Bill C-10 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act

Points of Order

[The Speaker]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised earlier today by the hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton concerning the procedural acceptability of the motion in response to the Senate message concerning Bill C-10, the Criminal Code amendment.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton for raising this matter, as well as the hon. government House leader for his comments.

The hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton has contended that the motion responding to the Senate message on Bill C-10 cannot be considered because the House has no power to waive its constitutionally guaranteed rights and privileges.

The hon. government House leader maintains that it is precisely the decision as to whether the House chooses to insist on these rights and privileges that members are being asked to make.

I would like first to reiterate what I said in a ruling on a related question delivered on December 5, 2002. Your Speaker cannot comment on the internal workings of the Senate. My procedural authority is limited to the application of the rules and practices of this chamber as they affect this chamber.

The hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton raised a number of interesting points with respect to the Constitution Act of 1867 in making his case. While I do not doubt that they are worthy of consideration, hon. members know that questions of a legal or constitutional nature are not dealt with by the Speaker. This is clearly set out in House of Commons Procedure and Practice , at page 219 to 220.

The hon. member also made reference to proceedings before the Senate of Australia. Although it is often useful to make reference to precedents in other jurisdictions when the application of our own rules is unclear, this approach is not without pitfalls of its own. While proceedings in other countries may bear a strong superficial resemblance to our own, there are often important differences and rules and practices which make comparisons problematic, if not misleading.

In the case before us today this point, while not without interest, is somewhat academic.

Both my own earlier rulings and the ruling of Mr. Speaker Fraser on a related case make quite clear the Canadian practice in such cases. As Mr. Speaker Fraser stated on July 11, 1988, at page 17384, of the debates:

The cure in this case is for the House to claim its privileges or to forgo them, if it so wishes, by way of message to Their Honours, that is, to the Senate, informing them accordingly.

I cited this remark in my ruling of December 2, 2002, and with all respect to the hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton, I have heard nothing today which persuades me that the House should not follow the course on which it is now embarked. My earlier ruling pointed out that the Speaker had no power to enforce the rights and privileges of the House with respect to what went on in the other place. At the same time, it is also not my role to reject messages and thereby halt progress on legislation which this House has approved.

I would also like to point out that the motion under discussion recognizes the existence of the rights and privileges of this House. The question as it is stated is not that these rights and privileges should be deemed not to exist or to repeal them. Rather the motion states that in the case before us, Senate amendment to Bill C-10, the House will not insist that its privileges be respected. The rights and privileges of the House continue to exist and the House continues to have the right to insist that they be respected if it wishes. No argument has been presented to the Chair that suggests that the House may not decide to insist or not insist as it sees fit.

I feel that I can only maintain the position that I took earlier, a position congruent with the stance adopted by Mr. Speaker Fraser in 1988. While there are serious considerations concerning parliamentary privilege that must be considered in dealing with the motion concerning Bill C-10, the judgment that is needed on these matters is that of the House and not that of the Speaker.

I therefore find that the motion concerning Bill C-10 is properly before the House and that it is for the House to decide if it will insist on its rights and privileges or waive them in this case.

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the calming effect you have on the House. I will try to follow your lead, after the outburst from my colleague, the member for Wild Rose.

I rise to speak to this bill, consideration of which began a long time ago. In fact, the government tried, unsuccessfully, to pass what is now known as Bill C-10 during the previous Parliament, and since then has had to contend with a variety of problems of a procedural nature, and let us say it, some related to political leadership.

It is unusual that at this stage in the debate the Senate is asking the House to split the bill. Of course, this bill was passed by the House at third reading and referred to the Senate for its consideration. The Senate's wish to split the bill in two, at this advanced stage in the legislative process, seems to be bizarre, and may not even be permissible.

So, we would like to point out the particularly eloquent relevance—I never thought I would hear myself saying this in the House—of the amendment to the motion before us, submitted by our colleague from the Canadian Alliance. The amendment reads as follows:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“, 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, this House does not concur with the Senate's division of the Bill into two parts, namely, Bill C-10A, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms) and the Firearms Act, and Bill C-10B, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals), since it is the view of this House that such alteration to Bill C-10 by the Senate is an infringement of the rights and privileges of the House of Commons; and

That this House asks that the Senate consider Bill C-10 in an undivided form; and

That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours therewith.”

