Debates of Nov. 5th, 2004

Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions.

The first is pursuant to the private member's bill that was just introduced by my colleague from Burnaby pertaining to immigration and recognition of family sponsorship.

The petitioners call upon members of Parliament to encourage the government to take action to change legislation or bring in new legislation to broaden the definition of family to include uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews, children, and brothers and sisters over the age of 22, as now specified under the act. They believe this is important for the health of our community.

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by many individuals. It has been before this House on numerous occasions. It concerns the matter of fetal alcohol syndrome and the requirement for labels on all alcoholic beverage containers.

The petitioners comment on the fact that it has been three and a half years since Parliament passed this initiative. They would dearly like the government to act on the express wishes of Parliament and in support of the concerns of Canadians in terms of eradicating fetal alcohol syndrome from our society today.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. First, I wish to congratulate you on your appointment to the Chair. You look fine sitting there.

I am seeking your wisdom as to whether or not I have a point of order or a point of privilege, or maybe I do not have anything, but there are some serious problems developing very quickly to which we need to call attention. Employers across the country are being fined for not making remittances in the middle of the month because they did not receive their forms due to the strike.

I want to ensure that we assure these employers across Canada that we are not going to enforce penalties on these people for something they could not help.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Wild Rose raises an interesting point of debate for question period perhaps, but I do not think it is either a point of order or a point of privilege. I would urge him to use other venues in the House or committee.

The House resumed consideration of the motion 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.

Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act

[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.

[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 presume that my colleague opposite is speaking totally in good faith, of course. However, he used the word “duplication”. I would like to ask him something. The CFDCs which he referred to have been in existence for about twenty years. Interestingly, the PQ government of the day, seven or eight years ago, annoyed because the federal government was more efficient in the field and because its efficiency ran against its own political objective, made the decision to create an organization identical to the CFDC, which excluded the federal government totally. Is that not a patent example of duplication, duplication imposed by the PQ government of the day?

I have a second question. The member across the way, just like others in his party before him, would like us to centralize the funds in Quebec, to channel all the funds toward Quebec so that the province can manage them. It so happens that Economic Development Canada manages its own programs those of other federal departments, on their behalf. I would ask my colleague opposite to show me the list of federal departments that he wants transferred to Quebec.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I see that the hon. member has carefully avoided answering the very simple question I asked of him, that is, for what other departments does the CED—which acts as an agent, in fact—carry out its mandate. He does not know the answer and so he avoided answering. Does he not understand the implications of what he is proposing?

I remind him once again, furthermore, that the Canadian Constitution is extremely clear in terms of jurisdictions. He has the right to disagree with the Constitution, but not the right to be unfamiliar with it. Obviously, he does not know it very well, since section 36(1)( a) specifically enables the federal government to promote equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians and 36(1)( b ) enables it to further economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities. This refers to the whole country.

Another thing—I would like to remind my colleague that his figures may indicate some research problems, for this very simple reason. Here are the investments we made during the year from April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004, and I am speaking exclusively about the Lower St. Lawrence region to begin with. Of course, I have the figures for all the regions, and I can give him those too, as we go along. The Berger Group received $688,000; PCG Systèmes d'information, $578,000; AMH Canada, $212,000; Glendein, $468,000; Saint-Alexandre, $20,000; a numbered company $152,000; Océanova Biotechnologies, $3 million; Technopole maritime du Québec, which I have visited, by the way, $2 million; ISMER at the Université du Québec à Rimouski, $2 million. When I add up all these amounts that have been allocated, and I am talking about only one year, for all CED programs put together I get a total investment in that region of nearly $15 million. Just to be perfectly clear and use the most accurate numbers, it is exactly $14,814,612. The figures provided by the hon. member do not agree with mine. I have details and evidence, which he does not.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I thank the minister for allowing me to comment these figures. I simply want to tell him he is wrong.

He is wrong because, had he listened to my remarks carefully, he would have realized that I was talking about the recovery plan in my riding of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, a plan which was made public just before the election in 2000. The recovery plan and other actions of Canada Economic Development are not the same thing. For example, a program like the coastal Quebec fund is not a recovery plan. A recovery plan means new money.

