Debates of Feb. 28th, 2002

Privilege

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I made it clear, and I am not insensitive to the timing issue, but my read of the precedents in these sorts of issues is that I have a responsibility to bring it before the House at the earliest opportunity. I qualified that with the notion that I have absolutely no objection to this issue being dealt with at another time. Certainly the people mentioned should be present. I just felt I needed to get it in the parliamentary queue.

On the other point about the committee dealing with this, I would suggest that this is a separate question of privilege. It should be introduced in the House. That is the appropriate forum for it. The committee does not decide these issues; the House decides these issues.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that I have acted appropriately by bringing it to your attention at this time and in this way.

[The Speaker]

The Chair appreciates, as always, the comments made by the members on this matter.

I agree with the hon. member for Okanagan--Shuswap that his colleagues who have been named in the question of privilege raised by the parliamentary secretary ought to have an opportunity to respond. Of course the Chair is most willing, and anxious indeed, to hear from them on this point.

I will consider the matter closed for the moment until we have an opportunity for them to come to the House. I appreciate the argument made by the parliamentary secretary that he has raised this at the earliest opportunity as required by the rules. That is why he has raised it today. We will hear more on the point, I am sure. I intend to do so whenever we are able to arrange for the hon. members involved to make their points. We will hear from them.

Therefore for the moment the matter is closed and we will proceed with the business before the House, namely private members' business.

Economic development

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 217

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should introduce legislation to put in place a federal economic development initiative for the regions of Abitibi, Lac-St-Jean-Saguenay, James Bay, Nunavik, the North Shore, the Gaspé and the Îles de la Madeleine.

During the last federal election, I declared the following to the population and the media, and I quote:

A new federal economic development initiative should be put in place by Industry Canada in northern Quebec, along the lines of FEDNOR in northern Ontario and ACOA in the Atlantic region.

The mandate would be to promote economic growth, diversification, jobs creation and long term autonomy for communities in northern Quebec, in co-operation with community partners and other organizations, in order to improve access to capital, to information and to markets.

The new agency's mandate would be to improve the economy of the various communities in northern Quebec by encouraging the start up of businesses and the creation of job opportunities in Abitibi, James Bay, Nunavik and Témiscamingue.

Later, when the House reconvened after the election campaign, in January or February 2001, I moved Motion M-217.

When he was in New Brunswick 15 days ago, the federal Minister of Finance and member for LaSalle--Émard said to the population that his next budget would contain specific new measures for the economic development of large urban centres and regions. He also said that it was the Canadian government's responsibility to create infrastructure and development programs but that their implementation would be based on local initiatives.

Since the election campaign, in 2001, and mainly this year, following the statements by the Minister of Finance, I anticipated this initiative thanks to messages from people in our region.

For years, I have been asking in this House, in the caucus of the Liberal Party of Canada and the Quebec Liberal caucus, as well as elsewhere in Ottawa, Abitibi, James Bay and Nunavik, for a better quality of life on behalf on the residents of resource based regions.

The Minister of Finance said that it would be up to the people living in those regions to get their message across. Since the people living in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, James Bay and Nunavik are ready, I want to pass on the following messages, which are dated.

On November 29, 2001, the Val-d'Or Chamber of Commerce, through its president, Jacques Talbot, wrote the former Minister of National Revenue and Secretary of State for Economic Development Canada, the Liberal member for Outremont. In this letter, the Chamber of Commerce wrote as follows:

The executive of the Val-d'Or Chamber of Commerce is writing this letter in order to request that you give special consideration to the regions of Abitibi-Témiscamingue and northern Quebec and give serious thought to the possibility of taking energetic steps to revive the economy of these regions.

Even the Val-d'Or Chamber of Commerce received the virtual message from the Minister of Finance on Valentine's Day, in which he made the statement in New Brunswick that in the next budget it would be necessary to make a distinction between urban centres and the regions.

Continuing with the letter:

We realize that you are aware that Abitibi-Témiscamingue is going through an extremely difficult time: very high unemployment rate, brain drain, our young people moving away, weakness of the natural resource sector and so on. You have also been made aware, during your frequent trips through the region, of the efforts being made by local and regional leaders who are taking many steps to diversify and revive our economy.

The Val-d'Or Chamber of Commerce wishes to see the creation of a federal economic development initiative for Abitibi-Témiscamingue and northern Quebec. Its mandate would be to promote economic growth, diversification, job creation, and the long term autonomy of this part of the province of Quebec.

Like FedNor or ACOA, such an agency could address such issues as connectivity, innovation, trade, specific investment programs, entrepreneurship, skill upgrading, community economic development, access to capital and information, community partnerships, while reflecting the hard work and the determination of the people of Abitibi-Témiscamingue and northern Quebec to succeed and prosper in the regions.

These are letters from the local people, bearing a message for their MP. They are telling him, “You need to pass this message on to the Government of Canada”.

