Debates of Nov. 5th, 2004

Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's comments are really important, and I would like to thank him for his fine words.

What he said is important because, in effect, the question is as follows: How can the Bloc Québécois be hurt by the fact that Economic Development Canada is independent and no longer part of the Department of Industry? What is wrong with that?

Is that going to adversely affect the regions? No. Can we work for the betterment of the people, as the minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency so aptly said? Yes, and that is what the members of the Bloc Québécois should be interested in doing--working for the betterment of the people with what is presently on the table.

We are in a united Canada. We are working for all the provinces and all the territories, and they should respect that and make sure that communities get what they are entitled to in all the regions of Quebec.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[An hon. member]

David Price from Compton—Stanstead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there are so many contradictions I do not know where I should start. The hon. member talked about the sprinkling of CED money for the sake of visibility, and then he said he regretted not being invited to public announcements.

Does he want to be invited because he has worked on the project being announced? Not at all. Is it because he initiated the project? Not at all. Why does he want to be invited? Because it is a photo op.

Why accuse others of wanting to be visible when his sole goal is visibility? This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. It does not make sense.

The hon. member also talked about cooperation. Let me remind him of the Alumiforme case in the Saguenay area, for example. Canada and Quebec cooperated closely to promote secondary processing of aluminum. There is also the Centre de recherche en biotechnologies marines. Again, $6 million came from the federal government and $8 million from the province. We worked in cooperation and took care of both the infrastructure and the equipment.

And what about Montréal International? Perhaps the hon. member does not know that Montreal is also an area in need of development.

Something fascinates me. In the very riding of the hon. member, 5 businesses and 172 jobs were created over the last year only, thanks to the action of my department.

I have a question for the hon. member. I have to go back to my CED office in Montreal today to sign a financing proposal of $300,000 for the Chaudière-Appalaches ATR. The chief executive officer of the ATR is Mr. Richard Moreau. Would the hon. member opposite like me to tell Mr. Moreau that, at the request of the Bloc, I have refused to authorize this $300,000?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to learn that, at long last, ATR will receive the money, which does not come from the government, but from our pockets. So, it is only fair to have that money go back to our regions from time to time.

I have spoken with Mr. Moreau and the people of ATR. They were asking me why that was taking so long. I told them it was the federal government's trademark. They let organizations run out of breath so that, in the end, they can appear as a saviour.

I know Mr. Moreau well, we have an excellent relationship, but when EDC comes bragging in the riding to announce its financial assistance, let the local elected official be recognized. I will understand then that this party is not partisan, but that it understands that in a community, the most important person is the elected member.

When I am told that the only reason I want to be there is to be in the photo, that—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[An member]

Come on.

[An member]

What do you know about it? Are you in his riding?

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

You know it is not the first time that these things get on their nerves. There is a storm brewing. A few inches of snow are being forecast and, when that happens, there is turbulence in the House of Commons. Liberals often behave like children.

The same goes for teachers or professors who see students demonstrating become unruly in such cases. It is like that every time there is a storm of criticism in this Parliament. They become unruly, they do not listen and they revert back to Jean Chrétien's good old method: arrogance.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am a bit surprised that my colleague across the way sees himself as a student at a demonstration. That is what he said earlier on. I am both surprised and intrigued

He is right on one aspect. It is true that, whenever a government, be it federal, provincial or municipal, spends or invests money, it does so with taxpayers' money, all coming out of the same pocket.

However, I take pride in the fact that, having been asked to manage that money, we chose to redistribute it to the ATR in his region as a key priority, based on its excellent plan. It does take time and that is because, as a government, we act responsibly. We do not throw money around, left and right indiscriminately. We do a careful, professional and systematic analysis. We work in cooperation with applicants. Once we have all the information, we work on the plan.

