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.

Income Tax Act

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

—a downturn in the Fort McMurray area, the MP for Fort McMurray would be more than happy that we went ahead and passed this bill into law.

The Liberal Party believes that the federal government can significantly impact regional economic development. That is why in 2005 the Liberal government at the time invested over $800 million over five years in regional development agencies across the country.

What is interesting is that the Bloc Québécois was the only party that voted against Bill C-9 in 2005, which aimed to create the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, Mr. Kevin Page, has testified before the finance committee and assured us that the Canada Revenue Agency has the capability to implement these changes and administer them quite easily. The bill does not actually do much to promote significant job growth in the regions, but it is a beginning. So we should not lose sight of the fact that it could help to stop the bleeding in regions where jobs are available but are not being filled because of the regional geographic disadvantage.

Given that this government has no real strategy to promote the economic growth of the regions, this bill is a good option.

I believe that all members of this House should support it. Personally, I will support it.

Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario Act

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-309, An Act establishing the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario, which was introduced by my colleague from Nipissing—Timiskaming. It is not that we support federal government interference in regional development, but if the people of northern Ontario and the Government of Ontario want to create an agency, the Bloc Québécois would obviously be ill advised to oppose it.

The purpose of Bill C-309 is to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario, which, like the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, would be responsible for promoting the development of northern Ontario in accordance with an integrated federal strategy.

The Bloc Québécois defends Quebec's interests, and that is why in the past we voted against Bill C-9, which created the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. Members will say that we are being inconsistent. We voted against creating an agency in Quebec, yet we support creating an agency in Ontario. I have no problem with that, because if the people in northern Ontario want to create such an agency, then naturally we will support them.

The Bloc Québécois believes, as all the governments of Quebec have believed for more than 45 years, that in order to be able to develop an integrated policy on regional development, Quebec must have control over regional development programs. I will explain this further during my speech.

As my colleague has just said, the regions are the ones with the solutions. Quebec in particular has organizations that focus on the socio-economic development of their regions. These organizations are in a position to properly advise the minister on regional needs and to help with program implementation. The local development centres were created specifically to develop the regional economy and to advise ministers in order to ensure that the investments made would be as cost effective as possible for regional development. Over the years, we have also created another kind of organization, the regional conferences of elected officials, which bring together all mayors and other elected officials in each of the regions. Obviously, they examine every file relating to regional development and they, too, are well placed to provide the minister responsible with proper advice.

The Bloc Québécois is aware that not all governments have the same priorities. Despite the fact that the agency is joyfully trampling on Quebec's toes in its jurisdiction, if the Government of Ontario has decided to welcome this structure into its regional economy, we cannot do otherwise than agree, as I said. It must be pointed out as well that Ontario has been hit very hard by the economic crisis, northern Ontario even more so because of the forestry crisis and the decline of the auto industry.

I would like to make the point that a true regional development strategy needs to include a broad range of components: natural resources, education, training, municipal affairs, land use, infrastructure and so on, none of which are in any way federal responsibilities. In fact, the Canadian Constitution entrusts most things that concern regional development to Quebec and the provinces.

In order to be in a position to create an integrated regional development policy, all of the governments of Quebec in the past 45-plus years have been demanding control of the regional development program.

Between 1973 and 1994, an agreement was in place between the Government of Quebec and the government in Ottawa. According to it, Ottawa could not invest in regional development without the agreement of the Government of Quebec. In 1994, that agreement was broken. Since that time, there have been two parallel structures in Quebec, those of the Government of Quebec and those of the federal government, which both invest in regional development.

Very often the two are in conflict with each other, because the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec sets priorities for itself that are not shared by Quebec or the regions of Quebec. This clash of regional development systems is a very common occurrence.

Another phenomenon has also cropped up since the Conservatives have been in power.

As my colleague mentioned, the government made deep cuts to the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec's budget. Those cuts were significant.

Since 1994, the agency has been investing in research and development organizations responsible for supporting businesses. I could list all kinds of organizations in every region of Quebec that were responsible for helping small and medium-sized businesses conduct research and development and bring their ideas to market.

Small and medium-sized businesses do not necessarily have the financial means to do research and create and launch new products. That is why the agency invested in those kinds of organizations. Then, suddenly, two years ago in 2007, the agency withdrew its support. That is the problem with having two parallel regional development systems. The Canadian agency withdrew, and now a lot of those organizations are in trouble. Basically, the entire structure that the Government of Quebec and the regions of Quebec built over the years has been demolished.

I can provide actual examples of that in my region. Among other things, the forest research centre, which was supported by the Canadian agency, was unexpectedly told that it would have to begin turning a profit within about two years. That was utterly impossible. That kind of development will no longer be happening. The federal government must understand that regional development cannot happen without taking into account each region's priorities and those of the Government of Quebec.

Earlier, my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue was talking about the Minister of Industry. I should point out that the Minister of Industry was responsible for the agency, and he is the one who cut funding to several organizations in Quebec. The new minister tried to restore funding, but I do not think that he tried hard enough, because instead of restoring the funding, organizations were simply given an extra year within which to become profitable. It is no secret that most research and development organizations will never be profitable because they do research and development to bring products to market. It takes years and years to turn a profit, and that is not what these organizations are meant to do. Their role is to support businesses, not replace them. That is where the government made its mistake.

Earlier, my colleague said that the Minister of Industry was very busy because there are files piled up on his desk. I would say to him that is probably the same tactic he used at the Economic Development Agency of Canada because everything ended up on his desk. Files would languish and he was accused—I believe rightly—of engaging in petty politics, cheap politics, by using the funds of the Economic Development Agency of Canada. In my opinion, the same thing is currently happening at Industry Canada. It is the same minister.

Let us be serious. He probably used the same tactics and is probably continuing to use the same approach. That means files were not dealt with, files are languishing and will continue to do so because he has to look at all of them, one by one, and he does not trust anyone, especially not the directors of agencies in Quebec and probably not Industry department officials.

I am being told that I have one minute left. Therefore I will repeat that the Bloc Québécois will support the creation of a development agency for northern Ontario because that is the decision of the people who live there and of the Ontario government, and that is important to us. Therefore, if those people want it, as a political party that respects all regions, I believe that we must vote for Bill C-309.

Private Member's Bill C-309

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, on February 25, 2009, you made a statement with respect to the management of private members' business. In particular, you raised concerns about five bills which, in your view, “appear to impinge on the financial prerogative of the Crown”.

One of the bills you mentioned was Bill C-309, An Act establishing the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario. I would note that in the last Parliament, the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming brought forward the same bill as Bill C-499, which the Speaker on June 10, 2008, noted appeared “to impinge on the financial prerogative of the Crown”.

Without commenting on the merits of the bill, I submit that the bill must be accompanied by a royal recommendation because it would require new spending. Bill C-309 would create a new agency of government and provide for the appointment of personnel. Clause 8 of Bill C-309 establishes the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario as a separate and distinct agency of the Government of Canada.

The requirement of a royal recommendation for organizational changes such as establishing a new agency is referred to in the Speaker's ruling of July 11, 1988, on two motions to amend Bill C-93, An Act for the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in Canada. The Speaker said that to establish a separate department of government “undoubtedly would cause a significant charge upon the federal treasury in order for the new department to function on a daily basis”.

When an almost identical bill was introduced in the first session of the 38th Parliament as Bill C-9, An Act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, it was accompanied by a royal recommendation.

The second reason Bill C-309 would require a royal recommendation is that it provides for the appointment of personnel. There are numerous precedents indicating that appointments must be accompanied by a royal recommendation. For example, on February 25, 2005, the Acting Speaker ruled that Bill C-280, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Account and premium rate setting) and another Act in consequence required a royal recommendation because it provided for the appointment of 13 new commissioners to the Canada Employment Insurance Commission. The parent act specified that all commissioners were to receive remuneration.

Clauses 4 and 9 of Bill C-309 provide for the establishment of advisory committees in the appointment of a president of the agency, positions that do not currently exist. Furthermore, the clauses explicitly state that the remuneration of the appointees shall be fixed by the Governor in Council. Provisions for salaries to be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund clearly impose a charge on the public treasury. I submit that clauses 4 and 9 would therefore require a royal recommendation.

Clause 13 of Bill C-309 would also require the appointment of personnel, in this case, the officers and employees necessary for the proper conduct of the new agency. Although clause 13 does not specifically provide for the remuneration of these employees, the Speaker ruled on February 11, 2008 with respect to Bill C-474, the Federal Sustainable Development Act:

Section 23 of the Interpretation Act makes it clear that the power to appoint includes the power to pay. As the provision in Bill C-474 is such that the governor in council could choose to pay a salary to these representatives, this involves an appropriation of a part of the public revenue and should be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

These precedents apply to Bill C-309. The bill would create new spending and therefore requires a royal recommendation.

[Roger Tassé, Legal Counsel, Gowling, Lafleur and Henderson, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, gentlemen, madam.

Thank you for the invitation to appear before your committee to answer your questions.

This review began in May 2006 at the request of the Minister of Transport. There were concerns about whether the Toronto Port Authority had well managed its responsibilities. There were allegations in the press and elsewhere about actions that the authority had taken with respect to the fixed link, which eventually was approved and eventually was cancelled, and the settlement that occurred thereafter.

The purpose of my review was to do just that: review the decision regarding these matters. The minister wanted to be satisfied that the principles of good governance had been upheld.

My mandate, which you will find as attachment 2 of my report, sets out specifically the questions that I had to look into in the context of a very important agreement that was entered into in 1983 between the federal government and the then Toronto harbour commissioners and the City of Toronto.

I had the assistance, for the purpose of my review, of Jeffrey Smith, who was retained by the Department of Transport. Jeffrey Smith is a member of the BDO Dunworthy firm of forensic accountants. You have a summary of his findings attached to my report.

For the review, I had the assistance and cooperation of quite a number of people: the City of Toronto, the staff of the city, members of the Toronto Port Authority or TPA, the Department of Transport in Toronto and at an office here in Ottawa, and the Department of Justice lawyers who had been involved in the various events under review.

I received great collaboration from all the people I talked to. I have looked at hundreds and hundreds of documents, if not more. I met with anyone who wanted to talk to me about the TPA and their management, the decisions that had been made, the concerns they had. I received a lot of e-mails and had a lot of meetings, including meetings with representatives from the community associations on the Toronto waterfront. You have a list of the members.

Now for my findings.

In summary, I've come to the conclusion that the Toronto Port Authority had complied with due diligence requirements in all respects on the matters that concerned the proposed construction of the bridge, the purchase of the new ferry, and the commercial arrangements that were entered into as part of the settlement agreement. This is discussed on page 3 of my report.

The overall settlement after the cancellation occurred, as you will well know, cost $35 million, and there were a lot of questions relating to that amount. People were saying, why would it cost $35 million to settle claims? We don't have a bridge, and the bridge itself would have cost $14 million. So there were a lot of questions.

And people were concerned that one of the difficulties, perhaps, was that in effect there was not much information that could be made public and was made public at the time regarding the process of negotiations.

But I've come to the conclusion, and I will say more if required later, that the amount of $35 million was reasonable, that the principles of good governance here again had been respected not only in reaching the global settlement but also in the way the $35 million was allocated to each of the parties who were involved and who had been damaged by the cancellation of the bridge.

I looked at the Aecon contract. Aecon was the builder who had been retained, after a process of tenders, by the authority to construct the bridge. There had been allegations that in effect the construction contract had been purposely and inappropriately accelerated to ensure that the bridge could not be stopped by a new municipal administration. I deal with that in my report very carefully, at pages 64 and 68.

My conclusion, after having looked at all the circumstances, talking to people, and having looked at the documents that were available, is that such allegations were grossly exaggerated, and I have set out the reasons on page 66 for my coming to that conclusion.

There were also many questions about the environmental assessments that had to be performed before the contract could be let. There were assessments in 1999, in 2003 regarding the bridge itself, and in 2006 regarding the ferry, after the bridge had been cancelled. I reviewed in detail the various stages of the environmental processes, from the beginning to the end. You will find that on seven pages, on page 68 and following. Again, my conclusion was that principles of good governance have been complied with.

It was not easy. Every step had plenty of difficulties, but my conclusion is that the TPA itself managed the issues well, and the processes as well.

There was a question as well that had been specifically raised by many, and that was part of my mandate. There were questions about how it was that the Toronto port had come to be governed by the Canada Marine Act. I have read fascinating debates in the House of Commons and in the Senate. This is related at page 90.

In effect, there were two administrations involved. They were two Liberal administrations, but there was an election between. First, Bill C-44 was introduced; there was a lot of debate about it. And there was another, Bill C-9, which followed the election of the Liberal government.

Again, if you're interested, I can tell you more about that. I've learned a lot about Toronto and about the Senate committee and the House of Commons committee debates on these matters. I found them fascinating.

But my conclusion was that Parliament had decided that the Toronto Port Authority qualified as a national port and that it should be on the list. Parliament itself—you people—had decided that it should be on the list. It was not a function or a responsibility that had been left to a minister afterwards.

There were provisions for the minister later to look at applications that other ports in Canada might make, and there were some criteria. These criteria were before the House when the list was devised and when steps were taken and amendments were made to get the Port of Toronto and the Port of Hamilton on the list. I didn't find anything wrong with that.

Although the department itself initially had proposed and the minister had agreed that Toronto should not be on the list, eventually—I guess there were caucus meetings and members' meetings—the decision was made, and there was an all-party agreement that the Toronto Port Authority should be on the list.

That's enough of that.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard.

It has been just over a week since the Conservative government delivered its second budget in 14 months, and unfortunately, but not surprisingly, it fails on the test of foreign policy. In addressing foreign policy needs, the government is basically silent.

Although the government claims that it has delivered something for everyone, it really has not dealt with the area of foreign policy. It should not be a surprise, because foreign policy is amateur hour when it comes to the Conservatives. They do not really have a focus on foreign policy. Other than the United States and Afghanistan, they think they can do without the rest of the world. Unfortunately this is very true when it comes to the budget.

I would point out that Nancy Hughes Anthony, the president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce made the comment:

The government promised in November that they were going to make Canada more competitive and control spending and I think they broke that promise today.

It certainly did on being more competitive. I will get into that when it comes to a number of issues around the world where the government has failed.

The present government likes to talk about the previous Liberal government, so let us talk about the previous Liberal government. In 2005 we put forth the CANtrade strategy which provided $485 million over five years to help Canadian business succeed in emerging markets. The Conservatives scrapped this initiative and have now replaced it with $60 million over the next two years.

The Conservatives also cut $970 million from indirect costs of research programs which cuts assistance to Canadian universities. How are we going to be competitive abroad when this kind of narrow action is taken?

The budget says that the government is going to double international assistance by 2010-11. The Conservatives talk about their commitment of an additional $200 million for reconstruction in Afghanistan, $115 million initially, and $230 million to the issues of advanced markets, but the Liberal government in 2005 provided an increase of $3.4 billion over five years for international assistance, and committed to double official development assistance to over $5 billion by 2010.

The previous Liberal government understood the international community. It was out there. It was clear that it worked hand in glove with the international community and certainly with Canadian business and Canadian universities. Unfortunately, the Conservative government's view of the world is very different.

The government has changed the whole approach and structure on Afghanistan, and its mission is exclusively, it seems, military. We do not see the accountability factors when it comes to development assistance. We are providing more financial dollars to Afghanistan, yet it is not in the top 25 of CIDA recipients. We see that it is spending 10 times more money on the military than on humanitarian assistance in the Afghan theatre, and $200 million for Afghanistan in this budget is not new money. The Conservatives are very good at recycling money, but again it is the same money that the Prime Minister announced in the previous month.

In 2004 the Liberal government passed Bill C-9, the Jean Chrétien pledge to Africa which improved access to expensive drugs for the world's least developed countries in the fight against HIV-AIDS, malaria and other epidemics.

This budget talks about $175 million to accelerate implementation of a Canada first defence plan and $10 million to establish new operational stress injury clinics. The reality is that the government's Canada first defence plan is at odds with the priorities of the armed forces. Much of the equipment will not even be located or maintained in Canada, effectively selling out Canadian sovereignty, of course, and more important, depriving our aerospace industry of significant economic benefits.

In 2005 the Liberal government created a new veterans charter that provided for the most sweeping changes to veterans services and benefits since the end of the second world war. During the 2005 federal election, the Conservatives promised to veterans that they would immediately extend the veterans independence program and services to all second world war and Korean veterans, and of course resolve the agent orange issue.

The government made a promise of $80 million to make CSIS operations more effective. What does this really mean? On a review of the budget, the reality is there is not a real commitment as to how the money will be spent.

There has been no commitment in the budget to hire, for example, more police officers. The government talks about law and order, but it does not walk the talk. It is this party that talked about hiring and will hire 2,500 new officers across the country and provide that assistance. In budget 2007 the government commits no new money for additional police officers. Again, the Conservatives like to talk about crime, but they do not walk the talk.

The Conservatives talk about the previous Liberal government, that the Liberal government did this and that. The reality is the facts certainly show something different. On foreign policy it seems that anything we did they think is bad. They come in and change direction, but they have no substantive policy to assist in innovation, in dealing with international trade, et cetera.

There are two examples on China which are unbelievable. At the beginning of the mandate of the Conservative government, in February when the Conservatives announced the new cabinet, they said there were a thousand Chinese spies in Canada. They could not back that one up. Then the Prime Minister said he was going to talk tough on human rights. He had a 15 minute bathroom break with Hu Jintao, the Chinese president, in Hanoi in November last year. Assuming that eight minutes were used for translation, he had seven minutes in which he could talk about human rights, trade issues and a whole list of things which he is so proud of. Again the Chinese were not impressed.

Clearly this party when in government had a consistent policy of engagement with China. This party has been working, not only on the trade issue, but on tough talk, working with the Chinese and improving the judiciary, improving human rights in the area. One of the most galling things has got to be the short-sightedness of the government in closing four consulates: in Milan, in St. Petersburg, in Fukuoka, and Osaka. Let us take a look at that.

When we look at the Kansai region of Osaka, it has 25 million people, a GDP greater than all of Canada, and the government says, “No, no, it is okay to business. You can do business in the Kansai region. We are going to hand out”--and this is from the minister--“handbooks”. Handbooks do not cut it.

The second largest economy in the world is Japan. It has an economy greater than all of Asia combined, including China, and the Conservatives' answer to Canadian business, Canadian investors, in one of the most important markets outside of the United States is to say “We will close down the consulate and we will hand out handbooks”. This really is not too impressive. Who is not impressed by this? Let us take a look.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce said that the consulates also serve as a focal point for the collection and dissemination of information for Japanese and Canadian companies, organizations and individuals. Anyone who knows Asia knows that the issue is friendship first, business second. We have to be on the ground. We have to have those contacts. They do not have those contacts because now they will be giving out handbooks.

The Conservative government is swimming in money, thanks to the good economic management of previous Liberal governments which eliminated the deficit. Remember that when we came to power in 1993, that side of the House had left us a $42.5 billion deficit. The Conservatives seem to forget that. Unfortunately, or fortunately for them, we left them with more money than they know what to do with. Of course now they are spending it here, there and everywhere, but there is no focus. They have all this money, but they have to close four consulates. That seems to me to be just unbelievable.

The comment of the Canada-Japan Society is that even prior to the announced closing of the consulates in Osaka and Fukuoka, Canadian interests were underrepresented in Japan relative to Japan's importance to Canada as a market for our goods, a source of tourists and students and a major source of investment in the Canadian resource and automotive sectors. They are people who know the Japanese market. They wrote the Prime Minister at the end of January and there was silence from that side of the House.

There is no question that when it comes to the area of foreign affairs, when it comes to the kinds of investments for Canadian business to be competitive, to be a player, the Conservatives have been silent and they have cut back.

There is no question that the former Japanese ambassador was very concerned about this approach. Japanese colleagues in Tokyo were absolutely astounded that we would take such an approach in terms of dealing with this. The government thinks it can deal with it out of Tokyo. It thinks it can deal with it out of Rome.

The government does not understand foreign policy. It is demonstrated in the budget the government presented last week.

Economic Development

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, I can hardly wait for André Harvey to return to this House and behave like a real MP.

The members of the Bloc voted against a $307 million increase in the budget and against Bill C-9. We have helped the textile industry with CANtex, but they did not agree. They were absent. We helped the regions of Quebec in need, despite the Bloc. I travel throughout Quebec, and the Bloc comes along behind me. I repeat this is total hypocrisy.

Privilege

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

I would remind the Bloc member that it was not $46 billion in the case of Oxygène 9. We will never know the figure, because the sovereignists lacked the nerve to investigate. They lacked the courage. Here, however, we did not lack the courage to acknowledge malfeasance and to have the guilty pay the price. We have sent this message here since the outset and will continue to do so.

Instead of being a responsible and transparent government, they had the minister Gilles Baril resign and promoted him to the position of vice-president of Hydro-Québec in Chile. They never investigated and never found out who was guilty. And the Bloc members are trying to teach us a lesson, we who established the Gomery commission and called in the RCMP to uncover the guilty parties.

Criminal charges were laid against four individuals, and 32 civil cases were initiated against individuals or companies for a total of $57 million. In so doing, we have demonstrated our desire to take action to ensure that such major problems never recur. That was the action of a responsible government. We have recreated the position of Comptroller General of Canada as well as comptroller positions for each department, in order to ensure that any program put in place will comply with Treasury Board standards and regulations.

My reading of these tactics is that the Bloc does not know what to do with a government that respects its commitments. This shows how important it is for the government to do exactly that. I will list but a few of our commitments, as time is unfortunately limited.

A few weeks after the election, a health agreement was signed for a total of $41.5 billion, $9.6 billion of that to go to Quebec over 10 years. Health is the ultimate priority of Quebeckers and Canadians. That was the action of a responsible government. We noted a major problem relating to equalization, and wanted to ensure its stability, so that the provincial governments will not be caught unawares because of an adjustment to the highly complex equalization program rules. What was the outcome of that? Within just weeks of the signing of the health agreement, an equalization agreement was concluded for $33 billion over ten years.

I would remind my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois that, this year, the agreement will see $4.8 billion going to Quebec in equalization payments. Next year, the amount will exceed $5.3 billion, or an increase of over $500 million in direct payments to Quebec. This is proof of how the Government of Canada respects its commitments.

We talked about parental leave. We have made an investment of $750 million per year to enable the province of Quebec to make its own decisions concerning parental leave and to enable families to have children, which is essential for our country. Subsequently, we have seen that Quebec is a leader in early learning and child care programs and we wanted to establish a national program. Therefore, an agreement of over $1 billion over five years was concluded. That enables Quebec, as a leader in this area, to share its know-how and expertise with the other provinces and territories, while respecting the fields of jurisdiction.

Too often we hear our colleagues from the Bloc Québécois say that the government does not respect provincial jurisdictions. The Charest government mentioned a while ago that it had concluded 150 agreements with the federal government. This is proof of mutual respect. And the interim leader of the Parti Québécois added: “One hundred and fifty agreements! The Parti Québécois has concluded 400 agreements with the Government of Canada.” This shows things are working out in this country. We are able to get along. However, when we are dealing with the Bloc Québécois, no agreement is possible.

It is too bad that I only have one minute left, because I could have continued for hours and hours to show just how much the Government of Canada has the interests of Quebeckers and all Canadians at heart.

