Nic Leblanc

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 14th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I wanted to ask a question at lunch time but I did not have time to do so. I just want to ask it to the Liberal members in power.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, April 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Verdun-Saint-Paul for his applause at the start of my remarks, but it might be wiser to wait and see what I have to say.

I think what my colleague meant is that, for the time being, he takes to heart the interests of both Canada and Quebec. That is my interpretation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-18 and more particularly on the amendment moved by the Reform Party. I have to say I do not agree with the amendment, because it does not give us enough time to examine fully the impact of those boundary readjustments.

I remember that in 1985-86 we went through the same exercise. We had to redefine a riding on Montreal's south shore, a process which took quite a bit of time because it was suggested then to cut out from Longueuil the area which was expanding. Indeed, a proposal had been made to remove from my riding the whole industrial zone where lots were available for development purposes. I was going to find myself trying to promote the economy of my region with almost no opportunities left to do so. Primarily for that reason, I asked the mayor of Longueuil for his opinion on this issue, and I also consulted with representatives of the Liberal Party, who were opponents but also colleagues, and we agreed that it would not be a good idea to divide Longueuil in that fashion.

Consequently, we had to redefine five or six ridings. The decision not to reduce the number of constituents in the eastern part of the riding but rather to the south meant that we had to redraw the ridings of Saint-Hubert, La Prairie, Saint-Jean, Chambly and Verchères. You can imagine how long this exercise took. This is why I support the bill proposed by the Chief Electoral Officer in the document on new electoral boundaries.

There is another reason why I believe more time is needed, particularly in the case of Longueuil and the vast region on Montreal's south shore. The Montérégie is the region which has been experiencing the strongest growth in Quebec over the last fifteen years. It is in that region that the largest number of jobs were created. I believe it is also where the population has increased the most. In fact, it is for these reasons that a new riding is proposed on Montreal's south shore, as well as on the north shore, in Laval.

I should point out too that many studies are currently underway, including the Pichette report, commissioned by the Quebec government, which also proposes the creation of new regions on the south shore. The south shore would no longer be managed by the Société montérégienne de développement or SMD, but would be divided into two sub-regions which would be managed by the greater Montreal area. We would have Montreal, two regions on the south shore, Laval, the West Island, as well as the east end of Montreal which could form a large community for the purposes of economic development. Obviously, this will result in major changes on Montreal's south shore.

As I just mentioned, the south shore is currently managed by the Montérégie. I personally sit on the Partners for Employment committee-along with members of Quebec's national assembly, mayors, reeves, representatives from regional county municipalities, as well as senior federal civil servants-and I realize that the Montérégie region is not necessarily easy to manage. There are many interests which are not common.

The people in Granby, Bromont and Saint-Jean do not have a lot in common with the residents of Longueuil, Boucherville and Saint-Lambert. That is why we have undertaken an in-depth review of how to better manage the Greater South Shore of Montreal in order to be more efficient at all levels, whether it be economic development, social affairs, cultural affairs, or tourism. So, we are currently conducting this in-depth review to make sure our region can prosper in the areas I just mentioned.

So, the fact that we have two years and commissions to help us examine in detail how we can divide the ridings on the South Shore is very useful, and I think we really need all of these things.

Of course, for the last fifteen years, I have been very involved on the South Shore of Montreal. I do not need to be reminded, but I feel I must point out that, in 1983-84, during my term as chairman of the Chamber of Commerce of the Greater South Shore of Montreal, we addressed this issue. As you can see, it is a lengthy process.

In those days, we talked a lot about decentralization and accountability. If we want to get to know each other better, we need to feel a sense of belonging to be able to take charge of our lives and meet our responsibilities.

I for one have always believed that decentralization and accountability will help us pull through and take charge.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government tends to centralize everything and to manage from the top, which I think hinders progress, and I cannot agree with them on this. We absolutely need to ensure that the people at the grass root level, those who know their needs, who know what they have, who know their resources and their market, can take charge.

How can we go about it? By giving this responsibility to smaller areas. And it is in this spirit that I have been working with the Partners for Employment committee on the South Shore for a long time now.

