Réal Lapierre

[Credit Cards, December 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address this important issue.

Every credit card user has probably already felt the negative impact of this form of financing when one is late in his payments. Just imagine the consequences of excessive rates like those mentioned here for people who live constantly with such a threat over their heads.

It is well known that the indebtedness of Canadians, and that includes all forms of loans, is at a less than enviable high. Indeed, in 2003, the indebtedness ratio of Canadians represented 115% of the total annual income. This means that a large proportion of users are getting poorer by using credit that, in fact, they do not have.

Moreover, again in 2003, there were 74.3 million credit cards in circulation. It is easy to conclude that the vulnerability of users is, unfortunately, too great. Since about 35% of credit card holders cannot make regular monthly payments, they become the victims of excessive rates on the part lending institutions.

If interest rates for credit cards were somewhat similar to the central bank rate, the damage would be more limited. However, since these rates have evolved at a rate that is diametrically opposed to this basic rate, the consequences are catastrophic.

Indeed, since 1995, interest rates for credit cards have reached unprecedented levels. Over the past 20 years, that is from 1984 to 2004, the spread between the rates increased by 11%, from 15% in 1984 to 26% in 2004.

Such a spread is totally unjustified. Again, it is the same people who are the victims of these excessive rates. Regardless of the reasons that may be invoked to justify these rates, these reasons are based on strictly economic criteria, and it is well known that these criteria are far removed from the social values advocated in North America.

Consequently, since interest rates come under federal jurisdiction through the Interest Act, the situation should be corrected. It is in this perspective that Bill S-19, an act to amend the Criminal Code, was proposed to change the criminal interest rate in effect. Since the effective annual interest rate applied on the credit advanced is currently considered excessive if it exceeds 60% of the target rate of financing, Bill S-19 would have the effect of criminalizing any rate that exceeds by 35% or more the target used.

In actual fact, if Bill S-19 were in force, interest rates higher than 37% would be considered criminal, which would have the effect of keeping the annual interest rate in step with the Bank of Canada rate, while putting downward pressure on the financing structure as a whole.

With net profits of $13.3 billion, a 20.5% increase this year over last, there is no cause for panic for the six leading Canadian banks.

Since half of all revenues of banks come from the difference between the interest earned on loans and the interest paid on savings , there is certainly a way to minimize the damage. To suggest otherwise would be in bad faith.

I did say minimize, because we have to recognize that the $9.5 billion paid in taxes by the banks is not to be sniffed at, especially since some people are bound to benefit, because most Canadians are shareholders of banks directly or indirectly, through their pension plan or the Canada Pension Plan.

In this context, given how sizeable the debt is in Canada, what attitude should be promoted? On this issue as on many others, it is possible that awareness and information on credit are deficient. As a result, when the federal government cut transfers to the provinces, Quebec had to constrain spending on home economics organizations, which were masters in the art of raising awareness of debt.

First, the federal government has to give back to these social organizations the means to finance such initiatives to raise awareness of unchecked credit. At the same time, the government could require credit card rates to be in line with that of the Bank of Canada.

Finally, the federal government has to take steps to ensure that any future reform of the banking sector will be done with respect for consumers, and not on their backs.

[Department of Social Development Act, December 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for having asked that question.

My view, as a former mayor, is quite simple, I can tell you that the people in the best position to fix the problems of the municipality were the municipal representatives. On that basis, if we extrapolate somewhat, we must again admit that the people who are in the best position to fix problems in the regions are those who are on the spot, in the regions, and used to working together.

I must admit, with my friend on the other side, whom, incidentally, I know quite well, that in our region, the people who used to work at the CDIC were local people, people born in the region, who really were familiar with its problems. I am glad to say, as I must, that this was a positive thing for the CIDC. Those people were already well versed in how things worked and all the problems. Coming from the area, they were people able to work...

[Department of Social Development Act, December 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is not because we are in politics and our ideology may differ that we cannot recognize initiatives were put in place and had positive effects. We recognize that.

You are telling us about a project in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. However, in our own communities, our own ridings, there have been disastrous situations, specifically, the closing of plants in the apparel and textile industry, asbestos and all sorts of other sectors.

I remind you of the mad cow crisis. Is it normal that a whole country has been penalized because of one single case?

We say that, as far as possible, where it is easier for provincial authorities to act, the ideal formula would be for the federal government to make improvements through these provincial jurisdictions, because it has the surpluses necessary to do so, but that afterwards, it would give leeway to provincial authorities so they can solve the issues that we know about.

