Debates of April 10th, 2002

Criminal Code

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is there unanimous consent of the House for the bill to be declared votable?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to Bill C-208 introduced by the hon. member for Jonquière. Bill C-208 proposes amendments to the criminal code as a means of protecting child victims of sexual offences.

The first of these amendments is a reclassification of certain sexual offences from hybrid offences, which may be prosecuted either summarily or by indictment, to indictable offences. The bill also seeks to impose graduated mandatory minimum sentences for the offences of sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching of a person under the age of 14. Finally, offenders convicted of any of the sexual offences listed in the bill, including sexual assault against adult or child victims, must undergo mandatory treatment.

I would like to indicate at the outset that the government is committed to work to safeguard Canadian children and to protect them from all forms of sexual exploitation. However, we do not believe that the proposed amendments to the criminal code are the appropriate means of achieving those goals.

First, the reclassification of these offences from hybrid to indictable is problematic as they are intended to cover a broad array of fact situations which range from minor offences to more serious matters. It would be inappropriate to mandate that the less serious offences which are covered by these criminal code provisions be prosecuted as indictable offences.

In addition, proceeding by indictment is a more lengthy and formal procedure which places additional burdens on child victims who may be required to testify at both a preliminary inquiry and at the trial.

With respect to the use of mandatory minimum sentences for sexual offenders, we must be mindful that their use in Canada is limited. Only 29 offences in the criminal code carry mandatory minimum penalties. A recent evaluation of the research in this area in the Department of Justice provides little support for any initiatives to expand the use of mandatory minimum penalties in Canadian law.

The evidence indicates that mandatory penalties in general are not effective in deterring crime and have many unintended harmful consequences in the criminal justice system, such as dramatically increased costs due to more and longer trials, fewer guilty pleas, and increased numbers in remand custody. In short, it is not clear that mandating such penalties would meet the goal of Bill C-208, which is to protect children from sexual offenders.

The use of mandatory treatment programs for all offenders convicted of one of the sexual offences listed in Bill C-208 raises issues of capacity and costs.

The House will note that the offence of sexual assault is included in Bill C-208. This is an offence which covers a broad range of behaviour and which applies to both adult and child victims. Consequently, the offenders prosecuted under this and other listed offences would present a diversity of treatment needs so that a variety of programs would have to be developed.

Additionally, the bill is inconsistent in its approach as it only proscribes treatment for offenders convicted of certain sexual offences while omitting others, including more serious sexual assaults.

Any reforms concerning the protection of children from sexual offences are best addressed in the context of an ongoing comprehensive review of the criminal law dealing with child victims, which is currently under way in the Department of Justice.

In November 1999 the department launched a consultation and review of the criminal law to assess the need for reforms addressing child specific offences, sentencing to prevent reoffending against children, facilitating child victim/witness testimony, and the age of consent to sexual activity.

The project is examining whether criminal code reforms are required to ensure that the serious nature of any offence against children is reflected adequately in general sentencing principles, aggravating mitigating factors, sentencing options, and how to better protect children from known sex offenders. The results of the consultation were recently presented to the Minister of Justice and to his federal, provincial and territorial counterparts at their meeting in February. They have directed federal, provincial and territorial senior officials to develop follow-up options for their consideration.

Before concluding I would like to remind the House that the government has taken and continues to take many other important steps to better protect children from sexual exploitation. For example, on November 10 last year, Canada signed the United Nations optional protocol to the convention on the rights of the child, on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. This step exemplifies Canada's strong commitment to better protect children against sexual exploitation in the international context.

As well, on March 14 last year the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-15, which proposed criminal code amendments that would better protect children from sexual exploitation. The bill included the creation of the following offences: using the Internet to lure and exploit children for sexual purposes; and transmitting, making available, exporting and intentionally accessing child pornography on the Internet. The bill also simplified the process for the prosecution of Canadians who sexually assault children while abroad.

These reforms are now in Bill C-15A. I am pleased to note that the bill has now passed third reading in the Senate with three amendments. It is now returning to the House for final consideration of those three amendments.