In that same letter, Mr. Talbot wrote:

We know that the federal economic development initiative for northern Ontario is constantly expanding in terms of developing new programs, introducing new partners and increasing funding for Ontario's northern communities. FedNor is directly investing over $45 million annually, through programs and services that provide economic benefits to northern communities, in addition to another $18 million through the provincial network of Community Futures Development Corporations.

He goes on to say:

Rest assured that the Val d'Or chamber of commerce is pleased with the success of the federal economic development initiative for northern Ontario and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, since their creation, in 1987. However, we are firmly convinced that the Abitibi-Témiscamingue and its population, which is known for its determination and its reputation as builders, as well as the population of northern region of the province, deserve as much consideration on the part of the federal government.

I carry on with an excerpt from another letter dated January 21, 2002. This is getting close to Valentine's Day when the Minister of Finance said in the Atlantic region that “the next budget will make a distinction between major urban centres and regions”. This letter is from the new Mayor of Saint-Marc de Figuery, Gilles Corriveau, who wrote:

I will tell you that the economy is very depressed and fragile, the reason being that, in our region, mines are not doing well because of the price of gold. The lumber industry is in no better shape, because of the surtax imposed by our neighbours to the south.

Therefore, in our small municipality, we promote tourism and the construction of new houses on the shores of our lakes.

It is for these reasons that they want the federal government to get involved. I have another letter dated January 30, 2002—we are getting closer to February 14, when the federal Minister of Finance made his statement—from the Senneterre economic development corporation. It is signed by its president, Claude Castonguay. He says the following:

First, asking the federal government to initiate things, to develop strategies and to stimulate economic development in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue, perfectly reflects our organization's expectations from the government. All too often, the regions are left out in the government's major policies, and it is important that our members of parliament speak out loud and clear on behalf of the regions.

However, the federal government already has CFDCs and a Canada Economic Development office on our territory. Is it necessary to create another structure? What will happen to existing agencies? Instead, the federal government should increase the budgets of these organizations, allow for the hiring of staff specialized in potential future industries for our region, and improve incentives.

Mr. Castonguay goes on to say:

The government must also work even more closely with the municipalities. Economic development is not only measured by job creation. The development of municipal infrastructure, support for local business, improvements to leisure infrastructure are also elements that have a positive impact on business but also on quality of life for citizens.

The objective that you are pursuing is commendable: making the regions a priority for the Government of Canada. We would save time by providing the organizations that are already in place the tools required for development.

I am getting close to February 14. It is now February 11. The Comité Urgence Amos-Région states, by the pen of our good friend François Lemire:

Allow us to bring to your attention the following statement—

It is important to fully understand this.

—taken from part III, the Report on Plans and Priorities of Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, on page 15.

We all know that this document is a pale blue book. There were others that were tabled this morning under the heading “Supplementary Estimates”. It states:

“The transition to a knowledge-based economy is a priority issue which Quebec has to continue to confront in order to continue its development. The nature of this challenge depends on the region concerned”.

The report continues as follows:

“The remote regions dependmore on the exploitation of naturalresources, and are thus directlyaffected by economic cycles and thevagaries of the internationalsituation. A substantial portion ofthe regions in question are likely tosee the dynamics of development driving the current restructuring of the Canadianeconomy pass them by”.

This is written in this document produced by our government. I will read further:

“Some remote regions are currently experiencing considerable difficulties owing tothe unfavourable situation in many resource sectors, and seem little able to benefitsubstantially from these emerging new sectors, including those associated with newinformation technology”.

“—these regionsare facing two levels of difficulty. First, the loss of the upcoming generation discouragesthe establishment of new firms requiring new skills. Second, the aging of the population,which in many communities is already presenting serious challenges with respect tomaintaining services—”.

And the president continues:

We understand that the Government of Canada is aware of the problems and the threats that we are facing. In this regard, we believe that it is urgent to create an economic development initiative that will allow a good complementarity with programs and services already provided by Canada Economic Development.

In particular, this should translate into a decentralization of federal budgets and human resources now dedicated to regions and managed from urban centres.

Even before the Minister of Finance made his statement, the people from the Amos area had already anticipated what would happen several days before. The president continues by mentioning:

It is imperative that these be managed by the regions themselves and that this management be done according to the specific needs of each region.

We all know that the survival of our regions depends on some fundamental elements that we must hasten to apply for the next generations:

Top notch educational and research activities on our natural resources, to develop niches for secondary and tertiary processing, and also develop a strong and continuing world class network of expertise allowing us to stand out and thus ensure our survival as a region;

Presence of effective liaison and transfer agencies such as the centres for transfer and industrial research;

Development of a qualified workforce for the establishment of a partnership of adequate funding of educational institutions;

Support in business development through the technical support provided by specialists:

Support to business development through tailored funding services.

