Bill C-301 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (monthly guaranteed income supplement)

Old Age Security Act

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to initiate debate on Bill C-301, although what you have just said does not augur well for the process. It is not that I wish to contest your ruling, but when it is said that the bill involves money, we need to know whose money it is. In my opinion, it already belongs to seniors, and we are not asking the government to spend any new money. The bill is merely asking it to return to senior citizens who have been deprived of the guaranteed income supplement the money to which they are entitled.

The public did not call for royal recommendation to deprive them of their due. The period of retroactivity has been reduced to 11 months since 1995; before that it was 5 years. They were not asked to consent to being deprived of their rights and the money coming to them.

I find it immoral that we cannot now call upon the government to show some conscience and provide the least advantaged of seniors with what they are entitled to, after it has used every means possible to deprive them of it.

I sat on the committee that examined the GIS question in 2001. We came to realize that 270,000 seniors among Canada's least advantaged—since those who are entitled to the supplement certainly do not have money in tax havens—have been deprived of the GIS, including 68,000 Quebeckers. The government is sitting on $3.2 billion that does not belong to it; this money belongs to seniors.

While I do not challenge the Speaker's ruling, I will never accept being told that a bill like this one cannot be voted on, on the pretext that it would deprive the government of money. That is wrong. The money in question is not the government's money but money owing to the most disadvantaged of seniors.

If you do the math, you will see that in Quebec alone since 1995 those who already have the least have been deprived of some $1 billion. Some people aged 72, 75 or 80 are having to live on $6,000 a year because they do not get the GIS, not having been properly informed about their entitlement to it. Disadvantaged seniors often live in conditions that keep them from getting the necessary information. They are not the ones responsible; the government is responsible for depriving these seniors of what they are entitled to by making the situation so complicated.

I find it totally immoral that an issue like this one can only be discussed, and not voted on. As I said at the beginning of my speech, no royal recommendation was required to deprive seniors of what they were owed.

I have toured Quebec with my colleagues from the Bloc. We have held 43 meetings across the province with seniors who were deprived of the guaranteed income supplement. The meeting in Sherbrooke comes to mind, as I was particularly struck. It was held in a church basement on a Monday afternoon, and so many people showed up that extra chairs had to be added. Three hundred and fifty people attended that meeting.

We learned that, among those present, perhaps 10 or 20 were deprived of the guaranteed income supplement. I met the daughter of an 88 year old woman who has since passed. This woman did not contribute much to society: only 10 or so children. That is already something. As Yvon Deschamps would say, she never really found time to work; she had too much to do at home. In her later years, she had to live on $6,000 a year and, after she passed, the government was left with $90,000 that belonged to her.

If a royal recommendation is required to go after that money, let us get it immediately. It makes no sense that more justice cannot be restored. It makes no sense that, while there is so much talk about all kinds of violence, we can be so violent here. No doubt about it, it was violence against this woman.

I can provide names of people this has happened to in Quebec. In my riding, there is a couple in their 70s, who thanked me because as a result of my efforts they now get $4,000 more a year. They each got $2,000 more. I asked them when this started. They told me they got only 11 months of retroactive payments. However, $4,000 a year for five years equals $20,000. The government therefore took $16,000 belonging to that couple. This is happening everywhere.

I went to Vancouver where I met with some of these people. The government brags about being good administrators. It is scandalous. They say they are good administrators, but they take money from those who are less fortunate. They can pay down the debt that way, but it is nothing to be proud of.

They say they are good administrators, but they take money from the unemployed. Again, that is nothing to be proud of. The members opposite who are bragging about achieving zero deficit on the backs of seniors, the unemployed, the sick and the provinces, certainly have no reason to claim to be good administrators. I would never admit such a thing.

My bill asks only one thing and that is to re-establish the most basic justices. Seniors are absolutely not responsible for being inadequately informed about what they are entitled to receive. Why not treat them the way we would want to be treated.