While we cannot support the member's bill for the reasons I have outlined in my remarks, let me state that the government, like the hon. member for Jonquière, is very concerned, as are all Canadians, about sexual offences against children. This is why the government will spare no effort in order to protect Canadian children from such offences.

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to express a sentiment to the member who just spoke. I respect him as an individual, as I respect all members of the House, so I would have to believe that what he said he meant. However it also must be said, and I say this with controlled fury, that talk is cheap.

The member said that the Liberal government is committed to the protection of children and that it will spare no effort to protect children. Give me a break. It is absolute craziness to hear these words come out of the mouth of the hon. gentleman. I respect him as an individual which is why I find it difficult to stand here and contain the anger I have within me that this very fine gentleman would make comments like that when the record of the government shows that to be simply not true.

Let us take a look at the sex offender registry. As a result of a Canadian Alliance supply day motion, the House voted in favour of the government establishing a national sex offender registry. After one full year we brought another supply day motion to the House wherein we asked why the sex offender registry had not been put in place. One full year went by with no national sex offender registry. The government then whipped its members, as is the term in parliament, and had them on their feet to vote against the Canadian Alliance motion to put into effect, what had been passed by this parliament, a national sex offender registry. Less than two weeks after that vote, it declared it would establish the sex offender registry.

The government talks and talks but does nothing about so many serious issues. I ask the Liberals: What was the difference in time? What was the difference in the occasion where they had one full year to put the national sex registry in place and they did not? We prompted them to do it again on the basis of the unanimous consent by the House of Commons and then 14 days later, having thought there was a sufficient amount of time for Canadians to forget, they slipped it in and said that they might just get around to doing that.

On March 26, Mr. Justice Duncan Shaw of the British Columbia supreme court released his reasons for a decision regarding the child pornography charges brought against John Robin Sharpe. In his decision, Mr. Justice Shaw convicted Mr. Sharpe of the possession of pornographic photographs of children but acquitted him on charges related to his personal writings that described violent sexual relations between adult men and young boys. The judge characterized Mr. Sharpe's writing as “Sado-masochistic scenes of violence and sex, directed at boys generally 12 years of age and younger”. He found that “The scenes portrayed are, by almost any moral standard, repugnant”.

However it was Justice Shaw's opinion that these writings did not actively induce or encourage sexual activity between adult men and young boys and therefore, even though it “arguably glorifies the acts described”, he stated that the material did not meet the definition of child pornography. He went on to conclude that even if it did constitute child pornography, this graphic and violent material was not criminal because it had artistic merit.

This is a gigantic loophole that the Liberals are permitting to stand where young children are being exploited by the animals in our society. What are they doing about that case?

The whole issue of innocence by reasonable doubt which would apply to a murder, a bank robbery, or any other offence that is being judged before a court is applied to the question of artistic merit. One person said that there just might be some artistic merit, that if we were to take a couple of sentences from the drivel and the filth that Mr. Sharpe has put out about these 12 year old boys there just might be a little bit of artistic merit.

Sharpe walked. He walked because of the same law with respect to innocence because of some small doubt. He walked because of that application of the law.

The judge made these findings in the face of evidence provided by a psychiatric expert who deals extensively with sex offenders and child molesters. The expert testified that the material produced by Mr. Sharpe was much worse than other child pornography he had ever seen before. He noted that it celebrated these abnormal sexual relations and that it conveyed the idea that sexually related violence directed at young boys by adult men is enjoyable.

Mr. Justice Shaw dismissed any moral evaluation as a consideration in determining whether something has artistic merit. He stated that his determination of whether this graphic and violent material had artistic merit must be made on a totally amoral basis.

Unless we apply moral values, who says that sex between children and adults is wrong? That is a moral judgment. The law is a moral law. Otherwise the law simply does not stand. It does not apply. There is no basis for the law.

Of course it is absolutely unconscionably repugnant that adult men would have sex with small children. I cannot imagine any decent human being in the world, let alone in Canada, who would say otherwise, but that is a moral judgment. How can we say that a moral value cannot be applied to something that is totally immoral by any standard?

