Françoise Boivin

[Interprovincial bridges, November 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, on July 30, 2004, NCC president Marcel Beaudry wrote to the Minister of Canadian Heritage concerning the need for new interprovincial bridges in the national capital region.

This has been a topic of discussion by federal, provincial and municipal authorities for years now. A preliminary study as far back as 1995 confirmed the need for additional interprovincial transportation infrastructures by 2010.

A detailed environmental assessment should make it possible to confirm the definitive locations of these interprovincial bridges.

Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us whether the federal government has confirmed, or will confirm shortly, its—

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 22nd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, my esteemed colleague has hit it right on. I worked for close to 20 years, and actually it would have been 20 years in two days, in the fantastic and always changing world of labour relations. It is a complex area.

We are dealing with people. We always say wherever we go, and we have heard it so many times in the House, how the civil service, just to use as an example, is such an important part of this whole system of Parliament because it is the people. If we do not have the people, the trained resources, we are nothing. It is so true.

If a system does not work, it is quite often because we are unable to ensure that our human resources appropriate the system itself. When the member is telling us about unpredictability, it is also true. We do not know exactly what the needs will be.

All this to say that I think we must move toward flexibility.The key word here is “flexibility”. It is the key word that we hear in this government, with regard to our federal-provincial relations—we are talking about flexible federalism—but also with regard to this bill.

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 22nd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I understand that my colleague might not be interested in hearing what I have to say on the first part, but I think that I will still repeat a few little things that he does not seem to have understood.

I was not talking about his own experience. Good for him. He is very lucky. However, in Gatineau, at the end of this well coordinated day organized by professor Roger Blanchette who is probably well known by my friends opposite, we came to a conclusion. It was very interesting to see all those communities in Gatineau gather in one room and work toward the same objective.

I did not discover anything new. I just had an opportunity to observe that various cultural communities can work together. It is something that I wanted to see in my region for a long time already. I think it important to make that point because I would not want to give my colleagues opposite false or misleading information.

With respect to the regulation, I agree with my colleague. I said so earlier in my digression on the issue of professional backgrounds and recognition of professional credentials. Protecting the public is very important, no doubt about that. If we want to let somebody practise law, we have to ensure that this person will be able to act as a lawyer. The situation is the same for a doctor and so forth.

However, all of us here and in the provinces will have to ensure that the professional bodies will not invoke this sacrosanct principle to avoid integrating cultural communities into their organization. We have seen so many cases that we could make a pile right across Parliament.

When people talk to me about the employment insurance fund, of course, we heard a lot about that in recent years, at different levels. I would simply say to my colleague across the way that it is all right. We have, for that matter, agreed to review our processes. Looking at different aspects of what we call the employment insurance fund, such as the way it works or who will make certain decisions or who will participate, that is part of the debates of the House of Commons or in committee, which will come back to us later. That is fine.

I believe it is significant when we agree to examine something another time. We said ourselves, during the election campaign, that many aspects of the employment insurance had to be reviewed.

Where I am offended, it is when big bad words are used to scare people. Our job is to find solutions, and we will try to do it.

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to begin by quoting the Prime Minister who said:

We want a Canada where every child arrives at school ready to learn; a Canada where everyone has the opportunity for post-secondary education regardless of geography or means; a Canada where universal literacy and lifelong learning are part of the national fabric.

Full of wisdom and vision, these words summarize entirely the purpose of the bill that is before us today in this House.

In December 2003, the government established the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development through a series of orders in council.

Today, by means of a legislation, we are specifying the mandate and responsibilities of this new department. By the same token, this legislation will formalize the division of Human Resources Development Canada, that is HRDC, into two separate entities.

The goal is not to make economies of scale or reduce the operating expenses. The resources of the previous department, that is Human Resources Development Canada, are rather divided in two in order to obtain better strategic results. That does not mean that we should prepare a negative report on the performance of HRDC for the last decade. On the contrary, this department has rendered valuable services to Canadians, both on the social and economic fronts.

I am thinking of the improved and extended parental benefits plan that allowed thousands of families to fully enjoy their newborn. I am thinking of the implementation of the Canada child tax benefit, deemed the most progressive social action since the universal health care plan. I am also thinking of the youth employment strategy that allowed thousands of young people to regain confidence and to realize that there was a future for them in this country. I am thinking of the transition from unemployment insurance to employment insurance that steered our society toward employability.

