Public Safety Committee on June 7th, 2006

[Alain Jolicoeur]

If I may, Mr. Minister, there is one issue that started a long time ago in my organization, which was the question of the safety of officers, specifically at the land border, and the arming question. I could report—and my colleagues from the union would probably say the same thing—that at the moment, there are better labour relations in our organization because of the decision on arming. That's another one where probably a difference was made.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Thank you.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I have one question for Commissioner Coulter, if possible.

You talked about capital projects. Could you outline some of those capital projects for us? There are a number that I'm aware of from discussions I've had inside maximum security prisons for day visits also.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

That will be your final question.

[Keith Coulter]

We're constantly trying to update our infrastructure in a number of places. Recently we have had a major project going on at Kent Institution. We have another one going at Sask Pen. Those are the current big ones, but there is a very long list of this going on, from fairly minor construction up to significant projects.

The biggest problem we have right now as we look ahead to our future is that our population is getting a lot more complex. We have more extensive histories of violence, more mental health cases, more gang-related affiliations, and what not. The aboriginal problem is also with us in spades. It's a question of getting options and developing our infrastructure so that we're up to this future. I think one of the undertakings my colleague Don Head made when he was here was relayed this week. We can provide you with a list of ongoing infrastructure development projects, but it's a very long list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

If I could add to that point, Chair, with a supplementary, different members of Parliament from all sides of the House have expressed interest to me that within their constituency, if they feel there's going to be an increased need for capacity, their particular constituency would be amenable to that and geared to that. When anybody sends me that information, I send it right over to the commissioner. This is always approached with a business case analysis.

I just wanted to make that clear, that I wouldn't be in that decision loop but I'll make sure that's passed on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Ms. Minna.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to ask the minister this. I'm trying to understand the rationale around the amnesty. I heard the minister say that he's doing what the previous government did, but to me it sounds somewhat quite different. The amnesty was used to give people time to comply with the law. My understanding, from what the minister just said before, was that this amnesty is not to comply with the law, but to comply with the law that will be coming into effect, hopefully, if it passes the House next May. I find that rather strange, don't you? Can you clarify that for me?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

The amnesty is put in place to provide people with the opportunity to comply with the law, period.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

The existing law, not future laws that are not yet in place.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Exactly. With an amnesty, you look to the end date of the amnesty, so by May 17, 2007, people are going to have to comply with the law.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Which law? The existing law, or--

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I guess we'll see whatever laws and regulations are in place. There may be more changes contemplated by Parliament than even I'm thinking of.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

But, Minister, your amnesty is not giving people time to register. It's basically telling people they do not have to register, which is not compliant with the law. Am I right?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

No, we make it very clear that because of all of the difficulties incumbent with the firearms registry, which we've articulated in good detail today, we recognize the problem, and because of that, they have until May 17, 2007, to comply with the law.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

That is, to register the weapons--the rifles, the long guns?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Whatever the law requires, they will be required to do on May 17, 2007.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

But I'm going back to a statement you made earlier, though, which was interesting because you said three things, and they got me thinking and a little bit off-track. You said, first, that the legislation, if placed in the House now, will not pass, so therefore why bring it; secondly, that there'd be an amnesty until next May, at which time hopefully there would be a new law, and in which case then they would comply with the new law. What I'm reading from this is that the government has decided that because it can't pass legislation in the House, it's chosen not to table it, to amend the existing legislation, and it's giving long gun owners amnesty so they don't have to register until next May, at which time the government hopes to have a law in place that will then never allow them to have to register.

That's what I understood you to say a few minutes ago. Am I right?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

You're, of course, permitted to put your own spin on it, if I can use that word. I use it in a positive way, because I don't think you were trying to be negative.

For instance, I didn't pose the question, why bring it? It was one of my other colleagues here who posed that question; it wasn't me.

The firearms registry situation was a mess. There was $1 billion spent on a program that at first was supposed to be revenue neutral--

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I think, Minister, we've gone over that. It's at a place now where it's stable. I would like to move on with the realities.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

It was supposed to be revenue neutral and--

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Let's not rehash history.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

--it spiralled out of sight in terms of the costs.

The latest Auditor General's report was suggesting that there were still very significant problems, even though there were administrative improvements, which we acknowledge. The former government didn't even have the second computer system in place, and--I'll use the words again--“data was unreliable”. It was untenable that people--

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Can you answer my question?