Debates of April 21st, 2009

Opposition Motion—Gun Control

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for London--Fanshawe.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time this afternoon with the member for Vancouver Kingsway.

I am glad to participate in this Bloc opposition day. I thank my colleagues from Quebec for this motion and this opportunity. It is certainly an important debate for Canadians, one that needs to hear the voices on all sides of the issue. The women of Canada are listening very carefully today. Women and their children are too often among those who suffer from gun violence.

I believe it is essential in any discussion to look at the facts. In this case the facts show that, in regard to the firearms program, the system is working. Claims that the system is without value are simply untrue. The police have said time and time again that the new law and the system provide valuable tools for keeping Canada safe. It is interesting that we hear that mantra over and over again from the government benches about wanting to keep Canadians safe. Here is an opportunity.

In spite of the virulent opposition, over 90% of gun owners have been licensed and 90% of guns have been registered. As of 2008, the system is being used by the police 8,600 times every day and police report many cases where the registry has been used to prevent tragedies or solve crimes. Most gun owners, as I indicated, are indeed licensed and most guns registered.

As of April 2008, 1,871,595 valid firearms licences have been issued, representing 90% of those gun owners. The licensing procedure ensures all firearm users are qualified to possess or acquire a firearm. Gun registration is an important part of making gun owners accountable, helping prevent diversion to the illegal market and assisting police in their investigations.

Some 22,140 firearm licences were refused or revoked by chief firearms officers for public safety reasons between December 1, 1998 and April 2008, 7,490 of those applications were refused and 14,650 firearm licences revoked. The reasons include a number of things such as a history of violence, mental illness, the applicant is a potential risk to himself, herself, or others, unsafe firearm use and storage, drug offences and providing false information. We will never know how many tragedies have been averted, but in those many refusals of a licence we can be assured that there will not be the regret that comes when too late we realize that failing to act, failing to intervene when an individual should never possess a firearm has caused the loss of a precious life or many precious lives.

All illegal guns, interestingly enough, begin as legal guns. Opponents of gun control keep saying “punish the criminals, leave the law-abiding gun owners alone”. These law-abiding owners are among the 90% who are licensed. That raises the question, where do the criminals get their guns? Although half of the handguns recovered in crime are smuggled in from the United States, the other half originate from Canadian gun owners.

The 2005 shooting on Yonge Street of Jane Creba involved a gun club member with a legally registered handgun. We have seen a number of high profile shootings, including that Toronto 2005 Boxing Day shooting, where the guns have been stolen from law-abiding gun owners.

Handguns are not the only threat. Half the police officers killed in recent years have been killed with rifles and shotguns, not handguns.

Another key part of the current gun registry and gun control law is the requirement for the safe storage of guns. The shooter at Dawson College was a legal gun owner and a member of a gun club. Legally owned guns are too often improperly stored and stolen or sold illegally. As I indicated, the gun recovered in the 2005 Boxing Day shooting, which killed 15 year-old Jane Creba, was a stolen gun.

According to the police, about half the guns used in crime in Toronto are guns that at one time were legally owned in Canada, many of them stolen in break-ins.

Between June 20 and August 3, 2005, burglars made off with 84 firearms from Toronto area homes. More than half, including 43 pistols stolen from Cobourg, were handguns. One of these was used in a murder in Toronto in 2006.

In addition, smuggled guns originating from the United States are typically acquired through theft, straw purchases or gun shows. These guns account for as many as 50% of the handguns recovered in crime in Canada.

The gun used to kill Dianna Sandeman in 2006, as she and her boyfriend were leaving an Etobicoke sports bar, was traced to Gainsville, Georgia. The gun used to kill a Windsor police officer in May 2006 was smuggled in from the United States.

Some claim that more guns will make us safer. In fact, where there are more guns, there are more deaths. The terrible irony is that both in Canada and internationally, where there are more guns, there tends to be more opposition to gun control. However, where there are more guns, there are also higher rates of gun death and injury.

Among industrialized countries, where there are higher rates of gun ownership, there are also higher rates of gun deaths. When there are guns in the home, they are more likely to be used in suicides, domestic homicides and accidentally. It is pretty easy in a fit of rage to grab a gun if it is handy and if it is loaded.

In spite of the attention focused on urban crime, there are higher rates of gun death and injury in rural areas. For example, Northeastern Ontario has a gun death rate which is twice the provincial average, driven largely by higher than average suicide rates and also domestic violence with firearms or accidents.

Provinces with high rates of gun ownership, such as Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, tend to have a higher than average rate of gun death and injury.

In spite of the surge of gang related handgun violence in Toronto, Ontario has one of the lowest rates of gun death and injury in the country.