The president continues:

We therefore strongly believe that this initiative must have the aforementioned as its primary objectives and must make it possible for a region like ours, with a fair allocation of funds and the decentralization of federal funds, to draw up its own socioeconomic development plan and to equip itself with the means to achieve its objectives.

Needless to say, this cannot be done unless there is also a decentralization of departments and the specialists who work in them, as well as the tailoring of governmental programs to our specific realities.

Moreover, who better than us can understand our situation and find the solutions that suit us. We are a dynamic region, one that is capable and anxious to take control and is also prepared to work in collaboration with your government in the creation and implementation of such an initiative, which will truly respond to the needs of the resource regions.

We are getting up to February 14, when we recall the Minister of Finance said “The federal budget will have to come from the regions”. In this respect, on February 13, I received a letter from the executive director of the Malartic chamber of commerce, Nicole Lamirande, and its president, Camil Palin. It read as follows:

Malartic being a small municipality in which most jobs are related to forestry or mining, we feel it is vital for action to be taken. The economy is already precarious, and everything possible must be done to bolster it. We are therefore counting on you, Mr. St.-Julien, to do what is necessary.

This is what is important. The last letter is after February 14. It comes from the chamber of commerce and industry of Rouyn-Noranda and region. This is the riding next to mine, and they are interested in my motion.

The Chambre de commerce et d'industrie du Rouyn-Noranda régional wishes to inform you of its support for Motion M-217.

The chamber feels that an agency similar to FedNor but with a mandate relating solely to Quebec, particularly the resource regions, would be a key economic development initiative for a region such as ours.

We can only encourage the creation of an entity different from the present Economic Development Canada, which would have more power and a bigger budget and which would be more adapted to the specific needs of the regions. For instance, just as northeastern Ontario has received thousands of dollars from FedNor to help set up air service between Rouyn-Noranda, Earlton and Toronto (Air North link), it is time that—

The other agency is 46 feet from Rouyn-Noranda, on the border between Quebec and Ontario.

—Quebec's resource regions also received their fair share of infrastructure development assistance (assistance denied by EDC in the air carrier case mentioned above).

What is important in the speech given by the Minister of Finance on February 14? The minister understood the message perfectly well, because he has been to visit the resource regions on many occasions over the years. The key to this initiative which, according to the minister, will make a distinction between large urban centres and resource regions in the next budget, lies in the public's hands. Here is what the minister told an Acadian newspaper: “The Canadian government is responsible for being there with infrastructure and development programs, but it is local initiative which will determine how we must implement them”.

That is why I brought letters today. People have written to me. It is the right time to do so. I know that my time is up, but I am counting on my right to reply to intervene later.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to thank our colleague, the member for Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik, for his initiative. I very much appreciated the fact that he read letters he received from some his eminent constituents.

His motion is extremely vague and seems useless, given the poor results of the federal government in the area of regional development.

Socioeconomic stakeholders in the various Quebec regions know quite well that the federal government's regional development policies are not effective. In fact, I would like to remind the member for Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik that the federal government plans around four global regions in the country: the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario and the Prairies and western Canada.

Therefore, the criteria for the policies of Canada Economic Development for the Quebec Regions are chosen as if Quebec were an homogeneous region and the situation were the same for the workers of the Gaspé peninsula and those of Montreal. Let us be serious. The situation in the Gaspé peninsula is extremely different from the situation in the Lower St. Lawrence, even though that also is an outlying region.

The Quebec government knows what is going on in every region of Quebec, it is the one in charge, it is close to the people, it understands the dynamics of the different regions and it has created the Local Development Centres and the regional consultation and development councils, which interact directly with the stakeholders in order to establish programs that are really tailored to the specific situations of each region.

Furthermore, the federal government invests very little in the Quebec regions. Let me quote some figures. I would like to mention how much income tax Quebec taxpayers have to pay in the six regions where my colleague would want us to invest in a new system, and how much the federal government invested in fixed assets in 1999.

In Abitibi-Témiscamingue, people paid $298,398,000 in personal income taxes to Ottawa; federal spending in that region amounted to $964,000. In the Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspé region, taxpayers paid $297,810,000 in personal income taxes to Ottawa; the federal government spent only $9,000 in capital expenditures. The North Shore taxpayers paid the federal government $223,576,000 in personal income taxes in 1998; they got $8 million in investments. Taxpayers from the Gaspé and Îles de la Madeleine region paid to Ottawa $143,277,000 in personal income taxes; they got $389,000 in capital expenditures from the federal government in 1999. Northern Quebec paid Ottawa $56,199,000 in personal income taxes in 1998; it got $2 million. Taxpayers of the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean region, which I represent, gave $508,474,000 and got $763,000 in federal investments in 1999.

Given those figures, allow me to tell my colleague from Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik that he is proposing to duplicate the Quebec government mandate with regard to regional development. I think he should tell that to his government.

