Debates of Nov. 15th, 2004

Telefilm Canada Act

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of the bill to amend the Telefilm Canada Act.

Telefilm is a crown corporation that was created in 1967 to foster and promote the film industry in Canada. As technology evolved and Telefilm was assigned responsibilities in the television, new media and sound recording sectors, the corporation had to evolve and did so to meet the changing environment for media in this country and around the world. Millions of dollars in investment for productions and companies have been put forward in pursuit of that objective to bring us up to date with the 21st century media.

These investments have been bolstered by partnerships with provinces. They have contributed not only to vibrant industries in virtually every region across the country, translating not only into thousands of direct and indirect jobs, but also have created hundreds and thousands of hours of quality programming that reflects Canada to Canadians of all walks of life, of every ethnicity and race, in every region and in both official languages.

Even though the main Canadian centres of film and television production have traditionally been located in Toronto and Montreal, creative people, working in the audiovisual industry, live and work in every province and territory, work in diverse languages and reflect the almost limitless number of cultural perspectives of Canada, building capacity in every region.

The Government of Canada recognizes the value of the diversity of its citizens. It believes in the fostering and strengthening of connections and a deeper understanding of not only of our great geography and regions and our history, but also of the diversity of our peoples. Telefilm can create and build a more tolerant and progressive society. As a crown corporation, Telefilm represents these ideals well, with offices in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and Halifax. It does its utmost to encourage regional production that reflects Canadians in all their diversity, telling the stories of our nation and its history.

In 2002-03 the Canadian feature film fund, administered by Telefilm, contributed 25% of its production funding to the west, 43% to Quebec, 29% to Ontario and Nunavut and 3% to the Atlantic regions. In that same year 9% of the equity investment program, the Telefilm administered component of the Canadian television fund, was dedicated to the Atlantic region, 28% to the west, 37% to Quebec and 26% to Ontario and Nunavut. This year 39% of the Canadian new media fund administered by Telefilm was directed to projects based in Ontario and Nunavut, 29% to projects from the west and 30% to the new media projects created in Quebec and to those created in the Atlantic.

Through the music entrepreneur program, MEP, Telefilm supports independent Canadian companies in an effort to ensure the stability, sustainability and competitiveness of our sound recording industry. Through two phases of development, business planning and business plan implementation, the MEP funded 26 companies across Canada this year based on market, financial and cultural criteria. A few of these members may know of are the Children's Group from Pickering, Ontario, Justin Time Records from Montreal and Nettwerk Productions from Vancouver.

Some better known examples of regional television production supported by Telefilm include the current hit Corner Gas produced in Saskatchewan and the longstanding favourites, of I am proud, Da Vinci's Inquest and Cold Squad , both of which not only originate in Vancouver but tell stories of what is going on in Vancouver currently. In the Atlantic Region there is Made in Canada and Trailer Park Boys , which received funding through the equity investment program.

There was FranCoeur , the first Franco-Ontarian drama presented on TFO in 2003 with the help of Telefilm Canada.

In feature film Telefilm contributed to critically acclaimed Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner by Zacharias Kunuk. The title was the first Canadian film shot in Inuktitut through the Canadian television fund. This is what we mean when we present the diversity of our people and our regions and tell our stories to Canadians in the way only Canadians can, which is so very unique in any country in the world. This film, as we know, won the coveted Golden Camera Award for a first feature at the 2001 Cannes International Film Festival, and will hopefully clear the path for more features of our great northern cultures in years to come.

Other Telefilm supported films exploring diverse cultural perspectives include Bollywood/Hollywood by Deepa Mehta, and if members have not seen it, it is worth seeing, Mambo Italiano by Émile Gaudreault, Ararat by Atom Egoyan, Long Life, Happiness and Prosperity by Mina Shum, Khaled by Asghar Massombagi and L'Ange de goudron by Denis Chouinard.

Most of these films listed performed very well at the Canadian box office and abroad. For example, Mambo Italiano , and again I do not know if members have seen it, is hilarious. It tells about the Italian community in Canada and the struggles of trying to maintain its culture in a changing world.

In closing, I wish to congratulate Telefilm Canada for its excellent record in providing support to all octaves of creative voice in Canada throughout the decades. I ask hon. members to support the motion to refer the bill to committee before second reading.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

(Motion agreed to and bill referred to a committee)

The House resumed from November 5, consideration of the motion that 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.