If we stop paying our taxes for five or six years, does that mean we owe the government only 11 months of back taxes? I doubt it. When we owe money to the government, it has the right to go into our wallets and take what it wants. It will even impose penalities and interest.

My bill simply asks the government to be honest. It has $3 billion that does not belong to it. There is a lack of honesty. I am sorry, but there is a lack—

[The Speaker]

Before beginning today’s private members’ business, I have a statement to make concerning the provisions of Bill C-301, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (monthly guaranteed income supplement).

As with all private members’ bills, the Chair examines the contents of the bill to determine whether its provisions would infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown and thus prevent the Chair from putting the question to a vote at third reading. This is consistent with the duties and responsibilities assigned to the Chair. It has been the practice for such concerns to be raised at the commencement of debate on second reading.

Bill C-301 standing in the name of the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain proposes to alter the process by which compensation is awarded to old age security recipients in the manner that retroactivity is handled.

Clauses 2, 3 and 4 remove the requirement that the recipient must make an application before they can receive a payment. Henceforth, payments would be based simply on entitlement. This changes the conditions of the compensation process and creates new or additional spending. Arguably, it could also affect the minister’s discretionary authority; however, this is not entirely clear.

Clause 6 awards full retroactivity. Currently, retroactivity is limited by the date upon which the application was made. Late applicants may only be eligible for the period dating from the application. It would appear then that this modification authorizes increased spending which would require a royal recommendation.

Therefore, in its present form, I will decline to put the question on third reading of Bill C-301 unless a royal recommendation is received.

Today, the debate is on the motion for second reading, and this motion shall be put to a vote at the close of the second reading debate.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

moved that Bill C-301, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (monthly guaranteed income supplement), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Telecommunications Act

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Rivière-Du-Loup—Montmagny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise at report stage of Bill C-37, which has been debated for at least an hour already. In short, this legislation seeks to prohibit unwanted telephone calls. Under the existing marketing system, many calls are made to contact people, to ask them to buy certain products, to support a cause, or to get their opinion. All kinds of calls are made regarding all sorts of issues.

We came to realize that there is a need to monitor this sector, to find a way to control it, so that those who do not want to receive such calls can be exempted from getting them. That is the bill's primary objective.

In an effort to find a proper solution to this issue, we took a look at what is done in the United States and in other countries. The concern of the government and of the members of Parliament was that the CRTC did not have all the appropriate and necessary means to act effectively. A bill was needed to deal with this issue.

The committee heard people from many sectors. The telemarketing industry and telemarketers were represented by the Canadian Marketing Association. We also heard from people engaged in all forms of solicitation, including registered and unregistered charities. These people must solicit the public to have sufficient revenues to carry on their good works. For example, there are people who collect money for muscular dystrophy, for a human rights cause, or for any other good cause.

After listening to these people, we decided to propose an amendment to the bill, because it did not allow people representing these organizations to make telephone calls. Without this amendment, these people would have been prohibited from making calls. We might then have been in a very good position to see the impact that these organizations have on our society. It is often said that without volunteers, things would not work very well. Indeed, if we had not allowed charities to do this type of soliciting, we would have created an unacceptable situation.

This in part reflects the spirit in which we examined the bill. The underlying principle is a good one. We must ensure that people who do not want to be called will not be. On the other hand, we need to see whether there are not some groups that need to be excluded from this situation in order to ensure that an activity that is necessary and appropriate in this society is not systematically hobbled.

As a result, we excluded registered charities, as well as existing business relationships. In the latter connection, we heard from a large number of professional associations. Their representatives came to point out to us that if they were prevented from making these types of calls, or if the way they could be made was not made properly clear, ridiculous situations would result.

Taking the example of someone with a professional relationship with another person, a psychologist, pharmacist or physician for instance, the professional might end up unable to continue contact with his client or patient if that specific activity is not allowed in the amendment. This amendment is therefore also intended as an improvement to the bill, making it more realistic and more in keeping with the intended purpose.

