37th PARLIAMENT,
2nd SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 096
CONTENTS
Tuesday, May 6, 2003
|
 |
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Order in Council Appointments |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 153) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act |
|
|
Bill C-10--Time Allocation Motion |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper |
|
|
Hon. Wayne Easter |
|
|
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Wayne Easter |
|
|
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Wayne Easter |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Wayne Easter |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Wayne Easter |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Wayne Easter |
|
|
Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
|
|
Hon. Wayne Easter |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Wayne Easter |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Wayne Easter |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Hon. Wayne Easter |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Wayne Easter |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
(Division 154) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Concurrence in Senate amendments |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC) |
|
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
|
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) |
|
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.) |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Bill C-10 |
|
|
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Roger Gallaway |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC) |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
Mr. Alan Tonks (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Ecological Gifts Program |
|
|
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) |
|
|
Mothers Against Drunk Drivers |
|
|
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
World Asthma Day |
|
|
Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Canadian Association of Research Libraries |
|
|
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.) |
|
|
Blood Donors |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) |
|
|
National Palliative Care Week |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Bank of Montreal |
|
|
Mr. Janko Péric (Cambridge, Lib.) |
|
|
Flue-cured Tobacco Farmers of Quebec |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ) |
|
|
Laval Businesses |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.) |
|
|
Information Technology Week |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Information Technology Week |
|
|
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.) |
|
|
National Elizabeth Fry Week |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Nicolas Macrozonaris |
|
|
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ) |
|
|
Toronto |
|
|
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) |
|
|
National Drinking Water Standards |
|
|
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC) |
|
|
Perth--Middlesex |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Foreign Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Fisheries |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
First Nations |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Canadian Television Fund |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Fisheries |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
|
|
Foreign Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
St. Lawrence Waterway |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Duplain (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Duplain (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Citizenship and Immigration |
|
|
Mr. Janko Péric (Cambridge, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Denis Coderre (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Arts and Culture |
|
|
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Foreign Affairs |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Gun Control |
|
|
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Free Trade Area of the Americas |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Fisheries and Oceans |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
The Environment |
|
|
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Railway Transportation |
|
|
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Programs |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Microbreweries |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Aboriginal Affairs |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Fisheries |
|
|
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Presence in Gallery |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
Parliament of Canada Act |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 155) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed to and bill referred to a committee)
|
|
|
Mr. Joe Comuzzi |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Dale Johnston |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
|
Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik |
|
|
Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
|
|
(Division 156) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Bill read the third time and passed)
|
|
|
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act |
|
|
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gerry Ritz |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gerry Ritz |
|
|
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Karen Redman |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Karen Redman |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Bill C-10 |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
(Division 157) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
(Division 158) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
(Division 159) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Roger Gallaway |
|
|
Mr. Dan McTeague |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
|
|
Appointment of Judges |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
|
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC) |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Tuesday, May 6, 2003
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
(1005)
[English]
Order in Council Appointments
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a number of order in council appointments made recently by the government.
Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, I move:
|
|
That the House do now proceed to orders of the day. |
The Speaker:
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
* * *
(1035)
And the bells having rung:
Mr. John Reynolds:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The motion to proceed to orders of the day is out of order because the motion is attempting to bypass routine proceedings without just cause and the opposition, knowing that it is against the rules to do so, did not expect the government to do this and did not have time to raise the point of order before the motion was moved.
There was a ruling on this very matter on April 13, 1987--
The Speaker:
I sympathize perhaps with what the hon. member is trying to do but the point of order should have been raised before the question was put to the House if there were some procedural objection.
An hon. member: How can you raise a point of order on a--
The Speaker: The hon. member is asking how you can do it. When the motion was moved by the minister, someone should have risen on a point of order to make the objection before the Chair put the question to the House and called for the vote.
We are now called in for a vote on a motion that has been put. Had it been procedurally irregular, the challenge should have been made, in my view, prior to the question being put to the House, which is the normal practice on motions as hon. members know.
Accordingly, the question is on the motion.
* * *
(1045)
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 153)
|
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allard
Anderson (Victoria)
Assadourian
Augustine
Bagnell
Barnes (London West)
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Binet
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Bonwick
Boudria
Bradshaw
Brown
Bryden
Bulte
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Caplan
Carroll
Castonguay
Catterall
Charbonneau
Chrétien
Coderre
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cotler
Cullen
Cuzner
DeVillers
Dion
Dromisky
Drouin
Duplain
Easter
Eggleton
Farrah
Finlay
Folco
Fontana
Frulla
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Harvard
Harvey
Hubbard
Jackson
Jennings
Jordan
Karetak-Lindell
Keyes
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Leung
Lincoln
Longfield
MacAulay
Macklin
Mahoney
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
McCallum
McGuire
McKay (Scarborough East)
McLellan
Mills (Toronto--Danforth)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Myers
Nault
Neville
O'Brien (London--Fanshawe)
O'Reilly
Pacetti
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Patry
Péric
Peschisolido
Pettigrew
Pickard (Chatham--Kent Essex)
Pillitteri
Pratt
Price
Proulx
Redman
Reed (Halton)
Regan
Robillard
Rock
Saada
Savoy
Sgro
Shepherd
Speller
St-Jacques
St-Julien
St. Denis
Szabo
Thibault (West Nova)
Thibeault (Saint-Lambert)
Tirabassi
Tonks
Torsney
Vanclief
Whelan
Wilfert
Total: -- 118
|
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands)
Bailey
Bigras
Blaikie
Borotsik
Bourgeois
Breitkreuz
Cardin
Casey
Casson
Crête
Davies
Day
Desjarlais
Desrochers
Doyle
Duceppe
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gagnon (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay)
Gallant
Gaudet
Gauthier
Gouk
Grewal
Guay
Guimond
Harper
Harris
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George--Peace River)
Hinton
Jaffer
Johnston
Keddy (South Shore)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Laframboise
Lalonde
Lebel
Lill
Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni)
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Ménard
Meredith
Merrifield
Mills (Red Deer)
Nystrom
Obhrai
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Rajotte
Reid (Lanark—Carleton)
Reynolds
Ritz
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Skelton
Solberg
Spencer
St-Hilaire
Strahl
Thompson (Wild Rose)
Wasylycia-Leis
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Yelich
Total: -- 69
|
|
The Speaker:
I declare the motion carried.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act
Bill C-10--Time Allocation Motion
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
moved:
|
|
That in relation to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the stage of consideration of Senate amendments to the bill and, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the allotted day of the consideration of the said stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment. |
[Translation]
The Speaker:
Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1 there will now be a 30 minute question period.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we have yet another Liberal closure motion but it does give me an opportunity to question the government a little bit indepth about the firearms registry, boondoggle.
The House will recall that we were sold this bill of goods that it would cost $2 million. This party warned that it would cost much more. The member for Yorkton—Melville did heroic work for years providing evidence that this would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The government denied this systematically and covered it up, but it has now been revealed that we are up to about $1 billion in expenditures on this with absolutely no end in sight.
We have been putting a series of questions to the government for months. I would appreciate if, after all these months with this new bill, it could finally answer these questions today. How much will it cost to complete this firearm registry, when will it be completed, and how much will it cost to maintain?
(1050)
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to outline the costs for the hon. member because he has been talking about what his colleague from Yorkton—Melville has been doing in terms of outlining the costs. The motion today is about getting Bill C-10A through the House, which will in fact reduce the costs.
Let me the outline the worst year of costs for the Canadian firearms centre. The opposition alleges that all the costs are with the registry. I will outline those figures in detail for the year 2000-01: public administration was $10,670,000; communication and public affairs was $34,820,000; firearms registration, the area the opposition is always talking about, was $40,362,000; program delivery was $114,216,000; and the national weapons enforcement support team, which does all the good work in terms of finding illegal weapons and which is part of the purpose for the program in the first place, was $296,000. That totals $200,364,000. Those are the real facts and that was the worst year of costs.
We want to ensure that we pass Bill C-10A to create some efficiencies in the system and save money for Canadians.
Mr. Stephen Harper:
Mr. Speaker, the only way we will save costs on this program is to scrap this registry and put the money into public safety.
The minister should be ashamed of himself for coming here with a whole bunch of costs and not being able to answer my questions on what this will cost and when it will be finished, but this is typical of the government. I am hardly surprised because this reflects its entire criminal justice agenda. It has nothing to do with public safety. Instead, it is just wasting money and being soft on crime.
We have Bill C-23 which frankly should be renamed the sex offender protection act because the only people in the country it protects are sex offenders. We have Bill C-20 that has loopholes for child pornography. I could go on and on. Under its watch the government has allowed convicts the right to vote.
Can the government explain why it is so soft on criminals and is never prepared to take real action on crime?
Hon. Wayne Easter:
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the official opposition is implying that this system does not make streets safer. Let me provide a couple of examples.
A public safety warrant was executed after an individual threatened several employees of local businesses and a school principal. As the individual lived directly across from the school, there was concern that he would follow through with his threats. The search warrant allowed police to find a number of shotguns and rifles unsafely stored in a closet in the individual's home. All the firearms were seized and the individual was subsequently prohibited from owning firearms and the guns that were found in his home were disposed of. That is making safer streets and the members in the official opposition do not want to admit that.
Let me explain what this bill would really do. If the opposition were to let us pass Bill C-10A we could save money. I will name a few of the possible effects that it would have. It would simplify the requirements for licence renewals, which members opposite should want; it would stagger firearm licence renewals to avoid a surge of applications in five year cycles; it would increase the use of the Internet for applications and the issuance of documents, which is making great efficiencies; it would establish a pre-application process for temporary importation of non-resident visitors; and it would streamline the transfer process of firearms from one owner to another. That is helping to create efficiencies within the system.
(1055)
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is pretty obvious the minister is not answering our questions.
I have a question for him. RCMP testing has confirmed that many air guns, pellet guns, and even some BB guns exceed both the muzzle energy and muzzle velocity requirements in Bill C-10A and would have to be registered as soon as Bill C-10A is proclaimed. This would drive up the costs, contrary to what the minister has just said. There may be as many as one million air gun owners, and two or three million pellet guns and BB guns in Canada.
Would the minister tell us how much it will cost to register all of these guns?
Hon. Wayne Easter:
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice went before the estimates committee and outlined some of those costs. Maybe the member should have listened more closely at that point in time. However, the best way to look at what the costs to the system would be is to look at the history. I outlined to his leader a moment ago what the costs were in 2000-01. As we can see from those figures, the costs that the member opposite talks about most of the time are greatly exaggerated.
The fact of the matter is, regarding his question on Bill C-10A, this proposal would make it possible for us to create better efficiencies in the system and that is what members opposite should be wanting us to do.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House today is a bill that was divided by the Senate. I have known the minister for a long while and I thought he had some progressive views about parliamentary reform. By accepting this bill that was divided by the Senate, the House is accepting the fact that the Senate, even though it is not elected, not democratic, and not accountable, has the power to divide a legislative bill. I do not think that is proper.
Would the minister reconsider his position because by accepting this bill in the House he is accepting a decision that the Senate made to divide the bill.
This bill was introduced last October. It went to the Senate in November and the Senate divided the bill into the firearms part and the cruelty to animals part. Today we have the firearms part back in the House. By accepting that, we are accepting the fact that the Senate has the right in a democratic society to divide legislation. I think that is dead wrong. It is not elected, not accountable, and not democratic, and it is thwarting the will of the people of Canada. I want the minister to respond to that because I used to think he was a pretty democratic guy.
Hon. Wayne Easter:
Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, I am a very democratic individual, as are all my colleagues on this side of the House. We believe in democracy and debate. In fact, the point of the issue on this, as we talk about democracy, is that debate is democracy. There was a total of 15 days of debate on this bill in the House. That is over 36 hours. There were five days of debate in the other place. That is a lot of debate on the issue.
In terms of splitting the bill, previous Speakers have ruled that it is fine, it does not impede democracy. From my previous experience, going before both House of Commons and Senate committees as a farm leader, the Senate often raises good questions in debate but in a much more non-partisan sense. In fact, it does not get into the politics of the thing and exaggerates issues, as has the official opposition. Sometimes we can even have better debate in the Senate than we can here. That may seem strange but that is true, and it cuts both ways. There has been a lot of debate on this issue.
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, police chiefs across Canada are withdrawing their support for the government's firearms registry and are going public with their complaints. The president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police has stated that they will not be charging people under this law until the problems are resolved. They have written to the justice minister requesting that the implementation of the law be put on hold.
Can the minister explain how the firearms registry will be enforced when police are refusing to charge those who do not comply?
(1100)
Hon. Wayne Easter:
Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important question, but I am concerned by what the member is suggesting may happen.
When the House of Commons passes laws in this country, the police have an obligation to uphold those laws. I hope the member opposite is not advocating that the police in Canada do not enforce the laws passed by the House of Commons. The police have a responsibility and an obligation to enforce those laws.
In fact, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association, and the Ottawa police chief are in support of the legislation. They believe it does make safer communities and streets.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I recall the days when the hon. member used to speak against gun control well before he was Solicitor General. In committee and in debate he was not the rabid gun control fan that he seems to be since he became minister.
On December 5, 2002, the Progressive Conservative justice critic, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, saved Canadians $72 million by having that amount of money withdrawn from the estimates. I would think that because the $72 million had to be withdrawn by the government, it did not have the money in its coffers to continue to bankroll this $1 billion mistake that it has made.
Where did the government find the money to continue with the gun control registry? If it diverted money from other means, how did it meet its payroll, and how could it do that and be consistent with the comments that the Auditor General made of how it was circumventing Parliament and getting the money to begin with?
Hon. Wayne Easter:
Mr. Speaker, the member is roaring across the aisle that what we cannot do by the front door we are doing by the back door. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We have said on this side of the House that there have been extensive costs to this program. Through Bill C-10A, we have found ways to make the gun registry more efficient. We need the legislative obligations which are laid out in Bill C-10A in order to put those efficiencies in place.
I understand the opposition by some to the program. The intent of the gun control issue, as the member fully knows, is not to make criminals out of legitimate gun owners. They have a right to those guns. However, there are certain obligations they must follow through on that are part of the gun control program.
The specifics of the hon. member's question pertained to costs. One of the reasons why, as outlined in the presentation before the estimates, and one of the difficulties in terms of administering the program and getting registrations on the phone-in system is that we had to cut back on resources and on people on the other end of those phones because of the reduction of the amount of money the member talked about. It added to our problem of inefficiencies in the system because that money was withdrawn.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned a lot of interesting things in a short time. He talked about how we should not be making legitimate gun owners criminals, but neither should we be making taxpayers paupers. That is exactly what the registry is doing.
The minister talked about extensive costs. That is putting it mildly. We are talking about something that was supposed to cost $2 million. It is now closing in on $1 billion. That would buy over 200 MRI machines and also train the people to run them. If this were about saving lives, clearly that would be a better way to proceed.
The minister talked about people who oppose the registry and he understands why. The minister should, of course, because as the member mentioned just a minute ago, he used to oppose it too until all of a sudden he became a minister and everything changed.
I want to talk specifically about his comments on being a democrat. If we are democrats, does that not mean we listen to the will of the public? When the public is saying in a recent poll that 53% want the registry scrapped, a democrat would listen.
When will this alleged democrat across the way start listening to the Canadian public and scrap that registry?
(1105)
Hon. Wayne Easter:
Mr. Speaker, there was a lot of hot air but not much substance in that comment. Let us get to the facts in terms of the $2 million cost. Admittedly so, it was the net cost of the program as originally estimated. The member talks about the $1 billion figure. We are not at $1 billion; by 2005 we may reach that point.
I do want to make this point. The members are saying that I was opposed to this system and that since I became a minister I now support it. I think it would be useful if members opposite went back to look at the voting record in Hansard. They will see how I voted on this issue. Certainly I have debated, as have many members of our caucus; I see some of them sitting here. I have debated within our own caucus and within the House some of the concerns we had on the gun registry. We did have concerns. We tried to improve it.
That is what we are trying to do today: improve the bill to meet the concerns of the people within our party and some of the concerns of the people opposite and certainly of the general public.
On the last point on democracy, the member says to listen to the will of the public. That is what we are trying to do. The public said yes, they want this system, but they want it run efficiently.
If we could ever get to voting on Bill C-10A, we could create some of those efficiencies in the system that the public wants. That is what we are trying to do by getting this bill through the House of Commons, but the opposition members continue to try to disrupt us. Twenty days of debate between the two houses is unbelievable.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom:
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the minister. What I was asking for is his opinion on whether or not the Senate should have the right to split a bill. It is not elected and not democratic. The gun registry, by the way, is a money bill, which makes it even more serious.
I have known the minister for a number of years and I know that he was outspoken. Just because he is now a minister of the crown does not mean that he has become a political eunuch. He still has his own mind, his own brain, his own opinion.
In his opinion, is it the proper thing to do to have the Senate split a bill like this when the senators are not elected, particularly when it is a money bill?
Hon. Wayne Easter:
Mr. Speaker, I think I answered the member's question earlier. The fact of the matter is that the Senate is appointed. It is a part of our democratic system. It is the sober house of second thought. In terms of the cruelty to animals part of the splitting, I would hope that there is some sober second thought over there. This will proceed through the system. There will be a good debate on both issues and at the end of the day we expect better legislation. That is what the other place is all about; sober second thought on some of these issues. It is part of our democratic system. I think we should be proud of it.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the minister has said that he has to have an efficient system, but I think it also has to be effective and credible. I would like him to explain how it can be credible when a man in my riding registered one firearm but got five registrations; so now the police, who are depending on this registry to know how many firearms this man has, think he has five. Another man registered five guns but only got two registrations. Another man sent money a year and a half ago and has nothing. Another person has registered 18 firearms and the system registered 36 firearms.
How can anyone have any faith in the system with this incredible amount of inefficiency and error in the system?
(1110)
Hon. Wayne Easter:
Mr. Speaker, I am not denying for a moment that there are not bad examples out there. There are.
In fact, in Regina about two weeks ago I talked to a gun shop owner. He spent, in my view, much too long on the telephone trying to register in that case a twenty-two, I believe, that had a duplicate number. That should not happen in the system. I agree with the hon. member. There are problems within the system and there are examples out there, and I am not denying that, not for a minute.
What we are trying to do through the bill and what I am trying to do personally is talk to some of those individuals, and the new chief executive officer at the Canadian Firearms Centre, Mr. Baker, is trying to do the same, because we want to talk directly to those people who have problems and we want to fix those problems. That is what this bill is all about: making the system work efficiently and effectively. That is what we want to do.
[Translation]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the firearms registry was imposed on Canadians with the promise that it would cost only $2 million. The government was wrong, which is not surprising. This program has cost, to date, nearly 500 times more than the initial estimate.
Last fall, the Auditor General published a scathing report on the government's bad management of this program.
For the past three months, the Canadian Alliance has tried to get an honest answer from the minister. Can he tell us how much the implementation and maintenance of this program will cost?
[English]
Hon. Wayne Easter:
Mr. Speaker, the member's question is not what today's motion is about. There will be a chance to get into that kind of detail when we go to estimates.