There has been a lot of misinformation about the firearms program fuelled by its opponents. Close to $1 billion was spent over a 10 year period and most of that money was spent on screening and licensing gun owners, not on registering firearms.

Currently, the cost of the system is apparently about $80 million a year. Ending the gun registry means that all of this money has been spent in vain and all those who have died at the hands of those using guns have died in vain. This would be a mistake.

I would like to conclude with a letter sent to the Prime Minister on March 12, signed by 21 concerned groups representing millions of Canadians. They respectfully ask the government to refuse to dismantle gun control. They go on to say “Our laws have made Canada safer”.

In 1991 more than 1,400 Canadians were killed with guns. Now it is fewer than 800. The 2007 rate of murders with rifles and shotguns has dropped by more than 78% since 1991. The murders of women by those using guns have plummeted from 85 in 1991 to 32 in 2004. Suicide rates, particularly among youth, have also declined.

The numbers are not good enough yet, but if we keep the registry, we could make it even better.

Policing, public health and victims' organizations across Canada, including those from Polytechnique and Dawson College, support sensible gun control.

On behalf of millions of women in Canada, the letter concludes:

Let us be clear: the stakes could not be higher for Canadian women. Ending violence against women requires more than talk. It requires action. We urge you to lead your party to reduce violence and suicide in our families and our communities [by supporting gun control].

The women of this nation are watching intently today. They are listening and hoping that the House will say that their families and their futures are safe, that they need not fear the guns in our communities because they will be controlled and they will be licensed.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I will speak on this important issue a bit later so I will not give my speech now, but I have to make a comment. That was absolutely the most incorrect, incredible amount of misinformation that I have heard in the House in a long time. A good cook adds all the ingredients and then a bit of spice. In this case the spice was the true comments and the rest of it was the broth or the stew.

The member has mentioned statistics, well here they are: 84% of firearms used in the commission of crimes are unregistered; 74.9% are illegal guns smuggled into Canada, not the 50% as the hon. member has claimed. These are not speculative figures. These are the real numbers.

Where is the member getting her numbers?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, these statistics were compiled by reputable groups, people from NGOs who have made the effort because of their profound concern with regard to the violence we have seen in our society. Some of those statistics come from law enforcement agencies.

I hope the member opposite is not impugning the members of our law enforcement community, nor the groups that have put themselves forward and spent a great deal of time and effort to bring forward facts that we can use to support what we believe is an important law in Canada, and that is gun control.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has made a presentation which I find excellent, and I would like her to comment on why there are so many victims in families. As we know, in 2007, 18 women were killed by a legally-married spouse, 22 by a common-law spouse, and 6 by a separated or divorced legally-married or common-law spouse.

This goes to show that the killers are not always hardened criminals; they can be family members. I agree with what the member said earlier, and I am wondering if she could perhaps elaborate a bit more.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has asked a very important question. The city of London, in a period of about two or three months, four or five years ago, lost five young women to gun violence. Five young women disappeared forever. Their families will never get over that. The community will never get over that. Their children will never get over that. We have to be very cognizant of that.

In a former incarnation I was a rural member in Middlesex county. I absolutely remember the day I went to the Women's Rural Resource Centre in Strathroy. In those days there was no community house for women, no safe refuge between London and Sarnia. These rural women were basically abandoned. The director of the rural resource centre told me about the women who called or the women who desperately cried out. These women were at the end of a 300-yard laneway on a remote farm. They had been victimized, beaten by husbands, threatened with guns, raped with guns. They had no one to turn to and nowhere to go.

The same is true of women in small towns. There is no one to turn to, nowhere to go. They could not tell their neighbour because it was a small town and it was something about which they did not talk. However, they were crying out for someone to listen to them and to help them. Therefore, I not only helped them to build a women's community house, but I also was very committed to their safety with regard to taking these guns out of the hands of those who had used them violently.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course, today we are addressing the question of firearms registration in this country. I do not need to share with the members of the House that this is a very important issue. It evokes passionate feelings on both sides of the question.

Proponents of gun registration assert the obvious, that guns are inherently dangerous. They are capable of creating, and in fact have created, death and injury across this land. Those people advocate forcefully for appropriate controls over this dangerous item.

On the other hand, many Canadians, law-abiding, responsible farmers, hunters, sports and target enthusiasts, collectors and members of first nations, feel that a gun registry is unnecessary, intrusive and ineffective.