Members will recall that this controversial legislation was already split by Bills C-15A and C-15B during the first session of the 37th Parliament.

On December 5, the Chair heard a lengthy point of order on the issue of dividing the bill. In our opinion, the Senate is overstepping its powers by again proposing division of the bill.

According to the procedures and practices of the House of Commons, the Senate has no power to make any orders at all to the House; at most, it may make suggestions.

We all know that the upper chamber, the Senate, is non-democratic in nature. We realize that those who sit in the other place are appointed by the Prime Minister. That is a quite incredible form of nepotism in an advanced democracy such as ours. In short, it is unacceptable that unelected people, friends of the party and particularly friends of the Prime Minister, can come and tell us what to do here in the House where the elected representatives of the people sit, the 301 men and women who were elected by the people of Quebec and Canada.

I am very surprised that we can accept such proceedings in a representative democracy, such as Canada claims to be. It should be the duty of every elected member in this House to tell the hon. senators, “You have no right to do what you are doing. You have no right to tell the House of Commons, with its elected members, what to do”.

This wake-up call is too late for the Senate. Could it be a deliberate stalling tactic by the government in order to prevent passage of this bill? Considering the prevailing climate in the Liberal caucus—as we saw during question period, the shots are flying; serious divisions are being aggravated by such things as the leadership race—anything is possible.

Dividing the bill in two does not change anything in the Bloc Quebecois's stated position.

As we address the tricky issue of cruelty to animals, the arguments invoked by the various points of view must inevitably collide.

On one hand, there are the powerful lobbies, some with a position that is a bit extreme and, on the other hand, there are more reasonable groups that make a real contribution to the public debate by presenting very specific arguments.

However, the major coups of groups in the first category have the unfortunate and overly frequent consequence of lumping together all the animal rights activists. The government is being forced to retreat by some of these groups due to a lack of leadership, as seen in many areas.

In terms of amending the Firearms Act, is it necessary to spell out the firearms registry fiasco highlighted by the Auditor General? A program that, originally, was to cost barely a few million dollars and then pay for itself, will have cost one billion by the end of the fiscal year, without producing the anticipated results.

It is important not to forget the firearms registry fiasco; the Liberal government's lack of rigour in managing the firearms program has created two victims: the taxpayers because they will have to dig into their own pockets to keep the program going, and second, as serious, is that this has provided ammunition—no pun intended—to those ideologically opposed to the bill. This means that many people who had supported gun control are asking themselves questions, and some are even saying, “Yes, I support this in principle but perhaps not at that price”.

Due to its incompetence, the federal government has become the objective ally of those most strongly opposed to any form of gun control. I think that Quebeckers and Canadians will remember the huge responsibilities resting on this government's shoulders.

This legislation could always be split into as many bills as it has clauses, but it would still be a bad initiative. In fact, by literally combining two such distinct issues in one bill, the government should have anticipated the impasse that lay ahead.

Today, faced with its inaction and incompetence, the government is once again interfering with the right of members to speak freely on the matter, by having the government majority pass a time allocation motion for the consideration of this bill. Once again, the rights of members of Parliament are being violated.

The Liberal government should have put the finishing touches to its bill before introducing it. The difficulty it is having getting it passed reflects to some extent the ad hoc attitude and lack of leadership in the back rooms of government.

Finally, what the Senate has done this time, with the arrogance for which this non-elected institution is well known, is the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. Such an affront to decisions of the House and an attempt to strip members of Parliament of their powers, even if only temporarily, are unacceptable and argue more than ever—this is one more example to add to the list—for abolishing that undemocratic, unelected and frankly outdated chamber.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to devote a couple of minutes to comments and a question regarding the use of time allocation yet again on this very important issue of so-called gun control or firearms registration.

The reality is that I and many of my colleagues would have liked to represent our constituents on this very important issue. This issue simply will not go away, especially in the rural ridings across the nation. We are not going to be allowed the time to speak yet again.

When the legislation that this is attached to, Bill C-68, and I would add the infamous Bill C-68, was debated in the House, the Liberal government brought in time allocation. That was eight years ago. The bill we are debating today, Bill C-10A, contains some 22 pages and 63 clauses of amendments. If the Liberals had allowed a little more time to debate this issue eight years ago, perhaps they would not have to continually come back with more and more amendments that the member says are going to fix the problems.

