Bill C-10 (Historical)

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

Firearms Registry

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, a headline in the Ottawa Citizen says it all: “Liberals withdraw firearms registry bill: Decisions over legal complications could raise cost of program even further”.

One week after beating the Liberal caucus into submission and approving another $59 million for the gun registry, the government is now forced to withdraw Bill C-10A. The government is attempting to avoid further legal and political complications.

Stay tuned, Mr. Speaker. The billion dollar boondoggle is not over yet. One billion dollars, a failed registry and still counting.

Firearms Program

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for this very important question.

We all know that we have tabled a good plan of action. Of course one very important part of that plan of action with regard to gun control policy is Bill C-10A. Bill C-10A will have a very positive effect and impact on the program. Just to name a few positive effects, we will simplify the requirements for licence renewal, for example, stagger firearms licence renewals as well, increase the use of the Internet and establish a pre-application process for temporary importation by non-resident visitors.

Therefore I look forward to the support--

[Andy Savoy, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In recent weeks the government has introduced an action plan that will improve the efficiency and accountability of the gun control program. It is apparent that Bill C-10A, which is currently awaiting House approval, is a linchpin of this action plan.

Could the government tell the House what specific benefits will be delivered by Bill C-10A?

Species at Risk Act

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is bad enough that the Liberals waited three terms to bring in a law for species at risk, but now some Liberal MPs want to weaken Bill C-10, a bill to update a law first written in 1892.

Yes, they want to make laws protecting animals from cruelty weaker than the 111 year old law Canada currently has. Under proposed changes, someone in Leamington, Ontario, who had not fed 300 pigs for months could not be charged with cruelty animals.

It is time the bill that the House passed became law, and time the Liberals said enough is enough.

It is also time the other place stopped splitting bills coming from the House. Unelected and unaccountable bodies have no right at all to split bills from the House, making the Senate even more outdated than Canada's animal cruelty laws.

Business of the House

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the modernization committee we will get some new rules about the Thursday question and make sure it is first on Thursday after question period. We thought it was already, but we will make sure it gets in the rules anyway.

I wonder if the government House leader could tell us the business for the rest of this week and for next week. We noticed at the House leader's meeting that Bill C-10A is on the agenda again. I wonder if he could tell us whether, on the day it is put on the agenda, he will use the time allocation motion that is sitting on the Order Paper right now.

Supply

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for St. Albert.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I congratulate the government for demonstrating, in actions, a contempt and display of arrogance through the $1 billion Liberal gun registry that we in the official opposition could never put into words. There is the out of control spending, the blatant disregard for Parliament, so blatant that even members of the government party are pulling at their leashes because of the abuse the party puts on them, the abuse of the Commons using the Senate for a money bill, and the times that closure has been used. The list goes on and on.

Now I know why the government has been slowly disbanding our military. It fears the soldiers will join the protestors when the revolution finally comes, which brings us to the purpose of the Liberals' gun control policy, which is to disarm law-abiding citizens.

I shake my head in disbelief at the parliamentary proceedings before us today. The government is driven to trample on the rights of ordinary Canadians. There are no cost savings in BIll C-10A.

The government has admitted that the gun registry is not about cost. If it were, it would not be planning to throw another $1 billion, $2 billion, or $3 billion-plus down the same hole that it threw the first $1 billion. This is not a gun control issue; it is a government out of control issue.

Bill C-10A is being proposed as a partial fix to the severely flawed Bill C-68. The problems with the gun registry are beyond fixing. The gun registry must be scrapped. Try as the Liberals might, this issue is not going to go away.

In February I hosted a gun rally at a town hall meeting. It was to give information to the public on the gun registry. With minimal advertising and scarcely a week's notice, word spread quickly in a rural riding that relies on personal contact to spread the message. I stood in awe as the huge Renfrew armouries filled with people from Arnprior, Calabogie, Hardwood Lake, Quadville, Wilno, Griffith, Barry's Bay, Foymount, Eganville, Douglas, Renfrew, Pembroke, Beachburg, Palmer's Rapids, Cormac, Combermere, Dacre, Killaloe, Westmeath, Golden Lake, Madawaska and every place in between.