In conclusion, I will talk about Bill C-9. Over $300 million will be given to the regions of Quebec, which constitutes concrete action. Going back to the main point of the debate, I would like to quote the Bloc leader:

On a sharply critical note, [the leader of the Bloc Québécois] said that in a society, attitudes fraught with hypocrisy and innuendo are not to be tolerated. If there is evidence, let it be known, do not let the rumour mill run. Rigour is required at all times; otherwise, we end up with statements starting with “Someone told me they have heard”. That is hearsay, gossip, and it is not right, be it directed at politicians or anyone else. There is nothing more harmful than rumour because it is not factual.

When the Bloc leader made this statement in Le Soleil , to whom do you think he was referring? He was referring to the separatists, who attack each other personally. This is reflected here when unaddressed householders contain personal attacks. Bloc members quote liberally from the Gomery report, saying it contains real and concrete facts, and yet, they do not say a word about the government. This is unacceptable and I hope they will apologize and demonstrate sound management and good behaviour in the House.

Softwood Lumber

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, I would invite the hon. member to have another look at our press releases. Today's announcement has nothing to do with softwood lumber. It is specifically intended as a response to Quebec's request for assistance in connection with the reduction in wood supply legislated by Quebec's Bill 71.

I think it is interesting that the Bloc Québécois is questioning this after voting against Bill C-9 and a budget increase.

Economic Development

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite surprising to have a Bloc Québécois member who voted against Bill C-9, which gave complete autonomy to the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, now ask my colleague to intervene in a situation taking place in a specific region.

I can assure the Bloc Québécois and all hon. members that, anytime a problem arises in one of the regions of Quebec, Economic Development Canada and my colleague are there to assess the situation and implement solutions with the local community.

Extension of Sitting Period

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

June 23, 2005

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 23rd day of June, 2005, at 4:10 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Curtis Barlow

Deputy Secretary, Policy, Program and Protocol

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill C-9, an act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec—Chapter 26; Bill C-56, an act to give effect to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement and the Labrador Inuit Tax Treatment Agreement—Chapter 27; Bill C-58, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2006—Chapter 28; and Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act —Chapter 29.

Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act

[The Speaker]

Accordingly, the next question is on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-9. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[The Speaker]

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 31, the vote on the previous question in the name of the member for Honoré-Mercier relating to the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-9 is deemed carried on division.

(Motion agreed to)

Business of the House

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties in order to expedite the recorded divisions scheduled to take place at the end of government orders on Wednesday, June 1, 2005. I believe that you would find consent for the following order:

That on Wednesday, June 1, 2005, the previous question motion affecting the motion to concur in the second report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, moved by the member for Kitchener Centre, be deemed carried on division;

that the previous question motion affecting the motion for the third reading of Bill C-9, moved by the member for Honoré-Mercier, be deemed carried on division;

and that the motion to concur in the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, moved by the member for Calgary—Nose Hill, be deemed carried on division.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic to be lectured on constitutional conventions by a member of a government that has just broken one of our most fundamental constitutional conventions by governing unconstitutionally after it had lost several confidence motions in the House until it could find a way of buying or bribing its way back into power.

I will simply point out that this is far from being a matter that is irrelevant, unlike for example, Bill C-9, which we were discussing today which will change the name of a department, or the debate many engaged in this morning over whether or not the House of Commons should have a symbol. Those are truly irrelevant debates.

We will just use Liberal Party policy as opposed to the others who have spoken in favour of getting rid of the power of disallowance. Pierre Trudeau advocated this in the 1960s. In 1972 in the Victoria charter he actually brought forward a constitutional amendment to get rid of the disallowance power. He brought it back again in 1978 in the constitutional amendment bill. It was once again brought forward in the Charlottetown accord, which members from many parties, including the Liberals and the NDP voted in favour of. The Bloc did not exist then.

This is a matter of national consensus, but for some reason the minister has decided to reverse, as I say, half a century of consensus in this country.

Business of the House

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place among all parties concerning the recorded division requested earlier today on the third reading stage of Bill C-9 and I believe you would find consent to further defer the said vote from Tuesday, May 31 to the end of government orders on Wednesday, June 1.

Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my hon. colleague opposite just now. I wonder if the Liberal Party of Canada is listening to the same radio stations as the other members of the House. She should have listened to the mayor who looked for Canada Economic Development programs and who was unable to find any. He would have liked some aid after a report on substandard housing was released. He was unable to obtain any because no such program was available.

I also want to say that, according to Canada Economic Development's 2003-04 report, the agency managed to spend only two-thirds of its budget because it did not have the programs it needed to invest in other areas despite the needs identified by its offices.

Once again, the member opposite could have left her own office and visited the agencies. No doubt, she would have discovered this.

All things considered, it is quite simply—I am repeating after my colleagues—a new department that will serve to guide, promote and coordinate the policies and programs of the Government of Canada in relation to the development and diversification of the economy of the regions of Quebec.

It obtained a few more powers than the board of Canada Economic Development, for example, whose funding and mission is provided by the Department of Industry.

Its additional powers seek to interfere in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction and, consequently, the minister shall, in cooperation with other concerned ministers, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, formulate and implement policies, plans and integrated federal approaches. This is very important.

However, the government has been careful not to ensure the approval of the different provincial departments or agencies in areas under their jurisdiction.

So the minister will be responsible for the impact, not the needs of federal programs on the regions. Quebec does not want an integrated federal strategy, but rather improved programming able to meet the needs of Quebec, while respecting its areas of jurisdiction.

I repeat: the Constitution makes Quebec responsible for most matters related to regional development, and an integrated strategy must touch on a wide range of issues such as natural resources, education and training, municipal affairs, land use and infrastructure. Ottawa does not have jurisdiction over such matters, and it is no expert in them either.

In this government, ministers are appointed first, and then portfolios are created for them. It is certainly the case for the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, as it was for the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, a department that was recently split by Parliament. The same government—with the pleading eyes and trembling hand of its leader who, even if he has no credibility, is trying to have the public believe that he is seeking the cooperation of the opposition parties—will not respect the decisions, motions or recommendations made by this Parliament. As a result, it is maintaining a department that was voted down by a majority vote and that has not yet been recognized by this Parliament. If that is what the Prime Minister meant when he promised to correct the democratic deficit, the opposition parties should take the government's measure and defeat once and for all a measure that only serves the interest of the governing party.

As far back as I can remember without going all the way back to Duplessis, Quebec has always demanded to be in charge of its regional development. Just think back to 1965, when Jean Lesage stated the following at a federal-provincial conference:

—Quebec will consider it normal, from now on, that any federal action with respect to the regions of Quebec be taken through Quebec's administrative structures, once Quebec has agreed with the objectives and the means to achieve them. Otherwise, there is a risk that policies based on divergent premises cancel each other out.

After 43 years of debate and continuous improvement in Quebec's ability to manage its own development, the question remains unresolved.

Members will recall that, between 1973 and 1994, there was a framework agreement in place between Quebec and Ottawa. The two governments were obliged to agree, otherwise Ottawa could not have intervened, and most of the federal money went to Quebec structures.

In its dictatorial approach, this government, more centralizing than that of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, circumvented the established agreements, and confrontations could only become more nasty—all for federal Liberal visibility and an outstanding battle with an immigrant to Quebec prepared to betray his adopted fellow citizens, who, for his own purposes and desire for power, got himself elected leader of this government.

Make no mistake: this federation will not be destroyed by a vote for or against the budget, or a vote of confidence, or a vote for or against Bill C-9, or Quebec's sovereignty. The Conservatives, drawn from the Conservative Party or the Alliance, and the NDP all know that. What will kill this federation are the piecemeal negotiations and the unfair competition this government has created among the provinces, to their detriment.

With the insistence by all parties in the House that this bill be rammed down the throats of Quebeckers, we in the Bloc have tried to have certain changes introduced, which would have permitted minimal respect for the areas of Quebec's jurisdiction and the needs and aspirations of Quebeckers in terms of their development and territorial integrity.

We called for the removal of all references to “integrated federal approaches”. It was never recognized in the past in any form whatsoever. It is not recognized today and will not be in the future either. Any elected representative in a country agreeing to such a formulation would be considered a traitor to his country, and all Quebec members doing so here should be considered so as well.

They need only refer to the words of Jean Lesage in 1965 or recall the agreements in existence between 1973 and 1994 to realize that the government has never done a thing for Quebec and continues to seek out confrontation through offensive legislation and action, like the sponsorships and the law—

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it quite simplistic to say that it is just one more limousine and one more senior minister. As the proud member for Gatineau, who may represent Quebec and its interests differently than the members of the Bloc Québécois, I focus on the important part. Indeed, there will be a new senior minister responsible for regional economic development at the cabinet table. I am flabbergasted to hear such a question from a member of the Bloc Québécois.

I will repeat what I have already said, since he opens wide the door every time. His own constituents are asking him why he will not back Bill C-9. This comes not from me but from the mayors of his region. There is a fear, as we have already seen with respect to the bill amending the Official Languages Act, as we see with everything. Every time something good could be done for Canada, you can bet the Bloc Québécois will not support it. I have no problem with that. If you have any other questions, bring them on. We will gain a new senior minister who will not need another department's consent to determine what will be done in terms of regional economic development. Shame on the Bloc Québécois for not backing this bill.

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as member for Gatineau, it is a pleasure for me to take part in this debate at third reading on Bill C-9, to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

I would have liked to see our friends from the Bloc come back from our recess week with new feelings towards Bill C-9. If they had listened to Quebeckers, they would have realized that that bill is extremely important and goes far beyond what has been said this morning by some members from their party.

Canada Economic Development, under the various names it has had over the years, has been working for about 40 years to support the entrepreneurship spirit of women and men, young and not so young, to help them contribute to regional economic development. Bill C-9, once adopted, will give Canada Economic Development the flexibility and tools it needs to stimulate development and to apply an integrated federal strategy.

This is more than what my colleague for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel implied when he said that it was a simple structural change. The bill will make the agency independent from the department of industry and commerce.

Furthermore, the agency will be in a better position to represent the views and interests of Quebec regions in the elaboration of different national policies and programs. The agency will continue, as it has always done, to support promising ideas, determined entrepreneurs and innovative businesses. Option Femme Emploi, in my riding, and Produits Chanteclerc and Styro Rail Inc. are only a few good examples of these. The agency will also continue to help entrepreneurs to adapt to new market conditions created by globalization of trade.

Indeed, over the years, the agency has endeavoured to provide small and medium-sized businesses, the true engines of economic growth in Quebec, with immensely useful strategic information on the expertise and the resources of the government of Canada which can help them continue their growth.

The agency's interventions produce results of which our fellow citizens can be proud and which, even more importantly, meet their needs and their expectations. Thus, the agency has pledged over a billion dollars in financial support for the implementation of some 2,000 projects which were under way in 2003-04. If one adds the investments of other backers to those of the agency in those projects, their total value reaches close to $4 billion across Quebec's regions. This leverage amounts to $4 for every dollar invested.

Within the context of its various programs, Canada Economic Development has contributed to the pre-startup and startup of nearly 2,800 businesses across Quebec. A study undertaken by the agency reveals that more than half of the respondent businesses, that is 58.6%, have stated that their turnover increased following the projet for which they received financial assistance from the agency. Moreover, according to data compiled by the agency for 2003-04, close to three-quarters of those clients, 73.9%, have pointed out that they would not have been able to bring their projects to fruition without its financial support.

Community representatives who share this view include Ms. Manon Laporte, president and CEO of Enviro-Accès Inc., who stated before members of the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology on February 16—and I was very pleased to be there—how support from Canada Economic Development had been important in setting up eight strategic projects. Those initiatives essentially aimed to raise awareness and support the implementation of pollution prevention practices and an environmental management system for production processes with a view to profitability and increased competitiveness.

Ms. Françoise Bertrand, president and CEO of the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, in an article in La Presse , highlighted the importance of the economic benefits that publicly-funded assistance can bring. She said that these benefits go far beyond the assistance received initially.

On another note, an external audit of Canada Economic Development's Regional Strategic Initiatives program shows that the agency's contributions have a considerable leverage effect on the other active financial partners in regional development.

The same audit reveals that the Regional Strategic Initiatives program, compared to other regional development programs in Europe, is a pioneer in targeting the region instead of the business and in supporting the development of innovative capabilities.

As part of an evaluation related to the agency's activities in the field of innovation, 80% of participants said that the assistance provided by Canada Economic Development in the form of repayable contributions helped them meet the challenges of innovation and productivity-related projects.

In that sense, Mr. Yves Goudreau, director of business development for Premier Tech, an important eastern Quebec company, speaking to the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology in February:

During the past year, I was able to note ... as a businessman, the full importance of CED in the development and the diversification of the Quebec economic regions. ... Without these amounts, we would have, without any doubt, directed our product development to the partial improvement of products. In the middle term, this delay would have caused the withdrawal of our products from the market, because of the constant optimization of the products of international competitors—

Also, the agency's actions are sustainable in nature. In fact, among enterprises having received assistance from the agency to carry out innovation and R and D activities, 85% continued to perform this type of activity. In addition, 87% of enterprises stated that these activities contributed to increasing their productivity, and 83% pointed to enhancement of their competitiveness.

A long term impact on employment is also observed. More than half the enterprises, or 57%, reported an increase in the number of employees following a project completed with the agency's support.

Finally, to show just how relevant the agency's involvement is, for the past three years, its clientele’s satisfaction levels have been rising consistently. In 2003-04, for example, 94% of the agency's clients stated that they were satisfied with the quality of services in general.

In this respect, I would like to quote Raymond Giguère, the director general of the Cégep de Rimouski. On February 16 he told the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology that Canada Economic Development was an ideal partner for our regions, working together with all concerned and making its extensive economic development expertise available to the regions.

Mr. Giguère added that, in his view, Canada Economic Development was a key player in the economic development and diversification of Quebec's regions, through its financial and technical support. He went on to say:

Canada Economic Development's capacity to technically and financially support community-based projects focused on domestic and global positioning contributed to this success.

He also said that it would be necessary not only to maintain and develop this capacity to be guided by long term planning in conjunction with the regional community, but also to maintain the capacity to foster a collaborative approach with stakeholders from other orders of government and other federal departments.

Canadians expect, and rightly so, that their governments produce results that reflect their expectations and needs. The ongoing evaluation of our programs and procedures ensures that our activities are in line with the priorities we have set for ourselves and that we will achieve the desired results.

Bill C-9 states that the minister responsible for Canada Economic Development shall cause a comprehensive report providing an evaluation of all activities in which the agency was involved to be laid before each House of Parliament every five years.

In closing, I would like to encourage all members of the House to support Bill C-9 so that Canada Economic Development can have the tools and the flexibility that it needs to continue its effort with the Quebec businesses and communities. I am convinced that Canada Economic Development will do everything in its power to meet the aspirations of the people of all regions of Quebec.

The work done in committee helped to bring in the adjustments that should have allayed the fears or the red herring being used by the Bloc members who keep saying that we want to interfere in areas of Quebec's jurisdiction. This will be done in all respect for Quebec's jurisdictions. If Canada Economic Development was able to work for more than 40 years without interfering in provincial jurisdictions, I think that by resorting to fearmongering, the Bloc is only showing that it does not want this to work.

I know that the regions need Bill C-9. I hope that the other parties will support us as they have done up to now, because it is extremely important for Quebec. I will be very proud to go around my province to say that we have worked very hard to pass Bill C-9.

[Réal Lapierre, Bloc, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-9 purports to better the lives of Canadians and Quebeckers. It is at the very least a big claim as far as Quebec and its regions are concerned.

In spite of all that can be said, no matter how we look at it, all my colleagues without exception will tell you that there is nothing new in Bill C-9 that can help to improve the standard of living of Quebeckers or make things easier for the regional economic development stakeholders.

We all know very well that the various mandates given to Canada Economic Development, whether for programs or budgets, are unchanged. Bill C-9 sets out to establish a federal department to run Quebec's regional development. In practical terms, it is nothing more than a new duplication against the prerogatives of the Quebec government. It is an unacceptable incursion into an exclusively provincial jurisdiction.

We all agree that the regions need a well orchestrated strategy. This being said, Quebec is better equipped to take action and to implement an integrated development strategy because its knowledge of its regions is far superior.

The federal government is using regional economic development to interfere a little more in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. As proof, Bill C-9 states that the minister himself shall have authority over policies and programs in relation to the development and diversification of the economy of the regions.

The minister's mandate includes all federal activities in the regions in order to channel projects, in cooperation with the other relevant federal departments or agencies, toward an integrated federal strategy. There is no mention of jurisdictions belonging to Quebec, let alone the regions.

The government refuses to let the CFDCs focus on regional needs instead of federal priorities. Come on. Does it seriously believe that this makes sense? If anything, the experts in regional needs and regional economic engines are authorities in such a policy and best placed to oversee its implementation.

I refuse to think that anyone here now believes for one second that Atlantic fishers have the same needs as prairie wheat farmers. Responsibility for development must be regional. In other words, this is not aid, it is abject poverty.

To top things off, this affects everything: natural resources, education, training, municipal affairs and infrastructure. In short, there is a range of possibilities but there is not always an effective focus. The way this policy is worded proves that this is yet another shameless attempt to interfere in areas of jurisdiction belonging to Quebec and the provinces. Under the Constitution, Quebec is responsible for matters relating to regional development.

So, why the desperate attempt to establish another administrative level? The money that such duplication requires does not grow as fast as leaves on trees in the spring. All these funds could be invested much more wisely by giving Quebec its rightful share.

The problem with the federal government's plan is that neither level of government is able to allocate all the resources needed to adequately develop the regions. Because of this, we see an anarchic situation that leads to astronomical unemployment rates and mounting problems.

It would be far more advantageous to provide more support to consolidating the agricultural sector in my riding. The mad cow crisis has had a more than considerable effect on dairy producers. Beef producers, although fewer in number than in western Canada, have suffered the same ill effects, while having played no part whatsoever, directly or indirectly, in the genesis of the problem. As we know, for some months now exports to the U.S. have been limited. As well, there are insufficient measures for facilitating the transfer of family assets to the next generation. Quebec, along with the regions, would manage to solve this problem if it had the financial means to invest in this area.

In our area and elsewhere as well, the textile industry has unfortunately felt the impacts of globalization. Once again, the federal government's funding measures have been far from having the desired outcomes, and why so? Because they do not follow the natural path of efficient implementation, which would of necessity involve the Government of Quebec and the regional authorities.

Then, on another topic, I would just point out for those who might not be aware of it that R&D efforts are insufficient, given the diversity of the industries in my riding. If there were better orchestration between the Government of Quebec and the regional authorities, results might well be better. Again, and still, the impediment is insufficient federal funding.

I do not see how adding a department, as proposed here, could make any significant change. It is a well known fact—something that cannot be repeated often enough—that the regional stakeholders are in the best position to identify needs. Would it not therefore be more convenient and efficient for the central government to show an interest in regional development within jurisdictional limits?

The Bloc Québécois has made, and continues to make, certain proposals. We are faulted quite regularly for not making any concrete proposals for regional development.

First of all, the Bloc Québécois suggests leaving Quebec in charge of its regional development. It already has a policy many governments would be glad to have. What it needs is the financial means to properly support emerging initiatives.

Second, we propose respect for local joint planning groups and the adaptation of federal programs to regional circumstances in Quebec. All local and regional authorities, for example, should be involved in reorienting development in a field of economic activity, when existing sectors have achieved their potential.

This is the case in agriculture and forestry where I come from. This is exactly what is happening in the southern part of my riding: we want to integrate the recreation and tourism sector to complement agriculture and forestry activities. The neighbouring ridings to the east and west would like to do the same thing. Clearly this is the road to the future. It is a brilliant idea the government should promote. The money the federal government wants to set aside for Bill C-9 would be used much more wisely in a project like this one.

Let me explain. Recently, there has been a veritable flood of awards to operators of tourism businesses adopting the new philosophy of the southern part of the region. A number of businesses in my riding, from various sectors of the economy, are moving toward adopting it and thus filling a gap never previously filled.

Unfortunately, a shortfall in available funds makes this move impossible. There is not enough money for this new regional reality, which is not unique to my riding. So here is another area in which the government could better support the regions by giving the money to the Government of Quebec.

The joint planning of this new orientation—and I am referring more specifically to my riding—is in keeping with the wishes of the RCMs, the CLDs, the regional conference of elected officials and the chambers of commerce. Who could oppose such an undertaking? Those with the most relevant knowledge are the most likely to promote the welfare of the people in my region.

Why insist on adding another level, which could well destroy the consensus? The federal level would do better to provide financial or technical support, but respecting Quebec's jurisdiction. For purposes of objectivity and efficiency, let us allow the government most able to evaluate and understand the regional problems, namely the Government of Quebec, to do what it does well already. It is up to the federal government to adapt to the regions. So, the best approach is no doubt to conclude an agreement with the Government of Quebec providing for opting out with full compensation.

Let us now move on to another area. The old infrastructure program was much more respectful of regional authorities, in that the Quebec government selected the projects. The start-up of numerous businesses in the private sector and in the social economy relies on better linkages between the federal and provincial bodies working for regional development. In my riding, the economic spinoffs of this social economy are quite significant. However, the Government of Quebec does not receive enough money and is forced to maintain restrictive subsidy standards, which is precisely why the sector is unable to reach its full potential. It is such a shame.

In the social sector, as we know, the needs are great. This is another sector that has become indispensable, but does not receive the full financial consideration it deserves. At the same time, the aging population phenomenon is exacerbating the problem. The needs in housing and services are not being met. Unfortunately, Quebec is still suffering the effects of underfunding. It is a victim of the fiscal imbalance. When will everyone realize it?

The Bloc Québécois also suggests decentralizing the federal public service. Doing so would create new jobs in the regions. Would that not be a good idea? It is a constructive suggestion that would not cost an arm and a leg. The quality of services would improve. The regional economy would improve as a result of many well-paid jobs. We must put a stop to the exodus of federal employees from the regions to the benefit of large urban centres and the Ottawa area. Saguenay, Gaspé and the North Shore all deserve to have suitable and professional services locally. We have to stop cutting back on services in the regions. The people there need to eat too. We do not need a new agency for that.

Just consider the capital costs. Does it make sense for the Government of Quebec to invest five times more than the federal government does? There is indeed a $224 million difference in investment between the federal government and the Quebec government. Is that acceptable in the Outaouais?

When it comes to air transport, the federal government has placed a new burden on the regions, which must now finance assets that are beyond their means on their own. Is that acceptable? The same is true with regional sea ports, which are unfortunately in a dangerous state of disrepair. How will potential buyers be able to fix them without adequate budgets?

Does this whole situation not justify taking a hard look at how federal funds could be better used?

And what about shipyards? It is totally unacceptable that the only shipyard between the St. Lawrence estuary and the very end of the Great Lakes that can receive big ships is constantly uncertain about its future.

This is a blatant demonstration of the federal government's inefficiency in dealing with regional development issues. In this specific case, it is not just a regional issue. It is a matter of national and international safety.

An increasing number of cruise ships are coming to Quebec. Will the Queen Mary end up being stranded between Île d'Orléans and Lévis some day? There is no question that a lack of a true Canadian shipbuilding policy has largely contributed to this bad and dangerous situation.

How else explain, for example, the fact that the Canadian fleet is in such bad shape, that it requires a great deal of repairs and needs to be renewed, and that our shipyards cannot at least meet our own needs? In the meantime, Asian shipyards are working non stop and cannot meet the demand. This is yet another reason for a better structuring of the various authorities, but we do not find it in Bill C-9.

If the government spent as much energy to save a proven industry such as MIL Davie, which is renowned internationally and which is likely to return to a high level of performance, the results would be far better than adding a department that will only make an already inadequate process even more burdensome.

