Debates of May 27th, 2003

Supply

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Chair, 20 minutes goes by very quickly when you have an exceptional number of questions for the minister.

I am going to immediately address the fiasco still being discussed, firearms, which is an important issue. To think I have to rush through this. The Bloc Quebecois has always been in favour of a firearms registry. But how is it that, today, we must talk about a fiasco, not a registry as such, nor the principle, but the way it has been managed.

Motion M-387, presented in the House by an independent member, asks the government to immediately suspend application of the Canadian Firearms Program. The Bloc Quebecois is asking for one thing in order for Canadians and Quebeckers to respect this registry. For there to be a public inquiry to see where the money went.

I was in the House when the minister said that each of the programs that the government is trying to implement costs $1 billion. It is impossible for each program to cost $1 billion. So, a public inquiry should be held to see where the funds went. People would then be interested in having a program and a firearms registry.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, on this side of the House, we have a fundamental belief in this policy of registering firearms. It is a question of principles; it is also a question of values. We will continue to apply this legislation and go forward with the registry, as well as with the permits.

That said, I greatly appreciate my hon. colleague's question, because this gives me the opportunity to come back to the question. Now, the program has been transferred to my hon. colleague, the Solicitor General, who has responsibility for it. However, this evening, I want to take a small liberty in order to come back to the report.

I am asking the Chair for some time, because this is important. I see the Chair, and I understand. Unless my hon. colleague is willing to come back with the same question.

[The Chair]

I insisted.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, essentially what the Auditor General's report said and what was questioned, was how reporting was done to Parliament. It was not at all a question of whether or not money was lost left and right. It was very clear that all of the money was very well spent. Why did the prices rise? All of that was very well explained for several weeks here in the House.

So, I think we need to put things in context. There was never any professional misconduct in the firearms file.

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

Mr. Chair, it is a privilege and a pleasure to rise and talk about this. I will focus my address mostly to the Solicitor General, although I believe the Auditor General will get honourable mention through the debate. I want to bring some things to the attention of the Solicitor General.

I want to focus on credibility of the gun registry system. The Solicitor General has said many times in the House that it is a great system and that the police depend on it. I want to point out to him that maybe the police should not depend on it.

My office has had several calls from people who say that they have tried to utilize the gun registry system and have found a lot of trouble with it. On May 6, I raised it in the House. I asked the Solicitor General about the problems that people were reporting. He said, and I quote from Hansard :

I am not denying for a moment that there are not bad examples out there. There are.

What we are trying to do...personally is talk to some of those individuals... we want to talk directly to those people who have problems and we want to fix those problems.

We are here to help the Solicitor General. We are going to help him make contact with those people. To do this, we have set up a website at www.gunregistry.ca. In the first two weeks it has been open, without even any advertising, we have had 34,000 hits at www.gunregistry.ca. That is 50 per hour on average and we peaked out at 359 an hour at one time. To say there is not a lot of interest in this is an understatement.

There are two ways to comment on www.gunregistry.ca. People can leave a comment that everybody can see, and members can go to the website right now and see those comments. There are dozens and dozens of them. Alternatively, people can send a letter to me, which I personally will turn over to the Solicitor General because he wants to hear from people who have had problems and he wants to fix those problems. He told me that earlier in the House. Therefore, if people have a problem with the gun registry, they should go to www.gunregistry.ca, click on comment, send me the comment and I will put it in the hands of the Solicitor General.

In any case, I want to bring to the attention of the Solicitor General a couple of the comments we already have received so he can get a flavour of the comments. They are from all across the country. We are going to start with one from Nova Scotia. This man started to register his firearms in 1998. He applied for his possession certificate and filled out the first forms. Twelve months later he started receiving a plastic firearms certificates. Over the next six months he received one or two plastic firearms certificates. Then he started receiving cardboard ones, until in the end he had 23 registrations more than he had guns.

This is the firearms system upon which the Solicitor General says the police are depending. If they went to this man's house, they would expect him to have 23 firearms which he does not have, 23 firearms that do not exist. Again, if something happened to this man, the estate would be held responsible to produce these 23 firearms, but they do not exist.

He says, “Me being a frustrated, law-abiding, tax paying, slow to anger Canadian citizen, I called his 1-800 number. After waiting on hold I got to talk to a real person. I take my time and I try to explain what has happened. I want to mail back these 23 certificates to the gun registry, and the staff person who answered the phone, not real polite, tells me this is not going to happen. Then she starts to give me a 20 minute lecture explaining what I have to do.

This is where my nightmare with the gun registry ends today, May 16, 2003. I hope I do not spend my golden years in jail for trying to be a law-abiding citizen, but out of frustration I have given up on the Canadian gun registry. If my nightmare can be corrected, good, if not, thanks anyway”.

I know the Solicitor General is going to take this letter and fix this problem because he promised he would do that right here in the House.

Here is one from a man in Saskatchewan. He says, “While the firearms registry cashed my cheque and sent me a new possession acquisition licence, which I received about a month ago, lo and behold I got another one yesterday. This was after waiting several months to get the first one”. His friend got his for free, but other people had to pay $80 each. He has two of these systems now.