We did, of course, also ask for exclusion of those who had not requested to be put on a do-not-call list, in order to avoid misunderstandings. People might claim they thought they were automatically excluded, although they had not asked to be. We wanted to be sure everything was clear and that there was sufficient protection in that area to avoid any additional pointless legal wrangling.

In a concern for democracy, we also wanted to ensure that, as far as political phone calls and opinion surveys are concerned, our democracy in action would not be hindered. For instance, that we would be able to call people to convince them to vote for us, or to contribute to a political party.

These things are essential for a healthy democratic process. Imagine the opposite scenario: political parties no longer able to call people, pollsters unable to sample public opinion. We would end up in a situation where our citizens' democratic rights were being restricted.

Some people could certainly find ways to circumvent legislation. They would try to achieve the same objective with a very justifiable basis of democratic quality of life. However, this bill would prohibit this.

Oonce again, it seems essential that we be able to move forward with this amendment. We want all of this to be realistic and to lead to a bill with good values.

There is one very important provision that was added along the same lines. It says that the committee will review the provisions of the act three years after its coming into force.

The idea for this amendment came to us mainly after we found out that the practice in the United States and the previous practice in Canada were not clearly defined. We could not be certain that, three years later, we would not have to add groups to the exemption lists to allow them to make telephone calls. Moreover, it is possible that, among the exemptions accepted, some would have to be changed.

The Bloc Québécois had said, among other things, that we could extend this list and add the registered charities. However, the committee did not accept this. It was not part of the committee consensus. However, in three years, we may realize that we should have been bolder and taken advantage of that opportunity to make such a proposal.

Thus, this bill will please the people in Quebec and in Canada in general. It will make it possible for many people who do not want to receive this type of telephone call to be put on a do not call list. For example, we often receive ad bags at our doors on weekends. They contain all kinds of advertisements, weekly magazines and so on. However, if we do not want to receive them, we inform the distributors and they stop sending them. It is a democratic choice that we make and that is very relevant.

So we want this legislation to give this choice to people, too, with regard to telephone calls. That is why the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-37.

In a recent Environics survey, 79% of Canadians surveyed said that they support a national do not call list and 66% of those surveyed said they would sign up for such a service. So this bill is justified and socially acceptable. However, we must not forget that a former member of the Canadian Alliance—unfortunately, I cannot recall the name of his riding—had introduced Bill C-301, which died on the Order Paper. So there was already a will to move in this direction.

Furthermore, under that bill, telemarketers who ignored the list were committing an offence and liable to significant fines in the amounts set out in section 73 of the legislation.

In 2003, the Bush administration, through the Federal Trade Commission, implemented what is known as the do not call list in the United States. This same term is used in Canada. During the first year after the new law came into force, 62 million Americans registered and 428,000 complaints were filed against non-compliant companies.

A recent survey by the Customer Care Alliance illustrates consumer reaction to the American do not call list. Some 60% of consumers said they had registered and 87% of those registered reported fewer calls, an estimated decrease of 24 calls per month. So the American model has achieved real results. The model we are implementing is not identical to the American model, but it seeks to achieve similar results.

Another American survey conducted in winter 2004 indicated that 92% of those registered reported fewer calls, including 25% who did not receive any calls at all. The very principle of the bill was wholly respected. These people did not want to get any more calls and they did not.

As a result, in keeping with the general shift in this direction, in May 2004, the CRTC introduced new, more restrictive rules for the telemarketing industry in order to protect consumers. These rules apply to all aspects of this industry. However, the CRTC recognized that one area came under the responsibility of legislators. This area did not fall under the CRTC's mandate, and it wanted such a list to be created.

Again, following this recommendation by the CRTC, the government introduced the bill, and members worked in committee to make it the best possible bill.

