Debates of March 25th, 2003

Supply

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is precisely what I am trying to get across. We are in the same situation. We thanked the member for voting in favour of Bill C-68. The Bloc Quebecois did the same.

It is essential for the program to exist. The problem is that in its current state, it gives the Canadian Alliance ammunition to do away with it by citing poor management by the Department of Justice. More importantly, it was initially supposed to cost $2 million to administer the program. Think about what the Auditor General has given us. In 1995, the program was supposed to cost $2 million. To set up and implement it there was talk of $119 million, but $117 million would be recouped, reducing the cost of the program to $2 million. Implementing the program would cost $119 million less what was going to be recouped, namely $117 million.

In the meantime, the government noticed that it was hard to get people to register. In other words, it did a poor job explaining to people why they had to register their firearms and why there needed to be a registry and permits. It did a poor job and was forced at one point to waive the registration fee. This cost the government a great deal of money and, in the end, resulted in poor management of the program.

This is only one of the problems, but others have been raised. The government wants to implement a registry as large as this one and we see there are others it wants to implement. With the bill on the sex offender registry—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time is up. The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by asking the following questions: can we have any greater responsibility as legislators, as elected representatives of the people, than to ensure the safety and security of our fellow citizens, of those who have elected us?

You will understand that my answer to this is no. The members of this House have no greater responsibility than to ensure that the people of Quebec, the people of Canada, live in a healthy and safe environment.

You will understand from my introduction that I am opposed to the Canadian Alliance motion. The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of the firearms control program. We are, moreover, not alone in that.

This morning I met with representatives of the Canadian Police Association, an association that does a remarkable job all year long. They come to us once a year to share their concerns and express their grievances. This very morning in my office they again repeated their support of the firearms control program, and I was pleased to hear it.

I have also spoken recently with the officials responsible for the Coalition for Gun Control, including Dr. Chapedelaine and my friend, Caroline Gardette, also an exceptional person, who accompanied him. They, too, reiterated how important the coalition felt the firearms registry program was, and rightly so.

However, we condemn the administrative fiasco that the government has made of the program. All punning aside, this Liberal government's administrative fiasco has claimed two victims. First, obviously, the pocketbooks of Quebec and Canadian taxpayers who have paid for this program, and second, the very principle of gun control, and that is very serious.

Those who are ideologically opposed to the principle of gun control—such as the leader of the Canadian Alliance—have been all over the Liberal mismanagement, using it as ammunition to shoot down the very idea of gun control.

The Minister of Justice and his predecessors are largely responsible for this. They have made life a lot harder for the thousands of people across the country who advocate for gun control, because people are telling them, “Look at the fiasco, is it really worth it?” We believe it is, of course. But what a waste.

What a waste to give this kind of ammunition to the Canadian Alliance and its henchmen, who have been fighting against gun control since the beginning. It is ironic, by the way, that a party that claims to be a grassroots party is against gun control, when a majority of Canadians support it. Incidentally, the place with the highest percentage of support for gun control is Quebec. This little tangent just demonstrates the specific character of the homeland we share, Madam Speaker. So, it is ironic that members of the Canadian Alliance are ignoring what Quebeckers and Canadians are telling them.

On December 6, 1989, when the massacre took place at the Polytechnique, I was a first-year law student. I clearly remember being in a restaurant in Quebec City, where Université Laval law school students were celebrating. It was our class's first Christmas party. When we received the first reports of the massacre, during which 14 women were killed and 13 others were wounded by a mad gunman, in that instant, everything changed.

There are such moments in history. We feel we are at a point of transition, that everything has changed. We felt it immediately. People became subdued. They wanted to listen to the different radio stations to learn what was happening. The young men and women there said, “This must never, ever happen again”. The coalition was created in that instant, with the results we see today.

It is very unfortunate that the Liberal government was unable to manage a program that, really, should have been quite simple. Registering firearms is not very complicated. We have been able to land on the moon for 30 years now. So I refuse to believe that it is so difficult to register guns.

Despite transferring the firearms program from the Department of Justice, which proved its incompetence, to the Solicitor General, the government must still tell us what is going on. Not only that but, starting today, it must ensure that the program administration is transparent. It must ensure that the public and the members of this House have access to all the information needed to ensure that the government cannot, once again, prove its incompetence, as it has here.

In Quebec, the program was implemented by Quebec's ministère de la Sécurité publique and the Sûreté du Québec. From having spoken with staff at the former, I can tell you that things are going smoothly; program registration and application are going well, and they are sticking to the initial budget.

I should also mention that Quebec and the federal government have signed an agreement making the Quebec government responsible for issuing the permits, and this is also going well.

When the Firearms Act was being implemented the Government of Quebec cooperated by sharing its expertise on firearms and how to monitor them. Given that this works well in Quebec, we must avoid handing the program back over to the federal government, because there is no reason to do so.

We want to maintain the firearms program and we support the existence of the Bureau de traitement and the Centre d'appel du Québec, which do very good work and employ a significant number of people.