I listened carefully as he read from all those letters; most of the stakeholders who wrote to him said the same thing I am telling him. It is up to the regions to say what they want. The Quebec government invested money in the regions. It is also up to the Government of Canada to give back roughly one-quarter of the income taxes owed to each region of Quebec.

Last year, I took part in the Congrès des régions which took place in North Montreal. For the three days the conference took place, all of the participants spoke about the type of development they wished to see in their regions. They recognized the legitimacy of only one government, the Government of Quebec. They also said that the federal government should return their money, their taxes, to the province so that it could distribute it to the regions concerned for regional development.

This goes to show the extent to which the member for Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik is going in the opposite direction to what the regional stakeholders want.

I would also like to provide other examples of measures taken by Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions that have harmed the regions. In 2000, Ottawa cut $51 million from regional development in Quebec, $35 million of which was done under the Small Business Loans Act.

If the member is truly concerned about the importance of regional development, he should realize that it is his own government's policies that are killing Quebec's regions. We need only think of the unacceptable measures contained in the EI system.

The government robbed $43 billion from the EI fund. It implemented measures that penalize seasonal workers who live in regions. Who is responsible for our regions losing out even more? It is this government, with its drastic changes to the EI fund and measures made to modify the fund and EI benefits.

Every week I receive calls and letters asking the government to amend the current Employment Insurance Act to help them out. The Liberal government's response to these people is no.

The same can be said for air travel in the regions. The federal government is unable to ensure quality service to the regions, and companies like Air Canada and its subsidiaries call all the shots. Air transportation is an area of responsibility that comes under the federal government, but it is not even able to assume this responsibility.

Air Canada and its subsidiaries are increasing their fares and reducing their services; in short, they do not care about the regions, and the federal government is doing nothing to stop this sad situation. It is a real farce. Air Nova has dropped its services between Baie-Comeau and Quebec City. At Bagotville airport, one flight was dropped at the end of last year. Moreover, the government has the nerve to impose a surtax on air fares and to state that Canadians and Quebecers agree with that.

I would also like to talk about the cuts made by this government since 1994 in health transfers. At least $1 billion was cut in the health sector in Quebec. For my region alone, it is a cut of $38 million. Just imagine how many jobs could be created in my region with $38 million. It is more or less the budget of the Jonquiere hospital.

But no. The government, of which our colleague from Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik is a member, is depriving Quebec of that money. If the member really wants to promote regional development in Quebec, he should wake the finance minister up to ask him to give us our money back. He should then say the same thing to the intergovernmental affairs minister.

For the last three weeks, we have talked a lot in the House about the promises made in the last federal election. As the member for Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik pointed out, lots of promises were made. They promised $3.4 billions for the highways in Quebec alone. Unfortunately, there is only $108 million on the table. What a farce.

This government is not working for the regions, nor is it working for Quebec. This government is working for itself and for its own image. When this government starts to respect the people from the regions and tell them “it is up to you to decide” I might begin to believe it. Unfortunately, this is not going to happen tomorrow.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, Motion No. 217 calls for the government to introduce legislation to put in place a federal economic development initiative for the regions of Abitibi, Lac-St-Jean-Saguenay, James Bay, Nunavik, the North Shore, the Gaspé and the Îles de la Madeleine.

While we understand the intent of this motion, which is to improve the health and welfare and economic prosperity of the people who live in those regions, really what the member is asking for is something that comes under different guises, often economic development, regional prosperity and diversification. The motion is asking the federal government to use taxpayers' money to try to create jobs in these regions.

There are many examples of this, such as Western Economic Diversification and ACOA, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. The hallmark of all of these, though, is that they are a grossly inefficient and wasteful use of the taxpayers' money. I will describe 13 reasons why this motion is flawed and why this way of using the taxpayers' money is completely and utterly inefficient.

First, this kind of distribution of money basically says that government will decide who the winners and losers are with respect to the economy. A study from Queen's University, and I will use only one study of many, showed that in 40% of the cases the government grants represented 50% of a company's net worth. In 20% of the cases the grants represented 175% of a company's net worth. Basically, it was using taxpayers' money to prop up businesses that were inefficient.

Second, this kind of use of money totally distorts the marketplace. Government assistance can entice businesses to invest in areas they would otherwise avoid like the plague.

Third, it produces a welfare mentality. It causes a dependence mentality within the business community that would not otherwise occur.

Fourth, it becomes a job redistribution scheme, not a job creation scheme.

Fifth, it puts tax dollars at risk, of which there are many examples. I looked at some of the facts. If we look at regional development Quebec, a federal program, in 1997-98 it lost $12 million. In 1996-97, $36.7 million was written off, and in 1995-96, $18 million. However this program is not the most appalling. In 1997-98, ACOA, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, lost $65 million of taxpayers' money and in 1998-99, $56 million. It is an utter waste of the taxpayers' money.