This legislation affects big players, such as the Canadian Marketing Association, which is the largest marketing industry association in Canada. Its member companies contribute to the Canadian economy by essentially providing 480,000 jobs and by making more than $51 billion in annual sales. This association is also a powerful lobby for the marketing sector. It has said that it supports Bill C-37, while at the same time having certain concerns regarding the powers given to the CRTC within the parameters of the regulations. This will have to be monitored closely to ensure that the bill remains as realistic, in its content, as its purpose.

The Canadian Marketing Association currently maintains a registry. It would like to be mandated to manage the system that will be put in place to administer the current list. That would not necessarily be the Bloc's choice. We believe that the organization selected should be one with greater independence. We must not find ourselves in a situation similar to that of the oil industry. In this instance, a private organization is providing information in good faith. But for the public, it is not speaking on behalf of the government, but the private sector. It may not be as credible. We would not want to make the same mistake. So, we must ensure that the organization in charge of putting this registry in place operates at arm's length and that its mandate is clear.

We would have liked this bill to deal with the issue of fraudulent telemarketing, but that was not possible in this case. This is a very widespread problem in Canada. Perhaps this issue would be more appropriately dealt with under the Criminal Code. Perhaps the government or a member of this House should move forward on this issue. When we talk about fraudulent telemarketing, we are not referring to those who make telephone calls in accordance with the act and the rules: we are talking about those who try to fleece people by offering them products at a lesser price than the regular off-the-shelf price. They cash the cheque, the product is not delivered and they simply vanish. Some real efforts are required regarding this problem.

For example, illegal call centres, the so-called boiler rooms, generate illicit revenues in excess of $60 million. It is said that a defrauder illegally earns between $1,000 and $5,000 US per week. So, it would be in order to present a government or a private member's bill to amend the Criminal Code and correct this situation.

I am now going to deal with the more controversial part of this amendment that all parties were prepared to support to allow a telecommunication “made for the sole purpose of soliciting a subscription for a newspaper of general circulation.” A consensus was achieved among all parties. We received letters congratulating us for agreeing to make such an amendment. Unfortunately, the Chair deemed it out of order. I am not questioning the relevancy of the ruling made by the Chair as it relates to the rules of admissibility. However, it seems to me that if the House wanted to properly finish the job and pass a bill that truly reflects the committee's wish, we should be able to make that amendment.

I hope that the ruling issued earlier on the request for consent will be reconsidered. This would allow us to see if there is a way to have the amendment adopted. If that is not possible today, then this consent should be obtained at the beginning of third reading, while ensuring that the everything is in order. It would be somewhat of an aberration if a simple rule of procedure were to prevent us from making a bill more comprehensive. As regards the substance of this issue, it is important that we move forward with a bill that reflects as accurately as possible the wishes and the will of those whom we represent in this House.

The amendment is intended to exclude only calls “made for the sole purpose of soliciting a subscription for a newspaper of general circulation.” Clear presentations were made on that.

As well, there were demonstrations of the economic impact of not accepting that amendment. I would like to see a way found to declare it in order with another call for unanimous consent. I will not do that now, but I would like hon. members to reflect on this question and find the right time to do so.

If we had that amendment along with all the other amendments to the bill proposed by all parties, after a serious debate and listening to a multitude of witnesses, we would have a top-notch bill. What is more, the mandatory three-year review clause will enable us to revisit the legislation at that time. Any adjustments needed can be made at that time.

I doubt, however, that the newspaper industry can wait that long. If we do wait three years before reworking the legislation because of this amendment, there is going to be a major problem, one we will be responsible for. At least the hon. members who refused to make that amendment part of the bill will be. That would, in my opinion, be an unacceptable position.

Often, in this House, we debate bills about which we do not have similar views or expectations. We have partisan views which, on the substance, may differ in many regards. For once that we have a bill on which we have all done non-partisan work and put in the energy necessary to achieve the desired result, it would be very sad that, in the end, an important element would be missing because of a rule of procedure. I think that we should work to ensure that the amendment can be incorporated into the bill.