Here is another suggestion. If we want to make people aware of their responsibilities, we will also have to ensure that municipalities have the resources they need to prosper and to help businesses to prosper.

Again, who is closer to small and medium-sized businesses and thus better able to help them create jobs? People who know well the needs of these small and medium-sized businesses must be the ones to give them the support they need to prosper and create jobs.

That does not seem to be important to the Reform Party. On the contrary, it appears to me that a sense of belonging to a region must absolutely be achieved if we want to create more jobs and work together to improve everybody's lot. It is in that spirit that we, in Quebec, have been working for a long time to delimit regions that are so homogeneous that people living in them can recognize and understand each other, grow and prosper together.

Thus, Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this amendment by the Reform Party and I hope that it will be defeated-and I think it will, since the government is against it-so that we can all prosper, create jobs and do better.

[Democracy In Mexico, March 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all Bloc Quebecois members, I want to condemn the assassination of Mr. Colosio, the institutional revolutionary party candidate for the Mexican presidential election.

Mr. Colosio was primarily known here as a key player in reform and modernization of the institutional revolutionary party and, since the beginning of the crisis in the state of Chiapas, in January of this year, an advocate of the Mexican election process reform.

Without in any way interfering in Mexican domestic politics, I want to express the general feeling of reprobation among Quebecers in light of this violation of the democratic process of a friendly nation.

[Supply, March 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Minister of Human Resources Development, and not Natural Resources as I said last week. In any case, I wonder if ministers have any real powers, regardless of the department.

So, I listened carefully to the minister, whom I have known for some time now. I must say that he is very articulate and he sounds convincing but, once again, the content of the red book and the speeches we hear every day are the absolute opposite of reality. I must first ask the minister how he thinks he can create jobs by, on the one hand, investing one billion dollars in infrastructures and, on the other hand, taxing UI benefits for the unemployed, to the order of $800 million for 1994-95, following changes to UI which is within the scope of his department. What does that mean? It means that, on one hand, the purchasing power of Canadians is reduced by $800 million while, on the other hand, one billion dollars is invested in infrastructures.

That means that nothing is created. On the one hand purchasing power is reduced, while on the other hand money is being distributed, and we are told that people will spend more and that jobs will be created. The minister does not understand the economy at all, because he is not creating anything. The results are almost non-existent.

Moreover, the minister says that he will create jobs while also increasing taxes and personal income tax by $1.7 billion over the next three years. Over that same period, he will also increase taxes by $1.8 billion for small businesses. And he thinks he will create jobs that way. He is completely wrong and he does not understand anything about the economy. If jobs are created in Canada, it will certainly not be because of the Liberal Party and its alleged vision on economic development and employment. If jobs are created, it will be thanks to the initiatives of individuals and certainly not because of this government's measures. Indeed, there is absolutely no vision in its way of doing things, which is to tax Canadians even more and then try to create jobs with an inadequate program. If you want to create jobs by investing one billion dollars and then take back $800 million, not to mention the fact that Canada's gross domestic product is somewhere around $700 billion, I can tell you that one billion will not make much of a difference.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like the minister, who is responsible for manpower training to tell us when he will fulfil a request which the Quebec government has been making for at least three or four years. When will he delegate manpower training to Quebec? In doing so, he would immediately save at least $300 to $400 million, while at the same time ensuring more effective manpower training in that province? All Quebecers, whether they belong to the business sector, the unions or the government, support this request. When will the minister do something about this?

[Canadian Foreign Policy, March 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to speak to the motion presented by the government. Today, the Minister of Foreign Affairs moved that the House of Commons and the Senate form a special joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate to consider

Canada's foreign policy, including international trade and international assistance.

Madam Speaker, I would like to say a few words about this committee. I have no objection to examining Canada's foreign policy, including international trade and international assistance. I would be delighted and proud to discuss these issues because this is a very important area, but I do object to the fact that the government is ordering us to form a special joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate.

In fact, I will have the honour and the privilege of seconding the Reform Party's motion that the Senate should not be part of this committee. Let me explain. Quebecers no longer believe in the relevance or credibility of the senators and the Senate. Quebecers feel they no longer represent what people really think, because they are out of touch.

