House of Commons Hansard #14 of the 37th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was missiles.

Topics

Income Tax ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:15 p.m.

Yukon Yukon

Liberal

Larry Bagnell LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Mr. Speaker, I can say from my time in policy meetings with the Prime Minister that the exact opposite is the case. He is very interested in emphasizing science and technology and in fact it is a central theme of the throne speech.

The hon. member has missed the point of the reorganization of the science responsibilities for the government. We made it abundantly clear in the announcement of the new ministry and in the Speech from the Throne that we place a strong value on science and technology as foundations for the 21st century economy.

The Minister of Industry has the mandate and responsibility for science in Canada. This responsibility has clearly been vested in the Minister of Industry since the passage of the Department of Industry Act in 1995. The function has neither been eliminated nor downgraded.

Yes, the position of Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development has been eliminated in the new government structure. However, we will be able to draw on not one but two new sources of support and advice. The hon. member for London North Centre has been appointed to the new position of Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister with special emphasis on Science and Small Business. Dr. Arthur Carty, currently President of the National Research Council and a distinguished chemist in his own right, has been appointed national science adviser.

The Prime Minister's creation of a parliamentary secretary to advise him directly on science and small business issues shows clearly that these issues will be held in high regard at the highest levels of this government. In his new position, the parliamentary secretary will not only be able to support the Prime Minister directly on science and technology issues but will provide his perspectives to cabinet, as appropriate.

The Prime Minister's personal interest in this area is further emphasized by the appointment of Dr. Carty. In creating this position we have provided ourselves with the opportunity to harness the great science and technology potential in Canada and help build a stronger science culture in this country. The national science adviser will provide sound expert advice on a full range of issues related to research and the impact of science considerations on public policy.

He will work closely with the Advisory Council on Science and Technology and others to help our government identify science and technology priorities and directions. The national science adviser will also work with Canada's research community to apply the benefits of our research and development to the challenges faced by the developing world.

It is clear that the national science adviser will play an important role for our government. He could serve as a champion to help build and enhance science and technology collaboration across government, industry and academia and to access knowledge resulting from the global science and technology capacity. He could also harness a collective knowledge in this country to identify and assess future science based opportunities and risks that Canada may face in the coming years.

The national science adviser will undoubtedly play a key role, too, in mapping out a plan to deliver on one of our government's key science and technology priorities: ensuring that our knowledge investment is converted to commercial success and growing small and medium-sized firms that can benefit from science and research. In this regard, he will work closely with the parliamentary secretary for science and small business.

Income Tax ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Cheryl Gallant Canadian Alliance Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, after the public accounts committee issued its report calling on the government to clean up its act, Canadians are still waiting for the changes as recommended by the Auditor General and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The public is in no mood for another gun registry or sponsorship boondoggle.

It stretches the credibility of the former finance minister and now Prime Minister to claim ignorance about the problems with the sponsorship program when my parliamentary colleague more than a year ago in the public accounts committee drew the connection between the unaccounted funds with the Liberal ad firm Groupaction and foundations. As the member pointed out, we have no way of knowing who benefits from these foundations, whether they are friends of the Prime Minister or former party members.

It would appear that Parliament and the Auditor General were purposely excluded from holding these foundations accountable. The sponsorship scandal has put an entire cloud over government programs and it is up to the government to remove that cloud by bringing accountability to these foundations.

Income Tax ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what that has to do with science and technology.

It is interesting how the members opposite spend half the day going after us for having too much control over programs. Then, when we set them apart from government, so that we are not in control, they complain about that too.

I wish to reiterate that our government views science and technology as critical foundations for Canada's future.

Since 1997, we have invested over $13 billion on research and innovation. The Minister of Industry has responsibility, and I am quoting the Act establishing the Department, for science and technology in Canada, to encourage the fullest and most efficient and effective development and use of science and technology and for fostering and promoting science and technology in Canada and is keenly involved in ensuring that these monies are well spent.

This government remains deeply committed to science and technology issues. They form a key part of our mandate. Working closely with the Prime Minister, members of this House, the Parliamentary Secretary and the National Science Advisor, we will continue to work to ensure that Canada's science and technology efforts benefit all Canadians and provide a strong foundation for the economy of the future.

Income Tax ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Garry Breitkreuz Canadian Alliance Yorkton—Melville, SK

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, February 9, 2004, I asked the government, for the 22nd time, “How much is the gun registry going to fully cost to implement and how much will it cost to maintain?”

For the 22nd time, the minister in charge of the firearms fiasco failed to answer the question.

I specifically asked, “The Firearms Act has already cost taxpayers $1 billion. Taxpayers want to know, when will it become $2 billion?”

Instead of answering the question, the Deputy Prime Minister defied the conclusions reached by the Auditor General in her December 2002 report and the financial reports released by the minister's own department. The minister said that she had been absolutely clear year after year about the cost of the firearms program.

