House of Commons Hansard #96 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was guns.

Topics

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms ActGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division)

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms ActGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from April 7 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, and of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms ActGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms ActGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine Québec

Liberal

Marlene Jennings LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to talk about the Government of Canada's dedication and commitment to public safety and to the firearms program.

The gun control program is designed to enhance public safety and to reduce the number of firearm related injuries and deaths. The program is keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have these firearms and helping those who do have the firearms in their efforts to be responsible and accountable for their use. The program is also providing police with valuable investigative tools to prevent crime and to cut down on gun smuggling. This is what police officers themselves are telling us.

Both the licensing and registration are key elements in achieving the program safety objectives. Licensing ensures that firearm owners meet high public safety standards while the registration links one owner to one firearm ensuring greater accountability. The registration of all firearms enables law enforcement officers across Canada to track firearms, to identify stolen firearms and to distinguish legally owned firearms from those acquired illegally. Registration also facilitates the enforcement of probation orders and allows police to take preventive action, such as removing firearms from situations of domestic violence.

It is quite interesting, and perhaps the members from the opposite side might like to hear this and learn from this, that the police find both licensing and registration to be valuable in their work.

At a news conference this past January David Griffin, the executive officer for the Canadian Police Association stated:

We… consider the licensing of firearms owners and the registration of firearms to be a valuable public safety tool for front-line police officers... It would be irresponsible to suspend or abandon any element of this program, now that it is starting to deliver the intended results.

This comes straight from the mouth of David Griffin, executive officer for the Canadian Police Association.

Police officers have access to certain information contained in the firearms registry. This information is gathered in the firearms registry online, also known as CFRO. Law enforcement officers have queried the system for information regarding individuals who may own firearms or may have firearms in their possession more than two million times since it was launched on December 1, 1998. They did this for the safety of Canadians.

These police officers have received information about the number and types of firearms that may be involved in the course of an investigation which they are currently conducting. Police officers en route to a call from a residence have been able to find out in seconds if a firearm licence or a registration certificate is listed for that residence. The system also helps police officers trace the owners of found, recovered or seized firearms.

The Canadian firearms program yields significant savings for police services. How does it do that? The police are no longer burdened with the paperwork and administration involved in accepting firearms applications because these are now mailed to a central processing site. This in turn frees up significant police time and resources that can be and are directed to investigation and other important police work.

In January 2001 the national weapons enforcement support team, NWEST, was created. NWEST is a network of highly trained and experienced individuals located throughout Canada. NWEST works in a support role with local law enforcement in their criminal investigations that may involve firearms and it assists in anti-trafficking and anti-smuggling efforts. The NWEST team also helps the police community in dealing with issues of violence with firearms. Allow me to give two examples.

While responding to a call from a concerned family member, police in a major city noted that a male in the house was very despondent. Seven long guns were in plain view stored in an unlocked cabinet and were seized to protect the six residents of the home. A check of the firearms registry by these same police officers discovered that the owner also had more than 20 restricted firearms which he had failed to disclose during a police interview.

Family members, upon questioning, stated that they did not know that these handguns were scattered all over the house. Some were concealed between bed mattresses while others were hidden in the ceiling. At that particular call, police also seized 45,000 rounds of ammunition and more than 15 pounds of gun powder from that same residence.

Is that an example of how the firearms registry operates and is indeed a safety tool for police officers in their law enforcement work? I think it is.

In another case following the discovery of a machine gun in the trunk of a vehicle, police in a western Canadian city checked the firearms registry and discovered that the gun was registered to a local gun collector who had not reported the gun lost or stolen. This allowed the police to obtain a search warrant. They determined that several guns were missing from that local gun collector's collection of almost 400 firearms and the registered owner was apparently not even aware that they had gone missing. Although most of the collection was legally registered, several guns were not.

That is another example of how the firearms registry is indeed assisting police officers in doing their job of law enforcement and ensuring public safety. That is according to the police themselves.

Since its launch in January 2001, the national weapons enforcement support team, or NWEST, has provided assistance to almost 3,000 police investigations like those in the two examples I just cited. They have conducted more than 1,800 firearms traces and have provided about 500 information sessions to the policing community. On April 1 NWEST moved from the Canadian Firearms Centre to the national police services, which is administered, as I am sure all members in the House know, by the RCMP.

How does our program, the firearms registry, assist in dealing with the illegal gun market? This is what Ottawa police chief Vince Bevan, vice-president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, said:

The new law brings us in line with other industrialized nations and is an important part of a coordinated international effort to fight the illicit trafficking of firearms and organized crime.

He went on to say:

Improving the regulation of legal firearms is critical to preventing their diversion to illegal markets.

I am not making this up; this is a direct quote from Vince Bevan, Ottawa's chief of police and also vice-president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. That is what the police have to say about the firearms registry. That is what they have to say about the gun control program.

