Bill C-9 (Historical)

Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act

An Act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec

This enactment establishes the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and specifies the powers, duties and functions of the responsible Minister and the Agency.

An Act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec

[Marc Boulianne, Bloc, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member who is disturbing me a great deal might be called to order.

Right from the start, there is something lacking in the agency mandate, since it is stated that it will be implementing an integrated federal strategy. We know very well, regardless of what the minister may say, that Ottawa is not in a position to put that strategy in place, because the majority of files and issues do not fall under its jurisdiction.

Regardless of what they are saying, the Constitution states that powers may be given to the provinces and to Quebec. There is mention of natural resources, education, training, municipalities, infrastructure.

When we look at and read this text more carefully, when it comes to cooperative relations with Quebec, business circles, unions, any other private or public agencies that have to be directed or coordinated, the condition should be that the federal government respect Quebec's jurisdictions, and especially the fact that the Government of Quebec is the only interlocutor in these cases. It cannot be said enough. We cannot explain it enough. The members of the Bloc will repeat it over and over again. The Government of Quebec has to be the only one in charge in most of the areas covered in Bill C-9.

In all of these cases there has to be—this is important and was mentioned earlier—an agreement with the Government of Quebec to ensure that it has the right to opt out with full compensation. Nothing will be effective or work properly. The economy will keep slowing down if the agreements do not include the right to opt out with full compensation. As far as that goes, Quebec is far from obtaining this mandate, especially when we listen to the responses of ministers such as the Minister of Social Development on the issue of child care. He keeps avoiding questions by giving somewhat vague answers.

If we look carefully at this bill, the government's intention is clear: to politicize the development of our regions using an across the board approach. Quite a lot of work needs to be done, what with the sponsorship scandal, the firearms registry and so forth. This particular approach needs to be properly orchestrated: announcements, visibility, in order to have input. As for federal minister intervention in the selection of projects, it is the minister who decides. He will select the project. He will organize everything and avoid inviting the member responsible. He will make an announcement. He will be seen. It is a way of preparing his election campaign. That is this government's only intention with this bill, nothing else. Development is secondary.

The minister said so himself earlier. He said that economic development was not among Quebec's jurisdictions; that Quebec had no business in it. We know. Historically, it goes back to the British North America Act. When the powers were divided, in sections 91 and 92, all the important powers were given to the federal government and the rest of the minor powers went to Quebec.

At least that is what people say. It cannot work and it will never work. The minister confirmed it just now. He said that in the confederation documents, Quebec had no powers. But of course, as we all know very well, it is not a confederation, but a centralized and centralizing federal system.

Thus, ministers intervene in the selection of projects. They make themselves look good. They launch multiple operations to enhance visibility. And there, too, they have a whole process for announcements. Just now he gave a whole series. That is standard; considering how much we contribute as income tax to the federal government, some of it has to come back to us.

And they have added the whole business of handing out flags and sponsorships, and what next? That is certainly in the works for the next election campaign.

This interest in regional economic development has come on rather suddenly. If Ottawa is sincerely interested in the remote regions of Quebec, it can do two things.

First, it can transfer the money allocated to economic development directly to Quebec. As we mentioned, that is about $450 million. Quebec will use it in its own way, because it already has a regional economic development policy. For example, it will be aware of the problems in the riding of Mégantic—L'Érable which include softwood lumber, mad cow, maple syrup and asbestos. I repeat once more that at the end of the week, a mine is going to close. Quebec will know how to use this money for effective regional development. That is the first thing.

Second, I think that the government should begin by targeting activity sectors that will produce concrete results. Let it start in its own back yard. Let it put its house in order and work with its own powers and institutions.

First, for example, and I repeat, the government will respect Quebec's jurisdiction. The responsibility for orchestrating the activities that are fundamental to regional development belongs to Quebec. The government cannot do regional development. It is not written in the Constitution, except that it is impossible to do it in an integrated way without dealing with Quebec on education, health and municipalities.

Second, we talked earlier about the CFDCs. The government should begin by respecting local consultation and development organizations. We are talking about the CFDCs or the economic development corporations. It should not just barge in and impose itself as usual.

Then, there is a marked weakness in the area of capital assets. In this respect, the government has to bring federal spending to an acceptable level. It is not necessary to create an agency or to duplicate any service to achieve that. It can be done with existing resources.

We also made comparisons. We are a federation. There are 10 provinces, and we have to ensure a certain level of fairness. The regional budget must be the same in Quebec as it is in the Maritimes. The situation has never been fair in the area of regional development budgets.

I could mention numerous issues that the government should target before creating a new agency. The last one is an EI reform that would meet regional needs. This is how we can ensure development.

I was talking about the budget earlier. In relative terms, the federal government is investing three times less in regional development in Quebec than in the Maritimes. We have seen that. We have statistics. The four maritime provinces receive $164 per capita while Quebec only gets $51, or one-third. For the unemployed, the difference is $2,700 to $1,037.

This problem existed elsewhere too. It existed in the Prairies, in western Canada in general. They have had to face the same kind of underfunding problem that Quebec is facing now. But when Ontario or the Maritimes complain, the federal government usually sits down and listens to what the provinces have to say. However, when Quebec wants something, it is never taken seriously.

The problem was resolved. The situation in the Maritimes was corrected in part with the last federal budget. Ottawa increased by 32% its support to regional development in the Prairies, in the west, as compared to only 7% in Quebec. Injustice remains. Nothing can justify the effort made for the Gaspé being one third that made for New Brunswick.

Instead of establishing a new department, creating, as I said earlier, a new bureaucracy, duplication and a new way of making itself visible, the federal government should have transferred to Quebec financial support proportionally comparable to the support provided to every other province. That is the first point.

As for the employment insurance reform, much has been said about it and more could be said. The regions have been particularly hard hit by the cuts to employment insurance. Tens of thousands of dollars in cuts were made. In my riding, which encompasses three regions, including L'Érable and Le Granit, considerable losses have also been recorded in the asbestos industry.

We are talking about regional development. Meaningless figures and statistics are being tossed around. Those most affected by these cuts are young people, workers whose employment status is precarious and seasonal workers. Their situation is being overlooked, and they are being ignored.

The cuts have been particularly painful to seasonal workers, as they have difficulty working enough hours to qualify for benefits. When they do qualify, the number of benefit weeks is insufficient to carry them over until the next work season. This was mentioned earlier. They are left with no income. But that does not matter. What matters is the government's visibility in preparation for an upcoming election. That is what matters.

When these workers finally receive benefits, they are penalized by the benefit schedule. As a result, the cuts have amplified the already serious problem posed by youth exodus. Efforts were being made to find ways to get them to stay. But the minister tells us that the powers of Canada Economic Development do not extend to our regions.

The problem of seasonal jobs has grown bigger and bigger. The government should help young people and families out of the poverty it has forced them into.

Let me conclude with this. The Bloc Québécois position is quite clear. We oppose Bill C-9 because it is of no use for regions in Quebec. They can say all they want, the responsibilities of the Economic Development Agency will remain the same. Programs and budgets are unchanged. Why should we support an agency or a piece of legislation that is useless?

Second, the Senate has just established a federal department of regional development. That is just more duplication. Like my colleague said earlier, the minister has listed everything he had done in the department he is now responsible for, and the new department will go further. This is a real federal department of regional development in Quebec that will be duplicated.