What I can do is talk about past history. I have already outlined that, where, yes, there have been extensive costs. The Auditor General made a report, a very well documented report, and we appreciate having received that report from her. It was not good news, I will admit that. There was bad news in it, but what this government and what I as the minister now responsible for the firearms centre are willing to do is look at this. We have said that we would adopt those recommendations. We will accept them and in fact some of them are in Bill C-10A, this bill that we are talking about. We want to learn from what the Auditor General said and create efficiencies in the system and manage the system more effectively.
That is what I cannot understand: Where is the official opposition on this? On one hand it is talking about the program costing too much money, and I admit it is, but we want the program to cost less money and to be more efficient, and yet those members will not give us the opportunity to make this program more efficient and have safer streets in the process.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Solicitor General's remarks and I appreciate the fact that he recognizes the registry is costing too much money, but I know for a fact that at one time in the member's career he raised dairy cows and I am certain he is also aware of the fact that we manage to register 28 million head of livestock, cows alone, in this country for somewhere around $2 million a year. Each of those cows has a serial number and each has its sire and dam written down. To waste $1 billion on something that should have cost $4 million or $5 million cannot be excused and he cannot find a way to justify it.
My final point is quite clear. The former minister of justice who used to have this portfolio, the member from Etobicoke, tried to make his mark on this registry and become the next prime minister of Canada. He made a mark. It cost $1 billion. This member is going to leave--
(1115)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
The hon. Solicitor General.
Hon. Wayne Easter:
Mr. Speaker, I will say this on the member's question. When the program he is talking about was started, I believe Charlie Gracey was the president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association at the time, or at least he was one of the consultants on that national cattle identification program. It is an exceptionally good program, no question about it. Twenty-five million livestock are registered, transfers are happening, sales are happening, and some are going to slaughter.
They are doing that and I congratulate them for doing it, but this is like comparing apples and oranges in terms of this particular program. There is a 95% compliance rate with the NCIP, but in the beginning there was considerable opposition to the program, the same as there is with this program.
I believe that if government can get the message out of what this program is all about, it is that the intent is not to criminalize legitimate gun owners. It is not; it is to make safer streets and safer communities. We want to do that. Without Bill C-10A, which we are having the discussion on, the firearms centre, taxpayers are incurring costs to maintain and operate the old system as well as costs for the new system. We need this piece of legislation so that we are working with the new system, a more efficient system, and so we can provide the kinds of services that Canadians want in an efficient way.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, just as an aside, it is interesting to note that there were 18 Tory senators who voted for Bill C-68, and without those votes we would not have the firearms registry.
My colleague down the way talked about the police and the individuals who said that they would not be enforcing this law. There is another problem for the minister opposite and that is the provinces that will not support this law and say that they want it scrapped.
My question is directed to the minister. How will the law be enforced when a number of provinces, eight of them in fact, say that they do not want the registry in their jurisdictions? What will he do about that?
Hon. Wayne Easter:
Mr. Speaker, we want to work with the provinces and work together in the way that this country was intended to work, with the provinces and federal government working together, and we are going to sit down and try to do that. If we have to go our own way we may have to do that too, but I want to come back to what was said earlier, I believe by this member, about the Association of Chiefs of Police.
This is what Chief Vince Bevan of the association had to say and I think this sums it all up:
|
|
Information is the lifeblood of policing. Without information about who owns and has guns, there is no way to prevent violence or effectively enforce the law. This law is a useful tool which has already begun to show its value in a number of police investigations. |
There is a second quote from the same individual:
|
|
We have seen a number of concrete examples of police investigations that have been aided by access to the information in the registry. |
If the party over there were as interested in law and order as it claims, it would be supporting us today instead of jeopardizing and causing disruptions in getting these efficiencies through the system.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House. The question is on the motion. Is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Call in the members.
* * *
(1205)
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division)
|
(Division No. 154)
|
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allard
Anderson (Victoria)
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Bagnell
Barnes (London West)
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bennett
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Binet
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Bonwick
Boudria
Bradshaw
Brown
Bryden
Bulte
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Caplan
Carroll
Castonguay
Catterall
Charbonneau
Chrétien
Coderre
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cotler
Cullen
Cuzner
DeVillers
Dion
Dromisky
Drouin
Duplain
Easter
Eggleton
Farrah
Finlay
Folco
Fontana
Frulla
Fry
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Harvard
Harvey
Jackson
Jennings
Jordan
Karetak-Lindell
Keyes
Knutson
LeBlanc
Lee
Lincoln
Longfield
MacAulay
Macklin
Mahoney
Maloney
Manley
Marcil
McCallum
McGuire
McKay (Scarborough East)
McLellan
Mills (Toronto--Danforth)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Myers
Nault
Neville
O'Brien (London--Fanshawe)
O'Reilly
Pacetti
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Péric
Peschisolido
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pillitteri
Pratt
Price
Proulx
Redman
Reed (Halton)
Regan
Robillard
Rock
Saada
Savoy
Scott
Sgro
Shepherd
Speller
St-Jacques
St-Julien
St. Denis
Steckle
Szabo
Telegdi
Thibault (West Nova)
Thibeault (Saint-Lambert)
Tirabassi
Tonks
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Whelan
Wilfert
Total: -- 124
|
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands)
Bailey
Benoit
Bigras
Blaikie
Borotsik
Bourgeois
Breitkreuz
Cadman
Cardin
Casey
Casson
Chatters
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Davies
Day
Desjarlais
Desrochers
Doyle
Duceppe
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gagnon (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay)
Gallant
Gaudet
Gauthier
Gouk
Grewal
Guay
Guimond
Harris
Herron
Hill (Prince George--Peace River)
Hill (Macleod)
Hinton
Jaffer
Johnston
Keddy (South Shore)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Laframboise
Lebel
Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni)
Marceau
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Masse
Ménard
Merrifield
Mills (Red Deer)
Moore
Nystrom
Obhrai
Paquette
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Proctor
Rajotte
Reynolds
Ritz
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Skelton
Solberg
Spencer
St-Hilaire
Strahl
Thompson (Wild Rose)
Toews
Vellacott
Wasylycia-Leis
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Yelich
Total: -- 77
|
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
Bergeron
Cauchon
Copps
Fournier
Gagnon (Champlain)
Girard-Bujold
Grose
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Lanctôt
Martin (LaSalle--Émard)
Matthews
McCormick
Perron
Roy
Simard
Stewart
Tremblay
Total: -- 18
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
I declare the motion carried.
* * *
Concurrence in Senate amendments
The House resumed from April 7 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, and of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker:
I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to talk about the Government of Canada's dedication and commitment to public safety and to the firearms program.
The gun control program is designed to enhance public safety and to reduce the number of firearm related injuries and deaths. The program is keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have these firearms and helping those who do have the firearms in their efforts to be responsible and accountable for their use. The program is also providing police with valuable investigative tools to prevent crime and to cut down on gun smuggling. This is what police officers themselves are telling us.
Both the licensing and registration are key elements in achieving the program safety objectives. Licensing ensures that firearm owners meet high public safety standards while the registration links one owner to one firearm ensuring greater accountability. The registration of all firearms enables law enforcement officers across Canada to track firearms, to identify stolen firearms and to distinguish legally owned firearms from those acquired illegally. Registration also facilitates the enforcement of probation orders and allows police to take preventive action, such as removing firearms from situations of domestic violence.
It is quite interesting, and perhaps the members from the opposite side might like to hear this and learn from this, that the police find both licensing and registration to be valuable in their work.
At a news conference this past January David Griffin, the executive officer for the Canadian Police Association stated:
|
|
We… consider the licensing of firearms owners and the registration of firearms to be a valuable public safety tool for front-line police officers... It would be irresponsible to suspend or abandon any element of this program, now that it is starting to deliver the intended results. |
This comes straight from the mouth of David Griffin, executive officer for the Canadian Police Association.
Police officers have access to certain information contained in the firearms registry. This information is gathered in the firearms registry online, also known as CFRO. Law enforcement officers have queried the system for information regarding individuals who may own firearms or may have firearms in their possession more than two million times since it was launched on December 1, 1998. They did this for the safety of Canadians.
These police officers have received information about the number and types of firearms that may be involved in the course of an investigation which they are currently conducting. Police officers en route to a call from a residence have been able to find out in seconds if a firearm licence or a registration certificate is listed for that residence. The system also helps police officers trace the owners of found, recovered or seized firearms.
The Canadian firearms program yields significant savings for police services. How does it do that? The police are no longer burdened with the paperwork and administration involved in accepting firearms applications because these are now mailed to a central processing site. This in turn frees up significant police time and resources that can be and are directed to investigation and other important police work.
(1210)
In January 2001 the national weapons enforcement support team, NWEST, was created. NWEST is a network of highly trained and experienced individuals located throughout Canada. NWEST works in a support role with local law enforcement in their criminal investigations that may involve firearms and it assists in anti-trafficking and anti-smuggling efforts. The NWEST team also helps the police community in dealing with issues of violence with firearms. Allow me to give two examples.
While responding to a call from a concerned family member, police in a major city noted that a male in the house was very despondent. Seven long guns were in plain view stored in an unlocked cabinet and were seized to protect the six residents of the home. A check of the firearms registry by these same police officers discovered that the owner also had more than 20 restricted firearms which he had failed to disclose during a police interview.
Family members, upon questioning, stated that they did not know that these handguns were scattered all over the house. Some were concealed between bed mattresses while others were hidden in the ceiling. At that particular call, police also seized 45,000 rounds of ammunition and more than 15 pounds of gun powder from that same residence.
Is that an example of how the firearms registry operates and is indeed a safety tool for police officers in their law enforcement work? I think it is.
In another case following the discovery of a machine gun in the trunk of a vehicle, police in a western Canadian city checked the firearms registry and discovered that the gun was registered to a local gun collector who had not reported the gun lost or stolen. This allowed the police to obtain a search warrant. They determined that several guns were missing from that local gun collector's collection of almost 400 firearms and the registered owner was apparently not even aware that they had gone missing. Although most of the collection was legally registered, several guns were not.
That is another example of how the firearms registry is indeed assisting police officers in doing their job of law enforcement and ensuring public safety. That is according to the police themselves.
Since its launch in January 2001, the national weapons enforcement support team, or NWEST, has provided assistance to almost 3,000 police investigations like those in the two examples I just cited. They have conducted more than 1,800 firearms traces and have provided about 500 information sessions to the policing community. On April 1 NWEST moved from the Canadian Firearms Centre to the national police services, which is administered, as I am sure all members in the House know, by the RCMP.
How does our program, the firearms registry, assist in dealing with the illegal gun market? This is what Ottawa police chief Vince Bevan, vice-president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, said:
|
|
The new law brings us in line with other industrialized nations and is an important part of a coordinated international effort to fight the illicit trafficking of firearms and organized crime. |
He went on to say:
|
|
Improving the regulation of legal firearms is critical to preventing their diversion to illegal markets. |
I am not making this up; this is a direct quote from Vince Bevan, Ottawa's chief of police and also vice-president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. That is what the police have to say about the firearms registry. That is what they have to say about the gun control program.
(1215)
The Government of Canada is committed to gun control and to the firearms program. Our preventive approach to firearms safety is not only supported by Canadians, it is also endorsed by safety experts across the country.
I know that some members on the opposite side of the House do not want to hear that. They would like to lead Canadians into believing that the very individuals and professionals who use the registry do not support the registry. But that is not the case. These groups are among the many stakeholders who continue to push for gun control in Canada and who have spoken out in support of the firearms program on numerous occasions.
For example, in a news release from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police last February, Pierre-Paul Pichette, assistant director, Service de police de la Ville de Montréal, said:
|
|
Gun control is an investment in public safety and there is already promising evidence of its effectiveness. |
The firearms program has already proven to be an effective tool to protect the safety of Canadians. It promotes safe and responsible firearms use while keeping firearms out of the hands of those who pose a risk to themselves or to others.
The government's approach to gun control is supported by a majority of Canadians, including those on the front lines: the police, health workers and victims advocates.
While the firearms program is still in its infancy, we can clearly see the benefits for enforcement agencies and to the Canadian public.
Allow me to add a few words on the government's commitment to improve services to the Canadian public to make this process as user friendly and efficient as possible.
As mentioned in the action plan tabled earlier this year, the government has committed to improve client service throughout the program. This includes a 30 day turnaround for registration applications which are received with accurate and complete information.
The government recognizes that there are still individuals who have yet to bring themselves in compliance with the law. Despite what program opponents would have us believe, there has never been any intention of penalizing law-abiding Canadians. Therefore, I will join my colleague the Solicitor General in encouraging people to act now.
For those who are listening, there are two options available for people to register their firearms.
The first option is online. It is free and available 24 hours a day. As part of our commitment to improve client service, online registration was reintroduced earlier this year. Online registration has been a success with over 425,000 individuals using this service. This includes over 44,000 individuals who have used the online service since it was reintroduced earlier this year.
The second option available for people to register their firearms is to order a form through the 1-800-731-4000 telephone number. The call centre is operational 16 hours each day. The centre handles an average of 4,000 calls per day.
There are still people who have not yet applied for a licence. I urge these individuals to act without delay as they cannot register their firearms without a licence. Perhaps more important, by taking the time to comply, we will have a firearms program even better able to achieve its potential in contributing to public safety.
The program will be undergoing many changes over the next several months. Legislative amendments will allow the program to evolve and make better use of existing technologies in order to better accommodate our clients.
(1220)
New licence terms and a simplifying of the business licence requirements will enhance client service while maintaining the public safety principles of Canada's gun control program.
To conclude, I would like to add that the program's success stems largely from the solid partnerships that have been forged between government agencies, the law enforcement community and many stakeholders, but most important, from the ongoing support of the Canadian public. Canadians believe in public safety. Canadians see gun control as an essential requirement to achieving public safety in Canada.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, as a member who has been around on this issue for many years, I want to tell the hon. member opposite that for years we have had an FAC, a firearms acquisition certificate. People had to have that before they could register a firearm. Where would people go to get a firearms acquisition certificate? They had to go to the RCMP who checked people's character references thoroughly and then they could register.
The minister has just mentioned that we can get a firearm registered on line. I want to tell the member opposite that senior police officers in my constituency are seeing people getting their firearms registered of whom they disapproved under the firearms certificate.
We have heard thousands of lies come out of this office. Now we are being begged to believe what we are being told.
Eight provinces said no way, they will not prosecute. The member quoted two police officers saying that this program is acceptable.
Another point I would like to make is this. We had in our province for years a firearms hunter's safety program where kids, my own grandchildren, have gone through the program. It has been proven across Canada to be of great benefit.
Now we are told that we will probably have to have government trainers conduct this program. That program was all done free of charge by the way. It will be more costly, with more disrespect. We should be saying to those eight provinces, let us get the paperwork and the mess straightened out, which is what the provinces are saying, before we prosecute anyone under the act.
The act has been a dismal failure. Any member who stands up to say that it has been a success certainly has not followed the act along its way.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings:
Mr. Speaker, I beg to disagree with the hon. member on the opposite side.
Law enforcement officers are our front line. The national associations and their representatives have stated clearly that the firearms registry and the gun control program are a success. They are producing a positive effect for them and allowing them to put their resources where they need to be put rather than on the administration of the system that the member on the opposite side referred to which previously was the firearms acquisition certificate system.
As to whether or not this program is effective in ensuring that individuals who should not have possession or licensing of firearms, the government and the police themselves have published statistics as to the number of individuals who had firearms who have been refused the opportunity to have the right to have a licence to possess firearms. That is as a result of this system.
When the front line officers themselves who use this tell us that they have used the system more than two million times since it was first instituted and that they have been able to use it in ongoing police investigations, I take them at their word. I would hope that the member on the opposite side would also take Vince Bevan at his word, take Pierre-Paul Pichette at his word. They speak on behalf of the association for which each of them were speaking and they are accurately responding and explaining the views of their membership. I take them at their word. I would hope that the member would take them at their word and not impugn, as he has done, the validity of the statements that they have made on behalf of their associations, the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.
(1225)
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I just walked into the House and I only heard the end of the hon. member's comments about the Association of Police Chiefs.
Since this is questions and comments and she has made the reference to police chiefs, I guess my question is this. I do not think I have ever seen in my short career in politics any more blatant lobbying on behalf of a significant part of Canadian society as the chiefs of police. I told them that when they lobbied me in my office.
The fact is that the government deliberately brought them to Ottawa on the day of the vote. I do not think that is something to brag about as a government. I think that is something to be embarrassed about. I do not think it is the government's job to manipulate the chiefs of police, nor is it the responsibility of the chiefs of police to allow themselves to be manipulated.
I think there are two wrongs and it certainly does not make it right.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings:
Mr. Speaker, I am astonished and appalled by the statements made by the member on the other side. Once again we have a member, who purports to represent the views of Canadians, impugning the integrity of elected officials of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police . I would assume that he would then broaden his comments to include the Canadian Police Association, which represents the frontline officers, on its good faith and on its objective and impartial analysis of Canada's gun control program and firearms registry program. I am appalled that the member would have the gumption to stand in the House and make statements like that.
I wish the hon. member would have the same gumption to stand outside the House and make those kinds of statements, impugning the words, the opinion, the impartiality and the integrity of the chief of police of Ottawa, Vince Bevin; David Griffin of the Canadian Police Association; and Pierre-Paul Pichette, assistant director of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.
I will not in any way endorse or let anyone listening to this debate believe that on this side of the House the government does not believe in the integrity of the members of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association. We believe that they are impartial and that they are people of integrity. We also believe in them even when we do not always agree with some of their positions.
Is it not distasteful for the members that on this particular occasion the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association have come out in support of Canada's gun control program and firearms registry program? Obviously the members of certain parties on the opposite side, the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance, have attempted to stake their reputation on destroying this effective public safety tool, this effective law enforcement tool.
On this side of the House we will not have it. We will represent Canadians who support these programs. We agree with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association. For once we are on the same side on a particular program. However even when we are not on the same side, never do we disrespect them or impugn their integrity and impartiality. We may disagree but we know that these are valuable organizations and that the people who make up these organizations have valuable experience to bring to the House, to the government and to Canadian society. I say shame on that member.
(1230)
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, what an act to follow. Methinks the member doth protest too much. It is absolutely amazing. The member from the Conservative Party has said what he said in the House outside the House to the police associations. What a tempest in a teapot.
I want to tell the member across the way that it is not just the Alliance and Conservative members who oppose the gun registry. I also oppose it. I am also proud of our Saskatchewan NDP government which has opposed the gun registry. I am very proud of the Manitoba NDP government which has also opposed the gun registry. I am pleased that the NDP Governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba are not co-operating in the implementation of this law. I think they reflect public opinion as well.
This sanctimonious attitude of the Liberal Party that it has the divine right to do what is good and right in this country and that it stands for public opinion and for the people is a bunch of baloney. Those are the kinds of comments in debate that are not helpful at all.
The member across the way should know that this is not an ideological issue across the country. I do not agree with most of the stances taken by the Canadian Alliance but on this particular issue we happen to be on the same score card, on the same side.
We have a long record. The Saskatchewan government was part of the court action challenging the federal law. The NDP government has been the most progressive government historically in North America. The Social Democratic government was elected back in 1944. A lot of progressive people are saying that the gun registry is not the right thing to do; gun control, yes, but gun registry, no. The member across the way should know that if she has been following this debate at all over the last number of years.
I am also happy to say that the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians is challenging this law in the courts. I stand with the first nations people, as I have been doing in committee hearings that are being held now in the Centre Block of the House of Commons.