Here is another one from Alberta. He says, “I applied for an FAC. I had my photo taken, wrote out my cheque and dropped the whole package in the mail. The wait began which indicated it was to be six to eight weeks. However I waited and I waited. I waited for eight months and then I called. I waited again. Six weeks more passed and then eight weeks more passed and my cheque had not been cashed.

I called the registry, the 1-800 number, and I waited on hold for over an hour. When the agent answered the phone she was abrupt and rude but did check the system and said that I was not in the system. I called back again a few weeks later and they said I was in the system even though I had not added anything.

Eleven weeks later a letter arrived from CFC. I opened the letter to find my acquisition licence with all my information but someone else's picture”.

This is the system that the Solicitor General is talking about that is so important to the police. This is a man who waited all this time for his licence and when it came it had someone else's picture.

This is people's lives, their rights, their property and ultimately their freedom with which these people are playing. The penalties under Bill C-68 are no laughing matter and the incompetence at the CFC put people at risk of arrest and imprisonment.

I have another one from Ontario. He says, “I submitted my wife's possession and acquisition application in the same envelope I put my own in. My wife got her licence at least one month before mine was even looked at, even though her references were never contacted. We know this because we asked and I, her spouse, was never contacted by the police to see if I had a concern about her having firearms. I didn't get the same treatment. While my references were also never called, my spouse was contacted by the police who wanted to know if she minded me getting firearms licence”.

Therefore it is the same family, same guns, same envelope, same applications and the man is treated differently than the woman. The minster might like to explain that one.

Here is another one. It states, “We registered our guns but when the registration papers came the owners name wasn't even on them”. This is the credible system that the Solicitor General says the police are depending on.

Here is one from Owen Sound, Ontario. It says, “Here is my experience: missing information on the registration card, incorrect information on the registration card, failure to return my phone calls, failure to answer e-mails, two weeks to talk to a human being and stickers that don't stick.

The stickers that do not stick are little stickers that when they are sent says “Here is your firearm identification number sticker, FIN”. These little stickers are to go on firearms. I received four of these stickers for guns that do not exist from another person in Nova Scotia who said: “Here are licences, certificates and stickers for guns that don't exist and the police somewhere think these guns exist and they don't. They are figments of the firearm registry's imagination”.

Here is another one from a man in Nelson, B.C. who registered two shotguns and he got his certificates and he got his stickers but there is no way to identify where the sticker goes and on what gun the sticker goes. The sticker has the date and the registration number but it does not say on what gun it goes. He has two guns, two stickers and he does not know which is which.

He says, “I am frustrated with the incompetence of the gun registry. I have requested assistance from the CFC repeatedly and received one non-helpful answer. I requested help directly from the Attorney General, and the Solicitor General, but neither has replied in any way”. I know that must be a mistake because the Solicitor General said he wanted to hear from people and would help solve their problems. We will give him this right away and then he can address it and I am sure he will.

Here is an interesting one from a man from New Brunswick. He owns a restricted handgun. He is law-abiding citizens and follows all the rules. He sold his house. He has to move from one house to the new house and to do that he has to have a transfer permit to move his handgun, his restricted weapon. Can he get it? He cannot get one.

He says, “I proceeded to call the firearms registry for 30 consecutive days approximately three times a day, at times on hold in excess of 30 minutes and gave up each time”.

That is 30 consecutive days three times a day. He wants to comply. He does not want to be a criminal. He does not want to move his gun illegally, but he has to have a permit, but he cannot get one. What did he do? He illegally transferred the gun to the new address. It did not make sense for him not to sell his house because he could not get hold of the firearm registry, so he illegally transferred his gun. He even told the RCMP he was going to do this and the RCMP said if it caught him it could charge him. In any event he was trying to comply. He moved the gun and then he had to re-register the gun. He re-registered it at the new address.

The firearms registry shows this gun still at the old address, so if the police, whom the Solicitor General says are depending on the system, go to that address, they will expect that handgun to be there when in fact it is at another address altogether. Again, double registration and no credibility for the system.

This is from Peace River, Alberta. It says, “I registered my firearms in October of 2002. I am still waiting for at least six registrations that have been in progress since December 2002. It is now May 2003. How long does it take to register six guns?”

That is a question the Solicitor General should answer. How long does it take to register a gun? What is reasonable, not an abnormality nor an aberration, but what is the normal acceptable level of service that a Canadian should expect from the gun registry? How long should it take to register a gun? Everybody has to provide service in business and in life. We as members of Parliament have to provide a service. The Solicitor General and the gun registry have to provide a service. There should be a level of service that is acceptable and one that is not.

Here is one from Sudbury, Ontario. It say, “I have in the past waited for hours on the phone, talked to as many as 11 individuals to get my problem resolved, only to be told to call back because the individual who looks after it is not available. I have been told that although I feel that I have a problem, I really do not have a problem. One problem I have is the need to apply for replacement I.D. stickers”. These are the little stickers we talked about before. These are for guns that do not exist. They fall off. It goes on to say, “I think the registration provisions are needlessly regressive and complex while not aimed at the correct targets”.