We want to avoid creating a federal firearms management agency, which would place the program back in the federal government's hands, since it has shown in the past that it is unable to manage such a program.

In conclusion, I reiterate the Bloc Quebecois' support for the firearms control program. We are going to vote in favour of the proposed budget this afternoon and I call on all members from all parties, including the New Democratic Party, to do the same. I am a little disappointed to hear my colleague and friend, the member for Burnaby—Douglas, say that he will abstain from voting. Despite the fiasco and the somewhat difficult situation that making this a confidence vote places us in, the fact remains that beyond all this and beyond the political posturing, the safety and security of Quebeckers and Canadians is what is most important. The firearms control program will ensure that there is better security for all our fellow citizens. I call on all members of this House to vote in favour of the proposed budget this afternoon and against the Canadian Alliance motion.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by agreeing with the way the member began his remarks. We have no greater responsibility in the House than to provide for the safety of the people of this country. I agree with him there. I think that is something we should all remind ourselves of.

I want to touch on one of the things he raised in his speech, which was that the Alliance was not listening to Canadians. I want to make the point absolutely clear that the gun registry is not gun control. The government uses that term all the time and gives the impression that this somehow is gun control and improves public safety.

I have scratched beneath the surface on this issue and I challenge the member and all Canadians to do the same thing. I will use the same example that he used.

Fourteen women were killed at the polytechnical institute. That was a terrible tragedy and I agree with him. However the registry would not effectively have prevented that. How does laying a piece of paper beside a gun prevent a madman from using it in a crime?

If in fact we had a licensing system that did the proper background checks and if we had enough police on the street to effectively enforce that, then we might have a better chance of preventing that kind of a crime.

That is why we in the Canadian Alliance have said that this is not gun control. If we were to use that billion dollars and begin to target the causes of violence and crime in our society more directly, we might do a better job.

When we were told that it would cost $2 million to the taxpayer to implement this program some people said that we should go for it. However, once it becomes a billion dollars we are talking about a completely different question. That is what we are raising today.

I appeal to the Bloc members to look at our motion. We are saying that a cost benefit analysis should be done of the firearms registry. The government has done that but it has not released it to us. Why is it hiding this?

Every opposition member should be calling upon the government to tell us why this is a better expenditure of funds than targeting the root cause of violence.

The member said that the system was working well in Quebec. A study done in Quebec indicates that many firearms owners in the province do not have licences nor have they registered. In fact, non-compliance in Quebec could be higher than in the other provinces. That is something for the member to ponder.

Without a cost benefit analysis how can the member support this program? Tax dollars are not unlimited. How do we know that we are not much better off spending this money elsewhere, targeting the root cause of violence?

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, in the six years that I have been a member of the House, if there is one thing that I have learned over the course of the work I have done here, including committee work, it is that there are some people who know more about certain situations than we do. As legislators, we have to be jacks-of-all-trades because we vote and make decisions on all kinds of things. However, there are people who are much more knowledgeable about different subjects.

This morning, for example, the Canadian Police Association came to reiterate its support for the firearms registration program. These men and women who work on the streets, in the neighbourhoods, in the country and in the cities say that despite all of the problems with the program's management, they believe in it because it is useful for them.

I would say to my friend from the Canadian Alliance that we must trust the experts, the police officers of Quebec and Canada, who are telling us to keep the program, since they use it.

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

Madam Speaker, the question that should be asked of the Canadian Police Association is: “If you were in charge of this money how would you best spend it? Would you rather have more colleagues on the street helping you enforce a licensing system?”

The Canadian Police Association has not seen a cost benefit analysis either. If it were to see that, if it were in charge of the funds and if it had to make the decision on the best way to target the root cause of violence and crime in our society, what would it then say?

That is not the question it is answering. I will tell the member right now that it is just the people with whom he has been talking. If he were to talk with the police in the street he would get a much different answer. I have been talking with the police in Regina and I have been given a very different answer.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

There is not much time left, but the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier can, if he wants, make a brief comment.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, they were quite unequivocal and clear. They support the program. Does this prevent them from asking for additional money for more police officers in the streets? Of course not.

However, the fact remains that they support the program. When it comes to this, I trust the expert judgment of this country's police officers.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Regina--Qu'Appelle.

The first thing I want to say is that public safety is of paramount concern to New Democrats. Violence from the use of firearms is of huge concern to us and a program around gun control is something that we very much support. In fact, one thing that needs to be stated very clearly today is that in looking at all the costs associated with what is often characterized as the registry, about two-thirds of the costs actually are associated with licensing of the program rather than the registry.

As federal New Democrats, we are on the record as being strong proponents of gun control, and I speak for all my colleagues on that basis.

However I do want to make it very clear that on the issue of the registry we do have different opinions and views within our caucus. Some of our members are opposed to a registry. They question the effectiveness of a registry and the procedures that it has required people to go through. Some of our members who have concerns or opposition to the registry are also very concerned about the impact the registry has, for example, on aboriginal treaty rights. We have voiced those concerns in the past.