In 2000, the government made a great deal of noise about how it would help a region in deep trouble with a recovery plan especially designed for this region and with additional funding. But now, the minister is telling us that it was not true. What was announced then was perhaps the recycling of old money, and that the $35 million could be spent, but with the contribution of existing programs.

The Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine recovery plan was meant to bring in new money, not use the money that could be invested through existing programs.

The minister should do his homework. If he wants to have a frank and probably interesting discussion, I am ready to meet him at the appropriate time, here or in my region, so that we can further discuss these figures, and perhaps go beyond them.

I can tell you serious work needs to be done in my region. I think people in Quebec can do it, and do it well. Those at Canada economic development or in the CFDCs can also play a role. In that sense, I think we will eventually be able to work all together for the future of my region.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am always afraid to run out of time before I go through everything I have to say. Therefore, please allow me to add two or three elements.

First, I would like to remind my colleague of the investments made by my department in three projects essential to the riding of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine. I am referring to the TechnoCentre éolien Gaspésie, an integrated wind energy research and technology transfer centre. I think that we invested $3 million in this project. In addition, we invested another $3 million, precisely, $3.1 million, if I recall well, in the Carrefour national de l'aquaculture et des pêches. There is also the e-business centre of expertise, in which we invested $1 million. All of this as part of a clear investment strategy to promote research and develop better tools.

As far as the Gaspe Peninsula is concerned, I was referring in my speech to the Sural plant. Why a quartz plant in Cap-Chat? Despite appearances, there was an enormous potential, first, because of the Government of Quebec had incentive programs that were useful and, second, because the federal government was able to intervene.

One last thing: the member did not comment on my remark about the duplication of services provided by the CFDC for the past 20 years. For political reasons, the PQ government created a CLD at the time, which duplicated what the CFDCs were already doing, but with a different condition, that there would be no federal representation in it. That is the duplication I was talking about.

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

Mr. Speaker, it will take me only a few seconds to provide other numbers which exemplify very well the situation we are faced with.

The budget for Quebec is three times less generous than the one for the maritime provinces. Proportionately, the federal government invests three times less in regional development in Quebec per capita than in the maritimes. The level of support in the four maritime provinces is $164 while it is $51 in Quebec--three times less. For each unemployed person this comes to almost $3,000 as opposed to barely $1000--almost three times more.

This gives you a fairly good idea of the situation. And we could go on and on with numbers. But what would be really useful for people in the Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine region would be to put an end to duplication and start cooperating with Quebec to look at the region's future and to set aside destructive--

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.

[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, unfortunately I was unable to listen to all of the hon. member's speech. However, I would like to give him the opportunity to explain to me further what he thinks of the way the current government and Canada Economic Development are fulfilling their responsibilities and doing their work, for the Quebec region in particular, so that we can speak further on the development of our regions in Quebec.

In that sense, I would like to hear his comments on how he sees the situation. I would like him to assess the result of the actions or maybe I should say inactions. What does the hon. member have to say on that subject?

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate that we have seen that a lot of the economic development in Canada is focused on the private sector, on small and medium size businesses, which is a good thing because they generate a lot of economic activity in our country.

However, what we are trying to emphasize today is that community economic development needs to be an explicit part of the mandate of an agency such as this one. Local communities need to have more of a say in the kind of development that happens in their areas. The people of the community need to have more involvement in the actual project. The communities need to have more learning and capacity building to do the kind of economic development work that is most important for the people of those regions.

We think the government needs to pay more attention to community economic development all across the country. Now that we have the opportunity, with the establishment of this agency, it needs to be an explicit part of its mandate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in this House to speak to an important bill that is being presented at second reading.

Bill C-9 is important because it concerns the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, which works on behalf of the entire population of Quebec. The purpose of this agency is to encourage the implementation of projects throughout Quebec that will provide our fellow citizens with development opportunities.

The bill before us today is a good example of this government's vision for the future, a vision in which our current and future entrepreneurs are encouraged to turn their innovative ideas into projects and can count on the Government of Canada to help make these projects a great success.

The purpose of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec is to promote the development and diversification of the economy of the regions of Quebec. It focuses particularly on regions where economic growth is slow and there are not enough jobs. It seeks to improve regional employment opportunities and prosperity for the long term.