Every day, I meet residents of Longueuil who say, when we talk about the budget: When are you going to get rid of that useless Senate? Between 85 and 90 per cent of the residents of Longueuil agree we should abolish the Senate, which is an indicator that the Senate's credibility is not that high. And that is why I hope the Senate will not be part of this committee.

Quebecers gave us a vast majority in Quebec. Fifty-four members of the Bloc Quebecois, 20 Liberals and one Progressive Conservative were elected in Quebec. With this sweeping majority, Quebecers are saying that they want to get rid of the Senate, and as a result, it is my duty to say today that I object to the Senate being part of this committee.

This is the second joint committee the government has created, the first being the committee on national defence established a few weeks ago, and today the committee on foreign affairs. What is the purpose of all this? What is the government trying to do? I have come to the conclusion that the government wants to dilute the democratic rights of Quebecers. By diluting the number of elected members on this committee, since a number of senators is being added which reduces the proportion of representation by members from Quebec, which should be about 25 per cent and will now be only 10 per cent, the government is diluting the power of Quebecers on this committee. I think this is an insult to the people of Quebec and also to the people who elected the Reform Party.

I deplore this interference by the senators in our affairs. Is it not the role of the Senate to review bills and make recommendations for amendments? Quebecers will once again feel they have been deceived by authoritarian federalism. And that is why I intend to second the motion of the Reform Party that the Senate withdraw from this committee.

In my opinion, it is admirable that the government wants to review its foreign policy with respect to international trade and international assistance. There are many reasons why I consider this to be an excellent initiative. First, because the world around us is constantly changing.

Look at what is happening within the European Economic Community, the changes in the USSR, the new North American agreement, NAFTA, the reunification of Germany and East Asia. These changes put a new slant on international relations and create new economic realities. We must contend with market globalization, with new policies and with new democratic structures being set up in the world. Priorities have also emerged with respect to human rights, democratic values, the policy of life and environmental protection. We are faced with new challenges, new players and uncertainties and an ever more complex state of interdependence. As a member of Parliament representing Quebec and as a citizen of Canada, I find it especially important that we re-evaluate our position so that we can meet these challenges head on. Exactly what changes and challenges are we confronting?

Let me begin by speaking about the situation in Europe. For the past 30 years or so, Europeans have been trying to come together while remaining highly sovereign nations with their own language and culture. European nations have been trying to achieve economic integration through such means, for example, as the elimination of trade barriers, political co-operation and new infrastructures. Recently, to improve communication in Europe, a decision was made to dig a tunnel under the English Channel. This must be seen as a very serious attempt on the part of sovereign European nations to unite and work for a common purpose. However, as you can see, the process is by no means simple. They have been at it for 30 years. Nevertheless, as Canadians, we must take these facts into consideration.

Let us also consider briefly the unification of Germany. I had the pleasure and privilege of being in Germany about one week after the wall came down and I can assure you that it was quite something. Germans were proud and pleased to be reunited with their families after having been split up following the war in a rather cavalier manner. I was quite surprised when barely a few weeks after the wall came down, Germans decided to reunite their country. Today, we should be proud of the German people for reuniting to form a great nation and an important power in terms of Europe's economic development.

However, as Canadians, we have to understand that the Germans invested a great deal in Canada, particularly in Montreal, in real estate and in other areas. Where are they going to invest their money now? Probably they will invest more in the

former East Germany. We will have to take this fact into consideration, as will the committee.

In Eastern Europe, including the former East Germany, important changes have occurred. First of all, an economic turnaround has taken place. State-run economies have been abandoned in favour of market economies. We must also realize that all of these countries have become sovereign and that their system of government has changed. Democracy and the free-market system have taken hold.

The most important of the sweeping changes of recent years, particularly in the nineties, was the dismantling of the U.S.S.R. First, because it signalled the end of the cold war.

For years, we were concerned day in and day out about what was going on between the two superpowers, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. This was the cause of conflicts here and there around the world. Now that the U.S.S.R. no longer exists, I guess one can say that major conflicts have practically been eliminated.

But we must not forget that these 300 million people were divided into some fifteen republics which have now become sovereign nations. National assertion movements in Russia, the Ukraine and the Baltic States have led these nations to sovereignty and having recognized one another, they can now flourish and prosper better. As Canadians and Quebecers, we will have to be well informed and prepared to adapt to these major changes.