As a matter of fact, regions need an integrated development strategy. We all agree on this. But only Quebec is in a position to implement this strategy. Despite every thing that can be said, constitutional texts and traditions grant Quebec some powers in the area of development. Any strategy that can be implemented by Quebec must include many different things like natural resources, education, training, and municipalities. None of this is under federal jurisdiction.

Right now, neither Quebec nor Ottawa are investing enough money in regional development. We are still looking for a full-fledged government.

For all these reasons, we will vote against this bill.

[Marc Boulianne, Bloc, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-9, an act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, the purpose of which is, in principle—and I believe with good intention—the development and diversification of the economy of the regions of Quebec.

When we speak of economic diversification, this is of course an integral part of the development of our regional communities. The riding of Mégantic—L'Érable is no exception. Its three regions, Amiante, Érable and Granit, can easily become designated areas because of their particular circumstances: industry closures and unemployment.

Let us take the example of my riding and its three regions. It is unfortunate that the minister has just left as he could perhaps have given answers to these questions.

In the Érable region, there is one extremely important resource: maple syrup, hence its name. This is an exceptional product, but there is a problem with it: excess production. People involved in processing it have to slow down production. There are problems in the entire agricultural sector. Here is the question: can these problems be solved by the Economic Development Agency for the Regions of Quebec?

We think the answer is no. It is the same thing for the Amiante region, as the minister is well aware. A mine will be closing down this weekend, and 455 workers will be losing their jobs for good. I wonder how much the Economic Development Agency for the Regions of Quebec has intervened, and how much it can do.

So problems like these will make this an inefficient agency, because as has been said, as my colleague has already said, you have--

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of my speech yesterday, I talked about programs favouring Ontario. I mentioned that when the government funds GM to close its only plant in Quebec, a plant that was planning to produce auto parts with Quebec's primary resources--, it helps Ontario with Quebec's money and primary resources.

When the Liberal government spends billions of dollars to fund oil industries of the west as well as of Atlantic provinces, it helps these provinces with 25% of Quebec's contributions, but it stubbornly refuses to harmonize the financial support to Quebec's mining industries with flow-through shares that favour research.

Then, they quickly say to Quebekers that they benefit from charity that equalization payments represent. That is what distressing. You understand of course why, today, we firmly oppose this bill, which is a step in the Canadian nation building process in Quebec.

This is another case of interference in the fields of jurisdiction of the Quebec nation and of other provinces, that do not consider that to be duplication since they do not have a regional development department like Quebec.

Quebec, with its regional development department, the oldest in this Confederation, has a vested right in its territorial development.

The argument put forth by the Minister responsible for the Francophonie, that this government could claim any jurisdiction not specified in the Constitution, will not fly. This Constitution was not, in fact, signed by Quebec.

The development strategy must include such diverse elements as natural resources, education and training, municipal affairs, land use and infrastructure, among others. None of these come under Ottawa's jurisdiction.

This bill goes way beyond EDC's mandate. We are talking about a real federal department responsible for the development of Quebec regions.

One has only to look at clauses 4(3) and 4(4) and at clauses 5, 6, 10 and 11. In fact, in clause 11(2), there is another secret door that enables the agency to take on any other role as the governor in council sees fit. However, beyond these powers of intrusion in Quebec's jurisdictions, Economic Development Canada's authorities, programs and budgets remain unchanged.

In the information document provided with the bill, the department states that there should be no impact on the agency's current programs and clients. How useful can this agency be, then, except for its additional encroachment powers?

We recognize that the Quebec regions need an integrated development strategy that only the state of Quebec can put in place. We do not think that the federal government has the capacity or the right to infringe on Quebec's jurisdiction in the establishment of an integrated federal development strategy for the Quebec regions.

We have in my riding a strange situation that does not require a lot of federal funds. It has to do with the first nations' post-secondary education. The former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development--and I am sure the philosophy has not changed much since we are still dealing with the same old party--preferred to waste more than a million dollars a year to remove first nations students from their communities and their families, paying their travel and living expenses in order to relocate them thousands of kilometres away from their families rather than investing less than $3 million on a native university building to allow these students to attend university in their own region or nearby.

Given the time it took to process this request, this building could now be operational. Instead, the university is now forced to refuse first nations students' applications due to a lack of space. Thus, the government prefers to keep wasting millions of dollars annually, rather than investing a fixed amount of money that would certainly be far from the amount involved in the scandal that is badly tarnishing the credibility of this government.

In this very file, stakeholders, including myself, have rightly turned to Canada Economic Development which, according to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, was responsible for infrastructure. They received just about the same answer as that from the Department of Indian Affairs, namely that nobody has the mandate, or the budget, or neither one nor the other. Actually, all ministers of this government seem to have but one mandate, that of assuming as their own all jurisdiction over the powers of Quebec and of the provinces, despite their chronic inability to fulfil their responsibilities in their own jurisdictions.

Whether or not the other provinces put up with this, I am always glad for them and I will always be happy to support them in their approach. However, believe me, I am a Quebecker, elected by Quebeckers, most of whom--and it is even unanimous in the Quebec National Assembly--have the same vision of the needs and aspirations of Quebec, regardless of all the respect and friendship we have for all the inhabitants of the provinces that surround us.

Just as we did not do in their case, we ask representatives of the other provinces to avoid supporting the unjustified interference of this government in Quebec's jurisdictions.

Sure, occasionally, we compare ourselves to them, but this is by no means out of jealousy or envy. It is simply to say that we have respected their difference, we have agreed to participate in their development and their evolution, or we wish to back up a comparison and to request our fair share in this system, for the time we have participated in it and that which remains for us to participate in it.

The example I would like to mention at this time has to do with the University of First Nations in Alberta, which required some ten million dollars, compared with the lesser amount we are calling for, an amount we know to be relevant and justified currently. For that purpose, it should not be necessary to have the Canada Economic Development Agency. It would suffice to have a Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development possessing the programs, budgets and tools necessary for the development of its communities until the transfer of those responsibilities to the Quebec government, with the adequate and necessary budgets for their administration.

When Her Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons the establishment of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, it concerns the assignment of political issues. I read the bill, and it does not mention any change concerning the investment of new money. At any rate, I do not think Her Excellency paused a single moment to think about her own ignorance and that of previous governments about the needs of Quebec.

To illustrate my point, let me simply refer to clause 10 in Bill C-9. It says that the object of the agency is to promotethe development and diversification of theeconomy of the regions of Quebec throughspecial measures, and through the advocacy of the interests of Quebec in national policy. Could anybody tell us, for once, what the national policy is on Quebec?

Like Trudeau said, in a very Anglo-Saxon way, Ontario had the automobile industry, and Quebec the aerospace industry. But he did not specify that this would include added value goods that could be used to produce cars. He did not specify either that when the aerospace industry would be viable, it would be shared with all the rest of Canada.

Nor did he specify that in a premeditated manner he had hoped to destroy thousands of hectares of the most fertile land in Quebec and waste money there that was meant for Quebeckers in a futile and unproductive investment, thereby giving Ontario produce farmers privileged access to Quebec markets, while rerouting most of the airlines to other regions in Canada.

When we read the responses of some of the ministers from Quebec in this government, we have to assume that money and limousines must appeal to some people. That appeal is lost on me. There must be a greater difference than I thought between the need to be a politician and the need to defend the interests of one's constituents.

