Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member for taking part in the debate. I think that what distinguishes us-and I say this up front-is that as a political party we are convinced that the best way to help the disadvantaged is not just to let market forces prevail. We admit that our society never had as many poor people as it does today. That is true for Montreal, Vancouver, Toronto and many regions of the country.
The difference is that we think what makes the government ineffective in fighting poverty is the political structure. Take the very concrete example of a man without work who comes to our riding office. Right away we see that various options are available if he is on welfare; they are not the same if he is on unemployment. Why? Because two levels of government administer these programs.
Nevertheless, the need is the same; he needs training so that he can re-enter the work force. I am convinced that things would be much simpler if we had the government that is closer to the people, namely the provincial government, the Government of Quebec to take the example that I know; I think that the results would be much more satisfactory if funds could be concentrated in the hands of one single manager and if all the available options and programs were offered in one and the same structure.
Sometimes people try to make a distinction between the constitutional structure and the labour market, but that is wrong. We must admit that the two are closely connected. If I were convinced that the central government is the best one to put people to work, I would not be a sovereignist.
I am not a sovereignist because I love the sound of that word. I am a sovereignist because I think that we should have only one government. When someone-who knows, it might be the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine-proves me wrong, I will be pleased to review my position, but for now I am not convinced.