WTO. In this context, we will support the principle.

That said, we want to hear from witnesses in committee on the financial repercussions of this bill, in order to find out the western grain producers' concerns. As I mentioned, Quebec is not involved, but it will be important for us to hear what westerners have to say.

I am rather surprised, this morning, opinions are not unanimous with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board, as I had thought. We therefore think it important for the committee to hear witnesses so the Bloc can get a clearer idea of whether to support or reject the bill. At this point, however, I repeat, we support the principle.

Having said that, while we support the principle of the bill because this legislation results from a decision of the World Trade Organization, the Bloc Québécois intends to continue to defend producers' ability to choose how they want to market their products. As hon. members know, in Quebec it is possible for producers to have mixed plans. The decision to set up these plans is made through discussions by the agricultural sector involved. When a majority of producers wish to set up a mixed plan, this plan applies to the whole sector. This seems perfectly reasonable, because it not only allows farm producers to have a better balance of power with the companies that buy their products and which, incidentally, are often multinationals, it also allows them, by negotiating as a single entity, to get better prices for their products. Moreover, this gives them some stability in terms of revenues, while also allowing processors to have access to quality products that are also safe.

Therefore, in the negotiations that are taking place at the World Trade Organization on agriculture, we must ensure that this ability to market agricultural products is protected. In this regard, we are somewhat concerned by the Liberal government's behaviour. There is this lax approach by the government and a lack of determination in its positions. There is also the fact that, sometimes—as least based on what we can read on its Website—the government is not taking very firm positions on issues such as supply management or the protection, as I was saying, of an agricultural model that we can call our own.

I want to point out to the House that the Bloc Québécois has given its support to a movement called Maé-Maé. This is the acronym for the Mouvement pour une agriculture équitable. This movement for fair agriculture caught on in Quebec with the union of agricultural producers, particularly the chapter dealing with international development, which is enjoying a great deal of success in francophone African countries.

This movement stands for a number of principles, including the capacity of individual countries to adopt an agricultural model that not only suits their needs in terms of food security but also ensures adequate incomes for farm producers, particularly those operating small or family farms.

We hope that, while acting on the WTO decision, Canada will take a much firmer stand for fair trade agriculture, that is agriculture as determined with complete autonomy by the producers in each country.

In this context, it is extremely important that the Liberal government take note of the motion unanimously passed in this House on Friday. This motion calls on the government not to agree to any concession with respect to the supply management system during the World Trade Organization negotiations. In light of this unanimous decision of the House, we would not want the government to continue to act as if no vote had been taken here. In this context, we expect the Government of Canada to raise its voice in defence of this supply management system which, as I said earlier, reflects the choices made by a number of producers in specific agricultural sectors.

We know that supply management is extremely important for the milk sector, particularly in Quebec, but also in Ontario. It also applies to table and breeder eggs as well as to poultry. I will come back to that later.

We are in favour of Bill C-40. As I indicated, since its purpose is to implement a decision of the World Trade Organization, a number of principles will have to be defended much more firmly by the Government of Canada, a Liberal government for the time being.

We know that in the United States, New Zealand and Australia, there is a real guerilla war being waged against the agricultural system in Canada and Quebec. The agricultural model used in Canada and Quebec is misunderstood and repeatedly challenged on the grounds that it violates the WTO rules. In fact, there is a similar misunderstanding among the Americans right now in relation to softwood lumber.

Interestingly enough, the WTO decision, which led to Bill C-40, does not call into question the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board is the exclusive exporter of wheat in western Canada. That is not at issue whatsoever. Other things are. Therefore, we must build on the positive points in the decision handed down by the WTO's dispute settlement body. In my opinion, this is a very clear message, which is valid for the Canadian Wheat Board, as well as other marketing boards and practices in Canada and Quebec.

In essence, three practices used to date have been ruled inconsistent with WTO policies. Canada has been asked to comply with these policies by April 1, 2005. Bill C-40, then, is very timely.

