Sébastien Gagnon

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. His question is particularly important since he was also affected by various crises, the softwood lumber crisis, the mad cow crisis, as well as difficult regional realities. He is working hard, he is diligent and I commend him for this good work.

When there is a regional consensus as important as the mobilization of a whole community, I think that we cannot remain insensitive. Yet, several ministers have been criticized one after the other, not only by members of the Bloc Québécois, but also by the sector and by journalists over the importance of this issue, and yet, this fund is mobilizing both the social and economic sector, the economic sector, as well as such big businesses as Alcan and the Quebec government.

Thus, all these people consider that a venture capital fund is very important. However, the government is afraid to lose something by putting money into this fund. It might lose its precious visibility in the regions.

I said earlier that we must not politicize the debate about resource regions. We must not politicize regional development for partisanship purposes. We must be forward-looking. Economic models that existed previously are no longer working. What we must do today is review them. This is what I intend to continue to do with the leaders of the region, no matter what the government decides.

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want first to come back to some issues I had raised in my first speech, in addition to making a few points.

I had insisted on an important issue. We must avoid making allegations. Earlier, in oral question period, I heard my Liberal Party colleague, the member for Gatineau, claim or rather imply that regional development is not important to us.

I will not respond to such allegations, except to say that regional development is extremely important, too much, in fact, for us to engage in partisan politics. I think it is important to work or at least to try to work in harmony and cooperation in order to resolve all the problems in the regions. This is what the Bloc Québécois and I have tried to do in the debates at each stage of Bill C-9.

Earlier, I mentioned some important issues that the Bloc put forward. These issues were important to us, to Quebec and to the regions. We have made progress.

I also mentioned the concept of designated areas, which was struck from the bill. This concept gave the minister the freedom to intervene in one region instead of another. This was struck from the bill. This is fortunate.

One other thing was also struck. In my opinion, it may have been important to the government, but it was much less so to the opposition, for whom it was appalling to say the least. I am talking about the possibility of announcing grants during an election. An election is the time for debating the issues and adopting positions on local, regional and national issues, whereas this party is using it as an opportunity to announce grants.

We are quite pleased that our Conservative colleagues put forward this amendment, which naturally the Bloc Québécois supported.

The Bloc Québécois—which is concerned with equity throughout Quebec—also ensured that the original mission of the agency was put back in the bill. It reads as follows:

The object of the Agency is to promote the long-term economic development of the regions of Quebec by giving special attention to those—

Here is the important part:

—where slow economic growth is prevalent or where opportunities for productive employment are inadequate.

As I said, we went from the designated areas and the free will of the minister, and returned to a concern for equity of all regions truly in need.

We also offered the possibility to this government and to the minister that he have some authority. We would have liked him to participate and support our amendment. It concerns the possibility from the technical point of view—I will not go into detail—of his being able to make transfers directly to the Government of Quebec, of money, or least certain amounts, or agreements involving the regions, in order to participate in some major initiatives. That would not, of course, mean just anything, but would involve major initiatives for certain regions.

For example, in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean a consensus emerged from the summit between Quebec and its regions for the creation of a regional venture capital investment fund. This fund is so important that even a major company like Alcan is prepared to inject money into it. The Government of Quebec is even prepared to match, and double, the amount contributed by the community. For example, if there were $10 million in private funding, the Government of Quebec would be prepared to inject $20 million. This is a major initiative.

Once again, on a number of occasions, this government has refused to participate. This is a regional prerogative on which there was consensus from all leaders in the region, regardless of party.

There is one other important reason behind the refusal to support this bill, which has been rejected by both the government and the Quebec federalists. I make that differentiation because, at one point, even western Conservative MPs had accepted this orientation. We wanted the agency and the minister to exercise their authorities in such a way as to respect the priorities of the Government of Quebec for regional development. Why is this so vital? Quite simply because the majority of questions that impact on regional development fall into areas under Quebec jurisdiction. Yes, someone could bring up the Charter, but I am not talking about that.

Municipalities, Quebec's; land use planning, Quebec's; assessment and training, Quebec's; accepting and integrating immigrants, Quebec's; and, natural resources, a huge area, Quebec's. The same is true of hydroelectricity, forests, lumber and land use planning. All of these issues are unavoidable, and the Government of Quebec cannot be ignored. Regional development requires Quebec consensus, because it concerns Quebec and its regions primarily.