Again, the same story. The one common thread through this is if we have a problem, we cannot get it fixed. This man has waited for hours on the phone, talked to 11 individuals and still has not got the problem fixed. He was told he did not have a problem, even though he knew he registered his gun in error. He made a mistake. He tried to correct that mistake and the registry said that he did not have a problem because it was not a mistake but it was.

This one is from Belleville, Ontario. It says, “It has been over two years since I submitted my registration for my firearms. I have submitted three inquiries to the registry as to the status of my registration because I have not yet received anything in the mail about the registration. Fortunately I kept photocopies.

My first inquiry was in June of 2001. I was told they did not have to be registered till 2003 and not to worry. Late in 2002 I inquired again with no response.

In January 2003 I sent another inquiry. In the last e-mail I informed the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Conservative Party that I needed help with this matter. Finally, I received an e-mail to say that if I did not register I could be charged”.

This is a man who says he wants to register his gun and asks where it is in the system. He is told not to worry and that there is no hurry. Then he gets an e-mail saying that he will be charged because he did not register his firearm. He goes on, “I am not a criminal, and this program has been so mismanaged that it is trying to turn law-abiding citizens into criminals. I would still like to have my firearms registered”.

The Solicitor General will get this letter and I am sure he will look after it.

This is another one from Victoria, B.C. It says, “From September to December 2002 I tried to register all my firearms online”.

It is the same old story; it is still not registered. This one is from North Saanich. It says, “I had approximately eight rifles registered with the wrong serial numbers by the firearms centre”.

That is eight rifles registered with the wrong serial numbers. What is the point in having a registry if they are registered with the wrong serial numbers? What good is that to the police if they have the wrong serial numbers? It goes on to say, “As well, last December I was unable to either fax, e-mail or phone into the firearms centre to confirm I had rifles to register. These rifles were left off my initial list in the initial registration by myself and my wife.

I guess the biggest complaint is, whenever something comes up, I feel as if the firearms registry employees have a big stick to wield and the innocent Canadians who are licensed to carry firearms for sporting purposes are being singled out by the feds for treatment”.

Again, there has to be a level of service and I will ask the Solicitor General to tell us what the minimum level of service is for registration of firearms. How long should a person wait on the phone before a human being answers the phone at the firearms registry? What is reasonable? One minute? Two minutes? What is it? I want to know what is the minimum standard of service. I am not talking about the odd occasion, I am asking what should Canadians accept and what should they expect when they call the firearms registry?

We have one person who called 30 days in a row, three times a day and waited as much as 30 minutes. I want the minister to tell us, what is the minimum level of service?

A dealer in Victoria said that the only way he could get a gun licensed and transferred was through the back door. The purchaser of the firearm knew somebody at the registry office and somehow it was done.

Here is a letter from an individual in Ontario who says that when he re-registered his restricted firearm he was sent a sticker to put on one of his guns. He said that all his registered handguns had serial numbers and that the gun he re-registered already had a serial number. The registry office, however, created another serial number and sent him a certificate and a sticker for it. This gun now has two serial numbers, and what the police will do with that I cannot imagine.

The Solicitor General says that they are depending on this but I do not think they should.

I have another letter from a gentleman in Nova Scotia who says that his wife attempted to register via the Internet in December 2002. She received a message back stating that the submission was not accepted. She re-tried but a message came back stating that the application had already been submitted. She did not know whether it was accepted or not so she sent a letter of intent. A message came back telling her to re-submit within 30 days from that date. When she tried to re-submit, the system said that the web page was not available. It goes on and on.

I have another letter from an individual in Mississauga who says that at no point was his wife or any of the references contacted, although one of the big selling points of the new legislation was the creation of a culture of safety. He guesses that the CFC was just too busy to bother calling.

These letters go on and on.

It is the same old story from a man in New Brunswick. He says that beginning in early November 2002 he began to actively register the firearms belonging to himself and his wife.

We will be turning over these letters, which have come from all across the country, to the Solicitor General. We are hoping he will keep the promise he made on May 6 when he said that he wanted to hear from people. We want people to tap into gunregistry.ca. We want them to send us their letters and we will put them in the hands of the Solicitor General. He has said that he wants to talk directly to those people who have had problems and he wants to fix those problems.

Could the Solicitor General tell us what minimum level of service we should expect? How long should a person have to wait when they call the firearms registry? How long should a person have to wait to get a registration back from the registry if the application is completed and done right? What is the minimum time that they can expect to do that?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Chair, first, I want to inform the member that the police do not depend, which is the word he used when he was referring to the police, on one system. The Canadian Firearms Centre and the firearms registry is one tool of many that the police services use in their work.

We have admitted that there were problems in the past, and the member went through a long rendition of problem cases, but in the last three months we have taken substantive measures to improve the system. He should not believe everything that he has been told because there are some real horror cases out there. I have to think that there may be some exaggerations.

I encourage the member to call the 1-800 number tomorrow. I called it tonight before I walked into the House. After my call went through I waited eight seconds before a person came on the line. We have improved the system substantially in order to do that.