The Government of Canada is committed to gun control and to the firearms program. Our preventive approach to firearms safety is not only supported by Canadians, it is also endorsed by safety experts across the country.

I know that some members on the opposite side of the House do not want to hear that. They would like to lead Canadians into believing that the very individuals and professionals who use the registry do not support the registry. But that is not the case. These groups are among the many stakeholders who continue to push for gun control in Canada and who have spoken out in support of the firearms program on numerous occasions.

For example, in a news release from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police last February, Pierre-Paul Pichette, assistant director, Service de police de la Ville de Montréal, said:

Gun control is an investment in public safety and there is already promising evidence of its effectiveness.

The firearms program has already proven to be an effective tool to protect the safety of Canadians. It promotes safe and responsible firearms use while keeping firearms out of the hands of those who pose a risk to themselves or to others.

The government's approach to gun control is supported by a majority of Canadians, including those on the front lines: the police, health workers and victims advocates.

While the firearms program is still in its infancy, we can clearly see the benefits for enforcement agencies and to the Canadian public.

Allow me to add a few words on the government's commitment to improve services to the Canadian public to make this process as user friendly and efficient as possible.

As mentioned in the action plan tabled earlier this year, the government has committed to improve client service throughout the program. This includes a 30 day turnaround for registration applications which are received with accurate and complete information.

The government recognizes that there are still individuals who have yet to bring themselves in compliance with the law. Despite what program opponents would have us believe, there has never been any intention of penalizing law-abiding Canadians. Therefore, I will join my colleague the Solicitor General in encouraging people to act now.

For those who are listening, there are two options available for people to register their firearms.

The first option is online. It is free and available 24 hours a day. As part of our commitment to improve client service, online registration was reintroduced earlier this year. Online registration has been a success with over 425,000 individuals using this service. This includes over 44,000 individuals who have used the online service since it was reintroduced earlier this year.

The second option available for people to register their firearms is to order a form through the 1-800-731-4000 telephone number. The call centre is operational 16 hours each day. The centre handles an average of 4,000 calls per day.

There are still people who have not yet applied for a licence. I urge these individuals to act without delay as they cannot register their firearms without a licence. Perhaps more important, by taking the time to comply, we will have a firearms program even better able to achieve its potential in contributing to public safety.

The program will be undergoing many changes over the next several months. Legislative amendments will allow the program to evolve and make better use of existing technologies in order to better accommodate our clients.

New licence terms and a simplifying of the business licence requirements will enhance client service while maintaining the public safety principles of Canada's gun control program.

To conclude, I would like to add that the program's success stems largely from the solid partnerships that have been forged between government agencies, the law enforcement community and many stakeholders, but most important, from the ongoing support of the Canadian public. Canadians believe in public safety. Canadians see gun control as an essential requirement to achieving public safety in Canada.

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Roy H. Bailey Canadian Alliance Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, as a member who has been around on this issue for many years, I want to tell the hon. member opposite that for years we have had an FAC, a firearms acquisition certificate. People had to have that before they could register a firearm. Where would people go to get a firearms acquisition certificate? They had to go to the RCMP who checked people's character references thoroughly and then they could register.

The minister has just mentioned that we can get a firearm registered on line. I want to tell the member opposite that senior police officers in my constituency are seeing people getting their firearms registered of whom they disapproved under the firearms certificate.

We have heard thousands of lies come out of this office. Now we are being begged to believe what we are being told.

Eight provinces said no way, they will not prosecute. The member quoted two police officers saying that this program is acceptable.

Another point I would like to make is this. We had in our province for years a firearms hunter's safety program where kids, my own grandchildren, have gone through the program. It has been proven across Canada to be of great benefit.

Now we are told that we will probably have to have government trainers conduct this program. That program was all done free of charge by the way. It will be more costly, with more disrespect. We should be saying to those eight provinces, let us get the paperwork and the mess straightened out, which is what the provinces are saying, before we prosecute anyone under the act.

The act has been a dismal failure. Any member who stands up to say that it has been a success certainly has not followed the act along its way.

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Mr. Speaker, I beg to disagree with the hon. member on the opposite side.

Law enforcement officers are our front line. The national associations and their representatives have stated clearly that the firearms registry and the gun control program are a success. They are producing a positive effect for them and allowing them to put their resources where they need to be put rather than on the administration of the system that the member on the opposite side referred to which previously was the firearms acquisition certificate system.

As to whether or not this program is effective in ensuring that individuals who should not have possession or licensing of firearms, the government and the police themselves have published statistics as to the number of individuals who had firearms who have been refused the opportunity to have the right to have a licence to possess firearms. That is as a result of this system.

