Debates of Dec. 3rd, 2002

Firearms Registry

[The Speaker]

The right hon. member for Calgary Centre.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister cannot get away with saying I am sorry. He broke the law of Parliament and so did his Prime Minister. They knew about a $700 million overspending. They had an obligation, as he said, to tell the House of Commons. They zipped their lips and did not tell the House of Commons the truth.

My question is to the smiling Prime Minister, who in his government authorized this breaking of the law of Parliament? Was it the Prime Minister himself?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that we were proceeding with such a program with regard to firearms. It has been a complex program. We started the infrastructure from scratch and we have been facing cost escalations.

For example, we went through a consultation process. We had to adjust the program based on the consultation. Some provinces opted out as well. We have been facing another challenge in terms of technology, but having said that, we are starting to see the benefits of the program. At this moment we are firmly committed--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for St. Albert.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when the gun registry was introduced Canadians were told that its net cost would be $2 million, and that is million, not billion. Now the net cost of the registry is $1 billion and rising.

The Auditor General said today that the government has done everything in its power to hide the cost of the gun registry and its effectiveness, or lack thereof, from Canadian taxpayers while murders by firearms in Toronto continue unabated.

My question for the minister is, how can he justify spending on paperwork $1 billion which the Auditor General says should have gone to police forces to ensure--

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of Justice.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, if we read the report of the Auditor General it seems clear to me that there is no wrongdoing at all. We have been facing what we call cost escalations and, as I said, it is because of the consultation process. As well, some provinces have opted out, and we have been facing a challenge in terms of technology.

If we look at the stats, for example, we will see that police agencies are accessing the firearms online registry 1,500 times daily. More than 7,000 firearms licences have been refused or revoked since the law came into effect. The--

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, he is just quite wrong. The Auditor General says the government spends so much money on bureaucracy for the gun registry that it does not have the money to stop trafficking in firearms and no money to train police, customs or wildlife officers.

The RCMP has also admitted that its databases for gun crimes are inaccurate and obsolete. The justice minister is clearly more interested in pushing paper than in fighting crime and ensuring the safety of Canadians.

Why does the government insist on sacrificing the safety of Canadians on the altar of a bureaucratic, unworkable gun registry?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP is aware of the concern about the databases. It has been acting on that. It has been very proactive. Of course we have to understand that the quality of the databases is directly linked to the question of technology. I am told that it has improved the system and it will keep doing that.

Look at what the registration system means. It means fewer firearms on the black market from break-ins. It reduces the unauthorized use of guns. It reduces heat of the moment use of firearms. It also reduces accidents, particularly involving children. These are not my words. These are the words of David Griffin, who represents 28,000--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Lotbinière--L'Érable.

Auditor General's Report

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's report confirms that the federal government no longer has any control over the international transactions of large corporations, depriving the government of millions of dollars in taxes, and that is to say nothing of observations of mismanagement in employment insurance, Indian Affairs, the firearms program, and more.

How dare the federal government interfere in the management of health care across Canada when it is not even able to properly manage what comes directly under its jurisdiction?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, if I understood the question correctly, some of the Auditor General's recommendations were very similar to the ones made in 1992.

I think that several measures have since been taken to change the procedure for determining sources of international income. I think that the comments should be reviewed; if changes are necessary, we can introduce them.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, is the federal government's blatant incompetence in looking after its own affairs properly not proof that it is in no position to give lessons to anyone and that, instead of extending its reach into the health care system, it should focus on managing what comes under its responsibility?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, as I and others on this side of the House have said on a number of occasions, we understand the fact that the provinces are the primary deliverers of health care. We have no intention on this side of the House of micromanaging health care, but what has been successful in this country is working in partnership, in collaboration, with the provinces and territories and front line health care workers. We are committed to continuing to do that.

Kyoto Protocol

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government has failed to acknowledge that there are penalties when we fail to reach our Kyoto targets. The only way to pay these penalties is by buying carbon credits internationally.

