House of Commons Hansard #135 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was income.
Gaston Leroux Bloc Richmond—Wolfe, QC
moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-46, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 23, on page 4, with the following:
"by subsection 4(2), with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council of Quebec where such powers, duties and functions relate to regional development in Quebec, in a manner that will".
Werner Schmidt Reform Okanagan Centre, BC
moved:
That Bill C-46, in clause 8, be amended by deleting lines 24 to 28, on page 4.
Gaston Leroux Bloc Richmond—Wolfe, QC
moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-46, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing line 5, on page 5, with the following:
"Ontario and Quebec, and with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council of Quebec where such powers, duties and functions relate to regional development in Quebec,".
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-46, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing line 22, on page 5, with the following:
"ing the same duties and functions, and with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council of Quebec where such powers, duties and functions relate to regional development in Quebec, the Minis-".
Gaston Leroux Bloc Richmond—Wolfe, QC
moved:
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-46, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 36, on page 5, with the following:
"10. With the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council of Quebec where the powers, duties and functions assigned by subsection 4(2) relate to regional development in Quebec, the Governor in Council may make".
Werner Schmidt Reform Okanagan Centre, BC
moved:
That Bill C-46, in clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 37 to 41, on page 5, with the following:
regulations for carrying out the purposes and provision of section 8.
Gaston Leroux Bloc Richmond—Wolfe, QC
Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure to speak to Bill C-46 on behalf of the Official Opposition, as its critic on regional development.
There are at least two major elements at stake in this bill to establish the Department of Industry. The first one concerns jurisdiction over regional development, while the second one has to do with whether or not duplication will be perpetuated in government management.
At report stage of Bill C-46, an Act to establish the Department of Industry, the Bloc Quebecois proposes that clauses 8, 9 and 10 be amended by inserting, at line 21 in clause 8, line 21 in clause 9, and line 36 in clause 10, the following: "With the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council of Quebec when it is a field related to regional development in Quebec -"
What does that mean? It means that the federal government does not have jurisdiction over regional development in Quebec and that the province is the only one with the authority to define policies and set up structures in that field.
The constitutional coup against Quebec represented by the Constitutional Act dated November 5, 1981, to which Quebec never subscribed in spite of the fact that it represents one quarter of the Canadian population, allowed the federal government, by claiming it had jurisdiction regarding regional disparity, to give
itself unlimited spending power and therefore also give itself every power concerning regional development.
The 1982 unilateral patriation of the Constitution is federal interference in Quebec's regional development since, as you all know, regional economic development is not a jurisdiction included in the 1867 Constitution.
Bill C-46 is a logical follow-up to the Constitutional deal which was struck in November 1981. It is part of the plan of the Liberal Party of Canada to isolate Quebec, to direct the economic development of Quebecers and to deny their distinct identity by making Quebec's development contingent on federal regional development policies.
In Bill C-46, the government has irresponsibly chosen to ignore Quebec's regional development policies and structures. Unconcerned about duplication, although the party in power, the Liberal Party, admits duplication exists because it wants to eliminate duplication and overlap, in this case they have made it abundantly clear that they want to preserve this duplication by refusing to recognize Quebec's sole responsibility for regional development. They prefer to ignore existing duplication and overlap just as they prefer to ignore the wasteful spending of public funds. The Minister of Industry and his Liberal colleagues want to increase their interventions in Quebec through this bill.
In section 9(1) (a) and (b) it says that the Minister of Industry, and I quote:
-with respect to regional economic development in Quebec, (a) in co-operation with other concerned ministers and boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, formulate and implement policies, plans and integrated federal approaches; (b) co-ordinate the policies and programs of the Government of Canada;
I think we can clearly interpret this as a full scale invasion of regional development in Quebec and a federal takeover of development and policies in this area.
However, the government party must realize that for decades, Quebec has had regional development programs that were far more effective than federal intervention has ever been in this area.
The federal Liberal government, with its two-fold obsession with developing the industrial centres of Quebec's metropolitan areas while ignoring the rest of the province, and with spreading the federal, centralist gospel right and left, without any policies for co-ordinating the interests of those concerned, has often acted in ways that have proved disastrous for Quebec's peripheral regions.
