Finance Committee on Oct. 7th, 2009

[Jean Grégoire]

Indeed, investments were made, but if we consider the cuts in 1994 and the two investments that have been made, including one that was dedicated and another that was calculated in the total amount, we should have asked for $4.2 billion. We decreased our request to $3.5 billion and all the social groups agree on that number.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I see. You've gone back to when the Liberals cut the money to the provinces, and you want it back to those levels.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Wallace.

Madame Gagnon, s'il vous plaît, pour sept minutes.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Thank you.

My questions are for Mr. Gaudreault and Mr. Labrecque from the Port of Quebec. I want to thank the other witnesses who are here today to shed light on various aspects and challenges. Later my colleague will go over other aspects that have been raised.

You want to expand the Port of Quebec, which would benefit Quebec City's economy. However, there are questions that concern some people and certain environmental associations.

You developed the Baie de Beauport to the tune of $20 million and the planned expansion might hinder certain winter sports because the wind would be blocked and we know full well that it takes sea currents to do kite surfing. Environmentalists are also concerned that this could cause more traffic, among other things.

In your brief you say you will meet environmental requirements. What type of requirements are you referring to? Are you referring to land use, which is less demanding and will be handled by the Port of Quebec, or will you use a commission and public hearings?

As MPs, we listen to people. Economic diversification is important in the Quebec City area and it creates good jobs, but we must also consider other aspects such as the environment and the development of the Baie de Beauport. Those who use the Baie de Beauport are also concerned about the expansion of the Port of Quebec. We have not seen the plans. They may be very nice, but perhaps more people should be included.

[Ross Gaudreault]

I will answer part of your question and Marcel will answer the part on the environment. It is true that you have not seen the plans. We are far from that stage. People have not seen the plans. We did not spend more than $20 million for nothing on the Baie de Beauport; we are not going to just close it. The Port of Quebec expansion project will not hinder the Baie de Beauport in any way. On the contrary, when you see the plans, you will understand. I cannot talk about it with you this morning, but I can say that we are improving the Baie de Beauport project.

As far as the environment is concerned, we will do our homework. We cannot engage in a project like this in secret. Expanding the port is a big project. It is very important to respect the environment and that is what we will do. Marcel will provide a bit—

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Will you do so through the land use policy? I think that would be insufficient for the type of expansion you are planning in the port.

[Ross Gaudreault]

Marcel will answer that question, Ms. Gagnon.

[Marcel Labrecque, Executive Vice-President, Quebec Port Authority]

Ms. Gagnon, we are doing what it takes for the project to be considered socially acceptable. We are aware of the concerns of the environmental groups and certain people who spend time in the Baie de Beauport area. We will take all the necessary measures under federal legislation, namely by setting up more elaborate consultations if there are greater concerns. That is a commitment from the Port of Quebec and its board of directors.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Laforest, you have the floor.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

First, good day and welcome to all the witnesses.

My question is for the Fédération des producteurs de porcs du Québec. You are part of the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec, the UPA. According to representations made by the UPA, the AgriFlex and AgriRecovery programs do not seem to be doing what they were intended to do. The UPA has long been calling on the federal government to transfer funding to the provinces so that provinces like Quebec can adapt support programs according to context, in other words, have greater flexibility depending on yield and crop.

Is this position consistent with what you are asking for today? Does it go together? Do you have any problem with this?

[Bernard Verret]

I will tell you more or less what I told Mr. Pacetti a little earlier. One of the two programs, AgriFlex or AgriRecovery—I do not know them by heart—protects producers for a period of time as a way of protecting margins in the medium term. These programs have to be tweaked, but that is not what our brief is about. Nonetheless, it would be useful to revise or improve these programs to support farmers who are dealing with long periods of crisis or one crisis after another, be it a quick change in the exchange rate, a disease or changing rates that break the production cycle.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

The question is not really about increasing the allocations to those programs. It has more to do with the request the UPA has been making for a long time and that is for programs to be transferred to and therefore managed by the Government of Quebec. Do you have an opinion on that?

[Bernard Verret]

The Fédération des producteurs de porcs du Québec thinks it is a shame that the federal and provincial programs have difficulty coordinating. As pork producers, we do not want to engage in politics. We want assistance programs to be effective. Sometimes we notice that there are coordination problems.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Are you saying that you disagree with the UPA's position on that?

[Bernard Verret]

I do not disagree with the UPA, but that is not what the brief is about.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I understand, but the fact remains that the UPA would like the Government of Quebec to run these programs. Do you agree with that?

[Bernard Verret]

As far as the UPA is concerned, I agree, but that is not what the brief is about.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Laforest.

Mr. Mulcair now has the floor.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

I want to thank everyone here this morning.

My first question is for the Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec. Earlier you spoke of the importance of understanding that education is first and foremost an economic lever. It is true, not enough credence is given to the fact that the only way to increase wealth is to increase knowledge.

You talked about successive cuts to education transfers. How much would you say the shortfall is today?

[Jean Grégoire]

The shortfall in Canadian transfers to social programs is $3.5 billion.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

What portion of that is for post-secondary education?

[Jean Grégoire]

That is difficult to determine since it is an envelope for social programs. It is up to the provinces to decide where to allocate the funding based on needs in social programs and education. For the Province of Quebec, the total envelope is roughly $800 million. We are asking for some flexibility with respect to social programs. We are not asking for an envelope to be dedicated to education.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Indeed, it can be quite a delicate balance. As you pointed out so well in your presentation, this is strictly a provincial jurisdiction. The fact remains that in areas like immigration, where Quebec is the only province to have shared responsibility with the federal government for that jurisdiction, significant funding is transferred. According to some groups, that funding, which is meant to be allocated to programs to help immigrants integrate, vanishes from the consolidated revenue fund. It then becomes very difficult to determine whether or not that money was transferred.

I can tell you that the NDP made its priorities clear when it forced the Paul Martin government to use the $4.5 billion that was supposed to be used to cut taxes for the wealthiest corporations. It transferred $1.5 billion for post-secondary education and similar amounts for other social programs such as social housing and public transportation. That is a reflection of our priorities.

I must tell you that I greatly appreciated the tone of your presentation. It was truly a credit to your professionalism. Your contribution here today provides very important food for thought. I sincerely thank you for your presentation.

I now have a question for Mr. Gaudreault on the environment.

Mr. Gaudreault, you will recall that the Quebec Port Authority tried to prevent people from being critical about the Rabaska project. Can you explain the genesis of that action?

[Ross Gaudreault]

That story is being blown out of proportion. A lot of people said a lot of things. Some said that we will disrupt the cruise boats around Île d'Orléans. People from Île d'Orléans said that this made no sense and that it would affect the cruise boats, but the cruise boats are miles and miles away. It is a pack of lies. They said it could not be done. Some even wrote to the presidents of the cruising companies to tell them to wake up because they were going to be affected by a megaproject that could have an impact on the cruises. In Barcelona, there was a terminal that was just one kilometre from the cruise boats. People tried to block the project. They wrote to the presidents of the cruising companies to warn them about the danger. They instil fear in the clients for nothing. That is all they wanted to do. Let us stop telling stories and start presenting facts.