In carrying out its mandate, the agency helps the Government of Canada fulfil its commitment to promoting equality of opportunity for all Canadians in the pursuit of their well-being.

As part of its core mandate, the agency targets two key strategic outcomes to contribute to the economic development of the regions of Quebec. The first is enterprise development and the second is the improvement of the environment for economic development of the regions.

We all know that in Canada, enterprises are the main driving force behind economic development and wealth creation. There is no doubt that the economic development of the regions involves the growth of enterprises.

For this reason, to contribute to building a 21st-century economy founded on innovation, the agency provides Quebec SMEs with a continuum of support necessary for innovation, from access to financing for the startup of innovative enterprises to the commercialization of innovative products via the adoption of new technology and more productive equipment.

It is in that context that SKL Aluminium Technologie in Saguenay was granted repayable financial assistance of $243,125 for the establishment of an aluminum heat exchanger and radiator plant.

I draw your attention to this announcement, because when this was done, it was to help an Ontario business that provided materials for vehicles to the United States and that was previously buying its products in the United States. Thanks to the commitment of Canada Economic Development, we have helped a business from our region to provide an Ontario business with products for vehicles built in the United States.

This project, besides creating eight jobs, has led to the development of a strategic partnership with various businesses in the region that specialize in the processing of aluminum. Financial support to this project was a priority in the efforts of Canada Economic Development to consolidate and increase the favoured position of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region in the secondary and tertiary processing of the white metal.

In Carleton-Saint-Omer, in the Gaspé Peninsula, the thalassotherapy centre Aqua-Mer benefited from a $1.938 million contribution to expand its facilities. The centre attracts a lot of foreign tourists and its activities have a ripple effect on other businesses in the region. It is now better positioned to help making Carleton-Saint-Omer a most valued destination both at home and outside our borders in relation to health tourism.

This project, which will increase the number of cure-days, fits well with one of the priorities of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, which is to increase tourism development in Gaspesia-Magdalen Islands.

Let me give the House another example of what we were able to do with Canada Economic Development, and we often work with other departments to ensure that our interventions are more effective. Just think about the aluminum technologies centre, where the Government of Canada made an investment of $57 million, including $25 million from Canada Economic Development, to recruit 80 researchers to help develop aluminum and particularly secondary and tertiary processing.

In collaboration with the National Research Council of Canada and the Department of Industry, this $57 million project has already had considerable economic impact on the region, Quebec and Canada. Through Canada Economic Development we were able to invest $2.9 million in a planned automotive parts factory, which enabled Alcan to obtain a contract for manufacturing aluminum bumpers for Cadillac cars. This contract could have gone to either of two cities, Jonquière or Detroit. Therefore, because of the investments by Canada Economic Development, with its partners in the Government of Canada, we were able to help create this project that provided some 50 jobs.

In the centre of Quebec, the agency joined with Industry Canada to provide total support of $4.7 million to VisuAide in Drummondville, to support the development of assistive technologies for persons with visual disabilities. This project, aimed at developing innovative digital devices for persons with visual disabilities, will further the development of accessible and affordable technology for these persons.This is not only a promising project in terms of technological innovation and optimization of the innovative capacity of local businesses, but also a technological application that will provide a clear improvement in quality of life for many of our fellow citizens.

Here are some examples of the grants made by the Canada Economic Development Agency that demonstrate the diversity of its activities and its commitment to support projects that blend into the existing economic fabric of the regions of Quebec.

Moreover, these projects share a common outcome: to create more dynamic, more competitive businesses with a greater ability to create prosperity and employment in their own regions. Regional economic development is not only about SMEs and entrepreneurs. The whole community must participate and take ownership in order to make it a success.

That is the context in which, as I said before, the agency works at improving the environment for regional economic development. In order to do so it supports development organizations that provide services regionally. It also supports non-profit agencies and businesses with plans for projects to develop a region's competitive advantages and spirit of entrepreneurship.

Through its funding of such organizations, the agency seeks to create a network of businesses that can take full advantage of projects to improve the economic development environment, so that the expansion of these businesses creates increased economic activity, employment and income.

Allow me to give two examples to illustrate the role played by the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec in improving the economic development environment in the regions.