Hunters represented their camps, which means they went back to the 12, 15 or 20 members of their group to report on the meeting. Just that one meeting represented thousands and thousands of Canadians. With the hon. members for Yorkton--Melville and Blackstrap in attendance, we witnessed grassroots democracy as the crowd swelled. Angry citizens were upset with the tired and out of control Liberal government that insists on treating law-abiding citizens as criminals.

Speaker after speaker got up to vent their frustrations with a government that attacks rural Canadians and our way of life. Rural people are smart. We see right through shallow people and we will not forget. The Sam Slick, fast talking Liberal city slickers may be able to fool the docile urban herds about the government's gun registry, but rural Canada is not buying their story.

Guess what? Urban Canadians are waking up. It will be interesting to see how they respond to the national identity cards with which the government plans to register all citizens. It will be interesting to see the shoe on the other foot. Only then will they realize what rural Canadians have had to put up with regarding the gun registry.

I do not feel sorry for the justice minister. If he had dealt with the mess left to him by the first two ministers in a forthright manner, Canadians might be forgiving. It used to be that the justice portfolio was considered to be the glamour portfolio. Now the justice portfolio is the kiss of death. Just ask the health minister and in particular the industry minister what it has done to their political careers.

Speaking of dashed political careers, ask the former MP for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke what his docile, slavering defence of Bill C-68 got him. Defeat. Defeat will come to the rest of the Liberal caucus on this issue too. Rural people are smart and we do not forget.

The industry minister has given rise to a new political phrase that should be added to the dictionary in its next revision. It is called gun registry math. For those who are unfamiliar with the term, the definition of gun registry math is where a government program is stated to cost one amount when in fact it costs 500 times more. When the term gun registry math is used, it will apply any time the government makes a promise on the cost of a particular program. When looking up the meaning of gun registry math, people are advised to look under the section government screw-ups.

Our town hall meeting asked me to take a message to the Liberal government in Ottawa. It asked me to deliver it loud and clear: scrap the gun registry.

Government members in rural ridings in Ontario, such as Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Parry Sound—Muskoka, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Nipissing, Leeds—Grenville and Prince Edward—Hastings should take note that their constituents called me about the rally. Those who were not able to attend begged me to arrange a town hall meeting in their ridings because their own members refused to speak out against the gun registry. They assured me that anywhere I went across rural Ontario, and this is particularly true in northern Ontario, huge crowds similar to the one we had in Renfrew would come out to protest the Liberal gun registry.

Constituents will be watching the gun registry amendment vote very carefully. A no show for the vote will not cut it either.

The Minister of Justice and his colleagues want to push the fantasy that opposition to the gun registry is being driven by the official opposition. Nothing could be further from the truth. Opposition to the Liberal gun registry is being driven by the people.

If I am not speaking against Bill C-68, I receive hundreds of calls urging me to speak up on it again. On no other issue do I receive more encouragement to fight the government than on the issue of the $1 billion wasted on the gun registry. We are listening to Canadians.

Recently the Solicitor General visited my riding to attend a party function. He was warmly greeted on a frosty valley night by a spontaneous demonstration. The protesters outnumbered the party supporters 10 to 1. They let him know how they felt about him, his party and his leader: scrap the registry.

The Solicitor General even had the nerve to tell some of the demonstrators that he agreed with them on the registry, that it was a colossal waste of money, but he refused to say what he would actually do about it.

Honour and integrity mean saying the same thing in public that one whispers in private. If the government truly feels it has the support for the registry, it should prove it by allowing a free vote. Let the power of logic rather than the threat of the whip determine the outcome. Above all, do not bully the members on how to vote.

Members of the government party are many things but they are not tools of the opposition. Why is it so hard for the government to believe that its own members' opposition to the registry is genuine and heartfelt? Members of Parliament were elected to take a stand on the issues of the day and I look forward to the vote.

While the government House leader will bluster and push the gun registry amendments, I hope he realizes that the people of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell hate the government's gun registry as much as rural Canadians in the rest of Ontario and Canada do.

I am truly surprised that the Prime Minister has taken such an ideological stance on this issue. In the past he has been quite adept at stealing Canadian Alliance policies when it suited his purpose, as adept as he has been at stealing the woolly headed ideas of the NDP. A pragmatic politician would have dropped the registry long ago.