Sixth, it is the taxpayers' money and is it not better to use that money for things like health care, education and infrastructure rather than using it for this kind of maldistribution of moneys?

Seventh, this can force governments to put political decisions over economic ones. In other words, too often this kind of money is actually distributed not on economic grounds but on cold political grounds. While politicians are very apt to take claim for jobs that are supposedly created, they are not apt to take claim for jobs that are lost.

Eighth, these kinds of programs lack accountability. The auditor general has done extensive work on this. It has been found that too often when these moneys are actually distributed to businesses accountability is not put in place. People do not know where the money has gone, why it has gone, how it is spent or where it is spent, and objective criteria are not put in place to ensure that whatever moneys put in place are used and timelines are set to measure objective parameters that can measure success or failure.

Ninth, these subsidies in effect can become business bribes going to the business of the highest bidder. Too often government is afraid to put money into places where it will lose. It puts moneys into places that are supposedly successful and these are moneys that the companies did not need in the first place.

Tenth, this kind of maldistribution of funds stifles the entrepreneurial spirit.

Eleventh, it can promote bad business decisions.

In 1992 the auditor general made the following point very eloquently. He said that “when a business needs funding, banks will often only provide it if the government provides a loan guarantee”. The auditor general also stated “When a lender assumes no risk it has no incentive to lend prudently”. He noted as well that the business receiving the loan guarantees would also “assume little of the risk, but can enjoy any gains”. This principle applies not only to loan guarantees but also to any type of government assistance. Where would the money go anyway? Too often the moneys are maldistributed and go somewhere else.

Lastly, these subsidies create inefficiencies. They cause moneys to prop up businesses that few people would want. Diane Francis gave an example of the newspaper in Nova Scotia, the Courrier de la Nouvelle-Écosse . In 1990 that newspaper received $400,000 from the federal government, $250,000 from Nova Scotia and $150,000 from Quebec. It had a circulation of 3,400 at any one time, which worked out to $240 for every subscriber. That is not the way to create economic opportunities in any region, be it in the province of Quebec or in any part of Canada.

What the province of Quebec, and indeed the country, needs is an economic environment of good monitoring and good fiscal policy, lower taxes, a flattened or flat tax system, a system with less rules and regulations and with investment in primary health and primary education. We should also invest in research and development. If we are able to do that then we will support the underpinnings of a strong economy: research and development, education, rewarding and not penalizing innovation, and the creation of a tax system that works for people rather than one that is punitive.

Our current so-called progressive tax system is not a progressive tax system at all. It is a punitive tax system that hurts innovation. A flattened tax system is a progressive tax system because the more one earns the more one pays absolutely. It does not retard and affect innovation. That is the kind of tax system that I think we need.

Those who would argue against that would say that it hurts the poor. It will not hurt the poor if the basic minimum that people can earn before they pay taxes is actually increased. What we have always advocated is that if the basic minimum is increased it actually enables those who are in the poor and middle classes to have more money in their pockets. If we do the economic analysis we will find that a flattened tax system with a higher basic minimum that people can earn before they pay tax actually increases the amount of money that those who are in the lower socioeconomic conditions have. Furthermore, because it does not act as a barrier or punitive measure against those who choose to innovate and create wealth, it actually provides more tax money for social programs.

What is interesting is that countries that actually lowered their tax amounts found that more money went into the public coffers and more money was available for social programs to help those who could not help themselves. Conversely, they found that if they increased the tax structure, made it more punitive and increased the tax burden on individuals and companies, there was actually less money in the public coffers.

What we have found recently is that the amount of money in the black market has actually increased quite dramatically and amounts to more than $100 billion every year. The reason is that people are fed up with paying high taxes and they have gone underground. This actually saps and diverts from the public coffers moneys that are essential for funding programs like welfare, health care and education. It retards that.

What we are saying perhaps is counterintuitive to what one would ordinarily assume. One would assume that if taxes were increased there would actually be more money. The reason why it does not work is that those high tax structures actually retard the private sector and those private sector creators of jobs and wealth will actually go to another country or flee to another province. Time and time again that has been proven.

I ask the government not to look at this motion in its absolute, but to look at its intent as a way to create jobs and not to follow it as a way to do it, to look at good, sound monitoring and fiscal policy, the elimination of rules and regulations, the strengthening of education and the investment in appropriate infrastructure. That will enable us to have a strong economy that will help everyone.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, before concentrating on the motion brought forward by my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, I would like to condemn the comments made by my colleague from the Canadian Alliance. I think he should go on a little tour of the regions of Quebec from a tourism as well as an economic point of view.

For example, he could see that the CFDCs, which were created through the LaPrade fund, among others, thanks to the participation of both the federal and provincial governments, are necessary. To say that the tax rate will be reduced does not mean much for a region where people are not working because of the economic downturn. Of course, nothing is perfect. But we still have to recognize that the government of Quebec and all the stakeholders are doing a good job. The Government of Canada lacks vision, and I will talk about that, but the involvement of governments is necessary.