[Department of Social Development Act, December 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague, I was very careful to specify, in my remarks, that I was certainly not arguing that nothing good had been done or was being done. Quite the contrary, good things have been done, new ones are still being done, and I can imagine that in subsequent years, we will witness more improvement for low income families.

The only thing is that we always come back to the old saw that if you want something done well, then do it yourself.

Take regional development. There is no denying that a much more logical approach must be taken together with all the stakeholders in the regions. They are in the best position to identify the issues.

The same can be said for day care centres. That the federal government put in additional funds to make the program even better, I agree. However, what we would like is that, when the federal government enhances its programs as the result of agreements with provincial governments, it should leave the provinces the necessary leeway to bring to fruition the projects considered, which might possibly be resolved.

[Department of Social Development Act, December 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Bloc Québécois support the creation of a department whose mandate would mean interference in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces? Such an attitude certainly comes as no surprise, since the government has shown us once again what has now become its trademark.

There is consensus in Quebec that social development is part of Quebec's jurisdiction, just like health, education, municipal affairs and so forth. It would not make sense for the Bloc Québécois to support such an abuse of power, especially since this area affects the public so directly.

In any case, need I remind hon. members that Quebec never supported the 1999 framework agreement on social union? Despite the fact that 97% of the funds from this department will be allocated for seniors, the fact remains that this jurisdiction, which the federal government unfortunately appropriated, should never have been given up by the provinces. By doing so, they opened the door to federal intrusions in social development.

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 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.

The new department, through its 12,000 civil servants, will manage a budget on the order of $53 billion to be injected into our social foundations, but only on the condition that it respects provincial and territorial jurisdictions, as the government promised in the throne speech.

The new Minister for Social Development will have to ensure the department operates within the parameters accorded the provinces. The mission of the Department of Social Development is to enhance the well-being of individuals, families and communities through a set of measures tailored to their needs.

As you know, Quebec has expertise in most of these areas. Once again, we will obviously see a duplication of costs. 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.

In view of the money involved, $53 billion, 97% of which will go to the Canada pension plan and old age security, duplication must be avoided at all cost.

For years the Auditor General of Canada 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. This then justifies the Bloc's concern.

Such a cavalier attitude sends a very negative message to Bloc members.

In order to create this new department, it is certain that 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 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, and is therefore far from a simple problem.

The Bloc Québécois has had a position on reimbursement of the GIS for some years now. We have demanded considerable sums for a number of Quebeckers and Canadians who were deprived 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. Despite the fact that some $100 million have been recovered since, the procedure still has to be considered pretty dubious, particularly since the government in power is still denying entitled recipients full repayment of all that is owed to them.

As far as inclusion, and the government"s involvement in that inclusion, is concerned, it must be kept in mind that the Liberals announced numerous measures in the 2004 budget, including tax deductions for integration of the disabled. The Bloc Québécois cannot do but rejoice at such initiatives, but we feel that no one is better placed than the Government of Quebec to do this properly.

As far as dynamic communities are concerned, a number of programs, such as the social development partnerships program, which is especially accessible to not-for-profit organizations, the voluntary and community sector initiative to improve relations with volunteers, and the new horizons for seniors program, will be helpful, there is no denying that.

However, since the relationship between all of Quebec's community organizations and our health and social services network is running smoothly, it is hard to admit that a more distant level of government could administer it better, or come up with a better adapted policy, given Quebec's familiarity with the approach already in use.

Looking at the new federal initiative aimed at a better understanding of young children, here is the best example of program duplication in the area of education. This is strictly a provincial program, all the more so because the Quebec professionals involved in it, in both the health and public education sectors, are at the leading edge of modern techniques in this area.

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. The government's avowed aim is clearly to raise its profile, an approach that suits the minister.

This federal intervention falls under the agreement on the social union. Well, so far as I know, this agreement has never been approved by Quebec. 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.

Beyond problems of program harmonization in this area, another problem is arising in regard to the calculation of federal child benefits. The example of day care centres for $5 a day is the most striking evidence of this.

Some families lose more federal deductions than what they gain from the establishment of child care services. Because the federal government refused to harmonize its criteria with those in Quebec, families in Quebec have been hit with a shortfall of about $70 million.

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. We have a similar situation with a program established in 2000 called early childhood development, under HRDC, to help young children.