I would like to mention some of the improvements that we have made in Miramichi, the central processing site. The response time for answering public inquiry calls has been improved. We have reallocated 10 resources from the data processing centre to the call centre. We have reallocated 10 resources from the exceptions handling unit. We appointed a call centre monitor to re-direct resources and calls in real time. We hired 20 to 25 additional staff for the phones, and back fills by May 5, 2003. The list goes on.

We have introduced electronic ordering of registration applications. We have modified the system to allow faxing of registration applications to clients. We have analyzed call volumes and call types, and I could go through those. The average response time on the English business hotline is 52 seconds. This was for the week of May 18 to May 25.

I know the hon. member continues to go back in history to around the year 2000. However the bottom line is that 90% of the time we are now meeting the 30 day turnaround time. I would be most interested in seeing the binder that the individual has. However we have improved the system substantially and we are very proud of the improvements we have made to the system since it came to the Department of the Solicitor General.

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

Mr. Chair, I have questions and comments in a number of areas that I want to make tonight for either the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General.

I will begin in an area that is very relevant to my city and my province. A lot of aboriginal people live in the city of Regina in Saskatchewan, and in my riding in particular. The city of Regina has one of the highest crime rates in the country. A lot of it is in the aboriginal areas where there is a lot of poverty, where many people are without jobs or have few opportunities and hence we have a lot of problems in terms of crime.

I understand that statistics now show that roughly 27% of the federal offender population is aboriginal people. The population of aboriginal people is very small in the country compared to the number of people in federal penitentiaries. About 50% of female federal inmates in maximum security institutions are of aboriginal background.

In terms of examining their estimates, what plans do the ministers have in terms of making sure first nations and Métis people have more opportunities? I realize that a lot of the problems are due to the lack of social, economic and job opportunities and the lack of education.

However if we look at our country as a whole, one of the great negatives is the discrimination over the years against first nations and aboriginal people. A lot has to be done in terms of training, skills and education. A lot has to be done in terms of economic opportunities for first nations and Métis people right across the country. Some progress has been made in the area. We are seeing more and more first nations and Métis people coming out of universities.

In fact, when I was at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon last fall I was surprised to find that more than 10% of the students in the law faculty now are first nations students. That is certainly a very positive step and a very good thing for the country and the first nations people.

What I want to ask tonight is what is being done in this area, as well as what is being done in terms of sentencing circles and alternatives forms of justice, restorative justice, the availability and funding of healing lodges, the whole area that is so important to the first nations people of Canada. I know the Solicitor General is very familiar with Saskatchewan. I hope the Minister of Justice has had a chance to study some of the problems that I am talking about tonight.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, since I became justice minister I have had the occasion to travel the country and meet with my counterparts, as well as with various members of different communities.

The point he is referring to is a real concern. For example, I was once in Saskatchewan having discussions with people of the aboriginal community, although I do not remember the exact number, of approximately 17% of the first nations people in Saskatchewan something like 70% to 75% of them were incarcerated. The member is right, we do have to address that problem as a community.

I am pleased to say that last year the department was able to renew our aboriginal justice strategy. We will be investing $57.3 million over the next five years in various programs that will help those communities. As well, we have renewed the court worker program and invested $5.5 million during 2002-03. This is a fantastic program and I will explain why. People are there to help aboriginal people, to explain the legislation and the court process, and to divert them to social programs when needed in order to ensure that some time down the road they can go back into the community and live a normal life.

As everyone can see, we have addressed the aboriginal concern with the renewal of our aboriginal strategy and with the court worker program. We are also involved in different projects across Canada with another national strategy that is in place, which is the national crime prevention program. It has given us wonderful results so far and we will continue with that strategy. We are involved in some projects with the aboriginal communities as well.

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

Mr. Chair, in the same area, could the Solicitor General tell us what percentage of the RCMP officers are of aboriginal background in comparison to the population of aboriginal people in Canada? Could he tell us what progress is being made in this area?

I have 12 first nations Indian reserves in my riding and several thousand first nations and Métis people in the city of Regina, in the part of the city that I represent. I am often asked why there are not more RCMP officers who come from first nation and Métis background. What is the percentage and what progress have we made or are we indeed slipping backwards in proportion to the population?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, I will have to get back to the member on the specific number but we are not slipping back, we are actually moving ahead. Fairly good progress has been made in terms of training aboriginal people to take on the role as an RCMP officer.

I have had several opportunities to go to areas where these RCMP officers are operating. It really helps to have an aboriginal RCMP officer in the aboriginal communities, in part due to the trust factor and due to the culture.

I can say at this stage that we are making progress and I will get back to the hon. member on the percentage.

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

Mr. Chair, I am pleased there is progress being made and I hope it is substantive once we get back to the answer.

In terms of what is being spent on RCMP officers, I noticed in the estimates that the RCMP officers in terms of the population have been declining in recent years. I wonder if the government has any plans to increase the number of RCMP officers in our communities right across the country. I am not speaking only of the aboriginal communities but of the RCMP officers in general because there has been a decline in the number of officers in proportion to our population.