In my opinion the reasoning of Mr. Justice Shaw is totally misguided. Morality is the basis for law in every society, including our Judeo-Christian society in the west. His reasoning demonstrates a lack of understanding as to why these laws are enacted in the first place.

Simply put, it is through our criminal laws that our society has imposed moral disapproval for the exploitation of children by adults. To try to understand or justify the prohibition against the violent sexual exploitation of children in an amoral context is futile. No wonder the judge believed he had no alternative but to acquit Mr. Sharpe of these serious charges.

If the bill for all of the legal reasons the Liberal member talked about is deficient, why is the justice department not doing something about it? Why is the justice department studying and studying? Why is the justice department not doing something to protect Canada's children? I do not understand this.

[An hon. member]

We are.

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Oh they are. Well, there you go.

I come back to the issue of the sex offender registry. It was through the initiative of the Canadian Alliance that the House unanimously approved a sex offender registry. The government took more than a year. When we asked why it was not doing anything about it, we were told the government was not going to do anything about it and then the Liberals played the political game and did it 14 days later.

The children of Canada are the future of Canada and they deserve our respect, our support and our attention to this matter. What the Liberals are doing is not good enough.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Jonquière; I fully support her initiative. I think this bill is very important.

The principle being brought forward in the bill is of undeniable importance.

I share with an overwhelming majority of Canadians the moral outrage expressed by the previous speaker. As a parliament, we must address some of these very important issues. Some of these issues however have gone to the courts rather than being dealt with here in the Parliament of Canada. We all have to take responsibility for that but it is the government that drives the agenda. As much sparseness and paucity as there is with that agenda, it is the government's responsibility to bring the priorities of the nation forward.

I would say that is exactly what my colleague from the Bloc is doing in her efforts to bring attention through Bill C-208 to the issue of sexual interference and sexual assault on children. One of the most horrific things a child can experience in his or her young life is abuse, and very often the abuse is committed by a person in a position of trust because of the access that person might have to a child in a vulnerable position.

Through Bill C-208, the Bloc is attempting to deal with specific criminal code amendments that would in essence limit the discretion exercised by those within the justice system. I must say with great regret that I have some difficulty with the way in which the bill is presented. However I completely embrace the intent, the spirit and logic behind it and I completely support what the member has set before the House.

I listened intently to the member's remarks and the emotion and sincerity that she brings to the issue is undeniable. However, and I say this with some reluctance, I associate myself with the remarks of the parliamentary secretary in this regard because of the difficulties in limiting the options available to those currently working in the justice system. I say that with the greatest respect and as somebody who has worked in the justice system.

The difficulty with removing the ability of charging under the criminal code under a hybrid section, that is to say taking away the discretion of the crown to proceed by way of summary or indictment, severely limits one of the dirty little secrets about the justice system, which is that a great deal of plea bargaining goes on. That is the reality of how our system functions on a day to day basis. It is one of the practical and necessary evils of what takes place in our justice system.

I do not want to cloud the issue with lawyer talk and mumbo-jumbo and be accused of somehow supporting any effort whatsoever to shield from justice those who perpetrate horrific crimes against children or to suggest in any way that we should water down sentences. That is not what I am putting forward.

Sadly, taking away the ability to charge somebody with a summary offence under a sexual assault provision of the criminal code, in particular section 151 which deals with sexual interference, and making mandatory minimums, does away with one of the fundamental, practical blunt instruments of our justice system and that is the ability of the crown and the defence to sit down and discuss in a practical way how to mete out justice, how to proceed in the best interests of protecting society but, most important, I would suggest in these instances, of protecting an innocent child, a young person who has been victimized. That often entails not going to trial and working out, in some fashion, a guilty plea.

To say, by virtue of the change that will be enacted through the passage of the bill, that one can no longer do that and has to go for a mandatory minimum of two years or, in an indictable offence, five years, would tie the hands of crown attorneys to enter into those discussions in good faith. They would no longer be able to say that in the best interest of the child counselling may be needed.

