Richard Nadeau

[September 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this just goes to show once again that they do not understand anything. When we talk about the 75:25 ratio, we are talking about jobs, not buildings. The research centres come under the National Research Council of Canada. The government needs to stop denying the truth once and for all. There are no federal research centres in Gatineau, but there are 27 in Ottawa. And those 27 research centres are served by 200 small and medium-sized businesses in Ottawa.

Federal goods and services procurement breaks down to 1.4% for Gatineau and 98.6% for Ottawa. When it comes to Canadian Heritage funding for festivals, 3% goes to Gatineau and 97% to Ottawa. The federal government refused to provide financial support for L'Outaouais en fête.

Given all this, including the fact that for 27 years we have been waiting for the Science and Technology Museum in Gatineau, it can hardly be said that Gatineau is treated equitably.

[September 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in 1983, the Canadian government made a formal commitment to fairly distribute federal government jobs between Ottawa and Gatineau. It committed to establishing 25% of federal jobs on the Gatineau side, and the other 75% on the Ottawa side. This was calculated on a per capita basis.

This type of balance would make it possible to share the wealth between Gatineau and Ottawa.

Thus, the City of Gatineau could collect the municipal taxes that would result from the 6,218 extra jobs it is entitled to. People would move to Gatineau. This would be in addition to the revenue from municipal taxes from the federal buildings that would be built in Gatineau for those extra federal employees to work in. More Quebeckers from Gatineau would work in their own city. With respect to the environment and car traffic, there would be less north-south traffic on the bridges crossing the beautiful Ottawa River.

Since 1983, we have been short of the mark. Little concrete action has been taken to establish a balance between the two cities. In 2007, the distribution was still just as unfair to Gatineau, since the federal government job rate in Gatineau was only 20%, which is 5% short. We are talking about 6,218 federal jobs in Gatineau.

When we talk about federal jobs, we mean all federal employees in departments, government agencies and crown corporations.

The 1983 promise goes back to the days of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, over a quarter of a century ago.

When it comes to this important issue, we must continually point out that the 25:75 ratio applies to jobs, not federal buildings, as the current Conservative minister responsible for the Outaouais, the member for Pontiac, would have us believe.

Maria Fitzpatrick, Public Service Alliance of Canada Regional Executive Vice-President for the National Capital Region agrees. This is what she said in Le Droit on April 27, 2009:

What the government said [in 1983], and what then became a commitment on the part of each successive government, was that one federal government job in four had to be on the Quebec side to ensure balanced economic development on both sides of the Ottawa River.

Warehouses are all well and good, but the real goal is jobs because they create a ripple effect in the regional economy...

There is still work to be done...

We are concerned about the Conservative minister responsible for the Outaouais, the member for Pontiac, because his flip-flops and hesitations will probably cause senior managers to think that the status quo with respect to allocation of office space is fine.

Gatineau's economy is entitled to its fair share of economic spin-off from the federal government's activities. The Conservative minister responsible for the Outaouais, the member for Pontiac, should acknowledge that and make sure everyone knows it.

It is clear that the federal government has not always kept its promise, nor is it doing so now.

[Employment Insurance Act, September 17th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member who is boasting about his party.

How can he stand here today giving advice on employment insurance? We know that when the Liberals were in power, they squandered the money of workers and took more than $50 billion. That was not the government's money; it belonged to workers and employers. The Liberals took this money to pay down the massive federal government debt. Not even Mulroney's previous Conservative government did that. It did not have the audacity to take money from workers and employers in a misguided effort to run the country. It continued to run the country without taking money from workers.

Today, I would like to know how he can rise in this House and tell us he has recommendations, when the Jean Chrétien government, with finance minister Paul Martin, squandered the money of workers? What nerve. Shame on him.

[Official Languages, September 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, five months before the opening of the 2010 Olympic Winter Games in Vancouver, the Commissioner of Official Languages is concerned about the ability of the federal government and the organizing committee to provide services in French.

The ten or so federal institutions evaluated in today's report have shown “dismal results”, according to Graham Fraser. Of the points of service under airport authority responsibility that are designated as bilingual, only 10% are bilingual.

What is this government waiting for to fulfill its legal obligations to francophones?

[June 18th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, what does the federal government do about this? It moves its Gatineau Office of Small and Medium Enterprises from the sixth floor to the basement of Phase III, in Gatineau. How pathetic.

As well as the matter of goods and services contracts, there are other inequities. We have been waiting since 1983 for 25:75 equity. This means a shortfall of over 6,000 federal jobs in Gatineau. There is no federal research centre on the Gatineau side, but 27 of them in Ottawa. Those 27 centres are complemented by 200 SMEs, but there is nothing in Gatineau. As for festival funding, the Department of Canadian Heritage injects 3% of regional funding into the Gatineau region, as opposed to 97% into Ottawa.

One just needs to call to mind the federal refusal of any funding for Outaouais en fête. What is more, Gatineau was promised the Museum of Science and Technology 23 years ago, and Gatineau has been waiting 13 years for phase two of the National Archives' Gatineau Preservation Centre . And when will there be any ongoing funding for the Language Technologies Research Centre in Gatineau?

All of these examples are proof that the federal government has no respect for Gatineau.

[June 18th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, in 2008, the federal government awarded contracts for goods and services worth $3 billion to suppliers in the national capital region.

Only $38 million, or 1.4%, was awarded to Gatineau companies, whereas 98.6% was awarded to Ottawa companies. This situation is unacceptable and scandalous. It is unfair.