We also have other members of our caucus who are in strong support of the registry and, indeed, gun control, as we all are, including our leader, Jack Layton, who, I want to say, was one of the founding members of the white ribbon campaign in 1991 which provided a voice for men to speak out against violence against women. This program now exists in 30 countries around the world. Our leader, Jack Layton, was a founding member of that organization. He has been very committed, as a city councillor and in his national role, to the issue of gun control and supports the need for a registry.

Having said that, I want to point out that the issue before us today in terms of gun control and the registry has to do with the amounts of money that have been used by this program and how that has been managed. We too, as New Democrats, have voiced these concerns very strenuously both in the House and in committee.

However, in terms of the registry I want to point out that the Coalition for Gun Control, which has about 300 member organizations, including safety, health, police, and suicide prevention experts, has pointed out and has provided information that in the 1980s, on average about 1,400 people were killed with guns every year. That was reduced to about 1,000 people per year by 1999. Those are significant improvements but clearly there is an enormous amount of work that still needs to be done.

I will quote from the Canadian Police Association, which is on Parliament Hill today visiting many members. It points out that “registration increases accountability of firearms owners by linking the firearm to the owner”. It says that this “encourages owners to abide by safe storage laws”. It also makes the point, and it provided a whole brief, that “registration is critical to enforcing the licensing”. It points out that “without registration, there is nothing to prevent a licensed gun owner from selling an unregistered weapon to an unlicensed individual”. It gives a number of other reasons as well.

I would also point out some of the concerns that have been expressed by members of the Coalition for Gun Control. Dr. Richard Schabas, the former medical health officer for Ontario, says in his brief that:

Prevention is rarely glamorous. Gun control is no exception. The deaths and injuries prevented don't grab headlines. It is often all too easy for governments to lose sight of the benefits and to see preventive programs as a tempting target for cost-cutting. As the Government of Ontario learned from the Walkerton tragedy, you never stop paying for your “savings” in prevention.

I think that is a very powerful reminder because part of the tragedy with the Walkerton situation was the privatization of water control systems and operations in the Province of Ontario. As a result of the tragic deaths that took place there that was under public scrutiny as the inquest unfolded.

As federal New Democrats, we want to firmly place on the record today that the government's proposals to privatize the gun registry is something that we will firmly and strongly oppose. We think this is a completely false premise, to privatize the program or to outsource, as the Minister of Justice likes to say. We should be looking for greater accountability and controls within the government operation and management of the program.

I have made it clear that within our caucus there are different views about the registry itself. We respect the diversity of those views. However we have also, as a caucus, very much focused on the management of this program. In fact our finance critic, who has very ably done a job at the public accounts committee, the member for Winnipeg North Centre, has been zeroing in on the incredible problems with the management of the program. The fact that 70% of the financing of the program has had to come through supplementary estimates rather than through main estimates is in itself an indictment of the way the program has had to be managed by the government, because it has been completely unable to account for the cost. As we know, the Auditor General has also zeroed in on the program and has said that the government has kept Parliament in the dark, that there has been a lack of transparency.

I want to be very clear that while some of us strongly support the registry and we all support the need for effective gun control in the country, we will take issue with the government in the management of the program. We will use every vehicle we have, whether it is the public accounts committee, questions in the House or any other forum to hold the government to account.

I agree with my colleague, the member for Burnaby--Douglas, when he points out that the mismanagement of the program and the scandal that has resulted has really placed the program in a great deal of jeopardy. That is why we now have these motions coming forward. Clearly there are very important issues around the fiscal management but we also know the Alliance has a different agenda. Its members want to undermine the program and they want to see it abolished.

This debate is important. However I would urge members in the House, whether they are on the government side or on the opposition side, that in terms of the program and the registry itself, we need to focus on the issue of financial accountability and ensure there is an effective program in place.

On the question from the Alliance member earlier, as far as the position of the Canadian Police Association is concerned, it has clearly stated that it favours the registry and it outlines the links in its work and how it is an effective tool. I do not think it is reluctant to speak its mind. It has its own independent opinions and presumably if it had some other strategy, it would articulate that. However clearly it has said that it is in favour of the registry.

I would just like to reiterate from the point of view of federal New Democrats, we are strongly in favour of measures of gun control. Public safety is very important. The violence that results from the misuse and abuse of firearms is of huge concern to people, whether they are in the urban environment or in smaller communities. How these weapons are used and how they are a major contributing factor to violence in our society is something about which we are very concerned.

We have different opinions about the registry. We are very respectful of that and we work within that in our caucus. However we are with one voice when it comes to the management of this program and we oppose the privatization of the registry. We will be clear in holding the government to account in ensuring there is proper management and ensuring there is effective gun control in the country.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East, our House leader, for her comments on this important motion.