It took years and years to settle the regions. Now they are left to their own devices. Money was spent to encourage people to move to the regions. Now it is normal to provide incentives to encourage people to stay there. Governments always played a role and will continue to do so.

Having said this, I will now going back to the motion of the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik. I find that it is necessary for rural and resource regions to take charge. I hope that governments will recognize this, particularly the federal government.

The hon. member will remember that when he used to turn blue rather than red, when he was a fellow Conservative, when FedNor was created, in 1987, the Conservatives were in office. The hon. member was a fellow Conservative member representing the same region, where he is still much appreciated by the people. At the time, there was the whole issue of designated areas, resource areas.

For example, my region is not in the north. I come from an asbestos town, Asbestos, of which I was the mayor for 11 years. A television series on the 1949 strike is just beginning. People should watch it.

At the time, the government said, “We must get involved in resource regions, in designated areas, in regions that have needs”. That resulted in the creation of a number of tools. That government had vision. The economic context was unfavorable; there were economic crises, downturns and recessions.

Today, the vast majority of CFDCs, which used to be CFCs, work well. The famous LaPrade fund, the Richmond—Wolfe industrial development fund, named after the former name of my riding, needs money. It is one of the funds that works best to help small businesses come start up and expand, or make it through a difficult period. The Centre d'aide aux entreprises du Val-Saint-François was also refused the help that it asked for.

Yes, the CFDC in Asbestos did get additional help, but it still needs financial assistance. It is working well. Things are not perfect, but it is operating well.

However, a vision is necessary. It must be recognized that northern Quebec—and I agree with the hon. member on this—has a specific problem. These are resource regions and they are far from major urban centres. The Lac-Saint-Jean region is one of the country's beautiful regions, but it is remote. For example, if we talk about transportation costs, there is an additional cost, but it is a societal choice and governments must recognize this and get involved.

The member spoke about St. Valentine's Day; if he can convince his colleagues to invest more in the regions, of course we will support him. But care must be taken to avoid duplication, as the Bloc Quebecois member so eloquently said. We need to look at what the federal government is doing, particularly with the Canada-Quebec agreement on employability measures. There are fewer problems. The federal government is providing financial support. As for subsidies, I think that the Canadian Alliance should stop using this word, because this is financial assistance of various sorts, but primarily in the form of loans.

The main reason is that, with the free trade agreement, there are consequences. If a subsidy is provided, and a company performs so well that it exports to the United States, this is direct government assistance and the company can have trouble exporting its products. We see what this can do with Bombardier and Embraer in terms of loans.

The system has changed and evolved because of globalization. Now, loans are made with or without a moratorium on the capital and on the interest, depending on the organization. Quebec is still ill-equipped financially, despite what the Government of Quebec has done.

I am not accusing the Government of Quebec, but the facts speak for themselves. I do not live in the beautiful regions of northern Quebec. I live 45 minutes from Sherbrooke. We have an asbestos mine. Since it is the only asbestos mine that has not been nationalized, if we do not help it out, it is not going to make it.

It is great that a television series has been made about a city which changed the entire labour movement in Quebec and in part of Canada, but unless it gets a financial and political boost to its working capital, it will go under.

My Liberal colleague from Frontenac--Mégantic is doing a very good job. A policy on the use of asbestos would cost nothing. We are still waiting for such a policy. I hope that the government will move quickly on this, and I am confident that it will do so.

So, there are resource regions, rural regions, single industry economies and dual industry economies. After two and a half years of efforts and investments on the part of municipalities—I was a mayor and warden in those days—we finally attracted an industry tailored to our strengths and weaknesses: the asbestos industry. Noranda invested $1 billion in our region. Asbestos will become the biggest magnesium producer in the world.

However, had we not made it to that point, had we not had the financial resources required to put our ideas forward, had it not been for the investments made by the municipal government and the help from other governments, we would have missed that opportunity. The government is responsible for the redistribution of efforts, but also for the redistribution of tools. That was important.

My colleague has once again raised a major point. In Quebec, we speak more and more about rural areas and resource areas. We speak about what happened in the eighties under the Tory government. However, now is not the time for petty politics. There are no political colours when someone is going hungry and is about to lose his job in a region, in the country, in Quebec, in the North or in a mining town.

I take this opportunity to praise him. I very much appreciated the last or next to last speech by my colleague from Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik, when he criticized the government concerning air transportation. We sometimes wonder if it is worth speaking out. But, with what is going on and the reactions of the finance minister who is now talking about reviewing the charge, it is worth speaking out.

We are suggesting that the members should be able to speak more freely. We are all part of a political family, but we should be able to criticize each other in an appropriate way, just as it is done in a family. I congratulate the hon. member for Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik both personally and in public on his efforts with respect to issues like the airport charge introduced in the last budget. His efforts are beginning to pay off, and we should get favourable results.