Compounding the debate is the previous Liberal government, which designed and introduced the current registry, which established a system that can only be described as a colossal boondoggle. It cost over $1 billion to implement. It is incredibly bureaucratic and full of red tape. It is inefficient, costly and has been ineffective in many respects. This added an unnecessary and unfortunate difficulty to the entirely legitimate debate over the merits, or not, of registration in this country. Even those in favour of gun registration join with those opposed in condemning the Liberal government's inept and wasteful exercise in this area.

I would like to speak a little bit about what I think everybody in the House agrees on. We agree, first, that firearms are products that are deserving of appropriate care and respect. Once again, they are inherently dangerous. They need to be dealt with seriously. Appropriate safeguards respecting the importation, sale, storage and use of firearms are necessary, and I think every hon. member of the House would appreciate that.

Second, we all want to adopt policies that work toward keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and off our streets.

Third, we want to acknowledge the legitimate and responsible ownership and use by thousands of law-abiding citizens and to make clear that gun registration is not a response in any way to their use of firearms.

The issue raised in this motion, however, concerns that of whether Canadians who wish to own firearms ought to be registered or required to register those weapons. I would like to speak to the benefits of registration and also acknowledge its liabilities, because this is an issue upon which many reasonable people may reasonably disagree.

Let us speak a little bit about what registration of guns does do in this country. First, it ensure the full registration of what is, once again, a product that when used exactly as designed is capable of causing death and destruction. It does no more than treat guns like we treat automobiles.

Second, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has come out very strongly and consistently in favour of gun registration, and I will speak a little bit later about the reasons for that.

Third, registration helps solve crimes. It helps in one respect with the tracking of weapons. Whether weapons are stolen or not, police officers have told me directly that when they locate a weapon that has been used in a crime, the fact that it has been registered assists them in tracing back that weapon to an original source, and this aids them ultimately in bringing perpetrators to justice.

Fourth, registration symbolically emphasizes the serious responsibility that gun ownership entails. This cannot be underestimated. If we are going to have guns owned by citizens in this society, we need to impress, and in fact, as parliamentarians we are entitled and obligated to impress upon them the very serious nature that owning that weapon implies.

Fifth, gun registration helps police when they are carrying out their duties. For example, I talked to police officers in the past week who told me that when they are approaching a house, it is incredibly beneficial for them to know if a firearm is present. Coupled with information regarding past practices of domestic abuse, prior criminal involvement or a history of psychiatric illness, it helps prepare those police when they pull up curbside to a house. Registration protects police officers.

Sixth, when combined with Criminal Code provisions and other legislation making mandatory steps in the firearm acquisition process, things like criminal record checks and cooling-off periods between purchasing and possessing firearms, it helps keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them.

Two years ago, 12,000 applicants in this country who had applied to own a gun were turned down. It is not illogical to conclude that deaths or assaults with weapons have been prevented by these legislative measures. As my hon. colleague for London—Fanshawe pointed out, many gun assaults are committed by people who know each other, including domestic assaults. Many believe tight gun acquisition procedures help reduce spousal assaults.

There are some disadvantages to registration, and in fairness, those should be pointed out as well. It imposes a regulatory burden on legitimate, responsible and law-abiding gun owners. Registration also imposes a cost upon gun owners.

It is also true that the registry will likely not prevent criminals or criminal organizations from obtaining guns in the illegal gun trade.

Registration systems have put a particularly onerous duty on first nations, hunters and trappers, and those who make their living off the land. Certain aspects of the law work a particular hardship on first nations, such as the prohibition on lending firearms, with no discernible advantage to society at large.

I can respect the position of all parliamentarians on this issue. Depending on the wishes of their particular constituents, rural or urban specifically, MPs will be voting their conscience. I am particularly proud of our leader, the leader of the New Democrat opposition, who has freed all MPs to vote at their conscience and as their constituents dictate.

In my case, I will be supporting this motion. I support the registration of firearms in Canada. Time does not permit me to go through all the reasons, but the most profound ones are the following.

First, a key distinguishing feature of Canada for which we are respected worldwide and distinguishes us from countries like the United States and Mexico is that we are relatively a gun-free, peaceful society. Gun registration plays a role in keeping us that way.

Second, gun control saves lives. Those are not my words. Those are the words of the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

Third, registration does not prohibit anyone from owning a firearm who is not properly precluded from doing so. All it makes them do is register. In my view, this is a small price to pay for the privilege of owning what we all agree is a dangerous item.

I come from Vancouver, where, in the last four months, over 45 shootings and 15 deaths have occurred due to gun violence. My constituents know first-hand, and I would dare say, more than the constituents of any other member of the House right now, what guns do. They are adamant that gunfire in our streets, near our schools and in our shopping malls must stop. Although a gun registry may not stop all of these incidents, now is not the time to be sending a message of gun liberalization. Now is not the time to be making gun ownership easier.