Once again to be very clear, I oppose the motion. Were there an opportunity to vote on this opposition day motion, I would vote against the Canadian Alliance motion. I would be in support of strong and effective gun control legislation, both licensing and the registry. It is not a votable motion.

However, as we all know, there will be the vote later in the day which the Prime Minister has declared as a vote of confidence in the government. That is, as I indicated earlier, the dilemma in which those of us who do not have any confidence in the government on the one hand but support the principles of strong and effective gun control, as set out in Bill C-68, are placed.

As well, I want to note a couple of other points with respect to the substance of this issue.

There has been a lot of reference to the report of the Auditor General and certainly a lot of, I think, well-founded criticism of the Liberals' incompetence in implementing this very important program. However I want to underscore the fact that the Auditor General, Sheila Fraser, said that it was too soon to judge the actual impact of the legislation itself. She said, “We did not audit Program efficiency or whether it is meeting its objectives”.

It is important to note that this was not an indictment of the objectives of the program. It was an indictment of the Liberal administration of a program which many of us believe is very important.

I want to point out as well that prevention of gun injuries and death is not cheap. Even operating at $70 million per year, this is obviously not cheap. However I would point out that there are other safety and prevention programs in place as well on which we recognize we have to spend money.

The meningitis inoculation program that was initiated in Quebec last fall, which came in response to 85 cases being reported in 2001, cost the one province $125 million to save lives. However the fact of the matter is that more than 1,000 people die every year in Canada as a result of guns compared to 3,000 who are killed in automobile crashes. For example, in New Brunswick the federal government is investing $400 million to widen a stretch of highway known as suicide alley, where 43 lives were lost between 1996 and 2000.

The point I am making here, and my colleague might want to comment, is that we cannot put a price on human life. If this program will help to reduce the number of injuries and deaths, whether it is from suicide or weapons that are not stored safely, and if it will help the police to track perpetrators of these crimes, it is money well spent. Our challenge now is to try to get the government to ensure that it is also money which is spent wisely and effectively.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, of course the member for Burnaby—Douglas is correct. How can one put a price on the issue of public safety and the lives that are lost? This is something with which I think all members of the House would agree.

However, in dealing with the motion today and the votes that will happen tonight, what is also at issue is the credibility of the government in managing this important public program around public safety, whether we characterize it broadly as part of gun control or whether we focus in on the registry itself. I think we have more than enough information from credible independent sources, such as the Auditor General, to point out that the government has really botched the way this program has been run.

It is very important to keep in perspective the bigger objectives of what we are trying to achieve here but also to recognize that we also have a job to do in holding the government to account and to ensure that there is a full analysis, an accounting and transparency about the way in which these funds are being used.

From that point of view, we should be welcoming input from organizations like the police association or the gun control coalition or from people or who are opposed to the registry. When we have that kind of transparency, we then can ensure that the program is managed in a sound and efficient way and that it meets the public objectives of public safety and gun control.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on something the member said. She said that the Canadian Police Association supported this. I hope the association is not playing politics and is actually representing its members. We have Chief Julian Fantino saying, “a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them”. There is an obvious disconnect to the police I am talking to and what the member is saying.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is rather shocking that a member would attack an organization which has a democratic process for arriving at whatever position it takes. I am sure it is not totally unanimous. I am sure any one of us could find a member anywhere with a different view. This is an association that obviously has done its work. This is its view and I would expect that the member would respect that even if he does not agree with it.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I too wish to say a few words on the opposition motion before the House today. If the motion were votable, I would be in support of the motion before the House today. I will be voting tonight in opposition to the additional money for the gun registration bill, as proposed by the member of the Canadian Alliance.

My main concern is public safety, which has to be the main concern. The debate is how we achieve the maximum amount of public safety. Our party has a very long and proud record of supporting gun control bills in the House of Commons.

I was first elected in 1968. I and my party have supported many gun control bills over the years, including restrictions on long guns, the firearms acquisitions certificates, the fact that people have to be checked out before they can get an FAC and issues of that sort. We have party policy in support of gun control. What we do not have in the NDP, and I want to make this very clear, is we have no position as a party on the gun registry bill.

I would like to give a little history about where the NDP has stood. I was not a member in 1995 when this bill came before the House of Commons. I was a member of the House of Commons in 1968. In 1993 I took a four year sabbatical, thanks to my voters, and came back in 1997. They made the wise decision. I learned an awful lot from that sabbatical. One thing I learned was to listen to my people. That is why I take this position now on Bill C-68.

When we go back to Bill C-68, at that time there were nine members from the New Democratic Party. The leader of the party, Audrey McLaughlin, and eight of the nine members voted in opposition to Bill C-68. One member voted in favour of Bill C-68, my friend from Burnaby—Douglas, who has taken a very principled and consistent position on this issue over time, and I commend him for that.

The first time I had a chance to vote on the provisions concerning Bill C-68 was in 1998. We had an opposition day motion before the House of Commons on Bill C-68. At that time 11 members of the NDP caucus voted in opposition to Bill C-68 and 9 members of the caucus, including the members for Vancouver East and Burnaby--Douglas, voted in favour of the provisions of Bill C-68.

