Mr. Speaker, in the House on February 12 the Minister of Justice and the Deputy Prime Minister denied that the government was privatizing the gun registry.
Then in a media scrum outside the House the minister said she was outsourcing, not privatizing the gun registry. Since that time she has been unable to successfully describe to anyone's satisfaction the difference between privatizing and outsourcing.
On March 3 the Moncton Times and Transcript reported that a crowd of 700 demonstrators protested in Miramichi because they were upset over reports that the Canadian Firearms Centre would be privatized.
In the same newspaper on April 24 it was reported that 70 employees were to be laid off on May 6. The article stated:
However the union believes the federal government plans to privatize the entire licensing and registration system, taking all the workers off the federal payroll and with no guarantees a private company would hire any of them.
On February 27 the Edmonton Sun reported that the RCMP were laying off 130 civilians working the national gun registry. Lynn Ray, president of the Union of Solicitor General Employees, said the layoffs and transfer of another 130 employees from the RCMP to the Department of Justice was the first step toward privatizing the registry.
The National Post ran a front page story on March 1 which stated:
In a document that seems to contradict assurances by...the Minister of Justice, that only parts of the registry and licensing functions would be outsourced, Public Works Canada has assured 12 prospective bidders that the successful contractor would conduct “all transactions with clients except certain investigations”
“More specifically, we mean that the vendor will own and operate the business process delivery component as identified in the letter of interest”—
On March 1 the Edmonton Sun printed comments by Edmonton city police Staff Sergeant Al Bohachyk. Bohachyk called the privatized gun registry a frightening prospect because:
—no private company could guarantee personal information in gun licence and registration databases won't get out to the wrong people, organized crime figures, for instance.
On February 16 I received a letter from Mr. George Radwanski, the privacy commissioner of Canada. The privacy commissioner confirmed that the justice department did not even consult with his office about its privatization initiative. In his letter he stated that he was deeply concerned that justice may privatize or outsource the Canadian firearms program. He intends to pursue the matter with the department. This is very serious.
On April 4 the Library of Parliament discovered that there were already seven private firearms officers working for the gun registry in New Brunswick. One of these privatized firearms officers even has his own private investigation firm in Fredericton. His appointment letter gives him the power to conduct investigations by reviewing police files and by conducting interviews with applicants, spouses, relatives, neighbours and employers.
This firearms officer, a private eye, told my office that he told a newspaper reporter he was doing firearms background checks because he thought it would be good for his business. How could he possibly keep the information he gathers as a private firearms officer separate from the information he uses to advance the interest of his own private investigation firm and his private clients? The privacy commissioner is investigating.
An April 20 headline in the Moncton Times and Transcript read “Gun registry privatization nears reality”. Union leaders call what the government is doing with the gun registry privatization. Every newspaper story written on the issue calls it privatization. Robert Klassen, professor of operations management at the University of Western Ontario, told the National Post that it sounded like privatization.
The documents provided by the Department of Justice to the private companies bidding on the job say the successful bidder will own and operate the business process and will conduct all transactions except certain investigations.
Why does the minister insist on calling it outsourcing? Why will the minister not admit in public that which everyone else knows and what she privately tells the private companies she is negotiating with?