We register our cars and we prohibit many products from general ownership. In our view, asking Canadians who want to own instruments of power such as firearms to simply register them and comply with reasonable rules, to do whatever we can to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them, is both appropriate and reasonable. Although I respect deeply the views of all those in the House who may feel otherwise, I am one MP who will be proudly voting in favour of gun registration in Canada.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, we have listened all day to debate on both sides of the House. One thing that keeps coming out is the fact that people are confusing gun control with the long gun registry. All that we are debating today, I think, is whether we maintain the long gun registry, not gun control.

There has been gun control in Canada since 1933 for handguns, and 1947 for long guns. It is not making gun ownership any easier at all. If somebody goes to buy a gun, the person has to be registered. It is not the long gun that is causing the problem, it is the person.

We have heard from the opposition benches all this rhetoric that is off topic, accusing us of doing things that we have never said we were going to do and have no intention of doing. I realize it makes good fodder for them, but it is misleading. It is not attacking the issue that we are supposed to be debating today, and I really wish the opposition would stick to what the debate is supposed to be about, which is the long gun registry, nothing else.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect, my friend should read the motion that is before the House. It says, and this is what we are debating:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should not extend the amnesty on gun control requirements set to expire on May 16, 2009, and should maintain the registration of all types of firearms in its entirety.

The hon. member would do well to read the motion under debate.

I would also point out that both of the bills before the House, the one emanating from the Senate and the one emanating in this House, reduce the gun registration requirements in this country. Bill S-5 removes the requirement to obtain a registration certificate for firearms that are neither prohibited nor restricted. Bill C-301, a bill introduced by my friend's colleague, would end the registration requirement for long gun owners.

Lastly, before I conclude, my friend called this rhetoric. Let me quote from the chief of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police:

The report also underscores that rifles and shotguns account for a substantial proportion of crime guns seized. Recently police in Surrey seized over 200 rifles and shotguns. In Toronto a significant number of crime guns seized were once legally owned rifles or shotguns.

When my friend stands up and calls that rhetoric, perhaps he should direct his comments to the president of the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs and ask him why he is using such language.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking a lot about the issue of amnesty, and of course, that is appropriate with the motion in front of us, but I am gravely concerned about the Conservative private member's Bill C-301.

I am going to read something very briefly from the Canadian Police Association with respect to its concerns about what Bill C-301 would do:

[Relax] controls on handguns and semi-automatic weapons, allowing licensed firearm owners to obtain as many handguns and restricted weapons as they want without any approval process. It also removes the requirement to have authorizations to transport restricted weapons and handguns.

This includes weapons that were used in Dawson College, if members can believe it.

The report goes on to say, further, this bill would:

[Allow] those firearms owners who have been previously “grand-fathered” to permit ownership of prohibited firearms, such as military assault weapons, fully automatic AK-47's, and prohibited handguns.

There is a reality here that this is about a lot more than just long guns. There seems to be an agenda to also really gut the registry when it comes to dealing with other types of restricted and prohibited weapons. So I wonder what the member's comment would be in response to the Canadian Police Association's concerns on this Conservative bill.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right. Bill C-301, if passed, results in less frequent screening, weakens transportation rules for restricted and prohibited firearms, makes it easier to transport machine guns and assault weapons to shooting ranges, allows individuals in illegal possession of prohibited handguns to keep them, and makes it easier to transport restricted weapons across the border. That does not sound to me like a particularly intelligent or appropriate step to be taken today in Canada, in 2009.

To get to my friend's comments about the chiefs of police, I will just quote the association:

We need to be able to track firearms to enforce laws and combat the illegal gun trade in cooperation with other nations. Without the registry, Canadian police will no longer be able to trace unrestricted firearms and will become dependent upon police in other jurisdictions—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I will have to cut off the hon. member there. The time has expired for questions and comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this issue. The issue before us is an issue of extremes. There are probably two sides to this debate that are too far to the extreme and the essence of what we are actually talking about here is lost, which is safety for Canadians. On one side there is the extreme group that would go back to the old days of the wild west when one could have a firearm on one's person, on one's property or in one's car or truck and not have to register anything. I do not think anyone is talking about that. On the other side, there is a group that would quite simply destroy every firearm in Canada. I do not think we are talking about that. Somewhere in the centre, we have an obligation as parliamentarians to look at this issue in a practical, reasonable, rational way and come up with a solution that actually improves safety for Canadians.

