Debates of May 30th, 2005

Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to add once again that I have observed and found after discussing with some of my colleagues, municipal officials and business leaders, that CED's programs are well targeted and concrete and promote the development of not only the Quebec of today, but also the Quebec of tomorrow, a modern and thriving Quebec.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

We should perhaps have done it before questions and comments, but we will now proceed with the hon. member for Honoré-Mercier's motion.

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

moved:

That this question be now put.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to salute and congratulate my colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse for his speech. He has an impressive record: reeve of an RCM and mayor of a municipality. His background is a welcome addition to the expertise his colleagues from the Bloc Québécois possess.

Since he is willing to help us with his expertise, I would like to ask him the following question. My colleague certainly contributed to the economic development of his region for many years, as shown by his record. As well, I am sure that he participated directly or indirectly in the consultations held at a summit where Quebec and its regions met, not so long ago. This type of event produces consensus and guidelines to influence regional development.

In my own region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, everyone is now coming to the conclusion that it is time to decentralize powers in order to help communities. Consensuses emerged, particularly about the creation of a venture capital fund managed within the region. We see that the whole orientation of the region, from its economic development leaders, is about decentralization. Lately, I received a letter from the regional conference of elected officials asking federal members of Parliament to see what could be the federal government's contribution along this line.

I would like my colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse to tell us about what is happening in the regions, and also about the fact that the federal government missed an opportunity, with this bill, to decentralize and take part in this more realistic vision of regional development where decentralization enables regional leaders to take control of their region's development.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would have to say that 25 years in municipal politics have taught me an undeniable truth. The moment a consensus is reached on one or more projects in a given region, much has already been done. Indeed, it is not always easy to gather around the same table and to target the same projects as an RCM, a CLD, the regional conference of elected officials or even chambers of commerce. However, being a member from a non-resource region—since I come from the region of Quebec—we still have specific needs in some given fields.

For example, it is impossible to further develop agriculture in my riding. Our region is already one of the most agriculturally productive in Quebec. We cannot develop the forestry industry any more, either. Therefore, we have managed to reach consensus on a new niche, the development of recreational tourism via heritage or other avenues.

The problem is that federal subsides were ad hoc and meant to go towards clearing an old right-of-way, and so forth. However, when the time came to make the right-of-way accessible to snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles and, in certain areas, bicycles, the funding never allowed us to get tangible results, despite all past efforts. You see, this was the key to the whole thing. I am not talking about getting casual workers to help us out. We never had the capital base that would have allowed us to turn this project into a reality.

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member, who gave us a list of what the agency has accomplished. She mentioned some results obtained and some actions taken. I would like to make sure that she clearly understands that what we are talking about today is the creation of a legal entity—no more, no less. After listening the various witnesses in committee, they had to admit that the bill would, in fact, create a new legal entity. The members opposite should stop accusing us of being against regional development or saying that we do not like it.

Both the bill and in the literature from the agency itself state that there will be absolutely no change to its mandate and present programs. So, let us stop scaring people by saying that regional economic development will be affected if this bill is not adopted by the House. Will the hon. member admit, as the witnesses did, that the only thingno more, no less that the bill will do will be to add one more senior minister and one more ministerial limousine?

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize, contrary to the arguments of my colleague opposite, that some mayors are active in regional development, an area in which I have worked myself. I am thinking here about people like Mr. Beauchemin, the mayor of Rouyn-Noranda, Mr. Marc-Urbain Proulx, a professor at the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, and many others who do not want any federal intrusion in Quebec jurisdictions. Everybody knows that reaching a consensus in a region is the one and only way to bring projects to fruition. We will not get anything done if we do not get all those responsible for regional development to dance to the same tune.

My question is this: Has the hon. member ever seen in the past situations where a consensus was reached around one or several projects in a region and where federal intrusions have been conducive to a favourable conclusion?

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what a nice question! I thank the member opposite for asking it.

Indeed, I will give the example of the great beautiful region of the Outaouais, which is engraved in my heart and in which I have been living since I was born. I do not know how it is in the region of the member who asked the question, but in ours, in the riding of Gatineau and throughout the Outaouais, when we have projects to submit, the CLD, CED and all stakeholders hold consultations.

I would like to go back to some of the statements that were made by the honourable member opposite. He mentioned among other things the mayor of Rouyn-Noranda, Mr. Beauchemin. I was at the committee when he came to give us his perception of Bill C-9. It is sometimes useful to take part in committee meetings. Before defending a project, I like to know what it is about. In this context, what struck me the most is that the mayor of Rouyn-Noranda has a very good relationship—and I say this in a very positive sense—with the CLD in the area. We know that, in some regions, the CLD, being more a provincial organization, sometimes sees the federal government as the enemy. I am fed up with this. From what I hear, people in my region are also fed up with this simplistic discourse from the Bloc Québécois. It reduces Quebec to a small island, as though it should stop, because it cannot breathe in front of others.