Why has this happened and is there a plan to turn this around? One way to prevent crime is to have more officers involved in the community.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, in fact, we did increase funding for policing quite considerably in budget 2000-01.

In terms of the figures the member talked about, we would have to look at total police services in the country. I can tell him that three or four weeks ago I was at the training depot in Regina which is world renowned facility for training police officers. Of course the RCMP itself is world renown. Depot is working full out. It is full to capacity. In fact, the previous seven weeks prior to my being there it had a graduating class every week. We are working to full capacity to keep the human resources in place within the RCMP ranks.

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

Mr. Chair, I certainly have a lot of praise for the RCMP but my understanding is that the ratio of RCMP officers to population is in decline. I wonder if the minister can verify that, if not tonight at a later date. If it is in decline, does he know why that is happening and does he have any plans to turn that around?

My other question for the Solicitor General has to do with whole issue of gun safety. The registration has been a controversial issue but I do not want to get into that tonight. What I want to ask him about is the whole issue of the safety of firearms.

The majority of homicides or deaths from firearms in Canada are either suicides or accidents. I think that is something that puts the whole gun control issue into a bit of perspective. Yet we have some of the safety programs, such as one in Saskatchewan called SAFE which has now expired. There was a contract and it has now expired.

I am wondering why the minister's government would not be spending more money on the safe use of firearms for children and for adults since the majority of deaths by firearms actually occur due to accidents or suicides.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, as part of the whole firearms program, we recognize there are suicides and accidents with guns and one of the important factors is the safe storage of guns. That is one of the areas we are working with under the firearms program to get the information out there so that people understand the necessity of safe storage, how to ensure that guns are stored safely and that those kinds of accidents do not happen.

In terms of the program that the member indicated was cancelled in Saskatchewan, that was a three year contract. There still remains in place and it is in part as a result of that three year program, 450 training people in Saskatchewan I believe it is. It is one of the best percentages in the country and that is to ensure the safe use of firearms within that province and within the country.

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

Mr. Chair, I will ask another question of the Minister of Justice.

Going back to the aboriginal people again, I want the Minister of Justice to comment for a moment or two on what he thinks the federal government can do in terms of some of the alternatives for aboriginal people. Sentencing circles are gaining popularity as an alternative form of justice. Does he have any other comments on the kinds of restorative justice that the aboriginal people may want? This is a question I have been asked a number of times by aboriginal people.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, the question is very interesting. When I was in western Canada I had the opportunity to visit a place where they were proceeding with a sentencing circle. I saw the way they proceed with the sentencing circle and the result that was obtained. We have to recognize that when we are talking about sentencing circles we are really talking about them expressing their concerns.

It is interesting because that way of proceeding with sentencing has been put in place when looking at the Young Offenders Act, the new bill. There is room for the community to get involved with regard to the sentencing process. It is a bit like what they are doing and I find it very interesting. They are using it at the present time. What I have heard is that they would like to do more of that.

It takes a lot of people. It takes time as well. They recognize that but we also recognize the benefit of the sentencing circle. We are very much in favour of what they are doing.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to switch to a different topic for the Minister of Justice. A number of years ago when we repatriated the Constitution I was the NDP spokesperson. I was very involved in the whole process for about a year.

One of the very important parts of the Constitution was the charter of rights. Section 15 of the charter of rights states “every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection, equal benefit of the law without discrimination”.

This right is not really universally enforced in a courtroom because our legal system is blind to the costs of litigation. Sometimes the impact on citizens who do not have much money is greater in terms of the fight for equality than someone who has deeper pockets. What is the minister doing to make sure that all citizens in this country have equal access to the law, in particular a clause like clause 15 of the charter?

More specifically, I also notice in the estimates that the contributions and grants to legal aid research will be eliminated after 2003, in other words eliminated altogether. I want to ask him why that is being done in terms of equality for all citizens before the law.

I also want to ask him whether or not he is open to the idea of greater funding for legal aid programs across the country. Of course these are cost shared with the provinces. I am thinking particularly on the civil side of the legal aid question which in many people's opinion is now underfunded. I would like to ask him what his future plans are for expanding services of this type to make sure that all citizens regardless of whether their pocketbook is thick or thin have equal access to the law in our country.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, the member has raised a very interesting and important question. I hope I will have a bit more time to express myself because the legal aid question is very important. When we are talking about legal aid, we are talking essentially about access to justice.

We have to make a distinction. For example, criminal legal aid involves the Canadian federal government. Civil legal aid involves the provinces. When we talk about legal aid as well, it is a provincial jurisdiction.

We are getting involved with funding, as the member said. I am pleased to say that over the past few years we have increased our funding. Our aid base was $82 million. Because of unique pressures the provinces were facing, we have added $20 million for the past two years. In the last budget as well we have been successful in obtaining additional funding. That means $89 million over the next two years. That brings our yearly contribution to legal aid to $126.4 million for the next two years.

