House of Commons Hansard #77 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was registration.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

Martin Cauchon Liberal Outremont, QC

Madam Minister? A promotion?

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Vic Toews Canadian Alliance Provencher, MB

Well, she certainly has been more attentive than any minister has ever been, so I am confused. I am sorry, Madam Speaker.

Clearly the Liberal government has from the beginning been more interested in the appearance of public safety rather than public safety itself. The current justice minister, the solicitor general and their Liberal colleagues continue to politicize the ideal of public safety, which all Canadians support, by suggesting that gun control did not exist before this government came along.

Everyone knows that is ridiculous and it is nonsense, yet the government continues to criticize the Canadian Alliance, which wants to bring in a responsible mechanism to ensure that guns stay out of the hands of criminals. Why do the Liberals not do that? They are simply too proud to now admit that they have made a mistake.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the member from the Canadian Alliance who just spoke. He said a few minutes ago that this program costs $1 billion a year. I would like to ask that he correct this information because I believe that the $1 billion to which he is referring is actually over a projected 10 year period. I think it is important that we talk specifically and accurately about the amount of money involved.

I would agree that there have been a lot of issues around the management of this program, but it is also fair to say that something like two-thirds of the costs that have been spent or are anticipated actually have to do with the licensing under this program. The Alliance always likes to focus on the issue of the registry, but in actual fact about two-thirds of these funds are associated with the licensing.

Is it the position of the Canadian Alliance that it is also wanting to scrap the licensing that applies to people who own firearms? Is the Canadian Alliance in favour of scrapping the licensing program when it refers to this $1 billion?

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Vic Toews Canadian Alliance Provencher, MB

Madam Speaker, if in fact I said $1 billion a year, that was a mistake. It was $1 billion up until this year, that we know of. That is what the statistics are. That is where the Auditor General ran out of paper to confirm this. Clearly the new estimate of the parliamentary research is somewhere in the range of $200 million a year.

In respect of the licensing program, the statistics are that the federal government spent, prior to this, about $10 million a year on licensing. We have gone from $10 million a year on a licensing program to now $200 million a year. Something is very, very wrong. Indeed, the member should be asking and joining with us to ask for this cost benefit analysis that the Liberals are hiding from Parliament. The Auditor General has already stated once that the government misled the House. Now it is trying to do the same thing again.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Howard Hilstrom Canadian Alliance Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Madam Speaker, I would just like to say quickly that I spent 30 years in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, with 14 years on uniform duties and 16 years on plainclothes work, dealing with the proceeds of crime, the financial drug business, so I know a little bit about the subject. My friend from Provencher was the attorney general of Manitoba, a justice minister, so over here we have the expertise to make a proper assessment.

I supported and support the firearms acquisition certificate program in Manitoba. I am a holder of an FAC, now of course a licence to possess and acquire firearms. My expertise is in the area of justice. What I have recommended to my party, and the reason that we support the licensing of individuals, is that the registry has absolutely zero use in fighting crime. I know that from personal experience. The statistics that are coming out today, if we look at what the police are putting forward, show that in most instances it has nothing to do with the registry and has a lot to do with other criminal activities.

Right now police resources are being wasted on the firearms registry. What we need is to have more put into the child pornography fight, which is something that could use $1 billion.

I would ask the member, based upon his experience as a justice minister, is there not a better use for this money than this stupid registry?

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

I will caution the hon. member on the use of certain words in the House. So far there have been two or three words that are unparliamentary, so I would caution the hon. members present.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Vic Toews Canadian Alliance Provencher, MB

Madam Speaker, in terms of having to administer a budget as a provincial attorney general where the federal government passes the laws and then the province has to enforce them, what has been happening, of course, is that the federal government continues to reduce its financial contribution but downloads responsibilities. This gun registry has been siphoning direct funds away from support of front line police officers.

When I was the attorney general in Manitoba we specifically supported the hiring of more Winnipeg city police officers. We would have liked to have seen more of that, as well as more RCMP officers. Simply, the money was not there because the government refused to support front line police officers.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Outremont Québec

Liberal

Martin Cauchon LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Madam Speaker, first I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the Solicitor General.

I rise today in response to the Canadian Alliance motion. I welcome the opportunity to address the House once again about the government's commitment to gun control, a commitment shared by a large majority of Canadians, and the government's action plan on gun control as well.