In 2003-04, more than 700,000 Canadians received help from the department through the employment benefits paid under the Employment Insurance Act. In Quebec, more that 50,000 people re-entering the labour force received assistance.

I am also thinking of all the measures put forward to ensure that certain groups facing specific difficulties, like native Canadians, handicapped people, older and seasonal workers, can fulfill their dream.

All these measures, programs and initiatives are a testimony to the considerable efforts made by HRDC to strengthen the social fabric of Canadian life.

With this bill today, we are proposing to start writing a new chapter, without erasing the previous ones of course. In short, this bill gives the Human Resources and Skills Development minister and department the mandate, legal powers and tools to ensure that the labour market and the skills development programs, including support programs for students, work properly.

If we create this department, it is mainly because our government wants to pay more attention to some important issues, like giving workers more opportunities to develop and increase their expertise in the workforce. We are studying a few issues, including the promotion of training opportunities in skilled trade, literacy training and the enhancement of skills for workers.

This is why we are working with the provinces and the territories, businesses, unions, workers and the sector councils to develop a skills development strategy in the workplace.

Such a strategy would help to develop a highly qualified and dynamic workforce and a flexible and productive labour market, while meeting the needs of employers who want to create productive and innovative workplaces.

In this changing world where new technologies are redefining complete areas of our society, we have a duty to give all of our citizens, young or not so young, the means to educate themselves, to create and to innovate.

The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development spent a good part of his career in education. I am convinced that he will be an important ally in our efforts to ensure that all Canadians can learn and develop at all stages of their lives.

Having worked a lot in the area of labour relations and in numerous businesses before being elected to this House, I can assure you that the successful ones are the ones who emphasize in-house training, the ones that are not just marking time,but who decide to go forward and ensure that their human resources will always keep up with cutting edge technology or with the environment in which they are operating.

Thanks to the new department, we will have the opportunity to intensify our efforts to assure that every youth in this country will be able to get a post-secondary education if he or she wishes so. It is estimated that, in the future, 70% of all new jobs in this country will require post-secondary studies. Moreover, only 6% of jobs will be open to people without a high school diploma. These figures are revealing.

As a country, we can't allow young people gifted with talent and potential to miss the boat of the information age because they lack the financial means to afford an education and to get on board. As a government, we must make sure that they can not only get on board, but take the helm, as soon as possible.

To this end, last month, the minister of Human Resources and Skills Development tabled Bill C-5, aiming among other things, to help lower-income families to save money to eventually pay for post-secondary studies for their children. The bill will also allow such families to take greater advantage of the registered education savings plans and the related subventions.

As you can see, that department will help us to promote access to higher education, but it is clear that its mandate will be extensive and far-reaching. It will help us to face other emerging challenges.

Estimates show that by the year 2011, our workforce will not be able to grow without immigration; by 2020, there will be a shortage of one million workers in Canada; and by 2025, our population growth will depend exclusively on new arrivals. This means that over the next two decades, we will have to ensure that our immigration policies are as effective as possible and allow a total and complete integration of immigrants. If we do not meet this challenge, our ability to ensure an harmonious future to our children and our grandchildren will be broadly questioned, as well as Canada's competitiveness at the international level.

This new department's mandate will be, inter alia, to cooperate with Citizenship and Immigration Canada, other federal departments, provincial and territorial governments, professional licensing bodies, sectoral councils, employers and a large number of other organizations on the important issue of recognizing foreign credentials, in order to facilitate the integration of immigrants in the labour market and in society.

May I digress for a brief moment to talk about the extremely important issue of the recognition of foreign credentials. No later than a week or a week and a half ago, in Gatineau, there was a symposium held by the Conseil interculturel de l'Outaouais, which I am sure you know as well as I do, Mr. Speaker. The theme of that symposium was indeed the recognition of foreign credentials. Having spent the afternoon with them and having had dinner with them, I can tell you that I was absolutely flabbergasted.

One does indeed hear about it. One does hear stories about medical doctors waiting to be recognized and so on. I tried to draw a very dramatic parallel between that problem and our shortage of doctors and nurses, and our shortages of all kinds of skilled people in the Outaouais, among other places. I was looking at that skilled labour which is there, which exists, just waiting to be recognized by Quebec and Canada who were supposed to welcome them with open arms. That really flabbergasted me.