If we look at what is going on elsewhere in Canada, we can see that the Government of Canada is investing three times more in the maritime provinces than it does in Quebec. The prairie provinces, where the underfunding was comparable to that of Quebec, have already received a 32% increase in regional support development, compared to only 7% for Quebec. The time has come to stop this sprinkling. It is clear that Bill C-9 merely seeks to provide greater visibility, without incorporating the tools that would guarantee the future. We know the value of these visibility programs. We are fed up with them. We no longer want such programs.

On a different note, regional needs should be the highest priority of the employment insurance program. It is time the government dealt with this issue clearly, without being influenced by political considerations that are often questionable, and with the same generosity as that displayed by the workers who contributed to the employment insurance fund.

Young people, vulnerable and seasonal workers deserve better than the present measures. Federal money would be better spent if the federal government treatedthese workers justly and equitably, at last. It is not the recent, weak measures added by the minister that will solve the problem and improve the situation.

The federal government still denies the fiscal imbalance and hands out public funds to provinces in a piecemeal manner. Are we not justified in considering that as implicit recognition of the fiscal imbalance? I think we are. Quebecers also think we are. If the federal government devoted as much energy to encouraging regional development in Quebec by transferring money to Quebec as it does to denying the fiscal imbalance, we could say that it cared about contributing to our regional development and the well-being of the citizens of Quebec.

The billions of dollars that were invested these last few weeks in complete anarchy way show, without a doubt, that this government is incapable of favouring regional development, and incapable also of respecting the fields of jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, which are a fundamental part of Canada's constitution.

The Bloc Quebecois has always proposed a balanced approach for the use of the money that the federal government is sadly allocating to the creation of a regional development department for Quebec.

Why continue to create an infinite number of functions and a maze of wasteful spending? Consequently, I ask that the funds be directly transferred to Quebec, which can better evaluate the needs of its regions and implement programs that will contribute to their economic and social development.

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

Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that there are 14 regional CED offices which contribute to the development of their respective regions. Many of these successes have been pointed out by local stakeholders. One must rely on those who work in the communities. One must also rely on business leaders who are creating employment and developing the Quebec of today and tomorrow. Comments are very laudatory concerning what CED does at the regional level.

I can tell you, for instance, that what CED is doing in Montreal's east end is exceedingly appreciated, both by the private sector and by elected officials. I feel that this Bill C-9 is good news. It may not please the Bloc Québécois because, once again, it would rather do without this presence of Canada in the various regions of Quebec, but the Government of Canada has a role to play and it will continue to play it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the hon. members of this House at third reading stage of Bill C-9, an act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

This legislation has prompted excellent debate within this House and in committee on the major issues surrounding regional economic development. This is a very important time for all those interested in the economic development of the regions of Quebec.

Bill C-9 sets the parameters by which the Government of Canada intends to contribute to the economic development of Quebec. Consideration of this bill began last fall.

Collectively, we face many challenges. We are reminded of this each and every day in the current economic situation, whether one of our companies finds success abroad or a plant has to close its doors for lack of viable markets for its products.

Businesses are at the heart of economic development for the regions of Quebec and lead the economic development of each region. For us, giving support to business translates into more dynamic and more competitive companies that can create more wealth and jobs in the regions.

Moreover, the bulk of new jobs created in Quebec were in businesses with fewer than 100 employees.

Today, we have multiple possibilities for creating wealth, and also for increasing productivity, inventiveness and flexibility. A number of businesses and sectors of activity in Quebec are still too vulnerable to the ups and downs in the world economy. It is therefore the duty of a responsible government such as ours to support these businesses and to orient them so they may adapt or transform their approaches, their manufacturing procedures and their products.

I need only refer to the difficulties in our textile sector to convince you of the importance that all of us, whether executives and employees of businesses, community volunteers, stakeholders in regional development or government, must assign to innovation and improving the productivity of our businesses.

We are not, moreover, the only ones to hold this view. In its study, “OECD Territorial Reviews: Canada”, the OECD concluded that “for the Quebec economy to move to a higher trajectory, the productivity of small businesses must be improved, management performance upgraded, and efficient technologies acquired.”

Through its IDEA-SME, program, Canada directly supports businesses involved in targeted projects, including export and innovation, thereby moving into the future.

I would like to take a moment to quote the words of Mr. Yves Goudreau, Director of Business Development at Premier Tech Ltée, a firm located in the Lower Saint Lawrence area. When he appeared before the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology he said, and I shall quote:

The loans granted by CED for the development of innovative technologies have allowed Premier Tech to create one of the most important private regional research and development centres....

Without these amounts, we would have, without any doubt, directed our product development to the partial improvement of products. In the middle term, this delay would have caused the withdrawal of our products from the market, because of the constant optimization of the products of international competitors, who are continuously working on the development of new, innovative concepts.

Since 1997, CED loans to Premier Tech have enabled more than 400 direct jobs to be created, and close to 200 innovative products developed. As a result, the company's sales have grown from $50 million to $300 million.

This is very eloquent testimony to the importance of the assistance provided by Canada Economic Development and of its clear impact on the development of a business.

In general, the businesses that have benefited from CED funding have significantly increased their sales and staff. More than three-quarters of them would have been unable to implement their projects had it not been for the agency's assistance, while others would not have been able to see their projects through on the same scale or to complete them within the same timeframe. Moreover, the agency's average cost recovery is 75% of the repayable contributions. That is one of the best in the government.

By devoting itself to the start-up and development of small businesses, Canada Economic Development helps create and maintain jobs, besides having an impact on the restructuring of local economies. That is why, through its support of businesses in Quebec, it is also promoting the economic diversification of communities and helping to ensure the economic stability and vitality of the various regions of Quebec.

These figures speak for themselves and tell us loud and clear that this government is right to rely on assistance provided to businesses in all the regions of Quebec.

Take for example Sixpro inc., of Sainte-Clotilde-de-Horton, in the central Quebec region. In January 2005, a repayable contribution of nearly $400,000 was made to this business to implement a project designed to improve its productivity.

This metal colour coating company will acquire new equipment and improve its operating methods. This important undertaking will allow 200 jobs to remain in the Sainte-Clotilde region and some 20 more may be created.

This support from Canada Economic Development is another solid example of what we mean when we say we want to have everything in place to promote optimum productivity and thus better business performance.

I would also like to mention another example, the firm BCH Unique Inc. of Saint-Martin, Quebec, which got $200,000 in support last February in order to improve its productivity.

The company will reconfigure its assembly line and acquire some high tech equipment in order to eliminate bottlenecks and improve the working conditions of a number of employees.

Canada Economic Development's tangible commitment to the economic development of SMBs in Quebec has to be seen as an investment in the future and prosperity of a business in Quebec and as a major contribution toward improving the quality of life of many people in a community.

You will agree that this mandate is very important, and Bill C-9 will make it possible for us to do what the people of Quebec want done to carry it out.

I would therefore invite all members of Parliament to vote in support of Bill C-9 and in solid support of the development of Quebec's businesses and regions.

In closing, I move, seconded by the member for Pontiac, that the question be now put.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in the debate on third reading of Bill C-9, an act to establish the economic development agency of Canada for the regions of Quebec.

This is a public policy matter of profound significance for communities everywhere. Although the bill deals specifically with community economic development in various regions of the province of Quebec, the concept we are discussing is critically important for the future of many communities across the country.

I would like to take a moment to address the essence of this proposal and the whole meaning of social, economic development or political involvement at the grassroots level because that is what we are talking about.

This is about communities having the means to ensure that community development occurs in ways that are relevant to that community. It is about turning around our priorities as politicians and as members of Parliament. We ought to stop saying how communities must perform. We ought to stop making decisions from on high about what communities need and what is best for people at the local level. We ought to begin by saying that no one knows better about what is in the best interests of a community than the people who work day in and day out building communities and creating cooperative arrangements for improving life in that particular neighbourhood.

I have a very relevant example in terms of my own constituency of Winnipeg North, a community that is a typical, inner city, north end neighbourhood. It is an older neighbourhood with old stock housing and many very significant problems in terms of economic and social development.

We are talking about communities where many people live on a day to day basis trying to make ends meet for their families, communities that are struggling in terms of some external factors that are hard to address. It may be an influx of people from other communities without proper housing and other services available to those individuals. We are talking about all the social determinants that come from economic indicators that are indicative of many social ills and problems that we all have to deal with on a day to day basis.

Economic development is central for every region and every community in every one of our provinces to overcoming great difficulties and ensuring we have a long term strategy for overcoming economic and social inequalities.

There is an old expression we have all heard that if we give a person a fish, they will eat for a day, but if we teach that person to fish, they will be able to provide for themselves and their families forever. One could even take that a little further and say that if one gave those families access to the pond, to the lake or the river where the fish are plentiful, then the future of that community is guaranteed forever. It is about giving communities the resources they need to develop, to grow and to provide for all of the people in that community.

We cannot do that in isolation. We cannot do that from government speaking on high and we cannot do it in terms of dealing with things on a piecemeal, ad hoc, band-aid, pilot project basis, which has been the tendency of the government.

It has not tended to look at communities in terms of holistic needs and in terms of working to find solutions with a community, not for that community, not telling that community how the job must get done.

My experience also comes from a community where in fact there is a very high aboriginal population. These are people who want to gain control over their own lives. They are people who know that they will continue to suffer social injustice and economic inequality until we as politicians are prepared to share power and are prepared to empower people to look after themselves, to care for themselves and to make communities work for one another. That is the essence of this concept and why this bill is so important.

Let me now focus specifically on Bill C-9. It is a bill that has gone through all the stages and has had serious study by the committee.

In that regard I want to acknowledge the work of my colleague, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, who is a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology. She has been very much involved in the work of that committee in developing recommendations and amendments to this legislation to make it better, to make it more effective in terms of dealing with the very objectives at stake here, that is, how to give communities the means by which they can shape their own future.

At the committee stage of the bill, many amendments were proposed and many were passed. I want to indicate for all in this House that the New Democratic Party certainly supports the amendments, recognizes the hard work of the committee and wants to support the bill as amended.

Specifically, the amendments state very clearly that social economy enterprises will be included as eligible organizations. That will help community economic development opportunities in the province of Quebec.

As well, the amendments focus on how this money will be used to promote the Quebec economy. I want to look specifically at those amendments that do just that and speak about why we are so supportive of the amendments and the bill including these amendments. The first of these amendments states that there shall be means to:

(a) promote economic development in the regions of Quebec where low incomes and/or slow economic growth are prevalent, or where opportunities for productive employment are inadequate.

That is fundamental to the task at hand and to the very essence of Canadian economic development.

The second part of the amendment states that through this bill it will be emphasized that “long-term economic development and sustainable employment and income creation” are explicitly stated as fundamental goals. The amendments also include reference to a focus on small and medium sized enterprises and the development of entrepreneurial talent.

All these amendments are important, all establishing very clear boundaries that will help direct how the funding that is available will be used and to whose benefit. Very clearly, these are critical steps in terms of this whole process, integral to the whole legislation we are dealing with.

As recent events in Montreal have shown, it is very important that bureaucrats understand the limits of how funds should be used.

I again want to spend just a moment on the importance of literacy in any social economy program. I am sure that members of the Bloc will agree when I say that Quebec, like Atlantic Canada, has more adults with low literacy skills than the rest of Canada. As we agree to the new status for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, it is very important for us to emphasize that literacy skills are the most important for people who are in transitional and emerging economies.

I want to point out that ABC CANADA is a great organization working to improve adult literacy skills. The following is stated on its website:

Statistics Canada released a report called Literacy Skills for the Knowledge Society in 1997. This report confirms that we have a serious literacy problem in Canada. Here are some of the facts:

Literacy skills are like muscles--they are maintained and strengthened through regular use.

The higher an individual's literacy level, the more likely he/she will be employed and have a higher income.

Canadians use their literacy skills more in the workplace than at home.

--'good' jobs are those that provide opportunities to maintain and enhance literacy skills.

Let us stop for a moment and take a look at the third point I mentioned: that Canadians use their literacy skills more in the workplace than at home. It makes sense in that context, then, that any economic program, any community development initiative, needs to consider absolutely the need for lifelong learning, especially when it comes to adult literacy and numeracy training programs.

There is so much one could talk about in the context of the bill. I simply want to indicate our support for the bill as amended and to urge its final passage by the House of Commons.

I want to end by referring to some work prepared by the Canadian CED Network social economy round table consultation. I will refer specifically to the briefing notes the group produced. The document outlining the discussions at the round table consultation lists the main points that CCED Net believes should be common concerns during all consultations regarding the federal social economy initiative.

Emphasizing those three points really says it all in terms of what we are trying to achieve and what can be accomplished by providing the funds that are referenced in the bill and providing the framework for its implementation.

The three points made by CCED Net include, first, “strengthening social capital at the local level”. That means “building the local capacity of communities to systematically address the problems of their economies”. That is a very important point, because without acknowledging the need to increase local capacity so that the community itself can overcome the problems it is facing, we are only putting a band-aid on a problem. We are only allowing social injustices and economic inequalities to continue.

The second point about this approach involves “strengthening human capital at the local level”. This means “increasing the competence of local citizens to get and hold good jobs or build their own businesses, as well as to provide essential local leadership for the development process”.

This kind of investment in human capital cannot be done in isolation of all the parts of that individual. If we do not look at this on a holistic basis, it becomes almost impossible to see results by investing money strictly on the basis of a particular economic project. That means looking at the whole identity of an individual and of a community. That means considering the heritage, the culture, the skills, the particular expertise, and the practices of collaboration and working together: networking; the involvement of unions and businesses; the involvement of synagogues, churches and temples; the involvement of schools and universities; and the involvement of family associations and teacher-parent groups.

All of these various aspects of an individual's life, all integral to the health and well-being of a community, must be included in this concept of strengthening human capital at the local level.

Finally, let us get to the nub of the matter in terms of the wherewithal to do all of this. We have the people who want to do it. We have organizations at the local level with people who want to give their lives to making a difference at the community level, who are prepared to work on a volunteer basis and to work tirelessly doing community work, but they need the financial support of government to make that happen.

The third important point made by CCED Net about a community development or economic development initiative is “strengthening financial capital at the local level”. This means improving “investment resources available for local businesses, for affordable housing, and for alternative financial institutions”.

In this context, it is very important to reference the two budget bills passed by this House of Commons just last night, and in particular to reference the better balanced budget proposed by the NDP in Bill C-48, which in fact flows from this imperative and came from the need to address community needs and to support communities to help themselves. The money we have fought for and worked through with the Liberal government is critical for community economic development, the money for housing, education, retrofitting of homes, public transit and other environmental initiatives. All of these initiatives are critically important for feeding into the notion that the best communities are those that are able to help themselves.

By providing the resources to work with community groups like those I have in Winnipeg, the North End Community Renewal Corporation, Just Housing, Habitat for Humanity, North End Housing and other residents associations like the Point Douglas and William Whyte residents advisory groups, by providing assistance to those organizations and groups that are prepared to take on the challenges of a community that needs to be renewed and strengthened, we surely see the light at the end of the tunnel and know that the goals we all share can be accomplished.

This last point also references the need for every community to have access to financial institutions, and if those financial institutions are not there, to provide the resources to develop alternatives. When a community loses all of its bank branches and has no immediate direct access to financial institutions, then it is through community development and economic development proposals, like those we have been talking about under the auspices of this bill, that we can actually provide and ensure that a community has such access.

It is not easily done and it takes a lot of work, but I can tell members from firsthand experience how possible it actually is.

In the case of Winnipeg North, we have lost all of our bank branches in the last 10 years. In a very large and strategically significant area in Winnipeg, that being the north end, stretching many miles on all sides, there is no bank branch. The community realized that without access to financial services there would be no way to keep attracting new businesses. There would be no way to deal with the vacancies along main street and to get local initiatives housed and thriving in those vacant buildings without access to financial services.

That community, my community, decided to first take on the banks and it said to those banks that they had no right to desert a community that had been loyal to them for years and years, for decades and decades, and in some cases for more than 100 years. Those banks grew and became profitable because of that loyalty, only to desert that community when it was convenient for the banks because they wanted to make more profit in other areas. That community, my community, decided to take things into its own hands and to say to those banks, “If the banks will not stay and be loyal to us, then we will switch our allegiance and we will find our own way to deal with the situation”.

The community, through the North End Community Renewal Corporation, has developed an alternative financial institutions plan, has tested it and is now in the final stages of putting it into effect, but it needs money and it needs support from all levels of government. I have actually pursued this matter with the Minister of Finance and said to him that he had an obligation to support such community initiatives and to ensure that if the banks desert communities and we cannot legislate them to stay, then surely we, as representatives of this place and as members of a government, have an obligation to help communities help themselves and provide the necessary economic development and financial institutional resources that they need. The essence of this project is helping communities to help themselves.

I urge members of the House to support Bill C-9.

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of my colleague. It is not the first time I hear that kind of comment. As a matter of fact, I intended to ask a question similar to the one asked by the minister responsible for Bill C-9 because, once again, erroneous answers are being given to Quebeckers. They are being told that there is one bill and that it is the only one that can be referred to. However, it is never said that it is sometimes because the province is not doing anything about this issue.

Now, in terms of regional collaboration, I know that Canada Economic Development has an extraordinary perception of my region, the Outaouais. Things are going very well. By the way, I want to say that CED-Q has been in place far longer than the CLDs and CREs that the Bloc Québécois is supporting and in which it sees a panacea to regional problems.

I would like to ask the member for Jonquière—Alma a question. Beside the fact that, in his own region, stakeholders do not seem ready to oppose Bill C-9 — he seems to be isolated in that regard — does putting so much focus on CREs not concern him, considering that other groups, namely women, are no longer involved in those organizations?

I think that when the Bloc Québécois says that there is community involvement, this is somewhat exaggerated. I believe that CED-Q already has a very good reputation. It works a lot with the community. Maybe it does such good work because it has been doing it for a long time. Therefore, I have a lot of difficulty understanding why the Bloc Québécois always comes back to CREs, and is acting in a way that is detrimental to Quebec.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in the Bloc should get their act together. Clearly, one of their members asked a question, and his colleague could not give any real answer.

This question was quite simple and relevant. Was there any project in the Saguenay area in which all those concerned were ready to invest and which Canada Economic Development refused? The answer that was not provided and should have been is a resounding no. Not a single investment project that was put forward locally and supported by the Quebec government was rejected by Canada Economic Development. Not a single one.

Maybe these gentlemen should have a little discussion to find out why they are opposing Bill C-9. They do not even agree between themselves.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my colleague from Jonquière—Alma on his speech regarding Bill C-9. He talked about the regional investment fund in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region. This regional fund is supported financially by the community, by businesses and by the Quebec government. The region approached the federal government to seek its support, but the answer was no.

My question is this. Does the member believe that it would be important for the federal government to support this regional investment fund and can he tell us what this fund means for the development of a region such as the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want first to come back to some issues I had raised in my first speech, in addition to making a few points.

I had insisted on an important issue. We must avoid making allegations. Earlier, in oral question period, I heard my Liberal Party colleague, the member for Gatineau, claim or rather imply that regional development is not important to us.

I will not respond to such allegations, except to say that regional development is extremely important, too much, in fact, for us to engage in partisan politics. I think it is important to work or at least to try to work in harmony and cooperation in order to resolve all the problems in the regions. This is what the Bloc Québécois and I have tried to do in the debates at each stage of Bill C-9.

Earlier, I mentioned some important issues that the Bloc put forward. These issues were important to us, to Quebec and to the regions. We have made progress.

I also mentioned the concept of designated areas, which was struck from the bill. This concept gave the minister the freedom to intervene in one region instead of another. This was struck from the bill. This is fortunate.

One other thing was also struck. In my opinion, it may have been important to the government, but it was much less so to the opposition, for whom it was appalling to say the least. I am talking about the possibility of announcing grants during an election. An election is the time for debating the issues and adopting positions on local, regional and national issues, whereas this party is using it as an opportunity to announce grants.

We are quite pleased that our Conservative colleagues put forward this amendment, which naturally the Bloc Québécois supported.

The Bloc Québécois—which is concerned with equity throughout Quebec—also ensured that the original mission of the agency was put back in the bill. It reads as follows:

The object of the Agency is to promote the long-term economic development of the regions of Quebec by giving special attention to those—

Here is the important part:

—where slow economic growth is prevalent or where opportunities for productive employment are inadequate.

As I said, we went from the designated areas and the free will of the minister, and returned to a concern for equity of all regions truly in need.

We also offered the possibility to this government and to the minister that he have some authority. We would have liked him to participate and support our amendment. It concerns the possibility from the technical point of view—I will not go into detail—of his being able to make transfers directly to the Government of Quebec, of money, or least certain amounts, or agreements involving the regions, in order to participate in some major initiatives. That would not, of course, mean just anything, but would involve major initiatives for certain regions.

For example, in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean a consensus emerged from the summit between Quebec and its regions for the creation of a regional venture capital investment fund. This fund is so important that even a major company like Alcan is prepared to inject money into it. The Government of Quebec is even prepared to match, and double, the amount contributed by the community. For example, if there were $10 million in private funding, the Government of Quebec would be prepared to inject $20 million. This is a major initiative.

Once again, on a number of occasions, this government has refused to participate. This is a regional prerogative on which there was consensus from all leaders in the region, regardless of party.

There is one other important reason behind the refusal to support this bill, which has been rejected by both the government and the Quebec federalists. I make that differentiation because, at one point, even western Conservative MPs had accepted this orientation. We wanted the agency and the minister to exercise their authorities in such a way as to respect the priorities of the Government of Quebec for regional development. Why is this so vital? Quite simply because the majority of questions that impact on regional development fall into areas under Quebec jurisdiction. Yes, someone could bring up the Charter, but I am not talking about that.

Municipalities, Quebec's; land use planning, Quebec's; assessment and training, Quebec's; accepting and integrating immigrants, Quebec's; and, natural resources, a huge area, Quebec's. The same is true of hydroelectricity, forests, lumber and land use planning. All of these issues are unavoidable, and the Government of Quebec cannot be ignored. Regional development requires Quebec consensus, because it concerns Quebec and its regions primarily.

I would say as well that the other reasons relate to the establishment of such a substantial organization. There must be no competition so as to avoid any counter-productive duplication. The minister himself said that the aim is complementarity. He is offered a chance to consolidate this complementarity and out of hand he rejects the notion of respecting the priorities of the Government of Quebec. Whatever the government thinks, the witnesses who came to the committee should have been heard. Mr. Jean-Claude Beauchemin, the mayor of Rouyn-Noranda said, “Given the nature of the Agency proposed in Bill C-9, we fear that there may be a strong centralization of this process and a breakdown of the mutual consultation mechanisms ”.

Others have said, “We plan to create a department, but there are no mechanisms for cooperation among federal departments, throughout Canada or between provinces and regions.” And we have also heard people say, “Economic development agencies do not have a board of directors, and therefore they are unable to bring together the stakeholders to discuss the issues in regional initiatives.”

My time is running out, but I would have other comments to make regarding witnesses. In view of this testimony, the problem I have with the government and the minister is that they missed the target when they refused, or failed, to consult the most important people, the people in the regions. They are the ones who, day in and day out since even before I was born, have been working for economic development. They bring focus to these debates and to the regional development approach. This is why we will vote against Bill C-9.

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

Mr. Speaker, I expect my speech will be interrupted for members' statements.

I would like first to salute the people of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, especially those who work for regional economic development, including the officials of Canada Economic Development and the volunteers and officials of the CFDCs and the CLDs. A lot of people are working very hard for regional economic development.