It is not a surprise that the official opposition raised this motion today. The official opposition does not support our government's gun control program and it never has. This is very serious.

When we live in a global marketplace, we must ensure that we keep building a society that reflects who we are as Canadians and what we are as a country. We will keep building a society that reflects our Canadian values. When we talk about the notion of gun control, it is about Canadian values. It is about culture. It is about ensuring that we will keep building a safe society.

When we talk about values and gun control, we are not the only country in the world to do that. There are other countries that have gun control with licensing and registration. Members opposite know that very well. I just do not understand why that opposition party keeps trying to make politics out of a serious program that is strongly supported by Canadians.

Canadians support our government's gun control program. An Environics poll taken in early January revealed that 74% of Canadians continue to support the gun control legislation. Even those who are closest to gun owners support the gun registration. As a matter of fact, 77% of respondents who live in homes where someone else, a spouse, a roommate, a parent or others, has guns support the program.

I now want to address the specific issue before us today. Essentially, there are two amounts being discussed. The first one, for $59 million, comes up in the supplementary estimates. The second amount, for $113 million, represents estimated expenditures by the firearms program during the next fiscal year.

All the hon. members of this House will remember that a request for $72 million was withdrawn last December. At the time, the minister explained that the program would operate until the end of the fiscal year at a minimal level. I confirmed this myself in the House.

Due to the approach taken at the time, this request, as we know, has now dropped to $59 million. This amount is essentially part of the $100 million allocated for this year. This is not new money.

For the next fiscal year, the main estimates include this amount under the firearms program. Canadians, and government and opposition members asked the government to show more transparency in terms of the costs associated with this program.

And it has. I confirmed, here in the House, that the program budget for the next fiscal year would be $113 million. I am sure that this amount will be carefully examined by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in its consideration of the main estimates a little later this year.

Let me turn to another matter raised in the motion. The opposition has referred to the efficiency of the program as well as the question of supporting the program. Have the Canadian people and various organizations across Canada given support to the government on gun control?

When we look at support, there is strong support from the Canadian Police Association, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, Canadian Safety Council, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Canadian Public Health Association, Canadian Federation of University Women, Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women, National Association of Women and the Law, St. John's Status of Women Council, Canadian Medical Association Journal, B.C. Institute Against Family Violence, Quebec Federation of Municipal Police Officers, and I could go on.

Those organizations understand why we decided as a government, as the Liberal Party that shares Canadian values, to proceed with such an important program that gives a great contribution to our society in terms of public safety. The opposition knows this very well. There are large numbers of associations working in public safety across Canada supporting such a valid program, in both licensing and registration.

There are two important components of that important safety tool that we have as a society and that Canadians share. The opposition talks about results and efficiencies. Let us look at the statistics. As I have said many times in the House, but the opposition just does not want to understand. However, Canadians understand why we decided to implement such a program and they support the program as well.

Today, according to statistics, public officials have refused or revoked over 9,000 firearm licences. Do members know what that means? It means that the system works and it works well. It means that through the screening process that we have put in place through the gun control program we have been able to increase safety in our Canadian society. This is something that we as Liberals and the government share with Canadians.

This is why we decided to acknowledge and accept the recommendation of the Auditor General. We accepted to meet with various organizations to prepare an action plan that would ensure that we keep going and heading in the right direction in the future. We want to ensure that as a government and as a party we would have a good, sound and efficient gun control program.

There are also other statistics. We put in place a notification line so that people would be able to get in touch with the department and inform us about problems regarding questions of public safety. These are problems that could raise concerns about the firearm centres. The firearm centres have received over 26,000 calls. People are using the system.

Law enforcement agencies across Canada have accessed the online registry 2.3 million times since December 1, 1998. These are results. When we are talking about values and results in our society, the number of lost or missing firearms has declined by 68% from 1998 to 2001. Finally, another statistic, the number of stolen firearms has decreased as well by 35% over the same period of time.

When we look at the numbers, overall the opposition is talking about a billion dollars and it knows full well that we are not talking about a billion dollars. All the permanent government programs somewhere down the road will cost a billion dollars, but at the present time the opposition knows very well what the numbers are.