I take issue with the minister saying that Quebec should learn to share the aerospace sector with Canada, especially considering the person who said this and the fact that it has to do with Bombardier, a Quebec flagship.

I think most of the members of this government do not understand Quebec's needs and the remaining minority do not have the courage to speak up for fear of being marginalized in this wonderful Liberal family.

All Quebec needs is for this agency to be strictly limited to federal jurisdiction. For that reason, and as presented, we cannot support such a bill.

I now would like to talk about Bill C-9 from a constitutional point of view. We believe that this bill is part of a broader plan, namely to give the federal government all the tools it needs to behave as a true national government.

It wants to be the main architect of development across the country. Provincial governments, deprived of any decision-making power, will carry out its orders just like municipalities, universities, hospitals and so on, which will become mere extensions.

To prove that Ottawa is no longer behaving as a federal government, but as a national state government, allow me to list some of the initiatives carried out by Ottawa over the past few years and those being carried out now, which encroach on the jurisdictions of the nation of Quebec.

We are talking, among others, about the millennium scholarships, rural policy, volunteer and community policy, national strategy on rural development, university chairs, sponsorship program, numerous culture subsidy programs, national housing strategy, national homelessness strategy, early childhood assistance, not to mention the current Liberal plan for municipalities.

The current government is no different from its predecessor after all. It is only interested in nation building, promoted by Mr. Chrétien and only Quebec seems to be opposed to it. We did have Manitoba's Louis Riel, but Conservatives may remember they hanged him. It would be more difficult to do the same in Quebec today. It might be time for Conservatives to avoid making the same mistake they made with Louis Riel.

We know that the federal government is embarking in all those initiatives without any constitutional legitimacy. The current government could not care less about constitutional legitimacy as it is focussed on transforming this already deficient federation into a unitary nation state.

Things would be so much simpler if the government across the way had the honesty to tell Quebeckers that the ultimate goal of the federal state is to ensure that in the future everything will be decided in Ottawa and its government will be considered as the national Government of Canada. Canada will have then finally succeeded in provincializing the Quebec state forever, trivializing the identity and aspirations of its people, which is very legitimately developing its claim to nationhood.

Some might wonder where the money the federal government uses to fund all these initiatives comes from. We can already guess the answer. As a matter of fact, it was once again announced today. It comes from the fiscal imbalance and the budget surpluses.

Why does the federal government go out its way to deny the existence of a fiscal imbalance? Actually, the government does not see it as an imbalance but as a financial mechanism allowing it to assume those new responsibilities it has unilaterally conferred upon itself. Is that approach based on the spirit of the social union agreement? As a matter of fact, does the agreement allow this government to play the role of sole national state in this confederation, which has no legitimacy as far as Quebec is concerned? This is a question we must ask ourselves.

In spite of all the powers that most of the government's departments already have, namely in areas like rail transportation, communications, federal infrastructure in Quebec, the federal research institutes, bridges and some highways, shipping and support to natives, this government could have made its presence known in the last 20 years in Quebec.

There was no need for an Economic Development Agency of Canada. The government had all it needed but it did nothing, nor will it with this new agency. It is not even shy about announcing that this agency will only be a means to increase the government's control over Quebec's jurisdiction.

This is also an opportunity to remember that the constitutional status quo that is sometimes used to define the status of Quebec in Canada no longer really exists. On the contrary, Canada is developing in a very dynamic way. The structure of its functioning has been completely reshaped since the referendum of 1995. In that context, talking about the status quo as an option for Quebecers is a deceit.

In that regard, polling firms should drop the concept of status quo from their terminology, because this concept is no longer in line with the Canadian reality, except for those who prefer to put their head in the sand and avoid dealing with the constitutional issue.

In conclusion, I would like to remind this House that Quebec is a nation and must be treated as such. This is why the Bloc Québécois will oppose any federal initiative which would allow the government to interfere in Quebec's national matters. Again, the Bloc invites the elected representatives who are not part of this large Liberal family to respect the decision of the National Assembly of Quebec, as its own elective representatives did for their province.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in this House to speak to Bill C-9, an act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

Our government has set itself the objective of ensuring the success of Canadians in each and every region of our country. Its intention is to support our fellow citizens, as far as is possible, in the realization of their aspirations for prosperity and an enhanced quality of life. This is the context within which the Economic Development Agency of Canada fulfills its mandate to promote the economic development of the regions of Quebec. To that end, it pays particular attention to all the regions of Quebec, especially those with a slower growth rate and insufficient jobs for the size of their population.

In my capacity as a member of Parliament, I have had the opportunity to see for myself the work done by the agency to ensure the regional economic development of Quebec and improve its residents' quality of life. The agency has, for instance, made the financial commitment to provide over $1.02 billion for 2,116 projects during 2003-04. When investments from other funding bodies are factored in, the total value of these projects represents an injection of over $3.9 billion into the economy of the various regions of Quebec.

What is more, these projects have contributed to the creation, conversion or maintenance of close to 13,700 jobs in all of the regions of Quebec, regions such as Chaudière-Appalaches, where $60,000 from Canada Economic Development has enabled Soliroc Metal to enhance its productivity. With this financial assistance, the company was able to acquire more efficient equipment, and as a result to raise its productivity by 60%. This is one example of the kind of projects Canada Economic Development has supported, which have highly positive economic spinoffs for the competitive position of a company, thereby enabling it not only to continue to grow, but also to play a vital role within its community.

In the Quebec City area, the National Optics Institute received a $3.6 million contribution from Canada Economic Development to implement a research program in agrophotonics. The purpose of this research campaign is to bring together two major areas of activity in the region, namely agro-processing and optics-photonics technologies.Canada Economic Development wanted to support this regional initiative because it consolidates the institute's leading position in the industry and paves the way for various economic development projects in many regions of Quebec.

In the Lower St. Lawrence region, a marine biotechnology research centre was set up with a contribution of $7.6 million from Canada Economic Development. To carry out its work, the centre plans to create 24 direct jobs and 75 spin-off jobs. In addition, the centre's activities will bring top researchers to the region as well as new companies. I should add that these research facilities are a priority for the people of the Lower St. Lawrence region.

That is why Canada Economic Development wanted to be involved in carrying out this project as part of its commitment to support initiatives that best respond to the needs of the public and that build on a region's strengths. In turn, such projects help fulfil economic development opportunities in the regions that welcome them and elsewhere in Quebec.

These examples are representative of what Canada Economic Development does. They also show how important promotion and innovation throughout Quebec is to the agency. This priority stems from our government's commitment to building the robust and innovative economy that we all want for our country in the 21st century. In addition, the projects I mentioned illustrate Canada Economic Development's goal, which is to strengthen the niches of excellence specific to each region of Quebec. In all, in 2003-04, the agency invested $54.6 million in 739 innovative projects in Quebec. These investments have led to the creation, transformation or maintenance of 4,796 jobs. Furthermore, even the promoters have said that, without the financial support of Canada Economic Development, 55% of the projects would never have materialized.

In an effort to facilitate a culture of innovation in Quebec regions, Economic Development Canada and Agriculture and Agri-food Canada granted $3.6 million to the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue for its participation in an important research project on the development of a new kind of beef that could meet increased consumer demands.

Again, I would like to specify that the achievement of this project is the product of the desire of the region's researchers and cattle producers. This initiative should not only consolidate 34 jobs but also increase the earnings of companies in this area by 15% to 20%.