The first practice is the rail revenue cap. A cap currently limits transportation costs for local grain; there is no such cap for foreign grain. The Canada Transportation Act must therefore be amended so that foreign grain can have the same access to the rail network as Canadian grain. Consequently, the word grain will be redefined. Clause 3 (b) of the bill makes reference to this. The same cap will apply to the transportation of local and foreign grain. The WTO had considered this practice a form of export subsidy.

The second practice is grain entry authorization. Currently, the Canadian Grain Commission must allow foreign operators to store foreign grain in licensed facilities.

The World Trade Organization felt that this section gave Canadian grain an unfair advantage, thus, subsection 57( c ) of the Canada Grain Act was simply dropped.

One final aspect contested by the World Trade Organization was the authorization to mix grains. Before domestic grain could be mixed with foreign grain, authorization was needed from the Canadian Grain Commission. This was thought to be a way of hindering foreign grain import.

Thus, clauses 1 and 2 of the bill are being replaced to address what the WTO considered anti-competitive conduct, that is, requiring operators to inform the Canadian Grain Commission when there is a mix of several grains, of foreign grains and Canadian grains. Paragraph 72(1)( b ) of the Canada Grain Act was kept. It ensures that purely Canadian grain is properly labelled in order to preserve the excellent reputation of Canadian grain in international markets.

These are extremely specific changes. As I have been saying since the start, it is interesting that in this World Trade Organization decision there was no dispute over the legitimacy of collective marketing for grain. Farmers in the west can say what they want about this, but personally I think it is perfectly reasonable for farmers to form groups to sell their products collectively to processors.

Earlier, there was discussion over french fries and how there is no marketing office in the west. In Quebec there is no potato marketing office, but there is a joint plan. I can tell you, there are some intense negotiations between potato farmers and chip makers over the price of potatoes. I was the executive director of CSN when I left, and I used to provide training to potato farmers on how to achieve a strong bargaining position and how to negotiate with multinationals.

This is one thing that is done, then, and a choice Quebec producers have made. American multinationals and Canadian ones, which do more business in the west and in Ontario, fail to understand it, however.

I think it important to note that, while the Americans have often contested the role of the Canadian Wheat Board at the WTO, the organization has never found fault with it. I would like to draw members' attention to the fact the decision provides these principles are not infringed when a state trading enterprise acts on the basis of commercial considerations. I will read some passages from the decision by the WTO dispute settlement body.

First, it provides that the Canadian Wheat Board is controlled by the grain producers whose grain it markets. Second, it provides that the fact that the Canadian government does not oversee the selling operations of the Canadian Wheat Board increases rather than decreases the probability that the Canadian Wheat Board will act in the commercial interests of the producers. Therefore, the special body concluded that, given the structure of the management of the Canadian Wheat Board, the Board is motivated to maximize the income of the producers whose products it markets.

In other words, the Canadian Wheat Board acts as a corporate selling agent, but within the context of market mechanisms, that is, the law of supply and demand intended to maximize profits. Its aim then is to maximize profits for producers. I believe therefore that the government would do well to take note of the considerations of the dispute settlement body, especially in the area of supply management.

I am going to take the time to go into some detail on this, as it is vital to us in Quebec. In the region I represent, the Lanaudière region, there are a lot of dairy, poultry and egg producers operating under supply management.

As you know, what is interesting about supply management is that its decisions are made by producers and it ensures a continuous supply to processors, fair revenues to producers and high product quality.

There are three pillars that must all be maintained if this is to be accomplished. The first is production planning, which is why it is called supply management. The second pillar consists of a pricing mechanism that ensures a fair income without government subsidies. This is very important. When supply is managed as a function of demand, this ensures proper income and proper prices for the product. There are no government subsidies.

There is a serious problem at the present time and Canada needs to start taking notice of it. At the present time there is a debate under way at the WTO on import duties and, as far as subsidies are concerned, it is a free for all. The Americans and the Europeans are heavily into agricultural subsidies. This disadvantages the developing countries in particular, but Canada as well, since it has decided to place more emphasis on administering its domestic market.