All these changes, these major changes cannot be overemphasized. I think that most people wondered what on earth would happen when the U.S.S.R. decided to let these nations become independent and flourish within their culture. Such changes affect the economy. In the old days, the government had total control on the economy and the people were not used to taking initiatives, whereas today they are living in a free market.

For a hundred years or so, the economy was managed from the top. All of a sudden, the people found themselves in a free market context. Just imagine the changes and problems these people are facing. This causes adjustment problems and we can see the changes happening, particularly in Russia. The people living in these countries are concerned, and so are we as we try to co-operate with them.

In that sense, the situation becomes very tricky, economically and, of course, politically. It is not sure that the Russians will accept switching from a communist system to a free-enterprise or open trading system. There could be problems and instability for several decades to come. It makes it a little difficult for Canadians to know how to deal with them. It is in that context that the committee will have to take a very serious look at our relations with the former U.S.S.R. countries.

There is also the Asia-Pacific region. In that region, Japan in particular has become a world economic power and managed to position itself very successfully on all world markets. Today, it has to redefine its relations with its Occidental trading partners.

South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore, the four dragons of South East Asia as they are called, together with Japan are the driving force behind the region's economic development and fierce competitors on the international market. We will have to deal with these people and nations.

Let us stop a moment and think about a country that we sometimes tend to overlook, but which has a population much greater than any other country in the world, namely China.

China is a complex country with a population of 1.2 billion. It is also undergoing major changes. For several years, it has been changing its economy significantly. Last year, China's economy grew nearly 15 per cent, compared to Canada, where the economy grew about 1.5 per cent.

With the development of a market economy, China is becoming an economic power. Some predict that China will be the world's leading economic power as early as the beginning of the next decade. This means that we Canadians will have to adjust our relations with China.

I had the privilege of going to Japan and the Philippines in January and I took note of certain things there. I attended the annual forum of Asia-Pacific parliamentarians, where about 14 countries were represented. The big topic of discussion of course was how these countries would unite and create a sort of free trade pact among Asian countries. They have trouble understanding or accepting that North America is a free-trade area. It frightens them. They also want their economic pact, like Europe, America and Asia, of course. The Asian countries, especially those on the Pacific and in eastern Asia, have started to hold discussions about creating their own economic pact.

We have also noted what is going on in Asia now. These are dynamic countries with intelligent, educated people who want to succeed. I can tell you that the economic growth of these countries is quite remarkable. Again, we will have to watch closely so that we can be in a good position to trade with them in future, to develop together and to benefit from their knowledge and know-how as much as they can benefit from ours.

Let us take North America for example. In North America, we have made giant strides to be able to deal with the globalization of the economy. The highlight is no doubt NAFTA, which gives us the opportunity of joining a North American market of about 350 million people, one of the largest markets in the world.

Especially for us in Quebec, I can tell you that North American free trade is very important because Montreal is within 1,000 kilometres of 100 million people, 100 million consumers, the best consumers in the world. We think that the line between the United States and Quebec should be eliminated as soon as possible so that we can sell our products and we very sincerely believe that the smaller countries always win in trade agreements, not the big ones, because the smaller countries often have smaller businesses and they can double their production without being noticed. That is how Quebec will benefit from it.

I was pleased to talk about the whole area of international affairs and I will be very active on this committee so that Quebec in particular is well positioned to face this global economy, these increasingly open markets, and I am convinced that we will succeed together, we intelligent members on this committee.

[The Budget, March 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Secretary of State for Human Resources really understands what the budget does. At least not the way I understand it. I do not see how she, as the Secretary of State for Human Resources, could let the Minister of Finance increase unemployment insurance premiums by $800 million. And since she is supposed to help Canadians who need assistance, I wonder why she let the Minister of Finance raise the minimum entrance requirement and reduce the number of weeks during which claimants can collect benefits. It seems to me that the minister does not have a great deal of influence with the Minister of Finance.

She also talked about research and development. I may remind her that at this very moment, $1 billion more is being spent annually on research and development in Ontario than in Quebec. I hope that from now on she will monitor the situation closely and ensure that funding is distributed more equitably.