I would say as well that the other reasons relate to the establishment of such a substantial organization. There must be no competition so as to avoid any counter-productive duplication. The minister himself said that the aim is complementarity. He is offered a chance to consolidate this complementarity and out of hand he rejects the notion of respecting the priorities of the Government of Quebec. Whatever the government thinks, the witnesses who came to the committee should have been heard. Mr. Jean-Claude Beauchemin, the mayor of Rouyn-Noranda said, “Given the nature of the Agency proposed in Bill C-9, we fear that there may be a strong centralization of this process and a breakdown of the mutual consultation mechanisms ”.

Others have said, “We plan to create a department, but there are no mechanisms for cooperation among federal departments, throughout Canada or between provinces and regions.” And we have also heard people say, “Economic development agencies do not have a board of directors, and therefore they are unable to bring together the stakeholders to discuss the issues in regional initiatives.”

My time is running out, but I would have other comments to make regarding witnesses. In view of this testimony, the problem I have with the government and the minister is that they missed the target when they refused, or failed, to consult the most important people, the people in the regions. They are the ones who, day in and day out since even before I was born, have been working for economic development. They bring focus to these debates and to the regional development approach. This is why we will vote against Bill C-9.

[Agriculture, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, two years after the American border closed to Canadian beef, we are still waiting for measures that will provide real aid to Quebec producers.

How does the minister explain the fact that the much promised aid has yet to materialize?

[Agriculture, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Fédération des producteurs de bovins du Québec estimates that Quebec producers have suffered $280 million in uncompensated losses since the mad cow crisis began. Michel Dessureault, the president of the federation, considers that the aid provided by this government does not meet Quebec's needs. Again this week, he stated that federal programs are not working. However, the purchase of the Colbex abattoir by producers would resolve the cull cow problem in Quebec.

When will the minister stop hiding behind the lack of flexibility of his programs in order to avoid doing his part to guarantee a floor price for cull cows?

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I expect my speech will be interrupted for members' statements.

I would like first to salute the people of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, especially those who work for regional economic development, including the officials of Canada Economic Development and the volunteers and officials of the CFDCs and the CLDs. A lot of people are working very hard for regional economic development.

Quebec's resource regions face major problems, specifically such important crises as those of softwood lumber and mad cow disease and the closures of plants in a number of sectors, such as textiles and aluminum. The origins of this bill have to be understood. Past regional economic development models generated employment. Raw materials could be collected and processed at full throttle. However, today, they are obsolete and should be thoroughly reviewed.

With this bill, a fine opportunity to visit the regions of Quebec, consult people working in regional development and elected officials has been missed. The government has created a structure but neglected the most important aspect, that of looking to see if today's tools are effective and will carry us through to the future.

I would also like to say that we have worked very hard on this bill. We thought we could improve the fate of the regions and substantially change this bill to benefit Quebec and the regions. I would also remind the minister and the government that, at no point, did we obstruct parliamentary proceedings in order to delay this bill. I recall that, for a month, we even discussed with colleagues from the other parties in order to negotiate amendments and proposals. This shows a clear desire, which is important, to look after regional development properly.

I can only regret certain statements by colleagues, among others, those of the member for Gatineau. At one point she said that our voting against the bill meant we had no concern for regional development. I think that in this House it is possible to have debates, oppose bills or try to improve them, but never would I say to any of my colleagues that they oppose regional development.

Currently, especially in resource regions such as mine, hard hit by various crises, petty politics would be counter productive. I would not dare do it. There is too much at stake.

I must say that the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C-9 today, for several reasons. One of those reasons is that the bill ignores some fundamental principles, such as respect for what is being done in terms of regional development, all across Quebec.

There is nothing to get excited about in this bill. It does nothing more than create a structure. I refer to the Department's own documents regarding the Economic Development Agency. When we ask what will be the impact of this bill on the environment, we are told that it does not make any changes to the agency’s role and places the emphasis on promotion, development and diversification. It is clearly stated that the bill will bring no change.

A little further in the same document, the question is asked in the following terms: will the agency act affect existing programs and, by extension, the clientele the agency serves? The answer is a clear no. The existing programs will remain in place and there will be no impact.

This means that even if the House does not pass this bill, there will continue to be some economic development. We as members and the regions will continue to get the money to which we are entitled. This money is in Ottawa. The agency may take credit for delivering it to regions, but it still is our money. It is money to which citizens are entitled and which must be returned to resource regions.