In order to administer that domestic market, a third pillar is needed. This third pillar deals with import quota control. Since the Marrakesh accord, these have been controlled by import tariffs to discourage foreign exporters from entering the Canadian and Quebec markets.

The problem is that the federal Liberal government is guilty of totally unacceptable laxity with respect to this third pillar, despite the statements made over and over again by the Minister of International Trade, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, and the former Minister of International Trade now Minister of Foreign Affairs. Dairy substitutes or products containing dairy substitutes are still being let in.

Last Friday, I gave the example of butter oil. In fact, 49% of dairy products are not covered by the list of commodities subject to quota by Canada. A policy decision absolutely must be made to add butter oils to the definition of dairy products, in order to ensure that these enter our market at rates compatible with supply management and with the third pillar, that is limitation of imports aimed at better coordinating supply and demand.

Even more serious is the fact that the Liberal government seems to be living in a bubble. Despite its rhetoric, it does not notice the extremely important technological changes that now allow us to separate the various components of milk. First, it was lactose, proteins and fat. Now, it is possible to break these by-products down even further and import them as separate products. In a few years, nothing will prevent someone from importing these products to Canada without any restrictions, reconstituting the milk and then selling it on the Canadian and Quebec markets. This undermines the very foundations of the supply management system. That is the problem.

Currently, the WTO does not have any problems with supply management. This is reaffirmed, in a way, in this ruling on the Canadian Wheat Board's practices regarding grain. However, the federal government does not seem to be taking into consideration the new reality of milk substitutes entering the market made up of 49% milk components. Indeed, it is now possible to break milk down into various components that can enter the country almost without being subject to quotas.

As I mentioned earlier, under the Marrakesh agreement, it was decided to substitute import controls. This means that we are now using tariff quotas, instead of import quotas. So, the government must take the necessary steps to change its tariff lines, so that these products are deemed to be, on the one hand, milk products and, on the other hand, products that are subject to the protective tariffs that apply to imports.

I will conclude by providing a very concrete example that would require two changes. In tariff item No. 2106.90.93 and in the following one, instead of saying “containing 50% or more by weight of dairy content”, we should say “containing 10% or more by weight of dairy content”. These products would then be subject to tariff duties of 274.5%, which would allow us to maintain that system.

Again, the only thing preventing us from taking such a measure is the government's lack of will. Let us hope that the federal government will wake up and ensure that our producers, particularly our dairy producers, are better protected.

[World Trade Organization, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the motion introduced by my colleague from Montcalm. In fact, I want to congratulate the sponsor of this motion, my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, for introducing the first Bloc Québécois motion since Parliament resumed. This shows how important the supply management system is to us.

Allow me to reread the motion, to our friends from the Conservative Party especially, to show the extent to which it responds to their concerns and to indicate why they should be able to vote in favour of it.

That, in the opinion of the House, in the current World Trade Organization negotiations, the government should not agree to any concession that would weaken collective marketing strategies or the supply management system.

It is very clear that this motion defends the supply management system, not to the detriment of other agricultural sectors, but as a complement to their needs, in particular the need for a reduction in the subsidies given by the U.S. and Europe to their agricultural exports. Our motion absolutely does not go against the needs of all the agricultural sectors in Canada and Quebec.

The supply management system covers five sectors: two in poultry, two in eggs, and one in dairy. It is a way of ensuring a fair income for farmers, and we know how much difficulty they have been through in recent years, in the cattle and grain sectors in particular. Supply management ensures a fair income, even though the Canadian Dairy Commission is asking for a substantial increase in the price of milk.

It also ensures a constant supply to processors. Therefore it is also in the interest of processors to have this system in place because it assures them a constant, dependable supply.

It ensures high-quality products at a very good price for consumers.

For a system to ensure fair income, quality products and consistent supply, it has to be supported by three pillars, which are, of course, interdependent. We cannot weaken one and hope to maintain the supply management system. These three pillars have to be solid.