At the provincial level, there has been opposition to Bill C-68 from the Manitoba NDP government, the Saskatchewan NDP government and from the Yukon territorial government. In fact the Saskatchewan NDP government is part of the court action to try to stop the federal government from going ahead with Bill C-68, the bill to register guns.

Today, the Saskatchewan NDP government, which is the most progressive, social democratic government over the last 50 to 60 years anywhere in North America, does not co-operate in the prosecutions of people violating the gun registry bill. I support the position my provincial government has taken.

That is a little history about the NDP on this issue.

What I want to do today is to point out, like my House leader from Vancouver East, that in our caucus we come from different perspectives and different points of view. We respect each other's points of view. We come from principled positions, and the member for Burnaby--Douglas has certainly taken a very consistent principled position and I respect him for that. I would do the same thing on the other side of the issue, reflecting what I think is right and reflecting what my constituents certainly tell me is their position.

In a democratic Parliament we should have more opportunities to speak our minds and speak on behalf of our constituents in terms of for what they elect us to come here. There is too often in our parliamentary system a throttling of, in essence, free speech by members on all sides of the House. It is the kind of parliamentary reform we should be looking at in getting a true reflection of the Canadian public.

The registration bill, Bill C-68, is not about gun control. We favour gun control. It is about the registration of firearms. In my opinion, and the opinion of people I represent, the registration of firearms simply does not work in reducing the number of illegal weapons in the country or in reducing the number of murders in the country. There is no evidence of that whatsoever. If it does not work, we can spend the money much better elsewhere to make our streets safer and to have public safety in our country.

Handguns have been restricted and registered for a number of years in Canada, yet Statistics Canada tells us that over 75% of the people in this country who commit homicides with a handgun do not register them. They have unregistered guns. When we talk to the ordinary police on the street and ordinary people around the country, it is hard to believe that if one registers a firearm one is going to deter any kind of crime in Canada.

Most crime falls into three categories. There is organized crime. I do not think we are going to see people who are involved in organized crime registering a gun. There are crimes of passion, the fit of the moment. Whether a gun is registered or not, if someone is deranged or is motivated to commit a crime of passion, that crime is mostly likely going to occur. The other way that a lot of people die from firearms in this country is suicide, and again I do not see what the deterrent would be to have people actually register guns.

The other point I want to make is extremely important to me. I grew up with first nations people. Our farm near Wynyard, Saskatchewan was right on the Day Star First Nation and one mile from the Kawacatoose First Nation. I went to school all my life with first nations people and support very strongly their treaty rights and their right to self-government. I can tell the House that the opposition to the gun registry among first nations people is very strong. Today the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations is challenging the legality of Bill C-68 in the courts. I support that challenge. I hope our first nations people win. I support our first nations people. In my opinion, it is a violation of their treaty rights and their hunting rights, which are actually enshrined in our Constitution. They should be protected for the first nations people of our country.

I have in my riding 12 first nations, 10 others and the two Indian bands that I have already referred to. I also have many thousands of urban aboriginal first nations and Métis people. I have Métis people in the rural part of my riding. I stand with those Métis people in their opposition to the registration of firearms as a violation of their rights and privileges.

Those are some reasons why if this were a votable motion I would be voting in favour of the motion, let alone the feedback that we get from our constituents. I remember running into an 80 year old grandmother over Christmas who registered her 13 guns. She kept one, she said, because she used to shoot racoons and badgers from her back porch when she lived on the farm. She was annoyed that she had to register these guns. She felt that it was a violation of her rights, but she did it anyway because most Canadian citizens, of course, are very law-abiding.

I want to make one last point, which is the cost of this program. I have been in Parliament since 1968 except for my four year sabbatical and I can honestly say that I have never seen such a financial boondoggle of mismanagement in my life. It is something that is absolutely incredible. A program that the minister of justice of the day said would cost $2 million is now going to cost more than $1 billion. When the Canadian public thinks about that, it can think of so many better ways to spend that $1 billion.

In Saskatchewan, a $60,000 firearms safety program was cancelled because of the lack of money, yet the Liberals will shovel millions and millions of dollars to their friends in Groupaction and other groups and consultants right across the country.

I was reading in one of the newspapers that a consultant was billing the government for $1,000 a day 365 days a year in terms of the gun registry program. With that kind of financial boondoggle, there is no way under the sun that I can vote to add another $59 million or $68 million for the registry, not when we have this public squandering of money. I appeal to the government to come to its senses in terms of this financial waste and financial mismanagement.

Let us just think what could be done with that money: more hospitals, help for children living in poverty, affordable housing, public safety, and police officers on the streets. Two Regina police officers were in my office this morning and they told me that we need more officers on the street. With that, I ask members of the House to support the motion before the House today even though it is not votable.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Cumberland--Colchester.