In recent years, several studies have demonstrated the wind power potential in the Gaspésie-Îles-de-la-Madeleine area. This potential explains the interest shown by a number of regional stakeholders in the development of the wind power industry, which could generate billions of dollars in investments in the Gaspé Peninsula.

As a result, a non-profit organization, the Technocentre éolien, was created. Its role is mainly to gather and distribute information to its members. For example, the organization is working on setting up in the area a research and development centre identified as necessary for industrial development. The operations of the technocentre are funded by Canada Economic Development and the Government of Quebec on a 50-50 basis, which, once again, shows the importance of collaboration and of serving the well-being of the public.

In addition, the agency provided $1.5 million in support to the Quebec Wood Export Bureau, commonly known as Q-Web, to promote, over a three-year period, the value-added wood products of Quebec on export markets.

We need not emphasize the importance of this action, considering the crisis that the softwood lumber sector is going through because of the tariffs imposed by the Americans. Canada Economic Development helps ensuring that we reduce our dependency on one market and increase our exports in order to promote jobs in this country.

This contribution will allow the organization to establish a commercial vigil on the certification of forest products on foreign markets. Moreover, the contribution of the agency will allow Q-Web to develop the American market for value-added products for new exporters. Representing 185 manufacturing companies in the exports industry, Q-Web is opening international markets for wood products from Quebec.

This is again representative of what Economic Development Canada is doing in the regions of Quebec. I would be remiss if I did not mention the Crossroads for Industrial Materials Innovation in Boucherville, i which the government, through the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, invested $6 million, again in cooperation with NRC and Industry Canada. This allows Quebec researchers to innovate, to find new ways of developing products to start businesses or to create jobs and wealth here in our regions.

I have visited the Industrial Materials Institute in Boucherville and I recall seeing researchers developing a porous metal that could be injected in patients' spines to prevent a second hip operation. It cuts costs and promotes speedy recovery. This is a Quebec product that can be exported worldwide.

This shows the importance of the Economic Development Agency and government allies in the development of Quebec's economy. These examples show that the federal government is committed to give the regions the tools they need, not only to face new market conditions, but also to take advantage of them for the benefit of the Quebec population as a whole.

I wish I could give you many more tangible examples from all the regions in Quebec to illustrate the importance of Economic Development Canada. There are examples in connection with the environment, where we help our businesses to go green and to be more efficient and more environment-friendly, while saving money. Success was achieved thanks to help from Economic Development Canada and partners like the Department of the Environment and other departments. Businesses all over Quebec appreciate the environment clubs that were created for the purpose of helping them.

As far as the development of businesses owned by women is concerned, the CFDCs, in all regions of Quebec, contribute to economic development, in cooperation with Economic Development Canada. CFDCs are our proud partners in the creation and development of female entrepreneurship. I can testify to the fact that they achieved great successes. They must be encouraged and thanked.

Programs in the areas of softwood, textiles and clothing are currently going through a terrible crisis. We must work together to find solutions. Can we say that Economic Development Canada did anything about that situation? Of course, they created programs aimed at supporting communities and industries when possible.

In conclusion, allow me to pay tribute to our 14 regional and central offices, their staff and the women and men who are dedicated to the well-being of Quebeckers and all Canadians.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the comments of my hon. colleague for Beauce. I find the various regional development possibilities quite interesting. I believe we are all aware of the tremendous needs all over Quebec. Earlier on, my colleague for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine made us aware of the various needs in her region.

The problem at present is one of duplication, since the Quebec government already has an effective regional development policy, and what is stopping that policy from reaching its full potential is the present lack of funding to adequately meet all needs.

I see this as an illustration of fiscal imbalance. With all the surplus money in Ottawa—we learnt recently that the surplus for last year was almost $10 billion—it is tempting for the government to move into areas which are already under the responsibility of the provinces and create a second body at some cost to Canadian taxpayers.

When I stop to think of the number of civil servants it takes to properly manage a new regional development policy, over and above one which is already in place in Quebec, I do believe that this is not an efficient way to spend our money.

Finally, this is clear proof of fiscal imbalance as it presently exists. The fact is that if we were forced to tightly manage taxpayers' dollars, the government would hardly consider setting up a body which simply duplicates what is already there.