As we know, there has been much debate on this bill. Things have been said, work has been done. However, the important thing is that the Bloc Québécois has gained something. There is an important premise in the bill which is different than under the former agency, and it was essential we did not support it. It is the whole concept of designated areas. Let me explain.

Through an order in council, the minister could target a specific region by giving it priority because it is lagging behind in terms of employability, or at least economically. What does it mean, “the minister may, by order”? Does that mean that depending on his mood, whether he is politically sensitive to certain people or situations, he could target or prioritize one region over another?

We feel Canada Economic Development has to operate fairly. There has to be fair distribution of the money allocated and fair intervention methods in Quebec that are based on real needs. Where are these real needs? They are in the regions that are lagging behind in terms of employability, in regions that have lost many jobs or that have a high unemployment rate due to plant closures. Those are the true concerns. It absolutely should not have been left to the mood of this minister or this government. What is this, if not a lack of vision, or at least a flag waving extravaganza, or yet another attempt to buy Quebeckers with a rash of spending?

We are pleased because we fought the battle and won. In addition, all the witnesses agreed that this designated area concept was dangerous. You have to understand that there are many regions where balanced distribution of funding is needed. Abitibi cannot be chosen to the detriment of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, or Gaspé to the detriment of the North Shore, or Huntingdon, where they are in a crisis over the textile industry. There has to be a concern for fairness and loyalty toward these people who need it and who have contributed for years to creating this type of structure through the taxes they have paid.

Other points were raised in which we made gains. I want to commend the Conservative Party for working with us on this. We agreed that no spending should be announced during the election campaign. This kind of announcement left too much room for partisanship to the detriment of regional development. This issue was raised and agreed to. There will be no announcements during that period.

Officials in the regions need to have free reign in order to do their work without political obstruction.

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the minister. We have been working very hard on this bill to try to change and improve it. That being said, I would like the minister to provide me with an answer on one thing.

Currently, the existing economic development models in resource regions such as Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean must be reviewed. We must work on that. Until now, the government has undertaken, through a Quebec summit on regional economy, a reassessment of this whole approach to economic development. What we are hearing now deals with decentralization. We are talking about directly providing regions with financial means to take their destiny in their own hands.

Consequently, I would like the minister to tell me why he did not take advantage of this important bill — I know he has worked hard on this bill — to tour the regions and have consultations with the economic development leaders. I think this government missed a great opportunity.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 19th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, our region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean was hard hit in recent years by major crises such as the softwood lumber dispute and the mad cow crisis. Now, we have to set about reorganizing the economic structure of the large and major businesses in the area, which are producing twice as much but creating half as many jobs. I cannot see the people of my region supporting this budget, in light of these harsh realities and this government's insensitivity.

I would like know what my hon. colleague's perception of these realities is. He too is from a major resource area, namely Abitibi-Témiscamingue. I would like him to share his thoughts about this insensitivity of the federal government to resource areas like ours.

[Petitions, March 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I hereby table a petition on behalf of constituents in my riding. This petition expresses their opposition to Bill C-38.

[Patro de Jonquière, March 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the extraordinary support provided by a community agency in my riding called the Patro de Jonquière.

This community support and recreation centre for youth has been around for almost 60 years, and hundreds of volunteers have worked there over the years to provide our young people with a wide range of activities to help them develop their full potential.

This centre also offers adults and seniors an opportunity to participate in social and recreational activities. The Patro provides invaluable services to our people.

In acknowledging the excellent work of the Patro de Jonquière volunteers, I want to take this opportunity to underscore the importance of volunteering in the development of our communities and the limited resources we have to support it.

Once again, bravo to the Patro de Jonquière.

[Supply, February 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. Other hon. members have also addressed this question of the involvement of other partners with regard to these amounts.

I would like to get back to the essence of the issue. What is important for this House is that we have oversight, that we can follow the way this money is allocated and find out how it is used.

Perhaps we can see certain problems, and perhaps we will have an opportunity later to exchange ideas on the tangible form this audit may take. Here again, I make no claim to being an expert or doing the work of an auditor.

Still, what we need here in this House is reassurance. The sums of money involved may be large, as I said earlier. We are talking about billions of dollars. The important thing is that we know what the money is used for and that it can be audited under the auspices of the Auditor General.