I have to thank everyone who has called, written, come to the rallies and otherwise let their opposition be known to the Liberal gun registry. We will continue our opposition. We will have as many rallies as it takes to scrap the gun registry.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance position is 100% clear. We support the control of the criminal use of firearms. We support legislation that keeps a fully automatic firearm out of the hands of anybody in the country. Prohibit it. We support the fact that one cannot carry a concealed firearm such as a concealed handgun around.

What we do not support is the Liberal program which has in it a massive waste of money with no effect on crime. That is what Bill C-68 did, the Firearms Act. Bill C-10A that we will be voting on perpetuates that mammoth and ineffective misuse of taxpayer dollars.

The government is trying to misconstrue the Canadian Alliance position as being against any type of firearm legislation when in fact we are very strong on strong legislation that will actually reduce crime. The member can answer that generality.

He said that to him the saving of one life is worth the passing of the legislation and the perpetuation of the bill and we should just keep dumping money into it. In Manitoba last year there were three heart patients whose heart surgery was rescheduled and while they were waiting to get on the schedule again, they died. I can prove that 100% because it is in Manitoba's medical statistics. The federal government cannot prove the saving of one life because of this legislation.

For 30 years I was in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and we had plenty enough legislation. We could take firearms away from someone we believed was going to commit a crime, or someone in a spousal abuse situation. The courts could prohibit people from having firearms. The smuggling of guns over the border was always illegal.

The point is that the legislation that has been brought forward is so bad and that is why we are opposing it. Let us have sensible legislation. I would ask the member to respond to that.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Battlefords--Lloydminster.

It is a pleasure to rise in the House today and participate in the motion put forward by the Canadian Alliance, the official opposition. The motion asks the House to support a stop in the funding of the firearms registry until the government provides a cost benefit analysis and accurate accounting of spending to date.

Before I proceed I would like to point out, as have my colleagues before me, that I adamantly disagree with the government's strong-arm tactics regarding the gun registry and other legislation that it has brought in. The Prime Minister is warning any dissident backbenchers that a vote against increasing financial support for the beleaguered registry amounts to a vote of non-confidence in the government which could force a snap election or expulsion from the Liberal caucus.

The Prime Minister is warning them to stick with him through thick and thin on the gun registry without regard to the amount of dollars being thrown at it or there could be a snap election, he would not sign their papers, or there could be expulsion from the Liberal caucus.

I would like to caution those same members of Parliament that a vote against the wishes of their constituents could ultimately result in the very same thing. It could result in not only their removal from caucus but in their removal from the House. Regardless, during the next federal election I guarantee that their stand or lack thereof will become very evident to their constituents.

Last month the House was prepared to debate a motion put forward by the Senate seeking concurrence on the division of Bill C-10. The Senate attempted to split what was once Bill C-15B, creating two separate pieces of legislation: Bill C-10A, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to firearms; and Bill C-10B, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to cruelty to animals. The Senate has passed Bill C-10A without amendment but it is still in the process of considering Bill C-10B.

Unfortunately, the Senate motion was yanked from the House agenda as the Liberal House leader was uncertain as to how his backbench would vote, although he already had ensured, by way of time allocation, that the debate on this controversial issue was limited.

The government is attempting to do whatever it can to avoid further embarrassment over the firearms registry's horrific cost overruns. It is refusing to call a time out, at least until the exact costs of the firearms registry are revealed. The government is refusing, despite eight provinces, despite three territories, despite provinces, premiers and the public demanding that the gun registry be suspended or scrapped completely.

Five provinces and three territories have opted out of the administration of the gun registry completely, while Ontario is refusing to implement the gun registration requirements in Bill C-68. Several other provinces are refusing to enforce or prosecute the Firearms Act offences.

In light of this lack of confidence and co-operation, I cannot understand why the government would be so resolved to proceed and not to suspend it or to at least call a time out. We need a clear, accurate cost benefit analysis done immediately so that Canadians, the general public, not the government, can decide if the firearms registry is an effective way of saving lives, or if that money could better be spent saving lives through increased cancer research or eliminating long waiting lines for heart surgery and improved preventive medicine, or even for resourcing police law enforcement agencies throughout the country in a different method.

I stand by the Canadian Alliance's longstanding position to repeal Bill C-68 and replace it with tougher sentences for those who use firearms in the commission of a criminal offence. With 22 pages and 63 clauses amending Bill C-68, Bill C-15 was a clear admission by the government that the firearms registry or that Bill C-68 was a complete failure.