Quebec's resource regions face major problems, specifically such important crises as those of softwood lumber and mad cow disease and the closures of plants in a number of sectors, such as textiles and aluminum. The origins of this bill have to be understood. Past regional economic development models generated employment. Raw materials could be collected and processed at full throttle. However, today, they are obsolete and should be thoroughly reviewed.

With this bill, a fine opportunity to visit the regions of Quebec, consult people working in regional development and elected officials has been missed. The government has created a structure but neglected the most important aspect, that of looking to see if today's tools are effective and will carry us through to the future.

I would also like to say that we have worked very hard on this bill. We thought we could improve the fate of the regions and substantially change this bill to benefit Quebec and the regions. I would also remind the minister and the government that, at no point, did we obstruct parliamentary proceedings in order to delay this bill. I recall that, for a month, we even discussed with colleagues from the other parties in order to negotiate amendments and proposals. This shows a clear desire, which is important, to look after regional development properly.

I can only regret certain statements by colleagues, among others, those of the member for Gatineau. At one point she said that our voting against the bill meant we had no concern for regional development. I think that in this House it is possible to have debates, oppose bills or try to improve them, but never would I say to any of my colleagues that they oppose regional development.

Currently, especially in resource regions such as mine, hard hit by various crises, petty politics would be counter productive. I would not dare do it. There is too much at stake.

I must say that the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C-9 today, for several reasons. One of those reasons is that the bill ignores some fundamental principles, such as respect for what is being done in terms of regional development, all across Quebec.

There is nothing to get excited about in this bill. It does nothing more than create a structure. I refer to the Department's own documents regarding the Economic Development Agency. When we ask what will be the impact of this bill on the environment, we are told that it does not make any changes to the agency’s role and places the emphasis on promotion, development and diversification. It is clearly stated that the bill will bring no change.

A little further in the same document, the question is asked in the following terms: will the agency act affect existing programs and, by extension, the clientele the agency serves? The answer is a clear no. The existing programs will remain in place and there will be no impact.

This means that even if the House does not pass this bill, there will continue to be some economic development. We as members and the regions will continue to get the money to which we are entitled. This money is in Ottawa. The agency may take credit for delivering it to regions, but it still is our money. It is money to which citizens are entitled and which must be returned to resource regions.

As we know, there has been much debate on this bill. Things have been said, work has been done. However, the important thing is that the Bloc Québécois has gained something. There is an important premise in the bill which is different than under the former agency, and it was essential we did not support it. It is the whole concept of designated areas. Let me explain.

Through an order in council, the minister could target a specific region by giving it priority because it is lagging behind in terms of employability, or at least economically. What does it mean, “the minister may, by order”? Does that mean that depending on his mood, whether he is politically sensitive to certain people or situations, he could target or prioritize one region over another?

We feel Canada Economic Development has to operate fairly. There has to be fair distribution of the money allocated and fair intervention methods in Quebec that are based on real needs. Where are these real needs? They are in the regions that are lagging behind in terms of employability, in regions that have lost many jobs or that have a high unemployment rate due to plant closures. Those are the true concerns. It absolutely should not have been left to the mood of this minister or this government. What is this, if not a lack of vision, or at least a flag waving extravaganza, or yet another attempt to buy Quebeckers with a rash of spending?

We are pleased because we fought the battle and won. In addition, all the witnesses agreed that this designated area concept was dangerous. You have to understand that there are many regions where balanced distribution of funding is needed. Abitibi cannot be chosen to the detriment of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, or Gaspé to the detriment of the North Shore, or Huntingdon, where they are in a crisis over the textile industry. There has to be a concern for fairness and loyalty toward these people who need it and who have contributed for years to creating this type of structure through the taxes they have paid.

Other points were raised in which we made gains. I want to commend the Conservative Party for working with us on this. We agreed that no spending should be announced during the election campaign. This kind of announcement left too much room for partisanship to the detriment of regional development. This issue was raised and agreed to. There will be no announcements during that period.

Officials in the regions need to have free reign in order to do their work without political obstruction.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate on behalf of my party in the debate on third reading of Bill C-9. This bill's short title is the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, and all it does is create that agency from an Industry Canada portfolio program.

On November 5 last year, during the second reading debate on this bill, we spoke of putting the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec on equal legal footing with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, but this bill focuses primarily on cosmetic changes. As a result of this bill, no one will change their responsibilities or phone number. This bill is just about changing letterhead and business cards to signal a new legal status.

Our party also said that, as a matter of fact, changes provided for in the bill have already been implemented. For example, the minister responsible for this agency, the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie was named July 20, 2004 nearly nine or ten months ago, and we still have not approved the creation of his department.

The Liberals' arrogance shows through, since they are presuming on the cooperation of a minority Parliament. Nonetheless, the Conservative Party is in favour of this bill because it agrees exactly with paragraph 33 of the Conservative Party of Canada's policy declaration, which reads:

The Conservative Party recognizes that regional development policies are an important part of any comprehensive strategy to assist the regions of Canada to meet the opportunities of the new global economy. Regional development agencies, like ACOA, WED, FEDNOR and CED-Q, must be depoliticized and focussed on attracting new private sector investments.

Since this bill deals generally with administrative changes, there is no reason to reject it. Besides, we have found some elements that deserve our support. First, it puts the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec more or less on a level playing field. Like our critic said on November 5, we are still aware of important differences in the goals of the four regional development agencies, but Bill C-9 is a step forward.

Moreover, as modified by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology Bill C-9 can serve as a model for other regional development agencies. For example, all Canadians want to take the politics out of regional development. All non-Liberal Canadians want to take the politics out of regional development.

One of the Conservative amendments at committee prohibits announcements during an election campaign. The new subclause 5(3) reads:

No grant or contribution shall be announced from the date that a federal election has been called until the day after voting day.

Preventing regional campaigning with regional development money during a federal election is simply the logical thing to do. It should not even need to be said but the behaviour of the Liberal government and in particular of the sponsorship scandal confirms the absolute necessity of depoliticizing at all times the spending of public money.

In this way the new subclause 5(3) that the Conservative member has proposed is a huge step forward and should serve as a model for the other regional development agencies.

Another clause of Bill C-9 that the Conservative MPs proposed and that should be extended to other regional development agencies is the new clause 10(2), which demands better cooperation between the Canadian and Quebec governments. This clause reads:

10(2) In carrying out its object, the Agency shall take such measures as will promote cooperation and complementarity with Quebec and communities in Quebec.

The new spirit of cooperation in clause 10(2) is found in various other amendments that the committee made to Bill C-9.

Of the various regional development agencies across Canada, only one, CED, is focused solely on one whole province.

In western Canada, the Department of Western Economic Diversification promotes the development and diversification of the economies of the four western provinces.

In the east, ACOA promotes the economic interests of the four provinces in Atlantic Canada. In both cases, these agencies have to work with four different provincial governments. By contrast, CED exists only in Quebec and its responsibilities are limited to Quebec's boundaries.

Given that the department's territorial responsibilities coincide exactly with those of Quebec's democratically elected government, there is a possibility of conflict between the goals of an agency filled with Ottawa appointed bureaucrats and the goals of the Government of Quebec. For this reason, it is particularly important to ensure compatibility between the department's actions and those of the Quebec government.

In fact, the record of turbulent relations between Ottawa and Quebec and the distrust which is the root of the impressive growth of the sovereignty movement confirms a sad reality; we must at all costs protect a Quebec provincial government, whatever its stripes, from unwarranted federal intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction.

Our Constitution divides powers between the federal and provincial governments. Sadly, the track record of past federal Liberal governments does not inspire confidence.

In fact, the fiscal imbalance is one of the main reasons why Quebeckers tolerate the existence of CED. As we all know, the federal government collects roughly two thirds of the taxes paid in Canada, while the provinces have to provide the most expensive services such as health care, welfare and education. The gap between provincial sources of revenue and the costs of meeting their obligations is the main reason for shared programs such as medicare.

While we must support the bill over the long term, we must address the root problem which is the fiscal imbalance. Until that situation is addressed, any regional development policy is really just a symbolic gesture. In fact, given that Bill C-9 does not require the spending of an additional dime in the development of Quebec's forest regions, it is important to underscore again that Bill C-9 is only a token gesture.

In a similar way, our support of Bill C-9 is a clear demonstration of the Conservative Party's strong desire to encourage a tighter and more productive cooperation between the federal government and the Government of Quebec. The new clauses proposed by Conservative MPs that demand a tighter and more productive cooperation between Ottawa and Quebec City with respect to Quebec's regional development are the main reasons why our party supports the bill. They are inspired by paragraph 14 of the Conservative Party's 2005 policy declaration which reads:

1. A Conservative Government will work co-operatively with the provinces to improve the lives of Canadians while respecting the division of powers and responsibilities outlined in the Constitution.

We see these new clauses as a precedent to be enshrined in other bills. Thus Bill C-9 could help us to build a stronger and more united Canada.

Nonetheless, Bill C-9 is nothing more than an insufficient first step. A name change in itself does note create a single additional job or stimulate the economy of any the disadvantaged regions of Quebec.

We should not forget either that the Liberal government finds itself in a scandal without precedent in Canadian history. The sponsorship scandal, the Prime Minister's relationship with Claude Boulay, his relationship with Earnscliffe, the government's contracts with his old company, CSL, reveal a government the depth of which true corruption is still unknown.

We have to replace the government and Quebeckers, more than any other Canadians, are cognizant of this fact.

While Quebeckers prepare for a federal election, I want to underscore that our support for Bill C-9 is based on three principles: first, our commitment to Quebec's regional development; second, our dedication to keeping politics out of regional development in Quebec and in all other regions of Canada; and third, our insistence that the federal government respect at all times the division of powers and responsibilities outlined in the Canadian Constitution. We offer them truly, for the first time in a decade, the possibility of a government that is honest, pan-Canadian and inclusive of Quebec's point of view. I invite them to consider it.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie]

moved that Bill C-9, an act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise again to speak on Bill C-9, which is a legislative measure of great importance to fulfilling the mandate of my department. Since July 2004, in fact, I have been responsible for this department, the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, more commonly called Economic Development Canada.

Numerous debates here and in the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology have made it possible to amend the wording of this bill, to make it clearer and better. After months of work, we now have a bill in our hands that is not only better, and better adapted to the situation and needs of today's Quebec, but also and above all the best possible synthesis of the views of the various parties in this House. I say best possible because, as Picasso said, if there were only one truth, it wouldn't be possible to paint 100 variations on the same theme.

I would therefore like to express my very warm thanks to all those who have been a part of this debate and have enriched it with their respective points of view.

The bill we are being called upon to adopt is more inclusive. The concept of social economy enterprise is now included in the concept of small- and medium-sized enterprises which was the terminology in the first version of Bill C-9. This amendment to the bill and to the mission of the agency is a recognition of the constantly growing role played by the social economy in Canada, and in the communities of Quebec in particular.

Social economy enterprises will thus find partners for their own development and for the revitalization of their communities in Canada Economic Development, its programs and its services.

I add that this amendment appears especially important given that Quebec constitutes one of the primary promoters of the social economy in Canada.

A few weeks ago, when I was visiting the Carrefour de l'économie sociale Angus to announce two major contributions by my department, I had the privilege of meeting a group of promoters and workers in the social economy, who spoke eloquently of what the social economy had done for their communities. I would very much have liked for members to share this magic moment with me. I wish as well that members could have seen the light in their eyes and feel the enthusiasm they exuded.

The bill we are being asked to pass is encouraging for regions in Quebec experiencing difficulty and for vulnerable communities. It confirms, in the object, powers and duties of Canada Economic Development the importance of supporting regions where slow economic growth is prevalent and where opportunities for productive employment are inadequate. This is an essential component of my department's mandate.

Because economic diversification is still in its early stages, many of these regions remain too dependent on a single resource or product, which fluctuates beyond our control in the context of globalization. With an eye to fairness and to the fight against regional disparity, Canada Economic Development partners regions having difficulty adjusting to the global context.

The recent budget provides for an increase of $800 million in funding for regional economic development agencies for Canada. We have to be clear. For Quebec, it means a budget increase of more than $300 million over five years. We will use these funds to support vulnerable communities and single industry communities, as we do now, for example, in Huntingdon and Asbestos. The increase is of course dependent on the passage of the budget.

In another vein, passage of Bill C-9 will also mean that the agency will work to promote ever closer cooperation with the Government of Quebec and the communities of Quebec under its object, powers and duties.

Cooperation does not mean subordination. It serves to increase the complementarity of federal and provincial interventions. Complementarity does not mean subordination, either. Let me give you an example of cooperation and complementarity.

A few weeks ago, following the Government of Quebec's decision to restructure forest management, a very courageous decision I might add, I made a commitment to allocate roughly $30 million a year to alleviate the impact of this decision on the communities affected. In addition, I eagerly agreed with Quebec's finance minister, Michel Audet, to include Canada Economic Development in a coordinating committee for our mitigation plans. That is cooperation and a respectful complementarity of our respective obligations. It is an effective complementarity.

We all know that such cooperation between the federal government and the provincial government is continual and productive.

The development of support measures for social economy enterprises, for example, has given both governments the opportunity to work together to ensure the complementarity of their programs.

To give you another example, on January 27, I went to Chandler, where my colleagues from the Government of Quebec and I made a joint announcement of various measures to promote the economic diversification of that Gaspé community.

The $1.15 million boost from Canada Economic Development will go toward a development strategy and the implementation of the promotional tools needed to attract new businesses to Chandler or to encourage existing businesses to stay. The Government of Quebec issued an action plan for the transportation, tourist accommodation, health and social services sectors.

In the wake of this cooperation with Quebec, and within the framework of the bill we are talking about today, the minister responsible for Canada Economic Development will be able to conclude cooperation and sectoral agreements with his Quebec counterparts or with one of the agencies.

This provision in Bill C-9 fully meets the wish expressed by a number of witnesses who appeared before the standing committee. I am thinking in particular of Mr. Raymond Giguère, who is the director general of the CEGEP in Rimouski. He said, and I quote:

It would be necessary to maintain the capacity to foster a collaborative approach with stakeholders from other orders of government.

While the approach used by the Economic Development Agency of Canada promotes complementarity and a better synergy of initiatives, it also seeks to promote joint planning between the various levels of government and the community's movers and shakers. This approach is primarily based on the regional intervention strategies developed by the agency in each of Quebec's regions, through an interconnecting relationship with the community. These strategies are developed with and for the community. They are based on the regions' economic strengths, their industrial and institutional structures, their competitive advantages, and their areas of excellence.

Ms. Manon Laporte, the president and chief executive officer of Enviro-Access, in Sherbrooke, made this comment when she appeared before the committee:

The presence of the regional offices of the Economic Development Agency of Canada ... allows for networking amongst the partners in the community. It also means that particular needs can be supported rather quickly.

It was also before the Standing Committee on Industry that Ms. Randa Napky, the director general of Tourisme Abitibi-Témiscamingue, described in those terms the close relations of its organization with the agency:

We decide here in the region on the priorities and development themes we want to adopt, in concert with a major partner such as CED. Its role in our community is not confined to project funding, which is of course necessary, but extends to its presence and participation in a multitude of activities, its expertise and knowledge of the region's dynamics and characteristics, its solidarity, and its desire to develop the regions and guide them in their development.

The Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, which is present in every region of the province with its 14 business offices, is close to the residents of those regions. This proximity, this sensitivity, this intimate knowledge of local and regional issues, makes a real difference when it comes to regional development.

The role of this department, which I have the honour of managing, was already enshrined in the 1982 Constitution. Indeed, section 36.1 is very clear regarding the Government of Canada's responsibility to fight regional disparities. Now, this responsibility is reaffirmed in Bill C-9.

Beyond the statistics and even beyond the political aspect of all this, what really counts is the pride of a woman who wants to start a business and has our confidence. It is a young researcher in Rimouski or in Sherbrooke who speaks passionately about his professional future in his native region. It is the head of a social economy enterprise who introduces her staff, a swarm of busy bees who have found dignity through work. It is Montreal, a city that sparkles, that vibrates and that plays host to the rest of the planet.

That is what I am working to achieve with my officials at Canada Economic Development, and I must say they are an extraordinary group of people. Therefore, I invite all members of the House to vote in favour of Bill C-9.

I will conclude my remarks with a message to the members of this House. The Conservatives, the Liberals and the New Democrats support this bill.

I want to invite the Bloc Quebecois to show its commitment to Quebec's economic development, to agree to change its position, to stop opposing this bill, to put the economic interests of the regions of Quebec before its own dogmatic interests and to vote in favour of this bill.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member was attempting to show some civility. He has great difficulty in doing that.

After completing the debate on the budget bills, Bill C-43 and Bill C-48, the House will take up third reading of Bill C-9, the Quebec development bill; Bill C-23, the human resources legislation; Bill C-22, the social development bill; and Bill C-26, the border services legislation.

We would also like to deal with the census bill, Bill S-18 and the RADARSAT bill, Bill C-25. If there is time, we would start Bill C-46, the corrections and conditional release bill; Bill C-47, the Air Canada bill; and Bill C-28, the food and drugs bill.

This list of legislation will carry the House well into the week of May 30, the week in which we return from the break.

In addition, three days that week shall be allotted days, namely May 31, June 2 and June 3. On May 31 the House will go into committee of the whole to consider the estimates of the Minister of Social Development.

I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in the House because I know, and all members know, it is in the interests of Canadians to get this Parliament working on the issues that are important to them.

Forest Industry

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, if I do not keep tight control over my emotions, I will end up in tears over the sudden interest in economic development from a party that is voting against the budget, voting against a $309 million increase in the budget, voting against Bill C-9, and voting against the economic reinforcement of Quebec.

This is the lowest kind of petty politics, and has nothing at all to do with the issues at hand.

Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-9.

(The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on the following division:)

Economic Development

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. Soon, the House will be asked to vote on Bill C-9, which reinforces the role of this agency in Quebec.

Can the minister tell us why the Bloc Québécois intends to vote against this bill? Why is the Bloc voting against the economic development of Quebec?

Quarantine Act

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP will be supporting Bill C-12, but I need to emphasize the fact that there are some issues which continue to need to be addressed. Whether they are addressed through the mechanism of this bill or through other mechanisms, I think it is important that we are on record.

A great deal of information has been left up to the minister to develop through regulations. As recent experience has shown with the Chrétien bill for Africa, which was Bill C-9 in the last Parliament, developing regulations can be an incredibly slow and tedious process. We cannot wait indefinitely for these kinds of regulations to be developed.

There is one area of concern in the report that came back to the House. It specifically indicates that the proposed regulations or any version of the amended regulations should come to both the House and the Senate. We are concerned that it will delay the process if regulations must be approved by both the House and the Senate. We would urge expediency in looking at this, because we are often dealing with issues that are in the nature of a crisis when we are talking about quarantine.

I have addressed this issue before, but I feel compelled to raise it again: the use of screening officers is a major concern. It appears that we will be forcing customs officers to take on another role, that of medical professional. This is on top of their already substantial duties, which include enforcing the Customs Act, looking for potential terrorists and stopping materials that could harm our flora and fauna. This is far too much to expect one group to enforce. We must take that into consideration when we are asking our customs officers to take on these duties.

Other organizations, including the Canadian Nurses Association, have pointed out some concerns. They have pointed out that emerging diseases often have unique symptoms. Screening officers will have to be continually trained and supported to ensure that they know what they have to watch out for. A bad cough is not only the sign of a potential epidemic; it can be the sign of some other things. They must be able to determine what the differences are.

Bill C-12 does not explain how this system will be supported over time. We must address this in order to protect the health and welfare of Canadians.

One of the lessons learned from the SARS epidemic was about the lack of coordination and official communication responsibilities during the crisis. Again, the Canadian Nurses Association recommends that the Chief Public Health Officer and the Public Health Agency of Canada have a critical role in any epidemic or suspected epidemic. They were not included in this bill because enabling legislation to create that position and organization is still being written. This is a serious oversight. We urge the government to act quickly on that legislation. Everyone who spoke to the committee emphasized how important it is to have one clear authority during a health emergency.

It is our hope, however, that we never need this bill, but if we do, we must make sure that the sweeping powers given to the minister to detain people, to use privately owned facilities and to force people to accept medical assessment or treatment, are not unchecked. There are not enough assurances in this legislation that the minister will act in a reasonable manner and that people's rights to privacy will be respected or that workers affected by the quarantine will actually be protected. My colleague from the Bloc spoke quite a bit about this.

Some of these areas of concern are going to be dealt with by regulation. We have already indicated how important it is that the government act quickly in this area.

There is one other area for which we know this government will soon bring forward legislation, especially around protecting workers, and that is a quick response during a health emergency to such issues as employment insurance claims, medical leave and health and safety standards for front line workers. It is absolutely critical, if we are asking front line workers to put their lives on the line for things like this, that we ensure there is a social safety net to protect them.

Another omission that was identified during the committee stage was that the bill covers travellers and materials in and out of Canada but has no provisions for interprovincial travel. Considering that it takes longer to fly to Vancouver from Halifax than it does to fly from Europe to Halifax, the possibilities for communicable diseases being transmitted from one end of the country to the other are quite available.

I also want to briefly mention the Canadian Medical Association “SARS in Canada” report. A couple of key issues the association brought forward are not specifically dealt with adequately in this bill. They include communications.

As we saw during the SARS crisis, and I will quote from the report:

Without a coordinated system to notify acute care facilities and health care providers of global health alerts, front line clinicians often have no prior warning of new emerging diseases.

One of the things that became apparent during the SARS crisis was the lack of a list of current fax numbers or phone numbers of family doctors. There was an inability to communicate with physicians in real time. We must ensure that a communication system is developed to allow us to deal with emerging crises. Many crises emerge very quickly and an early response time is absolutely essential.

One of the other issues that was raised by the Canadian Medical Association was the fact that there was no system. Again I will quote from the report:

There was a lack of a system to distribute protective gear to health care professionals in the province. Once this became apparent the OMA [Ontario Medical Association] identified suppliers and manufacturers and offered to undertake distribution of masks to physicians in order to protect them and their patients.

It is absolutely essential when a crisis emerges that we have lists of suppliers and that we have communication systems in place so that we can adequately protect not only our front line workers, but also the Canadian population as a whole.

Although we will be supporting Bill C-12, I would urge that we quickly address some of these glaring omissions and gaps in the legislation.

(Bill C-282. On the Order: Private Members' Bills)

Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Health of Bill C-282, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (export permits)

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, for the rest of today, tomorrow and early next week the order of business will be the consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-12, the quarantine legislation; followed by third readings of Bill C-9 respecting economic development in Quebec; Bill C-23, the human resources bill; Bill C-22, the social development bill; and Bill C-26, the border services bill.

We would then consider second reading of Bill C-45, the veterans bill; and then Bill S-18, the census bill.

Tomorrow the government will introduce a companion bill to the budget implementation bill. We hope to debate second reading of this bill by Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.

We will then also resume consideration of Bill C-43 which is the budget implementation bill.

To assist members in their planning as well, I wish to inform the House that on the evening of May 18 the House will go into a committee of the whole on the citizenship and immigration estimates, and on the evening of May 31 on the social development estimates.

My hon. colleague across the way asked about opposition days. As the rules provide and call for, six opposition days are required before the end of June. Certainly our focus will be on moving the budget implementation bill forward. I would expect that we would do that.