As I said earlier, the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec also helps communities to take control of their own development by focusing on their assets. The agency tries to facilitate public interest initiatives that could have major regional impacts and create significant snowball effects on regional economic activities. The agency works with a network of collaborators comprised of the 57 Community Futures Development Corporations, the 15 Community Economic Development Corporations and the 9 Business Development Centres.

During budget year 2002-2003, projects that were granted loans by CFDCs generated investments of $135 million in the regions. The loans amounted to $45 millions. The nine BDCs participated in 222 investment projects and 570 technical assistance projects.

It is in the context of the partnership between Economic Development Canada and the CFDC network in Quebec that AFER, Aide aux femmes entrepreneures en milieu rural, was implemented. This pilot project involved establishing a fund to promote women entrepreneurship in rural areas. The 12 CFDCs participating in the initiative represent the following regions: Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Bas-Saint-Laurent, Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Côte-Nord, Saguenay, Mauricie, Chaudière-Appalaches and Montérégie. To date, the AFER program has made it possible to help 93 businesswomen; 31 businesses were started; and 60 jobs were created in various regions of Quebec.

The AFER Canada fund is consistent with the Government of Canada's commitment to promote greater involvement of women in the economy of all Quebec regions and initiatives to diversify development opportunities in various Quebec communities.

As I said a moment ago, Economic Development Canada is involved in all Quebec regions.

[Marc Boulianne, Bloc, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to congratulate my colleague from Jonquière—Alma on his presentation. I will have a question for him after my comments.

I believe every Bloc Québécois member has concerns regarding Bill C-9 for a very simple and specific reason. As usual, the government is ignoring Quebec's fields of exclusive jurisdiction. In my riding of Mégantic—L'Érable, we have huge resources, but we also have problems with our resources.

For example, in the maple syrup industry, an important one, we are experiencing problems with exports, surpluses, job creation and processing. It is the same thing with regard to softwood lumber as my colleague from Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia mentioned earlier. The problem cannot be solved.

We will see another tragedy at the end of the week: an asbestos mine will shut down and 455 workers will be laid off indefinitely.

The question we might ask is this: will this agency solve problems in my area? Not at all. Once again there is no integrated strategy, in coordination with Quebec. So long as this attitude prevails, the problems will not be solved. Some members are saying that some of Quebec powers are not even in the Constitution. However, the Constitution gives Quebec authority over most regional development issues. That is very important for the future.

I would like to put a question to my colleague. Instead of doubling the department, should the federal government not first improve its programs and, second, give the money--around $500 million a year—to Quebec, since Quebec has its own regional development policy? In my view, that would be more beneficial to the regions and their economic development.

[Sébastien Gagnon, Bloc, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

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--

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

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.

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am truly happy to have the privilege, as the member for Gatineau, to address the House with respect to Bill C-9, an act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

I am proud to support this bill that has been favourably awaited by all my constituents and the people of the Outaouais region. The government as made it one of its priorities to ensure the success of Canadians in every region of our country. It will consequently do everything in its power to support Canadians in their efforts to realize their ambitions in terms of prosperity and improvement of their quality of life.

Indeed, to build the economy of the 21st century sought by the Canadian people, we know that we must innovate by building upon regional strengths. For us, Economic Development Canada has an important role to play in ensuring that our country has a strong and dynamic economy based on innovation and its great development potential, an economy helping Canadians face the future with confidence and optimism, an economy helping us reach excellence.

We all know today that advances in technology are one of the main factors behind sustained economic growth. By improving our businesses' productivity and increasing the standard of living, the agency contributes significantly to the regional development of the regions of the country, of Quebec in particular, and certainly of Gatineau.

In the years to come, the agency intends to keep helping Quebec's small and medium-sized businesses with innovative projects. The agency will provide support to small and medium-sized businesses as they seek creative and ingenuous ways of developing and marketing new products. It will pursue the goal of helping businesses to diversify their operations and to create quality jobs, thus ensuring positive growth. The riding of Gatineau has been waiting for this moment for a long time and looks toward the future with optimism.

The environment in which our businesses operate here and in the rest of the world makes innovation one of the main factors of our development. In other words, to maintain competitiveness and to succeed in the context of the global economy and the acceleration of technological advances, businesses have to innovate, and I would even say that they have to innovate consistently. If innovation has become a necessity for all businesses operating in a market, it is because to innovate is to get ahead of others and to increase competitiveness. Thus, innovation and productivity enhancement are at the heart of the improvement in the competitive position of our businesses, and consequently of their survival and their development.

It is in this context that, since 1997, the Canadian government has invested more than $13 billion dollars in the innovation sector to ensure that Canadians will have the necessary resources to create, adopt and adapt new technologies. As we heard in the October 5 Speech from the Throne, we now have to take up the challenge of converting more good ideas into dynamic businesses, meaningful employment and export earnings. The riding of Gatineau is no exception in that regard; it has a lot of good ideas.

We also have to ensure that scientific and technological progress resulting from publicly funded research end up on the market. As well, innovation must lead to greater competitiveness and productivity. Finally, the new technology must be made available throughout our economy and our country. It is of the utmost importance that all regions take part in this move towards innovation. This is a very promising piece of legislation for the riding of Gatineau.

To meet these challenges, the Government of Canada intends to play a leadership role. We already have the greatest innovation team in the country, made up of some 18,000 people working in 106 government research facilities located in the various provinces. Gatineau would welcome some of these research centres. We have been wanting and asking for them for such a long time. We are convinced that we could benefit from this bill, since we already have the required infrastructure. We have it. It would certainly be a great opportunity to restore the balance between the two sides of the Ottawa River.

In 2002 alone, R and D activities carried out in federal departments and agencies accounted for almost $4 billion, that is around 20% of total R and D spending in Canada. Canada Economic Development has also made innovation one of its top priorities.

Thus, the relative share of financial assistance allocated to innovation projects increased substantially during the past five years, that is, from 24% of the total financial assistance in 1999-2000 to 61% of it in 2003-2004, while the total amount of financial assistance was $113.5 million.

Quebec outperformed the other Canadian provinces in recent years in terms of research and development initiatives, which are an essential part of innovation support. In 1999, 2.42% of the GDP was allocated to R&D, while the Canadian average was 1.83%, which is equal to what is spent on average in other G-7 countries.

In Quebec, an important part of all private sector research is done by higher education institutions. That part represents a total of more than $180 million in 1999-2000, thus testifying to the importance of the linkage between universities and businesses. Private financing of university research more than doubled last year. I want to remind the members of the House that we also have a university in the Outaouais and it is very dynamic in the field of liaison, through its Bureau de liaison université-milieu (BLUM).

Now, the challenge is to make sure that the final results of university research translate into adequate commercial added value allowing Quebec businesses to innovate even more.

Economic Development Canada can offer important support for SME innovation projects. To this end, the agency has set four priorities regarding innovation. First, it chose to support productivity improvement by helping companies to become more aggressive and more competitive and to put innovation to work to create wealth and jobs in their region. The agency also hopes to support innovation marketing on the various markets. Innovation, as we all know, can mean a new product on the market, or markets for an innovative product.

For Quebec SMEs, Economic Development Canada is the most important federal government agency supporting their innovation marketing strategies. The agency works closely with technology advisors from the National Research Council of Canada and works jointly with its Industrial Research Assistance Program, IRAP, towards developing new and improved products or processes. This priority also covers support for innovation marketing on foreign markets. Our market is limited. It is smaller, for example, than California's. That is why our success will always depend on other markets, which we need to open.