To her credit, the member for Jonquière has included something which I completely and wholeheartedly embrace. She has included the mandatory supervision and counselling elements in the legislation. However, in removing summary conviction from the wording, it would make sexual interference with anyone under the age of 14 an indictable offence and puts in place mandatory minimum sentences.

There are cases where a mandatory minimum would be fitting and appropriate. However, and I am speaking bluntly from a perspective of having worked in the justice system, there is in everyday parlance a scale of seriousness for sexual assault. The hon. member mentioned rape. Rape has a horrible impact on a young person's or anyone's life. At the far end of the scale is touching for sexual purposes, something that is inappropriate and offensive in many ways. Depending on the sensibilities of the victim it may have a psychological impact almost equal to rape. Yet on the scale of seriousness it must be deemed to be on a different level than rape.

By curtailing the power of crown attorneys, judges and police officers to lay charges I have great concerns that the way the bill would be implemented would cause problems and practical interference with the administration of justice as opposed to addressing the issue the hon. member wants it to address.

The charge demonstrates the spirit of public sentiment as does the bill, but it would have the opposite of the desired effect. By requiring proof of intent including proof of sexual purpose it would raise the ante. It would increase the ability of the crown to decide how to proceed with an offence, whether by trial or in another way.

Currently in cases that are considered borderline or where there is circumstantial evidence a judge or jury can recommend a lesser punishment. If the sentence were always a minimum of two years, defence counsels would go to trial in each and every case. Some Canadians and hon. members may consider this to be backing away from the need for our justice system to respond in a strong way and mete out deterrence not only for individuals but for the public. There is a need to show our revulsion and denunciate any type of offence involving sexual assaults on children.

However the ability of judges, crown attorneys, defence lawyers or police officers to proceed by way of summary conviction is an option that keeps the wheels of justice turning in many cases. We have huge backlogs in the courts today. That is a whole other issue but it is a practical consideration.

My hon. friend spoke of the Sharpe decision which we in the Progressive Conservative Party absolutely denounce. However in many instances judge made law is backfilling shortcomings in our law for which the government must take responsibility. We often hear the government pointing the finger at the opposition or at an administration of 10 years ago. Well, it is the present government that is in office. It must take responsibility for its decisions today. That responsibility to be lacking and the Canadian people will find it to be so.

The amendment would completely remove flexibility from our justice system. It could have the opposite effect. It could keep first time offenders from being released because of the crown's decision to proceed by way of indictment and higher sentences in every instance.

The Conservative Party maintains that there is a clear and undeniable need to protect those who are most vulnerable in society. We need to focus on that in every avenue and at every opportunity. Sexual assault in all its forms is an issue of power and control. The effects on the victims, particularly children, are incalculable in both the long and short term. As studies have shown, recidivism is most serious in cases involving sexual assault.

I applaud and support the hon. member in her intent to bring the bill forward. I support her in every way to have the issue addressed further. I will continue to do so in every fashion.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I became very angry when I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice talk about the increase in the costs of trials and treatments. He spoke only about money. He did not say a word about sex offences committed against individuals under the age of 14. He said nothing about the impact and how it ruins the life of a young person. He answered like a technocrat. I hope he will never face such a problem in his family or that people he knows will never experience such a tragedy.

Dozens and dozens of young persons were raped by sex offenders, by pedophiles in my region. I met them. Dozens of youths under the age of 14 signed the petition; they cried and shouted. You cannot imagine how much I felt their anger. I wish the member had seen them; I wish he had listened to them to get a better idea of the numbers. I would have liked him to open his heart to their plight.

Young people who are sexually abused are scarred for life. I also met mothers who were abused by pedophiles when they were young. Today, these women are adults, but they have never psychologically recovered from such abuse. I would have liked the parliamentary secretary to listen to them and to help me. No, this bill is not perfect and I had no intention of claiming that it is.

I want to thank the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for all the issues that he raised. I thank him for his support. I also thank the Canadian Alliance member. I would have liked this bill to be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice, because we could have heard witnesses and we could have discussed all the issues that are part of this legislation. But these people will never be heard by members like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

Worse still, and this makes me want to scream, is the fact that the government whip opposed the idea that this bill be made a votable item. Yet she is a woman. This is even worse.

