Sébastien Gagnon

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

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to indicate that the Bloc Québécois and I oppose Bill C-9, an act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. I would like to say that I am not questioning the competence of the civil servants who work for economic development in Quebec and with whom I have very good relations and who are generally doing a good job.

However, in the regions of Quebec, such as my riding and my region, Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, there are big problems. We know very well that the solution to all these problems is not the establishment of a new structure, the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. Problems such as employment insurance, the softwood lumber crisis, the mad cow crisis, job cuts for civil servants in the regions, Nav Canada, the RCMP and many others are rampant in the regions of Quebec. The solution or solutions proposed by the government are unfortunately completely at odds with reality.

Bill C-9 does not offer anything concrete to the Quebec regions, contrary to what my colleague opposite might think. There is no new money. The minister even says in his bill, and he mentions it on the Canada Economic Development web site, that this legislation does not make any changes to the agency’s role. Furthermore, the agency's existing programs will remain in place.

The Act will have no impact on the Agency’s present programs or clientele in the immediate future.

It is simply a new structure, a new minister, a new limousine.

I would remind the House—and this important—that this bill not only does not offer anything to Quebec, but the regions of Quebec that are most affected by it will be penalized. Let me again provide the House with some information. The terms of reference of the current Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec are as follows:

To promote the long-term economic development of the regions of Quebec, paying attention to those slow economic growth and inadequate employment.

Yet, in this bill, the new object of the agency is as follows:

The object of the Agency is to promote the development and diversification of the economy of the regions of Quebec through policy, program and project development and implementation... and provision of services.

And it goes on. Nowhere is there any mention of the agency's original mandate, which was to give particular attention to those regions with slow economic growth. Consequently, for my region of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean that today is faced with the softwood lumber crisis and the mad cow situation, it is a step backwards.

Of course, the minister mentions in the bill what he calls designated areas. It reads as follows:

1. (1) The Minister may, by order, establish as a designated area, for the period set out in the order, any area in Quebec where, in the opinion of the Minister, exceptional circumstances--

What this government is telling us is simply that, subject to the goodwill of the people on the other side, it will be able, if it wants to, to help my region, or help another region. If it does not want to, it will not do so. So I think that right now, this bill not only proposes nothing, it is actually a step backwards for Quebec regions.

Moreover, in this bill, the government is talking about an “integrated federal approach” for the development of Quebec regions. While the regions do need an integrated development approach, it is Quebec itself and the local representatives that are better positioned to implement one in a more efficient manner.

According to the Constitution, Quebec has responsibility for most matters relating to the development of the regions. Such a strategy must, therefore, include elements as important as natural resources, education, training, municipal affairs, land use, and infrastructure, all things that are no business of this government.

The solution to this would be implementation of the one-stop concept. At the present time, neither Quebec nor Ottawa injects enough resources to ensure regional development. There are two governments each involved in partial development, and this gives partial results. Not only is there insufficient investment by both levels of government, but what is invested is not even complementary. Their priorities are not even the same, although this should be basic. I have already pointed out some problems related to this.

It is therefore important to state that this inaction, this problem, has resulted in high unemployment rates in recent years, 2003 in particular. The figure for Gaspésie and Îles-de-la-Madeleine was around 17.5%, for Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, 12%, and 13.7% for Côte-Nord, 10% for Mauricie and Bas-Saint-Laurent.

If Ottawa suddenly decides to show an interest in the regions of Quebec, let it start by looking after its own responsibilities and its own jurisdictions.

The federal government's actions toward the regions of Quebec can be summed up in two words: disinterest and abandonment.

Rather than creating a new structure, what the Bloc Québécois is calling on this government to do is to take the regions into consideration within its own sphere of activities, or in other words respect Quebec's jurisdiction and its responsibilities to orchestrate the bulk of activities relating to regional development; respect local coalitions; adapt federal programs to regional realities; contribute to deconcentrating the federal public service; return federal capital expenditures to an acceptable level; support the introduction of a new infrastructure program; raise the regional development budget of Quebec to the same level as in the Maritimes; put an end to the scattergun approach of sprinkling largesse here and there for the purposes of visibility, which so often characterizes federal actions; support employment insurance reform that meets the needs of the regions.

