Jacques Saada

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, November 5th, 2004]

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.

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, November 5th, 2004]

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?

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, November 5th, 2004]

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

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

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

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, November 5th, 2004]

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

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

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

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

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, November 5th, 2004]

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

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

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

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, November 5th, 2004]

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

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

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, November 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my colleague, concerning the interventions that were made and the questions that were just asked.

My colleague opposite started his intervention by saying, “From his federalist point of view” when speaking about my colleague. Does it mean that, essentially, to him, the dogma of separation must prevail, no matter what is contained in the bills that we have to consider? Does he not think, like me, that when one hides behind dogmas, it is the best way not to face reality and that, essentially, what concerns these members more than anything else is not the interest of Quebec, but rather the interest of their option, which they pretend to be the interest of Quebec, which has never been demonstrated?

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, November 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I paid particular attention to two elements in the comments of my colleague. I understood from what he said that there could be wording differences between this bill and the act governing the western and the Atlantic regions.

Here is my first question: Would the hon. member be prepared to discuss this issue with me when it is debated in committee? I am quite ready to look at where and why there are differences, and to explain them, if necessary. I am open-minded.

My second question is this: When I appear before the parliamentary committee on budgets, would the hon. member agree that we take this opportunity to have a substantive debate on regional development? I would be quite ready to do so. Would he also be ready?

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, November 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, let me say that seeing a Bloc member come to the defence of Mr. Landry makes me smile a little. I thought that he had been elected to the federal level to work on the federal scene, for the good of Quebec, and not to defend his big Péquiste brother on the other side of the street.

There is one thing that interests me. I do not believe that the member opposite quite gets it that, when we intervene for the softwood lumber industry, we have to intervene in a way that does not open the door to justifying the Americans' misinterpretation of this problem. We cannot help the softwood lumber industry directly so that it is perceived as a subsidy and have the Americans come after us on this. We have to help in a smart way to diversify, to seek niches that will allow for the development of regions.

There is a third thing that I would like to focus on a little. I would like the Bloc to explain its reasoning. It tells Quebec that it will defend its interests. Now we create an agency that will be totally at arm's length from industry and that will focus exclusively on Quebec. The first thing that members want to do is vote against this to abdicate their responsibilities.

They want to be elected to not take responsibilities. If this is what they want, the people will make a judgment. Certainly, we, on this side, will not abdicate our responsibilities. We are the government and we will be there to help the regions of Quebec.

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, November 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as a Quebecker, I claim that Quebec is my backyard too.

With regard to the negative comments that the hon. member has made in relation to the interpretation of the Constitution, it is interesting to note that, had he read it, he would not have asked his first question. He would then have fully understood that regional development is not covered by the Constitution; therefore, the jurisdiction is shared.

Thirdly, he talks about textiles. Why doesn't he mention the fact that we have earmarked $26.7 million to maintain a program that we had already undertaken to help textile workers improve their performance and their ability to compete and find more profitable markets? They talk, we act.

There is one last thing I am quite interested in. These people live in the past. There is nothing I can do about that, I accept it, I have no alternative. We can choose between brooding over old quarrels and looking to what will be useful for the future of Gaspe, the Lower St. Lawrence, Sherbrooke, Montreal, research, the return of young people to their region of origin; all these are exciting plans for the future, plans that give hope.

Instead of confining myself to the nonsense of a misinterpreted past, I would rather focus on hope for the future of our youth and people in the regions. I will do it, with or without them.