People in the real world outside the Ottawa bubble and outside the Liberal Party of Canada know that nothing is going to fix this. Yet here we are again with time allocation and members are being denied the right to represent their constituents and are being denied the right to speak in the House of Commons. The Liberal member had the audacity this afternoon to call this a win-win situation, a win-win situation that has cost Canadian taxpayers $1 billion and counting, the net cost of which was originally going to be $2 million to implement. She called $1 billion a win-win situation. It is absolutely unbelievable.

She bragged that there are 2,000 inquiries a day. The policeman that she spoke with told her that there are 2,000 inquiries a day, but she did not tell us how accurate the information is that goes back to the police. If it is inaccurate, it is worse than no information. We know from the Auditor General that we cannot trust the information in this computer program.

I would like to ask the member what guarantees we and the people of Canada can have that if Bill C-10A does not fix all of the problems in this failed and farcical firearms registry, the government or perhaps the new prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, will cancel the thing. Are the Liberals prepared to make the commitment that if Bill C-10A does not live up to the great and wonderful improvements that she talked about in her canned speech that was probably given to her by the justice department, she and her party will cancel this abomination?

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in our debate today with respect to Bill C-10A, I think it is important for members of the House to remind themselves of the history of gun control in Canada.

I was interested in hearing somewhat, I felt, a little bit of English, a little bit of politicking going on with an earlier opposition member's comments on the history of how we arrived at where we are today.

We are here today as a result of cautious and considered action by previous parliaments which, over the decades, have put in place legislation that was designed to meet specific needs and specific challenges in the Canadian context.

The law of the land has changed over time. It has changed as our communities, our society and the world around us have changed and evolved.

We are painfully aware of the criminal misuse of firearms and the tragic consequences of firearms violence in our communities.

Some of the issues related to firearms are relatively new, or certainly their magnitude is new. I brought to the House's attention the example of the problems posed by guns used by urban street gangs, including youth gangs in many urban centres.

Some statistics help to tell the story of why it has been necessary to establish more safety standards for firearm use. In the past, there was a historic average of over 1,000 firearm related deaths per annum. Greater numbers of Canadians are hospitalized each year because of firearm related injuries. Among industrialized countries, Canada has had the fifth highest firearm death rate for children under the age of 15. This is truly tragic.

I am certain that everyone present here today, indeed all Canadians and members on all sides of the House, want to see concrete measures taken to reduce the criminal use of firearms and to reduce firearms related violence.

The gun control program is an essential part of this initiative. It is vital to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them, for their own safety, for the safety of others and for that of our communities.

Let us look at domestic homicide for example. We know that shooting is the leading cause of death in female spousal homicide. An overwhelming majority of domestic homicide shootings of men and women are with so-called ordinary rifles and shotguns.

In 1998 statistics showed that 63% of Canadian spousal firearm homicides involved rifles and shotguns. Sawed off rifles and shotguns killed a further 21% of Canadian spousal firearm homicide victims in that year.

Those are some of the reasons why a practical response to domestic violence must include a serious approach to both rifles and shotguns.

Internationally there is an increasing concern with respect to illicit movement of firearms to feed criminal markets. Countries have come to recognize that international co-operation is key to combating illegal firearms and stemming firearms related crime. It is a vital part of not only our safety agenda but that of the international community.

If we look a little at the backdrop of the current legislation, we see that the registration of handguns was first required by law back in 1934. Four decades later, the Criminal Code was amended to require persons wishing to own firearms to hold a firearms acquisition certificate.

During the period of 1992 to 1994, the firearms acquisition certificate process was enhanced. A requirement for a person to submit references was introduced, along with a 28 day waiting period before a certificate could be issued. Mandatory safety training was also introduced at that time, along with clearly defined safe firearms storage regulations. These measures continue to be in place today.

Bill C-68 was passed in 1995 and it established the Firearms Act and amended part III of the Criminal Code. It came into force in 1998, setting the stage for the regime that we have today.