Now, I hope this motion will make everybody more aware of the issue. It is not because unemployment is at a certain level in one place that everything is fine everywhere. It is just not true. When everything is fine, we should be investing. When one has no job, one does not save any money or invest in RRSPs, and one does not invest in the future. Thank heavens, we are coming out of the recession. Now is the time to invest and use all the opportunities as best we can.

I hope that the government members will support this motion and that our colleagues in the Canadian Alliance will understand the important role governments should play in regional development. It is not just important, it is crucial. If governments do not look after the regions, who will?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Before we proceed, hon. members will remember that we originally saw the clock as being 5.30 but it was 5.15. It makes it a little complicated. I need unanimous consent to recognize the last two speakers, the parliamentary secretary and the mover of the motion. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did hear the Bloc member say no. But in any case, we started later because we were interrupted by a question of privilege.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

No. The 15 minutes we spent on the question of privilege must unfortunately count as part of private members' business. Unfortunately, the Chair cannot do otherwise.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Madam Speaker, the standing orders provide that I have five minutes to reply. Nobody advised me of this, and I am entitled to five minutes to reply. I do not need unanimous consent, because this is provided for in the standing orders.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The Chair did not interrupt the last speaker in time to give the member who moved the motion the five minutes he is entitled to, pursuant to the standing orders the House.

The hon. member has the floor.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank you for your decision. The resource and rural regions are in dire need of autonomy. I am not asking for a new level of government for the resource regions. I would simply want to see them get the level of autonomy that they need to develop properly.

If the Canadian government really wants to help the resource and rural regions, it should look at what is being done in Sweden. What is important to know is that the federal ministers have done a good job in the regions. But there is still something missing.

The conservative member for Richmond--Arthabaska, who was serious and dynamic in his statement, stated that the resource and rural regions would have to take charge of their own interests. He mentioned a lack of money for the Val-Saint-François business development centre. We know that this centre really is very supportive ofo businesses. He talked about a vision, loans, refundable financial assistance. This is what is being suggested also for his region—he was talking about Noranda where asbestos is an important sector. This is what partnership is all about.

I appreciated the conservative member's words. Some might say “But there are not many of them”. It is true that there are only a few of them, but they have a strong voice. This is the kind of support we need.

I will quote from an article published in L'Acadie nouvelle on St. Valentine's day, February 14, reporting what the finance minister and Liberal member for LaSalle--Émard said:

The approach to problems in large cities is not the same as that for the regions. There is nothing odd about that, because they do not have the same issues. So a plan containing the same solutions is of no use.

What the government should do is have one plan for cities, which will meet the needs of centres like Moncton, Halifax and Toronto, and another plan for the regions that need one, a plan which is just as applicable to the Acadian peninsula as to Red Deer, Alberta, because they have the same problems. There needs to be an approach that can handle both situations.

He added that the money is now on the table and that all he was asking the community was how to spend it. That is the reason for his visit to the maritime provinces in particular.

Finally, the federal Minister of Finance said:

The key to this initiative lies in the public's hands. The Canadian government is responsible for being there with infrastructure and development programs, but it is local initiative which will determine how we must implement them”.

This is why I have quoted from letters written by local people asking us to intervene in the regions, whether Lac-Saint-Jean, Richmond--Arthabaska with its Conservative MP, or Abitibi-Témiscamingue. The minister must differentiate us from the major urban centres.

In closing, as far as the resource regions are concerned, such as Abitibi-Témiscamingue, 68% of our forest products go to Montreal, and 68% of the natural resources from our region create jobs there.

We in the resource regions need help. We need a change to be made to the budget so as to differentiate between our regions and the major urban centres. We have nothing against them, in fact we are proud of them, for there are major projects happening there. But we are in need of help in the rural regions, in the resource regions, for the future of our young people.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. As the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the order is dropped from the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, on November 6 the solicitor general and the former justice minister failed to answer my question about a firearms registration certificate being issued to an individual who does not own the firearm in question. Because the RCMP was responsible for the error, I asked the solicitor general:

The privacy commissioner is investigating a number of firearms licences that were issued with the wrong photos. Now we have a documented case of a firearm being registered to the wrong person. The unhappy recipient complains, “I do not want to be responsible for a firearm that I do not possess”. Could the solicitor general please explain how the registry of firearms made such a potentially catastrophic mistake?

For some reason I still do not understand why the former minister of justice would not let the solicitor general answer his own question and she did not answer the question either. In her response the minister chose to play politics rather than to address a very serious error in the gun registry that threatens both the privacy and safety of a Canadian citizen. A strange response for a minister who claimed to be fully accountable and responsible for the entire Canadian firearms program.