I heard horror stories from people who showed up that day, for example, a dentist from Colombia, a physician from another country, people that Canada will not even have to train in any way, because they are ready to practice. Nevertheless, we must be very realistic; there is always the issue of protecting the public. On the other hand, we must be careful not to hide behind this notion of protecting the public, what I call the closed shop mentality of a number of professional bodies.

As I told the participants that day, on the other hand, we must carefully respect jurisdictions. In this respect, Quebec has obligations. No doubt we will have to work with the Government of Quebec. If we can help it, that will certainly be very much appreciated. I have talked to a few of my colleagues in the Government of Quebec, and they have told us how much this concerns them as well.

On the other hand, what came out of this symposium, which was attended by very diverse cultural communities in the Ottawa valley, and the following symposium, is that it is indeed the professional bodies that are making the admission process difficult, that are complicating the process and that are making it prohibitively expensive to get these qualifications recognized.

We let these people in and, then, we have a dentist who works on the cleaning staff of a hospital instead of working for the community.

I met a pharmacist. There is a terrible shortage of pharmacists in Quebec. These people are there, they are ready, they can be tested, but not one test after another at a cost of $2,000, $2,500 or $3,000. What my friend the dentist from Colombia explained to me that day is that the cost of these tests was close to $10,000.

This is the challenge we will probably face. We should offer our assistance to our friends in the provinces to ensure that we meet the needs of the people who elect us. Apart from the issues of jurisdiction, I believe that by working together we will find the solutions. Indeed, it was on that day that I realized that it was not just a few isolated cases.

I had a case in my practice. Without revealing any identities, I met a doctor and saw how complicated it was. There was a hospital, in this region, that was ready to accept the individual.

Unfortunately, because of the decisions of some professional bodies and their lack of openness to people from abroad, qualified people cannot practice their profession or sometimes end up on welfare, or they move to other provinces.

We can tell we really have a problem when a physician comes to Quebec and cannot work there, and he or she is accepted as a practitioner in a New Brunswick hospital.

Like the Colombian dentist said, Colombians and Canadians must have very similar teeth. And the rest of their bodies must be very similar too.

That was just an aside. The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development minister has said that he intends to work very hard on a new Canadian strategy to recognize the credentials of immigrants. That is great.

In Quebec, as I said earlier, it will be most important to get certain professional bodies to understand how important this is for Canada, so that it can function properly, particularly given the shortages we are experiencing in certain professions. These shortages are sometimes acute in some provinces, including Quebec.

This strategy will focus particularly on crucial sectors—so much the better—like medicine, nursing, where we are already feeling the first effects of the manpower shortage.

Briefly then, these are the mandate and objectives of the new Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, a department that will have a free hand in helping us tackle the challenges of the knowledge economy, a department that will focus on the development of human resources and the acquisition of skills.

Our government is in minority, but certainly does not intend to tread water. For us, the status quo is not a viable option nor is living constantly in the past, going back 10 or 15 years and looking at what has been done or not. This is 2004; we must move forward. The needs are huge and we must respond to them.

This new department that we want to create will allow us to pursue the efforts of recent years. However, first and foremost, it is further irrefutable proof that we are still innovating to ensure an even better future for our children, our youth, our retirees, our communities and our businesses.

Our government wants to make Canada a land of ever wider horizons, where each citizen will be able to benefit from the new economy. I was talking earlier about cultural communities that come here, to Canada, believing that they will find a land that welcomes immigrants and that they will be able to lead a productive life; they cannot wait to do so.

Words alone will not do. We will have to help them and ensure that these people feel totally integrated into the Canadian society.

I know, because I was told during the seminar to which I alluded earlier and which took place last week. I congratulated them, because this was one of the first times that I saw a variety of cultural communities sitting in the same room and not arguing with each other, but working towards a common goal and trying to find sustainable solutions, not only for cultural communities, but for the whole country.

Among other initiatives—and surely everyone heard about this, but I will mention it just in case—they are preparing a petition and they are preparing to sign it. Therefore, while the House is sitting, I urge hon. members who live close to my riding to sign this petition, which will be tabled at the Quebec national assembly. I made a commitment to do the same by adapting it for the Canadian Parliament.