Just to remind ourselves, the legislation included, among other things: enhanced eligibility criteria for being allowed to possess a firearm; a requirement for licensing of firearms owners; a requirement for the registration of all firearms; provisions allowing for the regulation of the import and export of firearms; and tougher Criminal Code penalties for serious firearm offences.

Under the current legislation, licensing of all firearms owners became mandatory January 1, 2001. The registration of all firearms became mandatory as of January 1 this year.

Put in context, the current regime is the result of careful progression and of measured consideration. Canadians now have a gun control program that is there to ensure that the public safety is protected and, at the same time, to ensure that legitimate gun owners and gun users are not unduly burdened. We have the balance right.

The issue now is, and this has been reflected in the recent public debate, how to make the program work as economically and as efficiently as it can. This, too, is in the public interest.

The gun control action plan announced by the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General in February responds in concrete, practical ways to the observations and concerns that have been expressed by Canadians. We know we need to make the program work in the most effective manner, making the best use of public resources. There is a clear plan of action in place now and it is being implemented as we speak.

That is why Bill C-10A is so very important. It is a vital element of the plan to improve the gun control program. Bill C-10A would allow for important changes to the gun control program, building on the existing legislation. We are on the right track.

The bill includes amendments to the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code that would support and facilitate public compliance with the firearms program. The amendments would also consolidate administrative responsibility for the program, as well as help Canada meet new international obligations. I would underline and stress again that this is an issue that many nations are grappling with.

While the amendments the bill would make respond to concerns expressed about the firearms program's efficiency and cost, I would emphasize that these changes and these economies would be found through the administrative process. The amendments do not change the basic public safety goals and the elements of the Firearms Act, nor that of the gun control program.

Let me also mention some key amendments. Bill C-10A streamlines the process of transferring firearms from one owner to another. This would not only result in the elimination of a step in the approval of transfers saving time for all concerned, but it would also reduce costs.

The bill introduces pre-processing of non-residents who wish to enter Canada with firearms, for example, those who want to come to Canada on a hunting trip. This would also assist in reducing the lines at the border and support businesses that are involved in servicing sport hunters and shooters.

The process for licence renewals will be streamlined. That would include the renewal of the licences in an evenly staggered way, rather than receiving a huge surge of applications every five years. This is a key practical measure and will result in cost savings and better client service.

In addition, under Bill C-10A business licence terms will be extended from one year to three years for most businesses. This again means less cost and a simpler system.

Those and other changes proposed in Bill C-10A are a direct response to the extensive consultations that we have undertaken over the past several years with program partners and stakeholders. It is important to recognize that included the policing community and gun owners themselves.

The changes provide solutions to issues raised by the firearms community. While doing so, the bill will allow for more effective administration without a negative impact on the safety provisions which are fundamental to the entire program.

It is a win-win situation. Firearm owners and businesses will be getting many of the changes that they have told us they are seeking. The Canadian public at large wins by getting a more cost effective program while maintaining the public safety aspects on which they place such a high value.

I note that the government will not be losing touch with Canadians on the firearms front. There is a commitment in the gun control action plan, as announced by the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice on February 21, to hold consultations with stakeholders and the public on the program design and the service delivery. I am happy to say that this commitment also includes consultations with parliamentarians.

I personally look forward to participating in those consultations as part of my service to my constituents. I am certain that others here in the House also look forward to that same opportunity to contribute in a positive manner.

We also have the opportunity today to make another contribution. We can ensure that Bill C-10A moves forward so that vital improvements in the gun control program that are important to all Canadians can be made as soon as possible.

A group of police officers was on Parliament Hill a few weeks ago. A couple of members of the Waterloo Regional Police were part of that delegation. I spoke at length with them as to what their views were of the gun control act and whether they supported it.

They mentioned to me some interesting statistics, such as that over 2,000 inquiries are made to the gun registry on a daily basis by police forces and that while it is often heard as an anti-gun control lobby tactic that criminals do not register firearms, the firearms registry allows police to track stolen weapons. That is very important to them. They support this legislation.

According to an Environics poll that was done recently, over 74% of Canadians support the spirit and the enactment of this legislation. It is time for the debate to conclude so that we can move forward with this very important piece of legislation that Canadians have said they value and need.