As a woman, as a mother and as a grandmother, what this government is doing violates my very being. It does not want to pursue this issue. It does not want this issue to be discussed at the justice committee. The government could at least hear evidence. There are many people from my region who would like to appear before the Standing Committee on Justice, so that at last they can be heard by parliamentarians, who are here to listen to the public. But these people will not have the opportunity to do so and I am extremely disappointed.

Today, April 10, 2002, is a turning point in my life as a woman. I never would have thought that, in 2002, parliamentarians would refuse to hear people who were sexually abused.

This is why I am again asking for the unanimous consent of the House, so that my bill can at least make it to the Standing Committee on Justice, so that it can be improved, witnesses be heard and the issue by understood by its members. Even if the bill is not adopted by the committee, at least these people would have been heard.

I am making a heartfelt plea to all parliamentarians and to those who are listening to us. Mr. Speaker, I would be grateful if you could ask again for the unanimous consent of the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is there unanimous consent to make this bill a votable item?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The period provided for consideration of private members' business has now expired. Since the motion has not been selected as a votable item, the item is dropped from the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, on March 12, I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development a question about employment insurance and the $42 billion surplus. There was a rumour to the effect that the Department of Human Resources Development wanted to charge interest on overpayments, which would increase even more the employment insurance fund.

To my great surprise, the minister gave me the following answer:

Mr. Speaker, my department is reviewing a proposal to charge interest on employment insurance debt related to fraud only and not to debt accrued as a result of mistakes. This intention was signalled in our report on plans and priorities last year.

Last week, she put forward a proposal to impose interest on employment insurance debt related to fraud.

We could perhaps understand the minister's comments if we were told that the minister would charge interest only to those who have committed deliberate fraud. But who will decide that someone has committed fraud?

It will be this same minister, her employees, public servants, who will sit down and decide whether one case involves fraud and another does not. We are talking about people who have lost their jobs, but in addition, if someone is found guilty of fraud, he or she will have to pay penalties.

Our Canadian Alliance colleague mentioned a case here in the House of Commons of someone who apparently obtained $350 by fraudulent means. There were penalties of $3,500. But that is not enough. Now the government wants to charge interest.

On top of that, in her release, the minister says that she wants to use “the Bank of Canada average rate plus 3%”. This is completely unacceptable, and so is the rate of interest, because the surplus is $42 billion. Right now, the federal government is receiving $8 billion in surplus EI payments to pay down Canada's debt, while the unemployed are receiving $7.2 billion.

And it talks about fraud. I think there is more fraud going on in the government than there is among workers who have lost their job.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I think that the member has gone a bit too far. I would ask him to choose his words carefully.

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

Mr. Speaker, what I have said has been said. I agree that I might have gone a bit far, but when we are going after the money of people who have lost their job, when we empty their refrigerators and call them cheaters, I have a problem with that.

When people owe up to $20,000 in employment insurance simply because they have left a job in Toronto, when they were actually only paid for 12 hours of work a week, and they cannot work and feed their families on such low wages, it is very hard for the workers to accept it.

Once again, I am asking the minister to reconsider her decision and to forgo the interest. As far as I am concerned, the $3,000 or $5,000 penalty is high enough. It represents a lot of interest. However, not satisfied with the Bank of Canada rate, she would like to add an extra 3%. I am asking the minister to reconsider her decision.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, before I start answering, I would like to say that I fully understand the concerns raised by the member who just spoke.

However, we must keep in mind that most Canadians who apply for employment insurance are honest and hard working people who need temporary income support while they are unemployed. However, we must not be naive.

We know unfortunately that there are always some people--and they are a minority--who apply for employment insurance benefits although they are not entitled to them, and who are trying to take advantage of the system. There are not that many who do so, but let us not be naive, they do exist.

This is why the Department of Human Resources Development of Canada has as a mandate to protect the integrity of the employment insurance program by conducting an investigation every time there is an allegation of abuse. We are talking about abuse, not mistakes.