Canada Economic Development also intends to support the preparing and launching of technological industries with high added value, and of industries that locate in resource regions. Finally, the agency hopes to be more active in supporting testing and experimenting in the area of natural resources. These projects are likely to have an impact in the regions where the economy is largely based on natural resources, for example. We know that, in turn, these projects contribute to the fulfillment of economic development opportunities in the regions that welcome them.

At the regional level, Economic Development Canada has for a number of years been using an approach based on the establishment, in each region of Quebec, of a regional response strategy. These strategies, which are adjusted to the regions and the challenges that they face, rely on innovative measures that are geared to the specific context of each region. Moreover, they are developed in close cooperation with local stakeholders and are based on local and regional strengths, traditions, skills and advantages. Ultimately, these regional strategies allow for the identification of areas of excellence for each of the regions of Quebec, including the Outaouais.

In conclusion, I would like to remind this House that this bill confirms the framework for the economic initiatives that we achieve through Economic Development Canada, to ensure that this agency can contribute to the diversification of the regions of Quebec, promote innovation and improve the quality of life of its population.

More importantly, it reflects the bold vision of this government and our desire to ensure the prosperity of all residents and communities of Quebec.

The tabling of this legislation clearly shows the importance given by this government to regional development, to ensure a better life for Canadians and to allow them to live anywhere in the country, in communities where they can fulfill their aspirations and make their dreams come true.

In short, the bill that is now before us at second reading is yet another initiative taken by the Government of Canada to promote equal opportunities for all Canadians in their quest for well-being. It is good for Canada, it is good for Quebec and it is particularly good for Gatineau.

Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, Bill C-9 is like a good number of bills that have been introduced, by the Chrétien government as well as by the current one, and like the throne speech. All of them are commitments involving Quebec's home turf. Therefore, I am absolutely not surprised to see that the usual intrusion into areas of Quebec's jurisdiction in this bill.

Personally, I do not believe that this government will cooperate with the Government of Quebec. It will go above its head. It will try to pose as a saviour in regions it itself destroyed with previous policies

In this respect, the Bloc Québecois will keep an eye on them. If Bill C-9 turns out to be a change of course in the behaviour of the Liberal government, democracy will be the winner. Unfortunately, after what I have seen in the throne speech, and what I have heard since 10 o'clock this morning, I am still under the impression that we will end up with duplication; therefore, people will not know what doors to knock on. Often, those people will say: “If you knock on the door of CLD, don't expect anything from us”. This type of blackmail does exist. If you encourage the little Canadian flag, you won't need the little government of Quebec. This often happens.

It is for this reason that every time the government introduces a bill to deal with the regions of Quebec, it is always the nice Canadian flag that we see in the background.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to commend my colleague from the Bloc Québécois on the soundness of his comments. I think the hon. member put his finger on the real issue. I would ask him to elaborate further on what is going on with Bill C-9 that is before us.

Indeed, I understand that we need to be very careful about what we have now, because this bill could be just smoke and mirrors. So I would like to hear again his views on federal interference and the new government asymmetry. I think we could learn more from the hon. member.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

There is also David Price from Compton—Stanstead. These people use taxpayers' money, Canada Economic Development, or any other arrangement set up by this government, to promote themselves and get re-elected.

One thing is certain: we are 54 members and these 54 members—maybe more—intend to keep coming back to denounce this government's actions since it came back to this House on October 4.

Since I have only seven minutes left, I will not have enough time to get into how far removed this bill is from Quebec reality. However, I will take the time to talk about—in the hopes that the Liberals will understand—how the people of the regions of Quebec take care of their own responsibilities.

We have CLDs—I mentioned this earlier. We have regional structures. We increasingly try to hold our municipal representatives accountable. We give businesspeople their space. We pay particular attention to the community groups. In Quebec, un like in the rest of Canada, we take a much more social democratic approach than the Conservative or the Liberal approach taken in Ontario and the rest of Canada.

I hope that all our arguments today will help the minister and the Liberal team recognize the serious mistake they made in introducing Bill C-9. I also hope that during the work on possible amendments to this bill, the federal government will be open and honest enough to recognize that, once again, it has created an organization while ignoring Quebec.

At that point, we will recognize that this government has specific plans for Quebec.

As I was saying, I have been listening all day to the Liberal Party members. I only heard the name “Quebec” when I was being told that this bill is about a law to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. Beyond that, Quebec was never mentioned in the speeches of these members. On the other hand, we understand from what the Liberal government has said is that they intend to intrude in the regions, to take control of our regions, while ignoring what these regions really expect.

The Quebec government, that of Mr. Landry or of Mr. Charest, regularly consults the regions to discover their expectations. Did the minister take the time to review these people's work? Did he take the time to get more familiar with Quebec's expectations?

Earlier, I was listening to the member for Beauce enumerating the numerous projects in which his government had been involved. I wondered whether the member for Beauce thought we were going into an election tomorrow. That was not very helpful in terms of preserving jobs. Usually, any politician, wherever he came from, especially when he is in office, holds a press conference to report his accomplishments. This is when the quality of the government and its accomplishments are praised.

Just a moment ago, the member for Beauce was saying that his government did a lot for softwood lumber. Only one phase of the assistance program has been implemented. We're still waiting for phases two and three. We're still waiting for this government to listen to industry and to give it support. This crisis has been going on for three years but the government does not budge.

What great programs, what a great philosophy and what small projects. I was listening earlier. The member had all that he needed to go on a tour of Quebec. He said he spread all the federal money over the regions and that that is how the Canada Economic Development Agency for the Regions of Quebec will be strong. Only small amounts were negotiated and they were announced in the absence of elected representatives. They keep the members of the Bloc away from the action. We run our own show. And then these people have the gall to tell us that they are working with the local stakeholders.

I believe that the first stakeholder of a riding is the member of Parliament who was democratically elected by the people. Speaking of the democratic deficit, I would have liked, at least, for them to try to work on a cooperative basis rather than on a partisan one. As I was saying, there are many examples of what the Prime Minister boasted about before the election. The fight against the democratic deficit, just like the issue of asymmetry, lasted only the duration of a conference. We talked about asymmetry, and English Canada got angry. The Ontario caucus said: “Wait a minute, Mr. Prime Minister, do not give too much to Quebec. You were not able to get many members elected in Quebec. If you are Prime Minister of a minority government, it is because of Ontario.” The Prime Minister then came up with another approach for the fiscal imbalance. He did not listen, he just imposed his views, the same way Jean Chrétien used to.

Nothing has changed. The only change in this Parliament is that, through a democratic effort, we, the opposition parties, are now at least able to adopt motions to push some issues forward. Members will recall the many times, under the 1997 and 2000 governments, that proposals from opposition members were systematically turned down by the Liberal government. Any motion, amendment or idea from the opposition was simply voted down.

Since I have only a minute left, let me say that all 54 Bloc Québécois members, all CLDs, all regional bodies in Quebec, as well as the Quebec government are saying to the federal government: “No to Bill C-9”.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House to speak to Bill C-9. I would like to take this opportunity to rectify a few things that have been said earlier in this debate which started at 10 a.m., particularly with respect to statements that were made by government members.