The member said that the program is sunsetting after two years. That is because the existing program that we put in place is there for two years and after that we will see. In the meantime we are working with our provincial and territorial counterparts in order to renew the system, renew the program, share our experiences, look at best practices and make sure that we have an open access to our justice system. We can have a fantastic justice system but if people cannot access it, we will get nowhere.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to switch to another area but I want the minister to make a short comment when he answers about the contributions and grants to legal aid research that will be eliminated at the end of 2003, which is only about seven months away. Perhaps he could tell me why that has happened. It may be interesting to hear the answer.

I want to switch now to the sex offender registry. As the minister knows, the RCMP now has CPIC, which is a database for sex offenders that is used around the country by the police. Ontario now has a sex offender registry that came into force retroactively.

Since we are debating Bill C-23, which is a proposal to have a national sex offender registry, I want to ask him what the advantages of the new registry will be over the existing ones, which are the Ontario one and CPIC.

If he would also make a comment about the legal aid question, I would appreciate it.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, the Minister of Justice may want to comment on the legal aid question. The sex offender registry falls under my portfolio.

As the member knows, we gained agreement with the provinces and the territories in late October or early November to move forward with a national sex offender registry and that is the way we have proceeded. We tabled it in the House in December. I believe I will be before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on Thursday to talk further about the sex offender registry.

Specifically on the member's question, it will be a national registry. We believe that it will be both a prevention and investigative tool. It will be another tool for police officers. We see it as being very important for tracing where sex offenders, those who have been convicted of sex offences, may be across the country.

We are in negotiations with the province of Ontario to see if it is possible to make the legislation retroactive into our jurisdiction for the Ontario registry. We are not anticipating making the legislation retroactive nationally across the country for a number of legal reasons.

[The Chair]

We now move back to the government side for debate in the next 20 minute slot. I know the other minister would have liked to respond to another portion of the question but the time has lapsed and I must move on.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Chair, at this time in the appearance of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I would like to discuss a topic of considerable importance to the Department of Justice of Canada and to Canadians, in other words, access to justice in Canada's two official languages.

Ensuring an effective justice system that is fair and equitable as well as accessible to Canadians is one of the elements of the Department of Justice's mission. This means that among other things, legal services have to be accessible to Canadians in the official language of their choice.

This may seem obvious, but reality is quite the opposite for triable Canadians in official language minority communities. This is a true challenge for our justice system and its various players. In her Infoaction, spring 2003 bulletin, the Commissioner of Official Languages, Dyane Adam, described access to justice in both official languages as a sizeable challenge.

The Department of Justice has been working on overcoming this challenge for many years. I think it still has a great deal of work to do. It is a complex situation that requires cooperation among many stakeholders, including provincial and territorial governments. It also requires political will by the government.

Everyone agrees that administering justice is a shared responsibility. A series of constitutional, quasi-constitutional and legislative provisions govern the use of French and English in Canada's courts.

Federally, this legal framework is subject to section 133 of the British North America Act, 1867, paragraph 19(1) of the charter, part III of the Official Languages Act, 1988, and sections 530 and 530.1 of the Criminal Code. The latter have been in effect across the country since January 1, 1990. In addition to these provisions there are various provincial and territorial laws that also govern the use of French and English in provincial or territorial courts. Therefore, it is essential to work in close cooperation with the provinces and territories.

A number of studies and decisions by Canadian courts have shown that the implementation of these rights remains far from perfect and varies hugely from province to province. The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages released two studies in 1995 and 1999 showing that there are many obstacles to achieving the goal of equal access to federal courts.

It should be noted that over the past few years the case law has definitely confirmed the existence of these difficulties. The Beaulac case, the Devinat case and the matter of the Contravention Act are three recent examples where the implementation of existing linguistic rights regarding the administration of justice in both official languages was found to be wanting.

Since then, in the 2001 Speech from the Throne, the Government of Canada has reaffirmed its commitment to the linguistic duality of our country. This commitment was again made in the 2002 Speech from the Throne. In support of his commitment, the Prime Minister of Canada gave the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs the responsibility of coordinating the official languages issue across the federal government and of developing an action plan to implement the commitments made in the 2001 and 2002 Speeches from the Throne.

It is in that context that the issue of the access to justice in both official languages has resulted in new steps being taken by the Department of Justice. Those steps are in addition to the initiatives already in place in the department and in the Government of Canada.

Until very recently, there was only one program throughout the federal government dealing with administering justice in both official languages, namely the National Program for the Integration of Both Official Languages in the Administration of justice, the so-called POLAJ. Jointly managed by the Departments of Canadian Heritage and Justice, for over 20 years POLAJ has helped improve—but not enough—access to justice in both official languages through the development of legal and linguistic tools for Canadian lawyers working in these communities.

POLAJ has resulted in the creation of a network of agencies concerned with access to justice in both official languages, with whom the Department of Justice has been working on a regular basis.

Moreover, the department has been working for some years in close conjunction with the associations of French language common law jurists and their national federation. These seven associations encompass more than 1,000 French-speaking jurists serving francophones in Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. For more than eight years, the department has been providing them with financial support.

Access to justice in both official languages is a priority for official language minority communities. The FCFA, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, ranks it third in its priorities after health and education.

in 2002, the Department of Justice released a study providing an overview of the situation. This document, entitled “Environmental Scan: Access to Justice in Both Official Languages” gives a picture for each province or territory of the situation as far as access to justice in both official languages is concerned.