Between 2000 and 2005, $2.2 billion was supposed to be paid to the provinces and territories to help lessen human misery, especially in low income families. The Quebec government cannot condone such interference, since the federal approach runs against several provincial jurisdictions.

Another subject raises many questions. In the 2004 throne speech, the federal government told us that, true to its reputation for encroaching on privileges, it would keep playing its inquisitorial role by increasing the number of projects in the multilateral context of training and care for young children in a multilateral framework.

For the same reasons mentioned earlier about the penalty incurred by parents of Quebec children benefiting from the $7 day care program, we cannot agree with such an initiative, since punishes a number of families.

Finally, when we are talking about national day care services, which were already part of the election platform in 1993, Quebec's experience proves beyond all doubt we do not need any federal interference that might even be a nuisance given the level of performance of our own system.

The so-called agreement in principle of November 2, 2004 is still both ridiculous and unrealistic in the current context. No elected member from Quebec, particularly in this sector, can accept federal interference without any guarantee of the right to opt out with full compensation. We would remind the House that this is what the federal government had committed to in the 2004 Speech from the Throne, by agreeing to the amendment to the amendment by the Bloc Québécois providing that provincial jurisdictions would be entirely respected and that financial pressure called fiscal imbalance would be reduced. Thus, the federal government had committed to respect all Quebec's jurisdictions. Despite the fact that the Speech from the Throne contains numerous hidden possibilities of interference, we will not be fooled by such subterfuge.

It must be pointed out that, in the health sector, an exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec, the federal government must respect the agreement on asymmetry and stop calling for accountability.

In the environment sector, the BAPE has proven itself in Quebec. The efforts made by Quebec to implement the Kyoto protocol are obvious. The federal project on national equity might also lead to another asymmetrical agreement, since our homework is done.

In the project on cities, Quebec is the architect of municipal infrastructure. It is responsible for establishing priorities and distributing funds. Will the money coming from the gas tax be transferred without condition? We doubt it, although it would make sense.

Over the years, Quebec has successfully developed social policies that are highly regarded both at the national and the international levels. Quebec needs no lessons from anyone, and you know it since you have not been shy about copying Quebec's social development initiatives. Quebec's expertise is recognized and is something on which all of Quebec agrees.

The system is working well because the structure and the institutions that link the people, the organizations and the government together help everyone understand the needs and take the appropriate measures, whether it is developing efficient tools, as we have proven, or providing the money needed to ensure stable long term funding.

As you know and as the government will hopefully acknowledge, the problem is that we do not have room to manoeuvre due to fiscal imbalance. You have the power to right that wrong. We demand that you act now.

The people of Quebec will no longer stand by while the federal government abuses its prerogatives in order to squeeze money out of them and keep what is rightly theirs. Only the right to opt out with full compensation can convince us of the federal government's goodwill and induce us to vote in favour of the department's restructuring.

Uphold the commitments you have made in the throne speech, which have allowed you to stay in office. It is a matter of respect and integrity. The health and safety of Quebeckers are at stake.

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, to answer my colleague's question, I will say that what we mostly want is to ensure that the funds allocated to the improvement of the quality of life of our fellow citizens are shared fairly and above all be brought back under the authority of the Government of Quebec.

In the course of my last interventions, I have had opportunities to allude, in particular, to the closing of factories in my riding or in the neighbouring riding. We end up with a shipyard, for example, where the majority of workers are more than 50 years old. In the neighbouring riding, there is a factory where, the majority of the 600 workers were more than 50 years old.

We had thus to ensure that social measures were really implemented, through specific programs, to ensure that those people could enjoy, for however many years, a certain quality of life. In short, if there is disagreement, it is not so much over the principle as the fact that there are already services, within each level of government, likely to help all those who face specific problems.

In the case of Quebec, we want the money, because we are able to manage it better. Indeed, we are better aware of the regional problems in Quebec. You must always look at what is going on. To be frank, let me tell you that, in my riding there is practically no such thing as seasonal unemployment. This means...

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

On December 12, 2003, in keeping with the wishes of the Prime Minister, the Department of Human Resources Development was divided into the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development and the Department of Social Development.

According to the Prime Minister, the justification for this was to strengthen our social foundations. As a result, 14,000 public servants who manage more than $20 billion, supposedly in order to strengthen the social foundations of Canada, will be mandated to build the economy of the 21st century.