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, again we are having some interesting debate here on the firearms legislation. It just keeps coming back to haunt the government and rightly so, because the government is now saying that Bill C-10 in this form is the panacea. It does not matter how it brings it back in here, either in through the Senate, or through the back door or the front door: the government says this is going to make everything better.

As for the $1 billion the Auditor General found, whether we say it is a full billion or only $680 million, she did not have time to go to the well again and get all the numbers because she had to report to Parliament on a given day. She got up to $680 million and said they knew it would be a lot worse than that, that they knew it would be $1 billion within a year.

Another little factor has come to light, too, and perhaps Mr. Speaker will correct me if I am wrong, but the dollars that went to Quebec to implement its own registry are not reported in the same way. Quebec does its own thing in a lot of instances and this is one of them. The cash transfers that are done in the political envelope to that province are not reported in the same way on this bill. The numbers could actually be higher yet. That may bear some looking at.

Bill C-10 is supposed to be the panacea. It is supposed to make everything better. The government claims it will streamline things and pick up on the errors and omissions. The government is saying this will all be cleaned up under this one bill. That is a big job.

We have heard a lot of arguments from Liberals on the other side today trying to justify what has been done, how it has been done, and how they can go home and sell it to their folks. They are claiming that it is all about public safety and then they cancel the training. If this is about public safety, those types of things have to be done.

Canadians are a common sense people. We just do the right things. We do not have to be told again and again. We do not need legislation telling us to store our firearms safely. We do that as a matter of course because it is common sense to handle firearms safely. These guys seem to think they need more rules and regulations.

Here is what amazes me. We have seen what happened with the SARS outbreak in the last little while, but Bill C-68 created this monster today. As a result of the over-production of that bill, the overreaction to a situation that happened in Montreal where they politicized the heck out of it, the government came out with Bill C-68. But then we had a SARS outbreak and the government would not do a thing; it procrastinated to the point where it got totally out of hand. So we have two ends of the spectrum here. The government overreacted with Bill C-68 and under-reacted with the SARS crisis. We have to try to justify one to the other and I do not think the Liberals can do that; they are found lacking at both ends.

The Liberals have talked about streamlining this registry and saving $3 million a month. They say they are going to save that but they still will not tell us what the cost is. They are saving $3 million of what? Is it $100 million a year or $200 million a year? It is going to be a five year cycle now, so for anybody who is in the system, when their five years are up they will not know what it is going to cost them to re-register the guns they have already registered for $10 or whatever today; maybe the fee was waived. They do not know what it is going to cost, so maybe we will start to recoup all of that money, but it will be solely on the backs of firearms owners. Those owners who have more than one firearm could be hit hard. We do not know, but we do not trust these guys.

The member for Mississauga South talked earlier about this huge 90% error and omission rate. He was talking about hundreds of millions of dollars in those errors and omissions. No one from outside the CFC has had a look at the errors and omissions other than those cards, the PALs, the POLs and the little registration cards themselves that my guys are getting back. The errors and omissions I have seen are committed not by the gun owner or the gun but by the CFC.

One fellow I know received 12 cards back because he registered 12 long guns, twenty-twos, shotguns and rifles. Every one of those cards was identical. Every card indicated “unknown” under barrel length. The serial number was unknown. The make of gun was unknown. The action was unknown. He did not send in the card like that. It would not have been entered like that. The officials would have gone back to him right away. I have seen PALs with somebody's picture and somebody else's name on them. Nobody sent them in that way.

So as for the errors and omissions, the member for Mississauga South said it was those terrible gun owners who subverted the government. He said it was a protest. What a load of hogwash. It did not happen that way at all. Yes, there were people who waited until the bitter end. People do that every year with Revenue Canada; I have been one of them. We do not want to send in that money because we do not think we are getting any bang for our buck. The member said these serious errors and omissions are all because of gun owners. That is hogwash. That will not fly at all.

As for the whole idea that this will streamline things and save money, that there will be more done on the Internet, as members well know, the e-mails we all receive and the work that is done on the Internet now is prone to error. People do have to type it in. The best way to say it is garbage in, garbage out. The gun control registry system is still going to be prone and susceptible to errors. It is bound to happen when we are talking about makes of firearms and serial numbers of firearms. A lot of them have no serial number. This has to be entered; the system has to come to grips with this. This is where the problem started and the bill will in no way ease any of those facts or figures. It will continue being a huge, dark money loss.