The Government of Canada has a responsibility towards Canadian taxpayers as well as employment insurance claimants. When a debt is outstanding, the government must ask for payment while ensuring that employment insurance claimants are treated fairly.

In our report on planning and priorities, it was mentioned that the Department of Human Resources Development might charge interest on outstanding debt related to employment insurance. However, I would like to point out once again, as the minister has done on numerous occasions, that the proposed regulation would concern interest strictly on debts due to fraud--this is what the member across the way seems to find difficult to understand--and not due to errors. Is this clear?

In this file, we are also responsible for discouraging people from fraudulently using this program, which is so important to Canadian workers and their family.

As far as the amount of the outstanding debt is concerned, it will be dependent on the date the regulation is approved, if it is. However I want to stress that the amount of money outstanding due to fraud is on average about 1% of the total unemployment insurance benefits paid out every year.

Once again, and I hope this is the last time, I repeat that the planned penalty will not be charged to people who make a mistake in good faith. The administrative penalties will only apply to fraud.

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

Mr. Speaker, what the parliamentary secretary just said is all very nice, but the real problem is the $8 billion a year that the federal government takes from workers to pay down the debt. Is that justifiable?

Concerning the errors made by the federal government at the expense of unemployed workers to whom it did not pay benefits for one or two years until they brought the matter before the court of appeal, is the government willing to pay interest to these people for all the money they lost during that time? The decision that was handed down in that matter showed that the workers were right, and not the Department of Human Resources Development.

If the parliamentary secretary wants to talk about money, why would it not be a two way street? The government collects interest, even though it makes mistakes, but it does not want to pay interest to those workers who suffered for one or two years before having to turn to the court of appeal.

Is the government willing to soften its stance as much as it is willing to take billions of dollars from workers, more specifically the $42 billion and more in the employment insurance fund? That money belongs to the workers, not to the Liberal government.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here again, the member opposite is talking about errors. This has nothing to do with errors, as I have so often said. Let me add that, unlike what the hon. member seems to think, Canadians asked us, as a government, to take a careful and balanced approach in dealing with the EI issue. After all, these are tax dollars.

The EI system works well. It is reliable and it does help Canadians when they need it. Moreover, we keep increasing benefits while constantly reducing premiums. This is the eighth consecutive year that we have reduced them since 1994. This year, the new 2002 rates of 2.2% for workers and 3.08% for employers will save contributors some $6.8 billion compared to what they would have paid if the 1994 rate had been in effect.

In conclusion, I hope that the member opposite will clearly understand that we do not wish to penalize those who make errors—and I repeat his own words—but only those who illegally apply for benefits.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on March 19 of this year the Minister of Justice must have misunderstood my question because he did not answer it. In fact, just after asking him specifically about the fact that the $700 million gun registry had already lost track of over 38,000 licensed firearms owners, he responded by stating “The gun registry system works well”. The minister called losing track of 38,629 licensed gun owners working well. Just a year after his bureaucrats claimed that they had licensed all the gun owners in Canada, they cannot find more than 38,000 of them.

Was not the whole point of the registry to help police identify homes with guns in them? Now the justice department cannot even tell police where these 38,000 gun owners live. An internal Department of Justice document dated January 9, 2001, revealed that only 600,000 of the 900,000 guns registered in the old RCMP restricted weapons registry system would be re-registered by the end of 2002. This would leave 300,000 previously registered firearms that would be declared as unclaimed by the minister's department. The RCMP and the Department of Justice have also lost track of 300,000 restricted and prohibited weapons registered in the 68 year old handgun registry.

On March 19 I asked the minister to explain how the police can rely on a gun registry that is missing hundreds of thousands of guns and tens of thousands of gun owners. The House is still waiting for the answer.

Last week my office received new information from the RCMP that there are 49,000 individuals from British Columbia listed in the restricted weapons registry system who do not hold a valid firearms acquisition certificate and who also have failed to apply for a possession and acquisition licence as required by the Criminal Code of Canada. This is despite a penalty of up to 10 years in jail for knowingly being in unauthorized possession of a firearm.