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

[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.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Gatineau, and I wonder what planet she has been living on. When I look at what is happening in the Gaspé peninsula, and what the federal government does there, I must say that I see total abandonment. Let me give you a few examples.

She talked about adjusted programs. Four or five years ago, the federal government decided to release $25 million, if I remember correctly. In five years, it has not been able to spend a third of this money, because federal programs at Canada Economic Development are totally ill-suited to our regions.

I will not talk about the mad cow crisis. There was $160 million left in the last program, and farmers were telling me again last week that this program is so badly designed that they cannot access this money.

I will not talk about the lumber crisis either, which destroyed thousands of jobs in my region. Plants had to be closed when all we were asking was for the government to support these companies.

I will not talk about federal infrastructure, about wharfs that are full of holes and in ruin, about airports the federal government divested itself of, our about non existent trains.

What planet do you come from to be able to talk about regional development? Let me give you an example. We are currently developing wind energy. Hydro-Québec and the Quebec government will spend $1 billion for this project, whereas the federal government will spend only $400 million in the whole country. What will we get from this? Hardly anything. Right now, we need help to develop new technologies and locate in our regions businesses that will be able to compete throughout the world.

You are talking about regional development, but you should wake up. Regional development is something happening in Quebec, and Quebeckers know how to go about their own development. We are asking the federal government to listen to us and work with us, and not to duplicate structures. Respond to that.

[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.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her speech.

In that we are talking about enterprise and innovation I would like to quote one of Canada's greatest entrepreneurs. Frank Stronach once said that the government cannot give us anything without first taking it away. It is impossible for government to create economic activity on the one hand without taking away economic activity on the other.

For these dollars to flow into the regional development programs that the hon. member supports, those dollars first have to be taken out of someone's pocket. In so doing, it kills jobs just as much as it creates them.

It is impossible to deny. When more tax burden is forced on small businesses by taxing them to pay for these kinds of programs, the government is in fact killing jobs at that small business.

If the government were really interested in creating economic wealth, if it were really interested in promoting innovation and technology, why would the government not eliminate the capital gains tax and let investors invest their dollars in the way they want to create real wealth in the economy? Why not make it easier for entrepreneurs to raise capital and therefore create jobs?

Instead the government raises roughly $4 billion a year off the backs of entrepreneurs, kills investment, shuts people out of the marketplace, makes it more difficult for small firms that are issuing IPOs to raise capital, just so it can take that $4 billion and have 100% control over the way in which it is spent. That is what we are really talking about here today.

The question is why would the government do such a thing? The answer is the government wants to have control over where money flows. The government wants to reward its friends. The government wants to pick winners over losers, punish success, reward failure and waste a lot of tax dollars at the same time.

Why not just cut the capital gains tax so that investors can create real wealth with their own money instead of having government intervene on their behalf?

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

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

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

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

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to make a comment with respect to the answer I heard from the member.

There is a clear difference between members on this side and members on that side. Members on this side believe in property rights. Members on that side do not believe in property rights. Members on this side understand what free enterprise is and its ability to create wealth and drive the economy. Members on that side of the House do not understand that. They believe in centralized state planning, that the hands of government should be involved in everything.

Quite frankly, we drive a lot of people out of this country into other countries who have very good ideas and are entrepreneurs. Right down the line we send them to other countries because of very bad tax policy and so on.

If this country had the proper business environment, we would not need the Liberal government. Businesses would create all sorts of opportunities in this society without the government trying to fill the gap.

I am glad the member raised that point. There are some clear differences between the party on this side and the party on that side of the House. I think we are a lot closer to Canadian values than that group is.

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

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

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is correct. The people did read this party correctly and that is why 64% of Canadians voted against the Liberal Party in the last election.

The Canadian people understand that their money is just that; it is their money. They can invest and spend their money more intelligently than a politician or a bureaucrat can. That is the philosophy of this party. We believe that a dollar in the hands of the person who earned it will always be better spent than the dollar in the hands of the bureaucrat or the politician who taxed it.

That is the essential difference between that party and this one. It is a big philosophical difference. I am not surprised that she does not recognize that change, because she is part of a political tradition that says people are not smart enough to spend and invest their own money; that the wise state ought to step in and slide its hand surreptitiously into the pockets of the taxpayers and spend that money for them. That is the essential difference between that side and this side.