When we look at the strategy behind the creation of this department, we see that this is a duplication. I want to go back to what the member for Beauce and the minister responsible for the agency said earlier, when they stated that this government would work with the various levels, the people in the field. I have a hard time understanding why Quebec's government was never mentioned. All that was said was that the agency bypasses Quebec's decision makers and attempts to solve a problem.

This approach requires a significant amount of energy. A lot of time is being wasted, between this agency and the Government of Quebec, establishing priorities. If this government were serious, it would announce today that, with the creation of this department, it intends to include the Government of Quebec in order to better define the priorities of the regions.

Personally, I consider that the Government of Quebec, with the CLD structure, has a model local and regional development tool. This model includes people from municipalities, decision-makers, business people and also people from the communities. It was first promoted by former minister Guy Chevrette, then by Louise Harel, when she took over the municipal affairs and regions. It is a model that really meets the expectations in Quebec.

Talking about CFDC, some of them work very well with the CLD, but not within the guidelines given by the federal government to CFDC. There are men and women working in these regional organizations who really care about regional development and go beyond partisanship and the presence of the Canadian flag. They work with people from the community and often, they establish exceptional cooperation links with people from the CLD.

There are structures in Quebec. What Quebec needs is money. We have denounced the tax imbalance over and over. Before establishing again a Department of Regional Development, the Government of Canada should consult the Government of Quebec to identify its needs. All we hear today is how this department will work with people in the community, neglecting, of course, to consult the Government of Quebec, bypassing the people who manage the local and regional infrastructures in Quebec.

Some people are trying to make me say that there is no new duplication, and I don't understand why the supporters of Bill C-9 today can't see the duplication. Personally, I have a hard time understanding that the federal government has responsibilities in this field.

The responsibilities of a federal government are to intervene in its own jurisdictions. Currently, there is a whole lot that the federal government could do in its own jurisdictions.

There are some economic issues in Quebec, including in my riding, that are the result of situations with the Americans, the Chinese or other nations. The federal government should deal with these issues.

Why is the federal government still dragging its feet regarding the mad cow issue? Imagine: a single cow has brought a whole economic sector to a standstill, a sector that is critical for Quebec, namely the dairy production. This problem has been going on since May 2003. And they are telling me that this government is taking action? Yet, this issue comes under its jurisdiction. It is up to the federal government to deal with border disputes.

As we know, and the hon. member for Beauce should know that, the textile industry is currently going through a crisis. Again, this is a crisis triggered by the Liberal government's lack of responsibility. It is that same government which decided that, on December 31, 2004, quotas would be lifted to further promote trade. This government did not do anything to prepare our local and regional industries to meet these new challenges.

A number of industries in small towns are closing. When this happens, for example in a town of 2,000 or 3,000—and there are several ones in my riding—when a plant that employs 125 or 150 people stops operating, it is almost the end for that town.

Earlier, the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec said that he did his best to resolve the textile crisis. He announced some programs, but budgets were non existent. There is no money left. We are confronted with these issues on a daily basis. There are no transition measures. This government failed to do its duty by not preparing the industry to face these new global challenges.

Today, this government wants to establish a department to try to save our regions. This is not acceptable. The main reason why people had to leave our regions is because the employment insurance fund was robbed. Just imagine a young person in a region who wants to replace a seasonal worker ready to retire. Up to now, this person needed 450 or 500 working hours to be entitled to benefits. Employment insurance is there for a reason. In all its geographic diversity, Quebec needs a program to support its seasonal workers. A young person willing to replace a retiring worker who was ready to show him or her the ropes will now have to work 900 hours to be entitled to the same benefits. What do these young people do? They get discouraged. They leave the regions for the big centres. As a result , a poverty belt is forming in Quebec's central regions, in the main cities. Once again, it is the Canadian government that created this poverty belt by ignoring the needs of the unemployed.

And they want to convince us today that Bill C-9 will solve regional problems.

There is no way that the Bloc Québécois will accept another partisan tactic. Let me explain how Economic Development Canada works, how it respects elected officials and how regional directors are given instructions.

More and more, we are seeing the 54 democratically elected members of the Bloc Québécois being shut out of decisions made by regional directors. And they are telling us that they want to fix the democratic deficit. This is a good example of the democratic deficit.

The Centre-du-Québec region, which is very familiar to me, has been without a director for three years. This is an economically powerful region. Every time the social and economic stakeholders ask Economic Development Canada for help, there is a lot of foot-dragging. Everything has been centralized in Trois-Rivières by an individual who completely ignored the needs of the Centre-du-Québec region. And passing Bill C-9 is supposed to solve all these problems?

We have noticed as well that Canada Economic Development has become a promotional tool for Liberal partisanship. It is crazy how much partisan work former MPs get. Just look at the former member for Frontenac—Mégantic, Gérard Binet. He is busy because every time Canada Economic Development has something to do, he is there. Christian Jobin is another former Liberal member. He was defeated and has a special mandate to set up some sort of summit on municipalities, another action that once again interferes in Quebec's business. I could name others.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in the debate on Bill C-9, an act to establish the economic development agency of Canada for the regions of Quebec.

It is my understanding that the purpose of the act is to promote the development and diversification of the economy in the regions of Quebec.

The NDP supports establishing the economic development agency for the regions of Quebec as an individual legal entity. We think this is making the move from a program in Industry Canada to being a stand-alone agency.

The federal government's ability to bring money into a region and decide what organizations benefit from it for many areas can be the most public example and sometimes the most controversial example of government policy. Most of the government's economic development is focused exclusively on the private sector, but there are many other organizations that can contribute to a region's prosperity.

We in the NDP would argue that Bill C-9 could be improved by specific reference to community economic development, which is what I will be focusing my remarks on this afternoon.

I did appreciate hearing from my Bloc colleague who spoke previously about some of the larger and more specific issues facing the regions of Quebec, issues like transportation, infrastructure and employment insurance polices. We in the NDP are also very concerned about addressing those issues, but this afternoon I want to talk about community economic development in particular.

In the last budget, the government promised $132 million for community economic development across the country. Community economic development is not a short term project, however. Unfortunately, that is how most government funding is promoted, in the short term category. Seventeen million dollars of the funding that was announced are planned for a two year capacity building pilot project so that the government can learn more about community economic development.

As Mike Lewis, the director of the Centre for Community Enterprise said, “This should be a part of a long term strategy, not short term project based funding if the government truly wants to build capacity in a community economic development sector”.

Focusing on short term project based funding does create capacity but it does not create trust or cooperation among community groups. What is needed instead is an integrated policy relationship where ministries and agencies allow the groups that have already done the research to educate the bureaucrats instead of wasting taxpayer dollars on short term projects that will not produce long term gain.

Now it is the chantier de l'économie sociale in Quebec that will deal with this funding through the new organization that we are debating creating today.

Community economic development is known as social economy in Quebec and has proven very successful. Overall in Quebec the social economy sector, without even counting financial co-operatives, the two largest agricultural co-ops or the community action networks, is made up of over 6,200 co-operatives and non-profit enterprises that employ 65,000 people and generate over $4.3 billion in sales. It is an important sector in the economy of Quebec.

Community economic development improves the whole community and not just the business sector. A stronger community leads directly to a stronger economy.

Community economic development uses triple bottom line accounting. It considers the environmental, the social issues and the economic factors when doing economic planning. This is a far more holistic approach to economic development.

We would like to thank the centre for community economic development at Simon Fraser University, which is in my riding of Burnaby--Douglas, for its descriptions of community economic development which we used to prepare our remarks today.