Madam Speaker, in this House I had an opportunity to refer to an impact study of federal regional intervention policies in Quebec, policies that, because of this intervention focussed on large urban centres, have had a devastating effect in the regions, since we now see that peripheral regions throughout Quebec have lost their young people and experienced a decline in population.
In its second report, the Conseil des affaires sociales du Québec pointed out that the situation was disastrous in all Quebec's peripheral regions. The number of municipalities and peripheral regions where the population has declined increased to an alarming extent between 1971 and 1988, when federal intervention in regional development was at its peak-in other words, the better part of the period when the Liberals were in power in Ottawa-so that today, they outnumber communities experiencing population increases. Young people are the first to leave their regions for the big urban centres.
That is the result of the federal regional development policy. In the Gaspé, the Magdalen Islands and other rural areas of Quebec, solidarity movements have sprung up to restore hope to local communities and begin work on comprehensive, integrated development. They include, among others, Coalition urgence rurale, Ralliement des Gaspésiens et des Madelinots and Rural Solidarity. The numbers and types of development partnerships are increasing.
Businesses, unions, local authorities, and the co-operative movement no longer hesitate to take charge of their own development. These players have sought, when appearing before forums such as the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, to promote the idea that, for instance, control of economic development levers must rest with Quebec and that decision-making powers must be decentralized, and to obtain a consensus in this regard. The major consensus that has emerged fits in with regional development in Quebec, and there is growing consensus that the federal government should be told clearly to withdraw from regional development, an area in which it does not belong.
As I have already mentioned, regional development is not a separate area of responsibility in the Canadian Constitution, thus forcing Quebec to take part in unending and fruitless negotiations such as those involving the regional economic development agreements. Bill C-46 confirms the federal government's determination to take over regional development in Quebec.
It also points up the stupidity and waste of such an insistence on interfering, which leads to still more duplication and overlap. Let me give an example. Under section 9(1)(b), the Minister of Industry, through the responsible minister in the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, shall collect, compile, analyse, coordinate and disseminate information with respect to regional economic development in Quebec, thus enabling the federal agency to undertake a series of studies and analyses with the purpose of defining socio-economic profiles for each region of Quebec.
Studies released by the FORDQ in November, a few weeks ago, studies that were a total waste of time and which were conducted on a region-by-region basis in Quebec, are examples of a monumental waste of money and energy, because it so happens that Quebec has produced its own studies and analyses on each region of the province this past year, in preparation for regional strategic development plans. I have perused the studies released by the office and noticed that the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec had wasted money, using the same statistics and reaching the same conclusions, region by region.
Since such studies cost money, this confirms that this government is ignoring what Quebec does in that area and spends money needlessly on duplicating studies that have already been done. To conclude, the federal government must withdraw from regional development and recognize that Quebec only has jurisdiction over economic development on its territory. That is what our amendment, the Official Opposition amendment, is about.
Werner Schmidt Reform Okanagan Centre, BC
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to enter the debate at this time. If I understand correctly procedurally we are debating Motions Nos. 2 to 8. Is that correct?
Department Of Industry ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)
That is right. We are debating on the group of motions. Since you are one of the proposers you can have the floor.
Werner Schmidt Reform Okanagan Centre, BC
Madam Speaker, I will address very briefly the particular motion that was just presented. I will put my interventions primarily in terms of our reasons for presenting the motions we wish the bill be amended to meet. I would like to focus and couch my remarks in terms of three principles.
First, there ought to be within legislation checks and balances to ensure openness, honesty and integrity on the part of government and on the part of the ministers who bring about the implementation of government policies.
Second, it is the marketplace that should determine winners and losers in business, not government.
Third, the government's role is to provide a level playing field so that competition can be equal, that there be fair administration and that the refereeing be done in such a way that the conduct of manufacturing, trade and commerce is in fact fair and equitable.
The result of these kinds of principles would be to develop confidence in business and government and of course in oneself. It would enhance international competitiveness for the nation and for individual businesses. Another consequence is the ability to meet the challenge of a new economy which is so necessary.