Having been a farmer before my life in politics, I always had a permit to carry my shotgun. That permit was for shooting coyotes and bears. Having been a sheep farmer, I can say that a shotgun is a practical solution when a bear is in with the sheep. I would not want to go back into the house to get the broom out of the kitchen and try to chase the bear away from the sheep because that is not a practical solution. Destroying every firearm in the country is not going to work.

I would like to speak about what we do not do well as parliamentarians. I have been in the House for nearly 12 years. Sometimes we do not look at legislation that we have already passed, reassess it and ask ourselves the very difficult questions: Has the legislation worked? Did it perform the task that we expected it to perform? Did it make a difference in people's lives? Is it effective? Is it cost effective? I do not think the gun registry would pass any of those tests.

Some of the arguments that have been raised today are totally bogus. There are no statistics to back them up whatsoever. I honestly believe that the issue we are talking about is the safety of Canadians and how we establish a safer society. What is a practical way of doing that? I believe honestly that we license all gun owners. They take a course. We know that they pass a psychological assessment. We know that they do not have a criminal record. We know that they are not likely to offend with that firearm. There is nothing guaranteed in life. An individual cannot get a driver's licence and say he or she will never have an accident or be in a tragedy. There is nothing guaranteed in life. However, we can do our best to make sure that drivers are licensed, that they obey the law, that they do not speed, that they do not drink and drive, and that they follow the rules that we have established.

As I am speaking, there are licensed firearm owners who have already qualified on a psychological assessment, who have proven they can pass the test to own firearms, who understand the rules, laws and regulations governing those firearms, that the firearms have to be locked up in a separate cabinet from the ammunition, that they have to be kept out of the easy reach of children or any other individuals, and today, that they have to be registered. That is why when we are talking about the safety of Canadians we have to look at the real numbers. Members should not make up numbers in this place. They should look at the real numbers.

There are seven million or eight million firearms registered in Canada. It was widely believed before the firearms registry was established that there were 20 million to 30 million firearms in Canada. Today there are seven million firearms. Where did the other 23 million go? Let us say that figure was too high. Where did the other 10 million go? They are still out there. I can say for a fact that many of my constituents own them because they did not register their firearms. They did not take the course. That is a problem. Those individuals would be licensed if they did not have to register their firearms.

If we want to make Canada safer, there is a good start and we can do it overnight because those individuals are honest, law-abiding citizens. Most of them have never had a traffic ticket and most of them have never gone through a stop sign, but they are not going to register their firearms. They are not going to put the information on a database that has been corrupted 306 times. People have logged on to the database 306 times. That is a serious problem.

There is another part of this debate that I think is a true tragedy. There have been some absolutely horrific deaths in this country perpetrated by people with firearms. Those people in a proper licensing system would never have received a licence to own a firearm. If we would not have spent $2 billion on a registry, we might even have the police resources to keep firearms out of those individuals' hands, but that is not the case.

The issue that I think is the greatest hoax of the 20th century and certainly the beginning of the 21st, is the idea that the gun registry protects women.

When the former government was spending $2 billion on a registry that would not work, and if a couple of million dollars would not have registered all the guns in the country something would have been wrong, when the government was doing that, we ignored violence against women. We absolutely ignored it and we are still ignoring it. Come on, get with the agenda here.

If we are going to look at registering firearms for individuals who have already been licensed, we are spending all that time and all those resources on individuals who have already proven to be safe. What we have not done is we have not enforced a single peace bond. We have not made a difference in any woman's life in this country who has been threatened by her spouse or who has been threatened by her neighbour. I think it is a tragedy. I do not understand it.

I say that as a law-abiding gun owner from rural Canada who absolutely has seen a remarkable difference in the hunters who I meet on my property, in individuals who own firearms, not because of the registry but because of the licensing. We have safer communities, we have better and safer hunters, and we have a better society because of firearms licensing. I am convinced of that. The registry has not made one iota of a difference.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Wednesday, April 22, 2009, at 3 p.m.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 5:30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is there unanimous consent to see the clock as 5:30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should reconsider its decision to eliminate the funding channelled through the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec to non-profit bodies active in the economic development sector, and reinstate their funding.

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am pleased and proud to rise today to move Motion M-288, which I feel very strongly about because of how crucial it is to regional development and the economy in Quebec. This motion seeks to allow non-profit economic development bodies to survive, by ensuring that they have all the resources and funding they need to fulfill their role, which is so essential to the development of the economy in Quebec's regions.

The Bloc Québécois believes that it is imperative that funding for these non-profit organizations be reinstated immediately, fully and indefinitely.

My colleagues and I fiercely opposed cuts to non-profit organizations subsidized in part by the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and active in the economic sector. This absurd situation is calling into question the economic development model that Quebec has been requesting for several decades.