As for the sums allocated to Economic Development Canada, these should be transferred to Quebec.

The Government of Quebec already has a policy on regional development and decentralization of powers. I stress the latter: decentralization of powers relating to regional development. Who better suited to develop a region than the local elected representatives?

What it lacks, however, is the financial means to implement its policy and properly support the many initiatives emerging from all the regions of Quebec.

A sum of $428 million that Ottawa plans to invest in Economic Development Canada this year would allow the implementation of an integrated development policy for the regions and would address many problems to the great satisfaction of the regions of Quebec, which are only waiting to take charge of their own destiny.

The establishment of a federal department would only perpetuate the well-known counterproductive duplication. The regions need help, not fighting between Quebec and Ottawa.

Of course, in the name of visibility, the government refuses to give Quebec the right to opt out of federal programs with full compensation. It is only too clear that the talk of asymmetry was short-lived. On the other hand, the Bloc Québécois is suggesting, for regional development, the same approach as the one used for the infrastructure program where Quebec selects projects jointly with the federal government.

The Bloc Québécois is against politicizing the development of our regions. A regional development minister would be tempted to intervene directly in the selection of projects, when it should be up to local elected representatives to decide on priorities. Consequently, the appointment of a federal minister of regional development would risk further politicizing the intervention of the federal government in the regions and multiply its visibility operations.

After the flag giveaway, after sponsorships, the creation of this new structure is not a new way to give back to the Liberals the presence that they lost in the Quebec regions since Quebeckers sent them packing on June 28.

Yet, the election message was clear: Quebeckers in regions will not be bought by a visibility operation. What they want is concrete, tangible action to be able to develop.

Regions need development initiatives that will only be effective if they are integrated by only one government, the Government of Quebec.

We can look at the situation. Bill C-9 was modelled on the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act, commonly called ACOA, and on Western Economic Diversification, WED, which have had their own legislation since 1988.

Let us note that these two agencies do not duplicate the work of the provinces. We do not find a regional development department at the provincial level in the maritime provinces or in western Canada. This difference is extremely important. If some provinces want the federal government to provide services that they do not offer, that is fine. But that the federal government imposes such services where they are already provided is ridiculous and absolutely counterproductive to Quebec regions.

We ask that the federal government respect Quebec's jurisdictions. The bill specifies that the minister will be responsible for the establishment of cooperative relationships with Quebec and with business, labour and other public and private bodies in that province.

Let us say right away that the establishment of cooperative relationships with Quebec will only be possible if the federal government respects Quebec's jurisdictions.

As for cooperative relationships with other public and private bodies, we want to caution the government.

If, with this formula, it is thinking of the institutions that are under Quebec's jurisdiction, like educational institutions or municipalities, it should change its plans. The Quebec government has sole responsibility in this regard.

The Constitution gives Quebec control over most of the major issues of regional development, such as natural resources, education, training, municipal affairs, territorial settlement or most of the infrastructures.

In the interest of efficiency, the federal government has to transfer to Quebec the money that it spends on regional development.

An agreement has to be reached with the Quebec government to give Quebec the right to opt out with full compensation. Failing that, the infrastructure program model in which the Quebec government will select the projects could well be tailored to all the federal programs related to the regional development.

The regional consultation organizations also have to be respected. There is in the province a whole network of regional consultation organizations where the dynamic forces of a region are located. It is not by imposing a new structure that we will help them, but rather by allowing them to implement projects that they consider a priority.

After a summit where Quebec and its regions met, the regions targeted a number of priorities. Right now, they are striving to meet them. For example, in my region of Jonquière-Alma and Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, everybody has agreed to create a regional intervention fund that would make it possible to work on capital and establish new businesses. The estimate for creating this fund is about $700 million.

Quebec made a commitment to contribute to this fund. Private companies, such as Alcan, also made a commitment. The only government that will not participate or that has already indicated to our elected representatives its lack of involvement, is the government led by the party opposite.

Right now, some organizations are supported by Quebec only, like the local development centres, and the community investment funds they manage. Others are supported by both levels of government, like the CEDCs. And others are supported by the federal government, like the community futures development corporations, or CFDC.

