France Bonsant

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, June 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise today in this House to offer my full and complete support to my riding neighbour, the member for Sherbrooke. I want to point out just how important it is for Motion No. 288 to be passed by this House in order to ensure the economic development of the regions of Quebec.

With the way the Quebec economic model has developed, not-for-profit organizations have played and will continue to play a central and crucial role. To my way of thinking, it is clearly the duty of this House to do everything to ensure the survival of the not-for-profit economic development organizations. It is our role as parliamentarians to ensure that these bodies have all the resources and means they need to carry out their role properly. For these reasons, I enthusiastically support Motion No. 288. I am totally convinced that funding for not-for-profit organizations must be fully restored.

As we know, the Bloc Québécois firmly opposed the cuts affecting the not-for-profit bodies funded by the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. These cuts threaten the economic model developed by Quebec over decades. The Bloc therefore calls for an immediate, integral and indefinite return of funding for these not-for-profit organizations through the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

It is important to understand that these not-for-profit organizations are bodies helping small and medium business to innovate and to explore outside markets. Over time, they have become an essential link in the local economic fabric in many regions in Quebec.

Surprised by the defensive response to its initial decision to cut funding to the not-for-profit organizations, the government issued a guideline that took effect on November 22, 2007. The minister at the time reiterated his intention to abolish funding of the operating costs of the ongoing activities of the organizations, but offered them a transition period ending March 31, 2010. However, in order to obtain this temporary funding, a not-for-profit organization had to put forward a serious transition plan showing how it intended to replace the agency’s financial assistance for its operating costs after that date. The wording was condescending and arrogant, members will agree.

All other projects with any hope for funding had to be ad hoc in nature, of limited, well-defined duration, and directly in line with CED priorities. As these priorities are not explicitly defined, we can be sure that the government wanted to provide funding piecemeal to specific projects probably selected arbitrarily and on the spur of the moment according to the whim of the minister on a given day. We call this a narrow and simplistic view of regional economic development.

That being said, while the new guideline provided no economic advantage to the people of Quebec, it did provide political advantages to the government and the minister. But in reality, people did not buy it. The future of many organizations was in doubt. Organizations such as Montréal International, PÔLE Québec Chaudière-Appalaches, the Technopole maritime du Québec, based in Rimouski, the Technopole de la Vallée du Saint-Maurice, the Wind Energy TechnoCentre in the Gaspé and the Centre de recherche Les Buissons in Pointe-aux-Outardes will all be in danger if these grants stop coming.

Whatever the size or focus of the individual organizations, most were created out of the desire of the regions and the Government of Quebec to support promising small businesses and help small and medium-sized businesses invest in innovation and explore foreign markets.

For several years, Quebec's regional investment strategy has been based on the development of distinctive industrial sectors. Thus, Quebec has focused on the development of marine sciences in the Lower St. Lawrence region, the wind power industry in the Gaspé, and aluminum processing in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region.

Also, Quebec has based its development policies on the growth of networks of centres of excellence. These research centres, subsidized in part by Economic Development Canada, are working in these niche areas in partnership with small and medium-sized business. For some of these organizations, funding from the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec made up as much as 50% of their budgets. For example, the corporation providing technological support to small and medium-sized businesses in eastern Quebec and on the North Shore stands to lose the $400,000 in support it used to receive every year.

Many ongoing or upcoming projects may have to be postponed or cancelled for lack of funding. The fact is that this measure is a direct threat to the operation and very existence of some of these organizations involved in regional development.

Many large and small economic stakeholders in Quebec have vigorously condemned this measure, which would eliminate all direct subsidies by March 31, 2010. For instance, the Specialty Vehicles and Transportation Equipment Manufacturers’ Association, the Quebec Aerospace Association, the Montreal Council on Foreign Relations, the Fédération des Chambres de commerce du Québec, Sous-traitance industrielle Québec and the Manufacturiers et Exportateurs du Québec sent joint letters of protest to the minister on February 28 and April 1, 2008.

This decision is equally objectionable to the Government of Quebec, which helps fund those organizations. Thus, in an interview with Radio-Canada, the Quebec minister of economic development, Raymond Bachand, took a clear stand against the minister's decision, describing it as ideological and disdainful.

On June 10, 2008, Quebec City's mayor, Régis Labeaume, spoke out publicly against the minister's initiative during a joint press conference with Raymond Bachand, Christian Goulet, vice-president of the Quebec City Chamber of Commerce, Paul-Arthur Huot, president and CEO of PÔLE Québec Chaudière-Appalaches, and Jean-Yves Roy, president and CEO of the National Optics Institute. The City of Montreal has also expressed its opposition to the minister's decision.

Faced with such an outcry, the Conservative government did a bit of a turnabout by unveiling, in March 2009, CED's “new policy” concerning not-for-profit economic organizations in Quebec. This policy, which was presented as a new initiative created by the government, merely restores, partially and temporarily, the program that was cut in April 2007.

I took note of the minister's about-face, which will mean that not-for-profit organizations will once again be able to rely on federal support for their current operations, but I have serious doubts about the associated terms and conditions.

First of all, the “new” funding is for a probationary period ending March 31, 2011. Having already announced in 2007 the possibility for not-for-profit organizations to extend their funding until March 31, 2010, this is in reality just another extension of one year only. Upon expiry, these organizations will find themselves back at square one, with no funding, and hence possibly in danger.

What is more, only 52 of the 200 Quebec not-for-profit organizations that were eligible prior to November 2007 will be able to apply for temporary federal support. In other words, three-quarters of the development agencies are being abandoned right away.

The obvious conclusion is that this latest government announcement is little more than a smoke screen, a way to stifle the criticism erupting from all parts of Quebec against the elimination of funding for these not-for-profit organizations. The real solution, the one proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, is to restore funding for non-profit economic organizations and immediately pass Motion No. 288.