The widespread point of view is that the gun registry will not be helpful in fighting crime, and that point of view is held by a number of people, including the police.
I have been a member of Parliament for over 30 years and I have never seen such a financial boondoggle in my life as the gun registry. It was supposed to cost $2 million to implement the program but it has now cost about $1 billion. No wonder the member leaves the House hanging her head in shame. There has never been a program with cost overruns like I have seen here. The Auditor General has said that and yet we have this kind of motion come before the House today. I want to make it very clear that what is happening today in the House is the wrong way to go.
The bill itself has been split by the Senate, which is also the wrong thing to do. The Senate is not elected. It is not democratic and it is not accountable. I have nothing against any particular individual in the Senate in terms of them as people. Many of them are very hardworking individuals. However in a modern day democracy an unelected appointed body should not have legislative power. What is happening now is a dangerous precedent being set by the Senate and being accepted by the government.
A government bill that was introduced back in October was sent to the Senate. The Senate separated the bill into two parts, one dealing with firearms and the other dealing with cruelty to animals. As I said earlier this morning, the part dealing with the firearms registry is actually a money bill. To accept the fact that the Senate can have this kind of power with a bill originating in the House of Commons dealing with the expenditure of the public's money is a very dangerous precedent to set.
This will come back to haunt the government across the way. The precedent is set now and the same thing will be done in the future. I ask the government at this time, when it is having a leadership race for the renewal of the Liberal Party, should we not be looking at how we can democratize our Canadian institutions? Is there any reason that we should have an unelected chamber with legislative power?
Many years ago when our parliamentary system was formed we accepted from the British the idea of having a bicameral system. It is debatable whether we should have a bicameral system but it was accepted in those days to have a House of Commons, electing the commoners.
(1235)
We also accepted the British idea that the aristocracy needed to have someone overlooking the commoners. The British have the House of Lords and we have the Senate. We decided the Senate should be appointed by the prime minister and the prime minister could appoint whomever he or she wanted to the Senate. Usually they are friends of the prime minister or members of the prime minister's party; a lot of hacks, flacks and bagmen for that particular party.
On top of that, the Senate has the power to change legislation. It has the power to split a government bill. I believe that is fundamentally wrong.
I wish we had a parliamentary system where members of the government side could get up and speak freely, as the member from Sarnia has done, on how they feel about the Senate having this type of power and authority.
Canada has the most handcuffed parliamentary system in the world. Even in Britain there are many free votes. The Blair government, when Tony Blair was at the height of his popularity, or Margaret Thatcher at the height of her popularity, on many occasions had government bills that were defeated in the House of Commons but the government did not fall. The bill may have been introduced in a different form later on. However we do not have that kind of freedom and democracy in our political system.
I want to say to the government that it sets a very dangerous precedent to allow the Senate to split a bill. I will put this properly. The Senate has the power to split a bill but the House of Commons has the authority to reject the idea from the Senate and to send it back to the other place. When the government decided not to do that and accepted the fact that the bill was now in two parts, one dealing with firearms and one dealing with cruelty to animals, I think set a very dangerous precedent.
It is not just the firearms part. The Senate has now made amendments to the cruelty to animals part of the bill as well. The Senate has weakened what the House of Commons sent to the Senate. I think that is the wrong thing to do.
Once again I appeal to members across the way to reject what the Senate has sent to us. I ask members to think seriously about reforming our democratic institutions. If we do not do that this place will become more and more irrelevant to more and more Canadians.
Before I sit down I want to say that on the gun registry itself there is widespread opposition to what the federal government is doing. It comes from every political corner of the ideological framework across the country.
As I have said before, when Bill C-68 was introduced and supported in the House of Commons it was opposed by the NDP Governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Yukon. The NDP Governments of Manitoba and Saskatchewan are not co-operating now with the administration of the bill, and I applaud them for doing that.
About two weeks ago I met with Saskatchewan's justice minister, Eric Cline, in Regina, and Saskatchewan's position remains firm. There is no data whatsoever that the registration of firearms will bring down crime or the causes of crime in the country.
We need more money to fight crime. We need to be tougher on criminals and tougher on the causes of crime. I represent the riding of Regina—Qu'Appelle. We have the inner city in my riding with a very high crime rate. The way to bring down the crime rate is to put more money into fighting crime and into putting more police out on the roads. The minister of justice told us that if an extra $20 million or $30 million a year could be put in a place such as Saskatchewan in having more police officers out in the communities that crime would go down.
I see in the House today the member for Souris—Moose Mountain who is from Saskatchewan. Even though he is not from Regina I think he is aware that Regina had the highest rate of auto theft of any jurisdiction in North America about two years ago. It was a very unfortunate occurrence. Much of that is in my own riding.
The Province of Saskatchewan, the City of Regina and the police now have a new program to deal with car theft. Car thefts have dropped by a huge percentage. I cannot recall the percentage but over the last year it has been 30%, 40%, 50% or more.
What we can do is tackle crime and tackle the causes of crime. Sometimes the causes of crime have to deal with the fact that people do not have opportunities. They are living in poverty and despair. If we were to drive around part of the inner city in Regina we would see the condition of the housing. We would see the unemployed people. We would hear the stories about the drug trade and the prostitution trade. We would see the looks of despair and helplessness on the faces of many of the people. It is no wonder the crime rate is very high. If we were to put more money into fighting the root cause of crime, Canada would be a better place indeed.
(1240)
The billion dollars which has been put into the gun registry means that money has been taken away from other things, like more police on the streets. Also in Saskatchewan a program was cancelled in terms of gun safety courses that would have cost only a few tens of thousands of dollars. Those are very worthwhile programs and are very helpful.
The government is fundamentally wrong by accepting the fact that the Senate can split a bill, particularly a money bill, like it has done with the one before us today. It is just wrong for an unelected body to have that kind of legislative power. It makes a mockery out of the parliamentary system.
The government should come to its senses in terms of Bill C-68. The registration is not working. It is opposed by an overwhelming majority of the people in the country and it does not have the cooperation of most of the provinces.
I am proud to say that as a member of the New Democratic Party and social democrat that our two provincial governments are very much opposed to the bill, have always been opposed to it and are not cooperating with the implementation of the bill.
I stand also four-square with the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians and other first nation people in Canada who are challenging this thing in the courts and are hoping to get Bill C-68 pulled out of the legislation in the country. It is in conflict with their treaty and hunting rights, rights that are enshrined in the constitution on behalf of the first nations people.
I invite the member across the way to come to her senses, reflect on what she has said and hopefully oppose the bill before the House.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I found it quite interesting to listen to the comments of the member across the way for Regina—Qu'Appelle. He made the statement that the majority of Canadians did not support the firearm registry nor did they support the gun control program as it now stands. In January 2003 a poll by Environics showed that a majority, or 74%, of Canadians supported the program's elements, including licensing and registration. The company specializes in that. Also, that same survey showed that support for gun control, and this includes the licensing and registering, ranges from 59% in western Canada to 85% in Quebec, my home province, to 78% in Ontario to 74% in Atlantic Canada. What does the member think about that support which was shown by a survey in January?
More to the point, the member also talked about how all the provincial governments were opposed to the firearm registry program and gun control program. Why did he not mention the fact that the Alberta government actually challenged the Firearms Act? It went before the Supreme Court of Canada. All the other provincial governments, and I am not sure about the territorial governments, joined in, including his own provincial government of Manitoba. The Supreme Court in 2000 unanimously concluded that both the licensing and registration were tightly linked to Parliament's goal of enhancing public safety by reducing the misuse of firearms and by keeping firearms out of the hands of those who should not have them.
When the member talked about the opposition by provincial governments, why did he not mention that opposition went all the way to the Supreme Court and that the Supreme Court ruled that licensing and registration were tightly linked to public safety and that was a good thing?
(1245)
Hon. Lorne Nystrom:
Mr. Speaker, I do not know where she was when I was speaking but I did talk about the fact this was challenged by the Alberta government and that legal action was taken. She can look at the record on this. By the way, Regina happens to be in Saskatchewan and not Manitoba. She said that I was from Manitoba.
However I was very proud of the fact that the Saskatchewan government had intervener status in terms of opposing the federal law of the Supreme Court of Canada. I think eight provinces were involved in that, including the province of Manitoba. I think all three territories were involved, or certainly two were. I did make those points and I am very pleased that they were. I am very supportive of the first nations people and their legal fight against Bill C-68.
In terms of public opinion on gun control, put me down as supporting gun control many times in the House of Commons. I have been here for all the debates in the House, except in 1995 when I was not an MP and when Bill C-68 came in. I was here for the firearms acquisition certificate debate and for the debates in the old Trudeau government and Mulroney government. I supported all the gun control bills right on through until we came to registration. Registration is not gun control and that is where I draw the line.
If a poll was done on whether people supported the registration and a a billion boondoggle, there would be massive opposition to this. If the member does not believe me, come out to my riding and go house to house. She would be amazed at the people who oppose this, from 85 year old grandmothers to young teenagers. People are universally opposed to the registration. As I read Saskatchewan, my riding and the country, the overall majority of people are opposed to this.
It is unnecessary. Let us put the money into fighting crime, let us put the money into more police officers to put them on the streets and let us not waste all this money on the registry which will not help public safety whatsoever.
I think those were the two questions. Regina is in Saskatchewan, I come from Saskatchewan and I did mention the court cases.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is not often in the House that one sees the NDP agree with the Canadian Alliance positions, so those are moments which we treasure and savour. On this issue related to the Liberal gun registry disaster, the Liberal member talked about polls.
I think the question that was not asked of citizens was, “Do you support a gun registry system which is proven not to work and which the Auditor General has said is a billion dollar disaster?” If Canadians were asked that question, the response would be overwhelming. Canadians do not support the misuse of their hard earned tax dollars. Canadians do not support legislation which does not work. If that had been the question, we would have seen resounding public support for the Canadian Alliance position and the NDP position.
I also agree with my NDP friend when he talks about the inappropriateness of an unelected body, the Senate, having control over legislation that affects the lives of people. People who control legislation, who are responsible for legislation, need to be accountable. Again, this is no reflection on the people themselves, but the role of a senator does not include accountability to the electorate. That is why it is deficient and needs to be reformed.
We support firearms safety and we support the fact that arms are controlled by the fact that people have to have a certificate to purchase a firearm. However we do not support this billion dollar disaster.
One of the distinctions with the Canadian Alliance position is that we support more police officers on the street. Does the NDP position also accommodate the Alliance position which is that there should be an increase in severity of sentencing for those who commit crimes with firearms?
(1250)
Hon. Lorne Nystrom:
Mr. Speaker, I guess I would have to ask what he means by the increase in severity. I have always believed one has to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. That is what we have to do in our society.
We also have to do restorative justice where we can as well and try to rehabilitate people. I have seen many cases of younger people who have gone into a prison or into a youth centre and if there has been no restorative justice, they have come out more hardened criminals. That is an extremely important case to make in this debate as well.
We cannot just have a tough penalty and throw away the key for absolutely everybody. We can restore some people and make them a useful citizen of our country. We can give them training, skills and education, then they start paying taxes and so on. That is a very useful thing to do.
It is not just a simple yes or no answer. As I said, we have to be tough on crime and the cause of crime. Also, we have to do whatever we can to rehabilitate people, to retrain them and ensure that they have skills and training in jobs to make a useful contribution to our society.
I have spent a fair amount of time looking at the criminal justice system and it is not a black and white issue in many cases. In many cases the judge has to have a certain amount of flexibility in terms of the punishment that is handed out.
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to discuss the Canadian firearms program in the context of Bill C-10A and specifically to address the public's support and the benefits of this legislation.
Canadians have often indicated that they want—indeed, demand—to live in a fair, peaceful and safe society. Public safety is the prime objective of the Canadian firearms program.
The firearms program is designed to improve public safety by controlling access to firearms and ammunition, encouraging safe use of firearms, controlling specific types of firearms, and giving police officers a valuable tool for their investigations. This program is intended to keep firearms away from those who should not have them, that is, individuals who present a danger to themselves or to society.
I would like to point out that the purpose of the program is not to interfere with the legitimate use of firearms in Canada but rather to promote firearms safety and thus prevent death and injury by firearms and dissuade criminals from using firearms in the commission of crimes.
As the program has been implemented, the Government of Canada has been careful to respect the legitimate interests of hunters, target shooters and others who use firearms for legitimate purposes.
According to a recent Environics poll, a great majority of Canadians support the public safety objectives of the firearms program, including the licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms.
Licensing makes it possible to ensure that firearms owners meet rigorous public safety criteria. The registry makes it possible to link each firearm with its owner, which leads to greater accountability. Safe storage and training in proper handling of firearms are two other important aspects of the program.
In their letters indicating support for the program, citizens from one end of the country to the other are unanimous: public safety comes first.
The program has the support not only of the Canadian public, but also many experts in health and safety, including the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association, the Canada Safety Council, and the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, to name just a few.
I will give a few examples of organizations that have expressed their support for the firearms program.
For example, Debbie McGray, president of the New Brunswick Nurses Union, wrote the following in a letter on December 13, 2002:
|
|
Nurses see the devastating effects of the misuse of firearms every day—however, thanks to the screening process and the requirement for owners to register their firearms, the program has resulted in a considerable decrease in the number of deaths from firearms. |
Dr. François Desbiens, Director of Public Health for the Régie régionale de la santé et des services sociaux du Québec, wrote the following on February 21, 2003:
|
|
The Canadian firearms program comprises a broad range of concrete measures aimed at decreasing injuries by firearms—with a view to saving lives, avoiding accidental shootings because responsible owners will store their weapons better, protecting spouses in the event of family violence and making it harder for potential suicides to have access to weapons. |
Finally, Kathy Belton, Co-Director of the Alberta Centre for Injury Control and Research, made the following observation on December 11, 2002:
|
|
Firearms kill more young people in this age group, that is the 15- to 24 year-olds, than cancer, drowning and falls combined. The Canadian firearms program is just beginning, but the figures show that it has already brought about a reduction in the number of deaths and crimes involving firearms. |
(1255)
Clearly the program works and enjoys solid support. The firearms program has delivered good results. Up to this point, several thousands of firearms permits have been denied or revoked by those responsible for public safety.
The Canadian Firearms Centre has received a great many calls to its notification lines, which were set up to allow Canadians to express their public safety concerns with respect to certain persons who possess firearms.
Law enforcement agencies across the country have consulted the online registry data several millions of times since December 1, 1998. All of these efforts help us prevent people who should not have firearms from possessing any. In the end, it saves lives.
It is fairly easy to imagine dangerous situations that the program has already prevented. The purpose of the Canadian Firearms Centre is to make our families and our communities safer.
Through measures contained in Bill C-10A, the government plans on improving client service, reducing costs and increasing transparency, as Canadians have requested.
The bill contains a certain number of initiatives which, if adopted, would assist the government in responding to the concerns expressed by the Auditor General and the public.
One of these measures is to stagger licence renewals in order to avoid a bottleneck every five years. With a steadier volume of work, more effective methods can be used that will make it possible to improve client service and realize significant savings.
Simplifying the formalities for transfers of non-restricted firearms and transfers between businesses will make it possible for the provincial chief firearms officers to concentrate their efforts and their resources on other public safety functions. It will improve service to clients without compromising public safety.
Moreover, by grouping all administrative power in the hands of a commissioner, a more direct linkage is made with the minister responsible, now the Solicitor General. In this way, too, financial and political accountability will be improved.
The annual report mentioned in the bill will now be prepared by the firearms commissioner, who will provide complementary information on the Canadian firearms program and on the reports already presented to Parliament by the government.
The bill fulfills the expectations of the general public and other observers by building upon the strong support the public has already demonstrated for the firearms program.
* * *
(1300)
[English]
Points of Order
Bill C-10
[Points of Order]
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order related to the motion before the House. I want to ask for your indulgence while I say to you that the motion now before us is null and void and is therefore out of order. In legal parlance it is void ab initio. The motion should not be put to the House. The motion asks the House to waive its privileges or rights in this case with the understanding that this waiver cannot be construed as a precedent.
The motion was put on the Order Paper on December 6 in the name of the Minister of Justice, who is also the Attorney General. The motion in the name of the justice minister asks us to do something which cannot be done; it is an impossibility. The Minister of Justice knows that this motion, if it were passed, would be an order of the House. The minister knows that those rights and privileges referred to in the motion are those received and contained in section 18 of the British North America Act. It states in part:
|
|
The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and by the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, but so that the same shall never exceed those at the passing of this Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the members thereof: |
The minister knows that this is a fundamental part of our constitution and the law of the land. The rights and privileges referred to in the motion are fundamental constitutional matters. It is clear that this cannot be done. Any motion of the House cannot waive any other law.
I will give an example. Let us assume that on March 1, 2003, John Doe, who happens to be a member of the House, was charged with impaired driving under the Criminal Code of Canada. A motion is subsequently brought to the chamber requesting that the House waive the law of impaired driving against John Doe. It is clear we cannot waive the law of impaired driving. The Crown may decide not to proceed to lay charges or proceed in any way against John Doe, but the Crown has not waived the law concerning impaired driving. The law still exists; it still applies. It has not been waived in such case, so choosing not to apply the law is not a waiver of the law. Waiver of the law, in the case of privileges as contained in section 18, would require an express act of Parliament.
I would submit that the motion before us is identical to the example of John Doe just given. The cabinet, by this motion in the name of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, asks the House to “waive its claims to insist upon such rights and privileges”. The cabinet is asking the House to waive its privileges as against it. It is asking the House to waive section 18 of the British North America Act, the very privileges that we were given as collective members of this House. It is asking us to waive these section 18 privileges. That is an impossibility and therefore the motion is void ab initio.
I want to give a second example. John Doe, a member of the House, makes a statement inside the chamber about an individual I will call Bill Black which, if made outside the House, would be actionable in law. A motion is laid before the chamber waiving the privileges for the statements made by John Doe in the chamber and permitting Bill Black to bring a suit arising from the statements of John Doe in the chamber.
The House could not waive the privileges of a member of Parliament by a simple vote of the majority. Such action would make mockery of section 18 of the British North America Act. The majority of members of the chamber cannot strip a member of privileges enjoyed as a member of the House in that individual's capacity by a simple vote of the majority on a resolution or a motion.
This motion purports to do what cannot be done. It purports that the collective privileges given to the chamber under section 18 will be gone. It purports to do what we cannot do in law.
(1305)
Section 18 is the legislative legal authority to call the executive to account, so by waiving our privileges we live in a system of crown prerogative, that is, government by cabinet. If this motion were to pass and privilege is purportedly waived, I as a member of the House could apply to a court for a declarative order that this motion is ultra vires. The powers of this chamber would be gone. In purporting to waive our privileges, nothing would preclude a court from assuming jurisdiction with respect to this motion that has been brought to the chamber in the name of the Minister of Justice.
This chamber and we the members of the chamber would be reduced to no more than a municipal council, an elected assembly, without the powers bestowed by section 18 of the British North America Act. Without section 18 privileges, responsible government is gone.
Finally, I want to refer to a debate which occurred in the Australian parliament in 1985. It has been said about this, and I have read about it, that somehow--
The Deputy Speaker:
The subject matter raised of course by the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton is one that has been before the House on other occasions. Certainly unless there is something very specific to be added, the Chair has heard what it would consider more than satisfactory information about the subject matter. I would undertake to take it under advisement and report back to the House.