Let us try to figure what will happen three or five years from now, when the legislation is reviewed. I would really like for us to be able to achieve results similar to that achieved in the U.S., where a very significant number of people have requested to be put on do not call lists. That was done, and they were pleased with being excluded. Tests should also be conducted with respect to all the proposed amendments, to determine whether the desired results have been achieved with the special permissions given to organizations such as charities.

It might be a good idea to conduct a parallel study with a small control group. If we took a fictitious agency, or a charity that cannot make this type of call, we could look at how much money it would have collected in three years, voluntarily, and compare that with the rest of the market that had this permission.

I am also thinking of all the current international natural disasters. It would be utterly ridiculous if the situation were not corrected. The Canadian government said it would match the contributions of Canadians for the crisis in Pakistan. If we do not get the amendment we want, charitable organizations of this kind could no longer do their telemarketing work, which is important and justified for such a highly commendable cause that deserves our support.

In three years, when the bill has completed its first phase and becomes common practice, when the contract has been awarded and management of the registry delegated, we could re-evaluate and correct the situation if necessary.

Nonetheless, in principle and given what we have seen in other countries—in the United States, in particular—I think we have a quasi ideal bill before us if we can incorporate the consultations held. There is only one amendment missing; the one that all the parties agreed to contribute. For now, we seem to lacking the consent. Someone from the Liberals refused to give their consent earlier. I hope we can complete the work on this bill in the next few hours.

Department of Social Development Act

[Réal Lapierre, Bloc, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak to this bill on social development.

I am very concerned as a citizen and even more so, as you can appreciate, in my duty to respond on behalf of the constituents of Lévis—Bellechasse.

Should the Bloc Québécois support the creation of a department whose mandate would interfere in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces? That is the question.

There is consensus in Quebec that social development is part of Quebec's jurisdiction, just like health, education, municipal affairs and so forth.

The Liberal government's attitude proves once again that its true goal is to interfere in the governance of Quebec and the provinces in order to gain even more power for itself. Need I remind hon. members that this is done to the detriment of everyone's well-being? It goes without saying that the Bloc Québécois cannot support such an abuse of power, especially since this area affects the public so directly. In any case, need I remind this House that Quebec never supported the 1999 framework agreement on social union?

As we all know by now, the Department of Social Development is the result of the split of the former Department of Human Resources. Its role will be to put in place a system that will ensure the elderly, handicapped, families and children have an adequate income.

Despite the fact that 97% of the funds from this department will be allocated for seniors, the fact remains that this jurisdiction should never have been given up by the provinces. The federal government inadvertently appropriated it and we regret that. By giving it up, the provinces opened the door to federal intrusions in social development and shot themselves in the foot.

Besides the worthy goal of protecting and possibly improving Canada's social foundation, how can we be sure we are not witnessing another violation of our jurisdictions? Judging from past experience, it is not hard to predict what will happen.

As you know, Quebec has expertise in most of these areas. The Department of Social Development has the mission to support the well-being of individuals, families and communities through a whole series of adapted measures. So, once again, we will obviously see a duplication of costs as a result of the creation of this department. In view of the lack of will to consult, vital to success in the area and in the context, we can already assume that the results will be hit and miss and cobbled together.

It will take 12,000 public servants to run this new department. That represents a great deal of time, energy and, above all, money, when such duplication could be avoided. If there is $53 billion for our social foundation, just think how much more we would have from all the direct and indirect costs of such duplication. Imagine how much more we could achieve. But, it takes humility to respect our jurisdictions and recognize the expertise and know-how of others.

The plan is to allocate 97% of this $53 billion in the Canada pension plan and the old age security program.

Duplication must be avoided at all cost.

The Auditor General has validated the Bloc's concerns. For years she has pointed at the fact that some expenses, such as the Canada child tax benefit, can be found under tax spending but not under the department's expenditures. There is an obvious lack of transparency.