This area and this issue concern us all. In all fairness, we have to get moving and ensure that we find solutions.

In conclusion, as our Prime Minister so aptly said it when he took charge of this country, “The world is not waiting for us, it is evolving, changing. So we must be ready to meet new challenges with new solutions, new ideas.I am not talking about changes that will be required 10 years from now; I am talking about today, about now”.

Today, I invite hon. members to support this bill, which shows our will to act now to help Canadians, and which builds the foundations of the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development. As I like to say, if it is good for Canada, it is also good for Quebec and for the riding of Gatineau.

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on the concerns raised by this opposition day motion, which has as its intent to effectively ban trans fats in foods.

First I want to say that it will be my pleasure to vote in favour of this motion.

Allow me to digress for just a moment. This motion is especially significant to me partially because of its content, but also because barely a month ago I was going through the unique experience of having my gallbladder removed. I can tell you that it was in large part because of my diet, which contained far too much trans fat. This experience certainly made me more aware of the whole issue of food quality and it has led me to realize the importance of such a motion for the public health of Canadians.

However, it must be noted that this motion will not necessarily achieve the desired result of reducing the risk of heart disease in Canadians. We depend on solid and semi-solid fat for several food applications, and the most readily accessible equivalents to trans fat ingredients for these applications are high in saturated fat.

Unfortunately, these also have harmful effects on cholesterolemia and increase the risk of heart disease. The availability of vegetable oil tub margarine high in the desired polyunsaturated fat with low or moderate levels of saturated and trans fat will be threatened by the proposed change.

The Government of Canada supports the goal of decreasing trans fat available in food in Canada and is saying that a commitment to reduce the availability of trans fat in food in Canada is appropriate.

In fact, in January 2003 Canada became the first country in the world to impose mandatory labelling of trans fat content in order to encourage the food industry to adopt this approach. These new labelling regulations will come into effect in late 2005, and will require most pre-packaged goods, with the exception of those produced by companies with less than $1 million in annual sales, to be so labelled. Those companies will have until 2007 to comply with the new regulations.

The new regulations have already had a considerable impact. The food industry is already working very hard to reduce or eliminate trans fats from food. At least 13 major manufacturers have announced that they will be reducing trans fat content before the end of the grace period. In Canada, the major margarine brands have all virtually eliminated trans fats. As hon. members can see, food labelling is a clear incentive to reduce trans fat content in food.

Because its focus is on health, Health Canada is also actively encouraging the food industry to develop healthy alternatives to partially hydrogenated fats. The department will ensure that advice on how best to reformulate foods is disseminated to the industry, including the food service industry, which is not subject to the same nutrition labelling requirements.

Health Canada is also assessing the impact of these measures. It now has a program in place to monitor progress in the reduction of trans fat levels in food by analyzing trans fat content in foods sold in Canada.

Those behind this motion may be of the opinion that mandatory food labelling and the efforts by the food processing industry and the food service industry to find equivalents to the trans fat content of some fats are not enough.

In particular, I have noticed the eagerness to follow the example of Denmark, where regulations have been adopted to limit trans fatty acids to 2% in fats and oils sold directly to consumers or used in food products. I also note that it is the only country to have done this.

Looking at this example, we should also look at the Danish context. It is important to remember that Danes use more butter and tropical oils, such as palm and coconut oil, which are highly saturated. It is also very possible that their diet contains entirely different foods than the ones usually consumed in Canada, and that products for which the manufacturing process and shelf-life require additional solid and semi-solid fats are not as common.

Before importing a measure that may have worked in one other country, it would be wise and prudent to compare the circumstances surrounding this decision in each of the countries. Scientific experts were convened by the Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation on September 9, 2004, in order to discuss trans fats. I will just take a moment to recognize the wonderful research work of the foundation in this field. In my riding, for example, in the Outaouais, we have a very active foundation taking a serious look at the issue of trans fats. These experts expressed concern that if a 2% ceiling on trans fats were imposed, artificial trans fats might be replaced in processed foods by natural trans fats or saturated fats.

Natural trans fat in animal products is not substantially different from man-made trans fat. A large number of food items that Canadians are used to, such as many bakery products, cannot be made satisfactorily without using a solid or semi-solid fat. If we imposed a 2% ceiling on trans fatty acids, these food products would have to be significantly changed, which change could increase the amount of saturated fatty acid either through the use of hydrogenated vegetable oil or tropical oil, butter or other animal fat that, as I already mentioned earlier, increases LDL cholesterol, the bad cholesterol, in the blood.