If the member has something else to add, I would like some indication as to how much longer it might take, because I have really heard the thrust of his intervention. I turn to the hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton.
Mr. Roger Gallaway:
I will be no more than two minutes at most, Mr. Speaker.
I want to refer to the Australian parliament Debates of 1985, because in 1987 the Australian parliament actually dealt with its privileges. It codified them. In 1985 a debate came on about waiving privilege on a particular point. I just want to refer to Odgers because the thought is that because it was codified it does not apply here. This was before it was codified.
I refer to page 1038 of Odgers' sixth edition. It states:
|
|
In the course of debate, views were expressed by Senators that the Senate does not have the power to waive privileges. Senator Durack, a former Attorney-General, said: |
|
|
I agree with Senator Gareth Evans that this Chamber does not have the power to waive privilege. It is a privilege conferred by the application of the English Bill of Rights of 1688 by section 49 of our Constitution. I do not think it is open to one House of the Parliament to waive or alter it. A declaration of both Houses of Parliament or another Act of Parliament would be required to change it. |
I would say we are confronted with a similar situation, an identical situation. The motion before us would order that this House waive its privileges, those same privileges received under section 18 of the British North America Act, the cornerstone of our Constitution. They came to the House through the English Bill of Rights of 1688. It is one of the fundamental laws of the country.
For that reason I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that in waiving privilege we cannot do it because it requires an express act of Parliament, of both chambers. In this case to purport to waive privilege is an impossibility and therefore this motion is null and void. It is void ab initio.
(1310)
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I was not previously aware that this issue would come up at this point, although I believe I have responded to something similar a number of weeks back. I will only take a couple of minutes to bring a few issues to the attention of Mr. Speaker today on the issue of privilege.
First, in the Canadian context, a motion virtually identical to this one was ruled on. It was debated in relation to another bill in approximately the late 1980s in the House. I do not have the specific reference. I remember the incident well; I was in the House when the issue occurred at the time regarding another privilege.
We also have before us here an issue that comes from the standing orders that we have before us, where we affirm in one of our standing orders the issue that is before us today. This involves, at one point, a dispute between both Houses. I suppose it has never been resolved in the end, because we have of course a standing order and the other House does not recognize that this standing order could have the effect that we in our House do. That perhaps is an issue that will not be settled today. I do not propose that it come before us at this point, but we have to recognize that it is in a way, I suppose, part of what is at hand.
So we have, then, the issues before the House today, and first, whether this is properly before Parliament. Need I remind the House that we have debated this motion about half a dozen times up to now. Had it been out of order it would have had, I believe, to have been ruled at that time for this motion not to be properly before the House.
As a matter of fact there were interventions many weeks ago about whether or not this motion was properly before the House, not basing it on the same question as today, perhaps, but nevertheless invoking that the motion was not properly before the House. The Speaker ruled that it was properly before the House. From that ruling of Mr. Speaker at the time, then, the logical conclusion is that the issue is properly before the House.
In summary, then, there are three points. First, the issue is properly before the House. Mr. Speaker has already ruled in that regard. Second, regardless of what has been invoked regarding the Australian parliament, we have our own precedent in the House of Commons based on the issue of the late 1980s as we dealt with it at the time and as the Speaker ruled upon it at the time. Third, the House does not recognize that its privileges are breached; it reaffirms, at the same time, its privileges, which we claim we always had and which we also reassert in our standing orders.
The Deputy Speaker:
I thank the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton for the point of order that he raised and of course I thank the Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for his intervention on the same point of order. The Chair will respond without too much delay on the matter over the course of the day.
There was a period remaining of questions and comments, but I believe we will move to resuming debate. The hon. member for South Shore.
* * *
An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act
[Government Orders]
The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, and of the amendment, and of the amendment to the amendment.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say at the beginning of debate that if you will allow it I would like to share my time with the member for Cumberland—Colchester. I realize that we do not have a lot of time to speak on this subject. It will probably be the last opportunity most of us get to speak directly to the bill. Therefore, it is important that as many members as possible speak to the bill.
I would like to make a couple of points in the time allotted. First, I would like to go back to December 5, 2002, and point out that the member of Parliament for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, the Conservative justice critic, on that day saved Canadians $72 million. The motion he brought up, which was subsequently passed by all the members of the House, read:
|
|
That the Supplementary Estimates (A) be amended by reducing vote 1a under Justice by the amount of $62,872,916 and vote 5a under Justice by the amount of $9,109,670 and that the supply motions and the bill to be based thereon altered accordingly. |
The motion was passed unanimously by the House of Commons.
Twice I have referenced the fact that the motion was passed unanimously by the House of Commons. Today we have the same government that agreed that the $72 million should be withdrawn from the estimates, that the long gun registry was totally out of control, while all the opposition parties were in unanimity and the government even supported withdrawing it from the estimates. Yet somehow today we once again are being forced us to vote on this bill that will allow these same players to put that $72 million back into the gun registry, and to add on to that a total, by conservative estimates, of a minimum of $100 million a year until 2008. We have $1 billion spent now and it is 2003. That is $1.5 billion. It is unbelievable that the government can find a way to support and to continue to support this flawed piece of legislation.
Earlier today I referenced the fact that we have a cattle registry in this country that registers I believe around 28 million animals. Each one of those animals has a serial number and a bar code. We know where they are, who they are sold to and where they are moved to. I think, although I do not have the number right in front of me, that the total cost of that registry for 28 million animals and a lot of information is in the neighbourhood of $2 million a year. Yet somehow the government has managed to spend $998 million more registering less than 20% of the total number of cows and bulls registered. It would seem to me that even as mathematically challenged as many of the government members are, they should be able to do the math on this one.
Members stood earlier and asked what we could buy with $1 billion. The point was made by one of the Alliance members that we could buy 200 MRI machines. Better than that, we could run the MRI machines that we already have 24 hours a day and we could probably do it for the next 10 years with $1 billion. We could utilize the equipment that we have.
(1315)
It has been said that $1 billion would pay the tuition for a full degree program for every university student in Canada. I would expect that would add a lot more to the economy of the country than the expenditure of $1 billion that is not working and will not work.
When the Solicitor General was speaking today he refused to say that it will be his job to apply the law. He did say that he fully expected police forces in Canada would apply the law. Well, I would hope not. There are a lot of people, not a dozen, not 50, not 200, not thousands, but hundreds of thousands of people who have not complied. Some of them are old ladies of 85 years of age who inherited firearms from a spouse and who have no intention of registering them. Some have, but many have not. I know a number of them personally and they have no intention of registering their firearms.
Does the government intend to enforce the rule of law? If we have laws, I suspect they are supposed to be enforced. Does the government intend to start arresting 85 year old grandmothers? I would hope not, and shame on it if it does. Yet government members are going to vote in support of the bill and they will be voting in support of that law.
There are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have never broken the law. They do not have so much as an infraction on their driver's licence. They do not have a parking ticket. However they do have unregistered firearms. I personally know dozens of hunters who have told me they have registered one shotgun and one rifle.
What happens at the end of the day? We are forcing into place a law that is wrong-headed and which will end up putting more illegal firearms on the street. Instead of actually controlling guns, the government is encouraging people not to control them. It is encouraging people to get rid of them. Their firearms may be stored safely and may even have firearm acquisition numbers, but instead of registering 12 guns they have only registered two. Can we blame them? There is no trust among Canadians and among gun owners especially that the government will not turn around and use this piece of legislation against them.
We are in a terrible situation. One billion dollars has already been wasted. Another $500 million at least will be spent in the next five years, and the bill before us encourages misuse and abuse of the system.
I do not know what the government's alternative is here. I do know there is an obvious door open to the government. That door is for the government to admit that the registry has failed. The government should reverse its position on it and give up totally on this ill-founded idea which it has had eight years to put into place and which has cost Canadian taxpayers $1 billion. It is my belief that is the only door open to the government.
(1320)
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member referred on more than one occasion to wasting $1 billion. Coming from an area where the gun issue was not as pronounced as it is in some areas of the country, we have to inform ourselves a little more about some of the facts.
With regard to the $1 billion, I was surprised to find out that the Auditor General had discovered that some 80% of the applications to register firearms in fact were incomplete or incorrect. This was a deliberate action, a protest as it were, by firearms owners. As a consequence, there was a requirement to invest in a lot more human resources to process those applications. The magnitude of that, I understand, was that over $300 million was spent to correct or to do the human intervention into a process that should have been computerized.
In addition, because of the protest activity that was going on, a substantial amount of money was also spent on advertising. I understand that figure was in excess of $200 million to make sure that the correct information was in front of Canadians and to encourage Canadians that the registry is important. That was a responsible action.
Also, the Auditor General reported that the $1 billion was not spent, but it was a projected number to 2005. What had been spent up to the date of the report was only about $600 million, I am advised, subject to check.
Having said that, I understand that delay and disruption is part of the democratic governing principles. People have a right to protest. However, it reminds me of the kids in Los Angeles who trashed their own community and said “There, take that”.
Why is it there would be a protest? Why is it the website was clogged up at the last minute so that people could not register? It was a protest. I think the member should acknowledge that the consequences of that process were the real reason that additional moneys were spent, that money was not lost, but in fact it was caused by those who disagreed with the law.
(1325)
Mr. Gerald Keddy:
Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of points I would like to make on the member's statement. I will leave the one on the protest until last.
First, the program did waste $1 billion. It had nothing to do with safety and it had little to do with gun control. It was simply one more example of the government using the opportunity to take away any criticism that might have been put on the shoulders of the government about the policies it had undertaken as a fairly new government in 1994.
The Liberals made promises, some of which they kept. One of them was to scrap the helicopters, which has come back to haunt them. Their promise on Pearson airport came back to haunt them. There was also their promise to get rid of the GST which they never intended to keep.
Those were the issues that the gun control bill was brought in on, as well as the issue of free trade that the Liberals were going to scrap. That is the issue. It had nothing to do with gun control.
Most members in the House support gun control. I support gun control and I have no problem in saying that. I do not support the registry. It has wasted $1 billion.
The member wanted to break it down as $300 million to catch up on the people who had not registered accurately. Perhaps the forms were too complicated. Did he think of that? Somehow, for 80% of the people who registered, it is their fault but not the fault of the system that did not work.
On the $200 million in advertising, that was a waste of money. He should be ashamed of himself for even bringing it up. I do not think any member of the government should bring up advertising after the sponsorship program where again, hundreds of millions of dollars were wasted in advertising. One such advertisement we got a photocopy for cost the people of Canada $500,000. I do not think there ever should be a member of the government who would want to talk about advertising. If $200 million was spent on advertising the gun registry, I would like to see a forensic audit done on every penny of it.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this subject. I want to hit on two issues; one is the effectiveness of the process and the other is the waste that we have heard so much about.
The Solicitor General was up on his feet this morning saying that we have to have an efficient system. He must have used the word efficiency a dozen times but never once did he say effective. One of my beefs with the system is that it is not effective.
There is a person in my riding who registered one rifle. He got five registrations. That may sound like an insignificant issue but the police out there, who the Solicitor General said are counting on the system to help them do their job and protect them, may go to that man's house, call the firearms registry and be told he has five rifles. He does not. He registered one but the registry registered five.
Another man I know registered 18 firearms and got 36 registrations. Another man registered five firearms and he only got two registrations. He is a doctor. He knew how to fill out the forms. He did the best he could. He filled the forms out right and that is what happened.
When we tried to find out what had happened with one of the men I mentioned earlier, we found there were five lines on the form to fill in. He had one rifle. He filled it in five times with exactly the same information on each line and still the firearms registry registered five firearms. Anybody who looked at it could have seen there was a mistake, that he had listed the same gun five times but the system is so ineffective and lacks such credibility that nobody could even understand it.
When I asked the Solicitor General this morning about some of these problems, he agreed. He said that there are bad examples. The minister said the government is trying to personally contact some of these people at the very least to find out what happened to see if it can be corrected.
We as a party have established a website exactly for that. People can contact us or Parliament, and tell us exactly the problems they have had. It is really simple. People can access www.gunregistry.ca and type in their problems and difficulties. They will be given to the Solicitor General and hopefully he will deal with them in the way that he promised in his statement this morning.
In that way we hope to deal with the ineffectiveness of the program which I am sure has ruined the credibility of it so that no police officer could depend on it. If it is not credible, I do not know what good it is in any case. Never mind the money that was wasted on the whole program, if the information is not right, and I know it is not right, the Solicitor General admitted it is not right, then what is the point in having it? Even though some people support it, it is no good if the information is not credible and it is not.
I want to touch on the waste aspect of it as well. The government side often says that we are just complaining, that it is the opposition being the opposition, but it is not only us. It is people, organizations, authorities across the country, provinces and attorneys general. It is everybody.
One for whom I think most of us around here have a great deal of respect is the Auditor General. She is a person for whom I have the utmost respect and I think we are very fortunate to have her in her position. We are very fortunate that she does the job she does.
The Auditor General has said that only 30% of the funds used for the program came through the right system while 70% of the funds came through inappropriate systems, supplementary estimates and other departments. It is incredible that the government could try to hide this. That is exactly the point she was trying to make.
The Department of Justice, in the Auditor General's report, did not provide Parliament with the estimate of all the major additional costs nor did it give us an accounting of the additional cost. The original cost was to be a couple of million dollars and now it is estimated, by the time it is done if it ever gets done, at over a thousand million dollars. It has gone from two million to a thousand million dollars.
I talked to a CEO of a major privately traded company on the plane the other day. He said that if they start a project in that company and there is an overrun of 5%, the project manager has to report back to the board of directors and explain why it is 5% over. If it is 10% over, the project stops. That is in the private sector.
(1330)
We have a government project which we were told would cost about $2 million. Now it looks like it will cost a thousand million dollars, and the government runs and hides. The word now is that the government is trying to privatize the process so it can further confuse everybody and avoid answers. Then the government can say that it is privatized and it cannot answer those questions.
The Auditor General says that she was unable to complete her report because of the multitude of discrepancies and shortcomings in the information provided by the Department of Justice. That must make the government feel very proud, to say that the Auditor General could not even do a report because of the inconsistencies, the discrepancies and the shortcomings of its accounting, especially when it knew the whole country was watching this program. It is one of the most controversial issues. It did not even bother to account for the money and it cannot explain where the money went.
The Auditor General, who has proven to be extremely capable, extremely effective and efficient, cannot do an audit on the firearms registry expenses of a thousand million dollars.
It is a shame that we are back at this once again trying to get more money. I want to remind the House that if members wish to register their complaints with the firearms registry, all they have to do is send us an e-mail at www.gunregistry.ca. We will be glad to hear from members and all the problems they have had in registering their guns.
(1335)
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting to hear a couple of the Progressive Conservative members speak on the issue. Conservatives have never been known for their good sense on financial issues. It is somewhat hypocritical of them to talk about cost overruns, considering how the last P.C. government in Canada handled the finances of the country.
What is really irritating about Bill C-68, which was introduced by the Liberals, is that it was only introduced because the Progressive Conservatives had first committed to a firearms legislation, and on which the Liberals had to up the ante. Therefore, they brought in this onerous Bill C-68, which would never have passed if it were not for Progressive Conservative senators supporting the bill and passing it.
Then we were faced with Bill C-15, which has now mutated into Bill C-10A. Once again we are faced with having to deal with the bill. I guess the only thing more irritating than listening to the Conservatives opposing the bill, after they had supported the bill through the Senate, was to hear one of the government members a few minutes ago talk about how $600 million was a justifiable expense in this program.
To the member at the other end, what epiphany did members of his party experience that caused them to change their position on this legislation? Was it when the Conservatives realized that their constituents actually opposed the bill or was it when the cost of the bill became too high even for Progressive Conservatives?
Mr. Bill Casey:
Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting question. However I will give the member a little history lesson. The Conservatives brought in gun control legislation which dealt with safe storage, registration of non-registered guns and better control, issues relating to transportation and storage and things such as this.
When we were presented as a caucus with a proposal on gun control issues, one of them was registry of firearms. We as a caucus turned that down. We said that, yes, we would take the safe storage, yes, we would take the FAC issue and yes, we would have conditions for the transportation of firearms. However, it was no to long arms registration. We turned that down in the beginning when Bill C-17 was brought in because we did not think it was required and we did not think it would be effective or do the job.
The bureaucrats at the time were advising us to go the gun registry. We chose not to. The Liberals listened to the bureaucrats and adopted the gun registry. That is where we are now, a billion dollars later, a thousand million dollars down the drain because the Liberals did not use any of their own intelligence to deal with this issue.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the last question and the response of the member for Cumberland—Colchester really disseminates the difference between the Canadian Alliance and the Tories on this issue.
The Tories believe we need to have strong firearms legislation to deter the criminal use of firearms. There is nothing wrong with having safe handling provisions itself. We have no trouble saying that we are for gun control, but we are against the long gun registry. We said that from the get go.
The question was when did the epiphany on gun control take place? I will ask the member for Cumberland—Colchester what his perception would be given that the current member for the riding of Calgary Southwest, the leader of the Canadian Alliance, when he represented another Calgary riding voted for Bill C-68 at second reading, which is a point of fact, but reversed his vote at third reading of the bill and ended up voting against the bill. If there has been a flip-flop to speak of, the Canadian Alliance folks might want to look at themselves in the mirror first.
I would like to hear what my hon. friend for Cumberland—Colchester has to say about that.
(1340)
Mr. Bill Casey:
Mr. Speaker, all I can say is we have been totally consistent for more than a decade on the aspects of gun control that we support, and one of those is not the firearms registry. The member referred to has changed positions, as members in that party do from time to time; changing names, changing positions and changing directions but that is their business.
However, we have been very consistent all the way through for about 12 years now on our position on registry of firearms.
Mr. Alan Tonks (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to talk about the important changes that are taking place to streamline the firearms program and make it more efficient. Bill C-10A is really all about improving the program and increasing program efficiency.
There has been an attempt to resurrect the whole firearms control act and challenge it. That really is not what is before us today. What is before us today is the streamlining and efficiency of the program, and Canadians are concerned about that. I emphasize that is what is before us because the province of Alberta, when it challenged the right of the government to bring in the legislation, challenged the government on the basis of whether it contributed to public safety. The Supreme Court ruled that registration and licensing were two sides to the same coin when we talk about public safety.
Let us talk about what the bill addresses and that is the matter of streamlining and making the program more efficient.
With that in mind, I want to take advantage of this opportunity to remind Canadians about some of the positive steps the Government of Canada is already taking to improve this important legislation and this program.
The firearms program enhances public safety by controlling access to firearms and ammunition, by deterring their misuse, and controlling specific kinds of firearms. In other words, it addresses the whole culture that Canadians have with respect to firearms and a respect for them.
The program approaches gun safety as a practical manner by registering firearms and licensing their owners. Mandatory safety training helps reduce accidents and reinforces the principles of safe storage. Again, that contributes to that attitude of that culture with respect to firearms.
Since December 1, 1998, the government has issued firearm licences to over 1.9 million individuals. In addition, we have over six million firearms registered and now in the database.
Throughout the implementation process there have been many challenges. Many people waited until after the Supreme Court decision in June 2000 before applying for licences. I have already indicated that decision made it quite clear, that registration and licensing were two sides of the same coin in terms of public safety.