The objectives of the study were as follows: to collect qualitative and quantitative data relating to services, to identify and describe the principal barriers restricting access to judicial and legal services, to identify possible solutions to the situations identified, and to identify existing and planned innovative practices.

The research team collected comments from 359 respondents to fulfill its mandate.

The study reached the following conclusions on access to justice in both official languages: first, delays and costs associated with requests for service are higher when the request is made in the official language of the minority; second, there is a lack of public servants capable of supporting a bilingual judiciary system; third, there are few judges capable of hearing a case in the official language of the accused; fourth, there is a lack of active offer of legal services; fifth, there are problems of access to legal documentation in French; sixth, there are problems relating to interpretation, that is to say costs, skills and so on.

The report does not just illustrate the obstacles to access to justice. It also offers some prospects for solutions, and we all hope the department will follow up on them, examples being the appointment of judges capable of hearing a case in the official language of the accused—some progress has been made in this but there is still a long way to go—; appointment of bilingual prosecutors and legal staff; language training for judges and legal staff; information and awareness sessions for public servants and triable Canadians; single service points; travelling courts; and legislative amendments.

The department's experience shows that measures designed to improve access to the Canadian justice system in the provinces and territories must not be implemented in the same way across the country. The findings of “Environmental Scan” confirm this.

The government's Official Languages Action Plan, which was announced on March 12 at the Cité collégiale, in the riding of Ottawa—Vanier, provides for measures to help improve access to justice in both official languages. These measures are based on “Environmental Scan”, but also on previous studies on access to justice, including studies by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

The department has provided for three categories of measures.

The first category includes measures that would allow the department to fulfill its legal obligations under the Contraventions Act and the Act to re-enact legislative instruments enacted in only one official language.

Regarding the Contraventions Act, the department must implement the federal court judgment in the Contraventions Act case. As part of the review of existing federal, provincial and territorial agreements, additional financial support to the provinces is required to allow for the use of the minority language in proceedings by the provinces under this act.

Concerning the re-enactment of legislative instruments, the department must also ensure that it implements the Legislative Instruments Re-enactment Act.

The act corrects the procedural flaw in legislative instruments originally enacted in only one official language.

The act requires that measures be taken and that their status over the first six years of operation be reported to Parliament. Any legislative instrument that has not been re-enacted within this timeframe will be automatically repealed.

The second set of measures is designed to establish a support fund for access to justice in both official languages. This fund has four components: partnerships, a consultation mechanism, the transfer of the Administration of Justice Program in both official languages and stable funding for French-speaking lawyers' associations and their national federation.

In real terms, better access to justice in both official languages is not possible solely through the cooperation of governments. It requires partnerships with various non-governmental provincial and territorial stakeholders working in the area, including universities, bar associations, provincial associations of French-speaking lawyers and their national federation.

This measure is directly related to the “Environmental Scan” which identifies the lack of bilingual judicial personnel and the costs and delays associated with trials and procedures in the minority official language as barriers to equal access to the justice system for Canadians who are part of official language minority communities.

By entering into partnerships with universities, the justice department has two objectives: training in language rights for law students and future lawyers, and the establishment of a close and lasting cooperation between the universities and associations of French-speaking lawyers.

The findings of a study commissioned by the Association des juristes d'expression française du Manitoba show that graduates from law faculties where the common law is taught in French do not take part in lawyers' associations during the first five years of their working life. It is therefore important to create an interest among young lawyers for practising law in French so that individuals subject to trial can count on them to provide legal and judicial services in their official language. Moreover, these graduates are part of the pool of potential candidates for judicial appointments who are able to hear cases in either official language.

The justice department also intends to maintain and increase its financial support to associations of French-speaking lawyers and their national federation by providing them with stable funding to ensure that these associations can fulfil their lobbying function with governments and play their part in legal education and literacy with official language communities.

Over the past eight years, the department has invested more than $1.4 million in funding projects created by these lawyers' associations and their federation. The department would now like to be able to provide stable financing to these groups. There is no formal association of English speaking lawyers in Quebec, but the department is working with English speaking lawyers within the Barreau du Québec and the Quebec Communities Group Network, the QCGN.

I have already referred to POLAJ, the Program for the Integration of Both Official Languages in the Administration of Justice, which is a unique program within the federal government. The measures we plan include continued development of the legal tools needed for improving access to justice, which was already begun within POLAJ. This program will move from the Department of Canadian Heritage to the Department of Justice.

The third and final type of measures envisaged by the department concern language rights. The department is putting the emphasis on two activities; one involves training and the development of working tools, and the other, increased legal support for the Official Languages Program at Justice Canada.

The target audience for training and the development of working tools will be the department's legal counsel. I think it is high time that we did this. It will focus particularly on the crown prosecutors and civil litigation lawyers in order to ensure that they understand the nature and scope of the department's constitutional and legislative obligations.

These measures will serve as the foundation for the formation of a network of lawyers in order to better serve client departments and ensure that within each department there is a better understanding of the language rights and needs of official language minority communities.