Community economic development can be described as a community based and community directed process that explicitly combines social and economic development and is directed toward fostering the economic, social, ecological and cultural well-being of communities and regions.

Community economic development has emerged as an alternative to conventional approaches to economic development. It is founded on the belief that problems facing communities, such as unemployment, poverty, job loss, environmental degradation, economic instability and loss of community control, need to be addressed in a holistic and participatory way.

The background information that the government sent out to accompany Bill C-9 talked about small and medium sized enterprises. This is a recognition that in smaller communities, unless there is a resource nearby to exploit, it will not be a large corporation that brings in the jobs but many small businesses. There is already an emphasis in the bill on smaller enterprise and that makes a connection to community economic development even more possible and, hopefully, more likely.

The following principles underline community economic development, which is an evolving and ongoing process.

Equity: Community economic development is based on the principle of fairness and the belief that community members should have equitable access to community decision making processes, resources and the benefits of community economic development projects.

Participation: Community economic development encourages the active participation of all members of the community in the planning, decision making and benefits of community economic development initiatives and works to remove the barriers that limit the participation of marginalized citizens.

Community building: Community economic development seeks a sense of community by fostering relationships of acceptance, understanding and mutual respect.

Cooperation and collaboration: Community economic development recognizes that there are important linkages and connections between communities and regions and that many problems cannot be addressed in isolation. Community economic development, therefore, encourages relationships based on cooperation and collaboration.

Self-reliance and community control: Community economic development builds on local strengths, creativity and resources, and actively seeks to decrease dependency on invulnerability to economic interests outside the community and region. Furthermore, community economic development supports decentralized, non-hierarchical decision making processes that strengthen the autonomy of the individual, the community and the region.

Integration: Community economic development recognizes that the healthy development of communities requires a holistic approach that addresses the social, economic, cultural and ecological dimensions of community well-being.

Interdependence: Community economic development recognizes that the local community exists within the context of a larger complex web of relationships and that its decisions can have an impact far beyond its own boundaries. Therefore, community economic development embraces strategies that aim to benefit the local and the larger community.

Living within ecological limits: Community economic development recognizes that the social, cultural and economic well-being of the community depends on healthy local, regional and global ecosystems and that there are real ecological limits to human economic activities. Therefore, community economic development encourages processes, structures and initiatives that respect these ecological limits and supports work that is sustaining, regenerating and nurturing of both the community and the earth.

Capacity building: Community economic development contributes to self-reliance by encouraging the acquisition of relevant skills and the development of supportive structures and institutions.

Diversity: Community economic development contributes to self-reliance by encouraging economic activities that are diverse and appropriate to the express needs within the community and region. As a result, community economic development looks different in each community.

Appropriate indicators: Community economic development monitors and evaluates its progress through community derived and appropriate economic, social, cultural and ecological indicators rather than through conventional measures and standards.

That is a long list but I think it indicates how community economic development approaches are perfectly suited to the needs of a regional economic development agency.

It might seem like a bit of a digression but I want to talk briefly about the issue of literacy. We celebrated National Literacy Day just a few weeks ago. Improving adult literacy skills is one area of community economic development that needs more attention. We think that should be part of the mandate of all of Canada's regional development agencies.

The skills that a community workforce needs change as the community moves from a resource or farming economy to one based on knowledge or tourism. Overall, workers from agriculture, fishing and forestry occupations have shown lower literacy skills than other working age adults. In some parts of Canada nearly half the working age adults do not have the necessary literacy skills to work in knowledge economy jobs.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development has reported that 33% of Canadian businesses reported training problems because of low literacy rates. How can any community build its overall economic social and environmental capacity when half the people available to make that happen do not have the needed skills. It is a national shame that we do not work harder to provide all of our citizens with the training they need throughout their lifetime when we expect all workers to continually upgrade their skills.

Regional development agencies should be empowered to help train adult workers in literacy skills in both of our official languages. Education and training are part of the building blocks to building a strong and prosperous economy.

In conclusion, let me reiterate the NDP's support for the establishment of the economic development agency of Canada for the regions of Quebec. We also urge the government to ensure that community economic development, the social economy, is central to the activities of the agency.

My colleague, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, will be working hard on this legislation and looks forward to continuing the discussion on the bill in committee on behalf of the NDP.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a sovereignist member of Parliament, my goal —to which I will dedicate myself actively for the following weeks, months and, maybe, years—is to make sure that Québec becomes a country able to repatriate all responsibilities so we may have all the tools we need.

Concerning duplication, it is difficult for me to fully understand the minister's reasoning. Concerning local and regional development issues, I refer him to the intervention I made a few minutes ago. I am pretty sure he heard what I said about local and regional development. I stress that “local” refers to municipalities and “regional” refers to regions like Gaspé and the islands, and not the Province of Québec, as he seems to understand. Local and regional development are part of under Québec's responsibilities. In this respect, I think that the Minister probably wants to muddy the waters to distract us from the real problem, the real issue. However, I am convinced that he will agree with me the issue is a very big one.

When it comes to a region like mine, which is facing a difficult situation demographically speaking, since population figures will be back down to 1940's level. The trend will be very difficult to revert. Just try to imagine all the work that will have to be done. Try to imagine all the effort that will be needed. I think that Quebeckers, thanks to their structures, responsibilities and past track record will succeed in meeting that enormous challenge. I am convinced that duplication, which is what Bill C-9 aims for, is not the way to resolve or contribute to resolving the problem, so that a region like mine may have a better future.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to speak today on Bill C-9 to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

I will admit, to begin with, that I would much rather ask the following question: is there any future for the regions? For example,does Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, the region from which I come, have a future? I think this is illustrative of the basic issue confronting us in connection with this bill.

It would be a good thing if the bill were aimed at improving the situation and permitting all the money allocated to local and regional development to go to Quebec, where there are resources and structures. I do not want to see what is already in place shunted aside, the CFDC and other resources.

There are certain resources already available on the federal level. I would pay acknowledge the efforts of staff, both past and present, of Economic Development Canada or the CFDC, the community futures development corporations in the Quebec region. I think there are 57 of these corporations in all and their contribution certainly deserves recognition.

In Canada, when we talk about regions, when the issue is about my region, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, for instance, we can say that that word does not exist in the vocabulary. When we talk about regions in the Canadian sense of that term, we talk about Quebec as a whole. There are 18 regions in Quebec. In the federal system, one does not talk about a region per se, such as Gaspésie-les-Îles or Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean or others, but about Quebec in its entirety.

When we talk about local and regional development, that is where this becomes important. One realizes that Quebec has its own specific tools, such as the local investment centres, now also called local investment funds, which revolve around various structures, headed and funded by Quebec. These tools boost local and regional development.

The bill before us is such that we find ourselves in a situation where programs are not changed, and neither are budgets. So, in my region, one realizes at the end of the day that it is possible to make considerable headway while having a very good grasp of issues as they play out in our local environment.

I draw attention here to Histoire de la Gaspésie , written by Marc Desjardins, Yves Frenette, Jules Bélanger and Bernard Hétu, a book to which something was added recently. When one looks at the history of the Gaspé region, specifically with respect to demographics, one realizes that in 1870—it was thus quite a while ago—there were 31,480 inhabitants. By 1960, the number had jumped to 104,824. Yes, we can talk about development, an increase, the demographic factor.