In order to create this new department, some legislation will have to be amended or simply repealed so that there can be new rules, such as those addressing protection of and access to personal information other than what is governed by codes found in the Canada pension plan and the Old Age Security Act.

There is therefore an additional problem with this new approach, one that is likely to complicate case assessment still further. It is far from a simple problem.

The Bloc Québécois has had a position on reimbursement of the guaranteed income supplement for some years now. We have demanded considerable sums for a number of Quebeckers and Canadians who were deprived, if not cheated, of the GIS because they were not properly informed of the eligibility criteria.

In Quebec alone, the amount that did not go to eligible recipients since 1993 is in excess of $800 million. In Canada, this amount is $3.2 billion.

How can anyone dare ask the most disadvantaged in society to pay the debt of a country? Mind you, not much this government can do surprises me anymore.

The ruling party continues to deny entitled recipients full retroactive payment of all that is owed to them. We are opposed to any deadlines or cut-off dates. The money has to be paid back to whom it belongs, period. The government should implement Bill C-301 introduced by the bloc Québécois; we would be on the same side for once. As for the rest, accept once and for all that Quebec run its own business, as it does so well. That will save everyone time and money, and credit will be given where credit is due.

To avoid any confusion or interpretation, no one is in a better position than the Government of Quebec to do this properly.

Let us talk about the Canada-wide child care services. Need I remind members that this plan was already a federal election issue back in 1993? And it is still in its infancy, barely taking baby steps.

Quebeckers are served by one of the best day care systems in the world. So says, not Canada, but the OECD. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development states in its report that relations with the grassroots—that is, early childhood professionals—are essential not only to implement but also to develop appropriate policy.

It is even suggested that, in Canada, exchanging with Quebec planners, administrators and stakeholders would be most useful, if we really want to have a system that is centred on the development of the child. That sounds like a clear message to me.

Quebec's experience shows beyond all doubt that we have state-of-the-art child care. We definitely do not need more federal interference that might even be a nuisance, given the level of performance of our own system.

No elected representative in Quebec, particularly in that field, will accept federal interference without any assurances about the possibility to opt out with full compensation, and neither will the public.

Members will remember that the federal government committed to it in its 2004 throne speech, by approving the Bloc Québécois' amendment to an amendment providing that provincial jurisdictions would be fully respected and that financial pressure, called fiscal imbalance, would be reduced.

The Prime Minister made a commitment to that effect and promised that the Quebec government would receive the money unconditionally and would not be penalized because it is further ahead as regards this issue.

Let us now look at social development and vibrant communities. A few programs, such as the social development partnerships program, are particularly accessible to non-profit organizations. The voluntary sector initiative promotes the improvement of relations with volunteers, while the new horizons program is designed to meet more specifically the needs of seniors. It is true that these measures make life easier for their target groups. However, it is difficult to imagine that another level of government that is even more remote can manage things more effectively and come up with a policy that is better suited to the public's needs.

Quebec is already very familiar with the existing approach. We also feel that more interference is looming through the national child benefit. This is a program which guarantees financial support to low-income families with children by promoting a national threshold whereby payments would be calculated on the basis of income and expenses through the Canadian child benefit program. Unfortunately, this initiative is, again, resulting in political and economic interference.

This federal intervention falls under the agreement on the social union. If the federal government wants to continue acting unilaterally, it should at least have the decency to compensate Quebec, which already has well-adapted, successful programs in that area, as is generally recognized.

In order to circumvent that kind of problem, the Bloc Québécois is advocating a refundable tax credit for all families with dependent children, regardless of the family's income. This approach would be much fairer and would be more in keeping with the circumstances of Quebec families.

Social economy is, of course, an integral part of any society, and its importance cannot be underestimated. All areas of human activity are affected, which is why it makes a significant contribution to regional development.

In order to be efficient, all the levels of intervention must absolutely operate in a concerted fashion. This means that the federal government should adjust assistance programs to the realities of our businesses.