As far as courage, I am not sure I see very much along the way certainly across the floor when in fact we have people on this side of the House who are prepared on behalf of Canadians to ensure that this Parliament works, but I see no evidence of that from my hon. colleagues across the way.

Patent Act

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak today to Bill C-29, an important bill for which the country can be proud. However, with due honesty and respect for the operations of the House, we must take responsibility for the bill's delay. It has taken over 550 days to actually do something for the world.

I want to revisit some of the history and impress upon the House that once the bill is passed we have an obligation to ensure that it actually has results. The changes in the legislation may not produce the desired response.

I would first like to start by thanking the Stephen Lewis Foundation and Stephen Lewis, as well as the NGOs, Doctors Without Borders, the HIV-AIDS Legal Network and a number of different organizations that worked diligently for years to get this to the forefront of Canadian public policy.

Unfortunately, the legislation has been fraught with a number of different delays that are literally causing suffering and preventing us from being part of a solution.

We need to recognize that in Africa, as one example, 6,000 people die from HIV-AIDS per day and 11,000 contract HIV-AIDS daily. When we first had the opportunity to address the bill it was back on November 6, 2003. The WTO made a decision in 2003 that gave generic companies a brief patent for a specific area that would allow them to produce life-saving medications for tuberculosis, malaria, HIV-AIDS and other types of diseases that affect populations in third world and developing nations to be able to access newer drugs before patent protection expires.

It is important to point out that the bill would not even be necessary if the pharmaceutical industry would do more, take less profit and produce the drugs right now to get them out to those organizations and groups. What we are providing is the opportunity for the generic companies to fill that gap but that has created many complications.

The bill was first tabled as Bill C-56 in the dying days of the Chrétien government on November 6, 2003. It was not passed because of serious concerns by NGOs and health communities. It was really different in terms of its format at that particular time. A lot of people who came forward back then said that if we were going to be serious about this and pass legislation that it would have to be done properly.

What is really unfortunate is that almost two years later we are still faced with problems in the bill that we are dealing with today.

On February 12, 2004 the bill was reintroduced as Bill C-9. None of the changes and concerns noted by politicians, NGOs and health care advocates were changed in over three months since it was first introduced. When the bill died as Bill C-56 and came back as Bill C-9 there were three months in between where there was lobbying, negotiations and submissions but not a single word was changed in the bill. We were very disappointed to see that. We had been telling the government of the day that it had to make these amendments for the bill to actually work. Amendments included everything from delisting certain specific drugs and delisting countries so there would be a proper process.

This has been backed up by the WTO ruling that allows for that but the government has an ingrained philosophy for patent protection that is not necessary and has thus delayed and complicated the legislation. Hence we are still here today.

Bill C-9 was given royal assent on May 14, 2004 after the government finally made many of the changes required to make the bill workable. The only unfinished work was the regulations.

All parties in the committee worked very diligently together. There was a difference of opinion and heated arguments. I submitted over 100 amendments. We heard many different witnesses and had a bridging of differences by all political parties to at least come to a bill that would be moved at that point in time. There was a lot of pressure to get that done quickly.

On December 8, 2004, Bill C-29 was introduced in the House and was passed by the House of Commons on February 10, 2005, a little over a year from when Bill C-9 was introduced. I guess we are still seeing the problems that are delaying the bill, continuing to plague its final implementation. It relates specifically to regulations.

A lot of times I guess it is the technical elements that many Canadians do not understand. We are moving a lot of legislation, the mechanisms that really give it teeth and character, to regulations which are often outside the general workable parliamentary systems. When we move things to regulations parliamentarians give up the rule setting that often affects the effectiveness of a bill, the purpose of it and very much the character of it. That is what has happened to this particular bill.

Bill C-29 contains an amendment that would allow Senate committee members to sit on the committee that would decide the membership of the committee who would decide when pharmaceutical products would be eligible for export. There is an advisory panel that was created. As a New Democrat I cannot agree with the Senate. At the time I did not agree with it participating in the bill but it is being added. We are not going to object to it here but that is what happened. It went to the Senate. It was left out but it has put itself on it now as part of a regulatory body that will decide what drugs could be eligible.

This is where we get into a grey area and makes us very concerned about whether it is going to be effective or not. We could have certain drugs that may not be allowed to be vetted through this process, drugs that different countries could use to treat different diseases. There are often new drugs that have complex and different types of compounds that are brought together, maybe two or three drugs brought together, that are very effective in treating HIV or AIDS, for example. They are cutting edge drugs. They could be very effective. Their availability may not get listed but those drugs really could affect real positive change for people who are suffering right now.

I have to reiterate that it is because the expected profit margin in those drugs is so high the countries cannot purchase them. Government organizations cannot afford to distribute them. It is not all of the pharmaceutical industry. There are plenty pharmaceutical companies that are donating to certain programs but it is not enough. Once again, we are only having to do this because there is a wide gap regarding what they are willing to supply at low cost and hence we are asking the generic industry to fill the void for a small profit.

In March the government found a technical error that jeopardized the entire feasibility of the bill. It is amazing to look back after a year and a half to realize we have not seen the progress we really wanted. Once again it is really interesting to note that it has been approximately 550 days since this idea came to this place and it has been marred at the expense, I believe, of the Canadian reputation to participate in drug relief. It was interesting and really captured by the title of Jean Chrétien's aid to Africa bill but what people need to understand is that there are many nations outside of Africa that could also participate in the program. That is why we are hopeful it can work. There are other nations and I would give the good example of East Timor. We had to fight to get it on the list. The country has suffered recently in the last decade because of genocide. It has had a lot of turmoil politically. It has had a lot of difficulty with regard to malaria and tuberculosis. It was left off the list.

This is once again where we disagree. The WTO ruling that originally created the ability for this to take place and for Canada to get involved did not call for a have to be list so we created lists that have caused some problems. But just so people understand, it is not just Africa that could benefit from the relief program but actually other developing nations that would find benefits if it works.

In summary, I just want to say that as New Democrats we very much support this. We want to make sure the government understands that there is an onus for us to steer this in Parliament. The fact of the matter is that it has taken so long to get to this point in time and place and it gives me some concern that if the bill does not work that we are going to wash our hands of it. That is a real concern because if we cannot actually have a bill that is practical and that works, then what was the point of all this?

I do not want to be part of a bad public relations exercise for the world. I want to be part of changing it. I think that we have the technology and the capability to have the generic industries fill a very important gap and avoid a lot of suffering. I know the previous speaker was very eloquent in talking about the fact that in Africa a good example is that it is losing its whole institutional learning infrastructure because so many teachers are sick and there is no one to train new ones as replacements.

When we talk with Stephen Lewis about what is happening there, we learn that it is literally children taking care of children. They are losing the parenting ability that they once had to tutelage them through difficult times in life, to be there for them and to ensure they can provide for their families. They are losing this institutional knowledge of how to even operate as a society because the professionals and all the people who make up everything from law and order, education and public safety related to infrastructure are being infected with HIV-AIDS and are passing away. They cannot bring people in quick enough or train them quick enough to fill the gap. It is a spiral. It creates conditions for greater disease and greater conflict. It also provides a festering of the disease that could be eliminated.

We need to understand that these drugs that we are talking about can provide the stability necessary so people can live in decency and live longer lives. They can then create the centre of gravity that is necessary for their countries to rebound from this terrible disease of HIV-AIDS. There are other disease such as malaria and tuberculosis that are affecting other developing nations. We can cure these diseases right now if people have access to medications.

There are terrific non-governmental organizations out there which are a great conduit. They have already built up their credibility in terms of the local communities to assist people with their medications. They have built up their credibility internationally to exercise the necessary procedures and the procurement of funds, be they donations from people, companies or governments. On that note I wish we would fulfill our obligations.

We have all of that right now. What is missing is the sense of stability that the drugs can create. This is something I hope the bill, if passed, will do. If we do not, we will be seen as very irresponsible. At the end of the day if the government has a bill that does not work, then we will have misled the world for the past two years. We have then provided a false sense of hope.

There is an obligation on the members of this House to watch very diligently what is happening. We should not just put it to regulations or send it to a committee that might report back once every three years as I believe is in the legislation. If the legislation does not work, if the generic industries cannot get the deals they need and if the government agencies and the NGOs cannot get the programs underway, then we must revisit this as a priority.

What we have done is created a whole set of expectations. I do not want to be a part of a country that cannot fulfill those expectations.

Presence in Gallery

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue this afternoon with second reading of Bill C-38, the civil marriage bill. This will be followed by consideration of Senate amendments of Bill C-29, the patent bill, and Bill C-12, the quarantine bill.

We will then return to second reading of Bill C-43, the budget bill, and eventually the third readings of: Bill C-23, the HRDC bill; Bill C-22, the social development bill; Bill C-26, the border services bill; and Bill C-9, the Quebec development bill.

Tomorrow we will begin with Bill C-43. If this is completed, we will then return to the list just given.

Next week is a break week. Since it happens to coincide this year with Passover, I would like to take this opportunity to extend to Canadians of the Jewish faith best wishes on this holiday.

After today there are 35 sitting days for the House before its scheduled adjournment on June 23. The government hopes that the House will be able to complete all stages of Bill C-38 and Bill C-43 by that date, which means that the bills will have to go to and be reported from committees in time for report stage and third reading in that limited time. That is why we have given priority to these bills in order to arrive at the supply votes.

The government is obliged to designate by that date 6 of those 35 days as allotted days or opposition days. Since we do not face the logistical and timing difficulties that I have just described vis-à-vis these two major bills, it seems logical and sensible to ask the House to deal with those second readings before proceeding with business such as opposition days, which are not followed by subsequent legislative stages.

If the members opposite would not be so sneaky in trying to change the Standing Orders, in fact, we could perhaps have the kind of dialogue that the hon. member is suggesting we have.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the opposition day.

On Friday, we will return to Bill C-43, the budget bill. If it is completed, we will proceed with Bill C-40, respecting the WTO.

The first item of business on Monday will be Bill C-40. If necessary, we would then return to the budget bill, which contains all the initiatives that I know Canadians support from coast to coast to coast, like the Atlantic accord, the new deal for cities, and the increase in payments to seniors through OAS.

We will then return to the second reading debate of Bill C-38, the marriage bill, which will be the first item on Tuesday. When that business is completed, we will return to departmental bills: Bill C-23, Bill C-22, Bill C-26 and Bill C-9.

Next Wednesday shall be an allotted day.

Standing Orders and Procedure

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, changes to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons certainly do not make for a very exciting debate for those watching. However, it is quite an important moment in the context of the work we do here. It is important to adjust the Standing Orders from time to time and to make relevant recommendations.

Today I want to address the extremely important issue of royal recommendations. One of the problems we are currently experiencing in this Parliament has to do with private members' bills that require a royal recommendation. For those watching us, a royal recommendation amounts to an authorization by the government for bills involving a significant amount of money. In such a case, it is necessary for the government to make a decision.

For example, when an hon. member proposes an amendment to a bill that would result in a huge investment of hundreds of millions of dollars, this calls for governmental consideration and a royal recommendation.

However, the clerks of the House, especially in this Parliament, are called on constantly to interpret the meaning of or need for a royal recommendation for bills being introduced. I must say—to all the clerks of the House—the need for a royal recommendation is being interpreted much more strictly now than in the past. Now a royal recommendation is required for bills, motions or amendments identical to ones from the previous Parliament that did not require a royal recommendation according to the clerks.

I have the feeling that the clerks of the House are being very careful right now and are acting on behalf of the government and becoming, in a way, the government's supervisor. Allow me to give a few examples.

During the second session of the 36th Parliament, several amendments to Bill C-2 were debated and put to a vote at report stage. Among the amendments to this bill regarding the appointment of returning officers, Motion No. 25 proposed that returning officers be appointed through a competition and no longer be appointed by the government, but by the chief electoral officer, and so on. I will spare you the details.

My colleague for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord introduced Bill C-312, which sought to repeal the power of the governor in council to appoint returning officers and instead confer it on the chief electoral officer. In order for such an amendment to be made, the office of the clerk of the House of Commons required a royal recommendation. Such a recommendation is required when a parliamentary bill or motion commits substantial public funds. Repealing the power of the executive branch to appoint returning officers and conferring on the chief electoral officer the power to appoint such officers following a competition is suddenly considered by the office of the clerk of the House of Commons an undue expense requiring a royal recommendation. In my opinion, a mistake has been made.

Frankly, the clerks do an exceptional job. They unfailingly inspire our trust. They have never misled us. I am the longest-serving House leader here. I have held this position for 11 years and I have never once had reason to complain about a single clerk.

However, this new context of caution has led, in my opinion, the office of the clerk of the House of Commons to restrict the eligibility criteria for motions in the House to the point of excess. Now that motions can be passed on the basis of number, the opposition is no longer being allowed motions that were permitted a few months or years ago and for which no royal recommendation was required. In my opinion, such interference in parliamentary affairs and the work of MPs in this House is unacceptable.

Bill C-9 on regional development is another example of this. I must say that this is the straw that broke the camel's back. Our Bloc Québécois colleague called for, among other things, amendments to this bill, so as to better respect the Quebec government's priorities with regard to regional development. Consequently, he proposed the following amendment:

b) enter into agreements with the Government of Quebec for the transfer to Quebec of federal funds allocated to regional development programs;

The member was not requesting that funds be added to regional development—although that would be desirable—but that provisions be made so that agreements between Ottawa and Quebec could make it possible to transfer available funds directly to priorities of Quebec, if there was such an agreement. There is nothing startling nor incorrect there. It does not add one penny. It merely says that funds will be spent differently.

The section of the bill reads as follows:

—enter into contracts, memoranda of understanding or other arrangements in the name of Her Majesty in right of Canada or in the name of the Agency, including cooperation agreements and agreements related to distinct sectors of Quebec’s economy;

The possibility of agreements is already provided for in the government bill. The members of the Bloc Québécois propose that such an agreement be concluded to provide for an automatic transfer of funds, without judgment or veto right by the federal government.

The clerks of the House of Commons tell us that a royal recommendation is needed. I no longer understand anything about what a royal recommendation is. We are not requesting that funds be added, we are requesting that they be used differently, that a different transfer mechanism be added.

That is what broke the camel's back. I must admit that I cannot accept such a thing. I understand the work of the clerks and their prudence. However, I would not want them to substitute themselves for the government, and I would not want the clerks of the House of Commons to feel that their profession is now to save the minority government in all circumstances.

I think that the clerks of the House must look at the definition of royal recommendation with an open mind. In the absence of change to the Standing Orders, I think that what was acceptable one year ago should still be acceptable today. The fact that the table officers give a new interpretation to the Standing Orders that tends to be favourable to the government seems to me to be a slow shift toward a partisan activity, namely, protecting the government.

I am glad to raise that issue today. I know that the clerks, who are very competent officers, will look at the issue. I consider that the royal recommendation is now given too narrow an interpretation. That interferes with parliamentary work and the hon. members and parliamentarians are suddenly prevented from doing the exact same work that they could do last year or two or three years ago.

That is why I would like a better definition of the royal recommendation. Marleau-Montpetit, which is a precious resource on authorization, does not help. The part on royal recommendation will have to be rewritten. The clerks themselves do not understand it. Maybe they should go back to Beauchesne, which is perhaps a bit clearer.

So, that part will have to be looked at and I invite the clerks to work on that. I particularly invite them to interpret the royal recommendation the way they did before we had a minority government. That is all we want.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue debate on Bill C-38, which is the civil marriage bill. We will resume this debate when we return from the Easter adjournment.

We will also want to deal that week with third reading of Bill C-30, which is the parliamentarians' compensation bill, to which my hon. colleague was referring. The Judges Act will certainly come forward in the fullness of time.

We will also return to Bills C-23 and C-22, the human resources and social development departmental legislation.

We also that week hope to debate report stage and third reading of Bill C-26, the border services bill, and Bill C-9, the Quebec economic development bill.

Thursday, April 7, shall be an allotted day.

I know that the House is also very eager to begin debate on the budget implementation bill that was introduced earlier today. However, in keeping with commitments made to the opposition members to give them adequate time to study and discuss in caucus this new legislation, I will call second reading debate on that bill early in the week of April 11.

While I am on my feet, I would like to wish a very happy Easter to all members in the House and officers of the House.

Committees of the House

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology in relation to Bill C-9, an act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

Patent Act

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, without taking all the time remaining to me, I would like to get to my conclusion.

In my speech on this important bill, I mentioned all the contributions made by the hon. member for Windsor West to the former Bill C-9. It is a very important act, which, as we know, is affected by Bill C-29.

Bill C-29, an act to amend the Patent Act does speak to pharmaceutical patents, but in addition—and that is unfortunate—it amends former the Bill C-9, to which the hon. member for Windsor West contributed so much. As we know, Bill C-9 deals with the entire question of AIDS, which is rampant in Africa and causing a crisis all across it.

What is so unfortunate about Bill C-29? It modifies former Bill C-9 and the government is, in a way, eliminating the fact that representatives of the Senate can sit on the advisory committee that will, in fact, be making decisions about which pharmaceuticals will be on the list of drugs available for export.

Because of that, we are somewhat hesitant to give our support to Bill C-29. It is unfortunate because the primary goal of the bill as it now appears, was not to make these changes to the former Bill C-9.

At the same time, it is very important to emphasize that we consider former Bill C-9 extremely useful in resolving or beginning to resolve the crisis in Africa. Since the regulations will not come into force for several years—and even though Africa cannot wait—we must wait in order to be able to help Africans to the fullest.

For this reason we will support Bill C-29 only bring about the implementation of the regulations of former Bill C-9 as quickly as possible, so that we will finally be able to help the people of Africa, who need it so much.

Supply

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my memory being what it is, I cannot remember all the details of every single file in the entire province. However, one thing is certain, in my presentation, I was very careful to give a few examples illustrating how some businesses have understood the need to find the appropriate niche, develop their marketing, improve their productivity and invest in equipment that will enable them both to manufacture leading-edge products and, actually, do it in a more competitive way. I gave examples of that.

There is a message I would like to convey to my colleagues opposite, those in the Bloc Québécois in particular. I do it in all simplicity. In the textiles area we have the perfect example of an Industry Canada program delivered by Canada Economic Development. Bill C-9, dealing with the independence of CED from Industry, allows us, actually, to continue this influx of Industry Canada funds and programs in the regions of Quebec. However the Bloc Québécois refuses to support Bill C-9, arguing that all the money must go to Quebec and be managed by the province. If we go down that route, Quebec will no longer benefit from Industry programs. It will be over. Can one explain to me the consistency of the Bloc's point of view in this regard?

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, it is with both great sadness and great enthusiasm that I rise today to speak on this motion. I am sad because this is indeed a problem, in the textile industry in particular, affecting families which bear the brunt of decisions that were or ought to have been made. All this resulted in these people experiencing the tragedy of unemployment, with everything this entails in personal, family and human terms.That is on the sad side.

The brighter side has to do with the messages of hope that we can hear, much more generally, where textile and economic diversification is concerned, particularly in Quebec.

I would like, if I may, to review briefly actions taken by representatives of my government, not only in macroeconomic terms, but also in terms of my department in particular, Canada Economic Development, both under my predecessors and under myself.

There is an economist by the name of Denis Audet who works for the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD. This is not an organization that lacks credibility; it is actually a world renowned organization. So, this economist with the OECD wrote that the future of the textile industry in Canada can be considered positively. Despite the fact that textile export quotas were lifted, the companies that adjusted are the ones most likely to succeed.

The textile and apparel industries in Canada, their products and the people who started them do have a long established tradition of innovation, creativity and commercial success.

Many businesses in that industry are indeed successful. On Monday, the CEO for Quebec of the international association representing industrial textile manufacturers praised Richard Bouthillier, of Les Chapiteaux du monde in Baie-Saint-Paul, among others. Mr. Bouthillier's initiative was described as visionary and bold. Mr. Bouthillier was reported as having developed the market for vinyl festival tents. Today, such structures are available from every rental company in Quebec.

Of course we live in an ever-changing world. I strongly believe that we have to face reality and not bury our heads in the sand. The competition that surfaces everywhere makes it more and more difficult for us to compete against some foreign producers in the area of mass production.

This brings me back to the speech I made in the House when Bill C-9, which is now before the committee, was introduced. It is obvious that if we want to overcome those challenges, we cannot stick to old solutions. We have to look forward, to promote innovation and productivity and to diversify the economies to make the regions less dependant on one or two economic development sources.

Not only do we see the changes happening, but we also see them multiply at an accelerated rate.

First of all, we have to realize that this problem is not due to one business executive, one employee or one government, be it provincial, municipal or other. It is really a joint problem, a societal problem. We all have a role to play to make three important things happen. Firs, it is very important that we do not bury our heads in the sand and that we recognize the changes that are under way. Second, we have to think, not about the deficit that this entails, but about the development opportunities that all of this can bring. Finally, we have to explore the best ways to adapt to these new realities.

Of course textile companies are no exceptions. If they want to carry on, the Canadian apparel and textile industries have to specialize and modernize their operations. I repeat that the solutions lie mainly in the research and development of exclusive products adapted to a target clientele. The focus must be on quick service and advanced equipment.

The Canadian government has taken a variety of measures to help the textile companies. I will of course talk about the measures that are directly related to the apparel and textile industries in general.

In June 2003, recognizing increasing competition worldwide, the Government of Canada introduced the Canadian Apparel and Textile Industries Program. Insiders called it CATIP. Those who used the program knew it by that name. CATIP was replaced by another program.

What was the purpose of this $33 million program? It was to promote and facilitate partnership with the industry to make it more innovative and better equipped for entering new markets. If I may, I would like to say a few words about this program before moving on to the programs that followed CATIP.

I think it is somewhat regrettable that my colleague from Drummond—although I can understand where she is coming from because she does represent an affected region—is so quick to blame the federal government as though it were responsible for every problem in the world. I think that approach is too simple. It may not be surprising, but it is too simple. It oversimplifies a problem that is far more complex than that.

Allow me to list a few accomplishments that CATIP made possible. Again, CATIP was the $33 million Canadian Apparel and Textile Industries Program adopted in June 2003 and used throughout Canada.

As for Quebec alone, in other words the portion of this fund that was allocated to Quebec, the Government of Canada invested almost $9.5 million. However, it is interesting to note that this $9.5 million investment produced other investments, beyond that of the federal government, to the tune of $28 million.

I want to be clear about these figures because I believe it is not rhetoric that matters, but facts and figures. This $9.5 million investment by the Government of Canada, which translated into overall investments of $28 million, maintained 12,000 jobs and created 436 others in the textile industry.

When I am told that there is no future for the textile industry in Quebec, I say “Wait a minute. Are we all living on the same planet?” Are there problems? Yes. Are market conditions changing? Yes. Is there a need for economic diversification? Yes. However, do not come and tell me that there is no future for the textile industry in Quebec. That is not true. There is a future, provided we know which product to choose, how to produce it, how to improve productivity, how to find market niches and how to support diversification initiatives.

Of course, some might say that it is fine, but that these are figures. We can easily get carried away with figures, but it is not easy for people watching on television to have a good grasp of these figures. I myself have a hard time doing it. We may be members of Parliament and ministers, but we are consumers first and foremost. We are used to working with hundreds or even thousands of dollars sometimes, but here we are dealing with millions of dollars. So, it is complicated.

Instead of mentioning numbers, let me give some concrete success stories. Those who work for these employers will know that I am referring to them and that I am proud to do so.