These experts agreed there was no evidence to suggest that a 2% ceiling would optimize health benefits, but rather that it is essential to use healthier equivalents to fat and oil high in saturated fatty acids. This means that the relative risk of trans fat in comparison to that of saturated fat requires a more in-depth study of the Canadian diet.

As noted earlier, the impending mandatory labelling of prepackaged food containing saturated or trans fat has already had a major impact on the food industry in Canada. The industry is committed to actively seeking suitable alternatives to fat high in trans and saturated fat.

Because of the public's increased awareness of this issue, businesses are inclined to make statements to the effect that their products are free of trans fats, or at least low in trans fats. It is important to note that, in Canada, such statements can only be made if the foods in question have a low saturated fat content. The information provided to consumers must cover all factors contributing to health, not only trans fats.

Allow me to stress the importance of considering the potential impact of imposing the proposed ceiling on the trans fat content of foods. It will be important to consult scientific experts and representatives of the food industry to hear what they have to say about the practicality of the motion, which would eliminate virtually all processed trans fats.

Health Canada is exploring the possibility of setting up a multi-stakeholder task force to develop recommendations on the practical steps to reducing trans fats in the foods that Canadians eat, including the identification of appropriate oil and fat alternatives for use in reformulating products.

Several potential solutions are already being pursued. For instance, the leading brands of margarine are already essentially free of trans fats. But it is not a matter of simply applying to other foods, such as crackers, cookies or donuts, the solutions successfully applied to the manufacturing of margarine.

We can foresee that, in their desire to take advantage of a potential market, those businesses who are working with the government and the academic community will find ways to overcome the technical challenges inherent to the use of fats with different functional properties. It will take some time to acquire the knowledge and disseminate it within the market.

Once again, the many stakeholders must be given sufficient time to work together in tackling major challenges, which does not prevent the government from showing strong leadership to stimulate the required research and development effort. That is the approach this government has taken so far.

I could just add this, because I heard some speakers from the official opposition questioning the effectiveness of labelling. The example of cigarettes kept coming up. As an ex-smoker, I can report that at the time—and it was not very long ago that I stopped; I am still using Nicorette gum—the mandatory labelling and the absolutely horrendous messages on cigarette packages had an absolutely incredible and devastating effect. It got so bad that—and I was not the only one, for I have talked to others like me—we reused our old packages from before these warnings appeared. That shows what an absolutely fundamental effect it had on peoples' psyches. That is something that must continue.

For sure, the official opposition will once again comment that we are regulating for the sake of regulating and taking choice away from people. However, that too is part of our responsibilities for public health, and it is good for the economy. The fact is that, if we are healthier, if the population is healthier, if young people eat better and healthier foods, this will have an impact on their health, which in turn will reduce the needs for health care. This will mean that people will stay home instead of going to a hospital or to a medical clinic, for instance. In this sense, it is very good for the economy. It will reduce the demands on the health care system, and the costs will go down.

But, this is like with the environment. Had recycling not been encouraged and certain steps not been taken, the public would still be throwing any old thing in the garbage. Eventually, Canada would have become a huge garbage dump.

Sometimes in life decisions have to be made, and that is what this motion seeks to do, as I indicated. That is why I will support it, because we cannot say no to a good thing. It is very good for Canadians, Quebeckers and the people of Gatineau.

[Supply, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, four hours later, I would like to begin by thanking all colleagues in the House for making me live an absolutely extraordinary moment in my young political career. This is quite exceptional. It is even more extraordinary, because it has not rekindled my flame—it was never extinguished—but it has certainly nourished it about the importance of culture and my pride of being part of this government, which believes in the importance of culture, heritage, the status of women, sports, being a great sport fan, of course, and so on.

That being said, also as the former president of the Maison de la culture, you understand why this is even more important to me, because I think that culture is the heart of a country. Here, on this side of the House, we feel that there is a lot of heart.