Human Resources and Skills Development will therefore hold a mandate to promote the development of highly skilled workers. As far as I know, however, this is already being done in Quebec and successfully done at that, until there is any evidence to the contrary.

What then lies behind this endless desire of the central government to interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction, on the pretext of improving Canadians' quality of life, especially when the Employment Insurance mess is obviously not a good advertisement for massive intrusion into an area that would definitely merit being brought into line with the needs of the provinces, the regions of Quebec in particular?

Whether the topic is employment insurance rules, setting up an independent fund, or community housing needs, I can see no need at all to change the rules of the game.

The real issue is this: How is this new approach likely to improve the lot of individuals, when we have not talked at all about correcting the eligibility criteria for the vulnerable people who are EI clients, or about improving the current, inadequate structure?

Bill C-280 introduced by the Bloc Québécois deserves to be adopted, because it establishes the composition of the Employment Insurance Commission. The commission would be far sighted enough to incorporate in its structure representatives of employees and employers appointed by the governor in council, a chairperson appointed by the House of Commons, and vice-chairpersons selected from among the deputy ministers or associate deputy ministers of Human Resources Development Canada.

The second part of Bill C-23 deals with the appointment of a Minister of Labour and all his powers, duties and functions, all for the purpose of improving the standard of living and quality of life of Canadians by promoting, among other things, a highly skilled and mobile workforce, and reinforcing the social foundations of Canada.

How, then, can we explain the government's stubborn opposition to passing an anti-strike-breaker law in the past, the bill now reintroduced by one of our hon. members as Bill C-263? Logically, Bills C-23 and C-263 should be considered together if we want to improve the quality of life of working people.

As for manpower development, the Government of Quebec has no lessons to learn from Ottawa, especially since the four client groups that escaped its grip in 1997—young people, people with disabilities, immigrants and older workers—are not receiving the attention they need for their freedom.

As for the section of the bill dedicated to the national homelessness initiative, whose purpose is to establish support mechanisms for the homeless, especially to help them settle and prevent other people at risk from joining their ranks, the proposed federal initiative itself has no permanence, which is clearly a necessity under the circumstances.

Needless to say, in my riding like in any riding with an inner city, social housing and homelessness are major problems. That is why the proposed measures will have to take into account this new dynamic. Both in terms of approach and funding, we will be expecting long-term solutions, and not ad hoc programs like the ones we are unfortunately seeing all too often these days.

There is nothing in this bill guaranteeing anything substantive to promote housing development in order to make housing more accessible and in particular to ensure that it not take up too much of the tenants' monthly budget. As for measures to improve the employment insurance program, efforts must be made particularly to ensure that they are geared toward helping the target clientele made up of young people, people with disabilities, seasonal workers and older workers who all too often face the sudden closure of their places of work.

It must be recognized once and for all that the solution is not always to question existing programs, be they federal or provincial, but rather to ensure that programs complement one another and respect the jurisdictions of each level of government. If as much energy was put into bringing each existing program, regardless of its origin, in line with the others as is put into claiming paternity for programs, this would go a long way toward facilitating the well-being of all citizens.

In a nutshell, there is nothing in this legislation to ensure a better world in terms of industrial relations, employment insurance and social housing, given that the funding for acceptable solutions is not provided. In this bill as in many others, one of the problems may be insufficient reliance on the available human potential because, in many cases, administrative constraints hinder creativity.

[Act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to tell my colleague that, with respect to older workers, this is a growing problem for us that reflects the aging of the general Canadian population.

There was once a program, called POWA, to help those workers. Given the increase in the available financial resources in the last few budgets, it would be appropriate, before even considering the creation of new programs and new approaches in order to discover new methods of job creation, to use these surpluses so as to enable workers to qualify either for retraining or training in a new craft.

Coming now to the second question, which relates to the fact that Quebec may not have supported the Conservatives with respect to oil and gas extraction in the province of Newfoundland, there is one thing that must be acknowledged. We, in Quebec, have chosen, particularly in the field of energy, a source that is considered “cleaner”. We have invested billions of dollars in hydroelectricity. We are currently investing billions in wind power.

This means that, as of that time, we had to assume that, having invested so much in clean energy, we were suddenly in a situation where we were again making financial concessions that could ultimately turn out to be detrimental for us. Indeed, if Newfoundland were to obtain exemptions for the royalties it could receive for those areas, we would consider this a kind of misuse of our contribution.