The opposition knows very well that we have put in place a good action plan. It knows that these programs make all the difference in our Canadian society in terms of public safety. However, all the opposition wants to do is cheap politics.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Garry Breitkreuz Canadian Alliance Yorkton—Melville, SK

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of questions and I will quickly go through them.

I want to make a comment, before I ask my questions, on the bogus statistics that the minister has trotted out. For example, he said that the number of stolen firearms has decreased 35%. Just to point out how ridiculous a statistic that is the number of reported firearms stolen has decreased, but the numbers stolen is probably much bigger. The Toronto Police Association has reported that over 70% of the handguns that are used in crime are unregistered. People are afraid to even report this anymore because the victim now becomes the criminal. That is a bogus statistic.

I could do that with every single statistic that the minister has trotted out here. It is ridiculous when he talks about social values. What do Canadians value? They value money well spent, their tax money spent effectively reducing violence and crime in their society. Because the minister has refused to release a cost benefit analysis they are beginning to suspect that the Canadian Alliance is right and the Liberal minister is pulling the wool over their eyes portraying this as gun control.

Why is the justice minister hiding the cost benefit analysis from Parliament, the police and the rest of society? That is my first question.

My second question is, what are the police enforcement costs going to be? The Library of Parliament yesterday released a report that it will be $1 billion in the next few years. That is only one cost among many that the minister is hiding. The billion dollars that the Auditor General reported were not the complete costs. The minister has not told us what the rest of the costs are, why not?

My third question is, what will it cost to go back and correct all of the errors in the system? About 78% of registration certificates contain errors. Hundreds of thousands of firearms owners do not have licences. What will it cost to correct that? There are probably 10 million guns that are still unregistered. What will it cost to register them? There are 4 million Canadians in the firearms police database. What will it cost to go back and correct that? There are 5 million unclarified firearms in the system, incorrect and not verified. It is unreliable and the police cannot use it. The Regina Police Association says it has no use for this registry and it never uses it.

A lot of what the minister is saying is completely false. I have only given an example of five things that must be corrected and the costs will be horrific. The billion dollars has been wasted already and we have not even been told what it will cost to go back and correct this. When will the minister come clean with the cost benefit analysis?

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Liberal

Martin Cauchon Liberal Outremont, QC

Madam Speaker, in French we used to say “il s'agirait essentiellement d'inflation verbale”.

I cannot understand why the opposition keeps coming back using numbers that it knows do not hold water and trying to destroy the statistics that I just mentioned. Those statistics are indeed valid, have been approved and are supported by the various associations that I referred to. Having said that, if the opposition wants to talk about numbers--

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Garry Breitkreuz Canadian Alliance Yorkton—Melville, SK

I want a cost.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Liberal

Martin Cauchon Liberal Outremont, QC

He cannot stop talking either because he does not like what I am saying.

The moment I talk about Canadian values and public safety the opposition does not like it. The moment I say that gun control makes a good, strong contribution to public safety the opposition does not like it. It does not support the policy and that is it. It should come forward and tell Canadians that maybe it is a good program but that it just does not support it and politically speaking it cannot support it. At least for once it will be clear.

On our side it is clear. We support gun control and we will keep supporting gun control because it is good for our society and public safety.

Having said that, the opposition member says that a billion dollars has been wasted. I challenge him to look at the Auditor General's report where she said that a billion dollars was wasted. She never said that and he knows that very well. The opposition is trying to mislead Canadians and that I cannot accept as justice minister.

The opposition wants to talk about numbers. It knows what the numbers were for the centre for the last fiscal year. We are talking about $688 million for the centre. The opposition knows what the numbers are for this fiscal year and the coming fiscal year. We will be voting on that tonight and we will be pleased as a party and as a government to support that because it makes all the difference in our society--

SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Garry Breitkreuz Canadian Alliance Yorkton—Melville, SK

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Auditor General said the cost benefit analysis had not been done.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

That is not a point of order. That is a point of debate.

Five minutes have already elapsed in terms of questions and comments. Resuming debate.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Malpeque P.E.I.

Liberal

Wayne Easter LiberalSolicitor General of Canada

Madam Speaker, it is too bad that discussion had to close. The Minister of Justice was starting to outline some of the real facts on the issue, but I welcome the opportunity to speak to the issue.