This is an inappropriate measure that is extremely prejudicial to the economic fabric of the regions of Quebec. It could result in the loss of jobs in local communities. What is more, the government's intransigence once again reveals the Conservatives' lack of understanding of regional development in Quebec. They are disregarding the demands of many economic forces in Quebec, as well as the Government of Quebec and numerous municipalities, including Quebec City, Montreal and Rimouski, that they reverse this decision.

In my riding, this inadequate measure affects a development organization. The Biomed organization fears for the worst if funding is not restored. In my region, the results of many years of work will be put in jeopardy by this grotesque decision.

Why is it so important to restore this funding for the regions of Quebec? It is because that funding is the foundation of the economic development strategy that Quebec has adopted. Let us back up a moment to gain a better understanding.

History shows that when Quebec, in agreement with its regions, takes charges of regional development, results meet expectations. Why? Because Quebec is closer to its regional partners, and because, in the end, consistency is the main reason for success in economic development.

Since 1960, Quebec has created a unique model of regional economic development based on the conviction that the regions and communities throughout Quebec are in the best position to know their regional situations. The regions and communities can best identify their own strengths and weaknesses and establish development strategies that are most effective for each of the regions of Quebec.

Over the years, Quebec has built up a broad network of organizations that work together by establishing durable links with one another. This has resulted in the creation of a level of consistency between the different levels of government, while each developed its own, complementary fields of expertise. That is how a significant network of non-government economic development organizations was established in the regions of Quebec. Over the years, those organizations have learned to work hand in hand with regional companies and institutions to identify regional needs and, in concert with their regional partners, develop appropriate responses in the best interest of the entire community.

These organizations have become key players in regional development, and that is why it would be a catastrophe if they were to disappear. Each successive government in power in the Quebec National Assembly has understood the dynamic these groups create and has given them unconditional support.

For a while, the federal government understood the power of this strategy and respected the will of Quebec by cooperating, instead of trying to control its own part of regional development or threatening the consistency that is so necessary in this field. Thus, between 1973 and 1994, there was a framework agreement between Quebec City and Ottawa whereby the federal government agreed not to take regional development initiatives unless sanctioned by both governments.

According to that framework agreement, most federal funds were channelled through Quebec's structures. However, in 1994, after the failure to reform federalism and with the Quebec referendum in the offing, the Liberal government put an end to that friendly agreement because it wanted to increase Canada's visibility in Quebec.

The federal government began to finance initiatives directly without consulting the people involved. It did not matter if the initiative was bad, ill advised or contrary to the regional development strategy, the important thing was to be able to make an announcement in front of a Canadian flag with a federal minister posing for the newspapers. With this goal, the ends justified the means. It should then be no surprise that the same logic applied to everything leading to the sponsorship scandal.

In 2006, the Conservatives could have announced a new era by reinstating the former level of financing. However, the Conservative minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions decided to push that absurd logic even further by taking personal control of the approval of subsidies. That step backward to Duplessis-style politics put an end to consistency in regional economic development and seriously threatened the very existence of non-profit organizations active in regional economic development. The numerous protests of the Quebec government and of all the economic stakeholders in the province did not faze the minister.

It was in line with this kind of thinking that in April 2007, the minister cut the economically oriented non-profit organizations subsidized in part by the Economic Development Agency for the Regions of Quebec. This inconsistency calls into question the entire economic development model that Quebec has wanted for decades.

This is an inappropriate measure that is very injurious to the economic fabric of the regions of Quebec. It could result in the elimination of jobs. In addition, the government’s intransigence shows once again how inconsistent the Conservatives are when it comes to regional development in Quebec because they could not care less about the request from many economic players in Quebec.

As I said earlier, these non-profit organizations help small and medium-size companies to innovate and explore outside markets. They have become a key part of the economic fabric of many Quebec regions.

Unable to provide any explanations and especially any valid arguments in the face of the torrent of protests, the government issued a guideline that came into force on November 22, 2007. Here the responsible minister reiterated the elimination of funding for the daily operating expenses of these NGOs but allowed them a transitional period running until March 31, 2010 at the latest. In order to access this temporary funding, NGOs still had to have a serious transition plan showing how they intended to replace the agency’s financial assistance for their operating costs after that date.

All other projects with any hope for funding had to be ad hoc in nature, of limited, well-defined duration, and directly related to Canada Economic Development priorities.

These priorities are not explicitly defined, but we can rest assured that the government will provide funding to various individual projects scattered here and there around Quebec. This way of doing things is very good for the federal government’s visibility in Quebec but there is no consistent, sustainable vision here to ensure the long-term development of Quebec’s regions. This approach did not do anything to reduce the grumbling in economic circles and just delayed the slaughter.