Bill C-68, which was really the hallmark of this Liberal government, consisted of 137 pages of new laws with respect to firearms and weapons. The first enabling regulation introduced in November 1996 added an additional 85 pages, while those introduced on October 30, 1997 added approximately 65 pages to our changing firearms law.

It is important to note, especially for those such as myself who were not here in 1995, that there was a provision within Bill C-68 that stipulated that when these amendments were made, the amended regulations did not have to be reviewed by Parliament. As well understood under clause 119(2), “the justice minister may enact firearms regulations without parliamentary review if the regulations in his opinion are 'immaterial' or 'insubstantial'“ and, under clause 119(3) “if the regulation is 'urgent'”.

To date the government has enacted legislation using that clause 16 times. Furthermore, it failed to report these changes to the House of Commons as required by the Firearms Act until the oversight was exposed by the insight of the Canadian Alliance and one of our members of Parliament. Effectively, those regulatory powers negate our parliamentary system of checks and balances that are supposed to ensure that the government of the day does not exercise autocratic muscle stretching powers that it has so obviously wanted to do.

What may be immaterial, what may be insubstantial and what may be urgent in the opinion of the minister may be very material or very substantial and perhaps not even urgent to Parliament, particularly to members of Parliament who represent large rural constituencies where firearms are viewed more as a tool of the trade than a weapon.

We must be apprised of any and all changes to the firearms legislation in a clear and concise fashion, as must all Canadians, in order to avoid unintentionally breaking the law.

In closing, I would like to point out that since its inception in 1995, Bill C-68 has remained the most controversial and despised piece of legislation that has been put forward by the Liberal government, legislation that my party has fought every step of the way.

Repeatedly the Canadian Alliance has questioned, and we will continue to question, the necessity of registering the long guns of law-abiding citizens. We also question the estimated cost of the firearms registry that the former justice minister originally projected to be approximately $85 million. The minister remained adamant, even in the face of expert calculation, such as that put forward by Simon Fraser University Professor Gary Mauser, that the registry would not cost more than what he had predicted.

In a brief presented to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in May 1995, Professor Mauser came forward and he noted that “according to my estimates, registering 'field and stream' firearms will cost Canadian taxpayers at least $750 million and possibly more than a billion dollars over the next five years”.

The former justice minister and his Liberal colleagues scoffed at the evidence Professor Mauser brought forward. The following is a quote by the minister, “we have provided our estimates of the cost of implementing universal registration over the next five years. We say it will cost $85 million...We encourage the members opposite to examine our estimates. We are confident we will demonstrate the figures are realistic and accurate”.

I think the former justice minister, the member for Etobicoke Centre, owes Professor Mauser, and many other experts who recognized the absolutely horrific cost of this registry, an apology because Professor Mauser was right and he was wrong.

Although the Canadian Alliance, especially my hon. colleague from Yorkton--Melville, has attempted to do so for seven years, the Auditor General finally blew the lid off the ridiculous cost estimates of the former justice minister and his two predecessors. She blew them out of the water. It was the Auditor General who determined that the government had been hiding the real cost of the registry from Parliament.

I again implore the House to reject the additional $59 million in funding for the firearms registry. We must stop the bleeding now. I call upon the Minister of Justice and the Liberal Party to immediately put the registry on ice until a complete cost benefit analysis can be done.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to advise you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier.

We are obliged today to address a very important principle: the firearms registry and the necessity for it to be put in place. What is involved is a register, the recording of gun possession and the issuing of gun permits. We are obliged to defend the program today, but not the financial fiasco surrounding it since 1995. Where the problem lies with this program is not its underlying principle, but how it has been handled.

The Minister of Justice has just said that all the permanent government programs somewhere down the road will cost a billion dollars. When they wanted to establish the firearms registration and licencing program in 1995, they told us that it would cost $2 million in all, not a billion. The problem is as follows: when we are told that all programs cost $1 billion, how can they try to sell us on the idea that a firearms program would cost so little?

This is a big problem. Just because they are telling us it will cost x amount of dollars, now that the program is up and running, does not mean that the amounts will be any more accurate. Establishing a program requires an assessment of the real cost.