It is strange that, in the Outaouais, we are able to work in cooperation and to bring out the positive in all of this. The Bloc is afraid of a federal intrusion, but these programs have been in place for 40 years and are working very well. This will allow Quebec to receive additional funds for regional economic development. Who is against virtue? Members opposite never stop talking about fiscal imbalance, constantly overusing that argument, while, on this side, we find ways to allow businesses to perform well in Quebec. The Bloc Québécois still prefers to remain simplistic, because this is how it sees life in Quebec.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it very enlightening to hear my colleague opposite. I would like to ask her a few questions because I think that we do not have the same understanding of how the economy works.

Over the last five or six years, this government has increased the number of public service employees by 59,000. Talking about the fiscal imbalance, she said that increasing the number of public service employees in a particular region would solve this problem. We believe that a better way of dealing with the fiscal imbalance would be to stop stepping on each other's toes and to give the money back to the provinces in their areas of jurisdiction.

I find it hard to believe that people such as the member would say that we need to have more offices, more limousines and more ministers to solve the issues with which the provinces and the regions are struggling. That is simply not true. The first thing that needs to be done is to respect provincial jurisdictions and to give the money back to the authorities responsible for dealing with these issues. As my colleagues were saying, regional economic development requires regional consensus. The federal government cannot tell us what to do. One just has to watch the Gomery commission to understand that there are no lessons to be learned from the federal government.

Can the member explain to me how increasing the number of federal public service employees by 59,000 and increasing the number of offices would solve the fiscal imbalance? I would like her to elaborate on that.

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, perhaps the colleague over there ought to have listened to what I was saying. I was in fact answering one of his colleagues about this giving us just one more senior minister and a ministerial limo. My response was that for Quebec to have a senior minister at the cabinet table able to speak to regional development for Quebec, and nowhere else, was of the utmost importance to Quebeckers.

That said, I never mentioned 59,000 public servants. If there are 59,000 additional public servants in Quebec, it is certainly not because of this bill. Yes, there are already 14 offices, but I have not asked for more. There was no reference in my speech to adding offices. Things are working very well as they are. My reference was strictly to a structural change, solely in order to have—and this is the innovative element here—a senior minister.

I am offended by their statement that we are trampling on their toes, because we never do such a thing. A reading of the Constitution will show there are a number of jurisdictions. This bill complies with the Constitution. We even made an effort during the clause-by-clause examination in committee to ensure that it was clearly stated that Quebec's jurisdiction would be respected.

Once again, the Bloc Québécois is being alarmist. There is, when it comes down to it, no encroachment here. The Bloc would like to take the money and pass it over to Quebec, when things are going very well.

As I said, large numbers of people throughout Quebec are extremely pleased that CED is present in Quebec, that it is working in partnership—not telling people what to do, but in partnership—with the commercial, economic and social stakeholders of Quebec.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, people can use freedom of speech to express their point of view, but there is not a single traitor in this House. That said, I ask that the hon. member retract his statement, as he called members on this side of the House traitors.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not say there were traitors. I said that in any other country, people who behave that way would be considered traitors. I did not say there were traitors here. The law and the outlook of the people of this country are much more open than in some other countries.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot get away with saying whatever we want by doing it in a roundabout way. For instance, we cannot quote profanities used by someone else to get around the fact that we are not allowed to swear in this House. Calling people traitors is the same thing.

I believe we all want decorum here. These antics must stop. I ask that the hon. member retract his statement. There is not a single traitor on either side of this House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I thank the member for Bourassa for his comments. I have been listening to the interpretation and I did not hear anything that would have twigged a point of order. I will look at the blues to make sure. I caution members, of course, that all members here are honourable members. There are no traitors or things such as that. The member is right in that we cannot ascribe motives to someone through a quote indirectly that we would not do directly. I will look at the blues and will come back to the House, if necessary.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the behaviour of this government, which continues to seek confrontation with all sorts of degrading acts and measures, such as the sponsorships and the Clarity Act, in an attempt to control Quebeckers. Such proposals are unacceptable and the Quebec National Assembly is unanimous on this.

We also asked that Quebec's regional development priorities be respected. To do otherwise would be perceived as today's equivalent of the sponsorships, that is, an attempt to legalize the future wasting of taxpayers' money in futile investments that neither Quebec nor Quebeckers want.

Another demand had to do with the implementation of Quebec's regional development objectives, in order to promote those objectives. We also asked that the minister fulfill his duties so as to reach agreements providing for the transfer of federal funds to Quebec, in the context of regional development. This would have resulted in Quebec and Ottawa cooperating in economic areas, as wished by Jean Lesage back in 1965, that is 40 years ago.

We also asked that regional priorities for development be taken into consideration. Since there are such differences between the regions of Quebec, it is necessary to have a very good knowledge of these regions before making decisions. There was an immediate outcry on the part of all the other parties in this Parliament, because these amendments would have reduced too significantly the federal government's power to interfere in this typical and true provincial jurisdiction, particularly in the case of Quebec.

It is easy to understand why these same parties were also opposed to signing agreements with Quebec to transfer the funds required for regional development, and to decentralize the powers relating to regions and their needs.