What do we want from a gun control program and what do Canadians expect? I believe they expect a program that keeps guns out of the hands of those who should not have them and prevents illegal guns from entering our country. Also, we want and I believe Canadians want a program that respects the legitimate interests of hunters, sports shooters and others in society who use guns in a lawful way. Quite simply, we and Canadians want a program that helps to make our communities safer, but they do not want a program at any cost. That is what Canadians expect and that is what Canadians deserve.

Part of the answers lie in the common sense proposals of Bill C-10A. Before getting to why Bill C-10A is such an important piece of legislation, and I would ask the opponents on the other side to support us in that legislation, I want to make a couple of other points.

The Canadian firearms program is an important fit for my portfolio, that of the Solicitor General. We are confident that we have the strength in the portfolio to run this complex national law enforcement program. We are already consolidating law enforcement functions by moving the national weapons enforcement support team, or NWEST, from the Canadian Firearms Centre to the national police services which is administered by the RCMP on behalf of all police forces in Canada. This move places this crucial service in an environment more aligned with its enforcement support mission.

To align the rest of the Canadian firearms program operations as efficiently and cost effectively as possible and to make the Canadian firearms program fully meet its goal of public safety, we need Bill C-10A. Bill C-10A is critical to achieving a firearms program that better responds to the needs and expectations of Canadians while maintaining public safety. The sooner it is adopted, the sooner Canadians can reap the benefits of a program that is more efficient and cost effective while continuing to keep firearms out of the wrong hands and enhancing the safety of our communities.

Let me repeat that. Bill C-10A will make it possible for us as the Government of Canada to run a program that is more efficient and more cost effective--

SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Garry Breitkreuz Canadian Alliance Yorkton—Melville, SK

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are debating our supply day motion today. I think the minister picked up the wrong speech.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

That is not a point of order. The Chair is not here to make a comment on the content of someone's speech. Resuming debate.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Madam Speaker, I am surprised at the member's question because the whole thrust of his opposition day motion basically refers to inefficiencies in the system.

What I am explaining for him, and maybe he does not want to hear it, is how we can create those efficiencies in the system. Bill C-10A is a very important aspect in creating those efficiencies in the system. Let me repeat that to make this program more efficient and cost effective while continuing to keep firearms out of the wrong hands and enhancing the safety of our communities, we need Bill C-10A.

Let me explain what the bill does and how it does it. Bill C-10A includes amendments to the Firearms Act to provide better service and reduce costs. Bill C-10A simplifies the requirements for licence renewals. Bill C-10A increases the use of the Internet and other automated channels for applications and issuance of documents. Bill C-10A staggers firearm licence renewals to avoid a surge of applications in five year cycles. In other words, it allows efficiencies in the system.

Bill C-10A establishes a preapplication process for temporary importation of non-resident visitors. Bill C-10A streamlines the transfer process. Bill C-10A grandfathers additional handguns that were prohibited in 1995. Bill C-10A extends the terms of firearms business licences. Bill C-10A clarifies the licensing requirements for the employees of firearms businesses.

Every single one of these amendments will make the Canadian firearms program more accessible and responsible to the needs of those people who use the system. A program that is accessible and responsive to the needs of its users is a program that has a far better chance of meeting its goals. In this case the goal is public safety.

As Bill C-10A is passed, we will also implement the following changes for an improved, less costly gun control program.

The member for Yorkton--Melville has been on his feet on this issue so many times. I ask him, if he really believes what he himself is saying in terms of efficiencies in the system and waste of money, how could he and his party, the Canadian Alliance, possibly oppose Bill C-10A and all those proposals and efficiencies that Bill C-10A will give the Government of Canada, indeed the people of Canada, in terms of administering this program?

We will streamline headquarters and processing operations. We want to achieve greater consistency and better coordination. We will establish national work performance measures and cost standards for all aspects of the gun control program. We will work in consultation with the provinces, territories and other partners to achieve this. There is no question about it, some provinces have been opposed. We understand that is not an easy consultation and discussion to have but we are going to do our best to achieve it.

Federal and provincial gun control managers will be more accountable in meeting these standards. This will ensure, in my view, consistency of program delivery, quality and control of costs by all partners involved in the gun control program.