The Bloc Quebecois feels this is a program we must have, but not at the cost of the financial fiasco the Minister of Justice has created. The problem we must address today is whether the program is necessary. That is not where the problem lies; it lies in the way money is being spent in order to have a functioning system. Seven years later, if the Department of Justice had really done its job, we would not have be asking ourselves whether the firearms program is or is not any good.

Unfortunately, the motion calls for reduction of funds for the firearms program in order to eventually eliminate it. This program must exist. Moving it from Justice to the Solicitor General does not mean it is going to be made to disappear and that the Justice Department's incompetence will not come to light. We must be given the real costs and the breakdown of where this money went.

Today we are aware that opposition to the motion does not have to mean we are against the program, or vice versa. Today we must say that the program needs to be retained, but the government must be required to explain the reasons for the financial fiasco.

It is essential to protect the people of Quebec and Canada in order to avoid a repetition of senseless killings like those that occurred at École polytechnique de Montréal on December 6, 1989. According to the surveys conducted in 2003, 74% of people support this program, developed in response to pressure from those affected by the tragic events at the Polytechnique and from the public generally. But we cannot go about this blindly; this program must not become another fiasco because it is being handed off to another department without a closer examination of what happened. We need to have a detailed report of where all the money went.

For instance, between April 2000 and February 2002, the Department of Justice spent $16 million on advertising and $3 million on inviting hunters to have unforgettable experiences. Almost all of this money went through Groupaction. That explains everything; to us anyway.

We absolutely have to get to the bottom of where this money went. It is not enough to say, like the Minister of Justice says, “The entire program will one day cost $1 billion.” That is not true. The entire program should not cost $1 billion, especially when in 1995, we were told that it would cost $2 million. Imagine, $1 billion. That would take years. Maybe his grandchildren will see the day when that amount is reached. Come on. It is much more serious than that.

To be told today that the cost of setting up the program, registration, and issuing permits is on the mark, is not true. Since the program was developed based on estimates that were made, how can there be such a large discrepancy? This discrepancy is unacceptable. We are told that in seven years, costs have gone from $2 million to as high as $788 million today. Remember that a third of the people have not registered their firearms. This is serious.

Now we are supposed to believe that modifications to Bill C-10A will reduce the costs considerably. However, there are some things that I would like to share with the House right now about this. In fact, there is a big problem with Bill C-10A. And I am not just talking about an administrative problem. Obviously, if the bill were to bring down the costs, we would support that. However, there are other, more important things that need pointing out.

When the government wanted to establish this firearms registry program, Quebec supported it. The government also had the backing and the expertise of the SQ. However, there is now concern that Bill C-10A will also create a federal agency to manage firearms that could, and probably will, be privatized. If that were to happen, it would strip away all of Quebec's responsibilities, by diminishing the powers of the chief firearms officer, who comes under Quebec's jurisdiction, and also by drastically cutting the funding for the Bureau de traitement and the Centre d'appel du Québec, which are currently a responsibility of the Sûreté du Québec.

So, this bill used Quebec's know-how and support to try to strip away all of the powers that are properly Quebec's. These are powers that work well, and are working better and better in Quebec.

Some provinces chose not to take part. That is why the government is once again trying to centralize the powers and to reduce the powers of the chief firearms officers, who are located in the provinces and in Quebec, powers designed to improve the management of the program.

It is important to remember that the Sûreté du Québec looks for a criminal record when issuing permits. I can assure the House that centralizing everything with federal agencies is not for the purpose of improving management. The purpose, once again, will be to appropriate powers and to centralize them.

It is important to remember that even though we are against the Canadian Alliance's motion because of its objective, this does not mean that the Bloc Quebecois does not support the firearms registry. On the contrary. The Canadian Alliance wants to scrap the firearms registry program altogether.

However, no one wants to give the government a blank cheque any more so that it can produce one fiasco after another. For seven years now, huge sums have been invested, and the firearm registry is not even complete. One-third of all guns have yet to be registered. But we must not lose sight of the problem: registration is voluntary. Therefore, if two-thirds of all firearms have been voluntarily registered at a cost of $788 million to date, with one-third still left, how much will it cost to “force or convince” the remaining one-third of all gun owners to register?

There is an attempt to make us believe that the money will always be available. I refuse to believe this.