[Sylvie Harvey, May 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on May 7, the seventh edition of Soirée Aequitas was held at the Hôtellerie Le Boulevard in Sherbrooke. The event was organized by a group called Promotion des Estriennes pour initier une nouvelle équité sociale (PEPINES) to highlight the contributions of women, men and organizations to equal representation of women in decision-making positions in the Eastern Townships. Pauline Marois, the first woman to lead the official opposition in Quebec, was the honorary chair of the event.

Sylvie Harvey, chief administrative officer of the RCM of Coaticook, was honoured for her contribution to the advancement of women in decision-making positions. Sylvie Harvey was the first female director of the local development centre in the RCM of Coaticook. She gained experience as the development commissioner before being appointed CAO of the RCM of Coaticook. Sylvie Harvey richly deserves this honour, and today I would like to take this opportunity to salute her pioneering spirit.

[Canadian Lavender Producer, May 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the tourism industry's 2009 Mercuriades gala was held on May 21 at the Montreal conference centre. Bleu Lavande was named SME of the year and also received an award in the SME market development category.

Perched atop Applegrove Hill in the quaint town of Fitch Bay in the southern part of my riding, the Bleu Lavande estate is the only Canadian producer of internationally certified lavender. Founded in 1999, the company has developed a new kind of expertise in Quebec over the years, an industry that would seem to be at odds with the local climate. Specialists consulted before the project got off the ground were unanimous in their opinion that it would fail miserably.

Today I would like to salute the founders, Christine Deschenes and Pierre Pellerin, and sincerely congratulate the entire Bleu Lavande team.

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, I will talk quickly about organic products.

More and more, farms in Quebec are producing organic products. The government has unveiled a new logo for organic products and a standard Canada Organic Regime designation, but certified products from other countries will be allowed to use the same logo as Canadian organic products.

Will the minister go back to the drawing board and come up with a proper policy so that consumers are no longer misled and we do justice to Quebec producers?

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, I remember that the committee asked the minister if the government intended to hire inspectors. He said yes. The committee wanted to know how many inspectors were to be hired and where they were to be posted. The members even asked for a list.

The minister has not yet provided that list. Can the minister provide the list of people hired? I am not interested in their names or their salaries; I want to know where they are posted. Are there more of them in Winnipeg, in Montreal or in Ontario? It would be interesting to find out if there are enough inspectors to make sure that we do not have another listeriosis outbreak.

People died. My colleague, Francine Lalonde, caught listeriosis in hospital and, since I quite like her, I would not want her to join the ranks of the 20 dead.

That is why it is so important for the minister to tell us that he hired inspectors and that they are on site, competent and doing good work.

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, I asked the minister the question because it has to do with agriculture. As we know, agriculture has seen a number of crises involving pork, beef and so on. This woman does not want to be at the mercy of a crisis involving rabbits.

I would like to come back to the listeriosis crisis in Quebec and the importation of contaminated cheese.

Can the minister verify that no cases of listeriosis P93 were confirmed outside of Quebec?

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, speaking of rabbits, I contacted the minister's office. It is convenient, since the Minister of National Revenue is also the Minister of State (Agriculture).

A rabbit producer filed her tax return in 2006. She received money from the Canadian farm families options program. In 2007, she earned the same income, but she indicated she had $100,000 in RRSPs. She did not take the money out of the RRSPs; she had simply worked hard to save that amount. The Canada Revenue Agency, however, refused to help her with any form of compensation through the Canadian farm families options program.

She has been fighting for it for a year and a half. They have been arguing back and forth. Although she had earned $100,000 and put that money into RRSPs, what does that have to do with the Canadian farm families options program, knowing that she did not earn any more in 2007 than she did in 2006? Could you help this woman and ask the Canada Revenue Agency to review her application so she may be compensated, as in past years?

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, I will have to ask longer questions so that he has enough time to respond properly.

I would like to return to the issue of specified risk materials. Earlier, we were talking about Colbex and $50 million for slaughterhouses. In my riding, the loveliest in the world, there is a rabbit producer who has to drive 12 hours in his truck to have his rabbits slaughtered. When they get there, they are stressed out and their fur is standing on end.

Does the minister think it makes sense to have to drive that many kilometres to slaughter rabbits when $50 million has been promised to renovate, refurbish and build new Colbexes? If we do not have the facilities to slaughter these animals, will we not become more and more dependent on the United States?

I am a strong advocate of food sovereignty. I think that if we want to work toward food sovereignty, we have to look to ourselves, not our neighbours.

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, we must not be talking to the same producers. Local producers involved in secondary and tertiary transformation are not in favour of the 98% rule. They say that, with such a high cut-off, they have no reason to use Canadian products. It is a vicious circle. If they have to buy cheaper products from outside Canada, that affects Canada's entire agricultural economy.

Is the minister aware that these regulations that are supposed to support Canadian products will do exactly the opposite? Has he considered that from the perspective of the Canadian and Quebec economy?

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, the lady in question will be pleased with this answer because she has been seeking compensation for two years. The federal authorities and the Financière agricole du Québec have always been at loggerheads. Everyone passes the buck and no one wants to deal with the problem. I thank the minister, as we will now solve the problem.

The minister spoke earlier about products with 98% Canadian content. When I was on the committee, even though I am not a farmer, I asked the chair whether sugar cane is grown in Canada. She answered that all sugar is imported from Cuba. The minister tells me that there is sugar in Alberta. I hope it is not oil sands sugar. She told me that sugar cane is not grown in Canada. That is why the 98% rule is not acceptable. I remember that in committee even the Conservatives voted for the 85% rule.

Why stubbornly refuse to accept the 85% rule, as recommended in committee, rather than the 98% rule?