I listened to the member's speech and was impressed with his comments and the fact that he took a look at this and is following the issue objectively. He has taken a principled stand.

It is a complicated issue that is much more basic than the government would like us to believe. I would ask Canadians to think about this issue for a moment in terms of the cost. At the end of the day and in terms of costs and the success of the bill, I would ask them to think about what has changed in their communities with regard to long gun registration. What has changed on the street they live on? What has changed in their homes? What has changed in the overall safety of our schools and our communities after we have spent $1 billion trying to register long guns that are owned by law-abiding citizens?

As the member for Regina--Qu'Appelle already mentioned, screening was already in place under Bill C-17, the Conservative gun control bill. Firearms acquisition permits were all there previously as well.

This long gun registration is smoke and mirrors. It just obscures a number of other issues concerning justice, safety and public safety. It does nothing to make our streets any safer. It does not take guns out of the wrong hands, because Bill C-17 did that. It does not strengthen the storage responsibilities of a gun owner, because Bill C-17 did that. This legislation does not put in more licensing requirements, because Bill C-17 did that.

What it does is force all of the people who have already jumped through the hoops under Bill C-17 to prove they are safe firearms owners and to register their firearms. The very group of people that we have already spent hundreds of millions of dollars on to ensure that they are not a threat to public safety are now being told they have to register their firearms. But the people who are a threat to public safety, the criminals, the bike gangs, the organized crime groups in this country who routinely eliminate their competition, are not about to register their firearms.

Not only that, the majority of gun owners, I would say, have no criminal records. Many of them are seniors who have hunting rifles in their homes that are used for deer hunting or duck hunting. They have refused in large numbers to register their firearms. I do not have one or two neighbours in rural Nova Scotia who have not registered their firearms, I have hundreds. These people stop at stop signs. They do not have any speeding tickets. They have said, “We feel this is ridiculous and we are not going to register”. They are law-abiding men and women, yet the government is going to force this down their throats. There is something seriously wrong with this.

I have no difficulty at all rising in this place and supporting reasonable, responsible, sensible gun control. I have a responsibility to my constituents to do that. I have a responsibility to members of my own family to do that. Safe storage, safe handling, screening of prospective gun owners, common sense: all of it was there under Bill C-17.

The new bill was brought with the promise that it would cost $2 million a year to operate. We spent $1 billion, with which every page in this place could have free tuition and, not only that, every one of their brothers and sisters in this country could have free tuition. If we want to help the youth in this country and do something with a billion dollars, there are a lot of things we could with it. For $1 billion, every university student in Canada could have free tuition this year. If we want to spend $1 billion wisely, I suggest that this would be a wise use of $1 billion.

This has stirred up more controversy and, quite frankly, wasted more debate time in this House, when there are other issues we should be debating, than any other subject I am aware of. We should take a look at the Auditor General's report. I urge Canadians to read it. She stated that the Department of Justice currently estimates the program costs at $1 billion but this estimation “does not include all financial impacts on the government”. In November 1994 when the government tabled its bill, the estimated cost of the program was $2 million. This $998 million is not just a miss; we are not even on the same map.

She also stated, “...the Department of Justice did not provide Parliament with an estimate of all the major additional costs that would be incurred” even though there was a “regulatory” requirement for the department to do so. What does that say? The government broke the rules, broke its own laws and kept Parliament “in the dark”. Somehow that is okay because the government will mask this as public safety instead of just filling Liberal pockets like they usually do.

Funds were allocated to various other government entities such as Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board. Of the $126 million allocated to these two departments, only $7 million was actually used by them, with “$119 million of the original $126 million” reallocated “to the Department of Justice for the program”. Canadians were lied to. The money was allocated to one department, was surreptitiously taken out of that department under the cover of darkness, and transferred to another department.

The Auditor General's report states that only a mere “30 percent” of the total funds of $750 million, which was the amount in 2001-02 used for the long gun registry, was acquired “through the main appropriations method”, meaning that 70% of the funding for the implementation of the program was acquired through supplementary estimates. That is not what the supplementary estimates are meant to be used for.

Again it is this: break the rules, steal from the public, persecute a group of people who have no criminal records and have never broken the law and make a decision that they have become a danger to society when there is absolutely no statistical evidence to prove that.

I have only a minute left, but I want to know when the government plans to start arresting all these people, because there is not a dozen or a half a dozen, there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands who have said, “We do not agree with this law. We have obeyed it up to this point. We agree with the safe handling, the safe storage and the courses and we agree that this makes us better gun owners and more responsible citizens, but we are not going to register our long guns”.

These are people's fathers, mothers, grandfathers and grandmothers. Does the government intend to start throwing them in jail because enforcement is what the Auditor General does and she now controls the package?

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member for South Shore a question.