We will be voting in favour of the supplementary estimates, in which the government is asking for between $59 million and $60 million to continue this program. But we will certainly not be voting in favour of allocating supplementary funds each time, without knowing how this money is being spent.

As I said earlier, just because the program is moving from the Department of Justice to the Department of the Solicitor General does not mean that we do not want to know where this money went. This is a huge amount.

With regard to the first part of the Alliance motion, on this point, we must know where this money has gone and details must be--

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, there were many points in that question. However I want to correct the member on one essential point, which is the problem the Canadian Alliance has with its misplaced logic on this issue.

I know the Canadian Alliance made a lot of political hey in the last number of elections and it wants to continue to do that but we are interested in making sure there is better public safety.

The member was offside when he said that the gun control program was targeted at law-abiding citizens. It is not. The gun control program is targeted at those who use illegal guns and those who might use firearms in the wrong way. The Minister of Justice talked a bit earlier about 9,000 registrations being refused. That was done to protect public safety. There were some concerns about those people who were applying and who might cause trouble in society.

The fact is that the system has worked in targeting the program, not at law-abiding citizens but at those with illegal and misplaced weapons.

Since NWEST was established, which is part of this program, it has assisted police on the front line with over 250 warrants. NWEST has assisted frontline police officers in 3,000 incidents. It is true that it has traced over 1,900 unregistered guns in co-operation with United States authorities but sometimes, because there is a registered gun in the system, it finds there is also unregistered guns, which are certainly illegal in this country.

What we have here is a difficult position for the Canadian Alliance. It is in such an entrenched political position that it does not want to see the good points in Bill C-10A which will make this system more cost effective and do what it was intended to do in a better fiscally managed way.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Solicitor General asked us a really good question of why we would oppose Bill C-10A.

Bill C-10A perpetuates bad legislation that was passed back in 1995. That is what is wrong with Bill C-10A. It is continuing along with the path of Liberal gun control. It is not along the path of Canadian Alliance sensible firearms legislation.

Before Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, was passed, and I am saying this having been a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for 30 years, we could seize firearms from somebody who was going to commit a crime. We could seize firearms when a criminal was intending to use them or had used them. All the law-abiding citizen had to do was get an FAC, a firearms acquisition certificate and get checked out by the police. The Canadian Alliance supports that.

We support firearms legislation that is cost effective and effective at reducing crime. That is the difference. That is the question. The Liberals on one side have a mammoth system which is hugely expensive and which does not reduce crime with all that added expense. The Canadian Alliance wants to spend money on firearms legislation but it will be an effective one where we go after criminals and not after the law-abiding citizen.

Does the minister not see the difference, that the firearms registry targeted at law-abiding citizens is not doing the job to reduce crime? He has not been asked yet whether he would be willing to produce a cost benefit analysis substantiating the spending of that money. Will the Solicitor General provide to the House that cost benefit analysis?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I am surprised at the member's question because the whole thrust of his opposition day motion basically refers to inefficiencies in the system.

What I am explaining for him, and maybe he does not want to hear it, is how we can create those efficiencies in the system. Bill C-10A is a very important aspect in creating those efficiencies in the system. Let me repeat that to make this program more efficient and cost effective while continuing to keep firearms out of the wrong hands and enhancing the safety of our communities, we need Bill C-10A.

Let me explain what the bill does and how it does it. Bill C-10A includes amendments to the Firearms Act to provide better service and reduce costs. Bill C-10A simplifies the requirements for licence renewals. Bill C-10A increases the use of the Internet and other automated channels for applications and issuance of documents. Bill C-10A staggers firearm licence renewals to avoid a surge of applications in five year cycles. In other words, it allows efficiencies in the system.

Bill C-10A establishes a preapplication process for temporary importation of non-resident visitors. Bill C-10A streamlines the transfer process. Bill C-10A grandfathers additional handguns that were prohibited in 1995. Bill C-10A extends the terms of firearms business licences. Bill C-10A clarifies the licensing requirements for the employees of firearms businesses.

Every single one of these amendments will make the Canadian firearms program more accessible and responsible to the needs of those people who use the system. A program that is accessible and responsive to the needs of its users is a program that has a far better chance of meeting its goals. In this case the goal is public safety.