The first pillar corresponds to production planning. Product supply has to correspond as closely as possible to the estimated domestic demand. That is the first pillar and it is extremely important.

The second pillar consists of a pricing mechanism that ensures a fair income without government subsidies. This is very important. I would remind our Conservative friends that the supply management system is in no way dependent upon government assistance. This is truly in line with the spirit of the World Trade Organization's agreements. This is, of course, a system that feeds the domestic market.

The third pillar deals with import control, now taken care of by tariffs. Relatively high tariffs will indeed be imposed to prevent the importation of products that would compete with our national products.

We all understand that if this pillar, corresponding to imports, is weakened, the whole system falls down because supply exceeds demand. This brings prices down, the revenues are not fair anymore and the whole system crumbles.

That is, unfortunately, what is happening now because of the Liberal government's lax attitude. I am not the one who says this: Mr. Groleau, the president of the Fédération Québecoise du lait, says:

This is huge. If we do not do anything, all Canadian milk production will disappear. There has to be an end to the federal government's lax attitude. Does it intend to abandon the dairy sector as it did the textile industry?

We can feel that people are very concerned and rightly so. We have let foreign competitors get around the WTO's rules and Canadian regulations as well.

As I mentioned earlier, this failure to control imports is jeopardizing the overall viability of the supply management system.

Butter oil is often used as an example—my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant referred to it during oral questions. This product is used essentially to make ice cream and, to a great extent, has replaced cream and fats. Apparently, 50% of all ice cream is now made using this butter oil.

The current Minister for International Trade, like his predecessor, is refusing to put this product, made mostly from milk by-products and essentially used to make ice cream, on the list of commodities subject to quota, which means that they are increasingly entering our market and competing with our dairy products.

For example, since 1996, butter oil imports have increased by 324%. This is not negligible; in fact, it is very significant. As a result, dairy producers have suffered losses totalling $52 million. Significant damage has already been done.

We are asking the minister, then, to add butter oil to the list of commodities subject to quota; it would be relatively easy for him to do this. However, we cannot stop there. New technologies are also creating products that separate milk into by-products, thereby creating new products that are not regulated or that are poorly regulated in Canada.

Milk contains lactose, proteins and fats. Now, new technologies separate milk into by-products—not covered by our regulations—for import to Canada. When we signed these agreements, these technologies did not exist.

Unfortunately, the federal government is pretending that this problem does not exist either. I want to quote Mr. Groleau again. He said:

We are asking [the federal government] to accept its responsibilities and stop the bleeding, in keeping with its commitments to producers. This situation is costing dairy producers millions of dollars and in no way benefits consumers.

By allowing these dairy products to enter separately, we are weakening, perhaps even permanently, the supply management system.

Members will recall that when the Marrakesh accord was being negotiated, as I mentioned, this problem did not exist at the technological level. Import controls were thus replaced by tariff rate quotas. We must now find a way to seal off this weak spot in supply management and to find ways to regulate things more adequately.

As you know, article 28 of the GATT allows the establishment of quota systems on certain tariff lines. What is requested by the industry is to use that section in order to be able to modify the tariff schedule so as to cover by tariff quotas all food preparaions having a milk content of at least 10%.

We would then be in a position to close the gap that has opened up over the last few years, which causes extremely large losses for milk producers especially—I am using the example of milk, essentially. We are looking at $170 million in losses in 2004 and, for Quebec alone, $70 million. The whole future of the supply management system is at stake.

As I mentioned, this is not to the detriment of the other agricultural sectors nor of our work against the subsidization of agricultural exports. In this context, if my colleague for Montcalm is agreed, I would like to amend our motion by adding after the word “system” the following:

“and should also seek an agreement establishing fair and equitable rules that foster the international competitiveness of agricultural exporters in Quebec and Canada.”

I think that, in this way, we can assuage the concerns raised by some speakers from the Conservative Party.