The 14 CEDCs in Quebec are independent entities and they are jointly financed by Quebec, Ottawa and the municipalities. Since they have to meet an increasing demand, they are asking the federal government to boost its financial contribution and help set up a fund to start up private or collective businesses.

During the latest election campaign, the Bloc Québécois considered that request perfectly reasonable and supported CEDCs in their dealings with the federal government.

In recent years, CFDCs contributed to Quebec's economic development. Their contribution has been appreciated, especially in those instances where they were able to escape the politicization the Liberal government had in mind for them. The creation of a new minister can only increase such politicization and diminish their efficiency.

CFDCs must be managed by and for the local communities. Managers must therefore be given a lot more flexibility, so that the help CFDCs provide meets the real needs of the communities they serve.

The Bloc Québécois feels that the CFDCs' expertise will be put to better use if they work through regional cooperation forums instead of being forced, as is often the case now, to operate on their own and to stick with federal priorities.

If the government does not allow Quebec to opt out , the Bloc Québécois will insist on more flexibility for CFDCs, to allow them to better respond to the needs of the communities they serve. Federal programs must be tailored to the needs of the regions they serve.

Federal programs are often developed with large cities in mind--

[Aerospace Industry, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the government never stops saying how important the aerospace industry is. If it is so important, why is the government so reluctant to develop and make public a coherent policy of support for the entire aerospace industry?

[Aerospace Industry, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government has just announced that it will underwrite Air Canada's purchase of 45 regional jets built by Bombardier. However, the company is still waiting for the federal proposal that will enable it to design and manufacture its new generation of aircraft right here, rather than in the United States or the United Kingdom.

Since there are only a few weeks left before Bombardier announces its final decision on the manufacturing location for its newest aircraft, when is the government going to let us know what it proposes? There are thousands of jobs at stake.

[Agriculture, October 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the mad cow crisis has done a great deal of harm to dairy producers because cull cattle are now close to worthless on the market. A farmer from Normandin, in the Lac-Saint-Jean area, received the ridiculous price of 7¢, once shipping and abattoir costs were paid. Yes, 7¢ for a 2,000-lb. cow.

Does this government realize that its aid package is clearly inadequate, since its $80 payment to farmers in distress simply does not compensate for their actual losses? Normally, they would be getting around $1,000.

[Supply, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I would point out that this is my second mandate here, and this is not my maiden speech.

I have taken part in exercises on numerous occasions, and have therefore been able to see the shortcomings for myself. Before talking dollars and cents, however, I need to know where the military is headed. At the moment band-aids are being used to fix fractures.

What is needed is an orientation, a vision, the vision of Quebeckers and of Canadians with respect to the army.

Remarks were made just now about equipment. Yes, it is true that there is some cutting edge technology. There has been some investment. We have seen increases to the defence budget. Perhaps the members beside us will say that they do not agree and that it is insufficient. What I am saying is that, before injecting any more money or taking any other steps, what is needed is an in depth review of our vision and our interventions and an examination of the fundamental role of the army in future. That is what must be asked.

For example, we can see how worn out our troops are now. I have friends who have already done three tours in Bosnia. They have been left absolutely drained as a result. Problems for society then develop, illnesses and the like. Before making any decisions and before injecting any funding or purchasing any new equipment with potentially fatal consequences for personnel, a thorough review is needed.

[Supply, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, before speaking on the motion before the House, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, who rose before question period and clearly set out the Bloc's position on this issue.

I also want to commend the hon. member for Saint-Jean on the thoroughness and determination he has shown on this issue. I know things have been tough these last few weeks for our military, especially with what happened with our submarines and the fire on board the Chicoutimi . Once again, congratulations to both my colleagues.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to this motion for a number of reasons. First, we have in my region a major military base, CFB Bagotville, where the CF-18 fighter jets are based. We also have two reserve regiments, that is a marine regiment and the Régiment du Saguenay. As a paratrooper in the latter, I have had the opportunity to take part in many exercises.

So, I think I can address this issue with some authority. I am against the motion before us today, and I want to tell the House why.

