Madam Speaker, on reading the NDP amendment, the deep feelings behind it are quite understandable.
It can be seen that in the past many regions of Canada have indeed been the victims of decisions by the central government. It must be kept in mind that the text that existed in 1964 was part of a kind of a deal to have the Canadian economy centred in Ontario, with transfer payments and employment insurance to give the peripheral regions a top-up income to allow them to survive.
One important mandate was lost sight of at that time, however, that a supplementary income was not the only thing needed; regional economies also had to be diversified. The regions—although I speak for eastern Quebec, I think the same applies to the maritimes—have long respected this agreement, saying that industrialization and all the manufacturing sector would be mostly located in Ontario and the natural resources sector would be more in the eastern provinces and Quebec, but there was no change in the regional economy so that we would not just cut down the trees but also process them in our regions, not only catch the fish, but also have the fish plants in our regions. In short, there was no worthwhile diversification of the economy.
It must be kept in mind that, at the end of the 19th century, the maritime provinces were self-sufficient and the state of dependency we have today was created and perpetuated by the systemic implementation of federal government policies, particularly during the Trudeau years. So, as I said, we can certainly understand the deep feelings behind this amendment.
However, on the eve of the 21st century, the amendment before us is not necessarily the solution to revitalize regional economies. Nowadays, the provinces can get fairly easy access to credit. They can get money from various sources and use the pension fund in compliance with the stated purpose.
Let us not forget that the Canada pension plan is the fund that has had just about the lowest rate of return over the last 35 years. Compared to the Régie des rentes du Québec—and this is partly because of the investments made by the Caisse de dépôt et placement—the Canadian plan is way behind and does not perform nearly as well as the Régie des rentes du Québec and its investment instrument, the Caisse de dépôt et placement.
So, the bill seeks to correct a situation whereby the pension fund may no longer be self-sufficient and may no longer provide the funds necessary for future generations. Many of the amendments to the current act are based on the Quebec experience. I was told that federal public servants travelled to Quebec City to look at how the Caisse de dépôt et placement and the Régime de rentes du Québec worked. They looked at why the RRQ provided better control than the CPP over areas such as disability claims. They concluded that our system worked and that they should try to implement a similar plan in Ottawa and get it to work as well.
I hope the bill before us will lead to such results. Let us bear in mind that, given the opportunity to go about doing things differently, in an original way, Quebec can make an outstanding contribution and demonstrate, with concrete results, that Quebeckers have all it takes to take the necessary and appropriate steps to promote their development.
So, regarding the amendment under consideration, which seeks to give some sort of preferential rate to provincial governments that need money and borrow from the Canada pension plan fund, the solution may be to give the regions the opportunity to develop adequate infrastructures to ensure the most appropriate free trade possible. Since the free trade agreements were signed, some industries have expanded and Quebec certainly came out a winner in this respect. Safeguards will also be required to ensure that environmental regulations and labour laws are respected, but it will nevertheless be possible to diversify our economies.
There is a tool available that would be much more efficient than an preferential interest rate and that is a federal government procurement policy based on the regions. If in evaluating its procurement contracts with suppliers, the federal government was accountable to the House of Commons and to the people of Quebec and Canada for not concentrating its expenditures in Ontario, without necessarily distributing expenditures among all regions, that would be the beginning of a solution. The federal government's performance will have to be assessed on the basis of whether or not transfer payments are maintained, because there is no doubt that some action is required in that area, that some distribution of wealth is required, but in addition to transfer payments, there should be decentralization of procurement to the regions so that each region can create an appropriate number of jobs depending on its population. There is nothing of the sort in the government's plan of action right now.
I would be much more in favour of questioning this government on all its actions, and it does not seems to me that giving the provinces a preferential rate on loans from the Canada pension fund is the best solution because, at the same time, the public will demand that the fund finally become cost-effective after 30 years of going about it the wrong way, after discovering that it was not successfully replenished, it would be a grave mistake not to let this fund produce the best results possible. And I believe that today the provinces have other opportunities to borrow. There are various markets opened to them. They are not all the same economically, that is true, but if this approach had already produced over the past years what we are looking for, we would not have to be discussing it today. So it did not help achieve what was being aimed at. The result has been that basically the provinces were not encouraged to look for investments with capital that may not come from the federal government or from the Canada pension plan.
For these reasons, we will vote against the proposed amendment, although we are well aware of the fact that many changes should be made in the way the federal government helps the regions and the provinces. The best way to do that is to restore the transfer payments that were withdrawn four years ago, instead of trying to design new programs for youth or for any other group, such as the disabled or other groups. It is of course very appropriate that assistance be provided to these groups.
But we should have more confidence in the ability of the provinces and of the professionals in these areas to address these issues. We should give back the money that was taken away because of cuts over the past four or five years, and I am sure there would be a much greater positive effect than by letting the provinces borrow from the Canada pension plan at a preferential rate.
Having assessed this whole situation, we feel that this amendment should not be allowed. It is contrary to the general scheme of the act, which is not the same as the one passed during the sixties. We have learned that there is less money coming in than expected to finance the plans.
Such an approach could have the following undesired effect: if we allow the provinces to borrow at a preferential rate, who will be paying the cost of such a preferential rate? Will it be future generations, the young people who will have to finance the program, by increasing their contributions over the next 10, 15 or 20 years? It is absolutely essential that the act, and the scheme of the act ensure a better intergenerational balance.
I believe we should avoid adding amendments that would not help achieve that objective.