The justice minister's new $700 million gun registry is suffering from the same problems that made the 68 year old handgun registry totally useless at solving and preventing crime. Gun owners fail to report their changes of address. Gun owners die and the government loses track of the owners and the guns they used to own. Gun owners and bureaucrats make mistakes on forms. As a consequence, the information in the gun registry is so riddled with errors that it has been deemed useless by the courts for determining who actually owns the firearms listed in the registry.

On February 28 I released a report titled “Errors, Errors and More Errors”, which listed 24 different types of errors being reported to my office and in the newspapers. Today I issued a second report titled “Errors Just Keep Piling Up in the Gun Registry”. Today's report listed 14 different types of errors.

I do not have time to go through all of this, but I will give an example. The justice department's own documents show error rates of 71% in firearms licensing and 91% in the gun registry. The RCMP admits in access to information documents that it is responsible for but not in control of the gun registry processing. Why has the RCMP been removed from this important task? The RCMP has 68 years of experience in registering guns.

I think it is incumbent on the government to begin to explain why it is plowing ahead with this.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville for the opportunity to rise in the House today and provide some context for his comments. The initiatives we have taken to encourage early firearm registration have obviously worked. With almost nine months left before the deadline, over 1.1 million of the 1.8 million licensed firearms owners, about two-thirds, have already participated in this registration process.

The hon. member is aware that not all mail we send is received by its intended recipient. Some people have not filed an address change and, as the hon. member has mentioned, others have passed away. In fact, national media have reported that a large number of leadership ballots were returned to the Canadian Alliance as undeliverable. This is a common everyday occurrence that we do accept as part of the ongoing difficulties with any system. It is the responsibility of the firearms licence holders to report any change in address just as they must do for their driver's licence.

This is a public safety program. As such, it is much more than just a gun registry program. It is a multifaceted, practical approach that addresses the prevention of firearms deaths and injuries and crime deterrence. Screening all gun owners through licensing and tracking firearms along with minimum sentencing help deter, prevent and prosecute firearms crime.

It is clear that the firearms program is already successful. That is why Canada's law enforcement community recognizes and supports the firearms program as an important part of public safety. That is why national law enforcement organizations continue to support the Firearms Act. We are pleased that we are already seeing real life examples of the registry helping police fight crime. Information in the licensing and registration system will allow police to take preventive action. For example, officers can remove firearms when responding to domestic violence calls and they can more easily enforce court issued firearm prohibition orders.

Our government's continuing commitment is to public safety. I would like to thank the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville for the opportunity to bring these facts to the attention of the House.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I need more than just one minute to respond, because the inaccuracy that has just been displayed is unbelievable.

For example, to say that it is successful when less than 1.5 million gun owners have complied with this or tried to get a licence really is a joke. How many gun owners are there in Canada? The government does not even know. Is it two million, three million, six million? It has spent $700 million already and has barely scratched the surface as far as its stated task is concerned.

He made a comparison to the Canadian Alliance having a voting system that uses the mail system and having many of those envelopes returned. It is not a criminal offence not to vote in a Canadian Alliance election, but it is a criminal offence, with a penalty of five to ten years, for not complying with the program. To compare the two is absolutely ridiculous.

The answer to the question does not show how this prevents deaths. That is the whole point. The errors in the system make the whole system completely useless as far as prosecuting or preventing crime in any way is concerned.

I wish I had more time to elaborate on this, but the answer I got does not address the question I have, that is, how, with all the errors in the system, does it prove to be useful to the police in any way?

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are two parts to this program. I think the hon. member does not take into consideration the importance of one very initial program, that is, how individuals are actually trained in how to look after and maintain their firearms. Whether or not they are registered or whether for the moment we do not have their addresses in the records, we have instilled within those people the knowledge and ability to properly look after, care for, store and deal with firearms. That is very important. I think the hon. member appreciates how important it is that everyone who has firearms knows how to deal with them in a proper and effective manner.

For those people who have registered, are licensed and have now disappeared in the system, I know they are law-abiding citizens who have already gone through the legal process and quite frankly I ask and encourage them to contact the Canadian Firearms Centre to be re-identified.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:37 p.m.)