While he is posturing and telling the gentleman across the way, once again, how worthless we are--it is so predictable--we do the work and deliver the goods.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has the gall to say that he spends his money well and that he delivers the goods. I hope the minister is following the work of the Gomery Commission and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts' deliberations. If the regions had received the money that was funneled instead into the agencies and into small projects all planned by Liberal members, I could stand here and tell you that Quebec regions are in good shape. I do not think the minister has any right to comment on the way we manage our money in Quebec.

Never before have we been faced with such a scandal that tarnishes Canada's history. I was just saying a few minutes ago that I hope the Liberal government will be held responsible, whether it be before Gomery, before the public accounts committee or before the House of Commons. I hope that there will be legal, maybe even criminal sanctions and, more importantly, that the government will legislate to ensure that it is the last time in Canadian history that such a shameful financial scandal ever occurs. That is what responsible people would do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague spoke to the general director of ATR, why did he not tell me about it? Maybe it means that he did not do his work as a member of Parliament?

Secondly, when they become paranoid because a bill mandates all of Quebec's representatives, federal and provincial, to work together and develop the regional economy, they get upset. I would like to know why.

Maybe they are not happy because Ms. Normandeau, who is my provincial liberal counterpart and who is well versed in those issues, and I, who believe I am also doing well, have done interesting things together for the Gaspe Peninsula and the Lower St. Lawrence as well as for young people. Of course, members opposite are disturbed by that. It is a proof that federalism works.

Finally, when we talk about interference, perhaps the hon. member would be good enough to read the Constitution before asking such a question?

[The Speaker]

I ask the member for Lotbinière—L'Érable to give a very short answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, the answer will be very short.

It is because I do not trust the Liberal government.

The member accuses me of not being in contact with stakeholders in that area. The hon. member will know that during election campaign, I went to the regional ATR and I was told that the government in dragging its feet. Today, it is trying to portray itself as a saviour. Those people had financial problems. I hope they will receive their $300,000.

However, it was not the case when I met them during the election campaign. The ATR said: “You know, if a Liberal member is elected, you may get your money.” This is what I call political blackmail.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak today in connection with the bill on the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

Our government has set itself the objective of ensuring the success of Canadians in each and every region of our country. Its intention is to support our fellow citizens, as far as is possible, in the realization of their aspirations for prosperity and an enhanced quality of life.

This is the context within which the Economic Development Agency of Canada fulfills its mandate to promote the economic development of the regions of Quebec. To that end, it pays particular attention to all the regions of Quebec, especially those with a slower growth rate and insufficient jobs for the size of their population.

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

What is more, these projects have contributed to the creation, conversion or maintenance of close to 13,700 jobs in all of the regions of Quebec, regions such as Chaudière-Appalaches, where $60,000 from Economic Development Canada has enabled Soliroc Metal to enhance its productivity. With this financial assistance, the company was able to acquire more efficient equipment, and as a result to raise its productivity by 60%.

This is one example of the kind of projects Canada Economic Development has supported, which have highly positive economic spinoffs for the competitive position of a company, thereby enabling it not only to continue to grow, but also to play a vital role within its community.

In the region of Quebec, the National Optics Institute received a $3.6 million contribution from Canada Economic Development to implement an agro-photonic research program. The purpose of this research campaign is to bring together two major industries in the region, namely agro-processing and optical photonics technologies.

Canada Economic Development wanted to support this regional initiative because it has consolidated the institute's leading position in the industry and paved the way for various economic development projects in many regions of Quebec.

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

I should add that these research facilities are a priority to the people of the Lower St. Lawrence. This is why Canada Economic Development wanted to be involved in carrying out this project as part of its commitment to support initiatives that best respond to the needs of the public and that target the strength of the region. These projects contribute to solidifying the economic development opportunities in the regions that welcome them and other regions in Quebec.

These examples show what Canada Economic Development does. They also show that the agency attaches a high level of importance to the promotion of innovation throughout Quebec. This priority stems from our government's commitment to building the robust and innovative economy that we all want for our country in the 21st century.