Since this incident was documented in November we have had another firearms owner complain to his member of parliament that the same thing happened to him. He wrote on the bogus registration certificate:

Never registered this gun. Never owned this gun. Never even seen this gun.

Perhaps the new Minister of Justice will take more seriously the consequences of the bungling by his bureaucrats.

Earlier today I issued a news release documenting just a few of the more recent errors in the gun registry. These errors were documented by the minister's own department and provided to me in response to an access to information request. Other errors were reported in newspapers or to me personally.

I have in turn notified the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and the Auditor General of Canada of these errors and their consequences for the rights and safety of Canadian citizens.

Here is a short list of the errors I uncovered and made public today: there were 300,000 unclaimed guns in the old handgun registry; the gun registry lost track of more than 38,000 licensed gun owners; 832 duplicate firearms licences were issued; 28 duplicate firearms registration certificates were issued; there were 57 registration certificates for 16 guns; re-registration of 10 handguns resulted in a 50% error rate; a muzzleloader was registered as a single-shot machine gun; 3 rifles were registered to the wrong man; a handgun was registered to the wrong man; 2 rifles were registered as shotguns; 6 identical registration certificates were issued for 1 handgun; registration forms were sent to a wrong address; there was a woman's photo on a man's firearms licence and a man's photo on a woman's firearms licence; and 3 Winnipegers got the wrong photo on their firearms licences.

On Monday the new Minister of Justice proudly proclaimed to parliament that the gun registry works well. The minister should look again. His own department's documents prove otherwise. Here is a huge list of serious errors and we need an answer.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to provide an update on the current status of the registration process and to reinforce the government's commitment to making firearm registration more convenient and client friendly.

The previous minister offered to investigate the matters raised by the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville when he originally asked the question almost four months ago. He did not take her up on the offer. On behalf of the government, I would like to restate that offer and extend it to all members of parliament if they have specific concerns.

I would like take the opportunity to outline the Canadian firearms centre's registration initiative. As part of the centre's commitment to client service and efficiency, the mailing of personalized registration forms to firearm owners and a limited time fee waiver has made its way across Canada.

Firearm owners in Atlantic Canada were the first to receive the personalized registration package and fee waiver in September. The package was then sent to licensed firearm owners in Ontario and Quebec in the fall, followed by Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the territories in December. The campaign will wrap up with the end of the fee waiver in Alberta and British Columbia on March 19.

The regional approach facilitates processing by staggering the applications received, ensuring a more timely response and that the quality of client service remains high.

Another new feature is online firearm registration. In response to these initiatives, Canadians are registering their firearms in record numbers. With 10 months left before the deadline, over 1.1 million of the 1.8 million licensed firearm owners, about 62%, have participated in the registration process. This includes more than 100,000 applications submitted over the Internet.

Over the last few months, the Canadian firearms program has completely restructured the registration process and implemented rigorous measures to ensure the integrity of information.

The new personalized registration form is mailed out directly to the licensee. When the registration application is returned for processing, the form is scanned, including the bar code that identifies the licence holder. Manual data entry is eliminated which minimizes the potential for error.

Also within this process, existing quality assurance procedures have been reinforced to ensure that the system captures accurate registration information for the appropriate licensee. The government is committed to ensuring that stringent security and privacy protection are maintained.

When licensees receive their registration certificate, they should ensure the accuracy of the information. If there are discrepancies, individuals should contact the Canadian firearms centre to rectify the situation.

To conclude, recent initiatives to streamline the registration process have increased processing efficiencies and enhanced overall effectiveness. More important, it provides a more user friendly way for Canadians to meet their obligations to register their firearms, and they are registering.

I thank the hon. member for his question and for the opportunity to bring this important initiative back to the House's attention.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I was trying to listen carefully for an answer and it really was not there. The exact opposite of what the hon. member just stated is true. Verifiers have been dismissed. The accuracy in the system is now worse than it has ever been. Now to lay the whole blame in the lap of a gun owner is completely wrong-headed.

I will submit a couple of quotations. The first one from February 7, 2001, is by the president of the Canadian Police Association, Constable Grant Obst. He said:

--a lot of Canadian cops who believe in the “concept” of a gun registry have profound doubts that the one being run by CFC [Canadian Firearms Centre] will ever offer police the information they needed to fight crime. “They're not happy with the information-fathering,” he said. “They're asking themselves, will the information be accurate?”

As I have shown today, the information in the gun registry is not accurate despite what the government has said. I am asking the minister again--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland, ON]

Madam Speaker, in response to the hon. member, clearly we have made a great deal of progress. The online process is one way in which an individual can be very certain of getting accurate information recorded by the program.

For the member to suggest that there have been problems in the past is accurate and does reflect the situation of the past, but we are working now with much more efficiencies. We have simplified the forms and have done many things ensure that these errors will not occur. We will do our utmost to improve and continue to work with the program to ensure that all Canadians will feel not only that their information is properly recorded but that it is secure and private.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)