Could the Prime Minister confirm that if we fail to meet our targets we will be forced to buy international carbon credits?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who asked the question is making exactly the same mistake as the leader of the Alliance Party, that is, he is failing to recognize that it is all laid out on page 42 of the plan. Of course these people deny there is a plan, so naturally they are not going to read this document, which I tabled in the House and which has in detail what we might do with respect to overseas purchases. It is under the heading “International Emissions Reductions: Background and Details...”. If they will look at that, they will get the answer to the type of question he is asking.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that sort of arrogant answer is exactly why Canadians do not understand what Kyoto is all about.

If we fail to meet our targets, the Kyoto protocol says that after the completion of an emissions inventory we will have “to make up any shortfall in compliance” mainly “through emissions trading”.

How can the Prime Minister and the environment minister continue to say that we will not be sending taxpayers' dollars for the purchase of other countries' hot air?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had taken the three days that he spent in the House talking about the agreement and he had spent that time reading about it and learning about it, we would all be a lot better off. Let me point out to him that it is perfectly clear in the plan what we would do under the circumstances.

In addition, there is the opportunity of course of moving whatever is not done in the first Kyoto period to the second Kyoto period, with an appropriate penalty clause, which is in the plan.

I urge him to read it and cease talking about it because he has talked too much and not read enough.

École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on December 9, just a few days from now, the École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe will have to report to the American Veterinary Association on the major investments required for its full accreditation to be restored.

Does the Prime Minister grasp the urgency of the situation and does he not realize that the Government of Quebec has already put $41 million into the school and that it is now time he and his government did their share? It is urgent, a matter of days.

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, as has been said many times, this side and the government recognize the importance of the veterinary colleges, not only the one in Quebec but in the other three provinces in this country. We will do all we can to ensure that they maintain and continue their accreditation.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would humbly ask the Prime Minister to acknowledge that there is just one veterinary school having problems at this time, and that is the one in Saint-Hyacinthe, that there is reason to be concerned, because the dean has to produce a report next week, and that $59 million are urgently needed if the school is going to keep its accreditation.

Is this the legacy the Prime Minister wants to leave behind: the closure of the Collège militaire de Saint-Jean, the only francophone military college in North America, and the closure of the École de médecine véterinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe, the only francophone school of veterinary medicine in North America?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, the government, with the direction and the encouragement of all the hon. members on this side, certainly, as I say, recognize the importance of the veterinary colleges, whether they are in Quebec, whether they are in Prince Edward Island, whether they are in Ontario, or whether they are in Saskatchewan. They are all of vital importance to the agriculture and agrifood industry and to the health of Canadians, and we will do all we possibly can to ensure that they continue to maintain their accreditation.

Kyoto Protocol

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government supported an Alliance motion calling for an implementation plan prior to the ratification of Kyoto. So far all we have seen is a slide show.

The minister will stand up and tell the world how green he is and wave his plan around, but it is time for the truth of what is in it. It contains one single dollar figure of $1.6 billion, which he has already spent. There is no reference to legislation. It is silent with respect to the impact on the Canadian economy. The minister should be embarrassed about his little green book.

How can the government allow for a vote on ratification when it has not even begun to comply with what the House passed in its motion?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, this is the third Alliance member who has got to feet and misrepresented this document which I tabled in the House back on November 21. There are no slides in it. It is a detailed plan for implementation of our Kyoto commitment.

I urge him, as I have urged the hon. member for Red Deer, to spend less time on his feet talking about it and more time trying to understand it.

If they did that, we would all be better off.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, sadly we have had to read his little green book, and talk about who is misrepresenting, the government continues to treat motions passed in the House with contempt. The House voted for a motion to provide comprehensive cost estimates and show the targets that are to be reached. There are no cost estimates. Its own numbers are 25% short of reaching its targets. Nothing adds up.

How can the government possibly have a vote on ratification without providing any cost estimates? We do not want the minister to hold up his little green book and resort to arrogance when he does not have an answer, as he usually does.