The projects I mentioned illustrate Canada Economic Development's goal to strengthen the niches of excellence specific to each region of Quebec.

In all, in 2003-04, the agency invested $54.6 million in 739 innovative projects in Quebec. These investments have led to the creation, transformation or maintenance of 4,796 jobs. Furthermore, even the promoters have said that without the financial support of Canada Economic Development, 55% of the projects would never have materialized.

In order to foster a culture of innovation in the regions of Quebec, Economic Development Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada contributed $3.6 million to the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue in order to take part in an important research project aimed at developing a new beef product that meets consumers’ more demanding requirements.

Once again, I would like to say that this project came about through an initiative of regional cattle producers and researchers. Besides creating 34 jobs, this initiative should translate into a 15% to 20% increase in profits for the industry. As I pointed out earlier, the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec also supports communities in their efforts to focus on their strengths and take charge of their development.

The agency's goal is to promote public interest initiatives that could have a significant impact at the regional level as well as generate a ripple effect on regional economic activity. The agency works with a network of partners that includes 57 community futures development corporations, 15 community economic development corporations and 9 business development centres.

For the 2002-03 fiscal year, the various projects that received loans from community futures development corporations generated $135 million in regional investments. These loans amounted to some $45 million. The nine business development centres were involved in 222 investment projects and 570 technical assistance files.

It is in the context of the partnership between the Economic Development Agency of Canada and Quebec's network of community futures development corporations, that the AFER program, designed to help women entrepreneurs in rural areas, was implemented. This pilot project consisted in establishing a financial assistance fund to stimulate women's entrepreneurship in rural areas. The twelve community futures development corporations participating in this initiative represented the Gaspé, Magdalen Islands, lower St. Lawrence, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, North Shore, Saguenay, Mauricie, Chaudières-Appalaches and Montérégie regions. So far, the AFER program has assisted 93 women entrepreneurs and has contributed to the creation of 31 businesses and 60 jobs in various Quebec regions.

The Fonds AFER Canada is indicative of the Government of Canada's desire to foster greater participation of women in the overall economy of the Quebec regions and in the efforts to diversify the development opportunities in the various communities of Quebec.

As I mentioned a few minutes ago, the Economic Development Agency of Canada is active in all Quebec regions.

For example, the agency promoted the Entreprises rurales Nord-du-Québec initiative. In this project, Economic Development Canada gives $50,000 annually to the Chapais-Chibougamau, Matagami and Eeyou Economic Group CFDCs to help them sustain activities that they could not have financed within their mandate.

The CFDCs were able to support eight new business projects only in the last six months or so and, thanks to this funding, many local business people will be able to enlarge their market share and increase their revenues. In other words, they will create wealth in their region and their fellow citizens will benefit.

I would like to remind the members of the House that the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec also helps Quebec's municipalities renew their infrastructure.

The purpose of this part of the agency's mandate is to help Quebec's communities to maintain their capacity to attract businesses, and to improve their citizens' quality of life.

Through the Canada-Quebec Infrastructure Works program, which entrusted to Economic Development Canada the management of the projects, the Government of Canada contributed a total amount of $463 million to the realization of 867 projects, from the beginning of the program in 2000 to March 31, 2004.

Thanks to all those different projects, 484,408 Canadian families have already had or will have access to municipal waterworks providing better quality drinking water.

Also, almost 5,950 families will be hooked up to a proper municipal sewer and wastewater treatment system. And 260 communities will benefit from the construction or improvement of sports or cultural facilities.

During the last few years, the Canadian government has often stated its commitment to build a strong Canadian economy for the 21st century, an economy that creates quality jobs and equal opportunities for all individuals and regions in Canada.

The Economic Development Agency of Canadafor the Regions of Quebec accepts fully this goal, as the bill before us shows. The agency also plays an active role in the implementation of the broad economic priorities of the government in the whole province of Quebec, and its many good results speak for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech just made by the member. I found some elements particularity interesting. When the various initiatives of Canada Economic Development are mentioned, one is left with the impression that everything is just fine.