First, Régitex, in Saint-Joseph-de-Beauce, is a company specializing in the manufacturing of high tech threads for industrial products, clothing and furniture. It used to be a small business. Let us keep in mind that the Government of Canada cannot do everything. We can provide support, but the initiative must really come from the industry, from companies, from leaders with a vision. Today, thanks not only to the support of the Government of Canada, but to the concerted efforts of all these stakeholders, there are 140 people working at Régitex, in Saint-Joseph-de-Beauce.

Here is another example: the Children's Apparel Manufacturers' Association in Montreal set up an on-line credit bureau. Why? To have up to date information on most North-American retailers. What does this mean? It means that this credit bureau provides credit reports and helps assess the risk of a sale for businesses that make products here and want to sell them in the United States. This is a success story.

Let us take another example: Chemises Empire Ltée in Louiseville. It is a modern business, and yet with a time-honoured tradition of excellence. It specializes in the design and manufacture of first-class uniforms for police forces, schools and dozens of organizations everywhere in Canada. That business is a success story, and a spectacular one.

Another example, Confections Alizée plein air inc. in Sainte-Aurélie. As you can see, I am extremely eclectic, I move from one region of Quebec to the other. The managers of that business have combined their love of the outdoors with their design talent. With the help of their employees, in 2003, they have succeeded in creating, or at least developing, an extremely prosperous business. The most tangible proof of their success is the fact that the plan doubled in size.

There is a future for textile, but we must encourage productivity, innovation, market targeting, exports, and marketing. That is what we want to do. We cannot create jobs out of nowhere, but we can encourage job creation, including in the textile industry, and that is what we are doing.

Let me remind you that, in each case, we are dealing with projects or examples that came about after the implementation of a program in 2003. I have not yet had a chance to mention the programs that were put in place subsequently and that considerably improve the 2003 program.

Let me give the House another example, the Groupe CTT/SAGEOS in Saint-Hyacinthe. I am concerned about the Montérégie area, since it is getting pretty close to home. That business works at improving productivity in the Canadian geotextile industry. Why? Because we want to focus on an extremely specialized niche, develop a very specific expertise so that we can become competitive, we can perform and we can sell.

I could also tell you about the Canadian Apparel Federation because one of the problems experienced by small businesses is that they may not have all the necessary networks to develop their markets. Therefore, we must not only work with the businesses themselves, but also with organizations that will be able to provides services to a number of small businesses that would not be affordable to each of them separately. That is what we are doing with the department.

The Canadian Apparel Federation is trying to fill a gap in the efficient promotion of products manufactured by those small businesses by creating a gateway to the industry and a virtual commercial infrastructure.

That was the 2003 Canadian Apparel and Textile Industries Program, a new program that has been improved on at least two occasions and is now CANtex.

In February 2004, in response to the recommendations of a joint government-industry task force, the then Minister of Industry, who was incidentally at the same time the Minister responsible for the Canada Economic Development Agency prior to me, announced new measures aimed specifically at enhancing the international competitiveness of the Canadian apparel and textile industries.

I must apologize to the people affected by this debate, and I know that many are following it because they are affected deeply and directly by the situation. I must, however, cite some figures though I know they are hard to handle and hard to see in concrete terms. They are necessary, however, if only for the sake of integrity in connection with the program and the action taken.

In February 2004, $53.4 million were earmarked by this program, $26.7 million of those for CANtex, a Canadian three-fold initiative focussed on textile production efficiency. There was also an equivalent amount, that is another $26.7 million, for reducing the tariffs on imported textiles used by the Canadian apparel industry. In all, then, $53.4 million.

I have already mentioned the successive improvements, and here is one more. This past December 14, the ministers of finance and of industry announced a number of measures intended to help these same industries be more competitive on the world market. Of course, there is rapid change in those markets and the adaptation has to be rapid as well. This is one of the strengths we need if we are to succeed.

The assistance via this measure of December 14 doubled that announced last February. Naturally an economic structure cannot be totally remade. By that I mean taking into account the major changes that are bringing pressure to bear on the industry, redistributing everything, encouraging innovation, doing R and D and finding outlets.

This cannot be done by snapping our fingers. It is sad, but it takes time. I wish I had a magic wand that I could shake and, poof, all the workers who have lost their job in the textile industry, be it in Huntingdon, Drummondville or elsewhere in the province or the country, would get it back. Unfortunately, I do not have such a wand and neither does anyone else. We must show integrity, and we have work to do.

The fact that we do not have a solution producing results as fast as we all would like in no way means that we have to give up. On the contrary, we have work to do. We must not get mired in political rhetoric. We must work together.

As members know, with regard to Quebec, the implementation of the CANtex program was entrusted to the department I have the honour of heading, the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. We are not waiting for a crisis to properly introduce CANtex to all the companies in the province that might be interested by this program. Instead, we are advising all those who play a large or small role in the economy through textiles or apparel that we have money on the table to help them prepare for the future, remain ahead of the game and succeed.

What did we do to achieve this? In December, in collaboration with Industry Canada and a great many partners, we held five information sessions not only for companies, but also for the organizations supporting them. In total, over one hundred companies and regional organizations met with us during these sessions.

I truly want to rise above partisan lines to tell all of these people that we are really doing the maximum. And if this is still not enough, we will do even more than that. However, there is no magic solution. Those who claim there was one have interests that have nothing to do with the reality.

I want to talk briefly about Huntingdon. We know what the problems in this case are: the companies were sold, they moved; ultimately, it is a complex situation. The mayor is fighting and making an enormous effort to save his municipality. A buyback program is underway. Some needs have come to light, in particular the purchase of one of the mills by the municipality. As members know, the way to proceed in this case could come from the area of infrastructures. As members also know, all requests relating to infrastructures come from the local authorities and first go to Quebec for analysis. Once Quebec has given its authorization, we get the file and then we can decide accordingly.

I wish to make a formal statement to the people of Huntingdon that I am prepared to receive Quebec's project, in my capacity as the minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. I want to look into it.

I do not have the time here to go into detail on what we did in connection with Huntingdon, nor do I want to get involved in a propaganda exercise. That is not what I am interested in. We have, however, worked really hard on this. The minister before me launched a series of consultations a few months ago, long before I appeared on the scene. I have taken over from her, and I am doing my best though hers is a hard act to follow.

Economic diversification is important because the textile industry cannot be enough on its own. We cannot settle for single-industry sectors in our cities and towns and hope they will prosper. Diversification is necessary.

I hope that the questions to follow will give me an opportunity to develop that aspect further. I am giving you examples that have nothing to do with the textile industry, but have depressed us equally, because we thought things would never be right again, that the regions would close down, and that would be the end of it. Asbestos is one example of that. At the time, there were 4,000 people, or 20% of the work force, working in the mines. Today there are 1,800 businesses not involved in mining, and of those close to 200 provide 3,500 jobs in the manufacturing sector. Diversification is off to a good start. It is working, although there is still a lot to be done.

I could mention Bas-Saint-Laurent, the Saguenay, the Gaspé, where they are developing wind generators, research centres and diversification involving quartz.

The work of diversification is both essential and fundamental. I want to have the support of all members of the House to continue the work we have begun.

Patent Act

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin the second reading of Bill C-29, a bill that makes technical amendments to the Patent Act. The changes provided in this bill are strictly technical and narrow in scope. I am hopeful that the House and the other place will have no problem passing this bill expeditiously.

It is very important that we move quickly on this bill for, although it deals with details that are of a technical nature, the jobs of many Canadians and the competitiveness of Canadian companies in a global marketplace could be stake if we delay.

Canada's reputation as a good place to invest and perform leading edge research and development may also be hurt if we do not move quickly to clear up the technical issues covered by the bill.

First, what the bill represents is a response to an unexpected court decision that has raised uncertainties about the status of some patents. It is designed to clear up the confusion about the patent fees and potentially the status of a significant number of patents. It is a measure to avoid clogging the courts with patent infringement lawsuits, and the sooner we pass the bill the sooner we can remove the element of uncertainty regarding Canada's patent regime.

I want to provide the House with some of the background that made these technical amendments necessary. The Patent Act is designed to protect the intellectual property of investors. The patent offer the investor a monopoly on the creation for a specific period. In this way we provide incentive for research and development so that people will invest the time and money it takes to devise and perfect a new product.

In order to apply and maintain a patent application or patent, a set of fees must be paid and these fees vary according to several factors. One of the variables today is the reason that we have a problem.

The fees paid for patent protection vary according to the size of an entity. If one is a small entity defined as an individual, a university or a business with 50 employees or less, the fees will generally be half of those of a large entity.

This distinction between small entities and large entities gave rise to the technical amendments that we seek to address. Those who filed patents and paid their fees always had to ask themselves whether they should be filing as a small entity or a large entity. On the surface, the definitions are straightforward, but over time the situation became much less clear.

What happens, for example, if a person starts off as a single individual inventor and his or her company grows quickly so that it becomes a large entity? What happens when, for instance, a person is a large entity with more than 50 employees but decide to break up into a company of smaller components, one of which maintains the patent? What happens when a person is a small entity but enters into an agreement with a large entity for exclusive use of one's invention?

Above all, with respect to the technical amendments before us, what happens if a person makes a mistake? What happens if a person files as a small entity and then realizes that he or she should have filed as a large entity instead?

Those are important questions for innovators, especially for individuals and small businesses who have the opportunity to use their ingenuity and innovation to grow a business.

The Commissioner of Patents is responsible for addressing the system and setting collective fees. In the past, in the case of small and large entities related fees, the commissioner acted on the principle that an entity that had made an honest mistake in determining the level of the fees should be given the benefit of the doubt. If the entity had submitted the incorrect amount in good faith and it was later determined that the amounts submitted was incorrect, the entity could top up the fees to maintain their rights in accordance with the act.

That was the practice and many individuals, small businesses and universities maintained their protection under the system that allowed for corrective measures, or so they believed.

However all this has changed as a result of a court case know as the Dutch case. In patent infringement suit brought against Dutch Industries by Barton No-Till Inc. and Flexi Coil Ltd., Dutch Industries successfully maintained that the patent had been abandoned because the proper fees were not paid. Moreover, the judge found that the Commissioner of Patents had no legal authority to accept top up payments.

The court decision means that the top up practice is no longer accepted. This opens a Pandora's box of potential legal trouble. It has created the possibility of a Dutch defence against patent legislation if a company is found to have used the top up policy in order to correct and oversight.

This case was appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal and on March 7, 2003 the court rendered its decision. The Federal Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court that late top up fees could not be corrected.

Furthermore, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the determination as to whether an applicant would be considered a small or a large entity is to be fixed at the time of entry into the patent regime. That interpretation by the court was inconsistent with the long-standing practice of fees varying over the life of a patent if the entity changed size.

This new interpretation meant that any applicant who had entered as a large entity and later became a small one, and paid commensurate fees, suddenly found themselves in the position of having underpaid the prescribed fees. These applicants and patent holders risk invalidation of their rights.

This creates a very difficult situation for holders of patents who may not have paid the right fee. We want to end this confusion. We want to remove the uncertainty as it relates to those who have used the flexibility as described. In fact, in August 2003 the government announced that it would amend the Patent Act to clarify the payment of certain patent fees.

The amendments contained in the bill provide a 12 month timeframe for patent holders and applicants who are negatively affected by the court decision to maintain their rights by making necessary top up payments. In effect, we are giving patent holders the right, for a 12 month period, to continue making the arrangements that the courts found they had no right to do under the current legislation.

The longer this legislation is delayed the more likely the number of patent infringement court cases would increase. This would have an adverse effect on Canada's reputation as a good place to do business. It would undermine our reputation as a country that protects intellectual property rights.

The intellectual property stakeholders have been consulted on these technical amendments and they support the patent provisions of the bill. I would urge hon. members to pass it as quickly as possible and remove the uncertainty.

The second issue dealt with in the bill involves the legislation that was passed in the last Parliament as Bill C-9, the Jean Chrétien Pledge to Africa Act. Hon. members who were present in the last Parliament will recall that this was an initiative to provide lower cost pharmaceutical products to least developed and developing countries. At its heart, the bill aimed at helping those countries fight HIV-AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and other public health problems by giving them easier access to patented medicines.

Bill C-9 amended the Patent Act and the Food and Drugs Act. It provides the legislative framework that enables Canada to authorize someone other than the patent holder to manufacture a lower cost version of a patented medicine for export to a developing country. Canada was very proud to be one of the first countries to take such action.

However there was a technical oversight in that legislation, one which we seek to correct now. An expert panel, to be appointed by the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Health, was to be named to advise the government on which pharmaceutical products should be eligible under the regime.

In response to recommendations from some hon. members from across the floor, the government agreed that the appointment of this panel would be reviewed by a committee of the House. Of course, the other place also has a rightful responsibility in matters that come before Parliament, and a committee of the other place should have the right and authority to review these appointments as well.

Hon. members who were present during the final weeks of the last Parliament will recall the urgency of getting this humanitarian and life-saving legislation through Parliament before the election writ was dropped. There was no time to make the necessary amendments to Bill C-9 that would ensure the other place was given the same rights of review as the House. However the then minister of industry gave the other place her commitment that at the next available opportunity the government would correct that oversight in the new Parliament.

The next available opportunity is now. We wish to take advantage of the need to pass technical amendments affecting payment of fees to make a further technical amendment that would provide the other place with its rightful responsibility to review the appointments to the expert panel.

This is not a controversial measure. It is a step to do the right thing and correct an oversight of the last Parliament, an oversight that, were it not for the generosity and spirit of the other place, might have killed the bill at that time.

Both of the measures in Bill C-29 are very technical in nature. Neither of them is controversial. Both of them deserve swift passage and that is why I urge the House to focus sharply on the technical content of the bill.

This is not an overhaul of the Patent Act. It does not break new ground in how we protect and encourage innovation in Canada. I urge hon. members from both sides of this House to join me in voting for the passage of this bill as soon as possible.

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on this matter, particularly since, over the past few days, I have had the opportunity to become more familiar with this issue. As a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, I took part in the trip to meet a number of witnesses and stakeholders with regard to the Fraser River sockeye salmon problem in B.C.

Just before I start my speech that will, I believe, be interrupted by statements by members and oral questions, I want to say the following. Given what I have just heard about depoliticizing the debate on the Fraser River sockeye salmon, I would have liked our Conservative colleagues to have done the same thing with regard to Bill C-9. This legislation concerns politicizing local and regional development throughout Quebec. Currently, I think that, yes, it should have been done, and it is not too late because the debate is not over yet. So, the debate on local and regional development in Quebec is being politicized and we are being asked to depoliticize the fisheries issue in relation to another matter. This is somewhat inconsistent.

On one hand, with regard to this particular subject, I first want to extend a vote of thanks, of appreciation to the Conservative Party for allowing us, today, to talk in greater depth and detail about this very important issue for British Columbia. I think that all regions, including my own, can have an interest in this issue. When it comes to species conservation, Quebeckers, particularly people in Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, like those in other coastal ridings, are interested.

So, I congratulate the Conservative Party for having introduced this matter today and, particularly, the Conservative critic from St. John's South—Mount Pearl and the interested members who had the opportunity to talk about this matter on various occasions, particularly the Conservative member for Delta—Richmond East. I also want to recognize those who took part in this trip and who are working hard on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

When we went to Vancouver to meet people, we did so thanks to an amazing amount of work. We too often forget the work done by committee staff. Let me say that over the past few years in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, I have had the opportunity of seeing it from a real-life viewpoint. Now, as a member of Parliament, it is even more obvious. I think it is appropriate to congratulate the people who work for each of our committees. Some of them help us figure out the issues and some provide us with information or organize the meetings. Three days in Vancouver, in the rain, with many hours of discussions and listening on subjects related to our portfolio; it took a lot of work to prepare for that. The committee staff worked very well, and I really must pay tribute to them.

I would also like to express special thanks, and many thanks, to the witnesses. We held public hearings as we have done on other occasions. I remember very well that in the matter of Atlantic groundfish, the committee went to meet the people in Quebec, in Gaspé, particularly, and in other provinces, including Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

The witnesses who came to meet us took the committee's work very seriously, and the committee has tried to do its work professionally and conscientiously. I believe the members of the committee worked together respectfully and listened attentively to all those who came to testify. There were a number of groups.

These people spoke of their experiences and expressed their views.

We also heard from commercial fishers, the committee's first witnesses. Many fishing groups, including commercial fishers, benefit from the sockeye salmon in the Fraser River. At that time, I had the opportunity—I have said this before and I will say it again—to hear Ms. Nguyen, spokesperson for the BC Vietnamese Fishermen's Association. The association represents commercial sockeye salmon fishers. I can tell you that Ms. Nguyen's testimony was extremely moving.

She told us, clearly and simply—I am repeating it today for those watching—that she agreed to come to Canada in the hope of sharing in the wealth of the Fraser River sockeye salmon industry. Her words were filled with emotion. At one point, even, she had difficulty continuing.

She spoke from the heart, saying all she and her group wanted was to join in the sockeye harvest on the Fraser River. Yet, given everything that has happened in recent years, they now find themselves with practically nothing, making what I would call a miserable income.

She spoke candidly and eloquently. Ms. Nguyen deserves our praise. The committee members had the opportunity to hear her, and I imagine they feel the same way as I do about what she had to say.

Then there was a group of sport fishers, recreational fishers as they say. They gave a very interesting presentation on their vision, their way of looking at things. Essentially, what they said was that illegal fishing was, in their opinion, mainly practised by the Aboriginal groups.

The Fraser River, I should point out, for those less familiar with it—I was one of them until recently myself—is 1,000 kilometres long. So its role is far from insignificant. It has generated considerable income from the salmon resource, hundreds of millions of dollars in the past. Now that figure is down to tens of millions. Hon. members can see what a difference that is, and what an impact this would have on fishers. So, those who fish for sport expressed their point of view.

We also had representations from the aboriginal groups, and the main thrust of their testimony was that for them the Fraser River red salmon, the sockeye in other words, was more than a source of food or income; it was also a continuation of their ancestral practices. We are all aware that this is a controversial point, and it is hard to know how to interpret the ritual consumption and other uses of these famous fish. Their presentations gave us a very good idea of their point of view.

I think my time is very nearly up and that we will have an opportunity to continue after members' statements and oral question period.

Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at seconding reading stage of Bill C-9.

Regional Economic Development

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the minister responsible for the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation.

This past week, the minister was in Cape Breton to make an announcement in the Northside Industrial Park which will see Keata PharmEng, a pharmaceutical manufacturing company, establish an operation on Cape Breton Island.

In light of the debate that is taking place today in this House, with Bill C-9, on the importance of regional economic development, could the minister explain to the House the importance of investments such as this one to the economy of Cape Breton?

Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act

[Roger Clavet, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also thank my Conservative colleague for having drawn the attention of the House to the insufficient number of Liberal members at this moment. We will be able to continue with Bill C-9.

As I was saying before the interruption, only Quebec can create this integrated government structure that is referred to in the bill on regional development.

You see what the scenario is now. Two half governments are involved here. Neither Quebec nor Ottawa have the resources to ensure regional development now. So we have two half governments that are involved in half development programs and only achieving--we have to be honest here--half results. This does not work very well at the regional level.

The way this bill is worded, this would involve two government levels and it would once again infringe upon Quebec's jurisdiction. But above all, in the regions of Quebec, one level of government would have the effect of cancelling out what the other government is doing. The forces would cancel each other out instead of complementing each other

I come from the national capital area. I am talking about Quebec City's, of course. Believe it or not, in that area, which is not that far from major centres—it is a major urban centre—we have the same distressing problem as in remote areas. Even though there is a minister supposedly responsible for the Quebec City area, federal money does not even reach it.

Imagine people in the Gaspé or the Laurentians, such as my colleagues here,or in other Quebec regions. Federal money does not come back. When it does, it is always with strings attached and all kind of conditions to make sure the regions are dependant on the federal government. Bill C-9 would continue in the same vein, namely exploit the weakness and vulnerability of the regions.

If Ottawa finally decides to show interest in Quebec's regions, it should start by looking after its own responsibilities. That is were it should start. We in the Bloc believe that instead of introducing a new bill, the federal government should do a number of very basic things.

First, it should respect Quebec's jurisdictions. The government seems to have trouble understanding that, but it might do so by starting by respecting local consultation bodies. We are well equipped in this regard in Quebec. They already exist. Why not give them better tools and make sure Canada Economic Development works properly? There is already an agency that should do that. It does not take one more limo. It is not needed in Quebec.

First, federal programs should be tailored to the needs of the regions. My colleagues mentioned earlier the need to re-establish funding for new infrastructure programs. There is also federal capital spending. That would be a good start, a good indication of the government's good faith.

It should not forget either to support employment insurance reform. When we talk about a reform we are not talking only about lowering or raising EI contributions. We are talking about reform. The regions are particularity hard hit by unemployment, which is very high.

Some realities are not the same from one region to the next, but all the regions of Quebec suffer the same great pain. In the Gaspé, seasonal workers are penalized by employment insurance rules. In other regions the problems are different. Life is not the same in Montreal as in Vancouver or Toronto.

The small regions need support. That support does not come from creating a department, on the contrary, it will come from taking the current structures and freeing up the money that is not getting through to Quebec's regions.

Moreover, the last thing we need is more fighting between Quebec City and Ottawa over structural issues, including a new department that would only increase bureaucracy. In the Bloc Québécois we are very sensitive to the reality of the regions. We listen to the dialogue; we listen to the people telling us that things are not going well.

It is not enough to wave a magic wand, to appear and say here is a bill and—abracadabra—a new department comes in to save the regions from the poor conditions in which they have been imprisoned. They have not been imprisoning themselves in these conditions.

They are going through terrible situations in terms of employment, resources and access. There are as we speak some regions of Quebec that do not even have high speed Internet access. Since telecommunications are in the federal domain, why is it that in 2004 there are regions of Quebec that are not yet connected?

We need some practical action much more than a bill to create a department. It does not take a rocket scientist to think of that. It is just a matter of finding the resources that already exist.

It must be understood that creating a new department will increase the weight of the bureaucracy. Moreover, there will be risks of duplication. It is true that the bill is based on similar initiatives in Canada's western provinces. Western Economic Diversification, or WD, operates quite successfully in the west. I have lived in Manitoba, and I am proud to say so, and I have seen it operating well.

At this time, however, we see that the provincial agencies have had their own legislation since 1988. They are well governed provincially.

The federal government must be reminded of its obligation to respect Quebec's jurisdiction, since Quebec must become and remain the architect of regional development.

[Roger Clavet, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-9, following my colleagues in the Bloc. As was mentioned earlier, the Bloc will oppose this bill for various reasons. I would like to highlight some of them.

This is a bill that proposes to create the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. This may seem a bit odd but, actually, past federal experience in the regions of Quebec has not always been successful, far from it. One need only look at unemployment numbers in the regions. It is an appalling disaster.

Would Bill C-9 do anything particular for Quebec? Not at all. From whatever angle one looks at it, it simply creates a federal department and results in a new duplication. We certainly do not need an additional federal structure in Quebec, far from it.

When we consider the bill in detail, we see, for instance, the duties of the new responsible minister, the one who would get a limousine. This might indeed be the intent behind the bill, to add an extra limousine for a minister. We do not need another federal department.

When one looks closely at the minister's powers, they are vague and far-ranging. Nor does the bill provide for an integrated federal strategy in the regions. By contrast, what we in the Bloc have been saying is that regions first and foremost need an integrated development strategy, but only Quebec is in a position to put one into place.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was not planning on speaking to this bill. However, as speeches have been made, I have been listening and looking at the bill. I have a number of things that we should seriously question with respect to Bill C-9.

