Mr. Speaker, I have been listening very intently to the comments by the hon. member from Yorkton—Melville as well as to the parliamentary secretary.
I rise on the same subject matter. It has been brought to the House's attention that the data on which Bill C-68 has been based are seriously flawed. On July 21, 1997 the commissioner of the RCMP wrote to the deputy minister of justice informing him that the RCMP data used by the government and by the department officials during the debate over Bill C-68 were in fact flawed.
This is shocking. The statistics that were put forward and the references in both letters mentioned by the hon. member in the opposition set out that there is a serious problem here that has to be addressed. The commissioner states unequivocally that the incorrect reporting of the RCMP statistics could cause wrong public policy or laws to be developed and cause researchers to draw erroneous conclusions. That was in July 1997.
There is a lot of water under the bridge and a lot of things have happened since that time, including a challenge to the Supreme Court of Alberta by four provinces and two territories.
The serious question is have those statistics been put before the Alberta Court of Appeal without qualification, without correction if that is what is necessary? This is a very serious matter if that is in fact what has happened.
The allegations by the commissioner himself that they do not want the RCMP name attached to these statistics unless corrections are made speak in and of themselves to the confidence that the RCMP has in these statistics. Yet there is no disclosure, there is no open dialogue here on the part of the government. What we are getting here is that the RCMP is now satisfied, or certain members may be satisfied.
We want to know what has transpired from the time the commissioner wrote to the minister or deputy minister and what is this talk of methodological difference or somehow this has been glossed over. What does methodological difference mean? Does that mean economical with the truth? Does that mean these statistics have been used to spin a certain purpose or a certain objective?
There are many concerns that arise out of this bill, not the least of which is the broad widespread opposition that exists in rural parts of Canada.
The cost element again is something that has been exposed as being completely erroneous. The government suggested that it is going to cost $48 million. It has already exceeded $100 million. It is going to exceed $500 million.
Recent information that has surfaced and been brought forward to the House must cause the government serious concern. There are questions that have to be answered by the minister or by the government. If the conclusions that have been drawn, conclusions the government wanted Canadians to draw, are based on seriously flawed statistics that do not truly represent the incidence of violent crime and the use of firearms in the country, that is something that has to be addressed and has to be corrected soon.
The e-mails and letters that have been sent back and forth between various government officials and members of the RCMP have to be looked at in a very close and meticulous way before we go any further with this piece of legislation.
The minister has a duty to the House of Commons and she has a duty as a lawyer to slow the process down and give Canadians the truth on what has taken place in this process.
As a member of the opposition it is my responsibility to ask questions. As members of the government it is their responsibility to give us answers, and truthful ones.