Changes in technology we recognize have contributed to rising costs as have delays in the adoption of Bill C-10A. We cannot ignore this. The government calls upon both sides of the House to expeditiously get on with this improvement of the mechanics of the implementation because it is the costs associated with it that are driving Canadians in the direction of a mistrust in their public institutions.
Nevertheless, the Canadian public has a tangible asset that includes a system of checks and balances, a spousal concern outlet and a database which is already proving its worth and making it very important to frontline officers.
A key date for the firearms program was December 31, 2002. That was the deadline for registration of firearms. On December 27 of last year special measures were announced for firearm owners. These special measures included a grace period for licensed owners who had mailed in their applications but not yet received their certificates in the mail. The grace period was also extended to people who were trying to register their firearms at the last minute but were unable to because of higher than normal call volumes and Internet traffic. These individuals were protected from prosecution provided they submitted a statement of intent to register their firearms before January 1, 2003, and many availed themselves of that in good faith.
(1345)
While not an extension to the registration deadline, these special measures allowed people more time, in light of increasing demands on the call centre as well as the online application.
Over 70,000 individuals responded and sent in a statement of intent and each individual was been contacted and either provided with a registration form or provided with a link to the online application which was reinstated earlier this year. Canadians are supporting the program. They are doing it by the tens of thousands.
Now we are approaching the end of the grace period for registration and again, for people to avoid finding themselves in the same situation as before the deadline, we are urging people to complete their applications as soon as possible.
Canadians are committed to the principles of the Firearms Act. That is obvious. Public opinion poll after poll demonstrates this deep commitment. Despite the overheated rhetoric from those against gun control, opposition to the Canadian firearms program is neither as broad nor as unanimous as some would have Canadians believe.
The firearms program keeps guns out of the hands of those who may be a danger to themselves or others, enhances safe storage, transport and use, and prevents illegal guns from entering our country, or at least are steps in that direction.
Hon. members may remember that not too long ago a national poll found that the supporters of every political party represented in the House of Commons supported the firearms program.
During the past several months, the government has announced several key initiatives to improve the program and provide better client service across the country.
On February 21 the Minister of Justice, joined by the Solicitor General, tabled an action plan for changes to the firearms program. At that time the Minister of Justice stated:
|
|
The plan will streamline management, improve service to legitimate users of firearms, seek stakeholder, parliamentarian, and public input, and strengthen accountability and transparency to Parliament and Canadians. |
The action plan contains many key areas that will help strengthen the program and make it more transparent. I am pleased to report that the government has made significant progress in the implementation of that action plan.
On April 14 the Canadian Firearms Centre was transferred from the Department of Justice to the Department of the Solicitor General. This is a natural fit to the Solicitor General portfolio, which is focused on enhancing public safety and ensuring national security.
The national weapons enforcement team also has been transferred. It is now a part of National Police Services which is administered by the RCMP. As members may recall, the national weapons enforcement team has been a key player, a key part, in several high profile cases over the past several months.
The action plan also states the government's intention to consolidate the headquarters function to the firearms program in Ottawa. This has already occurred following the appointment of a new CEO who is now accountable to the Solicitor General for the firearms program.
The government has also been committed to improving the total service to the public. I would like to take the opportunity to remind everyone on both sides of the House that firearms owners can access information and assistance through both a 1-800 service and the CFC website.
The CFC call centre is operational 16 hours a day. On average, the call centre receives 4,000 calls per day on a variety of issues. A recently introduced service allows firearms owner to order a registration form using the keypad of their telephones.
Online registration, which was reintroduced earlier this year, is available 24 hours a day free of charge. Online registration is not only beneficial to clients, it is cost efficient and the processing times are greatly reduced. Canadians by the thousands are availing themselves of the further information that they require. Is this not an indicator that they are interested in the role that they can play in contributing to public safety in Canada?
One of the commitments the program has made is to process every accurate and complete registration application in 30 days. This is only one of many new service standards that we will hear about over the next few weeks.
The government is also establishing a program advisory committee of experienced individuals drawn primarily from the private and non-government sectors to provide ongoing advice on program improvement, quality of service and cost effectiveness.
(1350)
If the issues with respect to public safety are based in the community, then community based responses with advisory committees of this type are the way the government should be proceedings and is proceeding.
The government also proposed legislative changes to the Firearms Act that are designed to improve the efficiency of the program. Bill C-10A is an essential part of that action plan in establishing a more client friendly and efficient system.
One of these measures is the authority to stagger firearms licence renewals which is intended to help avoid a surge of applications in five year cycles. Evening out the workload in such a manner will guarantee and result in more efficient processing, better client service and significant cost savings.
Streamlining the transfer process for non-restricted firearms allows provincial chief firearms officers in the provinces to focus their efforts and resources on other public safety functions. It improves client services without compromising public safety.
As well, the legislation allows for the increased use of Internet and other automated channels for not only the application process but the issuance of documents as well, which is a further service in terms of outreach to those who have firearms, to allow them to expedite their issuance.
Additional changes contained in Bill C-10A would allow foreign visitors to obtain a pre-approved declaration that will help outfitters to better prepare their clients prior to their entry into Canada.
The amendments have also grandfathered additional handguns that were prohibited in 1995. This change is a direct result of consultations with stakeholders and other program partners.
The Canadian firearms program will present an annual report to Parliament that will provide a full account of the program and complement existing government reports to Parliament.
While additional regulations would be required in some cases, these amendments are yet another example of how the firearms program is evolving and meeting the expectations of the Canadian public.
Canadians want strong and sensible gun laws. They have spoken by the tens of thousands on the issue. They also want a commitment from us that we will administer this program in the most efficient manner possible, and that is the subject matter of the bill. It is inspired by the support of Canadians. I am confident we can overcome any challenge and ensure that Canada has an effective and sensible gun control program, which is what Canadians want.
Passage of Bill C-10A is necessary to ensure that will happen. It is in the interest of providing the best possible service to Canadians and, most important, it will contribute to the culture of community safety that Canadians want as a legacy for themselves and for future generations.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question because I know many members want to ask questions.
It does not seem that the time will ever come when the Liberals will finally say that we are not talking about gun control. We are simply talking about a gun registration program that will not be effective, will not make the streets safer and has been a real burden on the taxpayers of Canada. We are not talking about anything but the registration. The Auditor General already clearly indicated that the registration aspect of the program is wasting money.
When will the government and the member admit that we are talking about gun registration, not gun control? We all want to make sure that no one loses control of guns. Our argument is that it cannot be done with just gun registration. When will the member admit that?
(1355)
Mr. Alan Tonks:
Mr. Speaker, as I have tried to indicate, Canadians are voting with their feet. They are supporting this program in actual fact. It is not for the government side to tell Canadians what is in their best interest. Canadians have told the government what they want to see happen with respect to gun control. They want to see how the culture will be made more positive, more protective and more accountable.
However, the member is quite right. Canadians want to see gun control in its totality done in a sensible, accountable and cost efficient manner. The issue that is before the House, the subject matter of Bill C-10A, is the administration of the program, not the philosophy. That decision has already been made, not just by the government but has been adjudicated on by the Supreme Court of Canada. Therefore let us get on with it.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are waiting for the statistic, which I doubt Canadians ever received and which the gun registry already has, on how many criminal activities, in which firearms were used, was the firearm a registered firearm.
The other thing is, as was mentioned this morning, if I have registered guns and I move to a new location, I must then inform the gun registry of my change of address, otherwise it is completely out.
Finally, I do have an air rifle. What is the test for this criminal who has an air rifle that is used about three times a year? When was the last time a criminal offence was committed with an air rifle?
Mr. Alan Tonks:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the first question. As to the last question, I am not an authority on air rifles or ballistics associated with the ammunition, so I will leave that one.
When a crime is committed using a firearm, whether it is a domestic dispute, an accident or whatever it is, does it really matter whether it is a registered or a non-registered firearm?
Let me tell the House what is relevant. Society takes every step it can to make sure that the gun does not get into hands where there is a propensity or a probability for the gun to be used in the commission of a crime, be it a domestic dispute or anything else. The question should be addressing that. It does not matter. What does matter is the opportunity for law enforcement officers to make a judgment that the gun should not get into that particular situation or those hands where there is the probability or propensity that it could be used in a tragic accident. The gun registry will help to make sure that does not happen.
The Alliance should be supporting that 100%.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
[English]
Ecological Gifts Program
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I draw the attention of the House to a generous donation of ecologically-sensitive land being made by a constituent, Mrs. Ruth Edna Neville, under the federal ecological gifts program.
[Translation]
The Neville farm, on the shores of Lake Champlain at Venise-en-Québec, is the ancestral home of the Neville family, several members of which live in my riding.
[English]
Although pieces of the original farm, acquired in 1846 by Irish-born Timothy Neville, have been parcelled out over time, 200 acres remain today in Neville family hands, of which 146 acres are being donated to the Nature Conservancy of Canada.
This gift to Canadians is home to soft-shelled turtles, several species of ducks, beaver, muskrat and other otter, and whitetail deer, as well as rare plants which add to the area's importance as an ecological refuge.
[Translation]
My congratulations to the Neville family for their vision and generosity and the trouble they have gone to in order to achieve their dream of being able to share this magnificent natural setting with future generations.
* * *
(1400)
[English]
Mothers Against Drunk Drivers
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, representatives of Mothers Against Drunk Driving are here in Ottawa today to urge the Minister of Justice to take further action against the serious crime of impaired driving.
They are calling on the minister and all members of Parliament to support the following changes to the Criminal Code of Canada: lower the BAC from 0.08 to 0.05; enhance police enforcement powers; clarify and redefine the existing offences contained in the Criminal Code of Canada; provide tiered sentencing; eliminate conditional sentencing; and expand ignition interlock provisions.
These proposals are both reasonable and necessary in order to send out a strong message to those in our society who choose to drink and drive that their actions are criminal and will simply not be tolerated.
* * *
World Asthma Day
Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am an asthmatic, so I am especially pleased to inform the House that today is World Asthma Day and May is National Allergy/Asthma Awareness Month.
Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease, and asthma and allergies are often closely linked. Some 2.2 million Canadians over the age of 11 have asthma, and 8.4 million report that they have allergies. These problems are on the rise. Asthma rates are increasing, alarmingly so, especially among adult women and children. Asthma and allergies can cause daily suffering and, if not controlled, can cause time away from school and work and, in severe cases, can prove fatal.
Health Canada monitors asthma and allergies and is a member of the Canadian Network for Asthma Care. Environment Canada is working to improve the quality of indoor and outdoor air, which is a major contributor to asthma and allergies.
Understanding the nature of these diseases, public education, prevention and early diagnosis and treatment can decrease the severity of the disease. Breathing is not so simple after all, at least not for some of us.
* * *
Canadian Association of Research Libraries
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate John Teskey, of the University of New Brunswick, on his election as vice-president/president elect of the Canadian Association of Research Libraries, or CARL.
Mr. Teskey has been director of libraries at UNB since 1991. He is widely admired in the profession as an innovator in providing electronic information to the teaching and research community that UNB serves.
CARL is the leadership organization of Canadian research librarianship; it is the treasure chest of Canada's intellectual holdings in all disciplines. Its members are the 27 major academic research libraries across Canada, the Library and Archives of Canada, and the Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information.
I ask all members to join me in congratulating John Teskey for the considerable honour of his election as president of CARL.
* * *
Blood Donors
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to tell my colleagues about a truly tremendous Canadian.
Bedford, Nova Scotia resident, Jim Lord, marked a momentous milestone recently making his 600th blood plasma donation. This dedicated, community-minded volunteer has been making weekly donations to Canadian Blood Services and, before that, the Red Cross for over 30 years.
Mr. Lord says that the inspiring testimonials he has heard from cancer survivors and other recipients of the blood products he has helped to provide, have kept him coming back again and again. There are more than 300,000 Canadians who depend on plasma or similar products to live each year.
I hope colleagues will join with me in congratulating Jim Lord of Bedford and other regular blood donors across Canada for the important role they play in our health care system.
* * *
National Palliative Care Week
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, this week is National Palliative Care Week and it is time for Canadians to recognize the hard work and dedication of our health care professionals, caregivers, volunteers, and family members who strive to improve the quality of life for individuals nearing the end of their lives. Palliative care is about dignity, compassion and respect of life, values that all Canadians share.
Providing the best quality of life possible for the critically and terminally ill is an essential part of our nation's overall health care picture. An estimated 160,000 Canadians require end of life care every year. As our nation's population continues to mature, the demand for palliative care will only increase.
On behalf of the Canadian Alliance, I would ask members of the House to please join me in acknowledging the valuable contribution of palliative care professionals, as well as recognizing the contributions of families that provide end of life care for their loved ones.
* * *
Bank of Montreal
Mr. Janko Péric (Cambridge, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, for longer than Canada has been a country BMO Financial Group has played an important role in community reinvestment. The Bank of Montreal is one of our nation's top corporate donors, giving $21.4 million to more than 2,000 charities and non-profit groups in 2002.
In my riding of Cambridge, groups like the United Way of Cambridge and North Dumfries, Countryside Camp and Conference Centre Association, Preston High School, and Cambridge Youth Soccer have received generous assistance from BMO Financial Group.
I wish to join all members in thanking the BMO for assisting Canada's regions and for serving as an example of good corporate citizenship to others in the financial sector.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Flue-cured Tobacco Farmers of Quebec
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the flue-cured tobacco farmers of Quebec, almost all of whom are in the Lanaudière region, are in an increasingly precarious situation. The recent decision of multinational tobacco companies to reduce their orders will cut production by more than half this year.
Many times, we have asked the federal government to help the flue-cured tobacco farmers so they can find a new livelihood, since their future does not look very bright.
Delegates at the last Bloc Quebecois convention passed a motion supporting these farmers' demand that the federal government introduce an assistance program.
Last week, representatives of the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food met with producers. The latter were very disappointed with the outcome.
If the federal government cannot find anything under existing programs, a special assistance program must be established so that these tobacco producers in Quebec can start growing other crops as soon as possible.
* * *
Laval Businesses
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on May 1, at the 2003 Dunamis gala, the Laval Chamber of Commerce and Industry highlighted the contributions of Laval businesses.
For the 22nd consecutive year, awards were given out at the event to Laval businesses contributing to the expansion of that city's business sector.
Awards were presented in a number of different categories: young entrepreneurs, women in business, communications, social and cultural animation. There was also an award for research.
I join with the people of Laval once again in highlighting the exceptional contribution of our local businesses to the economic health of our community. Congratulations to all our winners.
* * *
[English]
Information Technology Week
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, this week is Information Technology Week. The Canadian Alliance encourages Canadians to participate in activities across the country in order to learn about new and existing technologies. From an industrial point of view there is a strong connection between innovation, technology and economic growth. We must continue to make prudent investments in research and development in Canada in order to encourage growth in the information technology sector and in science industries in general.
The industry committee recently made recommendations to lift foreign ownership restrictions applicable to telecommunications carriers. This recommendation is just one step that can immediately be taken to boost investment in technology as the telecommunications sector has long been a leader in cutting edge technology.
The Canadian Alliance applauds the continued good work of this sector in Canada. It is our hope that the government can find the courage to make changes to foreign investment rules, as well as to taxation and R and D policies in order to keep the information technology sector healthy in Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
Information Technology Week
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, May 2 to 11, 2003 marks Canada's third annual Information Technology Week. This joint initiative of Industry Canada and the Information Technology Association of Canada provides an opportunity to share achievements and best practices in this field.
During this 10-day event, communities, businesses, employees, teachers and students are encouraged to work together to find innovative ways of showcasing information technology accomplishments.
In a knowledge-based society, people are a country's greatest resource. It is therefore critical to demonstrate the need for partnerships between the private and public sectors in order to make Canada one of the most innovative countries in the world.
* * *
[English]
National Elizabeth Fry Week
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, this week marks National Elizabeth Fry Week in Canada. It is an occasion for all of us to recognize the work of the Elizabeth Fry Society.
On behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party caucus I want to thank the staff and volunteers of those societies everywhere across Canada for helping to ensure that women are treated humanely in prison and are given the tools they need to get a solid footing in their communities.
This is also a week to take stock and assess the role of the government in this regard. The Auditor General's recent report shows that the government has a lot of work to do to meet its obligations. Men still have more access to rehabilitation programs. Women are still denied the help they need to rebuild their lives. As many have said, the government still treats women offenders as a correctional afterthought.
Today we call on the government to honour the work of the Elizabeth Fry Society by taking its responsibilities to women offenders seriously, keeping them in the community and out of prison when possible, and adequately preparing them to re-enter their communities.
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
Nicolas Macrozonaris
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, last weekend, a 22-year-old sprinter from Laval, Nicolas Macrozonaris, stunned the track and field world by taking the gold medal in the 100 metres at an international meet in Mexico.
Defying all expectations and despite limited financial means, Nicolas Macrozonaris managed to realize the full potential of his talent by taking the top spot on the podium. The favourite to win the event and current world record holder, American Tim Montgomery, had to settle for the silver medal.
With a time of 10.03 seconds, this young Quebecker joined the ranks of champions and earned international recognition.
We congratulate Nicolas Macrozonaris and wish him a long and successful career; he will continue to surprise us.
Bravo, Nicolas.
* * *
[English]
Toronto
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to announce that Toronto is back in business as Canada's most vibrant city. On Friday, and throughout the weekend, hotels, theatres, restaurants, bars and sports facilities were full and busy as Canadians celebrated “Go Out Toronto” night.
I wish to congratulate all those who made it such a success, from local business owners, to cab drivers, bar staff, and everyone who came to support Toronto. I am proud to see everyone working together to bring my city back to the lively and cosmopolitan place that we all know and which is recognized the world over. It is important that Toronto remain as Canada's main economic engine, since whatever happens to Toronto's economy, good or bad, effects all Canadian cities and all Canadians.
I ask members to join me in a salute with three cheers for Toronto.
* * *
National Drinking Water Standards
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it has been two long years since an overwhelming majority of members of the House supported a Progressive Conservative motion to ensure that Canada has enforceable national drinking water standards. It has been two years since the Liberal government promised to act immediately. Despite the tragedies of Walkerton, North Battleford, and hundreds of boil advisories across the country, the government's response has been lukewarm at best.
Canada is one of the only modern countries in the world without national drinking water standards. Whether it is E. coli, carcinogens or parasites, Canadians have a right to know what is in their drinking water. The attitude of complacency is what led to tragedies like Walkerton.
The Liberal government has had two years to make good on its promise to establish national drinking water standards as expressed by Parliament. Instead the government is sitting on its hands and waiting for another tragedy to strike. Shame on the Liberal government.
* * *
Perth--Middlesex
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, being tucked away over in the corner must be making the PC members stir crazy. Now they are seeing things in Perth--Middlesex.
The latest figment of their imagination was an alleged ear piece, allegedly worn by the Alliance candidate during a debate through which she allegedly received verbal coaching. This tall tale came from the alleged PC candidate who heard the message from the mother ship through the receivers in his tin foil helmet.
With great glee and dignity, as one would expect, he informed the local media and even the Toronto Star, which said it needed to hear the message itself and could not accept hearsay.