We will as well restrict computer system changes to those that are critical to achieving the core mission of the gun control program and to reducing costs. These improvements to the management and structure of the gun control program will be made by early 2004 or even sooner. They build on the cost saving measures that are a part of Bill C-10A. The aim is to establish a clear management framework for the program that focuses on its essential core business, the licensing and registration of firearms.

We are also continuing with the improvements that my colleague, the hon. Minister of Justice, has already been putting in place. The Internet registration system is working reasonably well. The government introduced online registration on February 7 and the Canadian Firearms Centre is receiving hundreds of firearms registrations and applications daily through its website.

Applications received online result in substantial cost savings to the program and faster service to the public due to simpler processing requirements. We are continuing to reduce registration processing delays. We are not all the way there yet, but we are improving that with the goal of processing properly completed registration applications within 30 days of receipt. We will be implementing a targeted outreach program.

Finally, we will honour our commitments to parliamentarians, to stakeholders and the public to seek their input in consultations this spring in improving the design and the delivery of the program. These consultations will give gun control program stakeholders, partners and members of the public an opportunity to provide direct input into this essential public safety program. We will also appoint a program advisory committee made up of members external to government with management and system expertise.

I encourage members opposite, if they really believe what they are saying, to support Bill C-10A and the estimates that go along with making Bill C-10A possible for us to have those efficiencies in the system.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Howard Hilstrom Canadian Alliance Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Madam Speaker, the Solicitor General asked us a really good question of why we would oppose Bill C-10A.

Bill C-10A perpetuates bad legislation that was passed back in 1995. That is what is wrong with Bill C-10A. It is continuing along with the path of Liberal gun control. It is not along the path of Canadian Alliance sensible firearms legislation.

Before Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, was passed, and I am saying this having been a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for 30 years, we could seize firearms from somebody who was going to commit a crime. We could seize firearms when a criminal was intending to use them or had used them. All the law-abiding citizen had to do was get an FAC, a firearms acquisition certificate and get checked out by the police. The Canadian Alliance supports that.

We support firearms legislation that is cost effective and effective at reducing crime. That is the difference. That is the question. The Liberals on one side have a mammoth system which is hugely expensive and which does not reduce crime with all that added expense. The Canadian Alliance wants to spend money on firearms legislation but it will be an effective one where we go after criminals and not after the law-abiding citizen.

Does the minister not see the difference, that the firearms registry targeted at law-abiding citizens is not doing the job to reduce crime? He has not been asked yet whether he would be willing to produce a cost benefit analysis substantiating the spending of that money. Will the Solicitor General provide to the House that cost benefit analysis?

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Madam Speaker, there were many points in that question. However I want to correct the member on one essential point, which is the problem the Canadian Alliance has with its misplaced logic on this issue.

I know the Canadian Alliance made a lot of political hey in the last number of elections and it wants to continue to do that but we are interested in making sure there is better public safety.

The member was offside when he said that the gun control program was targeted at law-abiding citizens. It is not. The gun control program is targeted at those who use illegal guns and those who might use firearms in the wrong way. The Minister of Justice talked a bit earlier about 9,000 registrations being refused. That was done to protect public safety. There were some concerns about those people who were applying and who might cause trouble in society.

The fact is that the system has worked in targeting the program, not at law-abiding citizens but at those with illegal and misplaced weapons.

Since NWEST was established, which is part of this program, it has assisted police on the front line with over 250 warrants. NWEST has assisted frontline police officers in 3,000 incidents. It is true that it has traced over 1,900 unregistered guns in co-operation with United States authorities but sometimes, because there is a registered gun in the system, it finds there is also unregistered guns, which are certainly illegal in this country.

What we have here is a difficult position for the Canadian Alliance. It is in such an entrenched political position that it does not want to see the good points in Bill C-10A which will make this system more cost effective and do what it was intended to do in a better fiscally managed way.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Julian Reed Liberal Halton, ON

Madam Speaker, today is Police Lobby Day. I have been lobbied by the Canadian Police Association and the RCMP who have been to my office already.

I am curious to know what members of the Alliance will say when the police lobby them and tell them that they support the gun program. When they are given the information as to the positive impact that the program has made so far, even though it is not complete, I wonder what they will say. I wonder what we could advise the Alliance to say to the police lobby.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Madam Speaker, it is certainly beyond me to advise members of the Canadian Alliance. They might not accept my advice in any event.