By introducing the measures I have just outlined, the department will ensure that the system better meets the needs of Canadians and particularly members of official language minority communities.

Others will be needed, of course. For example, the Official Languages Act should be reviewed and strengthened.

Perhaps it will be necessary to ask more of the provinces with regard to the administration of certain courts that come under the Official Languages Act, the Canadian Constitution and the Criminal Code.

All that to say that we can feel a willingness, within the government and certainly within the department, to do more than what was done before to give official language minority communities access to the justice system in the language of their choice.

I think that we should perhaps encourage the minister, the government and also those who work within the department, from the highest official, namely the deputy minister, to all those involved in the administration of justice, to do something with regard to official languages. The studies and findings of the Commissioner of Official Languages and of the department itself in its Environmental Scan have made it clear that the situation should be improved.

If the minister agrees, I would invite him to make a few comments on this willingness that is being felt within the government and within his department to ensure greater respect for the laws and for the rights of both official languages communities to have access to the justice system in the language of their choice. Indeed, the Commissioner of Official Languages has made these observations, and so has the department itself in looking at the situation. Everyone agrees that there are significant inadequacies that need to be corrected.

I would like the minister to take this opportunity to tell us about this willingness that can be felt within his department and within the government.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, I wish to say a few words, as my colleague just did, about a fine study by Justice Canada entitled “Environmental Scan”. This study allowed us to analyze the situation regarding access to justice in both official languages, and to allow the department to position itself within the government's action plan which was introduced by my colleague, the president of the Privy Council of Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

I simply wish to say that the Department of Justice received $45.5 million under this action plan. Of this amount, $27 million will be used to meet legal obligations. I am referring, for example, to the decision of Justice Blais of the Federal Court regarding the Contraventions Act and its implementation by the provinces. Just recently, we signed an agreement with Ontario which meets all the goals mentioned in Justice Blais's judgment.

That being said, the remaining $18.5 million will be used to improve access to justice. I also wish to mention that a forum was recently held in Ottawa bringing together various stakeholders, including representatives of administrative tribunals. We had an opportunity to discuss various problems pertaining to the study entitled “Environmental Scan”. This will allow us to develop a training program. I think this is one of the basic elements.

Since I seem to be out of time, this is, basically, what the Department of Justice got under the governmental action plan. This is also the amount, namely $18.5 million, which will go to specific activities allowing us to provide training and other programs, in addition to the $27 million which will allow us to meet our legal obligations, such as the one to which I referred.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to be here tonight and question the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General on some of the issues that the Canadian public are facing and are concerned about.

We have already had a number of members who have come into the House and raised concerns about the gun registry. Canadians from all across Canada are telling the government and each one of us that the gun registry does not work. Canadian police are telling the country that the gun registry does not work. Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino stated:

And I'm very devastated by the amount of gun-related violence that we're experiencing here in the city of Toronto; a tremendous increase over years gone by. The difficulty of course is that we haven't yet come across any situation where the gun registry would have enabled us to either prevent or solve any of these crimes.

The Toronto police chief is saying on the one hand that we are concerned about the increase in gun related criminal activity offences, yet there has not been one instance where this gun registry would have helped solve crime or prevented any of the crimes.

We have wasted a billion dollars on a program that is targeting law abiding citizens, hunters, farmers and ranchers, while police officers are lacking the resources to adequately do the job that they are concerned about. They are lacking the resources to prevent gang related deaths in Toronto.

In March police officers came to Parliament Hill to deliver their wish list for 2003. Topping their list was the protection of children and their concern about child pornography. Another concern dealt with pension accrual and club fed where police killers spend time in resort style prisons.

My question is for the Solicitor General. When will the Solicitor General stop throwing good money after bad and give police officers the resources they need to target their criminals? Why have local police agencies not received the funds that are needed to enforce the laws, such as have been prescribed in Bill C-38 that came down today on the decriminalization of marijuana?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member for the questions.

As I said earlier in response to a previous question, we have admitted up front that there have been some problems with the gun registry system. The Minister of Justice and I announced an action plan to put the gun registry system in order. In fact, we have been implementing much of that plan.

The hon. member opposite named a couple of individuals who have said that they have had problems with the system. I will not take the time of the House, but the Canadian Police Association and the Chief of Police in Ottawa have outlined very specifically how the gun registry and control system helps them. It can be helpful in terms of preventing violence.

Registering a firearm will assist the police to enforce prohibition orders made by the courts, licence refusal and revocation decisions made by a firearms officer, and make public safety seizure decisions. All of these are important. The system is important for protecting officers. Registration of firearms provides some advance information to police en route to calls of violence. The list goes on. There are benefits here to police in doing policing work. The hon. member should recognize that.

In terms of the action plan, I want to spell out some of the improvements that we are in the process of making. The Minister of Justice and I have said in the action plan that we would reduce costs and improve management by transferring the national weapons enforcement support team to the RCMP. That has been done. We would streamline headquarters operations and consolidate processing sites. That is in the process of being done. We are creating a continuous improvement plan.