We know the truth. The PCs simply could not understand why our candidate, Marian Meinen, could give thoughtful and intelligent answers to difficult questions. Marian Meinen, or any other woman for that matter, does not need coaching to out-think any PC candidate or even any PC member of Parliament, like the member for South Shore.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we have more spectacles of the government flipping and flopping around on international issues. This time it is on continental missile defence.
The former finance minister hints ever so carefully that he might be for it, but the foreign affairs minister said just last December that the system was immoral and illegal. He said, “We have been concerned about terrorist attacks, which everybody recognizes are not likely to be people that get their hands on ballistic missiles”.
If the government does not and has not believed missiles are a threat, how can it now be entertaining supporting the intercontinental missile system?
(1415)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will explain to the hon. Leader of the Opposition today, as I did yesterday, that it is an ongoing debate. There were changes when the Americans and the Russians decided to debate it and the abrogation of the ABM treaty by the Americans was a prelude to that possibility.
We were discussing that in the government ministries in February. We decided to postpone the cabinet decision to this time of the year. We had a first discussion this morning and there will be others.
The government faces every problem that it is obliged to face. This one concerns the defence of this country.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, there is the problem. Canada should be leading and making its own decisions, not just following the crowd.
Both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister cited possible support for this system from Russia and China, just as the Prime Minister cited support on his Iraq position from France.
Why is he allowing countries like Russia and China to dictate Canada's national policy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, concerning Iraq, we were the first ones to say a year ago that the precondition was an agreement with the Security Council.
We have debated the possibility of the deployment of armaments around the globe and in the air. It is not the same thing as protecting the continent from missiles that could come from abroad.
It is a different concept from the star wars of President Reagan. It is why we are looking at a Canadian position when the time comes for us to look into that.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Canada does not have a seat at the Security Council and we did not need the position of Russia and China to join NATO and Norad.
This is about protecting Canadian airspace. It is about protecting Canadian sovereignty, about our role in Norad, and about having a voice at the table with the United States.
Why does the government not realize that these kinds of decisions, like continental missile defence, should be taken because they are in Canada's national interest?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that we never have a question from the opposition until we discuss the problem ourselves. We have been debating this matter for a long time.
The opposition is supposed to be very preoccupied about defence. Members opposite have to realize that there was debate within the Liberal Party in order for the government to make the right decision.
* * *
Fisheries
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we will wait for the quotes from the Prime Minister tomorrow.
The federal Liberal government has mismanaged the fishery for years. It is so bad that crab fishermen in New Brunswick are now talking about boycotting the season and the Liberal premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is saying he will try to protect anyone who defies the cod moratorium from legal action.
My question is for the fisheries minister. Since those involved in the industry have obviously lost confidence in his abilities, why does he not start devolving greater powers for the fishery to the provinces?
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would invite the member to go to the Gulf of St. Lawrence and meet with the ministers of fisheries of the five provinces that are involved in the crab fishery and other fisheries there. I challenge him to come up with a solution that is agreeable to all.
We manage the fishery in the best interests of the stocks, which is in the interests of the communities in the long run.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we would be happy to take over the government and have a fishery policy that everybody could support.
[Translation]
Our resource management system is fundamentally flawed. The fisheries cannot be properly managed from Kent Street in Ottawa. The fishers of Shippagan, the Magdalen Islands and Placentia Bay must be able to speak up when it comes to their means of livelihood. They certainly could not do any worse than the federal Liberals.
Why is the minister doing nothing positive for the fisheries and why does he not delegate more control over resources to the provinces?
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that the provinces are always consulted, as is the industry. Before announcing the crab fishing plan for the Gulf, we consulted with the industry, the six associations that represent the offshore fishers, the seven or eight organizations that represent inshore fishers, and the five provinces involved, and made a decision that was in the best interest of long-term industry stability and resource protection.
* * *
(1420)
First Nations
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that he initiates the government's policies, yet his successor says he will not be implementing them. Because of the leadership race, we are getting mixed signals from the Liberal camp.
Taking the example of the aboriginal issue, will the Prime Minister admit that the federal government is to all intents and purposes paralyzed by the threat of veto by the member for LaSalle—Émard, since the latter, who will very likely be the PM's successor, says he will not be implementing the Governance Act once he is elected?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that a change of government enables Parliament to change all of the legislation the previous Parliament has enacted.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has submitted a bill to the House of Commons. It has gone to the committee after first reading, which gives everyone the opportunity to make suggestions before the bill comes back for second reading. This is an unusual process, and one that allows everyone more input.
It is quite possible that future governments may change the legislation that is in place today, as we have done with that of previous governments.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, it is a bit more complex than that, because the member for LaSalle—Émard has said he would vote in favour in order to avoid an election, but would not implement it once he was elected.
What is more, 60% of the present PM's cabinet support the member for LaSalle—Émard and are putting their personal ambitions ahead of their ministerial duties, since they are prepared to support someone who is saying, “What you are doing at the present time I will not be implementing, and if you want to be a minister, you had better follow me in this”. Does he think this is right?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is a bill before the House, and all members will be voting on it. Having been the Minister of Indian Affairs myself, I am convinced that the time has come to review the act, which has remained virtually unchanged for generations. It is a very difficult undertaking.
I find the Minister of Indian Affairs very courageous to assume his responsibilities and try to provide the best possible government for the first nations people of Canada.
* * *
Canadian Television Fund
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, here is one more example of victims of the government's leadership problems: the people who work in television production. At present, they are hostages in the struggle between the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is making promises to them, and the Minister of Finance, who refuses to listen to them.
Does the Prime Minister intend to let these people in the television industry remain hostages much longer in the cockfight between the two leadership hopefuls?
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Canadian television fund has been remarkably successful since it was created in 1996.
The moneys allocated to the fund have never been permanent and people who work in this field know full well that budgets will vary from year to year.
[English]
Never rush a good thing. I think we will find a solution soon and everybody will be happy.
[Translation]
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister realize that the Minister of Canadian Heritage was speaking in the name of the government when she promised to top up the financing of television productions, and that her words thus committed the government?
Can the Prime Minister—who says he is the one in charge and the one who settles disputes—tell us whether or not the government intends to restore television production funding to its previous level?
[English]
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I said, never rush a good thing.
[Translation]
This government speaks with a single voice. Decisions will be made in due course.
* * *
National Defence
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Last year, the Prime Minister said he could not make a decision about star wars because the technology was not ready. The last test had failed. All of the subsequent tests were cancelled.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to tarnish Canada's reputation in order to join a military program that does not work and that is making the world a more dangerous place? Why the flip-flop?
(1425)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I explained yesterday that the situation has changed and that this is no longer the star wars program envisioned by former President Reagan. This is a project that is limited to American territory to defend against missile attacks. The United States has already given assurances to Russia and China that the old star wars program is not what is being considered right now. It is a different project having to do with the protection of North America. It is geographically necessary that we take part in discussions, at least, because the—
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister now seems to admit that there is a debate going on, at least in cabinet this morning where the pros and cons were allegedly put before the cabinet.
I ask him, when are the pros and cons going to be put before Parliament? When are we going to see what the government is considering? When is Parliament going to consider this?
Last week the Prime Minister said to me that there is only “a possibility of a discussion and we have not started discussions”. It seems that the discussion has already started. When will the discussion and debate happen here in Parliament so we can have a real decision process?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are having a discussion at this very moment. He is asking me a question about it. It is amazing that it is supposed to be a big problem for them and they start to talk about it only when we, the Liberals as usual, are debating the things that are very important for the nation.
I said it is not star wars; it is something different. It is covering the territory of America. We are part of America. It is against missiles. We have not started any discussion with the Americans, but I am happy that we are having a discussion in the House. He can take an opposition day if he wants to have more debate about it.
* * *
Fisheries
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the debate over the New Brunswick crab quota is being fueled by the minister of fisheries' inconsistency. First he said the quota was reduced based on science. Next he said there might be another 4,000 tonnes of additional quota available. Which is it: science or political manipulation?
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member should know, as the industry certainly does, that we have said from the very beginning and in the last months as we negotiated over a six month period that, should we get a co-management agreement with a good white crab protocol, we could safely increase the quota. We have not changed our opinion. If we can get a co-management agreement, we can have access to additional allocations.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC):
Mr. Speaker, let us try a little closer to home. In 2002, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans set the total scallop quota for area 29 at 800 tonnes. The minister then granted access to 600 tonnes of area 29 quota to fishermen from his riding, even though their licences restricted them from fishing in area 29.
So again conservation and science are set by the wayside for political favouritism. When is it going to stop?
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, again the member is obviously wrong. The quota in area 29 was set in accordance with recommendations by science at a very safe level in an emerging fishery and access was given to coastal fishermen as well as the full bay scallop fishermen who have traditionally been fishing in the inshore areas and midshore areas off Nova Scotia.
* * *
National Defence
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the last time this government sent troops to Afghanistan it sent them without proper uniforms. Now we hear that the Canadian contingent in Afghanistan preparing for this summer's mission does not have permission to carry firearms. Because the government failed to get permission from the stabilization force in Afghanistan before sending our troops into danger, German soldiers have been assigned to protect Canadian troops. This is shameful.
If this is true, why are Canadian troops being sent on this mission with no way of protecting themselves? Is it because of the government's incompetence or is it because of its complete disregard for the safety of Canadian troops?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Neither, Mr. Speaker, and I must say the Alliance must really be scraping the bottom of the barrel today.
The fact of the matter is that we are on a reconnaissance trip, the appropriate diplomatic papers have not yet been signed, and so we are protected by the German forces who are in the field right now, this small reconnaissance team. Soon the papers will be signed and I can assure the hon. member in the House that when the time comes in August for our people to be deployed, they will be fully and appropriately and legally armed.
(1430)
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the minister thinks it is unimportant that our troops do not have the ability to protect themselves by carrying firearms. This is right in line with what the government has done in committing Canadian troops to this mission without preparing them or giving them tools to do the job.
After committing to a command role that was supposed to start this summer, we now find out from the minister that Canadians will assume command only after six months. Is it not true that the government has asked Germany to bail Canada out of its commitment because the government committed our troops to a mission they simply cannot carry out at this time?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
My goodness, Mr. Speaker, the nonsense gets ever more silly by the day.
We committed from the very beginning to a sizable contingent to Afghanistan, some 1,800 soldiers for six months and another 1,800 in the following six months, working with our German allies, as I was discussing last night with my German counterpart in Ottawa. Only yesterday did I announce for the first time that Canada was offering to take command of the mission in the second six month period.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the missile defence shield, the Minister of National Defence was hoping to get a mandate from cabinet to allow the Canadian army to negotiate the terms of Canada's participation in this U.S. government project.
Since when does the Canadian army negotiate on behalf of the government? Can the minister explain this new way of proceeding?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I must admit that the questions are a bit strange today. The army is not negotiating for the government. The army has never done this and never will. The government has not made any decisions. How could the army negotiate something that the government has not decided yet? The army never negotiates for the government.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I must admit that the Minister of National Defence is also very strange. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that the situation was changing. The Liberal leadership candidate has said she opposes Canada's taking part in the missile defence shield. The former and current Ministers of Finance are for it. The Minister of National Defence wants to put the army in charge of the negotiations. What is the world coming to?
Does the Prime Minister not consider this matter important enough for the House to vote on it and give the government a clear indication of the position to take with regard to this sensitive matter?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is an opposition day next week; the Bloc Quebecois could use that day for a debate in the House of Commons.
Hon. Don Boudria:
There is one this week.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien:
There is one this week. They can hold a debate this week. They need only ask the House to debate the matter. They will want to talk about other things when they really could be getting answers.
* * *
[English]
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting situation when the so-called gang of four in Europe, France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg, are now planning on opening up headquarters just down the street from NATO as they continue with their plan to divide NATO. The British prime minister has come out clearly in opposition to this plan.
Why is it that our Prime Minister will not speak strongly as being opposed to this division in NATO? Is it because he is supporting the Chirac plan?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I said in the House last week that I am for a strong, united NATO, but as usual the hon. member did not listen.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, he still will not say he opposes France's plan, so no help for Europe.
Let us try Asia. Yesterday the federal Liberals overruled their own members on the foreign affairs committee and all opposition parties by stomping on Taiwan's simple request for observer status at the World Health Organization.
European parliamentarians, U.S. parliamentarians and others recognize this has nothing to do with the one China policy. They have rallied to support Taiwan, but yesterday with the SARS situation still looming, the Liberals slammed the health window shut on Taiwan's face.
Why does the Prime Minister support the Palestinian authority having observer status at the World Health Organization but not Taiwan? Why not support Taiwan?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as every member in the House knows, this was a procedural matter that came before the House. It was deferred into House business under the leadership of the House leader and I am confident it will be dealt with.
The hon. member knows very well that Taiwan is not a member of the United Nations and cannot have full membership at the WHO. Canada has always supported Taiwan's ability to get the information. The problem here is that Taiwan will get no more help in the world if it is up to these members, because they will not listen to anything and they will not give anybody else a chance to explain anything.
* * *
(1435)
[Translation]
St. Lawrence Waterway
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the federal government is increasingly withdrawing from maintenance operations in the St. Lawrence waterway. Its tendency to download the costs onto marine carriers is eroding the competitiveness of the St. Lawrence River and jeopardizing the survival of the ports.
Will the Minister of Transport not admit that the federal government's withdrawal is making it practically impossible for ports along the St. Lawrence River to compete with ports such as Halifax and that, ultimately, this strategy is compromising the very existence of St. Lawrence ports?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Not at all, Mr. Speaker, and I think that our seaways have challenges for the future. We may have to invest or reinvest in seaways, but I think that this government's policy on seaway marketing has been successful.
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, downloading the St. Lawrence maintenance costs to shipowners is tantamount to downloading snow removal and road maintenance costs to truck drivers, with the effect we can imagine.
Does the minister intend to continue anyway and keep overcharging the shipowners, who may abandon St. Lawrence ports for those on the American east coast, for instance?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of challenges facing the St. Lawrence Seaway. It is an aging structure and obviously there has to be some reinvestment, but certainly the commercialization has worked. Costs have come down. There are problems faced by the shipowners. Certainly there are all manner of things that should be explored, including charges that the shipping companies have to bear.
All of these matters are under discussion. I would invite the hon. member to raise his concerns at the transport committee which has a subcommittee studying this very issue.
* * *
Agriculture
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, amazing but true, cruise ship companies whose food shipments failed to meet the agriculture minister's new labelling requirements “will be required to remove the product immediately from Canada”. Well, duh, that is exactly what they want to do and it is exactly what they have been doing for the last 20 Alaska cruise seasons. What would be the point of leaving the food sitting on the dock?
I wonder if the minister realizes that these ridiculous new rules of his have already driven some cruise ships to relocate to Seattle.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Duplain (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
No, Mr. Speaker. If we look at all meat products for human consumption in every area of federal responsibility, and cruise ships in particular, these products must comply with food inspection regulations. That is in the public interest.
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, cruise lines will have to pay $68 plus GST for the minister's inspectors to make one of two decisions: either the food is labelled correctly and it can leave Canada; or the food is labelled incorrectly and it must leave Canada. If the minister cannot see the folly of this ridiculous situation, he needs to visit Vancouver and watch the cruise ships come and go for awhile, that is if there are any left.
I ask again, when is the minister going to put a stop to this ridiculous and unnecessary bureaucratic nonsense from his department?
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Duplain (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
It is a matter of food safety, Mr. Speaker. I think that all foods imported into Canada must be inspected before they are consumed by the public.
* * *
[English]
Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Janko Péric (Cambridge, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
A few weeks ago, the minister toured the Wellington detention centre with the member for Guelph—Wellington and myself. Can the minister tell us how negotiations with the province are progressing to find space to house those citizens posing a security risk?
Hon. Denis Coderre (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Cambridge for the question. Like he mentioned, we had the opportunity with our colleague from Guelph—Wellington to visit the facilities of the Wellington centre.
We are still waiting for the provincial government to show us clearly that it does not want to lease us that facility. A few months ago we had a deal and at the last minute it failed. We believe that for the sake of our own policy we need to do something. If the minister of public security from Ontario is serious when he talks about detention, he should be on side.
* * *
(1440)
Arts and Culture
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance's last budget cut $25 million from Canadian TV production while boosting credits for American programs. This is the Canadian Alliance approach to culture and it has put the future of This Hour Has 22 Minutes, The Red Green Show and the The 11th Hour on hold.
Over 2,000 good paying jobs from coast to coast are now at risk and companies are facing bankruptcy but the finance minister is only offering duct tape for this season.
Will the minister come up with $25 million for the CTF today, or will he continue to abandon Canadian TV to the American market?
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian television fund was created to enhance production in Canada and it did. We will certainly be happy to announce a solution in order to promote production in Canada.
* * *
Health
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Roy Romanow described the health council that was promised by the first ministers in their recent health accord as the “heart and soul of health care reform”. Now that the council has been delayed to the end of this month or possibly even later, will the Prime Minister assure Canadians that the council will be fully independent of governments, that it will be a public watchdog able to monitor and expose the destructive impact of privatization on health care delivery and will he ensure that it is chaired by a passionate advocate of public health care, not a privatizer like Frank McKenna or Michael Wilson?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, obviously the health council was an important part of the accountability framework set out in the health accord entered into by the first ministers in February. In fact, the first ministers left it to health ministers to clarify the mandate of the health council and to move forward with the appointment of a chair and members.
I can assure the hon. member that I understand, as do all my provincial and territorial colleagues, the importance of this council to Canadians in ensuring that they know where their tax dollars are spent and whether they are getting better health outcomes for those tax dollars.
* * *
Foreign Affairs
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I have some simple questions on missile defence for the Prime Minister.
Has Canada received a formal proposal from the United States? Is there a deadline? Before committing the Canadian people, will he tell Canadians precisely what the American proposal is? Will ministers of his government be free to disagree in public with the government's decision and still stay in cabinet?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have to divide that question by five. The first answer is no, so I do not have to reply to the others.
* * *
Health
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
Twenty-five health ministers from across Europe met in Brussels today to discuss containment of the SARS virus in Europe. Of Europe's allies, Canada has had the most direct and relevant experience with SARS. Was the Minister of Health invited personally to join her colleague health ministers in Brussels and if she was not invited originally, why did she not take the initiative to inform personally her colleague health ministers of the lessons that Canada learned?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in fact we share what we have learned through the WHO. I think the WHO will say that we are one of not only the charter members of the WHO but one of the members most committed to the work it does, which includes surveillance and dissemination of information and research.
I am well aware of the meeting of European health ministers. It is important that the European Union health ministers got together and talked about how they might be able to share strategies in relation to the European Union to help control and contain this disease.
* * *
Gun Control
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the justice minister gave the Coalition for Gun Control $380,000 to promote the anti-gun agenda at the same time that he is starving programs in his own department. The minister has just cut $65,000 from the firearms safety training programs in Saskatchewan.
Will the minister please explain how he can justify funding the Coalition for Gun Control while at the same time reducing funding to firearms safety training programs?
(1445)
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the whole purpose of the gun control legislation and in fact the discussion we had this morning is to make Canadian streets safer. That is what we intend to do. That is why we are bringing in Bill C-10A, to create greater efficiencies in the system so that we can do the proper training and at the end of the day have safer streets for all our people.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it seems very strange to me that it would make the streets safer by reducing firearms safety training programs.