Why does the hon. member not now admit that she does not trust any investors or entrepreneurs to take care of their own affairs? Why does she not just admit it?

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

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

[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--

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The hon. member for Nepean—Carleton, for a question or a comment.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, first, I want to thank the hon. member for his speech. He talked about provincial jurisdictions. I wonder if he is as concerned about the individual's role.

In economics, there are several schools of thought. I believe individuals create opportunities through their business activities. I want to ask the member the following question. Who will reduce unemployment, improve the economy and create jobs, the government or the businesses and the individuals?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his question.

First, I would like to provide a brief historical overview. In the 1960s and the 1970s, the money went to the larger cities. We had a number of very impressive infrastructure projects, like the Olympic stadium and the road system. Nowadays, because of globalization, businesses produce twice as much but create half as many jobs.

For example, the Lac-Saint-Jean area is currently faced with huge problems. Three of the six main commodity exporters are located in our area and are currently affected by the various crises: the softwood lumber dispute, the employability issue and the mad cow disease crisis. What we need to do is to use government money to provide financial assistance to these communities. We have to support and create programs based on the needs of the people.

We want jobs. The government has the obligation to use its money to support development, but in a cohesive manner, by going through Quebec and respecting the will of the region, its consensus and its own vision for its development.

[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, I thank my colleague for his question.

Let us make clear that this bill in no way changes the current situation, on the contrary. I have explained it clearly, there is a setback for regions that are severely affected by various crises and problems.

The overlap has quite significant repercussions on interventions. As a result, the federal government, currently, will use strategies to position itself, to the detriment of certain regional issues, due to the visibility strategy.

What would be important is for this money to be sent to Quebec City. There are local development authorities, structures that allow for regional development, in particular the CRE, the regional conference of elected officials in the territory, to which other regional forums contribute, notably the CLDs.

What is required is a single window in order to integrate the strategies into a single Quebec policy on developing its regions. This is true for the Quebec government and for each region, because the strategies of each differ.

By way of example, my colleague has various sources of industry, my other colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine has fisheries in his area. In our region, it is lumber and agriculture. Hence, elected officials must have a full array of means at their disposal in order to develop themselves, these means being power and legislation, but also financial powers.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to raise an issue with the member from the Bloc where the federal government did cooperate fully with the provincial PQ government a few years back to create jobs in an area of high unemployment, the Gaspé area. Together, I think they pumped about $300 million to $400 million into a paper mill called Gaspésia, which is now in creditor protection, $700 million in total cost. A whole bunch of contractors and workers were left holding the bag in that province because the federal Liberals and the PQ government got together in a high unemployment area where the government would solve the unemployment problem.

The only people who will have any long term employment out of this project will be the lawyers who will be suing both levels of government to collect damages for contractors and other people.

I would like the member to comment on this disastrous alliance between the PQ government that was in power and the federal Liberals with their intervention to solve an unemployment problem which they have not solved. There will not be any employment out of that plant. The plant is not even close to being opened. All we have is taxpayers in Quebec and outside of Quebec holding the bag for a whole lot of money that has been flushed down the toilet, so to speak.

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

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to invite my colleague to maybe ask a question of members affected by this regional issue. I do know all the details. However, everything is not negative; some good things have happened that have gone beyond the merely local.

In my region, we are affected by serious crises, such as the softwood lumber dispute. To solve this problem, the government only had to give not grants, but loan guarantees to businesses to help them modernize their equipment, during the settlement of the dispute with the United States. The same thing could have been done with respect to mad cow disease. Recently, a farmer in our region got 7 cents for a 2,000 pound cow worth, at the very least, close to $1,000.

This problem will not be solved unless the Liberal government does something. What we need is programs. We have equalization payments and other ways to help communities that are having trouble. This is the whole idea of democracy and of paying taxes and putting them in a big pot to help these communities.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I only wanted to ask a short question. Today, during oral question period, we talked about Mirabel. I see that the Liberals opposite created Mirabel to the advantage of Toronto's Lester B. Pearson airport. Now, we have a beautiful airport named PET, short for Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

I would like to know if the member thinks that the Liberals across the way are really capable of regional development in Quebec. That is the question I am asking myself. Up to now, they have proven that they are incapable of such development. All they have created, they have turned around and destroyed. Whether airports or General Motors, everything they have given Quebec, they have then taken away. I would like to hear the view of my colleague for Jonquière—Alma in this regard.