[Act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we have to acknowledge that it is not necessarily the formula that is bad. We cannot criticize the federal government for having an approach to trying to find a solution to the problems or to create a new dynamic.

The thing is, in my riding and in the two bordering ridings, in the past few weeks and in the past year, we have seen the closure of a factory in Montmagny, resulting in the loss of 500 jobs. Most of the workers were 50 or older. They were left in a state of uncertainty when this issue was not dealt with.

Recently in my riding, and the same two ridings I just mentioned, there has been massive job loss in the clothing and textile industry. Are the measures implemented by the federal government going to make up for all these layoffs? So far this has not been the case.

My riding has the second most agricultural RCM in Quebec and it specializes in dairy. No need to tell you that cull has been a thorn in the side of almost all dairy farmers.

The southern part of my riding works in agroforestry. Do I need to get into how limited shipping to the United States has its own set of problems? Not only do woodlot owners and sawmill owners have problems, but this has caused uncertainty for all the workers.

There is something I want to respond to. When I was a municipal politician, we had a winning formula. It was called the infrastructure program. This program had a solution that was advantageous to the Government of Quebec and to Quebec taxpayers, because files were handled in consultation with all the related agencies, the provincial government and the federal government. What is important to realize is that all the cases were chosen by the Government of Quebec. This was a winning formula because it did not cause any interference in the jurisdictions of the Government of Quebec.

[Act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, after my remarks, Bill C-9 brings no changes to the situation that has existed until now. The powers of Canada Economic Development remain the same. Programs, like budgets, are unchanging.

Canada Economic Development is currently under the official jurisdiction of the Department of Industry, which, under clause 4, grants to the minister responsible certain powers that extend to fields related to the regional economic development of Quebec.

Under subsection 4(2), the Minister may offer a range of services likely to contribute to the regional economic development of Ontario and Quebec. For instance, they may relate to the improvement of the capabilities of businesses, the stimulation of investment and the support to local commercial associations as well as to SMEs, whether for the whole of regions, or for specific regions.

The Minister must elaborate, coordinate and recommend programs relating to regional economic development, in Ontario as well as in Quebec.

Hence, the Minister of Industry is responsible for the regional economic development of Quebec. As for Canada Economic Development , a federal agency that is essentially responsible for regional development, no one can deny its existence under the supervision of a minister of state, who is accountable to the Minister of Industry.

For the future, Bill C-9 creates an Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec with an autonomous legal basis. This agency will report to the minister and have a CEO. It will thus be a carbon copy of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act and of the Western Economic Diversification Act which both came into effect in 1988.

However, we must recognize that these two agencies do not create duplication because there is no regional development department in the Maritimes and in Western Canada, while there is one in Quebec.

Basically, the purpose of Bill C-9 is to create a federal department of regional development for Quebec and this, in actual fact, only confirms once again duplication of the Quebec government's prerogatives.

In fact, the bill states that the minister shallguide, promote and coordinate the policiesand programs of the Government ofCanada in relation to the development anddiversification of the economy of the regionsof Quebec. His mandate includes all the federal activities in the regions and the minister will have to channel projects, in cooperation with the other relevant federal departments or organizations, toward an integrated federal strategy.

The regions certainly need a strategy that is planned, ordered and orchestrated by all economic stimulators, but, once again, is Quebec not in the best position to better coordinate an integrated development strategy, considering its knowledge of the regions? Does the Constitution itself not give Quebec the responsibility for most of the issues relating to regional development?

Given the various components to include in such an approach, namely natural resources, education, training, municipal affairs, and so on, we must recognize that this is another way to interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions.

The problem, I think, is precisely that, in such a form of duplication, neither government is able to put all the necessary energy in integrated regional development.

Because of this, we see an anarchic situation that leads to astronomical unemployment rates in the regions. In 2003, for example, it was 17.5% in the Gaspé Peninsula and Magdalen Islands, 12% in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and 13.7% on the North Shore.

In this sector as elsewhere, if the central government agrees to get involved in the orchestrated development of the regions, it would be better to do it in its areas of jurisdiction and, in doing so, it should take into account the following premises.

The first premise concerns respect of Quebec's areas of jurisdiction and of its responsibility as the architect of regional development.

As in numerous other areas, does the Quebec government not have a regional development policy that several governments envy?