The Department of Industry is a major and very important department in this government. It has a wide ranging impact on the economy of this country and indeed on the jobs and on the welfare of many Canadians at all age levels. It is important that we recognize the significance of this department.
This legislation enshrines and should enshrine in this department as much scrutiny as possible so that we can determine precisely what is or is not meant in the particular clauses. This is why I wish to address these particular motions whereby we want to bring about certain amendments.
I wish to start with the amendment to clause 8(a). Our amendment proposes that clause 8(a) be deleted. Now clause 8(a) reads that the minister shall: "promote economic development in areas of Ontario and Quebec where low incomes and slow economic growth are prevalent or where opportunities for productive employment are inadequate".
The reason we would like to see that stricken from the clause is that in principle we object to the idea of regional development for a minister who has responsibility for all of Canada. There is a conflict of interest here in principle to begin with. One should not prefer one region of the country over another. Certainly that is implicit in this kind of provision.
Regional programs have proven to be preferential and the way in which certain pork barrelling projects have been created, many of them questionable and sometimes with disastrous results. The government being engaged in these types of things separates regions in one area of the country from another. That in itself is disunifying. It divides the country rather than brings it together, which is what we want to do. I personally and the Reform Party want to bring about equality rather than divisiveness. In order to accomplish that the provision in the act found in clause 8(a) needs to be taken away.
With respect to clause 9, our proposal is to delete the clause completely. That of course is the administrative, or if you like, the empowerment section which gives the minister the way in which he or she would implement the provisions found in clause 8(a). By eliminating that clause the minister would not have the authority to go into regional development specifically in Ontario and Quebec.
Our amendment with respect to clause 10 is simply an administrative one. If we eliminate clause 8(a) and we eliminate clause 9, then of course we have to make the consequential change in clause 10.
There is a confusion in the provisions of clauses 8(b) and 8(c). Upon initial reading it would appear that they would apply to clause 8(a) in terms of Ontario and Quebec. But upon a more detailed reading and in an in depth situation they could be
interpreted as applying to all of Canada. In that case the situation is such that the minister may now have full responsibility for the economic development in areas where there is low income or where jobs are not plentiful. He can then intervene in the particular business promotion in any area of Quebec.
Because of its lack of clarity it is suggested that this be rewritten in such a way that misinterpretation cannot take place. If clause 8(a) is deleted then the clarification becomes unnecessary because it is then obvious.
To conclude my remarks on these motions, this section on regional development does not uphold the three principles which I mentioned earlier. It does not inspire Canadians to feel that their government is open, honest and possessed of great amounts of integrity. It does not provide for a level playing field in the marketplace and it does not provide for a clearly refereed game.
It does not allow the marketplace to determine the outcome. In other words, it gives to the government and to the minister, in particular, the power to intervene and to determine who wins and who loses. Because these principles are not observed we must recognize that we should go ahead with these. I hope that all colleagues will recognize that certain changes to the act must be made.
I would like to add a brief word about the Bloc's amendment. If clauses 8(b) and 8(c) are interpreted to give to the minister the wide-ranging powers for all of Canada, to accept an amendment such as was proposed by the Bloc a moment ago would give to the lieutenant-governor in council in Quebec the right to approve or disapprove economic development in the rest of Canada which, as far as I am concerned, warrants only one word to describe it, and that is ridiculous.
We have to be very careful that we not divide the country. We have enough stress already and to do something like this adds to that stress. If there is one thing we want to do it is to build a strong Canada that is competitive in the world, a Canada that provides for the innovation of people, that provides for a level playing field, that allows the creativity of entrepreneurs and creators at all levels to succeed, and to do so in fair competition with other individuals across Canada. No one province, no one individual should have the authority to decide who wins, who loses, other than on a fair playing field where the referee is honest, has integrity, is open and where the things that matter come to the fore.
Therefore, I urge that the Bloc's amendments be defeated and that the Reform Party's amendments be supported.
Dennis Mills LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by addressing the remarks that were presented earlier by my colleague from Richmond-Wolfe.
His remark that the federal government has no jurisdiction in Quebec represents a difference that I have with him, one that probably represents the single biggest reason why I decided to run for public office.