I was talking to a member of the board of the directors of a publicly created company the other day. He was telling me that when the company has a capital cost project of any consequence at all it has a standard cost overrun procedure, an accountability automatically built in. He said that if a project estimate goes over 5% the officials and engineers or whoever is involved with the account must come back, report to the board, and explain why it is over 5%. If it goes to 10% or looks like it is going to be a 10% cost overrun the project must stop. That is a publicly traded company in the private sector.

Does the member think the same standard should be applied to the government? We know that when this bill was sold to Parliament and Parliament voted for it we were told that it would cost a net of $2 million a year. Now the Auditor General says it will be $1 billion in the end. This is a cost overrun of unbelievable precedent setting proportion. Does the hon. member think the government should be held accountable and should there be some kind of accountability for the government the same as there is in the private sector?

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely believe that the government should be held accountable, including every minister of the Crown who touched this project and allowed the cost overruns to continue. I am not a lawyer but in law it would be called aiding and abetting a criminal act. They aided and abetted $998 million of public money to be hidden and circumvent the parliamentary process.

It is not uncommon to have cost overruns in any capital project of 5% or 10%. Many members in this place would not disagree with that statement. If someone planned to build a house tomorrow, most contractors would say there is a 10% margin of error for capital cost overruns. However, I do not even know what the percentage is of $998 million versus $2 million. Is that 100,000% greater or something like that? It is a phenomenal number.

Yes, there will be cost overruns, but a criminal act has occurred. The main estimates are supposed to be put through the Parliament of Canada unless there are unforeseen costs, then they are put in the supplementary estimates. The Treasury Board supported this.

[An hon. member]

That's not a criminal act.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

That's right, it should not be referred to as a criminal act. It should be referred to as an omission of justice because that is exactly what it was. The ministers responsible for the Treasury Board, justice, and the subsequent ministers responsible for this knew they were not following parliamentary procedure and deliberately hid the costs from the Canadian public.

They went a step further than that. They also did not hold their deputy ministers nor their assistant deputy ministers responsible. They did not hold anyone who touched this project in the civil service responsible. It has always been my submission that politicians should be responsible for the civil service and not the other way around. I think in this case it is so blatant that the whole gamut, the entire group of people who touched this, should be held accountable for it.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the motion and I too will refer to the government's request for more money.

The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle came here in 1968, but I came in 1988. I was retired in 1993 and was recycled again in 1997. When I was here during the first term, our Conservative government explored the options for gun control. I clearly remember our caucus being given presentations on the different things that were available. Based on the advice from the department we were told the most appropriate things to include in a proposed gun control bill.

We chose safe storage of firearms, training and firearms acquisition certificates, but we specifically ruled out the registration of long guns. It was for a number of reasons, one of which was the cost, and department officials indicated there was no purpose in it. It was a possibility but the cost far outweighed any advantage so we took it off the table.

If I remember correctly we brought in Bill C-17. It passed and has done well but there was no long gun registration. For some reason the justice minister of this government decided on his own when he came in--like a private mission--that he was going to have a long gun registry no matter what the cost, inconvenience or benefit. He was going to ram it through.

I understand that the government has now said that this will be a confidence vote. That raises questions about how one could have confidence. How could anyone have confidence when the Auditor General said it has been a cover up, that the government has not consulted Parliament, and that its cost overruns have gone from $2 million to a billion dollars to implement the program?

How could we have confidence in that system? I have a man in my riding who registered one gun and he received five registration stickers. What does that tell us about the ability and credibility of the gun registry? He got five stickers so he could pass them out to his friends if he wanted to. If the police were to check the guns they would look like they were registered but they would not really be registered anywhere. They would be the wrong guns. It is incredible.

Another man brought in a cancelled cheque. He paid his bill in 2001. The registry will not acknowledge that it received the money even though he has a cancelled cheque. It is stamped on the back that it was deposited by the firearms registry but it does not know where the money went. How could we have confidence in that?

Another gentleman, a doctor in Springhill, who registered five guns only got three registrations back and he still does not understand what is going on.

[An hon. member]

And he is a danger to society.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Oh yes, he is a very dangerous man, this doctor.

How could we have confidence in a system that the government said would cost $2 million and then all of a sudden it is at a billion dollars?

I believe that there has been a lot of misleading information. I talked to a former employee of the gun registry. He told me that when the computers broke down employees were instructed to tell people they were upgrading the computers when in fact they were just broken. These are the billion dollar computers.

I do not understand how we can spend a billion dollars when all that is being done is the creation of a databank with firearms and owners in it, tying the two together and providing access. I do not know how that could cost a billion dollars. But the employee was told to mislead Canadians citizens when they called and tried to get their registration done. They were told to say they were upgrading the computers when in fact the computers were just broken.

We remember the words of the Auditor General who said the House was kept in the dark. I do not know how we could have confidence in a system like that.

This is not about gun control; it is about gun safety. We should talk about gun safety. That is the issue here. How can we make guns more safe, how can we make storage more safe, and how can we improve the storage and ensure that they are safe? Registering them does not make them safe. A registered gun can still be used for the same purposes as an unregistered gun.