I find it absolutely atrocious that the Liberal government has gone ahead and implemented this whole program without parliamentary approval. We find under this Prime Minister the same illness that we had under the previous Prime Minister, Mr. Chrétien. Parliament is just an annoyance. It is just something that has to go through.

The government has actually had this agency in place for two years. For two years it has had budgets in the estimates of around half a billion dollars per year. It has been doing it without parliamentary approval. It has come here now and expecting Parliament to just rubber stamp what it is already doing. In a sense, we are in fact rubber stamping it and I think we probably have no choice. The thing is already being done.

It would be unwise for us to be against this particular bill because of the turmoil that it would cause for all the people who are employed in this program and in the work that they are doing in Quebec. Yet, at the same time, the sequence is wrong. We ought to hold the Liberal government accountable for its arrogance and for its presumptions.

I have huge problems, when I read in this bill, as I mentioned in one of my interventions earlier, about the government's ability to make grants and contributions. What a scandal that is. I cannot believe that the Bloc are actually favouring this bill because it is obvious that the Government of Canada, as long as the Liberals are in power, will simply be picking its Liberal friends to start businesses. Look at what happened in the former Prime Minister's riding, where his friends got money, grants and guaranteed loans in order to build a hotel in which the former Prime Minister himself had a financial interest.

That is the type of thing we invite when we have this kind of agency instead of having it at arm's length. I look at, for example, the powers of the minister. In this bill, the minister can totally control who gets the money and guaranteed loans. I am concerned about the fact that the minister may make regulations, which means the minister in charge who is part of the prime ministerial team. He can do that in order to exploit the opportunities for improvements in employment as identified in a designated area, as well as regulations specially applicable to that area or community which may be made under the authority of this section that vary from regulations of general application to Quebec.

We have the federal government looking at a specific region in a province, and having the right and the power to override other regulations, and to make grants, contributions and advertisements. All these grants and contributions have been such a scandal in the previous government's administration.

I am deeply concerned about the fact that the government is now seeking parliamentary approval for what it is already doing and giving it additional powers over what it already has in terms of interfering and picking economic winners and losers. I just cannot see that for the long run and in the broad perspective of our country that this is a good thing to do. I needed to get that off my chest.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to explain why we are opposing Bill C-9, an act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. I will also speak to the reality of socio-economic development in the regions of Quebec.

Why are we opposing Bill C-9? This bill establishes a department for regional development. For Quebeckers, this is a new form of duplication and federal infringement which does not meet the needs of local communities. As a matter of fact, the government's bill would place the development of the regions of Quebec under the discretion of the federal minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

This bill clearly identifies all the regions of Quebec as areas in which the federal government is responsible for development. Yet, Quebec already has a regional development department responsible for planning, organizing and coordinating development activities through CREs, the Conseils régionaux des élus, which replaced CRDs, CLDs, CFDCs and many other local programs and agencies. RCMs are also playing an increasingly important role in terms of local and community economic development. Therefore, we have a number of players. We have a large development structure which meets the needs of our communities. Why fix what is not broken?

Under the Constitution, Quebec is responsible for most areas pertaining to the development of regions. The fact that there are three levels of government with different development goals has made it difficult, in recent years, to have a common vision for regional development and consistent local development practices. As you know, these three levels are the federal, the provincial and the municipal governments.

Many years have passed—I, for one, have been involved in local development for several years—and many consultation meetings were held before all the stakeholders and agencies in one region could know and understand each other and their respective goals, whether at the federal, provincial or even municipal level.

The decentralization of powers to citizens, a new local development strategy implemented about 20 years ago, has been very successful. Over time, every organization faced with the same socio-economic issues in our areas have managed to develop a shared vision for action in their communities. It was not easy at first. We had the CFDCs, which had their own local development policies and practices and which were under federal direction. We had the LDBs which were under provincial direction. Finally, the RCMs arrived, with their direction often coming from municipal institutions. There were months of consensus building before all these people built a shared vision for the development of their territories.

It has now been realized. The tools are there. What we now lack is money to support the various local community initiatives. Bill C-9 is disrupting this cohesion, this consensus built along the way among stakeholders and organizations. This bill introduces new rules that are not wanted in Quebec.

What we want is for the federal government to respect Quebec's jurisdiction and expertise and to adapt its federal programs to the reality of the regions. The federal government should adapt its policies to the reality of Quebec regions, and not the other way around, as is currently the case.

Allow me to give a few examples. Federal programs are often aimed at large cities, and thus exclude regional participation. The strategic infrastructure fund is a good example since its objective is to fund projects of such magnitude that small rural municipalities are excluded.

In this regard, the Quebec government adopted in December 2001 a national rural policy to support the development of the Quebec rural communities.

Instead of creating yet another new institution, the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, and investing in new institutions, should the federal government not simply transfer money to Quebec, and invest for example in these rural development funds that support initiatives called rural pacts? These projects lack funds. The federal government could simply transfer money to these institutions because they do have a lot of projects. The socio-economic development structures already exist. The addition of new structures is not a solution.

Moreover, if the federal government wants to support regional development, often referred to as local development, it could start by supporting the introduction of a new infrastructure program for municipalities and providing them with better financial support. Our small rural municipalities are having a very hard time renovating their water and sewage systems and their infrastructure. We really need a good infrastructure policy. This would help to promote regional and municipal development.

Furthermore, it could also overhaul employment insurance, because the regions have paid heavily as a result of decisions made by the Liberal government. This government's EI policies have excluded a significant portion of rural populations and led to an exodus of young people to major urban centres as a result of cuts to EI and the inaction of the federal government with regard to its EI policies.

A good EI policy, adapted to seasonal workers, could be part of a federal intervention and would doubtless be more successful than Bill C-9, which simply duplicates Quebec's regional policy.

Cuts to EI have swelled the exodus of young people, as I mentioned, in addition to causing recruitment problems for companies providing seasonal employment. As for these EI cuts, when people ended up with 15 weeks of EI benefits in one summer or one winter, they had to go on welfare. Instead of turning to welfare, some people are moving to the major urban centres, which creates a void in rural areas. This contradicts a regional development policy. I suggest that the federal government begin addressing these issues before developing a so-called regional development policy.

Since Ottawa is suddenly interested in the fate of the regions, it needs to know that EI reform is a concrete way to help them climb out of the poverty into which it plunged them.

As for the $428 million allocated to the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, that money should be transferred to Quebec, because the Quebec government already has a regional development policy. The creation of a federal department would only perpetuate this duplication. The regions need assistance, not quarrels between Quebec and Canada.

In short, this new legislation is a clear step backward for the regions of Quebec dealing with troubled economic growth, declining population and devitalization. This bill, which does not include any new funding, is therefore just one more exercise in nation building by a federal government that, after the 1995 referendum, decided to invest in areas under Quebec jurisdiction and raise its profile in Quebec by using its massive surpluses and its spending power to do so.

The Liberal government must resolve the fiscal imbalance if it truly wants to meet the real needs of the regions of Quebec.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, although the NDP supports Bill C-9 in principle, there is a missed opportunity with the bill. I believe my colleague from the Bloc spoke very eloquently around some of the challenges the bill does not address.

We need very strong policies that support regional development and we need a federal government that sets a framework to allow communities to determine their destiny. One thing we know about effective community economic development is that it builds long term community capacity and fosters the integration of not only economic but social and environmental activities.

The intention of community economic development is individual and community self-reliance through collaborative action, capacity building and returning control of business enterprises, capital, labour and other resources to communities. This fact often gets lost in the discussion of economic development. We will notice that many references to economic development omit communities. The social and environmental activity is so critical and it should be included in that discussion.

There are some basic tools around community economic development that the bill does not address, and the discussion is not taking place in the larger capacity. Community economic development talks about capacity building and making more with less in communities. It talks about making money circulate within communities before it leaves communities. It talks about import replacement, which means making things within our communities instead of bringing them in from outside. It talks about making brand new products within our communities.

We need targeted long term policies that promote and support domestic economies. We need to talk about financing. We need meaningful funds for job creation so when we are hit with things like softwood lumber, we can look to community economic development within our communities. We need effective community development corporations so decisions are made in the communities which will bring about that kind of job creation that we know is so critical. We need to support downtown development authorities. We need loan funds for a full range of entrepreneurs.

We also need to effectively promote buy local strategies, which includes government procurement. Therefore, when we have federal government agencies in local communities, they need to have a development strategy on buying local. We need tax incentives that support buying local. We need meaningful skills and business training that supports community economic development. The bill does not address any of that. I would hope at the committee level we have that kind of discussion on building our local economy.

Part of this discussion should be about environmental responsibilities in terms of green businesses. This can include tax incentives, government retrofit, attraction and retention of business strategies and energy conservation. We also need targeted subsidies and funding so we can get what we measure, and that is supporting local business.

Research and development funds are not easily accessible for local communities either. We need community supported agriculture. My community in Nanaimo--Cowichan is a good example. We need to talk about local strategies that not only support agri-business and agri-tourism, but support buying local as well. We need to reclaim our communities and grow them without sacrificing liveability.

Community economic development also needs to include a small business policy. I will talk about British Columbia for a moment. In British Columbia nearly half of all jobs in 2003 were generated by small business. Yet we do not have an effective strategy in community economic development that looks at growing small business.

It is a myth about foreign trade. Currently only 20% of our GDP is foreign trade. Yet we have this focus on foreign trade that ignores 80% of our GDP. In 2002 Statistics Canada said that 80% of Canadian exports were accounted for by 4% of Canadian companies. Where is the support for our small local businesses when those kinds of statistics do not bear the kind of subsidies that are out there? We need an industrial policy that adequately addresses the needs of small business, which not only talks about small business retention, but includes small business expansion and development of new small businesses.

Another thing that is not adequately addressed in our economic development policy are the issues around rural communities. The definition of a rural community is community of less than 50,000 people. Many of our small rural communities have populations of 1,000, 5,000 to 10,000. Policies that cover rural communities of 50,000 do not address the needs of small communities of 1,000.

This is where community economic development is even more critical so people have a choice about remaining within their communities rather than having to move to big urban centres. Studies have indicated that rural communities are critical for the survival of the larger urban centres.

In conclusion, although we support the bill in principle, I would urge the committee to have the comprehensive discussion that is required around meaningful community economic development which will allow our small communities to remain viable and liveable.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin this intervention, as I have before, by thanking the interpreters who work in those little glass booths. Without them, as a unilingual Canadian, I would be unable to understand about what the member had talked. I so appreciate their work.

I listened very carefully to the very articulate member from the Bloc. He mentioned that it would be perhaps better to have a reduction in taxation levels so their businesses could compete with one another. I got from that an undercurrent. I would ask, why should the federal government be in Quebec or any province picking winners and losers?

Bill C-9 would give the minister the right to plan, implement, direct and manage programs and projects or offer services to improve the economic environment in Quebec, including programs, projects and services, supports to business associations, conferences, studies, consultations, trade shows, demonstration products and market research. It gives the government the right to collect and disseminate data. The federal government is really good at running a data bank. We learned that with the gun control system.

Here is another one. The Liberals can pick to whom they want to give a loan and for whom they want to guarantee the repayment. I love this one, they can make grants and contributions. If those words do not throw up a red flag, especially in the province of Quebec, I would be very surprised.

I could go on and on, but I am not giving a speech. Surely, the member would rather say that the federal government should get out of picking winners and losers in Quebec and let Quebec entrepreneurs fend for themselves on an equal and level playing field.

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Rural Communities)]

Mr. Speaker, there are considerable contradictions in my colleague's comments, so many that it is dizzying. He says that Bill C-9 is going to end up disconnecting us from the regions, whereas Canada Economic Development, with its 14 regions, is all over Quebec.

We have taken strategic regional initiatives in conjunction with the local people in order to ensure that the programs in place will meet the need. That is what Economic Development does, and will continue to do under the new legislation.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Rivière-Du-Loup—Montmagny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this bill today.

Before speaking specifically about the bill, I want to give the House a brief historical overview. I have been in politics for over 20 years, particularly since my move to the Gaspé in the early 1980s. If any place in Canada has suffered as a result of federal interference in regional development, it is the Gaspé.

I remember that just before the 1995 referendum, the commissions on the future of Quebec were created. I submitted a brief to this commission, the title of which was “Federalism—The Gaspé Peninsula: The laboratory for the failure of federalism in regional development”.

In order to raise its profile, the federal government tried, over several years, a number of different types of interventions in regional development. Because it lacked the basics needed to do this, it had to regularly change its approach.

We remember the former Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Initially, agreements were reached between Quebec government and the federal government in order to decide how investments would be made. However, the thirst for power and visibility led the federal government to withdraw from this kind of agreement and ultimately turn to direct interventions.

First, it was through the Federal Office of Regional Development - Quebec, as it was called back then, which was really an extension of the Department of Industry created by the Conservative government for one main reason. In short, the structure of the Department of Industry was almost entirely controlled by the economic establishment in Ontario. Consequently, it was impossible to obtain the necessary share of investments.

At that time, rather than withdrawing from regional development and giving Quebec its rightful share, the Conservatives decided, for visibility or maybe also out of a desire for greater efficiency, to create the Office of Federal Economic Development. It is somewhat similar to performing bypass surgery after a stroke so that blood can flow. Consequently, we wanted out of the Department of Industry and for the money to reach the regions of Quebec.

This judgment on what I have been seeing for the past 20 years is not aimed at those working in the system, in the bodies providing community development assistance or in the regional offices of Canada Economic Development . We know that the latter are doing the best they can within the rules they have. Our judgment on Bill C-9 has to do with the fact that the federal government instead of withdrawing from areas over which it has no responsibility is doing the opposite. It is continuing to want to take over more and more.

The amendment to the present legislation will enable the minister responsible to become a kind of senior minister, but in a sector that is not a federal responsibility. We should be concerned today with whether there is any overall advantage to Quebec in this bill.

Last week I learned something quite significant that I wish to share with the House. The federation of Independent business surveyed its entrepreneur members and came up with statistics for Canada and for Quebec. The survey was on whether it would be better to have tax credits or federal action by Canada Economic Development.

In the case of Canada, about 50% would prefer tax credits. Still more significantly, the figure for Quebec was 60%. People in Quebec's small and medium businesses are not sovereignists particularly nor people likely to be sitting on our side of the House. They are industrialists, business people, the community, owners of small and medium businesses, and they are they ones saying, 60% of them, that they would rather have tax credits than the intervention of Canada Economic Development.

This has nothing to do with the efficiency or lack of it of individual departmental employees, who are doing the best they can under the circumstances. For a structure like this one within the Canadian system to be effective, it would have to be decided that regional economic development is a federal responsibility, and then the federal government would have to make the necessary funds available to those employees.

Small scale programs are being put forward in every region. The government is trying to make the most of these so as to have as many economic benefits as possible. However, when we look at the payroll that is actually paid out and made available to companies compared to the department's fixed operating costs, it is clear there is room for improvement and a new vision completely different from that introduced by the minister in Bill C-9, an act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

Even more insidious is that the current act, as written and in force, states that the agency must promote economic development in the regions of Quebec where inadequate employment and slow economic growth are prevalent.

Yet this clause promoting the agency's intervention in areas having specific problems has been omitted from the new agency's object. This is absurd. We have discussed the principle that there is no need for the federal government to involve itself in this sector. However, if it does choose to do so, this clause removes the government's responsibility to intervene in those regions most needing help. This creates a messy situation.

There are now two departments involved, the Department of Industry, which has all the means available to it, and the Department of Regional Development, which has no means available and which has lost its reason for being, that it exists to help those regions most in need.

Moreover, the clause inherent in the agency's object has been removed, and the new act gives direct authority to the minister to establish as a designated area, for an indeterminate period, any region in Quebec where exceptional circumstances provide opportunities for improvements in employment.

In fact, it might be pertinent to be able to do so, but we must ensure that it is structured correctly; it is not just a question of political partisanship leading the way, which may lead to something other than desirable outcomes in terms of economic development.

This new act is a clear step backward for the regions of Quebec currently struggling with problems of economic growth or insufficient employment, because their recognition as a designated area would become conditional on the goodwill of the minister rather than being based on objective criteria as it is now.

I have an aside to make here. Recently we have been discussing RCMP staffing in the regions. There was a decision that will, today, I hope, be overturned following the presentation by the mayors to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. That decision was to withdraw personnel from all over the regions.

This kind of behaviour by the federal government, coming from within the Department of Justice, will now be justified and legitimized by the amendment to the act. It is as if there was finally some backing up. Previously, there was a commitment to intervene in the regions where the need was greatest. Now, the minister will be able to decide which regions these are, and, in the end, it will become a much more partisan decision that it was before. Therefore, this bill presents no added value.

In fact, by handing over the general guidelines for intervention to the political level, Bill C-9 hides another flaw, that of taking another step toward the achievement of the Liberal government's objective of investing as much as possible in Quebec's fields of jurisdiction, which will lead to increased confrontation with the Government of Quebec.

For a number of years, the Government of Quebec has had regional development structures in place, including the CLDs or Centres locaux de développement, which are now governed by the regional county municipalities. The current Liberal government in Quebec is a federalist government , which has to live with both structures. All over Quebec, right now, there are two structures. I do not believe this is the best way to achieve objectives.

Something much more practical and consistent with Quebec's structure could have been done by delegating the necessary resources to Quebec. It would essentially have involved coming back to something similar to what the Department of Regional Economic Expansion used to do. Expenditures to be made in Quebec were made under agreements between Quebec City and Ottawa. This ensured consistency between Quebec's policies and the federal government's involvement. That has changed.

There are currently enough areas of federal responsibility, including international trade, to move forward and have the federal government look after those areas within its jurisdiction without enacting legislation that will basically move Quebec backward instead of forward.

We know that, to justify introducing this bill, the federal government is referring to similar legislation passed previously with respect to the Maritimes and western Canada. But there is a fundamental difference where these regions are concerned. In the Maritimes and western Canada, the legislation was requested by the provinces, which did not have their own department or ministry responsible for regional development.

It is different in Quebec, where this is a major department with a past record which speaks volumes, and which is getting interesting results. The Government in Quebec has put a great deal of effort into putting in place the appropriate regional development structures. Decentralization activities have already been carried out. The current federalist Liberal government even conducted an operation to make elected representatives more accountable.

Now, a second structure would be added next to the existing one, when that is not necessarily desirable. It is not relevant to take the example of the Maritimes or western Canada to justify establishing such a department in Quebec. It is unacceptable for the federal government to try and meddle in this area of provincial responsibility.

According to Canada Economic Development officials themselves, Bill C-9 does not bring anything to the agency, from an administrative point of view or in terms of new money. Therefore, it is nothing but a new structure to promote nation building by the Liberal government which, following the 1995 referendum, decided to invest in Quebec's jurisdictions and to aggressively increase its visibility in that province by taking advantage of its huge surpluses and its spending power.

What could the Liberal government have done to meet the real needs of the regions? Instead of constantly getting involved in Quebec's jurisdictions and duplicating services in a totally unproductive fashion, the federal government should—but currently refuses to do so—withdraw from regional development. However, if it absolutely wants to continue to get involved, it should at least make sure that it will improve the services that come under its own responsibilities.

The first thing that it should do is to adjust federal programs to the regions' realities. The number of battles that must be fought to ensure that federal programs finally become flexible enough to apply to Quebec is simply unbelievable. Moreover, this necessitates energy that should not have to be expended like this.

The best example in this regard is the mad cow issue. If the necessary flexibility had been there, things could have been different a long time ago for Quebec, even by merely recognizing that, in our province, we had a traceability system that should have exempted us from the ban that resulted from the discovery of the mad cow disease. Indeed, in Quebec we were already able to identify sick animals and to determine their origin. Therefore, the impact of the problem could have been confined and we could have avoided turning this into a world issue that adversely affected all producers in Quebec and Canada.

The federal government administration should also be less concentrated. The staff reductions of recent years were made in the regions, in the areas where the links were the weakest. This way the powers and the personnel that is left is now concentrated in Ottawa. The result of this is that the government's vision of what regional development should be is somewhat disconnected from the reality. Also, when the government began to enjoy surpluses, it created a number of jobs, but it is Ottawa that benefited.

We would like for the programs—if they are maintained—to be more regionally based and for there to be truer decentralization of powers in order to ensure that decisions apply to each of our regions of the country.

The federal government must also bring capital spending back to an acceptable level and substantially increase the regional development budget of Quebec, which is three times lower than in the Maritimes. Accordingly, the money available could be paid to Quebec and the amounts paid have to be much higher.

Our fellow citizens have noticed that the federal government has a $9 billion surplus. Meanwhile, they also notice that it is very difficult to get the money necessary to stimulate research and development in our regions and to ensure that our small businesses have access to programs to help them be competitive in the new global reality.

Accelerating and simplifying operational modes is needed to make companies competitive and to have products in the appropriate niche markets so that we can assume our responsibilities and maintain and develop employment rather than have a defensive policy like the one we have now. People in the textile sector are being told, “We will give just $25 million, nothing more. Deal with the influx of products from China, India and Pakistan and fend for yourself because we cannot help you any more than we already are right now”.

When people hear that, and then on the other hand, see the Minister of Finance announce a $9 billion surplus, they think that it is basically as if someone had decided to pay off their mortgage in five years and starve their family just to pay it off as soon as possible. Here too there are signs that the federal government has not assumed its responsibilities with regard to regional development.

The fact that there has been no indepth reform of the employment insurance plan is the most obvious sign of its lack of sensitivity. The Bloc Québécois arrived here in 1993. At that time the Liberals promised a real reform of the employment insurance plan. Mr. Chrétien made that promise during the Liberal leadership campaign when he said that there would be positive reforms for the unemployed. There is even a letter confirming it. As soon as he came to power, he did just the opposite: he tightened the screws, restricted eligibility and deprived the regions of a regional development tool, a tool to stabilize economic activities that is no longer there.

Without having compensation programs to jump start the regional economy, at the same time they closed down a source of reinvestment in the region that was very helpful and made it possible to maintain the social covenant between the resource regions of Quebec and Canada and central Canada. In the past, industrialization occurred mostly in urban centres, and resource regions had employment insurance to compensate for the fact that they lived off seasonal employment.

The federal government's lack of sensitivity in this respect cost it dearly during the past four elections and yet it still has not heard the message that it should carry out a real reform of the employment insurance plan. It is easy to understand why people are concerned when they are told that a new agency will be created under the authority of the Minister for Regional Development, who will no longer necessarily have to reinvest in the regions that need it the most but will be able to choose the regions that he will develop. That way the agency will reach conclusions that will not be in the best interest of Quebec's economic development.

When this bill is referred to committee, if it is passed by the majority in this House, it will have to be changed entirely to at least ensure that the current situations do not deteriorate. We must bring back the fact that the vocation may be limited and ensure that it will apply to Quebec regions that need particular assistance, as was provided in the current act. We must ensure that there is no partisanship, in order to promote the development of economic activities in our regions.

We are now living an economic reality that is totally different from what it was 10 years ago. The whole manufacturing sector is facing an extraordinary challenge. We see this particularly in my region, for example, Montmagny, where we have experienced major closures. Currently, many businesses have difficulty remaining competitive with other countries of the world. It looks like the federal government does not adapt quickly enough to these new realities. It is always behind.

The bill before us will not ensure that the government's action will allow businesses to continue to compete, to move forward and to maintain their jobs. It is important that parliamentarians in this House are aware that we must decide whether or not the federal government is to continue to intervene in the way that it has in the past, with the results that we know. The auditor general herself raised major issues on the effectiveness of the current department.