A slaughter because the consequences of this decision are important to Quebec. Many organizations such as Montréal International, PÔLE Québec Chaudière-Appalaches, Technopole maritime du Québec basée à Rimouski, Technopole Vallée du Saint-Maurice, TechnoCentre éolien Gaspésie, Corporation de soutien au développement technologique des petites et moyennes entreprises de l'Est du Québec, and Centre Les Buissons de Pointe-aux-Outardes are directly affected and even threatened by this stoppage of their grants.

Whatever the size of the individual organizations, most were born from a desire by the regions and the Government of Quebec to support promising small businesses and help SMBs 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 given special prominence to 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 niches of excellence. These research centres subsidized in part by Canada Economic Development are working in these niches in partnership with SMBs.

For some of these organizations, funding from the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec represented up to 50% of their budgets. For example, the corporation providing technological support to SMBs 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. Some Quebec regions will be deprived of essential development tools, and research capacity will be seriously compromised in various sectors such as aluminum processing and marine aquaculture development. In the Matapédia area, the Forest Product Processing Research and Expertise Services will have to cut expenses in its research budget. In concrete terms, this measure is a direct threat to the operation and very existence of some of these organizations involved in regional development.

On March 18, the Conservative government unveiled CED's so-called new policy concerning not-for-profit economic organizations in Quebec. This policy, presented as a new initiative developed by the government, does nothing more than reinstate partially and temporarily the program it had cut in April 2007. Besides how farcical it is to hear the government talk about a new policy, several questions remain.

The Bloc Québécois takes note of this announcement, which will mean that NPOs will once again be able to rely on federal support for their current operations, but it has questions about the associated terms and conditions.

First, the “new” funding is for a probationary period which ends March 31, 2011. Having already announced in 2007 the possibility for NPOs 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, the minister has admitted that he is not in a position to say whether all the funding will be reinstated. One may conclude, without fear of error, that it will not be. Also, only 52 of the 200 Quebec NPOs 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.

As the previous minister had done in 2007, the government is continuing to politicize the funding it grants. In its stubborn preference for its own visibility over the interests of Quebec, the federal government dictates that every project will be evaluated on merit and must be directly linked to the Canada Economic Development's priorities. Again the invocation of those famous priorities. The problem is that those priorities are formulated in general terms, which means that Canada Economic Development can leave itself enough discretionary flexibility to choose the projects that can receive funding. And considering how this ideological government operates, the chances are slim of seeing Quebec’s priorities being given consideration in the process.

The government is trying to make us believe that new funding is being established for Quebec NPOs.

In fact, this announcement is a cowardly farce, a way to stifle the criticism erupting from all parts of Quebec against the elimination of funding for these NPOs. It is a way of slowly killing the Quebec economic development model. That is why I invite my colleagues to support motion M-288 to make the funding of Canada Economic Development consistent and efficient.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for my colleague.

The decision to restore funding to economic organizations responds to the needs expressed by economic stakeholders and elected officials during recent visits by the Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec). Everyone is applauding this decision. I would like to ask the Bloc why it does not accept our government's commitment to provide assistance for the economic development of the regions of Quebec while ensuring responsible management of taxpayers' money?

The Bloc also voted against creating the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec on June 1, 2005. Furthermore, on March 18, 2009, when it was announced that funding would be provided to economic NPOs, the Bloc stated that it was pleased for the non-profits. My question is as follows. How does the opposition member plan to work with the government to help the communities most in need?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to my Conservative colleague, even though he is from Quebec, I am wondering whether he read the same information in the papers when the minister announced the cuts affecting non-profits. The reactions were unanimous from the people directly involved with the organizations to those who deal with economic development across Quebec, from the mayors of major municipalities to the Quebec minister responsible for regional development and from the Quebec government to the Quebec National Assembly.

Thus, the consultations he alluded to were a waste of time. As I mentioned, there was a lot of consultations during the electoral campaign, which were obviously deliberate, to speak of the government's investments. We did that. We are listening to the people in our area because economic development in Quebec is different from economic development in other regions of Canada. A member from Quebec should know that.

He should also be trying to convince his colleagues from other provinces who do not operate the same way and who often are not even interested. We know about the Conservative ideology. When it comes to the economy, it is laissez-faire. They do not believe in government intervention. However, the government must take action and restore the previous budgets.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for introducing the motion. It has many elements in it that are very important to all Canadians. First we have regional economic development because there are areas in Canada that need assistance to maintain a vibrant and stable economic climate for employment promotion.