I do not think that injecting money is the solution to the problems currently facing national defence. There are many reasons, including outdated equipment. I had the opportunity to see for myself how out of date the equipment was, definitely enough to cause serious problems and, in some cases, to jeopardize the safety of troops abroad.

We have seen accidents happen in the past. Think, for instance, of what happened with the Iltis in Afghanistan. I have told this story a few times to demonstrate the gap between modern equipment and what is being used.

I remember that PRC-25s were used back in 1995. The PRC-25 is a 35-pound radio you carry on your back with a range of barely 13 km. When the radio did not work, we had to grab a cell phone and call the person at the other end and ask them to either hook up the radio or change the batteries. These are aberrations, and there are many more.

We can hold this up to ridicule, or at least regard it as a metaphor. The fact remains that, on a daily basis, this outdated equipment is jeopardizing the safety of troops and people abroad.

What we need today is a debate to guide National Defence to know what our position will be in the future, say, the next time we have to deploy forces. We know that we our society is a pacifist one. We must therefore conduct, today, an in-depth review of the policy of National Defence. We could patch up the problem by throwing money at it, but that would be just a bandaid solution.

To review this role today would help differentiate our forces not only from the American forces, but also from other coalition or foreign forces. We would be creating a niche, and that is important. It would help in the development of leadership that reflects who we are, Quebeckers and Canadians, to ensure we have an army or an institution to convey our concerns.

It is also important to understand that, in recent years, we have done some good deeds. We participated in several UN peacekeeping missions. I must salute the courage of these troops who were deployed abroad, gave a lot to the international community and protected people facing death, violence or other threats.

Today, it is the safety of these troops that is threatened by certain problems. Once again, the solution is not money, but a comprehensive debate.

The same goes for the missile defence shield. There is much talk about this issue. The Bloc Québécois managed to ask, with other opposition parties, for a vote in the House. We want to discuss this because it is a real concern.

It is such a concern that, in the case of the war in Iraq, 77% of Quebeckers were against our involvement. The Bloc Québécois worked very hard to get this government to vote here in the House. We won. Today, Quebeckers are very proud that they were not caught in the mess that the Americans are in.

I believe that with an extensive debate on changes in the Canadian army, we will be able to work on the priorities and the development of niches. Small and medium businesses must position themselves to gain a place in the market, to have leadership.

Why could we not do this with an institution such as national defence? Why not direct our next actions? Because our actions must change. After September 11, the map of the world changed completely. We must review our position, in light of recent events, in order to have leadership, but also, I believe, to keep the peaceful values that sustain us, that reflect the Quebec and Canadian society.

I would like to invite all parliamentarians to push this recommendation for a change and a thorough review of national defence so that, together, we can plan its directions.

[Supply, October 21st, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question about the war in Iraq. Quebec took a very pacifist stand on this war. There were demonstrations. People who disagreed expressed their opinion. Today, I am proud of the position against taking part in the war that was expressed and promoted here in the House.

I would like my colleague to explain this situation more fully and in connection with a debate that could redirect the entire involvement of the armed forces in this new global context.

[Aerospace Industry, October 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in June of this year, in the midst of the election campaign, the Liberals announced a $500 million dollar aid package to support Ontario's automotive industry.

Since the aerospace industry is to Quebec what the automotive industry is to Ontario, when will the government finally begin providing serious support to the aerospace industry in general and to Bombardier in particular?

[Aerospace Industry, October 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, last week Quebec's minister of economic development, Michel Audet, urged the federal government to do its part quickly to help Bombardier develop its new aircraft in Quebec.

What is the federal government waiting for to give real support to Bombardier? Time is running out. Tens of thousands of highly skilled jobs are being threatened.

[Agriculture, October 12th, 2004]

Madam Chair, I would like to begin by congratulating you on your appointment. I have no doubt whatsoever that you will fulfill your duties with dignity and objectivity.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the voters of Jonquière—Alma, a new riding created as a result of the redistribution, for the support and confidence in me that they expressed on June 28. It is a privilege to be able to represent them here in this House. I can assure every one of them that I shall work very hard to demonstrate that I am worthy of the trust they have placed in me, but also and above all to debate issues of concern to them, agricultural ones in particular. What is important is to work hard at delivering the message here in the House of Commons.