The minister is unable to produce a shred of evidence that banning hundreds of thousands of guns owned by law-abiding Canadians has any effect whatsoever at reducing the criminal use of firearms.
Will the minister please tell us today which guns he is going to ban and also important, is he going to fully compensate the gun owners for the loss in value of their property?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, obviously in the discussion earlier this morning the member for Yorkton—Melville was not listening. He does not want to listen. He does not want to hear the good news stories.
I outlined a couple of examples in this morning's discussion from NWEST in terms of where the gun registry in fact helped them find illegal weapons and keep our streets safer.
The member for Yorkton—Melville opposite does not want to admit there are some good news stories out there as a result of the gun control program.
* * *
[Translation]
Free Trade Area of the Americas
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that FTAA negotiations are making some progress, the Secretary General of the Organization of American States is pessimistic, given that the negotiations are tied to a successful outcome at the WTO.
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs give us a progress report, and tell us whether he shares the Secretary General's concerns?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, these negotiations are making progress and, naturally, everything is connected. The FTAA is connected to the WTO, to the OAS. Canada is concerned with the creation in the Americas of a system not only of justice and social solidarity, but also of international trade that will benefit all the people of South and North America.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, as the minister is well aware, the Bloc Quebecois wants to see a social development fund created to cushion the blow some countries may experience when the FTAA is implemented. We are not alone in this; it is an opinion shared by a number of the stakeholders, Mexican President Vicente Fox among them.
Will the minister acknowledge that the lack of such a social development fund accounts in large part for the resistance of certain Latin American countries to the FTAA?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that our goal, and the goal of all the countries, is to have a trade regime that will contribute to prosperity and thus to social justice in all of the countries.
The creation of a development fund is one thing that ought to be discussed, but we do have several major banks for this already, including the Bank for the Americas and the World Bank. The Canadian government believes that we now have the tools in place to help the developing countries.
As I have said, we are going to continue to work with these countries for prosperity and social justice throughout the Americas.
* * *
[English]
Fisheries and Oceans
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has been sailing some rough water lately. Although he is trying to hide it, a new issue is quietly emerging. Users of inland waterways deemed uncharted are being abandoned by Liberals and put in peril.
The minister's intent is that the charting and marking of inland waterways no longer be a federal responsibility. Why are the Liberals ignoring the threat this poses to recreational sailors and the liability factor faced by municipal and regional governments?
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the House and the member will know that we are constantly evaluating our services to see that they are current, to ensure that we are using our resources appropriately.
Some waterways are no longer used commercially by a wide variety of people or there are single users. We attempt in those cases to divest them to the local communities or to other interests prior to removing the buoys.
(1450)
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, this is not a case of new law. It is a case of convenient interpretation of existing legislation. This was a deliberate Liberal choice. The minister knows those inland waterways have been uncharted for many years under the Liberal watch.
How can the minister demand that municipal or regional governments assume federal responsibilities and meet higher standards than those that were in place when the work was done by his department?
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we make no demands on local governments.
Where we decide that our services are no longer required, where it is the best investment of Canadian resources for public goods and services and we choose to withdraw the services for those reasons, we first offer all those assets to the community. That is what we are doing in this case.
* * *
The Environment
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The 2003 budget improves tax benefits and expense provisions for small business owners and their employees when using automobiles for work related purposes.
In view of the government's Kyoto commitment, could the minister indicate when a budgetary measure will be introduced to extend similar benefits to small business owners and employees using public transit?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first, I would observe of course that we all know in the House of the hon. member's firm commitment to sustainable development, a cleaner environment and public transit in principle.
I would say though that this kind of measure was considered by the finance committee over the last year. It was found that what we were really trying to do was promote incremental use of public transit and the best way to do that was to flow funds to expand the availability of public transit. That is why the government introduced a $435 million offer to the Toronto region to improve public transit and make it more available to users.
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Ontario along with France, Spain and Japan are the four international sites being considered for the $12 billion international thermonuclear experimental reactor project. The goal of the project is to develop fusion as a sustainable clean energy source for the future.
The province of Ontario has committed $300 million to the project and is willing to fund more to win the bid.
Does the federal government plan to make a financial commitment to the ITER project regardless of whether we get the project?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. Minister of Natural Resources has been examining this issue together with our cabinet colleagues. Obviously no announcement has been forthcoming yet. We have had excellent representation made by a large number of Liberal MPs. Of course, that does not shock us because they always make excellent representations to all of us sitting around the cabinet table.
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, this thermonuclear project is an international collaboration between the European Union, Japan, China, the United States, the Russian Federation and Canada.
Does the federal government plan on making a monetary commitment to this project regardless of whether the bid is awarded to Canada?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this is in fact just an elaboration of the previous question. The hon. Minister of Natural Resources, as I indicated previously, has received representations from a number of colleagues in the House of Commons about this project. It is indeed a very big priority for members on this side of the House.
I take the hon. member's point now as representation. We are finally glad to see the Alliance or at least one member who seems to also support this initiative, supported by countless Liberals.
* * *
[Translation]
Railway Transportation
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, as of today, nearly 1,500 citizens and over 40 organizations in the Mauricie, including a good number from the riding of Saint-Maurice, have publicly supported the creation of a high-speed train line between Quebec City and Montreal, with a stop in Trois-Rivières.
My question is this: since the cabinet committee on economic union recently recommended that this high-speed train project be brought forward, does the Prime Minister intend to take advantage of this opportunity to leave his region with a tangible legacy, and could he tell us if he might accept its findings?
(1455)
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have indeed studied the possibility of a high-speed link between Quebec City and Windsor. I hope to be able to make a statement on this subject very soon.
[English]
The Speaker:
Order, please. There seems to be an unusual amount of noise in the chamber for a Tuesday. I know many hon. members are trying to help others with their questions or answers as the case may be, but sometimes there are so many members helping that it is hard to hear the person who has the floor.
I am not accusing any one side of being unanimous in its efforts to help, but the right hon. member for Calgary Centre now has the floor and we have to be able to hear the question.
* * *
National Defence
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just said that Canada has received no proposal on missile defence from the United States. What then is cabinet discussing? The foreign minister says that there will be a decision next week. A decision on what?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, just talk to the Americans.
* * *
Government Programs
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. The last budget promised up to a billion dollars of reallocation from low priority program areas to more valued ones like cleaning up their mistakes. What specific examples can be cited of this so-called reallocation program where any money has ever been taken from a minister and given to another?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the reallocation exercise is about making choices about priorities. It is about good government.
[Translation]
We have asked the ministers and their departments to identify programs further down the priority scale so that we can reduce or eliminate them and concentrate on programs of more importance to Canadians. Treasury Board is analyzing the proposals and we will soon be in a position to make our decisions public.
* * *
Microbreweries
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the microbreweries are dismayed by the Competition Bureau's decision to stop its investigation of the major breweries, despite acknowledging that if the major breweries continue their actions, this could hinder free competition.
Since, by law, the Minister of Industry has all the authority needed to act, does he intend to order the competition commissioner to re-open his investigation in the very near future so as to ensure the survival of the microbreweries?
(1500)
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Competition Bureau concluded, after an investigation, that currently, the actions do not violate the law, and it is prepared to accept new information. If the hon. member has any information, I invite him to present it to the Competition Bureau.
* * *
[English]
Aboriginal Affairs
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, it must be embarrassing for the Prime Minister, preparing to leave office, to have the United Nations special envoy in Canada commenting on deplorable conditions on reserves right here in the country. It must be embarrassing to have the United Nations criticize Canada for its failure to uphold the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
Will the Prime Minister use the next few months to do what he should have been doing over the past decade, and put Canada back on the map as a beacon of equality and respect for human rights?
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it would be helpful if the NDP would join with us in working toward improving the legislative structure and the institutional structure of first nations. That would be a good start.
Second, in the last budget of the Minister of Finance the government put almost half a billion dollars a year in new money into aboriginal communities and their issues. That will go a long way toward improving the lives of aboriginal people.
* * *
Fisheries
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC):
Mr. Speaker, since the closure of the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador has said that he will encourage local fishermen to ignore the moratorium on the northern cod. He said that the Newfoundland and Labrador government will not assist the federal government in any prosecutions if fishing continues.
Rather than a violent confrontation on the issue, will the minister now agree to sit down again with the various stakeholders in the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery with a view to reaching a mutually beneficial agreement?
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I know these are very difficult times in Newfoundland and Labrador and I know it is very difficult for the premier and for all his cabinet ministers.
The member will recognize that we made this decision in the best interests of the stocks and in the best interests of the communities of Newfoundland and Labrador for the long term. Fishing these resources illegally will not serve any good purpose. It will reduce the resource.
They have asked us to do increased scientific work. They would not want us to invest our resources in protection rather than conservation.
* * *
Presence in Gallery
The Speaker:
We have a number of important visitors in the House today.
I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Right Hon. Lord Robertson, Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I also draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Carlos Frederico Ruckauf, Minister of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship of the Republic of Argentina.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I also draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Anna Magreth Abdallah, Minister of Health of the United Republic of Tanzania.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Parliament of Canada Act
The House resumed from May 2 consideration of the motion
The Speaker:
It being 3:02 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the referral to committee before second reading of Bill C-34.
Call in the members.
* * *
(1510)
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 155)
|
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allard
Anderson (Victoria)
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Bachand (Saint-Jean)
Bagnell
Barnes (London West)
Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls)
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bennett
Bertrand
Bigras
Binet
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Bonwick
Borotsik
Boudria
Bourgeois
Bradshaw
Brown
Bryden
Bulte
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Caplan
Cardin
Carroll
Casey
Castonguay
Catterall
Charbonneau
Chrétien
Clark
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cotler
Crête
Cullen
Cuzner
Dalphond-Guiral
Davies
Desjarlais
Desrochers
DeVillers
Dion
Discepola
Doyle
Drouin
Duceppe
Duplain
Easter
Eggleton
Farrah
Finlay
Frulla
Fry
Gagnon (Québec)
Gagnon (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay)
Gallaway
Gaudet
Gauthier
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Guay
Guimond
Harvard
Harvey
Herron
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jennings
Jordan
Karetak-Lindell
Keddy (South Shore)
Keyes
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Laframboise
Lalonde
Lastewka
Lebel
LeBlanc
Lee
Leung
Lill
Lincoln
Longfield
Loubier
MacAulay
Macklin
Mahoney
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marceau
Marcil
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle--Émard)
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Masse
McCallum
McGuire
McKay (Scarborough East)
McLellan
McTeague
Ménard
Mills (Toronto--Danforth)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Myers
Nault
Neville
Nystrom
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London--Fanshawe)
O'Reilly
Pacetti
Pagtakhan
Paquette
Paradis
Patry
Péric
Peschisolido
Peterson
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Chatham--Kent Essex)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pratt
Price
Proctor
Proulx
Provenzano
Redman
Reed (Halton)
Regan
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Saada
Sauvageau
Savoy
Scott
Sgro
Shepherd
Speller
St-Hilaire
St-Jacques
St-Julien
St. Denis
Steckle
Szabo
Telegdi
Thibault (West Nova)
Thibeault (Saint-Lambert)
Tirabassi
Tonks
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Volpe
Wasylycia-Leis
Whelan
Wilfert
Total: -- 175
|
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands)
Bailey
Benoit
Breitkreuz
Cadman
Casson
Chatters
Day
Forseth
Gallant
Goldring
Gouk
Grewal
Harper
Harris
Hill (Prince George--Peace River)
Hill (Macleod)
Hinton
Jaffer
Johnston
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni)
Meredith
Merrifield
Mills (Red Deer)
Moore
Obhrai
Pallister
Rajotte
Reid (Lanark—Carleton)
Reynolds
Ritz
Schmidt
Skelton
Solberg
Spencer
Strahl
Thompson (Wild Rose)
Toews
Vellacott
White (North Vancouver)
White (Langley--Abbotsford)
Williams
Yelich
Total: -- 46
|
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
Bergeron
Cauchon
Coderre
Copps
Fournier
Gagnon (Champlain)
Girard-Bujold
Grose
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Lanctôt
Martin (LaSalle--Émard)
Matthews
McCormick
Perron
Rocheleau
Roy
Simard
Stewart
Tremblay
Total: -- 20
|
|
The Speaker:
I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
(Motion agreed to and bill referred to a committee)
Mr. Joe Comuzzi:
Mr. Speaker, would you please seek consent to add my name to those who voted in favour?
The Speaker:
Is it agreed to allow the hon. member's name to be recorded with the yeas?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
The House resumed from May 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, be read the third time and passed.
The Speaker:
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-9.
Ms. Marlene Catterall:
Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find consent in the House that those who voted on the previous motion be recorded as voting on the motion now before the House with the Liberal members voting yes.
[Translation]
The Speaker:
Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston:
Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members will be voting yea on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond:
Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote against this motion.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom:
Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic Party will vote against this motion.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik:
Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive Conservative Party will vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel:
Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this motion.
* * *
(1515)
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 156)
|
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allard
Anderson (Victoria)
Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands)
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Bagnell
Bailey
Barnes (London West)
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bennett
Benoit
Bertrand
Binet
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Bonwick
Boudria
Bradshaw
Breitkreuz
Brown
Bryden
Bulte
Byrne
Caccia
Cadman
Calder
Caplan
Carroll
Casson
Castonguay
Catterall
Charbonneau
Chatters
Chrétien
Collenette
Comuzzi
Cotler
Cullen
Cuzner
Day
DeVillers
Dion
Discepola
Drouin
Duplain
Easter
Eggleton
Farrah
Finlay
Forseth
Frulla
Fry
Gallant
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goldring
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Grewal
Harper
Harris
Harvard
Harvey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George--Peace River)
Hinton
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jaffer
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Karetak-Lindell
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Keyes
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc
Lee
Leung
Lincoln
Longfield
Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni)
MacAulay
Macklin
Mahoney
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marcil
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle--Émard)
McCallum
McGuire
McKay (Scarborough East)
McLellan
McTeague
Meredith
Merrifield
Mills (Red Deer)
Mills (Toronto--Danforth)
Minna
Mitchell
Moore
Murphy
Myers
Nault
Neville
O'Brien (London--Fanshawe)
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Reilly
Obhrai
Pacetti
Pagtakhan
Pallister
Paradis
Patry
Péric
Peschisolido
Peterson
Pickard (Chatham--Kent Essex)
Pillitteri
Pratt
Price
Proulx
Provenzano
Rajotte
Redman
Reed (Halton)
Regan
Reid (Lanark—Carleton)
Reynolds
Ritz
Robillard
Rock
Saada
Savoy
Schmidt
Scott
Sgro
Shepherd
Skelton
Solberg
Speller
Spencer
St-Jacques
St-Julien
St. Denis
Steckle
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Thibault (West Nova)
Thibeault (Saint-Lambert)
Thompson (Wild Rose)
Tirabassi
Toews
Tonks
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vellacott
Volpe
Whelan
White (Langley--Abbotsford)
White (North Vancouver)
Wilfert
Williams
Yelich
Total: -- 179
|
|
NAYS
Members
Bachand (Saint-Jean)
Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls)
Bigras
Blaikie
Borotsik
Bourgeois
Cardin
Casey
Clark
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Davies
Desjarlais
Desrochers
Doyle
Duceppe
Gagnon (Québec)
Gagnon (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay)
Gaudet
Gauthier
Guay
Guimond
Herron
Keddy (South Shore)
Laframboise
Lalonde
Lebel
Lill
Loubier
Marceau
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Masse
Ménard
Nystrom
Paquette
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Proctor
Robinson
Sauvageau
St-Hilaire
Wasylycia-Leis
Total: -- 42
|
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
Bergeron
Cauchon
Coderre
Copps
Fournier
Gagnon (Champlain)
Girard-Bujold
Grose
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Lanctôt
Martin (LaSalle--Émard)
Matthews
McCormick
Perron
Rocheleau
Roy
Simard
Stewart
Tremblay
Total: -- 20
|
|
The Speaker:
I declare the motion carried.
[English]
(Bill read the third time and passed)
I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, government orders will be extended by another 13 minutes for a total of 43 minutes.
* * *
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act
The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, and of the amendment, and of the amendment to the amendment.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-10A. The bill seeks to amend the Firearms Act. Notably, the bill would stagger firearms licence renewals to avoid a surge of applications in five year cycles. It would simplify the requirements for licence renewals and it would create a commissioner to oversee the program.
We, the members of the official opposition, disagree with the passage of the bill.
The member for Yorkton—Melville has worked very hard and for a very long time on this issue. He has done an excellent job of researching the issue, educating Canadians and holding the government accountable.
This bill has been kicking around for over two years. First it was Bill C-15 which, at the insistence of the official opposition, was split into two parts. Bill C-15B included the firearms amendments, along with the amendments to the cruelty to animals section. It was in the Senate when the House prorogued. In this session it was re-numbered as Bill C-10 and sent to the Senate for debate. After six days of debate, in December the Senate decided to split Bill C-10 into two: Bill C-10A, an act to amend the Criminal Code, which includes the firearms section and the Firearms Act, and Bill C-10B, an act to amend the Criminal Code dealing with cruelty to animals.
Despite the fact that the Senate does not have the authority to do so, the Senate split this bill in two. Members of the House of Commons should not be required to waive their rights and privileges in order to allow the Senate to exceed its authority.
Why did the Senate divide Bill C-10? Because it could not comply with the government's demand that it ram through the entire bill before Christmas. But why exactly did the Liberal-dominated Senate take this drastic step? Because the government had an end of year deadline contained in the gun registry section. Failure to pass the gun registry portion of Bill C-10 by December 31 would result in yet higher costs for the registry, perhaps another $4 million a year. We missed the December deadline.
Bill C-10A has been appearing on and disappearing from the legislative agenda for some months now. I can only speculate that the government is leery about placing it before Parliament for debate, perhaps scared over the reception it will receive from the members of the Liberal caucus.
The 22 pages with 63 clauses of firearms amendments in Bill C-10A are a clear admission by the government that Bill C-68 was a failure. The then justice minister told us at a news conference, “The debate is over” on this issue, but if the debate really was over in 1998, why did the minister bring in 22 pages of amendments to the legislation?
After seven years, the waste of a billion dollars and still counting, and massive non-compliance, the government has finally admitted it made a mistake in 1995. There are many more things that need to be fixed in Bill C-68 other than these few tinkering amendments. The insurmountable problems with the gun registry will not be solved by these band-aid amendments.
(1520)
The only cost effective solution is to scrap the gun registry altogether and replace it with something that will work.
An hon. member: With what?
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Let me answer that. This means replacing it with a law that has the full support of all 10 provinces, the 3 territories, the firearms community and the aboriginal community. We must remember that six provinces and two territories proposed Bill C-68 in a constitutional challenge that went all the way to the Supreme Court. The western provinces are even refusing to prosecute firearms act offences. Is that not something? For years judges have complained that the legislation was so poorly drafted, at least major segments of the legislation, that it was unenforceable.
The bill would also amend the definition of a firearm in an attempt to ensure that millions of air guns and pellet rifles will no longer be considered firearms under the law. The wording is confusing and ambiguous, and the new definition may not achieve that objective. The justice minister refused to consider a simple amendment to remove that confusion and ambiguity.
In 1995 the justice minister ignored the 250 amendments proposed by the Reform Party at that time. It has become evident that the gun registry is nothing more than a fiasco; another billion dollar boondoggle.