Recently we dealt with a bill about tax credits to help young people stay in their communities rather than eroding the labour force available to them. Statistics Canada is now saying that young people under the age of 25 have been the ones disproportionately affected by job losses across Canada. I can only assume that Quebec is reflective of that same experience.

Is the member aware of the situation of youth in these areas and whether the innovative program of using the non-profits through the Economic Development Agency was dedicated to some extent to the promotion of or job creation for young people?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, every region has its own characteristics and in each one, youth migration is a major problem. Non-profits were active in the economic field, were doing promotion work and were even helping businesses to start up, particularly innovative businesses. Innovation is where we have to invest. This is increasingly the result of a better education which, in turn, leads to the creation of research firms. The Conservative government is often against research, saying it is useless. So many businesses were created from--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order.

Resuming debate.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in the first hour of debate on the motion moved by the member for Sherbrooke. At the outset, I want to make it clear that Economic Development Canada never abolished funding for non-profit organizations.

In 2007, the former minister of Economic Development Canada made a courageous decision that was necessary given the context he had to deal with. However, that decision also gave Economic Development Canada access to some flexibility it no longer had. Thanks to our Conservative government's good management, funding by default based on nothing more than an activity is now a thing of the past.

When he took over the reins, the Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec) conducted a detailed analysis of all of his files. The difficult economic circumstances during which the minister took over called for quick, coherent action that took into account the harsh realities Quebec's regions were facing. That is why the minister undertook consultations in all regions of Quebec. He thought it was important to meet people on their own turf, stakeholders and elected representatives, everyone who was participating in their community's economy.

Each time, discussions focused on the following issues: How can Economic Development Canada do a better job of helping communities going through hard times? How can Economic Development Canada work more effectively with regional economic stakeholders? How can Economic Development Canada provide better support to the creation and growth of small and medium-sized businesses?

It was through consultations, for example, that the minister heard the concerns of the economic development community. Thus, on March 18, 2009, the minster was able to go ahead and open up financing to certain not-for-profit organizations, based on specific criteria. This new approach will be used for the next two years. From now on, all not-for-profit economic organizations with projects designed to deliver services that meet the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises or communities may apply for financial assistance, including operating costs.

However, the projects submitted must meet Economic Development Canada's priorities. They must facilitate the adjustment of regions and communities to the new economic context and enhance the performance of small and medium sized enterprises. To ensure the sound management of public funds, we want the projects selected to produce concrete results that will benefit Quebec’s enterprises and regions.

I must point out that the new policy is being very well received by a number of public stakeholders. I would like to mention, for example, the enthusiasm expressed by Quebec City's mayor, Régis Labeaume.

Following our announcement, Mr. Raymond Bachand, Quebec Minister of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade said:

Today's announcement demonstrates that the federal government has recognized the important contribution to the economic development of Quebec of the not for profit economic organizations.

Not for profit organizations will again have access for a period of two years to federal government funding, an essential complement to the action of the Government of Quebec. The economic vitality of Quebec is unfolding, day after day, thanks to the work of these economic leaders.

That was from a press release dated March 18, 2009 and released by Raymond Bachand, Quebec's Minister of Economic Development, Innovation and Export.

I would also like to remind hon. members of the favourable reaction by a number of these not for profit economic organizations, including Montréal International, PÔLE Québec Chaudières-Appalaches, Aéro Montréal and Laval Technopole. Thanks to our financial support, the non-profit economic organizations will be better able to support the development of Quebec businesses and communities. That is what the people in our struggling communities are hearing, and that is what we and our partners are focusing on.

Under our government, examples of assistance to the regions of Quebec abound. Through its 14 business offices, the Economic Development Agency of Canada works with a clientele comprised for the most part of SMEs and non-profit organizations.

We have been very proactive and attuned to the needs of the regions and communities experiencing difficulties during this period of economic crisis. The programs and measures put in place by the agency bear witness to our commitment to finding solutions in the best interests of the workers of the country and of Quebec.

I am thinking of such programs as Community Diversification, which enables the regions of Quebec to maintain and develop their economic base, and of Business and Regional Growth, which enhances the conditions favourable to the sustainable development of regions and of SMEs.

These are in addition to numerous other measures, such as funds to assist with the creation and transfer of businesses, set up in collaboration with the community business development corporations joint fund. More specifically, our government created a $1 billion Community Adjustment Fund to help communities depending on struggling economic sectors, and over $200 million will go to Quebec.

Our new policy on the non-profit economic organizations is evidence of our ability to listen and intervene in order to ensure the viability of our communities in the best interest of workers, business and the regions of Quebec. I would therefore encourage the members of the opposition to set partisan games aside and work with the people they represent in order to take advantage of this new policy.