She also mentioned infrastructures and the many jobs this will create. I say it will not happen, because increasing unemployment insurance premiums by $800 million means that consumers will have that amount less to spend. The government reduces our purchasing power by $800 million but allocates $1 billion for infrastructures, which means zilch for job creation.

It is clear this budget is not about job creation but job reduction.

Furthermore, corporate taxes will be increased by $1.7 billion and individual income tax by $1.8 million, over the next three years.

If the government thinks this is going to create jobs, I think the reverse will happen. That is why I completely disagree with the secretary of state. And now for my main question, which concerns her directly. Considering her responsibilities in this area, how could she let the Minister of Finance raise unemployment insurance premiums for the current year and reduce unemployment insurance benefits? In other words, how can she let the Minister of Finance do the exact opposite of what she should be doing in her own department, which is to improve the well-being of Canadians?

[The Budget, March 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to refer to the finance minister's Budget in Brief , which outlines three central goals: first, to help small businesses; second, to ensure a responsible social security system that is fair; and third, to restore fiscal responsibility to government.

I will express my opinion on the first goal: to help small and medium-sized businesses. I refer to page 5, to the first goal: to help small business. Last January, just before the budget, the minister started by increasing unemployment insurance premiums to generate about $800 million in revenue.

About half that amount must be paid by businesses and, of course, by workers. This means that the government will collect $800 million, thus reducing even further people's purchasing power. As a result, people will buy less and businesses will produce less; this will hurt business. I do not think this is a measure to help create jobs, as the minister stated on many occasions. This measure is the first example he seem to give to illustrate his efforts to help business.

He then says they will create a network of business services centres that will be expanded to provide access for small business in every province. He is talking about a single federal government centre. He talks only of this single federal government centre when, for several years now, the Quebec government, members from Quebec, and members of the Bloc Quebecois have been saying that, to substantially reduce government management, we need instead one-stop centres housing both the Quebec department of economic development and its federal counterpart.

As we know very well and as I have said many times and am repeating again today, the Bélanger-Campeau Commission concluded that duplication between the provinces, especially Quebec, and the federal government costs between $2 billion and $3 billion a year.

It is a huge amount. Besides costing $2 to $3 billion a year, we know that it is also very inefficient because companies, especially small and medium-sized ones, have great difficulty making their way through all that.

If the Minister of Finance were serious, he would not have talked about a single centre; he should have talked about a single window with Quebec or the provinces and the federal government-one-stop shopping, if you will. You must really be unimaginative and your ears must be completely blocked not to hear Quebec's demands.

Another great advantage that he mentions for increasing productivity and job creation in our small and medium-sized businesses is that he will consult and study.

Mr. Speaker, this is my tenth year in the House of Commons and for at least ten years we have been consulting and studying. I thought that the Liberal Party had such a clear program, because almost every day, if not several times a day, they tell us about their marvellous red book which had all the answers. I realize that the red book was not so complete since, when it comes to job creation and aid for small business, the government consults and studies and it will go on studying for a long time.

On page 5 of The Budget in Brief , it says: ``A special task force will recommend, on a fast-track basis, a better regulatory regime to help improve the competitiveness of business''.

But I thought that the red book was complete and that the government was ready to act once it took power. Now they are in power. Why study and consult? I am still quoting page 5: "The government will consult the business community on a wide range of tariff cuts on imported manufacturing inputs [-]" More studies, but studies already exist on the subject.

A little further, the red book says: "The Minister of Transport will launch an effort, in consultation with provincial governments [-]" Again, more studies and consultations. That is how the Minister of Finance can say that he will revitalize the economy and create jobs. I do not think that he is really prepared to act, so he consults. There is also the House Standing Committee on Finance reporting its recommendations on a tax to replace the GST. Again, they are not ready to act to create jobs and help small and medium-sized businesses create jobs.

What has the government done in concrete terms? It has eliminated the $100,000 capital gains exemption. That is not a bad idea, but I am convinced that abolishing the $100,000 capital gains exemption is not going to help the employment situation or make small business prosper.