However, the situation today is the following. In 1960, there were 104,824 inhabitants. In 2001, there were 99,886. We are talking about the Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine region. In 2004, this year, the numbers are very worrisome. We are talking about approximately 97,000 inhabitants.

There is a serious decrease in population. By their very nature, figures sometimes allow us to make projections. Accordingly, looking ahead to 2021, we foresee a population of only 86,000 people in the Gaspésie and Îles-de-la-Madeleine region. This means that we are getting back to the figures prevailing in 1940. It also reflects the reality we live in, and shows that we have a very important job to do to ensure that this region as well as other Quebec regions can overcome some very serious problems, including outmigration and socio-economic challenges.

In that context, the minister's proposal is basically to create an agency responsible for I know not what exactly. In the statement or the briefing document that we received concerning the bill, the department itself mentions that this legislation does not entail any foreseeable consequence on the programming and on the present client base of the agency. What does that mean exactly? It means that we end up with a department that is already telling us that Bill C-9 will not change in any way the real tools we should use. I think that the Bloc Québécois members, at least this is my view, would rather approve a scheme to transfer the $400 million that are being spent or invested by the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec so that these funds could be used by the people who work on these files, once the necessary resources and employees are transferred.

C-9 is nothing more than duplication. It also shows that we are stuck with a federal government that forgets that by creating a new structure, it is not addressing the real issues. I think the federal government should pay more attention to its own responsibilities and stick to its own jurisdiction. Speaking about responsibilities, this reminds us of the mess it made in areas like fisheries, employment insurance, VIA Rail, Air Canada, and so forth. I believe that the government could be much more effective if it paid more attention to its own responsibilities, namely in the fisheries area.

This brings me to what is going on in the fisheries. To get some idea of the problems, one only has to visit port facilities throughout Quebec. We recently had the opportunity to tour the maritime areas of Quebec. I was accompanied by the hon. member for Manicouagan and the hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. We saw some terrible things. We have a government, a department which does not fulfill its own obligations, namely to provide fishers and boaters, as well as all potential port users, with facilities which are well maintained and repaired.

The efforts of the Bloc Québécois in recent years helped get much more money, but not enough to deal adequately with the needs. In 2000-01, there was a $50 million budget for Canada's entire small craft harbours program. Such an amount is not only insufficient, but ludicrous. Because of this ludicrous situation, an additional amount of $20 million a year, starting in 2002, has been allocated for the next five years. The Bloc Québécois was instrumental in getting this modest budget increase.

However, the efforts made regarding this issue are really inadequate, considering the needs. Based on some estimates—and the reality may actually be even worse—we are talking about an amount of over $500 million to repair or maintain small craft harbours across Canada.

Year in and year out, the budget is only a few tens of millions of dollars. This means that we are postponing the solving of existing problems. Assuming one's real responsibilities would mean to earmark large budgets for small craft harbours.

Currently, there are some horror stories in Grande-Vallée, Rivière-au-Renard and Cannes-de-Roches, in the Gaspé Peninsula. I had the opportunity to visit some facilities and to talk to people about these issues. I can say that, when it comes to the federal government's initiatives, as they relate to its responsibilities regarding fishing infrastructures, these people do not beat around the bush and they are totally unsatisfied.

This bill does not change anything in terms of budgets and programs, and the department keeps telling us that, in the end, it will have no impact on the agency's current program and clientele. This is a bill that merely seeks to increase visibility and that will ultimately result in duplication.

This duplication will generate real problems. The real issue is demography. At the beginning of my speech, I alluded to what will happen in the regions in terms of demographics, and to the fact that, by the year 2021, the population will be the same as it was in 1940. This is not what we call progress. This is not an improvement. This is not what we call building a future, a promising one.

This is why it is very important that the federal government, considering the resources that it has available and the existing fiscal imbalance, ensures that this money can be transferred to Quebec, which can really look after our own business in a proper and responsible manner.

When it comes to examples showing what is currently happening, let me say that, unfortunately, there are many. The railway system is really in a state of neglect, or even inappropriate. Furthermore, there is passenger train service in the Gaspé Peninsula only three days a week. Service is provided only three days a week, not seven days a week. Air transport is deficient, indeed practically almost inoperable. Flight schedules are inadequate. There are few airlines to choose from, and so on.

I occasionally use air travel. Therefore, I can say that it is inaccessible because of cost. Indeed, we are not talking about a few hundred dollars, but nearly a thousand dollars to travel between Montreal and the Gaspé Peninsula, or between Montreal and the Magdalen Islands. For this price, on could easily go to Europe. That having been said, in 2004, I do not think that this reflects an honest effort or what could be a situation where proper services are offered.

There is also the employment insurance file. This is a real mess. I have had the opportunity—and that is part of my reason for being in politics—to meet a lot of people in connection with this file. This is something I have experienced myself, as a resident of the Gaspé—Magdalen Islands area, and I am experiencing it again today. In that context, when we look at the results, at the way the federal government handled its responsibilities, and the way it could have handled them, we realize that it is certainly not by introducing a bill like this one, which changes nothing and simply seeks to create duplication, that it will resolve any problem whatsoever.

This duplication shows that the new department goes far beyond the current Canada Economic Development.

We are talking about a real federal department of regional development for Quebec. The bill says that the minister shall guide, promote and coordinate federal policiesand programs in relation to the development anddiversification of the economy of the regionsof Quebec. His mandate includes all federal activities in the regions.

Accordingly, in cooperation with other concernedfederal ministers and boards and agencies, the minister shall formulate and implementpolicies, plans and integrated federalapproaches.

Integrated federal approaches says it all. That's the real issue. The minister will in fact be responsible for the impacts of all federal programs on the regions.

We certainly do not want any integrated federal approaches to the development of Quebec's regions. The regions do need an integrated development strategy, but only Quebec is able to implement it. I think this is the crux of the matter, the crux of what Bill C-9 can represent and the crux of what is fundamentally at stake here.

We already know that the Constitution gives Quebec responsibility over most matters relating to regional development. I remind hon. members of what I said at the beginning: regions for Canada and regions for Quebec are two different things.

When reference is made to regions of Canada, this certainly does not mean regions like Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, or Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for instance. It means Quebec as a whole. In Canada, the regions mean the Atlantic region—which includes more than one province—Quebec, Ontario and the west.

But when we speak of regions, we mean regions like Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, where we have six RCMs, or county regional municipalities, for a population that now numbers under 100,000, as I have said. With demographic projections as they are, we obviously need a really big hand up.

I think that we owe a vote of thanks to the men and women who have worked on economic recovery plans. I will touch on the federal plans, but first I will take a moment to talk about the Quebec plan. That effort has been translated into concrete action and a plan, as far as the development of my region is concerned.

Although the figures are still pretty alarming, we have seen slightly fewer young people leaving these past few years. This positive effect on the very serious problem of our youth exodus is the result of a recovery plan that has been created and implemented by Quebec.

Now for the federal plan. Just prior to the 2000 election campaign, an announcement was made in our region about a three-year $35 million recovery plan. Three years would bring us now to the end of the program, but imagine this, over time, it has been turned into a five-year plan.

If we do the math, we see that the plan, rather than injecting $35 million into the region by March 31, 2004, has put in $13.2 million. This is an example of how this government fulfils its responsibilities. It is therefore very important to look the situation squarely in the face and ensure that help is really forthcoming to regions such as Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.