I spoke at the Canadian Police Association meeting yesterday and I had a very fruitful breakfast meeting with the Canadian Police Association this morning during which time it made its position very clear to me. I am looking at ways in which we can make this system work. I said at the beginning that there were some problems that we had to fix and that we were doing our very best to do that.

However the CPA and an RCMP officer who was at the meeting made it very clear to me that we were not to change the licensing and registry system. We will have to work within those parameters and make the necessary improvements.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Bloc

Robert Lanctôt Bloc Châteauguay, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to advise you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier.

We are obliged today to address a very important principle: the firearms registry and the necessity for it to be put in place. What is involved is a register, the recording of gun possession and the issuing of gun permits. We are obliged to defend the program today, but not the financial fiasco surrounding it since 1995. Where the problem lies with this program is not its underlying principle, but how it has been handled.

The Minister of Justice has just said that all the permanent government programs somewhere down the road will cost a billion dollars. When they wanted to establish the firearms registration and licencing program in 1995, they told us that it would cost $2 million in all, not a billion. The problem is as follows: when we are told that all programs cost $1 billion, how can they try to sell us on the idea that a firearms program would cost so little?

This is a big problem. Just because they are telling us it will cost x amount of dollars, now that the program is up and running, does not mean that the amounts will be any more accurate. Establishing a program requires an assessment of the real cost.

The Bloc Quebecois feels this is a program we must have, but not at the cost of the financial fiasco the Minister of Justice has created. The problem we must address today is whether the program is necessary. That is not where the problem lies; it lies in the way money is being spent in order to have a functioning system. Seven years later, if the Department of Justice had really done its job, we would not have be asking ourselves whether the firearms program is or is not any good.

Unfortunately, the motion calls for reduction of funds for the firearms program in order to eventually eliminate it. This program must exist. Moving it from Justice to the Solicitor General does not mean it is going to be made to disappear and that the Justice Department's incompetence will not come to light. We must be given the real costs and the breakdown of where this money went.

Today we are aware that opposition to the motion does not have to mean we are against the program, or vice versa. Today we must say that the program needs to be retained, but the government must be required to explain the reasons for the financial fiasco.

It is essential to protect the people of Quebec and Canada in order to avoid a repetition of senseless killings like those that occurred at École polytechnique de Montréal on December 6, 1989. According to the surveys conducted in 2003, 74% of people support this program, developed in response to pressure from those affected by the tragic events at the Polytechnique and from the public generally. But we cannot go about this blindly; this program must not become another fiasco because it is being handed off to another department without a closer examination of what happened. We need to have a detailed report of where all the money went.

For instance, between April 2000 and February 2002, the Department of Justice spent $16 million on advertising and $3 million on inviting hunters to have unforgettable experiences. Almost all of this money went through Groupaction. That explains everything; to us anyway.

We absolutely have to get to the bottom of where this money went. It is not enough to say, like the Minister of Justice says, “The entire program will one day cost $1 billion.” That is not true. The entire program should not cost $1 billion, especially when in 1995, we were told that it would cost $2 million. Imagine, $1 billion. That would take years. Maybe his grandchildren will see the day when that amount is reached. Come on. It is much more serious than that.

To be told today that the cost of setting up the program, registration, and issuing permits is on the mark, is not true. Since the program was developed based on estimates that were made, how can there be such a large discrepancy? This discrepancy is unacceptable. We are told that in seven years, costs have gone from $2 million to as high as $788 million today. Remember that a third of the people have not registered their firearms. This is serious.

Now we are supposed to believe that modifications to Bill C-10A will reduce the costs considerably. However, there are some things that I would like to share with the House right now about this. In fact, there is a big problem with Bill C-10A. And I am not just talking about an administrative problem. Obviously, if the bill were to bring down the costs, we would support that. However, there are other, more important things that need pointing out.

When the government wanted to establish this firearms registry program, Quebec supported it. The government also had the backing and the expertise of the SQ. However, there is now concern that Bill C-10A will also create a federal agency to manage firearms that could, and probably will, be privatized. If that were to happen, it would strip away all of Quebec's responsibilities, by diminishing the powers of the chief firearms officer, who comes under Quebec's jurisdiction, and also by drastically cutting the funding for the Bureau de traitement and the Centre d'appel du Québec, which are currently a responsibility of the Sûreté du Québec.