So, if my colleague is in agreement, I would amend the Bloc Québécois motion in the way I have just proposed.

[Paul-Émile Ottawa, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, during the Bloc Québécois annual general meeting in Joliette, Chief Paul-Émile Ottawa of the Conseil des Atikamekw de Manawan was elected vice-chair of our executive committee.

I am extremely pleased with Mr. Ottawa's decision to join our team because his knowledge will be extremely helpful to our Joliette executive committee and to the entire Bloc Québécois.

As chief of the Conseil des Atikamekw de Manawan, Paul-Émile Ottawa is extremely well placed to understand the needs and concerns of the people of Manawan, and is also very familiar with all the Quebec first nations claims. Furthermore, his past experience as director of social services in Manawan has also made him familiar with the daily problems of the people in his community.

To Chief Ottawa, the sovereignty of Quebec is inevitable, and the best way to represent the interests of the Atikamekw is to deal directly with Quebeckers, equal to equal, nation to nation. Congratulations to Mr. Ottawa.

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I fully support what the hon. member just said. Indeed, justice has to not only be done, but also be seen to be done.

I cited the example of Mr. Gagliano. Everyone knew, it was a matter of public knowledge, that he was involved in dealings where there appeared to be irregularities in the bookkeeping. That did not stop the government from appointing him as Canada's ambassador to Denmark. Only under the pressure of public opinion and opposition parties was Mr. Gagliano recalled.

I find it unfortunate that the government and the Prime Minister are not assuming their responsibilities and taking the initiative—that is what leadership is all about—to prove that they are being honest. Instead, they constantly have to be pushed and backed into a corner before they act.

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, he did so because public opinion figured out that he was involved in the sponsorship scandal. This has nothing to do with the recall by the Prime Minister. He had to do it, the same way that he will have to establish a trust account; otherwise, he will lose his election. He is already losing it anyway.

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, to be responsible is also to be logical. When the Prime Minister terminated the sponsorship program, he did not wait for the completion of the Gomery commission. In fact, he set up the Gomery commission when he saw that there was a problem. He launched legal proceedings to recover the money and he fired Gagliano. We knew about it. I remember very clearly that we were in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs—I was with my colleague, the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île—and we had requested that Mr. Gagliano, who had just been appointed ambassador to Denmark, appear before the committee. He came and we tried to ask questions related to the sponsorship scandal, which was starting to come out. We did not have the Auditor General's report, but we had information and we asked questions.

It is the Liberals, who talk about respecting the judicial process, who prevented us from asking questions of Gagliano. They covered him. When, later, they had to face the facts, which they could no longer deny because everybody knew about them, they brought him back. Why? To try and have him take the rap. That is the tactic of the Prime Minister, of the Liberals and of the government--to hope that somebody else will take the rap. We will never accept that.

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert for her excellent speech. I think it will be remembered as one of the best analyses of this scandal, and particularly of the irresponsibility of this government and of the Prime Minister, who does not want to finish the job that he should be doing.

I am also very proud to rise in this House to defend the Bloc Québécois' motion. In my opinion, this motion makes perfect sense under the circumstances. I will read it again, so that those who are watching us at home can see that it is easy to understand and that it should normally enjoy a consensus in the House. So, the motion reads as follows:

That the House call on the government to immediately establish a trust account into which the Liberal Party of Canada can deposit all funds received from companies and individuals tied to the sponsorship scandal and identified in testimony before the Gomery commission.

This motion asks that the government, as the steward of the Canadian and Quebec taxpayers' money, act responsibly following the revelations made at the Gomery commission and establish a trust, that is an account to ensure that, when the Gomery commission has completed its work, when Mr. Justice Gomery has presented his findings and recommendation, the money will not have disappeared—as too many people with close ties to the Liberal Party of Canada probably imagined would happen—and can actually be recovered.