As Bill C-10A is passed, we will also implement the following changes for an improved, less costly gun control program.

The member for Yorkton--Melville has been on his feet on this issue so many times. I ask him, if he really believes what he himself is saying in terms of efficiencies in the system and waste of money, how could he and his party, the Canadian Alliance, possibly oppose Bill C-10A and all those proposals and efficiencies that Bill C-10A will give the Government of Canada, indeed the people of Canada, in terms of administering this program?

We will streamline headquarters and processing operations. We want to achieve greater consistency and better coordination. We will establish national work performance measures and cost standards for all aspects of the gun control program. We will work in consultation with the provinces, territories and other partners to achieve this. There is no question about it, some provinces have been opposed. We understand that is not an easy consultation and discussion to have but we are going to do our best to achieve it.

Federal and provincial gun control managers will be more accountable in meeting these standards. This will ensure, in my view, consistency of program delivery, quality and control of costs by all partners involved in the gun control program.

We will as well restrict computer system changes to those that are critical to achieving the core mission of the gun control program and to reducing costs. These improvements to the management and structure of the gun control program will be made by early 2004 or even sooner. They build on the cost saving measures that are a part of Bill C-10A. The aim is to establish a clear management framework for the program that focuses on its essential core business, the licensing and registration of firearms.

We are also continuing with the improvements that my colleague, the hon. Minister of Justice, has already been putting in place. The Internet registration system is working reasonably well. The government introduced online registration on February 7 and the Canadian Firearms Centre is receiving hundreds of firearms registrations and applications daily through its website.

Applications received online result in substantial cost savings to the program and faster service to the public due to simpler processing requirements. We are continuing to reduce registration processing delays. We are not all the way there yet, but we are improving that with the goal of processing properly completed registration applications within 30 days of receipt. We will be implementing a targeted outreach program.

Finally, we will honour our commitments to parliamentarians, to stakeholders and the public to seek their input in consultations this spring in improving the design and the delivery of the program. These consultations will give gun control program stakeholders, partners and members of the public an opportunity to provide direct input into this essential public safety program. We will also appoint a program advisory committee made up of members external to government with management and system expertise.

I encourage members opposite, if they really believe what they are saying, to support Bill C-10A and the estimates that go along with making Bill C-10A possible for us to have those efficiencies in the system.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, it is too bad that discussion had to close. The Minister of Justice was starting to outline some of the real facts on the issue, but I welcome the opportunity to speak to the issue.

What do we want from a gun control program and what do Canadians expect? I believe they expect a program that keeps guns out of the hands of those who should not have them and prevents illegal guns from entering our country. Also, we want and I believe Canadians want a program that respects the legitimate interests of hunters, sports shooters and others in society who use guns in a lawful way. Quite simply, we and Canadians want a program that helps to make our communities safer, but they do not want a program at any cost. That is what Canadians expect and that is what Canadians deserve.

Part of the answers lie in the common sense proposals of Bill C-10A. Before getting to why Bill C-10A is such an important piece of legislation, and I would ask the opponents on the other side to support us in that legislation, I want to make a couple of other points.

The Canadian firearms program is an important fit for my portfolio, that of the Solicitor General. We are confident that we have the strength in the portfolio to run this complex national law enforcement program. We are already consolidating law enforcement functions by moving the national weapons enforcement support team, or NWEST, from the Canadian Firearms Centre to the national police services which is administered by the RCMP on behalf of all police forces in Canada. This move places this crucial service in an environment more aligned with its enforcement support mission.

To align the rest of the Canadian firearms program operations as efficiently and cost effectively as possible and to make the Canadian firearms program fully meet its goal of public safety, we need Bill C-10A. Bill C-10A is critical to achieving a firearms program that better responds to the needs and expectations of Canadians while maintaining public safety. The sooner it is adopted, the sooner Canadians can reap the benefits of a program that is more efficient and cost effective while continuing to keep firearms out of the wrong hands and enhancing the safety of our communities.

Let me repeat that. Bill C-10A will make it possible for us as the Government of Canada to run a program that is more efficient and more cost effective--

Business of the House

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader if he could give us the business for the rest of today, tomorrow, and next week. Also, could the government House leader, if he were to schedule a day for the Senate amendments to Bill C-10A, advise the House of his intention regarding time allocation since he already has given notice of time allocation on Bill C-10A? Could he also advise the House, so we could all know what we are doing this afternoon, whether his whip, using the rules, will defer today's vote to a future date?

