House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 23% of the vote.
Aerospace Industry November 26th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport, who is never short on demagogic rhetoric, claims that returning 11,000 acres of land to Mirabel farmers would jeopardize Bombardier's development. This is false. Bombardier has enough space to build its new aircraft in Mirabel, if it so wishes.
The real threat to Bombardier is a lack of federal assistance to help it develop its new aircraft in Quebec. What is the Minister of Industry waiting for to act?
Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act November 5th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, my answer will be brief.
It is obvious that the same structure is being maintained. But the important point is that it will create a department, with a minister who is responsible, who, in any case, will politicize the whole federal approach even more, which will only complicate all negotiations and collaboration that may be happening with the various levels of government.
Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act November 5th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
Indeed, I think that we must be positive in the action that we take as members of Parliament. When we work within a well established system, we must of course cooperate as much as possible to achieve common goals. I commend him for applying this principle.
Personally, since I am a new member of Parliament, I still have not had many opportunities to cooperate with my provincial counterpart, but this is already a given. We will have good cooperation.
That being said, however, this is not a reason to agree to such an intrusion in an official way, let alone through the approval of the bill. Despite all the goodwill of my colleague, he must admit that, with regard to regional economic development, there are certainly several public servants and a budget behind all this. They must analyze and coordinate the action of both governments so that they do not impede on each other.
Despite all the goodwill to cooperate that might exist, this would still not be efficient, because we would create a duplication of public servants and joint responsibilities, which would make this system more costly. Anyway, in most cases, there is no cooperation and, in the end, decisions do not necessarily meet the real needs of the people, because each government holds tight to its own projects and priorities, despite all the goodwill on both sides.
Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act November 5th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a short statement, something I had not planned at the outset. Due to the importance of the topic we are debating today, it seems a good idea to me to express my opinion on the bill.
I am an engineer by trade and I have 40 years of experience. I therefore have a logical mind; I calculate things and the value of decisions. But I have always been a committed man, a citizen committed in his community and concerned about decisions made by the various governments. That is why I find it very important today to tell you that I am against the bill.
It is not because I am against Canada, contrary to what a colleague opposite stated yesterday, in saying that the Bloc Québécois was against Canada. Our position is not against Canada. We want the two governments to spend our money as effectively as possible. This is really the position I want to express. It is not about competition, about determining the better of the two. It is not about lumping them together and letting them fight it out to try and make just about everybody happy. That's the way to waste our money. It goes without saying that our general level of taxation in Quebec is much higher than that of North America as a whole. There is a link with all those decisions.
Regional development policy is a very complex issue. Significant structures must be put in place in every region to monitor the needs of the regions and make the choices that will help them. We must not be partisan and say that we will fund a project because it is presented by friends or people we know, and that will please them. The important role the government must play is to be non partisan and understand the needs of each region. Members are aware of the fact that their region must be developed to the maximum, regardless of their political stripes.
This is why the Quebec government put in place a regional development structure that has already proven to be very efficient. As I said earlier, I found odious that members mention a fiasco of the Quebec government without talking about all its successes. It is out of line with the discussion we are having today. I do not believe that we are out to prove the Quebec government is incompetent and hence the reason for the Canadian government's getting involved in the area. In politics everyone tries to make the best possible decisions. Mistakes are always possible, and it is important to recognize it and change tack.
I would like the government, instead of putting forward this bill, to further officialize its involvement in an area where the Quebec government is already involved by having a minister in charge of this agency. Such a move would further politicize the whole issue of duplication. For that reason, we are opposed to the bill, not because we are against regional development, since we really need it.
What we are lacking in Quebec is money. We have been saying it for a long time. There is too much money in Ottawa and not enough in the provinces. It is that money we need. The current government should instead put forward a bill to transfer to the Quebec government the money it usually allocates or is trying to allocate to regional development. That way, the Quebec government could do a better job.
Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act November 5th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis on the whole list of the government's investment projects in various regions. At first glance, this looks quite interesting. However, given the scope of the needs, it should be possible to invest in various areas. The problem is to invest in the really useful sectors that truly reflect the region's needs.
Earlier, the hon. member for Beauce told me that it was important to have competition and that the Quebec government should not be left on its own. I am surprised to hear such a reply from the government. Does this mean that the Canadian government sees itself as being in competition with the Quebec government? Are the projects they choose to support competing with those of Quebec or, in their minds, more successful, more important for the population of the region? Or is it simply that the Canadian government does not believe that the Quebec government is effective?