So, the government is basically being asked to act like a reasonable person—or a good parent, as we used to say—and to establish an account, so that the Liberal Party of Canada can transfer at least $2.2 million and thus satisfy the wishes of the House and of the government. Again, this measure would ensure that, at the end of the Gomery commission process, we can recover that money. Let us not forget that this whole scheme was funded with our taxes.

So it seems to me that the argument often used by the federal Liberals, that we have to wait until the Gomery commission finishes its work, is totally irrelevant. We want to ensure that this money will be recovered when the commission tables its report and makes its recommendations. That is why we must take immediate action, before the money disappears. This is the only responsible thing to do, and it is what the government and the Liberal Party should do.

Instead, our friends opposite are resorting to sophistry to delay, once again, assuming their responsibilities, which, unfortunately, has been the case since the new leader of the Liberal Party took over the party and became the Prime Minister of Canada. All his decisions have been the result of pressure from the opposition, particularly the Bloc, public opinion and the media.

Once again, the Bloc Québécois is doing its job and showing the Prime Minister, the government and the Liberal Party the way forward. That is why I am extremely proud to belong to this party. On this side, we know full well that, sooner or later, the Liberal Party of Canada and the government—if it is still there after the election—will have to move in the right direction.

I am pleased to see that there is consensus among the opposition parties on this motion. As a result, we expect that the House will adopt this motion next week. I hope that the Prime Minister and the government will obey the decision of a majority in this House.

Once again, this motion is in keeping with the work being done by the Gomery commission and aims simply to ensure that the government assumes its responsibilities and ensures the proper use of public funds. When funds are misappropriated, we must take steps to recover them. In this case, in order to ensure that, ultimately, these funds can be recovered, the Liberal Party of Canada must immediately put this dirty money, identified in testimony before the Gomery commission, in an account created by this Liberal government. We are talking about $2.2 million.

I would still like to add one element regarding the political aspect and I believe my colleagues mentioned it earlier today. Since the referendum in 1995, we have seen the Liberal government and the Liberal Party of Canada consistently sliding, identifying Quebec and Canada's interests with the federalist interests, as if the sovereignist option had no legitimacy. To quote Jean Chrétien, who was talking here in this House only a few months ago, any and all means are acceptable when it comes to preventing Quebeckers from making a democratic and informed decision about their common future.

This totally anti-democratic vision led to the sponsorship program aimed at increasing the visibility of the federal government. They thought that by increasing their visibility, they could promote federalism, which in my view is insulting for Quebeckers. We went from there to another vision that is becoming progressively clear in the testimonies heard at the Gomery commission, a vision in which the interests of the Canadian federalism have become the interests of the Liberal Party of Canada.

We have seen it many times in the attitude taken by that government and that party who believe they are the only party in Canada. To them, there is no other alternative than the one they promote, whether for forming a government or planning a society.

Finally, things have slipped. We must understand that through this system they were defending not only a vision of Canada that is totally anti-democratic and the partisan interests of the Liberal Party of Canada. They also found a way to be very generous with governing party's cronies and finally, as the Gomery commission has shown, to increase funding for the Liberal Party.

There has been an impressive shift since 1995 and it did not go unnoticed among Quebeckers as indicated by the opinion polls made public in the last few weeks. Not only did last June election showed that the Quebeckers wanted to teach a lesson or two to the federal Liberals, but Quebeckers are now looking forward to the next election and the opportunity to condemn even more strongly the actions of the Liberal Party of Canada and of the agencies with close ties to the Liberal government and that party.

Quebeckers could not be fooled by the shenanigans of Jean Chrétien's Liberals and others, like the current Minister of Environment who thinks that Quebeckers can be brainwashed to become good disciplined federalists.

That is not how things work in the life of a people. Values, objectives, and national identity are such that the number of flags and the amount of money spent in publicity will not stop history. I believe that is quite obvious in Quebec since in the last election 54 Bloc Québécois members were elected, which brings us back to square one.