Supply

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General of Canada gives Canadians and members of Parliament objective information to help them examine the government's activities and hold it to account. The Liberal government believes the role of the Auditor General is vital. In fact, in 1994 we amended the Auditor General Act to increase the number of reports from a single annual report to four reports annually.

What does all that mean? I believe it means exactly this. In my other life I am an active farmer, a chicken farmer. Every year I sit down with my accountant to look at how my business is progressing, improvements that I should be making to my business and what taxes I am going to pay. It is efficient running of my business. Why? I am not an accountant. I trained as a millwright. Therefore I get someone to look at that for me and to make my business more efficient.

That is exactly what the Auditor General does for the Government of Canada. She looks at how the government runs and operates. She looks at whether the government is effectively spending the money the way it should and whether its programs are efficient or if there is a better way to make government work better.

In addition to strengthening the role of the Auditor General, this government has had a track record of responding in a timely, effective manner to her findings. When the media often focuses on the negative aspects of the Auditor General's report, there are also good news stories. In fact the Auditor General herself said in 2001 that examples of good management sometimes got lost in the glare of publicity that surrounded the bad examples.

The government does about $130 billion in business a year. That is a lot of money. Government is big business. It is in our best interest not only as a government but as the managers for Canada to ensure that we do it the best way possible.

The Auditor General recently praised Industry Canada for making significant improvements to the small business financing program.

Very simply, we look at what the Auditor General has to say about how we operate the government and the country. If she has made specific recommendations for improvements on how we operate, we have responded.

Here are some of the highlights in response to the 2002 report of the Auditor General. These are some things the government has done in response to her recommendations on how to make government operate better.

In her September 2002 report the Auditor General commented that the federal government provided only limited information on its intended total contribution to the provinces and the territories for the future funding of health care. In budget 2003 the federal government responded to this concern by announcing its intention to separate the Canada health and social transfer into the Canada health transfer and Canada social transfer. This will result in a clear accounting of the amount of funding the federal government provides the provinces to help them administer their public health insurance programs.

Quite frankly this has been an irritant for me as a member of Parliament from Ontario because we transfer cash to the provinces for health care but we also give the provinces tax points and we get absolutely no recognition for that at all. I do not feel that is fair. This is something that the provinces asked for back in, I believe, 1995. They said that it would be a more efficient accounting and would a better way of doing things. Now they are now using it against the federal government by not giving us any credit for those tax points. I have said many times in caucus that if they will not give us recognition for them, then we should take them back and give them a cash transfer. That way we will at least get recognition.

The other thing I want to see within the health care situation is better accountability. We know there were some examples last year where high tech money that was supposed to be spent on MRIs and CAT scans was spent on lawnmowers instead. I am a life member of the Association of Kinsmen. If hospitals need lawnmowers, I would tell them to go to the local service club and we will help raise money for that, but do not spend high tech money on low tech problems.

The second is the sponsorship program. In March 2002 the Auditor General was asked by the former minister of public works to review three contracts awarded between 1996 and 1999 to Groupaction. That report was immediately referred to the RCMP, and the cases are under investigation.

On May 26, 2002 the Minister of Public Works imposed a moratorium on the sponsorship program. We were responding. An interim sponsorship program was announced on June 3, 2002 which eliminated the use of external communications agencies.

Finally, on December 17, 2002, the minister announced a new sponsorship program for the 2003-04 fiscal year. That is guided by four key principles: value for money, with which I agree as we want to get the best value for the money spent; stewardship, with which I also agree; flexibility; and finally, transparency. Those I believe are four key pillars with which the opposition and every member in the House would have to agree.

Last but not least, as we have heard here today, is the Canadian firearms program. The government has taken immediate measures to address all the recommendations in the Auditor General's report on the firearms program. Specifically we have introduced Bill C-10A that would cut costs, improve program administration, streamline the process and increase ease of use.

Further on this, on February 21 the Minister of Justice introduced the government's action plan for changes to the management of Canada's gun control program. The plan is the government's blueprint for improving the program's services, transparency and accountability. Clearly we have responded to many of the concerns expressed by the Auditor General and the evidence is before us.