Earlier, the Gaspesia fiasco was used as an example to explain the lack of importance of the Quebec government in regional development. I think the federal government would be well-advised not to elaborate too much on fiascos for which it is responsible. Take, for instance, the case of Mirabel, which is a monumental fiasco in which billions of dollars were invested. And what about the sponsorship scandal, which is truly a fiasco created by the whole government bureaucracy?
So, I wonder if the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis could comment on the role of a second government regarding the same regional development issues.
Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act November 5th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the comments of my hon. colleague for Beauce. I find the various regional development possibilities quite interesting. I believe we are all aware of the tremendous needs all over Quebec. Earlier on, my colleague for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine made us aware of the various needs in her region.
The problem at present is one of duplication, since the Quebec government already has an effective regional development policy, and what is stopping that policy from reaching its full potential is the present lack of funding to adequately meet all needs.
I see this as an illustration of fiscal imbalance. With all the surplus money in Ottawa—we learnt recently that the surplus for last year was almost $10 billion—it is tempting for the government to move into areas which are already under the responsibility of the provinces and create a second body at some cost to Canadian taxpayers.
When I stop to think of the number of civil servants it takes to properly manage a new regional development policy, over and above one which is already in place in Quebec, I do believe that this is not an efficient way to spend our money.
Finally, this is clear proof of fiscal imbalance as it presently exists. The fact is that if we were forced to tightly manage taxpayers' dollars, the government would hardly consider setting up a body which simply duplicates what is already there.
I therefore turn to my colleague for Beauce and ask him to explain how he can deny that what we have is a continuing fiscal imbalance which allows his government to get involved in areas where Quebec is already present.
Veterans Week November 5th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, in this Veterans' Week, I wish to draw attention to the fact that this year marks the 60th anniversary of the Italian campaign, which took place from 1943 to 1945.
Close to 100,000 of our brave compatriots were involved in this campaign. Allied troops landed in Sicily in 1943, where they had to contend with the dust and heat and the mountainous terrain in order to reach the towns and villages of Italy. Let us remember today the sacrifices made by these heroes who served their country and the cause of human rights and freedom. I salute them all.
As hon. members are aware, a number of my constituents in the riding of Alfred-Pellan are originally from Italy. They have come to realize how staunchly we defend the values we hold dear, and together we shall build a better future for Quebec. I am proud of their contribution to our society and very grateful as well.
Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act October 27th, 2004
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for his interesting presentation on the Tlicho nation. As he clearly explained, the Bloc Québécois supports this bill.
Personally, I am very proud to see that the government is prepared to recognize the self-government of a people that has its own identity, language and culture. However, I am not so proud of this same government, which illegally influenced the results of the 1995 referendum on Quebec's sovereignty. I hope that this initiative will make all Canadians reflect on the assistance that Canada can bring to various cultures and to their recognition.
In my opinion, no nation can thrive while refusing to recognize the identity of others. We cannot all be identical, live in the same mould and speak the same language. That is not the way to build a nation. When identities are clearly recognized, the result is a unity of thought that is far better than the dominance of a majority.
So, it is my hope that this initiative will convince all Canadians to accept the fact that Quebeckers too are different, and that Canada will respect the process and the outcome of a future referendum in Quebec.
Canada Shipping Act October 15th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for highlighting the different mandates that may be given to the Coast Guard and that are currently deficient in terms of their implementation.
My colleague from Ottawa—Orléans mentioned earlier that the government was seriously examining the unanimous report of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I urge the government to examine this report as soon as possible and to replace the current project as quickly as possible. Indeed, this project seems pointless, because virtually no comment would support it. I recommend instead that the government introduce a bill that would improve the Coast Guard mandates by following the unanimous and very serious recommendations regarding our environment and the protection of all Canadian coasts.
Canada Shipping Act October 15th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I listened with pleasure to the comments by the hon. member for Halifax, as she described the beauty of Sable Island and the importance of preserving its environment. I share her concerns.
Still, the departmental presentation of the bill correctly says that there will be no fundamental change made to the legislation, that the rules remain the same, and that the powers and duties of the minister remain the same as well.
Thus, I do not see how my hon. colleague can support this bill since it sorts out nothing in the end. It answers none of our concerns, from the protection of Sable Island to many other issues.