The sponsorship scandal is not our doing, but theirs. We are placed in a situation where the sovereignists in Quebec are going to take the offensive, are taking the offensive. We hope that the federal election will be called as quickly as possible in order to teach the federal Liberals a lesson and also to get to the bottom of this all, to what lies behind the sponsorship scandal, namely the question of the Quebec nation. We want to settle that once and for all.

Once again, we are not the ones who created the situation. The Gomery inquiry will, I believe, enable us to convince those Quebeckers who were not, unfortunately, convinced in 1995 that a healthy and democratic political life, without the corruption we are seeing at the federal level at present, requires us to have our own country, that it requires Quebec sovereignty. This is what lies behind the sponsorship scandal, and what puts an end to that scandal will be the sovereignty of Quebec

In my opinion, the hon. member for Gatineau is a pretty extraordinary woman. She really believes the party line she has been given. She is trying to draw a comparison with the situation in Quebec. She speaks of the $100,000 mentioned by Jean Brault at the Gomery inquiry. She speaks of the $50,000 the Quebec Liberal Party supposedly received from Jean Brault's agency.

It is not at all the same thing. The Deputy Premier of Quebec, Jean Dupuis, who is a Liberal working with Jean Charest, has no desire for Quebec's sovereignty. He has made that clear. Quebec's system is not perfect, but it has avoided scandals in awarding contracts or plumping up the electoral funds of various parties. It is quite likely that Jean Brault somewhat naively thought he could set up the same system in Quebec as the one in Ottawa, but it did not work.

The beauty of the Gomery inquiry is that it has shown us that the same people in Ottawa, who got rich on the backs of the taxpayers, wanted to set up the same system in Quebec, but it did not work. Quebec's political party financing legislation and the parties' ethics, whether the Parti Québécois or the Liberal Party of Quebec, ensured that this system did not get off the ground. Even though some people made contributions that did not comply with Quebec legislation, the system generally prevailed. The proof is that Jean Brault did not get the Société des alcools du Québec contract.

Quebec's chief electoral officer was called by some people to conduct an investigation following the revelations at the Gomery inquiry. He looked at the case and said there was nothing to investigate, that it was an obvious aberration, and that the guilty parties would be found, those people who contributed to the Liberal Party of Quebec or the Parti Québécois, those who set up their expense accounts so that their employer could deposit a cheque. Sometimes the employer did not even wait for an invoice and issued a cheque immediately. That is illegal and it is in this context that Bernard Landry did the only responsible thing, the only honest thing, and that is to create a trust account.

Commissioner Gomery now says, “I cannot provide you with the list because that is not my mandate.“ Indeed, Radio-Canada journalist, Pierre Tourangeau, followed a similar path and he arrived at the same result as the Parti Québécois. So far, with their resources, since the Gomery commission states that it does not have jurisdiction in that regard, they have managed to track down somewhere between $20,000 and $30,000. However, they have acted entirely in good faith, which is not the case with this government and this party. They have been given a chance. They should take it and maybe approach the problem differently than they have been doing since at least the year 2000, if not since 1997.

The Liberals must take their responsibilities to the end and not just talk about them. I understand more and more the definition of a Liberal: You talk, you talk, you talk and you do not take action. You do not do anything, except maybe slip a little something to your cronies.

In that sense, we are doing them a service today. We are giving them a chance to change course or to make a fresh start with the Canadian and Quebec public. In my opinion, as far as Quebec is concerned, it is over forever. On the other hand, the Liberals may still have an opportunity to redeem themselves in the eyes of the citizens of Canada.

If they were intelligent, they would accept the solution offered to them by the Bloc Quebecois and the other opposition parties, which is to establish a trust account. Also, because of the close relationship between the government and the Liberal Party of Canada—in fact, the Prime Minister is the leader of that political party—that party should be asked to deposit the $2.2 million in that trust account immediately, as well as any other amount found by the commission as it continues its work.