The overall situation needs to be understood. In 2003, one case of mad cow disease was discovered in Alberta, which triggered a total ban on Canadian exports to the United States. This plunged Quebec into economic disaster, as well as being a source of great frustration for our Quebec producers. They had been subject to very strict health standards for a long time, yet one cow in Alberta, 5,000 kms away, was enough to send their incomes plummeting. The agricultural industry of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean was already struggling, but now I can tell you it is in dire straits.

In order to mitigate this situation, Ottawa should have entered and should now enter into discussions with Quebec in order to decentralize the food inspection system and divide Canada into a number of public health regions. A similar kind of regionalization—it must be recognized—would have made it possible for Quebec's producers to be spared. They could have been peacefully exporting to the American market today, and showcasing both their constant efforts and their public health leadership. Instead, for farmers in Quebec, especially in the regions, life is not rosy.

I would like to remind the House about the importance of agriculture to Quebec, so that members will understand what an important place this industry occupies. For example, the agricultural sector in Quebec has sales of some $5 billion. There are 44,000 men and women working in agriculture every day to produce the cereal and milk for our breakfast in the morning.

In Quebec, agriculture has also been shrinking in recent years. Between 1996 and 2004, the number of producers dropped from 53,000 to 44,000. We know this is a problem already. We know that a solution to this problem needs to be found quickly.

As for agricultural renewal, that is tragic as well. There are only 6,500 farmers under 35 years old. This figure dropped by 52% between 1996 and 2001. That is the state of renewal in agriculture, and renewal is important. We see the number of agricultural students in CEGEPs and universities declining. There is a lack of interest in agriculture, which is seen as an industry plagued by crises.

Two weeks ago, along with my Bloc Quebecois colleagues, I had an opportunity to meet agricultural producers. My colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord was with us as well when we met these farmers from the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area. We even met with the Union des producteurs agricoles, not just to hear their message but to understand it as well. They had a great deal to say about the way the Liberal government is handling this crisis. One had to be there to feel the depth of their frustration.

Last year farmers sent a devastating message. I do not necessarily approve of it, but it showed their distress. In front of the cameras, they went so far as to slaughter a cull. This caused an outcry in the local media. The message behind this action is important. These farmers were trying to show that they no longer had any money for their cull. A cow that could once sell for between $800 and $900, today is worth between $0 and $200. In some cases, farmers have to pay to get rid of the cow. This is a significant loss in farm income.

What did the government do after the crisis? It came up with a fifth program which, at this time, is failing Quebeckers and the farmers in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.

This program was created for Western Canada. It may be good for some, but it does nothing for dairy farmers who have cull.

Representatives from the Union des producteurs agricoles, among others, have taken steps to make the government understand this. Farmers have held demonstrations. There have been political representations. Hon. members expressed their opinion to the former minister and questions were asked during the last Parliament. I can assure you, the government has done nothing.

This is a $488 million aid package, but Quebec is receiving a measly 4%, or roughly $15 million. The government has to understand that what the producers really need is roughly $150 million.

After talking to the Union des producteurs agricoles, we did a small calculation. Our region gets $105,000, which is somewhere between $100 and $120 for each farmer, but we know that one cow used to be worth between $800 and $1,000. This is totally ridiculous and is a slap in the face to the producers.

Another important issue was raised earlier in this House. I am thinking about the whole issue of competition. The producers also pointed out that, while they are being paid next to nothing for the cull shipped to the slaughterhouse, the retail price for streak is still $3.89 a pound. The price has not gone down. One has to wonder where the profits are going, Once again, the government must look into that and take appropriate action.

Our producers are so exasperated that, in another press conference last week, they announced that more pressure tactics would be used. I am very sensitive to their plight. I hope the situation will not escalate, that it will not go as far as last time. But at the same time, I realize that, if something happens, the Martin government will be partly to blame. It must take its responsibilities and help those producers who need help.

This government must get this message, in this House, today. Our farm producers are expecting help. After all, they are in no way responsible for the mad cow crisis, given that the infected cow came from western Canada.

I challenge this minister, this government, to come to my riding and meet with the producers, so that they take in this message clearly, if they are not getting it today.