However, for regions such as mine, which I know quite well, we can also take stock of what Canada Economic Development has done. With regard to the Gaspésie-les-Îles region recovery plan, any action taken was late as well as minimal. And this was a situation which required urgent action.

It may therefore seem important to list all the initiatives taken by Canada Economic Development in Quebec, since this makes it look efficient and active, but there is unfortunately another reality, one which hits us close to home. It has to do with what we see when we take stock of what Canada Economic Development has done in the Gaspésie-les-Îles region.

And I am not the only one saying it. On May 26, 1991 in Chandler 7,500 people gathered in an arena to complain about what the federal government and Quebec had not done for the region.

About 10 years later, there have been complaints in the region, again in relation to the federal government's inaction. When we talk about the agency, putting aside the numbers, putting aside what I have heard a moment ago, I think we must look at the situation as it is. Unfortunately, the results are weak and negative.

I would therefore like the hon. member to explain why, with so many good initiatives, we are faced with problems in this region and it is hard to see a future there. We have the impression that there is a lack of action, that we are being ignored, that we are being forgotten by the federal government.

They offer up all sorts of initiatives, but I think it would be appropriate to look at the other side of the coin, what is really going on. The fact is that initiatives have been infrequent, ineffective, late and often partisan. In this respect, Quebec needs to play a greater role. We know what the needs are, and we also know the solutions.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find strange some of the comments made by my colleague, who claims that many investments made by the federal government in his region have had a negative impact. His math is foreign to me.

Let me tell you briefly about Canada Economic Development's activities in the Gaspésie and Îles-de-la-Madeleine region as of October 6, 2004; there were 62 financial projects totalling $14.1 million. Where is the negative impact here? If we were to talk to the stakeholders my colleague claims to speak for, would these people agree with him that there is a negative impact there?

Most of the 62 projects I mentioned came under the emerging initiatives and development of medium-sized enterprises components. This means that we invest in emerging technologies, which is good for the future of this region. Again, I do not see how investing in the future could have a negative impact. I have a hard time understanding some of my colleague's remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis on the whole list of the government's investment projects in various regions. At first glance, this looks quite interesting. However, given the scope of the needs, it should be possible to invest in various areas. The problem is to invest in the really useful sectors that truly reflect the region's needs.

Earlier, the hon. member for Beauce told me that it was important to have competition and that the Quebec government should not be left on its own. I am surprised to hear such a reply from the government. Does this mean that the Canadian government sees itself as being in competition with the Quebec government? Are the projects they choose to support competing with those of Quebec or, in their minds, more successful, more important for the population of the region? Or is it simply that the Canadian government does not believe that the Quebec government is effective?

Earlier, the Gaspesia fiasco was used as an example to explain the lack of importance of the Quebec government in regional development. I think the federal government would be well-advised not to elaborate too much on fiascos for which it is responsible. Take, for instance, the case of Mirabel, which is a monumental fiasco in which billions of dollars were invested. And what about the sponsorship scandal, which is truly a fiasco created by the whole government bureaucracy?

So, I wonder if the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis could comment on the role of a second government regarding the same regional development issues.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government has been working with the provinces for decades, even before my colleague's party was first formed.

Having said that, I sincerely believe, and this is my personal opinion, that no individual or government has a monopoly on ideas. The more ideas we have and the more analysis we do, the better. In my opinion, it is in this spirit that the federal government is working with the Province of Quebec.

I noted that some of my colleagues on the other side of the House had a tendency to wander off topic when they were talking about Mirabel and other matters a little while ago. I would therefore appreciate if my colleagues would stick to the subject of today's debate, which is an act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a short statement, something I had not planned at the outset. Due to the importance of the topic we are debating today, it seems a good idea to me to express my opinion on the bill.