That is simply not true. If she was being absolutely clear, why did the Auditor General make the following statement in paragraph 10.1 and 10.3 in her December 2002 report on the firearms fiasco? It says:

10.1 The Department of Justice Canada did not provide Parliament with sufficient information to allow it to effectively scrutinize the Canadian Firearms Program and ensure accountability. It provided insufficient financial information and explanations for the dramatic increase in the cost of the Program.

10.3 In 2000, the Department of Justice estimated that by 2004-05 it would spend at least $1 billion on the Program and collect $140 million in fees after refunds. This amount does not include all financial impacts on the government. The Department also did not report to Parliament on the wider costs of the Program as required by the government's regulatory policy.

That is what the Auditor General had to say. It is absolutely clear. Do we doubt her word?

Did the minister not remember that she was in charge of this firearms fiasco in 2000? Why did the minister force members of Parliament to wait two years before this information was provided to them? Why did we have to get it from the Auditor General and not from the minister?

The minister was the very person keeping Parliament in the dark then and she's doing it again now. The more things change, the more they seem to stay the same.

Here are some additional gun costs that have been uncovered through 430 access to information requests that I have submitted and some excellent research done by the parliamentary research branch.

Here are some additional costs to the $1 billion already noted: enforcement costs, $1 billion; compliance costs could be anywhere from $367 million to $764 million; privatization costs, $371 million; and economic costs are still a cabinet secret we are told.

The cost benefit analysis is still a cabinet secret, hidden by the present Prime Minister. There are indirect costs still unknown for the following departments: Treasury Board, Foreign Affairs, Environment, Canadian Wildlife Service, Fisheries and Oceans, Natural Resources, National Defence, Parks Canada, Correctional Service Canada and the Canadian War Museum because this information was left out of the Liberal's performance report on the firearms program presented on October 31, 2003.

The government has failed to disclose these costs to Parliament or to the public. Consequently, the cover-up on the true costs of the gun registry continues.

For the 23rd time, I ask the Liberal government to tell us the truth. How much will the gun registry cost to fully implement and how much will it cost to maintain?

Income Tax ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

Vancouver Centre B.C.

Liberal

Hedy Fry LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, the majority of Canadians support effective gun control, but more specifically to the hon. member's question, the firearms program has not cost $2 billion. In fact, it has not even cost $1 billion. The $1 billion figure is the projected cost of the program at the end of 2004-05.

As of March 31, 2003, the full cost of the program was $815 million as reported in the 2002-03 Department of Justice's performance report. This number includes the information technology costs and the reimbursements to the provinces and the federal partners, such as the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency. This total also includes all the supplementary estimates that were approved by Parliament.

The money that has been invested in the Canada Firearms Centre's information technology system, including its development and operation over the last seven years, has created a system that works. The information technology system has been operational since 1998, the date the law came into effect. The system has been used successfully to licence two million firearm owners and to register almost seven million firearms.

In spite of the hon. member's theories about cover up, let me be clear. The total projected expenditure relating to the program for the fiscal year 2003-04 is approximately $133 million. This amount represents $116 million for the Canada Firearms Centre and an estimated $17 million identified by our other federal partners. All these moneys were approved by Parliament. I can assure the member that the program continues to focus on efficient and cost effective operations.

Police across Canada are making daily use of the Canadian firearms information system for crime prevention and for investigating firearms related crime and smuggling. All illegal firearms begin as legal firearms. Canada cannot combat illegal firearms without an effective system to control legal firearms.

Income Tax ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Garry Breitkreuz Canadian Alliance Yorkton—Melville, SK

Mr. Speaker, I could spend 10 minutes rebutting much of the information just given. I do not want to mock the member, but yesterday they admitted to over $120 million more than she gave in the answer today.

The government does not know from one day to the next what the answer will be. It has complete disregard for Parliament. It does not give us accurate information.

It was clear, and I made it clear in a statement earlier today, that the $2 billion that has been spent and is projected to be spent on this program has already been documented by Radio Canada, the CBC. For them to deny this without even asking Radio Canada where it got its numbers and how it did that, is irresponsible.

I am upset that they continue to claim that the system works. Not one charge has been laid under the Firearms Act and they claim it is a success. Smuggling and illegal firearms are on the increase. Everything this member has said is virtually false.

Income Tax ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

Liberal

Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that we do not get our figures from the media. In fact, we get our figures from the 2002-03 Department of Justice performance report. We get it from exactly where it should come.

Canadians have made it clear that they want a firearms program that improves public safety. The total investment in the program has not reached $1 billion. I repeat, as of March 31, 2003, the full cost of the program was at $840 million.

Poll after poll has shown that Canadians want firearm owners to be licensed and firearms to be registered. The program is working. Two million firearm owners have been licensed and seven million firearms have been registered.

This is also a preventive program and police from across Canada are making daily use of the information from this program in order to prevent crime and to investigate firearms related smuggling.

I just want to say one thing, and I cannot say it often enough--

Income Tax ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

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

The House adjourned at 6:32 p.m.