Also, income tax deductions for entertainment expenses have been reduced. But many small businesses, self-employed workers and salespersons need tax deductions for entertainment expenses if they are to be able to do their jobs properly. We know full well-and so does the Minister of Finance, I am sure-that the day tax deductions for entertainments expenses were reduced, several restaurants felt the pinch and complained about the number of jobs lost, because restaurants and hotels are losing more and more business. The Minister of Finance is aware of the statistics. He claims to want to support job creation, but he is actually hindering job creation by reducing tax credits for entertainment expenses, an action affecting self-employed workers and salesmen, those involved in product promotion and the rest.

Does the Minister of Finance actually believe that by taxing businesses more, he will be supporting job creation? The federal government will raise an additional $1.7 billion in taxes from small and medium-sized businesses over the next three years. It will also raise an additional $1.8 billion from individual taxpayers, which translates into $3.5 billion in new taxes for businesses and individuals over the next three years. Does the Minister of Finance believe that by reducing the spending power of businesses and individuals, he is going to create more jobs? Surely not.

I have here the findings of a survey and they are, in my view, rather astounding. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce surveyed 658 member businesses and asked them the following question: Are you satisfied with the federal government's fiscal policies? A full 22 per cent of the businesses surveyed responded either that they would consider moving, were prepared to move, or had already moved part or all of their operations out of the country.

The February 15, 1994, edition of La Presse states the point clearly: Federal policies are driving businesses out of the country. If the Minister of Finance believes that his policies will create employment even while his recent budget has placed a heavier administrative and tax burden on businesses, if he believes this is the way to create jobs, then he should have read the survey of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. It is unfortunate, sad and astounding to see that 22 per cent of these businesses have decided to move either part or all of their operations out of Canada.

Times are hard and the debt is very high. However, I think the Minister of Finance does not have a clue as to what must be done to create jobs in this country.

[The Budget, March 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in 1984, when I ran for the Conservatives, we talked about three things: decentralization of government, spending cuts and national reconciliation. I would like to say to the leader of the Reform Party that, as of June 1990, none of that had happened.

National reconciliation had just fallen through. There were no cuts; they were spending more. As for the decentralization of power and of government management, they continued to centralize more in Ottawa, as the Liberals had done. I think that is the main reason for the deficit and the national debt and that is why I resigned.

I would like to know the position of the leader of the Reform Party on this. Does he think that a big decentralization, giving much more power to the provinces, would lead to better manage-

ment and more efficiency, so that expenditures would be lower and the economy would grow more?

[The Budget, March 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am always impressed by the eloquence and verve of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and of people from Newfoundland generally.

The minister referred to the Liberal Party's red book, and I must say there have been an impressive number of references to this document.

I wish he would use the same eloquence and the same verve to explain why, in the red book, he did not tell Canadians that unemployment insurance premiums would be taxed by more than $800 million. Why did he not say that companies would be paying $1.7 billion in taxes over the next few years? Why did he not say that individuals would be paying $1.8 billion in taxes over the next three years? Why did the red book not say there would be a deficit of $40 billion for the current year? And that in 1996, the cumulative debt would be nearly $600 billion? Why did he not say this?

I wish the minister would use the same eloquence and the same verve to explain that to Canadians. Why were Canadians totally misled by what was said in the red book, if we look at what the government is doing now?

[The Budget, March 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Châteauguay for his excellent speech and for his great interest in Quebecers. When he speaks of Quebec sovereignty, he speaks of the greater welfare of Quebec, and indeed of the greater welfare of the rest of Canada.

In his budget speech, the Minister of Finance spoke of one-stop shopping for government services. I assume he meant federal government services. He forgets that for years now, Quebec has been demanding to have similar service centres which would also provide Quebec government services.

I am interested in what the hon. member for Châteauguay has to say about the fact that once again, the Minister of Finance has forgotten that this kind of duplication is extremely costly. According to the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, duplication between Quebec and Ottawa costs between $2 and $3 billion per year. If the Minister of Finance had seriously wanted to cut spending, he should have realized that it is not a government services centre that is required, but a kind of one-stop centre that would also include services offered by the government of Quebec. I would like to get the hon. member's comments on this issue. I feel certain that he has some excellent suggestions to make.