The Auditor General says that the firearms program is the worst example of government overspending that anyone in her department has ever seen. This is a program that the government claimed was going to break even.
When unveiled in 1995, Canadians and the House were told that the gun registry would cost $119 million to implement, which would be offset by $117 million in fees. The difference between revenue and cost of just $2 million was said to be the cost of the program. That is what Canadians and this Parliament were made to believe.
Instead, by the end of this year the registry will have cost nearly $1 billion, 500 times more than the originally projected costs. Of course this is not the first time we have learned of Liberal overspending gone wild.
Who can forget the HRDC boondoggle when the government used job creation programs as a means to throw cash around like drunkards? More recently there was the Groupaction affair in which the government gave sponsorship funds to its Liberal friends in the name of national unity. This included $500,000 for non-existent or missing reports.
Since 1993 it has become clear that the Liberal government only admits to wrongdoing when confronted by the media reports or is caught by the Auditor General. However no one on the government side ever takes responsibility for his or her actions.
Where was the former finance minister, who is listening to the debate now, when he spent all those billions of dollars on the gun registry? I will tell everyone where he was. He was writing the cheques. So much for fiscal responsibility. How many other spending fiascos remain hidden?
The firearms registry was introduced with hollow claims that it would help the police do their jobs. Supposedly, it would provide firearms registration information to dispatched patrol officers, allowing them to know before entering a property whether or not the occupant has a firearm and how many guns are in the residence.
The registry was also purported to help curb the illegal gun trade by allowing the police to trace guns to their original owners and enforce the requirement that guns only be sold to licensed individuals. The justice minister gave $380,000 to a coalition of gun control to promote its anti-gun agenda while it cut $65,000 from the firearms safety training program. How can the justice minister justify that?
(1525)
The police cannot rely on the billion dollar gun registry to do anything the Liberals promised. Police will not know where the guns are because there is no legal requirement for gun owners to store their registered firearms at their home address or tell the government where they are stored.
Police will not know where the guns are because between 500,000 and 1.3 million gun owners failed or refused to obtain a firearms licence and cannot register their guns without one.
Police will not know where the guns are because the government has lost track of at least 300,000 guns in the old handgun registration system.
Police will not know where the guns are because the government still has to register between 3.4 million and 12 million guns before the government imposed registration deadline.
Even if police do find the guns, there are so few identifying characteristics on the registration certificates that it is impossible to verify that it is the firearm registered in the system. For example, 4.5 million registration certificates have been issued without the owner's name. Can anyone imagine that? There are 3.2 million blank and unknown entries on gun registration certificates. Of the 3.2 million certificates that have already been issued, more than three-quarters of a million of them do not have serial numbers. How will the government keep track of those?
The bill would remove all of the RCMP's authority for the firearms registration system which it has been responsible for since 1934. All authority previously granted in law to the RCMP would now be transferred to a new government agency under the control of a new bureaucrat called the Canadian firearms commissioner.
We have one question. Why? If the RCMP bureaucracy cannot make the gun registry work after 59 years of experience, how will the new bureaucracy do any better? It is likely to further erode public and police confidence in the gun registry, a system so riddled with errors that it is of absolutely no value whatsoever to the police in their day to day law enforcement functions.
The bill would give the minister the power to exempt non-residents from the application of the Firearms Act, regulations and 14 sections of the Criminal Code of Canada. It exempts foreigners. Why does the justice minister trust foreigners with firearms more than he does Canadian citizens?
The bill would give any designated firearms officer any of the duties, powers and functions of the chief firearms officer. Do Canadians really want private eyes running around with all the powers of a CFO to investigate and harass law-abiding citizens?
How will we ever know if the private eye is using his powers as a firearms officer to investigate people for his other clients and for his personal gain? Even the Privacy Commissioner of Canada is investigating this issue.
Let us look at some statistics. Statistics Canada recently released homicide statistics for 2001. These numbers provide further evidence of the absolute futility of registering guns as a policy for reducing the number of murders. Of the 554 homicides in Canada in 2001, 31% were stabbed to death, another 31% were shot to death, and 22% were beaten to death.
(1530)
Of the 171 firearm homicides in 2001, 64% were committed with handguns that the RCMP have been registering for the last 69 years, 6% were committed with firearms that are completely prohibited in Canada, and 27% were committed with a rifle or shotgun.
Since 1991 handgun use in homicides has steadily increased from 49.8% to 64.3% in 2001. Over the same period of time homicides committed with rifles and shotguns have steadily decreased from 38% to 26.9%. Between 1997 and 2001, 74% of handguns recovered from the scenes of 143 homicides were not registered weapons.
Toronto's recent wave of street murders, more than 40 since the beginning of 2001, is further evidence disproving the claim that the Liberal government's gun registry is making Canadians safer from crime. Nearly all of the Toronto murders have been committed with handguns and yet handguns have been the subject of registration in Canada since 1934.
Registration has done nothing to stem the use of handguns in murders. In the past 15 years the proportion of all firearm murders committed with handguns has nearly doubled in Canada, from just over one-third to nearly two-thirds.
Pistols are easily concealed, which makes them the weapon of choice for gang members and drug dealers, the two groups responsible for most of the Toronto shootings and even many of the shootings in British Columbia.
Smuggling from the United States is the source of most of the handguns used in Canadian murders, up to 90% according to the Ontario Provincial Police.
In December, when Toronto police chief, Julian Fantino, was asked about the escalation of firearm crimes in his city, he said “a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them”.
Even if a national registry could produce information useful in preventing crimes, or even just solving them, it would be at a loss to produce it on nine out of ten handguns used in Canadian murders since those guns would not have been registered in the first place.
While the licensing process for gun owners was initially turning down more potentially unfit owners than the old firearms acquisition certificate program, the Liberals' haste to boost the number of licensed owners caused them to forgo meaningful background checks on hundreds of thousands of applicants in late 2000 and early 2001. As a result, the rate of refusals for the new licensing scheme is half that of the old system.
How can the new program be making Canada safer if it is turning away only half as many risky owners as the old one? The registry is nothing more than a sinkhole for taxpayer money, to the extent that the gun registry is diverting resources and police officers from real security matters. It is more of a threat to Canadian safety than no registry at all.
It clearly is time for the government to consider shutting down the gun registry and redirecting the money and other resources to real crime-fighting measures.
Depending on who we talk to, there are anywhere from two to seven million firearms owners in the country, the vast majority of whom are law-abiding, tax paying and hardworking people. If a safer Canada is the goal, the solution is not to attack law-abiding Canadians.
We feel there is simply no reason to believe that spending exorbitant money is producing any significant results. The system has no government accountability or transparency. This is just another horrendous example of gross mismanagement and abuse of the government's dictatorial authority.
(1535)
The regulations are not submitted along with the legislation as I have always said. The government is ruling, not governing, through the back door with regulations. The government failed to submit or table regulations along with the legislation.
For many years, many groups and individuals, including the government, have said they want a safer Canada, but they are not thinking outside the box. They are stuck in a rut and believe that the only way to accomplish this is through the firearms registry.
My Canadian Alliance colleagues and I believe this is the wrong approach. It is not working and it is a waste. We should put more police on the street to go after criminals rather than in offices. This law is simply a waste of money and a betrayal of the trust of Canadians.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke has taken us down memory lane through a bunch of speeches that have been given since 1994 on the whole issue of gun control and other actions. The member did not help the public understand the facts very well because of the manner in which he presented some of the facts.
The fact is that the Auditor General did not report that the government wasted $1 billion. In fact, the Auditor General reported that the amounts were projected to be $1 billion by the end of 2005.
The member did not say that 90% of the registration applications were incorrect as a form of protest by gun owners to discredit the system. The member did not say that the website registry that Canadians could use was clogged up to inhibit law-abiding citizens from registering on the web. He did not say that 75% of Canadians supported gun control, including the registry. The facts go on and on. The member did not mention that there was some $140 million of revenue at that time to offset the costs.
If the member wants to participate in debate, it is important that the information that he gives be true, full, plain, and correct, so Canadians will better understand the facts. Canadians deserve better from the member on this.
(1540)
Mr. Gurmant Grewal:
Mr. Speaker, the member's remarks contain a lot of rhetoric. I have given many facts and the source of the facts.
Would he not agree with the Toronto chief of police? Would he not agree with the Auditor General who said that she has never seen over-spending from $2 million to $1 billion? Is that not a fact?
How can the member deny that the government told this Parliament and Canadians that the whole system of implementing the gun registry would cost $2 million? What is the cost now? It is now 500 times more than the original projection by the government. It is up to $1 billion and still counting. Does the member not agree with those facts?
I gave a huge list of figures during my speech concerning the errors. I will not repeat them because there may be some other questions. The system is full of errors. It does not help police find guns. When police go into someone's residence, the police do not know if there are any guns that residence. The guns may not match the registration certificates. All these things were well articulated in my speech.
Backbench Liberals do not agree with their own government. They know that the government has seriously flawed this legislation. The government failed to accept legitimate amendments. There were 265 amendments to Bill C-68. The government tried to make Canadians believe that it would do it right so it introduced Bill C-15 in the last session. When the House recessed, the bill was in the Senate and was renumbered to Bill C-10. The Liberal dominated Senate split the bill without having the authority to do that.
The facts given during my speech were supported with sources. I am sure members of the House trust the police chiefs, the Auditor General and the research done by the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville who has spoken many times in the House on this issue.
I think I made a good case. I have given the facts to Canadians and I supported my facts with sources. Let anyone challenge those facts and then we will see.
Mr. Paul Szabo:
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Toronto police chief, the member might find it somewhat strange that he can opine on the effectiveness of the registry when it is not even fully implemented. It would probably be premature to make a conclusion on that matter. I do not think that the member should rely on that.
The member said he got his facts right. Well, he did not. If he had only looked at the numbers he would have found that between 1995 and 2001 the per capita incidence of violent crime with handguns was relatively flat over that period. In fact, the new registration which required the registration of long arms saw that long arm violent crime was actually cut in half during the period of development of the gun control legislation and the registry. If the member were to look at the facts, he would see that long arm violent crime in 1994 was greater than handgun crime.
That is not what he presented to the House and that is why I stated that his information was incorrect. Long arm crime was greater than handgun crime when the gun control legislation was first introduced. Now long arm violent crime has been cut in half in the last six years.
I have not done the calculations, but I believe it translates into over 10,000 Canadian lives that have been saved because of the reduction in long arm crime. What are those 10,000 lives worth?
(1545)
Mr. Gurmant Grewal:
Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that the hon. member will not trust or have faith in the Toronto police chief's statement. Julian Fantino said that the gun registry is not working. I am sorry to hear that the member would discredit that statement as well as those given by the Auditor General.
According to Statistics Canada's 2001 figures there were 171 firearm homicides in 2001; 64% were committed with handguns; 6% were committed with firearms that were completely prohibited; and 27% were committed with a rifle or shotgun. Will the member not believe Statistics Canada's figures?
Since 1991, handguns used in homicides steadily increased from 49% to 64%. That is the figure given by Statistics Canada, not by me. Unlike the member I do not cook the figures.
Between 1997 and 2000, 74% of the handguns recovered from the scenes of 143 homicides were not registered. All these figures come from Statistics Canada and I am sure the member will look into them. He can then read them, calculate them, and then argue in the House.
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the war museum in Nanaimo has been collecting military pattern weapons. It has at least three firearms inspectors who are licensed there. It is collecting military pattern weapons from Canada's history: the Boer War, World War I and World War II. However, now, it is not allowed to receive weapons from the public because it cannot transfer weapons that are not registered.
We have been trying to get this sorted out and I wonder if the member might have heard about such problems developing. We even hear that gun safety courses are being harassed and stopped by the government. What is the government's agenda?
Mr. Gurmant Grewal:
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct. The government has given $380,000 to a lobby group which puts out anti-gun propaganda and those kinds of things, but it has cut $65,000 from the firearms safety training program.
How can the government justify cutting the money from the safety program? And that $65,000 was for only one province, Saskatchewan. We can explore and see how much money it has cut from other provinces. That does not make sense at all. The government is running amok. It does not have any clear idea of what it is doing.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-10A. It has brought back all of the arguments and all of the discussions with regard to the gun control debates, but the fact remains that 74% of Canadians supported the gun control legislation including the registry when it was passed.
Let us look at the facts. I know that Alliance members are not happy with those numbers and I understand their position, but we can agree to disagree.
This past April the Canadian firearms program was transferred from the Department of Justice to the Solicitor General of Canada. Changes in the law represented by Bill C-10A would pave the way to putting this program in a position where we would provide better services and reduce costs for Canadians.
However, it does cost money and I must admit that I am fascinated by the discussion that somehow the government threw away a billion dollars when it estimated that it was only going to cost $2 million. This is so bizarre that we must ask the question and try to explain why. I will try to identify some of the ways in which people can use numbers or use assumptions to make a case.
(1550)
The whole aspect of Bill C-10A is to improve the services to firearm owners. It would establish a five year cycle of firearms licence renewals which would be staggered so that it would ease the spiking of renewals. I think members would agree that is a good thing to do.
Completed registration applications would be processed within 30 days of receipt. Gun owners who want to register their firearms should be able to register those within a reasonable period. That has not been the case, but there is a reason and I will address that a little later in my speech.
The Internet and other automated channels would be increasingly used for applications and the issuance of documents. That has not been readily available to those who want to register their firearms. There is a reason for that and I will also address that.
The firearms transfer process would be streamlined and members have raised this issue. The last questioner spoke about transferring firearms from an owner to a collector's museum or something like that. Those things would be established.
What we established during the debates on gun control registry and gun control provisions was that after all is said and done hunters would continue to be able to hunt. Collectors would continue to be able to collect and sports shooters would be able to continue their hobby. Nothing has changed that.
Canadians know that as a consequence of the gun control legislation and the registry that more and more Canadians are informed of how to safely own, store and transport a firearm. Canadians feel it is important to have rules in place. Canadians take a great deal of comfort from the fact that there are rules and that the government has taken reasonable steps to inform Canadians about all of those provisions so that non-gun owners would also understand that for those who have properly licensed and registered their firearms there should be no concern because they have gone through all of the steps necessary to ensure the safe use and ownership of firearms. That is the objective and I think all members would agree.
(1555)
Bill C-10A would provide improvements for businesses. It would extend the terms of the firearms business licences and clarify the licensing requirements for employees of these businesses. Members would agree that is an important aspect within the bill.
I could talk more about some of the provisions of the bill, but members are familiar with them. Members actually prefer to talk about who said what and how much it would cost, et cetera.
An hon. member: A billion dollars.
Mr. Paul Szabo: The member wants to say a billion dollars. I will address that.
The gun control program is an investment in public safety. That is what it is all about. As I said, 74% of Canadians supported the gun control--
An hon. member: That was not so.
Mr. Paul Szabo: The member says that it was not so. Well, it was done by an independent survey. I can even tell the member that on a region by region basis the support for gun control was at 59% in western Canada, where that party is represented, 85% in Quebec, 78% in Ontario and 74% in Atlantic Canada. Those are the facts. Canadians supported gun control.
Members say no and I respect their right to disagree with the facts. I have taken this information from published reports that members have at their disposal.
There was a challenge in the Supreme Court and the court upheld the Firearms Act of 2000. The court concluded that both the licensing and registration are tightly linked to Parliament's goal of enhancing public safety by reducing the misuse of firearms and keeping firearms out of the hands of those who should not have them.
Did any of the members of the Alliance who spoke on this bill mention the number of Canadians that were denied licensing or registration of their firearms because they did not qualify? There were reasons why they should not have guns. If they had put that information on the table though, it would have diluted their argument to absolute nothing.
The fact is the system operates in a way to screen Canadians who wish to license or register their guns. Many thousands of Canadians have been denied registration. It is important for Canadians to know that there are people who should not have firearms because of certain facts in their profile. That is the way the law was set up.
At present 90% of the estimated 2.3 million firearm owners in the country have applied for a firearms licence and three-quarters of the licence owners have registered those firearms. The system is working. The previous speaker said we should scrap it and come up with something else that all the provinces would support and everything would be fine. The question was what? There is no what.
The opposition said to just scrap it because they were opposed to gun control and opposed to registration, and all they had to be was negative. They had to be the opposition. That is the role of the opposition, to be negative and to oppose. They are being opposed and they are opposing the facts regardless of the truth and the merit of those facts.
If they want to say that the sky is not blue, that is fine. I can take that. The facts will speak for themselves and Canadians understand that.
The Canadian firearms program encourages the safe and responsible use, handling and storage of firearms. We must keep remembering that it takes time. Yes, we have had handgun registration since 1934. The previous member tried to give us percentages. The fact remains that at the time when the gun control bill first came up, back in 1994, the number of violent crimes with handguns per capita compared to today has remained relatively flat.
I am pretty sure that members over there know and do not want to tell Canadians, but I will tell Canadians, that at the time when the gun control bill came forward violent crime with long arms had a greater incidence than violent crime with handguns. There were more crimes with long arms than with handguns on a per capita basis.
If we were to look at the facts now, we would find that at the end of 2002, according to published independent information, violent crime with long arms is 50% lower than it was in 1994 on a per capita basis. There was a 50% drop in long arm violent crime in Canada.
This is very significant. It says that Canadians learned through the process, through the debate that we had, through all the media, and through all the advertising, et cetera. This was an important public safety issue. In fact, throughout Canada, long arm firearm owners were not being safe with their firearms. Firearms were accessible to those that would use them to commit crime.
This started a change in the attitude of Canadians toward the use of firearms. It was a positive reaction toward those who use them for hunting, sport shooting, and collecting. There was a confidence being built up for those who had useful and laudable goals. Canada has a great history related to firearms, but Canadians have this confidence level now that firearms are being used safely.
Canadians now know that gun owners who have registered their firearms are those who have properly licensed them, are properly storing them, and will properly transport them, so that all can be safe and everyone can enjoy their sport or activity with firearms.
It is important that Canadians understand that this was a bill that involved all Canadians. It raised that comfort level. It raised the public education and awareness levels. It meant that long arm crime actually went down. The government has not even finished implementing the registration system. It is not all there yet, but the facts speak for themselves.
Much has been said about the Auditor General's report. I think the Auditor General is doing a good job. The Auditor General uses some colourful language or maybe some stimulative language from time to time. She did use the figure of a billion dollars. She said that a billion dollars was the increase in the projected estimates. It was not that we had blown a billion dollars as the members continue to repeat over there. I do not know why they give that misinformation. What is wrong with telling the truth?
The fact is that it was the estimate of the cumulative costs of all of the elements of the gun registry system that would reach a billion dollars by 2005. Why did the estimate get that high? We have to wonder when the government said it was only going to cost $2 million. Well, there is a difference between $2 million and a billion dollars. What is it? In fact, the $2 million, at the time when that question was asked to the then minister of justice, had to do with capital costs. We were talking about capital costs.
In addition to that, we were talking on a net basis and dealing with net revenues. Members have not told Canadians this in debate. I will tell them that the cumulative revenue from registrations has been about $140 million, which is an offset to the expenses incurred.
Here is what the Auditor General had to say in her report of December 2002. On this particular matter, in chapter 10 on page 13, she said:
(1600)
|
|
--about 90% of the licence and registration applications contained errors or omissions, which was higher than the predicted-- |