Gatineau companies are even opening offices in Ottawa so that they show up on the federal radar. It works for some.

When I reported this problem to the Minister of Public Works, Michael Fortier, at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates on April 24, 2007, he could not believe it and said, “In fact, it would be unacceptable to force people to move, to change postal codes, in order to be taken into consideration.” And yet, the situation has not changed.

In 2005, Gatineau received only 0.9% of these contracts; in 2006, only 1.8%; in 2007, 2.1%; and in 2008, 1.4%. And yet Gatineau and Ottawa are separated by only a river, not an ocean or a continent.

The Mayor of Gatineau, Marc Bureau, finds this situation unacceptable. Speaking to a coalition of businesspeople on February 6, 2008, he said, “This situation is not normal...Our companies are getting only 2% of $2 billion in total spending. Something must be done.”

Even worse, the federal government itself is competing with contractors from Gatineau. I am thinking of Traduction Houle inc., a Gatineau company that employs 40 people. This company, which was created in 1981, has seen its sales to the federal government decline every year since 2004. Traduction Houle cannot understand why the government's Translation Bureau is competing unfairly with private enterprise.

The federal government takes the vast majority of translation contracts, without a competitive process, and goes to small and medium-sized translation firms for its human resources.

What is more, these small and medium-sized companies have to go through a long and complicated contracting process that adds considerably to their administrative burden. For example, here are some data for 2007-08 on money that went to the Translation Bureau compared to the private sector.

The Department of Transport paid the Translation Bureau $5 million for translation services, compared to $700,000 to the private sector; the Canadian Food Inspection Agency paid $4 million to the Translation Bureau, compared to $300,000 to the private sector; and Foreign Affairs and International Trade paid $7 million to the Translation Bureau, compared to $700,000 to the private sector.

But there are solutions, such as informing suppliers of all the officials who have the authority to award goods and services contracts valued at less than $25,000 and construction contracts valued at less than $100,000; using the agreement on internal trade, which allows a specific policy for a region; or supporting not-for-profit organizations with an economic mandate, in order to help SMEs win federal contracts. Consider Solutions Antenne in Gatineau.

What is the federal government doing to address this situation? It is moving its office to help SMEs from the sixth floor to the ground floor—

[Action Plan for the National Capital Commission, June 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, that is the reason we want Bill C-37 to be referred to committee. We want the legislation to include guarantees, and we want the land in Gatineau Park to be protected to the same extent as the integrity of Quebec's territory, for which the National Assembly of Quebec and the City of Gatineau are responsible.

The committee will have to work very hard to ensure that such protection is in place.

[Action Plan for the National Capital Commission, June 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, since I have lived in both Saskatoon and Regina, cities that have ring roads, I think it is an excellent idea. In fact, ring roads help unclog the cities. They also give better access to specific areas of the city.

However, I will start by addressing the first point. The National Capital Commission presented three possibilities: a bridge linking the Canotek industrial park on the Ontario side with the Gatineau airport; another possibility with Lorrain Boulevard on the Gatineau side; and also Kettle Island around Manor Park on the other side of the river.

Since 1951-52 when the Gréber plan was implemented, Gatineau has worked towards building a bridge at Kettle Island. Unfortunately, the City of Ottawa has not done its part.

Where does that leave us? We will have to wait three or four years to see how things will turn out. Nonetheless, the bridge issue is fundamental, and we must consider the work done by the people of Gatineau and the Quebec ministry of transportation to widen Montée Paiement Boulevard in order to build a bridge at Kettle Island. We must remember that this work has been done. We know that it is currently being examined as one of the options for a future bridge.

That said, it is smart to think about a ring road. It is a way to get around. But we must look at the work done by the different partners, since there are a number of partners in this project.

[Action Plan for the National Capital Commission, June 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the New Democratic Party for his question. Certainly, people have been asking for this for a very long time. Taxpayers' money should be spent fairly by the federal government. That is a basic principle. In the Gatineau-Ottawa region, there must be a 25/75 distribution if we are to reflect the population distribution fairly. We know that 25% of the population of the greater federal capital region is in Gatineau and 75% is in Ottawa. We do not want more than that, but we certainly do not want less. This is very important in the case of the National Capital Commission.

A great deal of Quebec land has been included. That is very important. The environmental aspect is also important. We are in favour, but the environmental laws of Quebec must be respected.

Let me come back to the topic of highway development. When the building of new bridges is considered, where the two cities, the governments of Ontario and Quebec, the federal government as well as the National Capital Commission are involved, the process is very cumbersome. With coordination, we can usually get results.

[Action Plan for the National Capital Commission, June 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I salute my colleague from Ottawa—Vanier, who was once president of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa, where I also was a student and where I also tried to be elected, a few years after his mandate, not as president, but as a member of the executive. Although I lost the election at the time, I am happy that we can both be members of Parliament here today. Therefore, I salute my colleague, who is originally from Mattawa.

Here is my answer to his very pertinent question. To begin with, land use in Quebec is a matter for the National Assembly of Quebec to decide. Also, the City of Gatineau knows best how the land should be used in the interest of all of its population. I agree that there can be some degree of coordination due to the creation of the National Capital Commission, which was in 1959, the year I was born. Cohesion and coordination always are useful.

Now, we must never forget, and this element is missing from the bill, that the integrity of the Quebec territory must be respected.