We advocate a refocus of the philosophy that applies to non-profit organizations. Indeed, we are proposing to eliminate the possibility for a single person to create such an organization. Why? Because we want to promote the principle of collective mobilization to achieve a common goal. In our view, the granting of partial funding goes against social goals, since it could compromise the independence of the organizations with regard to private businesses. This is why we are asking that this option be amended.

We also want to avoid having two categories of non-profit organizations in Quebec. However, this will certainly happen, given the possibility of incorporating under the federal act alone, without pursuing objectives outside Quebec borders.

We want Quebec's specific characteristics to be respected for the greater good of community life throughout Quebec. To this end, we will defend Quebec's progressive model.

Let us talk about manpower. We know how workers are important in any decent society. They are the cornerstone of society. How can we not recognize the need for them to receive the best training possible? For this, we need money.

Who has the money that is needed? The federal government. Why? Because these same workers feed it with taxes. However, my colleagues opposite will say that enormous amounts of money are being reinvested on behalf of these people.

Must we remind the House that there is a now-famous fiscal imbalance between the federal government and the provinces? This fiscal imbalance has been recognized by all the provinces. It has been denounced by Quebec and the Bloc Québécois members for many years.

We are not talking about a centipede or a millipede; we are talking about a billion dollar beast. We are talking about the evidence that the federal government is not giving back what is owed to the citizens. On top of that, this government is asking us to approve a major intrusion in sectors that are outside its jurisdiction. Why are they outside its jurisdiction? For at least two reasons.

The first one is that education falls exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. Exclusively! This is a word that the government should examine carefully. The dictionary provides a very good definition of it.

The second reason is that the people in the field are the most capable of examining, understanding and defining the situation and the needs, and of making recommendations accordingly, while ensuring the management of education per se.

Whether the measures are for young people, the disabled, older workers or immigrants, Quebec and the provinces are the best placed for efficiency and optimum effect.

The government has the funds, but acts in very bad faith when it comes to putting them in the right place. Its confidence in the abilities of Quebec and the provinces is severely lacking. But should we question whether its existence is justified? Canada exists because there is a federation of provinces. Theirs is the level with jurisdiction over education, health, family matters and so on.

We are fully entitled to demand the funds that are in federal hands, whether their source is taxation or employment insurance contributions.

As for health, which is also completely under Quebec jurisdiction, the federal government must respect the agreement on asymmetry and stop demanding accountability.

As for the environment, Quebeckers have been aware of its importance for ages, and did not wait for federal action before they made changes. Proof of this: the BAPE has most certainly proven itself in Quebec.

Quebec's efforts to implement the Kyoto protocol have proven their worth. The funds that are to be invested in order to meet Canada's commitment when the protocol was ratified should be distributed fairly among the provinces. This means that Quebec will not be penalized, because it is already polluting less and is often in the forefront.

Quebec is the authority in municipal infrastructures. In city projects, it is in charge of setting priorities and distributing funds. We are very much aware that cities have to update their structures and improve their land use plans and we insist that Quebec remain in control at all times, because it is best at assessing the effort required of each municipality, without favouring some over others for any sort of consideration.

Over the years, the Government of Quebec has established enviable policies for itself, both locally and internationally. It needs no advice. The government knows this full well, because it blithely copies Quebec's social development measures.

Quebec's jurisdiction is recognized and unanimously supported in Quebec. The system works, because the structure and the institutions linking the public, the organizations and the government make it possible to understand the needs and to act accordingly, whether by creating effective instruments or investing the necessary money to permit stable and long term funding.

You know what we are lacking. So acknowledge it: it is sufficient room to manoeuvre because of the fiscal imbalance.

You have the power to remedy this injustice. We demand you do it. The people of Quebec refuse to accept the federal government abusing its prerogatives to withdraw and keep funds that belong to them and are rightly theirs.