So, this bill used Quebec's know-how and support to try to strip away all of the powers that are properly Quebec's. These are powers that work well, and are working better and better in Quebec.

Some provinces chose not to take part. That is why the government is once again trying to centralize the powers and to reduce the powers of the chief firearms officers, who are located in the provinces and in Quebec, powers designed to improve the management of the program.

It is important to remember that the Sûreté du Québec looks for a criminal record when issuing permits. I can assure the House that centralizing everything with federal agencies is not for the purpose of improving management. The purpose, once again, will be to appropriate powers and to centralize them.

It is important to remember that even though we are against the Canadian Alliance's motion because of its objective, this does not mean that the Bloc Quebecois does not support the firearms registry. On the contrary. The Canadian Alliance wants to scrap the firearms registry program altogether.

However, no one wants to give the government a blank cheque any more so that it can produce one fiasco after another. For seven years now, huge sums have been invested, and the firearm registry is not even complete. One-third of all guns have yet to be registered. But we must not lose sight of the problem: registration is voluntary. Therefore, if two-thirds of all firearms have been voluntarily registered at a cost of $788 million to date, with one-third still left, how much will it cost to “force or convince” the remaining one-third of all gun owners to register?

There is an attempt to make us believe that the money will always be available. I refuse to believe this.

We will be voting in favour of the supplementary estimates, in which the government is asking for between $59 million and $60 million to continue this program. But we will certainly not be voting in favour of allocating supplementary funds each time, without knowing how this money is being spent.

As I said earlier, just because the program is moving from the Department of Justice to the Department of the Solicitor General does not mean that we do not want to know where this money went. This is a huge amount.

With regard to the first part of the Alliance motion, on this point, we must know where this money has gone and details must be--

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

The member for Burnaby—Douglas.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

NDP

Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Madam Speaker, first I would like to say that I was one of the members who voted in favour of Bill C-68 in 1995. I continue to support the principle of this bill.

I strongly support the principles of strong, tough and effective gun control. I want to make it very clear as well how disappointed I am in the incompetent administration by the Liberal government of the program. It has made our challenge a lot more difficult, frankly, those of us who strongly support effective gun control, to take the message out to the Canadian people. It has given ammunition to the Canadian Alliance which from the beginning has done everything in its power to destroy the program, to kill the gun registry and to in effect suggest that we not fund this important program.

I want to pay tribute to the Coalition for Gun Control and to other groups including the Canadian Police Association, which is on Parliament Hill today, to the Canadian Public Health Association and to others who have made a strong and powerful case for the need for strong and effective gun control legislation, and that means both licensing and registration. There are many examples of the need for that.

The Canadian Public Health Association said just last month:

The public health communities are on the record saying that strengthening the laws has contributed to a decline [in firearms-related deaths]. The research is abundant... The areas where we have seen the greatest progress are in the deaths associated with rifles and shotguns. The rate of homicides involving firearms has declined by over 35 per cent since 1991 and the rate of homicides with rifles and shotguns, the focus of the legislation, is at its lowest in 25 years.

I would note as well that this is a very grave problem. Guns kill more youth in the age group between 15 and 24 than cancer, drowning and falls combined.

I stand here today to thank the hon. member for his comments and to make it clear that I strongly support the principles of the legislation. I believe it must be funded properly to enable us to carry forward the essential program, both in terms of licensing and registration. Yes, we have to take tough steps to ensure that it is an efficient program and that there is no waste and incompetence as the Liberals have implemented it so far.

Finally, I want to note as well that in the vote this afternoon many of us are in a very difficult position because the Prime Minister has said that this is a vote of confidence in the government. Do we have confidence in the government? He has put the whips on.

I certainly do not have confidence in this government but on the other hand I am not prepared to stand and vote with the Canadian Alliance to destroy gun control in the country. That is the dilemma we are in. I expect that I will abstain on the vote because on the one hand while I cannot vote confidence in the government, on the other hand I will not stand and vote with the Alliance that wants to destroy the gun control program in Canada.