The fact that the government brings us today this type of bill does not appear to me as the best way to intervene in order to help regional economic development in Quebec. This is why the Bloc Québécois, at this stage, will vote against the bill. Indeed, it goes entirely against Quebec's development objectives. It is not the proper tool to promote harmonious development in Quebec or to face new world competition.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue this afternoon with the opposition motion.

Tomorrow we will commence with the third reading debate of Bill C-5, the learning bonds legislation. When that is completed, we will return to the second reading debate of Bill C-22, the social development bill. We will then return to the second reading debate of Bill C-9, the Quebec development bill; followed by second reading of Bill C-25, respecting RADARSAT; reference to committee before second reading of Bill C-27, the food inspection bill; and second reading of Bill C-26, the border services bill.

On Monday and Tuesday we will start with report stage and third reading of Bill C-14, the Tlicho bill, before going back to unfinished business.

Pursuant to Standing Order 53(1) a take note debate on credit cards will take place on Tuesday evening, December 7.

The business on Wednesday will be second reading of a bill to be introduced tomorrow respecting parliamentary compensation.

Next Thursday shall be an allotted day.

Finally, the government made a commitment to Canadians to treat compensation of parliamentarians separately and apart from that of judges. It is quite logical to take that step in an independent bill that deals only with the compensation of parliamentarians and to deal with the question of judges in a subsequent bill.

The hon. member seems to suggest that parliamentarians and judges should be treated exactly the same. We think that Canadians recognize that their respective duties, tenure and roles are quite different and that in fact they should be dealt with differently and separately. That is why we will be introducing the bill on MP compensation and dealing with it next week.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the opposition motion. Tomorrow we hope to complete third reading of Bill C-7, respecting parks second reading of Bill C-22, the social development legislation, and second reading of Bill C-9, the Quebec economic development bill.

Next week we will give priority to second reading of Bill C-24, the equalization legislation. We also will try to complete any business left over from this week.

When bills come back from the Senate or committee, as the case may be, we will add them to the list. Hopefully this will include Bill S-17 respecting tax treaties and Bill C-5, the learning bonds bill. By the end of the week, we hope to be able to proceed with Bills C-25, the radarsat bill, and Bill C-26, the border services bill.

Next Thursday shall be an allotted day.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House that the Hamilton Tiger Cats are certainly looking forward to next year at the Grey Cup. We actually have a great contingent up here for the Sunday game.

This afternoon we will continue with the opposition motion.

Tomorrow the House will proceed with report stage and, if possible, third reading of Bill C-7 respecting parks. When this is complete, we will consider a motion to refer to committee before second reading Bill C-20, the first nations fiscal legislation. Should there be time left after that, we will return to Bill C-9, the Quebec economic development legislation.

On Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday we will start with Bill C-7 and Bill C-20, if they are not already complete. We will then proceed to consider reference before second reading of Bill C-21, the not for profit legislation. This will be followed by second reading of Bill C-23 respecting human resources, and Bill C-22 respecting social development. We will then return to any bills not yet completed.

On Tuesday evening, as all members know, the committee of the whole will consider the estimates of the Minister of Health.

Next Thursday shall be an allotted day.

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

[Réal Lapierre, Bloc, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to clarify his position on Bill C-9.

There could be some contradiction as to the creation of a department, because in his speech, he seemed to say that it would not change a whole lot with regard to regional socio-economic problems compared with what an effective agency could do.

We also understand that he is in favour of the bill. It is something different and I would like him to explain how on the one hand we can be supportive, since it will not change much or not even anything, while saying that what is needed is not necessarily a department, but some action.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the Conservative Party, what we support in Canada really is equality in all regions of the country, from one end to the other. What we want to see is a federal government which respects the jurisdictions of provinces in an equal fashion in every region of this land.

That is not really what we are talking about right now. What we are deciding today, and this will be decided upon through a vote on this bill, is whether we support for Quebec what we already have for the Atlantic region and for the West.

I thought that the Bloc Québécois would support a bill which would put Quebec on an equal footing with other regions of Canada in terms of national finances. That is why we support Bill C-9.

We do not agree with the current program of the federal government concerning regional economic development. We do not agree with the program and with the theory underlying the Liberal government's ideas.

However, the reality is that bill would, in our opinion, be in the interest of Quebeckers. It would improve the life of economic regions and their development. That is why we support this bill.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

This is my first speech in this House as a member of the Official Opposition and of the Conservative Party with you in the chair, Mr. Speaker. I want to congratulate you on your new duties as Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons.

I am pleased to rise on behalf of my party to speak to Bill C-9, an act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

The Conservative Party supports this bill whose intent stems directly from paragraph 28 of the Policy Statement of the Conservative Party of Canada.

—regional development policies are an important part of any comprehensive strategy to assist the regions of Canada to meet the opportunities of the new global economy.

In fact, Bill C-9 is very straightforward and uncontroversial. It creates the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec out of a program in the Industry Canada portfolio.

Basically, a program in the Industry Canada portfolio is being transformed into an agency. The staff from the former program will be maintained; their responsibilities will remain the same and their activities will continue. All that will change is the letterhead and business cards to reflect the agency's new legal status.

This will more or less place the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec on an equal footing with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.

Bill C-9 will establish for Quebec an economic development agency reporting to Parliament through its own minister. We can see how its legal status is similar to that of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, which was established un 1985 under the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act.

While the purpose of the bill is mainly a name change, Bill C-9 also allows the government to say it is committed to regional development without spending a cent of new money. In this respect, Bill C-9 is brilliant and allows the Liberal government to do what it likes best: be all talk and no action. This way, a visionless government enjoys another day of doing nothing.

The regions need development, and the government's response is to change the business cards. That is all this bill is really about.

However, we are in favour of regional development and we believe that the responsibilities and structures of regional development agencies should be the same across the country.

That being said, I will now turn to the creation of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

As we all know, Bill C-9 was given first reading on October 8. Clause 8 of Bill C-9 says:

An Agency of the Government of Canada to be known as the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec is established.

From that we conclude that the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec will come into being when Bill C-9 comes into force.

However, that is not so. In the summary of Bill C-9, we are told that the transformation from a former industry program under Industry Canada to a development agency answering to Parliament through its own minister has already happened. I quote the summary:

This bill is pursuant to the July 20, 2004, decision by the Prime Minister of Canada to effect a change to the governmental structure by appointing a Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. This Minister is fully accountable for regional economic development in Quebec.

In the Speech from the Throne, Her Excellency The Governor General, speaking on behalf of the federal government, said:

The Government...will examine the need and options for reform of our democratic institutions—

The Government invites members from both Chambers to join with it in the same democratic spirit: committed to unity and the inclusion of all regions and all voices—

The very next day, the Prime Minister said:

—in a minority Commons, we all have a responsibility to make Parliament work for the people. We will fulfil that responsibility if we embrace and build on the democratic reforms initiated during the last session, and if we are prepared to allow the partisan to give way to progress.

We have a minority government, which means there are more opposition members than government members. In light of this situation, we presume there is a commitment to a spirit of democracy and to listening to all the voices from all the regions. We also presume that backbenchers will have a say in the establishment of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

Unfortunately, in this debate, my opinion and the opinion of members from the other parties, particularly Liberal backbenchers, does not mean anything, because the agency, which is the focus of Bill C-9, already exists, and the changes affecting its legal status have already been implemented. Therefore, this debate is strictly an academic exercise without any concrete impact.

It is sad to see that this government, which promised us that it would look at the needs and options relating to the reform of our democratic institutions, is asking us to debate a bill to create an agency that already exists. We must learn to judge this Prime Minister, based not on his words, but on his actions.

Since we support the establishment of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, I propose that all regional development agencies be on the same footing. We should promote regional development agencies that have similar responsibilities and structures right across the country.

At the national level, there are three different models of regional development. Bill C-9 will create, for Quebec, a development agency that will be accountable to Parliament, through its own department. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is a development agency that is accountable to the Minister of Industry. As for the Department of Western Economic Diversification, it is not an agency, but a real department with its own minister.

Even the agencies' objectives are slightly different. In the Maritimes and in Newfoundland and Labrador, the role of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is to promote Atlantic Canada's economic development opportunities, particularly income growth and job creation in that region.

In western Canada, the Department of Western Economic Diversification is responsible for promoting economic development and diversification in that region, and the interests of that region during the development and implementation of policies, programs and operations under the national economic policy.

In Quebec, the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec need only promote the development and diversification of the economy of the regions of Quebec.

In Quebec, the federal government is proposing an agency to promote the development and diversification of the economy of the regions. In Atlantic Canada, there is a responsibility to increase revenues and create jobs.

In western Canada, there is a department that promotes the interests of this region within the national economic policy.

It is nice to know that the Gaspé does not need an agency to develop the growth of revenues and to create jobs. It is also encouraging to know that Quebeckers do not want a department in charge of promoting their interests within the national economic policy.

The government may have consulted Quebeckers and been convinced that they did not need an agency to create jobs or grow revenues, or a department to promote their interests within the national economic policy.

However, it is also possible that the government tried to get Quebeckers' opinion in the same spirit with which it presented this bill to Parliament. In other words, without too much consultation or attention to the response.

In any event, this is a case of asymmetrical federalism. The Conservatives are in favour of regional development and thus, we will vote in favour of Bill C-9. However, we believe that the regional development agencies, such as the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, have to be depoliticized and focus on drawing new investment from the private sector.

In light of the sponsorship scandal, it is very important that all agencies be depoliticized. In committee, Conservatives will do what they can to ensure that this agency is on equal footing with the other agencies, that it is free from any political influence and that it will serve Quebeckers, not just the Liberal Party of Canada.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie]

moved that Bill C-9, an act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, this is my first speech in the House as Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie. I will therefore begin, if I may, with a few words to the people of my riding. I would like to thank the people of Brossard—La Prairie for their confidence in me. These are people who know how to build bridges and work together for the common good. I am very proud of them.

I am very pleased to mention how proud I am of my own people in Brossard—La Prairie on this occasion of my first rising in the House after being appointed Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie.

I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to the members of this House on the occasion of second reading of Bill C-9 to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, which the Prime Minister did me the honour of entrusting to me on July 20.

This bill defines the framework within which the government intends to address the regional economic development of Quebec. Why have such a bill? First of all, because the agency as we know it operates under the terms of a series of orders in council under the Department of Industry Act. By providing a legislative framework governing the operations of the department and confirming its status, prerogatives, powers and authorities, we hope to make the minister responsible more directly accountable. There is also a requirement for the agency to submit to Parliament a comprehensive report of activities by December 31, 2006 and every five years thereafter.

The second purpose of this bill is to establish consistency in the status of the federal departments responsible for regional development. It provides the agency with a legal basis on its own right, modelled after the Atlantic Opportunities Agency, ACOA, which of course looks after the Atlantic provinces, and the Department of Western Economic Diversification for the west, both of which have had that status for several years.

Last, the bill is a testimony to the commitment of the Government of Canada to support regional development in our country through regional economic development agencies, in cooperation and in sync with our provincial counterparts.

The bill before the House today establishes the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, commonly known as Canada Economic Development or CED, since the use of acronyms is so widespread in Ottawa. The bill confirms its role as a federal agency whose mandate is to foster economic development opportunities for the regions of Quebec.

That being said, this bill does not make any change to the agency's mandate or goals as set by my department. So, how can we describe our mandate in simple terms? In order to become or remain competitive, our businesses, and especially our small and medium size businesses, often need some help, and they can count on us. To compete against the best, businesses must benefit from unconditional support in terms of research and development, and they can count on us. To revitalize or preserve the vitality of our regions, they can count on us. To help create a climate that would persuade our youth to stay in or to come back to their region, career opportunities have to be provided, and they can count on us. To stimulate the economy in our regions whose main towns are single-industry based, and therefore, of course, more vulnerable, the economy needs to be diversified, and they can count on us. To help communities move away from dependency and stand on their own feet, they can count on us. To grow, businesses have to export and rely on some support and networking, and they can count on us. They can count on us for everything that brings dignity to workers, confidence in the future, some comfort and a certain enthusiasm. We are there for the families. That is the beauty of our department.

As far as I am concerned, the economy is not an end in itself. It is only an instrument to enhance individual and collective well-being. That is how I see the mandate of my department.

To fulfill this mandate in the past few years, Canada Economic Development has focused its efforts on achieving three strategic results, that is, SME development, improvement of the environment of regional economic development and development or renewal of collective infrastructure. Our development strategies are tailored and adapted to regional and even local needs.

It is precisely to ensure that our strategies respond to the needs of the people that the bill gives the agency the responsibility of directing and coordinating federal policies and programs in relation to the development and diversification of the economy of Quebec regions.

The bill confirms the role of the agency and its minister in the coordination of federal policies and programs, the achievement of an integrated federal strategy, with the cooperation of other relevant federal departments and agencies, and the promotion—I did not say defence, but promotion—of Quebec's interests in the development of national policies and programs in its area of activity.

This ability to listen, this very fine synchronization, this intimate knowledge of the field and the players are the trademarks of this department that I am honoured to head.

All members—I repeat all members—who, at some time or another, have been interested in regional development recognize this quality over and above any political partisanship.

Thus, it will be incumbent on the agency to establish and maintain close partnerships to properly play the role of unifier and coordinator with other federal departments. Equally important, it is incumbent on the Canada Economic Development to work closely with the Government of Quebec, throughout the province and in all regions. This has been a common practice for a long time. This bill confirms this desire.

Still, complementary does not necessarily mean identical. Sometimes Quebec City and Ottawa do not have identical goals. Complementary means, for example, that Quebec City is able to work with certain businesses because they share similar goals, while Ottawa can support other businesses for the same reason.

In the end, it benefits everyone. The bill also recognizes the importance of working in close collaboration with all actors in the field—Economic Development Canada, entrepreneurs, development agencies, research centres and so on.

Here I want to pay tribute most emphatically to all the employees in our 14 regional offices and head office, who enhance our reputation through the quality of their work, their knowledge of the environment and their professionalism.

I would also like to remind the House that the Government of Canada created its first regional development policy in the 1960s, thus recognizing that the needs and realities of the country's various regions sometimes required interventions to ensure equality of opportunity for all citizens. This principle has even been recognized in the Constitution, in section 36.1.

And let this be perfectly clear: ensuring equality of opportunity does not mean giving everyone, everywhere, the same thing. Rather, it means to make sure that everyone, everywhere is treated fairly. Today, the needs that once justified our regional development activities in Quebec have not disappeared, but they have evolved a great deal. In order to meet these changing conditions and take advantage of them, since 2001, the agency has been emphasizing innovation and the knowledge economy.

In the last five years, the relative share of financial assistance granted by the agency to innovation projects has increased considerably, from 24% of total financial assistance in 1999-2000 to 61% in 2003-04.

With respect to the knowledge economy, we have provided support for a number of research centre projects. For example, there is our support for the plan to acquire highly specialized equipment for ISMER, the ocean sciences institute of the Université du Québec à Rimouski. I could also mention the Aluminium Technology Centre in the Saguenay. Here I should thank our former colleague, André Harvey, who worked very hard on this project for his region.

I could also mention the Aerospace Manufacturing Technology Centre in Montreal. Of course, this one is of particular interest to me, because such firms as Pratt & Whitney, Héroux-Devtek and others, which are very significant in the aerospace and aeronautical field, are located in my region.

Our communities are our greatest assets. Our recent throne speech said what makes our communities strong is the willingness of men and women from allwalks of life to take responsibility for their future and for one another.

The solution to the problems in the regions is not to be found in the ivory towers of our capital cities, but in the regions themselves. Communities are in a better position to find local solutions to local problems, to meet the challenges, and to achieve their potential.

The agency's role is to support regional entrepreneurship with all the resources available and help the regions channel their energy toward strategic projects for their development.

For over 20 years, the Canadian government has been active in the communities and regions through the community futures program, the goal of which is to encourage communities to take charge of their own future. In the context of this program, the Canadian government is cooperating with 57 community futures development corporations, or CFDCs, and 9 business development centres, or BDCs.

The youth strategy which CED is implementing is an example of action by CFDCs. Its main goal is to help young men and women in rural areas of Quebec fulfill their dream of having their own business in their area.

From November 1997 to March 31, 2003, the youth strategy helped fund 2,731 entrepreneurs, promoting the creation, growth and modernization of 2,250 business in rural regions of Quebec. That is why it should be emphasized that, for each dollar invested by CED, a total of $7 was invested. This is a remarkable performance.

Better yet, the youth strategy helps young people who migrated to urban centres to study or work, to come back to their region and start their own business.

Through the Community Futures Program, Canada Economic Development supports 13 CEDC, community economic development corporations, which provide services and support to community organizations and SMEs in disadvantaged urban areas in Montreal, Quebec City, Sherbrooke and Gatineau.

We also contribute to the maintenance and development of community infrastructures in close cooperation with the Quebec Government. I am referring of course to the Canada-Quebec infrastructure agreement. This program is a resounding success. Allow me to pay a tribute to my counterpart, Jean-Marc Fournier, the Quebec minister, for his cooperation, hard work and professionalism.

Financial support provided through this program should help in the short term to improve Quebec community and transportation infrastructures, develop new technologies, and improve the management of drinking water, waste water and solid waste.

The agency intends to develop the social economy sector to better meet the needs expressed by the communities.

In Quebec alone, there are over 7,000 social economy businesses . With annual sales of over $17 billion, they employ more than 125,000 people. These businesses are rooted in the community and play an essential role in regional and rural development.

As of March 31, 2004, there were over 2,100 projects across Quebec receiving support from the agency overall. These projects represent a contribution of close to $4 billion to Quebec regional economies. The agency is involved to the tune of $1 billion.

These numbers speak for themselves. They show how much the various projects help strengthen the economy in our regions. Of course, since the good economic health of Canada depends in part on a vigorous Quebec economy, good results in Quebec can only have a beneficial impact on the Canadian economy as a whole, where Quebec continues to make a difference.

These numbers are impressive, of course, but the reality they represent is even more so. Whenever the Economic Development Agency becomes involved in a project, our fellow citizens benefit, jobs are created and thousands of lives take a turn for the better.

Take for example the quartz production plant in Cap-Chat, Gaspésie, where 60 new high technology jobs will not only help families to earn a living but to develop expertise in job intensive areas.

The cooperative La Relève in the Asbestos RCM is another good example. We have decided to support it because it has chosen to tackle the exodus of young people to urban centres.

Another example would be Renyco, a company that specializes in manufacturing hardwood flooring in Thurso. The Outaouais regional office has invested a total of $342,000, but thanks to the developer's know-how, finished products are of a better quality, productivity has increased by 15%, sales have tripled and the company has created about thirty jobs in rural areas.

Since we wanted the development to be part of the surrounding realities, we have adopted regional intervention strategies. These strategies were based on consultations, joint actions and mobilization of regional economic stakeholders. While enhancing local expertise, these strategies allow every region to define how each one of them can use the Agency's programs and services to maximum benefit.

Regional development is a complex issue. You cannot talk about it without taking environmental, social and cultural issues into account. It is thus essential to focus on the synergy of expertise provided by various departments.

I am not sure that I will have time to say everything I wanted to say, but I would like to come back to two elements. The first is the quality of the cooperation and the complementarity that exists between my department and the Quebec government in order to better serve the public, which expects nothing less. This regional development is in keeping with the desire expressed in the Speech from the Throne. We are being true to that mandate.

This mandate should have a broad humanistic vision. In this regard, if you allow me, I would like to conclude with an experience I had not so long ago, in one of my very first events as Minister of Economic Development Canada. I referred to that activity a bit earlier. I am talking about Sural, in Cap-Chat.

You know as well as I do that, when an announcement is made somewhere, generally, one meets with a few elected officials, some local stakeholders, perhaps the heads of organizations and members who deign to have an interest in those matters that come up. In general, that is the case.

In Cap-Chat, the room was full. The people were there, along with local elected officials. All the officials had mobilized to show how important this was. I saw people who, after long despairing, felt renewed hope for the first time in the Gaspé Peninsula. In their small municipality of 7,000, a plant was opening, which, when fully operational, would create 100 jobs. This is the aim of human dignity, which comes of the collective work which we, Economic Development Canada, have done in partnership with the Government of Quebec.

Local authorities got involved. Why would a business from Venezuela set up a plant in Cap-Chat? It looked totally incredible in the beginning. The community brought it about. It did it through its strength and its resolve. We were there to support that project, just as the Quebec Government was, and I am very proud of it.

The atmosphere in the room was electrifying. To me, the hope that the Sural project generated in the eyes of these people from the Gaspe is worth the recognition and the tributes.

I thank the people from Cap-Chat for giving me such a taste for my department.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, as hon. members know, we will continue with the opposition day debate.

Tomorrow we will begin with second reading of Bill C-9, the Quebec economic development bill. If that is concluded, we would then return to debate on the motion for reference before second reading of Bill C-16 respecting impaired driving. If there is still time remaining when that is concluded, we would consider a motion to refer to committee before second reading Bill C-18 respecting Telefilm.

As all hon. members know, next week is the Remembrance Week break. When the House returns on November 15, we will call at report stage and if possible third reading of Bill C-4 respecting the international air equipment protocol, and then bring forward Bill C-6 respecting public safety for report stage and third reading.

We would then return to any of the items already listed that have not been completed.

This will be followed by motions to refer to committee before second reading Bill C-19 respecting competition and Bill C-20 respecting first nations fiscal institutions.

We will then be consulting our friends opposite on the appropriate day that week to consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-7 respecting parks, a bill, I am informed, that is about to be reported from committee.

On Tuesday evening, November 16, the House will go into committee of the whole to consider the estimates of the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Thursday, November 18 shall be an allotted day.

With respect to the specific question with regard to the motion mentioned by my hon. colleague across the way, it is government orders and it is a very important item. I know that we will bring that forward in the fullness of time.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the allotted day.

Tomorrow and the first part of next week, the order of legislation will be second reading of Bill C-14, the Tlicho governance agreement, and reference before second reading of Bill C-13, the DNA data bank bill.

We will then proceed to the reference before second reading of Bill C-15, respecting the convention on migratory birds and second reading of Bill C-9, respecting a regional development agency in Quebec.

We would then turn to the reference before second reading of bills to be introduced early next week dealing with the Competition Act, first nations fiscal institutions, Telefilm, certain controlled substances, and an amendment to the Criminal Code with respect to impaired driving.

I will be discussing with the other parties the exact order of these bills. We would hope, by the end of the week, that we would be in a position to deal with report stage and third reading of Bill C-4, respecting aircraft equipment.

Next Thursday will be an allotted day.

On Tuesday evening there will be a take note debate on the compensation for victims of hepatitis C.

With respect to the specific question asked by the hon. member across the way, certainly it will be very forthcoming in the near future and I am sure we will also have a discussion among House leaders.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue this afternoon with the debate on the Conservative opposition day motion.

On Friday we will debate a motion of reference before second reading of Bill C-10, the mental disorder legislation. We will then turn to a motion of reference before second reading of Bill C-12, the Quarantine Act amendments. We will then resume this debate commencing on Tuesday and follow it with second reading of Bill C-7, the parks reorganization, and Bill C-8, the public service human resources agency bill.

We would then turn to second reading of Bill C-14, the Tlicho legislation. This will be followed by reference before second reading of Bill C-13, the DNA bill, followed by Bill C-9, the Quebec regional development bill.

Next Thursday will be an allotted day.

On Monday, instead of a normal sitting of the House, there will be an address to both Houses by President Fox of Mexico. This will take place at 2:15 p.m.

With respect to my hon. friend's last question, that legislation will be coming forward in due course.