We have required handguns to be registered for decades in this country and they are still used for criminal acts and violence against people. Does registering them do any good? It is about squandering valuable funds. It is an incredible waste of money.

These funds could buy according to one estimate, 200, 300, 400, 500 or 600 MRI machines in the country. Every single person in this Parliament has people waiting to have an MRI. MRIs could save far more lives than registering rifles. In fact, I do not believe registering rifles will save any lives.

The same amount of money could be used for drugs for seniors and the disabled. Speaking of safety, it could help buy helicopters. We could do drug research. Instead, we are pouring the money down a black hole. How could anyone spend this much money on a databank, a computer that takes people's names and their gun details, and associates them and gives access to it. It is not complicated and it should not cost millions of dollars. I predict that some day when the auditors get into this and find out where the money went, then we will find some awful information.

Last December the government asked for $72 million more to add to this program. Then for some reason it withdrew that amount. Now the government is asking for $59 million. I wonder where the $13 million difference went? Did the government not need it in the first place, or did it find someplace else to bring it in from? Why did the government ask for $72 million then and $59 million now? Next year it is projected to be $113 million.

We say enough is enough. People who say they support the gun registry regardless of how much it costs is a stupid thing to say. Do they say we will have the gun registry whether it costs $2 million as it was originally projected or a billion now, $2 billion, or $3 billion? Does cost not matter? I do not see how that response can be accepted. We certainly do not accept it. Every dollar must be spent wisely.

We must get value for our taxpayers' dollars because it is their money. We should be responsible and ensure that it is spent wisely and that it is accountable.

The Conservative Party is against the gun registry. We are totally in favour of gun control and gun safety. We brought in Bill C-17 which was a wise and sensible approach to gun control. However, before all the aspects of Bill C-17 were even implemented the Liberals brought in this other layer of gun registry even before they knew if Bill C-17 would work or not. It has worked well and most gun owners now comply and agree, use it and value it.

Before it was even allowed to be totally implemented the government brought in this other registry for long guns. Officials told us that it was not even sensible and viable.

[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.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of my colleague from the Canadian Alliance. Before putting a question to him, I want to put on the record a couple of statements that have been made by people working on the front line against violence.

For example, I am sure the hon. member is familiar with the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime. Steve Sullivan, who is the president of the resource centre, said:

I am alarmed that the voices of the victims of gun violence are being drowned out by the controversy over costs. We know from the polls that the majority of Canadians continue to support this law in spite of the costs, but the vocal opponents seem to be dominating the media and the political agenda. We are here to say we have fought for this law and will not waver in our support.

That is a group representing victims of crime. The hon. member knows as well that the Canadian Police Association, which is on the Hill today, has strongly supported the bill.

Chief Vince Bevan, the vice-president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, has said “Six inquests over the past decade, three of them here in Ottawa, recommended licensing firearms owners and registering firearms. If this legislation saves even one life it will have proven its worth”.

The Canadian Public Health Association and groups like the B.C. Institute Against Family Violence have said that this is critically important legislation.

If the Canadian Alliance gets its way this afternoon, every penny that is allocated toward gun control in Canada under the provisions of the supplementary estimates will be wiped out. In fact, most of that money is going toward licensing firearms owners, not toward the registry but toward licensing.

Therefore, what the member and the Canadian Alliance seem to be saying is that they do not believe in the licensing of firearms owners or that people should have a background check before they apply for a firearm in case they have a record of violent crime or domestic violence. The Canadian Alliance is trying to wipe out every penny of money for gun control, including that for licensing.

How can the member justify that attack on public health and public safety?

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first, let me make it abundantly clear that I am absolutely, unequivocally in favour of gun control. I believe that if we want effective gun control we need to ensure that someone who commits a criminal offence with a firearm will never have a firearm again. That is gun control. If we want to effectively deal with gun control we must stop the smuggling of illegal firearms from across the border. That means putting more money back into the hands of enforcement officers.

The member from Burnaby quoted someone who said that if the registry even saved the life of one individual it would all be worth it. We are taking a billion dollars out of the security or law enforcement budget and putting it into a gun registry that is not working and will not work.

My question back to the member is, would the dollars not be better spent in more resourcing, more law enforcement officers and fighting organized crime?

Are we in favour of gun control? Yes, everyone is in favour of gun control, but is everyone in favour of a billion dollar registry that will be ineffective, that will not work, that we were guaranteed would not cost more than $80 million and which we are now in a place where it is becoming feverishly close to a billion dollars and could very well cost over $200 million a year to maintain?

Members should make no mistake about it. We want effective gun control but a registry is not doing it. All we are asking for today is a cost benefit analysis. We want the government to show us that it will work. Victims rights cannot do it, the government cannot do it and nobody in the House can show us, except perhaps the Speaker, that it is effective and it saves lives.

If we put more officers on the street and gave them more resources to fight crime I believe we will then see those lives saved. That is what we are calling for, effective use.