I had the privilege and pleasure of working for the man who I think was the greatest Prime Minister this country every had, Pierre Elliot Trudeau. I believe that Pierre Trudeau and his vision of this country, his feeling about making sure we had a strong national government that would make sure we had national programs that would allow us to develop a national spirit, a national will that would pull us together. He also wanted a government that was designed to make sure that when regional disadvantages occurred, the national government had the capacity and the instruments to help those people in regionally disadvantaged areas.
My colleague from Richmond-Wolfe says that the federal government has no jurisdiction in Quebec. Let us imagine that every provincial premier or every provincial political party took that position. That was the essence of the Meech Lake accord which is why I opposed it.
For the Bloc Quebecois to expect the government to support an amendment which essentially states that the federal government has no jurisdiction in Quebec is just not on. I believe that a majority of Quebecers would not support it either.
I accept the constructive remarks of the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe about the fact that we have to be more efficient. We have to reduce some of the overlapping that goes on between the federal-provincial programs so we can better provide services for the people of his community, his province, as we want to do for the people in northern Ontario or Atlantic Canada or western Canada. I agree with him on that. The purpose of this bill is to redesign this department so it can become more efficient and address those concerns.
However, to go to a position where the federal government has no jurisdiction in Quebec, no jurisdiction when it comes to looking out for small and medium sized businessmen and women, no jurisdiction on retraining, no jurisdiction in special projects is not my position. From time to time we may need to use extraordinary powers to assist and promote special projects in Quebec and that is what this bill allows the government to do.
I am in this Chamber because I believe more than ever we need a strong national government. We do not need a government that is gutted. We do not need a government that is decentralized to the point where we no longer have the capacity to handle a difficult economic environment. Therefore I say respectfully there is no way we can accept this amendment from the Bloc Quebecois.
I turn now to my colleagues in the Reform Party, who I should add are in accordance with our view of making sure that we have a strong national government. They have recognized that. This is not in any way, shape or form isolating Quebec. I get very concerned when the Bloc all of a sudden thinks that we are trying to isolate them. We are trying to do the exact opposite. We are trying to make sure that all Quebecers, all Canadians, interact and exchange with each other on the total resources of this country, not just part of it.
Reform members have a very difficult time with some of our regional instruments like the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the western diversification instrument of government. In every high risk situation it is normal and historical, whether in business or in government, that from time to time mistakes are made and there are failures. It happens in business-
Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK
Especially when government is involved.
Dennis Mills Liberal Broadview—Greenwood, ON
Madam Speaker, I am trying to make my point. I think-
Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK
Who pays? The taxpayer pays.
Dennis Mills Liberal Broadview—Greenwood, ON
I am going to tell you who pays.
The essence of this country is those communities that are stronger, that are richer-I come from a city which is strong and rich but right now it is in economic difficulty. It is the city of Toronto. I know that my community, my city is having a very difficult time-believe that we must make sure that communities that are more disadvantaged are looked after properly and effectively by the national government.
I believe that ACOA and the western diversification fund are doing a very good job. For those reasons we will not support the Reform Party's amendments.
Bernard Deshaies Bloc Abitibi, QC
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member who spoke before me for recognizing his government's clear identification of the need for a strong central government with an unshakeable desire to impose its will. Such a federal government, as proposed in the Meech and Charlottetown accords, was rejected not by a minority but by the majority of Quebecers, including federalists unhappy with the status quo.
I rise today in this debate on Bill C-46 so that some key amendments will be made to Clauses 8, 9 and 10 to make them acceptable. As I explained at length on October 17 during debate at second reading, I am against this bill as it stands because it does not recognize Quebec's jurisdiction over its regional development.
Granted, regional development is a complex issue. Identifying the regions to be developed is a major challenge in itself, all the more so if we try to do it from afar, without knowing each region's particularities.
This federal tactic of trying to develop regions by centralizing policy-making is not new and was not always successful. As early as September 1982, the Senate Committee on National Finance said this in a report: "Designating the least developed regions for special status to ensure that regional disparities are not forgotten is not an easy task. As DREE discovered, a political system generates enormous pressures to extend the boundaries of programs that generate cash flow. As a result, DREE ended up including more than half the geographic area of the country in the designated areas, and the purpose became hopelessly diluted".