The only thing missing is the wherewithal to adequately support emerging initiatives. The proof is that a transfer of funds of some $400 million—without any kind of overlap—would represent an injection which would make it possible to pull all the strings together in order to develop an integrated regional development policy.

Secondly, there is the issue of respect for existing local joint planning groups and of the adaptation of federal programs to regional Québec circumstances. These regional circumstances are not universal by nature. By way of example, a reorientation of development in another field of economic activity, under the pretext that existing sectors have reached their potential, can only be done with the consent of all local and regional bodies. This is exactly what is happening in the southern part of my riding, as well as in neighbouring ridings to the East and to the West, where there is a desire to integrate the recreation and tourism sector to complement agriculture and forestry.

The joint planning of this new orientation is in keeping with the wishes of the RCMs, the CLDs, the regional conference of elected officials and the chambers of commerce. One can only approve of such an approach. What is the use, within this singleminded journey, of adding a new player which might destroy the unanimity? I see the role of the federal body rather as one of financial and technical support, but, obviously, Québec's jurisdictions must be respected.

Such an objective approach might be much more effective if it were headed by the government in the best position to understand the overall issue—the Québec government.

So, ideally, an agreement must be reached with the government of Québec to guarantee it the right to opt out with full compensation. The former infrastructure program had provision for giving existing authorities their due, in that the Québec government selected the projects. Moreover, making sure that planning and dialogue bodies under both federal and provincial jurisdiction dedicated to regional development dovetailed better would no doubt facilitate the start of numerous businesses in the private sector and in the social economy.

Third, the decentralization of the federal public service would create new jobs in the regions. The quality of services would improve, and the regional economy would benefit from very well paid jobs. Between 1996 and 2003, when we had 20% of the federal jobs in Ottawa, we lost 8% of them in Saguenay. In 2003, the creation of federal jobs is not as good as it was 10 years ago, with 98 instead of 106. This should be corrected, and we do not need a new agency to do it.

Fourth, there is the implementation of a new infrastructure program and thus the return of federal capital spending to a more acceptable level.

Unfortunately, the regions are affected by the deficiencies is our highway system and telecommunications network, and because of that, they do not have proper access to foreign markets.

As concerns capital spending, is it normal that the Quebec government should invest five times more than the federal government? This is visible even in the Outaouais region. In 1999-2001, Quebec spent $546 million and the federal government $322 million. Is a $224 million difference acceptable? Certainly not.

By withdrawing from the management of air transport without any planning for this industry, the federal government has put a new burden on the regions, and they are now on their own to finance assets that are beyond their means. The same thing happened with regional sea ports, most of which are now falling apart.

How could potential buyers repair these assets if they do not get the budgets that should go with them?

Fifth, the regional development budget in Quebec should be updated in a framework similar to that of the Maritime provinces.

Until proof to the contrary is provided, the federal government invests three times more per capita in the Maritimes than it does in Quebec.

Strangely, the prairie provinces, which were in a situation identical to that of Quebec in terms of under-funding, had their support for regional development increased by the 32.3% compared with only 7% for Quebec.

Sixth, an immediate end to all this scattering of gifts and showing off, where the gestures have no purpose other than to increase visibility, while the ingredients of the process do not guarantee future results.

Finally, any reform of employment insurance that takes regional needs into account can only be for the better. It is always the young people, the vulnerable and seasonal workers who feel the cuts to employment insurance. The impact of this has been to increase the migration of young people to the big cities.

In short, when analyzing the state of health of Quebec's regions, we must recognize that there are many symptoms pointing not only to precarious health, but possibly to imminent death, and the federal government, it must be admitted, has not provided the right medicine at the right time.

We know that the federal government has considerable sums of money at its disposal, which it could use to improve regional development in Quebec. The fiscal imbalance recognized in the throne speech is the proof of that. But that being said, will such money be used once again for purely partisan purposes?

The Bloc Québécois, as the House knows, is not in favour of waste. Quebeckers do not want it. They made the government aware of that in the last election. We propose a healthy and productive way to use the funds that the government inopportunely wants to use to create a department of regional development for Quebec.

We strongly suggest to the government that it listen to our proposals instead of trying to suck us into an endless maze of functions and expenditures, which cannot do the job to the extent that they claim.

Consequently, we ask that, instead of duplicating what exists, the allotted funds be directly transferred to Quebec which, we will confirm, is in the best position to manage the efforts needed for balanced regional development, specific to the needs of each region.