There is another side of the argument. My colleague from Yorkton—Melville has done a tremendous job on this file. He has been light years ahead of everybody on this one and it turns out that he was right in a lot of his submissions. He also talks about how enforcing the firearms bill could be a huge black hole. Let us look at convictions and tracking people down and so on; it would not be hard to spend another billion dollars enforcing it, simply against people who had no intention of going against the law but who, because of the way this thing is written, implemented and enforced, become criminals.

There are a lot of us who find ourselves in that situation. There were things we thought we had registered, but now it turns out the government has lost them. So now we are criminals and we have to try to fight our way out of that bureaucratic malaise there.

I have had some discussions with some CFC officials on one piece that I own. When I explained everything that was wrong with the way the registration did not carry through, the guy said I had two choices. He said I could weld it shut and keep it or I could turn it in. Those were my two choices.

I said that neither one of them was acceptable to me. I talked to the RCMP. The officer said they could not even take it in because it is considered prohibited at this point. He said, “Sir, maybe the best thing I could do is say that we never had these discussions”. He was ready to sweep it under the rug. That is public safety: just ignore it and it will go away.

The bill started out as a combination of a cruelty to animals bill and some changes to the Firearms Act and what it came back as is cruelty to firearms owners. That is really where we are at this point.

Mr. Speaker, in your riding you know there are hunters up there. I have been through your riding and it is a beautiful piece of Canada, beautiful country, and there are a lot of hunters and fishermen and so on. You probably enjoy that yourself, Mr. Speaker, so I know you are going to have some problems with this in trying to justify where this has gone.

If the government were really and truly concerned about public safety and felt that this was the right way to go, why have we had six amnesty periods since 1998? Why is it taking that long to implement the bill? We have seen bills come to the House and slam-bam they are gone.

The majority government brings in a bill that it wants. It has what is called a majority. It has control of the schedule and the planning. It decides what is up on a given day and how long it will stay up. It can push through the bill, but with this we have seen them test the waters and pull back, test the waters and pull back, which has a lot more to do with backbench solidarity over there. We have seen some comments from a lot of these folks over there who say, “Oh, this is terrible. We should not vote in the $59 million that they wanted at the end of the year. We should not”. But they all stood up today and invoked closure. A Liberal is a Liberal. They just cannot help themselves. They have to be there when their government comes knocking and calling.

There is another huge thing. The government talks about streamlining and being more cost effective, yet the Liberals are adding millions more people and firearms to this list with Bill C-10, such as all the pellet guns and anything with certain muzzle velocities and so on. A lot of them have never been tested for a decision on what they are; a lot of them have been modified and so on.

We have a lot of kids who are 8, 10 or 12 years old, especially out west, who use pellet guns to control varmints around the farmyard. These kids are not criminals. They cannot vote. They are not old enough to vote out this piece of junk, but they are criminals because their pellet guns are over the muzzle velocity that some Liberal member decided on. How ridiculous. There are millions of kids out there with pellet guns. They are not hurting anyone. They are plinking sparrows and crows and so on. For all we know, maybe they are helping us control the West Nile virus every time they shoot a crow.

There is also another big problem. Some of the members on the other side have said that public support is at 74%, that the public just loves the bill, but that is until people find out what it costs. If those polls are really accurate, can anyone explain to me and the people of my riding why eight provinces and three territories are dead set against this? Five provinces and three territories will not administer it. They will take no part in it. If the polling numbers are accurate, why are the provinces not on side? They are the same people, the same constituents. It does not make any sense to me at all.

Then there are the police chiefs. Some of them have been politicized. We have certainly seen that in the way they handle it, but a lot of them are now saying to their police forces, “Please do not arrest the guy because we are not going to do the paperwork. We cannot make it stick. We have an unenforceable law. Even though the Supreme Court loved it, we cannot implement this on the ground”.

Whether we streamline this through Bill C-10 or ignore it for another five years and try to bring it back, nothing will change here until we change the government on the other side.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

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.

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.

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.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

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.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

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.

The only cost effective solution is to scrap the gun registry altogether and replace it with something that will work.

Gun Control

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

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.

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

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.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

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.

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.

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.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

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?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

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.

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.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

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.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

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.