I am an engineer by trade and I have 40 years of experience. I therefore have a logical mind; I calculate things and the value of decisions. But I have always been a committed man, a citizen committed in his community and concerned about decisions made by the various governments. That is why I find it very important today to tell you that I am against the bill.

It is not because I am against Canada, contrary to what a colleague opposite stated yesterday, in saying that the Bloc Québécois was against Canada. Our position is not against Canada. We want the two governments to spend our money as effectively as possible. This is really the position I want to express. It is not about competition, about determining the better of the two. It is not about lumping them together and letting them fight it out to try and make just about everybody happy. That's the way to waste our money. It goes without saying that our general level of taxation in Quebec is much higher than that of North America as a whole. There is a link with all those decisions.

Regional development policy is a very complex issue. Significant structures must be put in place in every region to monitor the needs of the regions and make the choices that will help them. We must not be partisan and say that we will fund a project because it is presented by friends or people we know, and that will please them. The important role the government must play is to be non partisan and understand the needs of each region. Members are aware of the fact that their region must be developed to the maximum, regardless of their political stripes.

This is why the Quebec government put in place a regional development structure that has already proven to be very efficient. As I said earlier, I found odious that members mention a fiasco of the Quebec government without talking about all its successes. It is out of line with the discussion we are having today. I do not believe that we are out to prove the Quebec government is incompetent and hence the reason for the Canadian government's getting involved in the area. In politics everyone tries to make the best possible decisions. Mistakes are always possible, and it is important to recognize it and change tack.

I would like the government, instead of putting forward this bill, to further officialize its involvement in an area where the Quebec government is already involved by having a minister in charge of this agency. Such a move would further politicize the whole issue of duplication. For that reason, we are opposed to the bill, not because we are against regional development, since we really need it.

What we are lacking in Quebec is money. We have been saying it for a long time. There is too much money in Ottawa and not enough in the provinces. It is that money we need. The current government should instead put forward a bill to transfer to the Quebec government the money it usually allocates or is trying to allocate to regional development. That way, the Quebec government could do a better job.

[David Smith, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to see that my colleague across the way feels that the Canadian federation serves a purpose. As Canadians, we have to work with our fellow Canadians in Quebec, as I do.

For example, in my lovely riding of Pontiac, which is just across the river, not far from here, we regularly work with members of the Quebec National Assembly to find solutions that enhance the quality of life of our taxpayers.

This week, I will have the pleasure of taking part in press conferences to announce funding as a result of a solid analysis by Canada Economic Development and all the people. The CLD's role in the projects was to participate in the analysis of the business plan. The CFDC played another role on another level. The CED will also contribute, as will other Quebec agencies and departments.

This is a perfect example of a collective effort for the well-being of our region, the beautiful riding of Pontiac.

And now the question for my colleague opposite: Does the member believe that this formula, under which federal and provincial members work together with all the regional stakeholders to find solutions that will enhance people's lives, is a good thing?

Does he apply the same philosophy in his riding that we do in Pontiac?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Indeed, I think that we must be positive in the action that we take as members of Parliament. When we work within a well established system, we must of course cooperate as much as possible to achieve common goals. I commend him for applying this principle.

Personally, since I am a new member of Parliament, I still have not had many opportunities to cooperate with my provincial counterpart, but this is already a given. We will have good cooperation.

That being said, however, this is not a reason to agree to such an intrusion in an official way, let alone through the approval of the bill. Despite all the goodwill of my colleague, he must admit that, with regard to regional economic development, there are certainly several public servants and a budget behind all this. They must analyze and coordinate the action of both governments so that they do not impede on each other.

Despite all the goodwill to cooperate that might exist, this would still not be efficient, because we would create a duplication of public servants and joint responsibilities, which would make this system more costly. Anyway, in most cases, there is no cooperation and, in the end, decisions do not necessarily meet the real needs of the people, because each government holds tight to its own projects and priorities, despite all the goodwill on both sides.