Why these lamentable effects? Quite simply because the federal government is unable to understand that, with general policies, it cannot meet the specific needs of each province, much less the specific needs of each region.
It is utopian to pass a bill at the national level to meet particular local objectives. Instead, we need legislation that is appropriate to the development of the province concerned, with the flexibility to respond to regional requirements.
Quebecers see their needs for regional development very differently depending on which region they live in. I suppose that is why previous legislation created different development agencies for western Canada and for the Maritimes. That is why we believe that Bill C-46 must be related to Quebec's regional particularities and to Ontario's as well.
The need to develop a region is often related to its unemployment level. Unemployment is higher or lower in some regions for various reasons. For example, high unemployment may be due to lack of education in a region and the solution will be to train the workers there.
A second possible reason for the lack of jobs is a shortage of capital to modernize industry. This can be corrected by investing in industrial or tourism infrastructure.
A third possibility is lack of natural resources, for example, over-exploitation of forests in the past. This is what happened in my region and it must be corrected by diversification to stabilize regional development.
However, the solutions are sometimes hard to find. For example, take the price of metals on the international market. For example, if the price of copper drops, this reduces employment in the affected mining region, but the solution is not to keep mines open at all cost.
How can we protect or develop a region where companies have a harder time to survive in the context of international free trade? For example, in the case of Montreal's textile industry, the solution could be found by that industry and its workers, with the help of regional development consultants.
These examples show that, for optimum results, solutions to regional development issues must be found in the region itself. This is why we insist that federal bills reflect a will to co-operate with the provinces.
Quebec developed its development tools and these tools are close to the stakeholders. Consequently, we feel that the federal government should also adopt this cost-effective approach, by increasing development tools instead of reducing them.
Lines 21, 22 and 23 of Clause 8, on page 4 could provide a good example of efficient co-operation between the federal government and the provinces. That clause currently reads as follows: "The Minister shall exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions assigned by subsection 4(2) in a manner that will-", but it should say: "With the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council of Quebec"-we could also say Ontario, since this bill concerns both provinces-"when it is a field related to regional development in Quebec, the Minister shall exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions assigned by subsection 4(2) in a manner that will-".
We want to link regional development to the power of Quebec to decide and the power of regions to select priorities. The amendment to clause 8 is intended to reflect respect for the strategic development plans of the regions in Quebec and should apply to all regions in Canada. We have had enough of this competing by various levels of government at the expense of the regions, because we want to eliminate waste and inefficiencies.
In my own region, considering the unemployment rate and the exodus of our young people, there is a very clear case for making proper use of any instruments we are given and for avoiding federal products that are not adapted to the needs of the region.
In the past few months I talked to senior officials at the Federal Office of Regional Development about the need for reviewing the agency's 1994-95 priorities for our region.
Their new focus is to promote entrepreneurship that will use new technologies to create jobs. There is nothing wrong with that, but this should not be done in total disregard of the choice made by our region, which wants to focus on infrastructures for tourism. The Abitibi-Témiscamingue region wants to acquire the basic infrastructures that will attract tourists to our region for more than a few hours. People have to travel long distances to get there, and we could sell our region if points of interest were sufficient to make a stay of several days worthwhile.
Tourists will not drive 600, 700 or 1,000 kilometres just for the sake of driving. The FORDQ previously subsidized tourism facilities which, it felt, contributed towards developing the economy, but now its focus has changed. Other priorities may be acceptable, but the region's decision to set a priority on the tourism industry should be supported by the federal government and the regions should not be saddled with priorities that are not often acceptable.
People in the community of Radisson near James Bay do not see how the new focus of FORDQ would fit their situation. The only development they could sustain is tourism. They have neither the population base nor the industrial environment for these new development priorities and new technologies. Let us be practical and use the tools we have.
The people of Radisson want to use the far north as a tool to attract adventure tours and other types of tourism. The federal government should realize that the intent of our motion to amend clauses 8, 9 and 10 is to maximize effectiveness by focussing on the needs of the community and thus promote regional development. The gap between developed and undeveloped regions is widening, because in the past, these regions did not have the right development tools.