Again, we maintain that establishing a federal department in this area would only perpetuate the counterproductive duplication that already exists. The regions need help, they need it urgently, and they are not interested in watching Quebec and Ottawa fight.

We are repeating that this bill is offering nothing new to the regions. EDC's allocations remain unchanged; its programs and budgets have not changed at all. The department itself said there was no foreseeable impact on the agency's programs and current client base. The only real change will be that there will a minister, a limousine and another unjustifiable increase in personnel in Ottawa, where people from outside Quebec will be deciding what Quebec and its regions need.

The government can do a lot for all the regions of Quebec within its own jurisdictions, in terms of employment insurance, support for older workers and skills upgrading, by restoring federal capital spending to an acceptable level. There are so many other areas, such as support for the mining industry, similar to that provided to the oil and automotive industries. Support could even be provided for clean energy like wind and solar power.

Because this bill does not offer anything to the regions, because it further politicizes federal intrusions in the regions of Quebec, because it interferes with the implementation of a real integrated policy that can only be adopted by Quebec, because it ignores regional authorities, because, in considering bills, this government has shown no willingness to respect Quebec's priorities, which will result in many more years of conflict and inconsistency, the Bloc Québécois will not support this bill.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for the very interesting speech he just made. Unfortunately, if the MP who spoke earlier about the Bloc's intentions had been here, she would have discovered exactly what was in the bill, thanks to the speech we just heard. In my opinion, it says a great deal about areas of jurisdiction.

I was also there during the period to which he referred, from the time of Jean Lesage to now, and I can confirm that it is true. Quebec has always fought for funding, but without interference in its jurisdictions or being undermined. This is exactly what my colleague was saying and what this legislation will do yet again.

I have a question for him. Earlier, I was misunderstood when I said that, in the past six years, the federal government—and I am not referring to the Quebec government—has increased the public service by 59,000 employees. Payroll for the provision of services has increased by $9 billion, give or take several hundred million, although the provinces, including Quebec, have the means to do this. There is a duplication in the provision of services.

I want my colleague's opinion on this. Maybe he could elaborate a little because his experience is different from mine. However, in my opinion, it is disgraceful that we cannot get our money and that, furthermore, we are being told how to administer areas of jurisdiction belonging to Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has just referred to something the member for Gatineau said earlier. The increase in the federal public service is also related to the transfer of other federal employees to the regions, which is slowly destroying them. As a result, unemployment has increased, more young people are leaving the regions, and there are fewer job prospects in these regions.

I want to give another example of waste. Even before the Parliament considered the bill, two departments were created from one, without anyone even asking for Parliament's approval. Although Parliament did not sanction the appointment of the minister, he is still there, along with all the public servants under him. This is wasteful and evidence of duplication within the federal government itself. In addition, there is an attempt to duplicate provincial initiatives. It is unbelievable.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin with congratulations to my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou for his excellent work and his good grasp of economic development. It is not easy to represent a region as vast as his and to come here to say that this bill, aimed at promoting the regions of Quebec, is nothing more than a structural enlargement rather than any real assistance program.

I have a real problem with the attitude taken by the Quebec Liberal MPs who lack an understanding of certain things.

Before I was in politics, I spent eight years as the head of the Conseil régional de développement de l'Outaouais. I could go into considerable detail on the economic development problems of Quebec. A lack of departmental presence is really not the problem. Canada Economic Development is there. As their representatives have said, their interventions will not change in the least, and therein lies the problem. New programs are necessary if we are to be able to deal with the various problems affecting our economic development.

A few years ago, who could have predicted the disappearance of the Quebec textile industry? Yet now we are seeing it happen. There is a huge agricultural crisis and some farms will also be disappearing.

So there are new needs. A new structure and department are not what Quebeckers, the businessmen and women of Quebec, need. What they really need is new programs, and that is not what this bill we are discussing today is all about.

The Liberals tell us that we have a problem with visibility. No, our problem is with Canada Economic Development and its programs, which are insufficient for the need. They are likely the ones concerned with visibility, so much so that they want a new department to raise their visibility in Quebec. That is their problem.

What is it that the people, those businessmen and women need? That is what I want to ask my colleague. Would it not be improved programs better adapted to the needs, rather than a new means of increasing federal government visibility in Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned this a little earlier and I will elaborate on it.

I was saying that, during the last year of its mandate, Canada Economic Development only used two-thirds of its budget. Despite all, regional directors had to somehow put their necks on the line to provide projects that were not included in the programs. It was left to the goodwill of regional directors to create programs because they did not exist.

These programs could really respond to the needs of the regions. Adding these programs would have been much easier and much less controversial than this bill we have been debating for almost a month now. It is a huge waste of time. We could have solved this with the everyone's agreement and to everyone's satisfaction, except perhaps the people who are seeking a minister's job. Automobile salespeople would have one less limousine to sell, but this might have still satisfied the people of Quebec and of all the regions of Canada. Canada would still have continued to follow the example of Quebec.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.