However, tonight, I would like to bring this debate to an issue that we did not hear much about. I would have a question to ask a minister that I admire enormously, because she went through this kind of process. Everyone knows also that I am very proud to be a member—and this, for the first time, and I hope for several other times—of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

I think this is an important issue. It is unfortunate that my hon. colleague opposite, who had so much fun asking all these questions based on newspapers, is not even listening to me while I am addressing him. However, the questions of linguistic duality and official languages are also at the core of our Canadian identity. It is part of our heritage. It is our reality.

It is impossible to imagine Canada today without recognizing the importance of French and English for our entire society.

The official languages policy put forward by the federal government in the seventies reflects a vision of a country of openness where francophones and anglophones can feel at home wherever they live. To feel at home is to be able to realize our potential and to contribute fully to the economic, social and cultural life of our country.

The efforts made by the Canadian government for over the 30 years to promote official languages from coast to coast to coast is a logical extension of this vision. And today we can appreciate its positive impacts.

The Department of Canadian Heritage is at the centre of the Canadian government's efforts to support the official languages communities and to promote linguistic duality. As a member of the committee, and on a more personal note as a Quebecker and a Gatinoise, the cause of minorities living in a minority situation and the position of the French language and culture are very close to my heart.

Our efforts were rewarded and today French communities have more tools to ensure their development. Thanks to their determination, and oftentimes to the federal government's support, francophones have succeeded in developing the required solidarity in order to invest in all the critical areas of society. They have started successful businesses and created their own jobs. They have opened theatres, newspapers, radio stations and publishing companies that reflect their cultural force and vitality. Here in the beautiful National Capital Region, I have had the opportunity of seeing how Franco-Ontarians have taken charge and launched a number of interesting initiatives like the Festival franco-ontarien, the Nouvelle scène and others.

Whether for the entrenchment of language rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the recognition of the right to school management or access to services in French, francophones and anglophones have worked on all fronts.

Barely 20 years ago, let us not forget it, there were no french-speaking schools in several provinces. In 1990, except for New Brunswick and some francophone communities in Ontario, no minority community in the country was managing its schools. Today, in each province and territory, those communities manage all their schools. On this continent with a vast anglophone majority, we, Francophones, must redouble our efforts, our perseverance, our resolve, even audacity to guarantee coming generations an even better future in French.

Some say that in the current political context, support given to official languages is insufficient. Others feel that in the current economic situation, our linguistic policies are much too costly and yield little. Of course, the economic context demands that we show initiative, even avant-gardism to continue supporting in an effective manner the development and fulfilment of official language communities in a minority situation.

[An Act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, November 15th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I would tend to agree with my esteemed colleague but prior to 1993, I would have been very scared to leave the money in the hands of the government, believe me. But after 1993, with this government, I am sorry to have to say to the other side that we are doing a great job. That is why we keep on being re-elected and that is why when he mentioned 64%, it made me laugh. It is because he puts the three parties who do not agree on these matters. That is as brief as my response can be.

[An Act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, November 15th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, my answer to the hon. member is that sadly, on June 28 the people of Canada must not have read him correctly.

[An Act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, November 15th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I wonder what planet we both live on. Seriously, I cannot believe what the member is saying.

But I am not surprised. Day after day in this House, I am increasingly aware of the gap between our party and the Conservative Party of Canada. They obviously want to withdraw from any aid to businesses. We talk about small and medium size enterprises, which often drive the Canadian economy, as has been proven. The Conservatives want to take everything away from these people and give it back to the taxpayers. It may be a praiseworthy idea, but, if there are no businesses, if our regions are not strong, taxpayers might have more money in their hands but at one point, they will not have jobs anymore. This helps create employment.

A person really has to come from another planet to always be thinking about cutting taxes on capital and aid to businesses. This is the true face of our friends across the way.

[An Act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, November 15th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I will try to answer. I no longer know which question to answer because he told me he would not talk to me about certain things, but he did. Let's thus assume that he did not raise those issues.

That said, it seems to me that my esteemed colleague is reopening the debate according to which that is off limits, because Quebec has to deal with it. I find odd, however, that the mayor of Saguenay criticized the Bloc member for not supporting Bill C-9, when the regions, it so happens, need that bill. They need it, they shout out their needs in that regard. My region wants Bill C-9.

I am quite willing to live in the past, as the Bloc takes pleasure in doing regularly, but I feel we have to look ahead and it is up to us, in this Chamber, to work to ensure that the regions of Quebec get their share relative to their needs.