I therefore turn to my colleague for Beauce and ask him to explain how he can deny that what we have is a continuing fiscal imbalance which allows his government to get involved in areas where Quebec is already present.

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my colleague from the Bloc, when he mentions provincial political efficiency in regional economic development, thinks about the Gaspe. I hope not. It is a fiasco, with which the Government of Quebec and the Société générale de financement were closely linked. Mr. Blanchet and Mrs. Marois were partners. Is it the example of a regional success story the hon. member wants to give?

We hear about duplication. I find it curious that the Government of Quebec created a revenue department. It is a choice they made, and we respect that. However, the other provinces did not make that choice. It is duplication. We respect that too. Elsewhere, we had the RCMP; they decided to have Sûreté du Québec, not that we are complaining.

Competition is not exclusive to the private sector. It exists between departments or between levels of government in an effort to provide better service to Canadians. Since 1997, I have had the honour to sit here as the member for Beauce. I was here during the manpower training issue. There was a healthy competition between provincial and federal departments then.

Today, we avoid duplication. We transfer annually $600 million to the Province of Quebec. Now, there is no more duplication, but people have to take a number and wait for their turn. Do they have better service? I am not sure, but this is what stakeholders wanted and we accepted it.

However, we are able to work together. If the Bloc member is here to defend the interests of his constituents and of Quebeckers, he will help us implement an independent agency with the tools to contribute to the economic development of the regions. That is what we are doing.

I remember that, during the softwood lumber crisis, the members of the Bloc were asking us to do something, because the situation made no sense. We accepted, we contributed approximately $300 million to help in that file, but we could not support the industry. I asked the members of the Bloc what the PQ government did. Was it not there to help? They answered that this was an international issue. Are the men and women living in regions international? No. They need support. What did the PQ do? Absolutely nothing.

Would that mean it is not perfect? Indeed, it is not perfect. Have they done good things? Yes, they have. We also have done positive things, we want to work with the Province of Quebec. With a liberal government at the federal level and in Quebec, it is much easier because we both have the same interest: that is, the Quebec people.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is rather unfortunate to hear the member's comments about the Gaspé. I clearly remember how the hon. member, who exercised other responsibilities in another life, bragged about having played a key role in the Gaspé recovery plan; he made sure that $70 million dollars would be not invested but loaned—mark my word, loaned—even though $110 million had been requested. We had to wait 18 months to receive this answer.

To that extent, if there is a fiasco, it is due to the manner in which the federal government, the department and its minister, handled the Gaspé file at the time, that is, by dragging their feet before making an announcement. Moreover, they have provided much less money than was anticipated, making it a lot more difficult for investors, the people who wanted this recovery plan and who believed in it.

Why was the Gaspé recovery plan credible back then, and is now being dismissed out of hand? This makes no sense.

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the comments made by the Bloc Québécois member are a bit much.

Why did it take so long? Because we wanted guarantees and we wanted to make sure that the project would work. Unfortunately, stakeholders applied a lot of pressure and the timetable had to be moved up. I would also point out to the hon. member that I was not there at the time. However, I support the decision made because we wanted to help the Gaspésie and Îles-de-la-Madeleine region. We had to make sure that all the necessary tools were in place for the project's success.

Unfortunately, we probably went a bit too fast and, today, the project has come to an end. Hopefully, it can be revived. Hopefully, companies from outside the region will give it new life, because that is what counts for the Gaspé and Îles-de-la-Madeleine region. That is what we, as the Government of Canada, want to do through the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec--help this region and all other regions in the province of Quebec, by working with the community.

That is the way we are going to succeed.

[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 like to ask a question of my colleague, the member for Beauce, who, by the way, held the position I now hold, and did so brilliantly, with integrity and effectiveness, and I want to pay tribute to him.

In terms of content—I am not talking about politics, but wording—the bill before us simply gives official effect to a decision whereby Economic Development Canada, which was earlier part of the Department of Industry, now becomes independent of that department.

How does he interpret the fact that, since the beginning of the debate, the Bloc members opposite have concentrated exclusively on their agenda of separation and handing back money to Quebec, whereas, actually, we are talking about giving Quebec more power to manage its own affairs?