There is no reason to wait. The first responsible step to take is to establish that trust account. However, I would like to add a few elements. I said it and I will repeat, the sponsorship scandal was not caused simply by the greed of ad agencies with close ties to the Liberals or by the greed of the Liberals themselves. It is also related to the issue of Quebec sovereignty. After the 1995 referendum, the federal government thought it could buy Quebeckers with a program aimed at increasing its visibility, but that effort failed, as I mentioned earlier.

Why was the government able to do such a thing? Because it had money, which brings us back to the fiscal imbalance. If the federal government and the federal Liberals acted responsibly with regard to the fiscal imbalance, they would not have these huge surpluses and they would not have been able to hide from the public, from the Auditor General and from Parliament that, for many years, they funnelled millions of dollars out of the system. In Quebec and in most provinces, money is so tight that everybody knows exactly what is spent on health, education, culture and infrastructure.

Here, the need creates the means. First, someone has the idea. This was the case with Mr. Chrétien and no doubt with the people around him. So, for example, it was decided to set up a sponsorship program. No problem. The money is there, and there is a little secret fund. It is not a problem if they lose money, because there will be more and they can get as much as they want.

I recall that, since the Liberals have been in power, over $70 billion in unforeseen surpluses—come on—have gone in part to repay the debt, when it should have been used to enable the provinces to meet the needs of their people in health care, education, culture, the fight against poverty, highway or other infrastructures, public transit, and so on. But no, the government prefers to continue to have the provinces, especially Quebec, in a stranglehold. It uses the money to create new programs, but deviations continue.

I would not be surprised if there were also a scandal in the case of the firearms registry. Indeed, some facts have started to come out at the Gomery commission. We are totally in favour of such a program and we do not question its soundness. However, it is totally out of line that a program that was supposed to cost, according to what Martin Cauchon said in the House, $2 million a year, will end up costing almost $2 billion, and that it will have zero effectiveness, which is a record.

I received yet another letter from one of my constituents who has been trying for four and a half years to register his firearms. I was also told a story that I will relate as an anecdote to lighten up the atmosphere, since what is happening here, in Ottawa, is so serious. One of my constituents managed to register his Black & Decker as a firearm. That is how totally ineffective this program is.

I am convinced that some firms, particularly those which specialize in computer systems, have taken advantage of this ineffectiveness to suggest some gizmo or some other program. As I mentioned to you, certain facts came out at the Gomery commission. This $2 billion went into someone's pockets; it did not simply disappear.

The same happened with the $4 million or so national unity fund. At the time of the referendum, Option Canada's estimate was $4.6 million, if I remember correctly. But the Auditor General at the time was unable to find out how this $4.6 million was spent. He gave up, because there was insufficient documentation.

This kind of thing could not happen in Quebec, where there is a requirement and a desire to manage money properly. It could happen, however, should the federal government repeatedly show surpluses and manage to keep all the money it wants to cover its needs, invade other jurisdictions and implement programs like the one that led to the sponsorship scandal, with which we are taking issue.

All in all, everything that is coming out of the Gomery commission these days is a clear indication of how worn out this government is. We have known it for quite some time. The Bloc Québécois was denouncing it back in the late 1990s. Just think of Auberge Grand-Mère and other conflicts of interest we raised. The ethics commissioner at the time, who reported to the Prime Minister—imagine that—said there was no problem. We saw that coming. We can safely say that, as early as 1997, the Liberal government was already showing signs that it was at the end of its worn out rope. The wear and tear is even more obvious from the Gomery commission.

Once the trust has been set up, the only logical thing to do will be to call an election, so that these worn out Liberals can be sent back to the opposition. They are riddled with corruption and unable to put their party in order. They have become devoid of imagination and are unable to resolve the problems of the unemployed.

In this context, I encourage the House to adopt the motion put forward by the Bloc Québécois. I thank the opposition parties for supporting it.

[Textile Industry, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the minister does not read the papers. The United States and the European Union are getting ready to take action to protect their industries against clothing imports from China. If the federal government plans to remain this passive when faced with the threats to our industry, we might as well shut the plants down right away.

Could the government tell us why it is refusing to act immediately? This is an emergency.