Quebec has approved a policy to decentralize regional development. Ottawa should also agree to decentralize and consider the particular needs of each region. Regional development councils in Quebec, which include of the mayors of MRCs and regional intervenors, have already designed their own development scenarios. They know what their needs are, and the federal government should consult them so as to harmonize its projects.
I think this brief presentation has sufficiently clarified the intent of the amendments to clauses 8, 9 and 10. Failure to support these amendments will reflect the present government's reluctance to co-operate with the provinces and spend the scarce amount of funds available more effectively.
Dennis Mills Liberal Broadview—Greenwood, ON
Madam Speaker, as I was listening to the member for Abitibi I imagined that this member could actually be giving this speech from any region of the country. He talked about the importance of tourism, education, enough capital coming to a region, proper and efficient utilization of our natural resources-
Department Of Industry ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)
The hon. parliamentary secretary has already spoken on this group of motions and I
would now like to recognize the hon. member for Fraser Valley West. We can intervene only once on each group of motions.
Randy White Reform Fraser Valley West, BC
Madam Speaker, the hon. member's speech probably would have been so good I would have been happy to let him speak for a little longer-
Dennis Mills Liberal Broadview—Greenwood, ON
We could get unanimous consent.
Randy White Reform Fraser Valley West, BC
You will not get my consent to speak in my spot.
Yesterday we talked about regional development grants in the House. Yesterday we heard a member of the Liberal Party taking credit for the great growth in the economy since the Liberals have been elected.
I reminded the hon. member that this is really the business cycle, the natural business cycle in this country that is taking place. This government should in no way take credit for what is a natural business cycle. Of course the comment-
Dennis Mills Liberal Broadview—Greenwood, ON
We don't take any blame either for anything.
Randy White Reform Fraser Valley West, BC
We will give them the blame. They are suggesting that they should not get the blame but we will give you all sorts of blame in some areas.
This is a natural business cycle, my point being that as we stand here in the House of Commons taking credit for how well things are coming along the average taxpayer out there who is getting hit harder and harder and has less and less money looks at us on television and these other ways of communicating today and wonders what in the heck is going on in the House of Commons. These politicians-
Dennis Mills Liberal Broadview—Greenwood, ON
We wonder where you got that tie, Randy.
Randy White Reform Fraser Valley West, BC
You see how important this is, Madam Speaker. The Liberals are at me for my tie. Rome is burning and they are at me for my tie.
My point is that while we talk about taking credit for business cycles and so on, Rome is burning to some extent. The average taxpayer is wondering what these federal politicians are really doing in Ottawa.
Yesterday I also heard comments in the House from one of our colleagues in the Liberal Party who was very concerned about my criticisms of ACOA, the regional development agency in Atlantic Canada. The comment was Reformers do not like Atlantic Canadians because we have the audacity to complain about regional development grants.
The relationship between complaining about grants and not liking a certain region is ridiculous. Yesterday I heard from one of the Bloc members: "You had better be careful what you say about the east; you are talking about FORD-Quebec". It is not about the people and where they live. It is about how much money we have in this country.
Today we hear about the federal government's central control over regional development, about the funds that are going its way. We also hear the PQ, the separatists, talking about how this is so much of a waste: "We are doing it in our province anyway and the federal government is wasting its".
We hear the Liberals saying they are going to keep it the same and big daddy is going to hand out all the regional development grants to everybody.
What people are hearing from the Reformers is the logical approach. Should we be handing out in excess of $1 billion a year in regional development grants when we are overspending by $40 billion a year and we have a $530 billion debt load? We have to get some priorities in place.
The people watching and listening must think this is all a nightmare. We are talking about giving moneys out to regions and the amounts given out are not small dollars. ACOA, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, is over $375 million a year, FORD-Quebec is in excess of $437 million a year and western economic diversification is $452 million a year.
We have to borrow this money to give out. We are saying let us be a little more realistic here, folks. We have to cut back, if not over a period of time eliminate this. I have some ideas on where to eliminate. I will show today some of the ridiculous grants that have been given out by this government-