When the front line officers themselves who use this tell us that they have used the system more than two million times since it was first instituted and that they have been able to use it in ongoing police investigations, I take them at their word. I would hope that the member on the opposite side would also take Vince Bevan at his word, take Pierre-Paul Pichette at his word. They speak on behalf of the association for which each of them were speaking and they are accurately responding and explaining the views of their membership. I take them at their word. I would hope that the member would take them at their word and not impugn, as he has done, the validity of the statements that they have made on behalf of their associations, the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, I just walked into the House and I only heard the end of the hon. member's comments about the Association of Police Chiefs.

Since this is questions and comments and she has made the reference to police chiefs, I guess my question is this. I do not think I have ever seen in my short career in politics any more blatant lobbying on behalf of a significant part of Canadian society as the chiefs of police. I told them that when they lobbied me in my office.

The fact is that the government deliberately brought them to Ottawa on the day of the vote. I do not think that is something to brag about as a government. I think that is something to be embarrassed about. I do not think it is the government's job to manipulate the chiefs of police, nor is it the responsibility of the chiefs of police to allow themselves to be manipulated.

I think there are two wrongs and it certainly does not make it right.

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am astonished and appalled by the statements made by the member on the other side. Once again we have a member, who purports to represent the views of Canadians, impugning the integrity of elected officials of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police . I would assume that he would then broaden his comments to include the Canadian Police Association, which represents the frontline officers, on its good faith and on its objective and impartial analysis of Canada's gun control program and firearms registry program. I am appalled that the member would have the gumption to stand in the House and make statements like that.

I wish the hon. member would have the same gumption to stand outside the House and make those kinds of statements, impugning the words, the opinion, the impartiality and the integrity of the chief of police of Ottawa, Vince Bevin; David Griffin of the Canadian Police Association; and Pierre-Paul Pichette, assistant director of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

I will not in any way endorse or let anyone listening to this debate believe that on this side of the House the government does not believe in the integrity of the members of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association. We believe that they are impartial and that they are people of integrity. We also believe in them even when we do not always agree with some of their positions.

Is it not distasteful for the members that on this particular occasion the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association have come out in support of Canada's gun control program and firearms registry program? Obviously the members of certain parties on the opposite side, the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance, have attempted to stake their reputation on destroying this effective public safety tool, this effective law enforcement tool.

On this side of the House we will not have it. We will represent Canadians who support these programs. We agree with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association. For once we are on the same side on a particular program. However even when we are not on the same side, never do we disrespect them or impugn their integrity and impartiality. We may disagree but we know that these are valuable organizations and that the people who make up these organizations have valuable experience to bring to the House, to the government and to Canadian society. I say shame on that member.

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

NDP

Lorne Nystrom NDP Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK

Mr. Speaker, what an act to follow. Methinks the member doth protest too much. It is absolutely amazing. The member from the Conservative Party has said what he said in the House outside the House to the police associations. What a tempest in a teapot.

I want to tell the member across the way that it is not just the Alliance and Conservative members who oppose the gun registry. I also oppose it. I am also proud of our Saskatchewan NDP government which has opposed the gun registry. I am very proud of the Manitoba NDP government which has also opposed the gun registry. I am pleased that the NDP Governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba are not co-operating in the implementation of this law. I think they reflect public opinion as well.

This sanctimonious attitude of the Liberal Party that it has the divine right to do what is good and right in this country and that it stands for public opinion and for the people is a bunch of baloney. Those are the kinds of comments in debate that are not helpful at all.

The member across the way should know that this is not an ideological issue across the country. I do not agree with most of the stances taken by the Canadian Alliance but on this particular issue we happen to be on the same score card, on the same side.

We have a long record. The Saskatchewan government was part of the court action challenging the federal law. The NDP government has been the most progressive government historically in North America. The Social Democratic government was elected back in 1944. A lot of progressive people are saying that the gun registry is not the right thing to do; gun control, yes, but gun registry, no. The member across the way should know that if she has been following this debate at all over the last number of years.

I am also happy to say that the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians is challenging this law in the courts. I stand with the first nations people, as I have been doing in committee hearings that are being held now in the Centre Block of the House of Commons.

The widespread point of view is that the gun registry will not be helpful in fighting crime, and that point of view is held by a number of people, including the police.

I have been a member of Parliament for over 30 years and I have never seen such a financial boondoggle in my life as the gun registry. It was supposed to cost $2 million to implement the program but it has now cost about $1 billion. No wonder the member leaves the House hanging her head in shame. There has never been a program with cost overruns like I have seen here. The Auditor General has said that and yet we have this kind of motion come before the House today. I want to make it very clear that what is happening today in the House is the wrong way to go.

The bill itself has been split by the Senate, which is also the wrong thing to do. The Senate is not elected. It is not democratic and it is not accountable. I have nothing against any particular individual in the Senate in terms of them as people. Many of them are very hardworking individuals. However in a modern day democracy an unelected appointed body should not have legislative power. What is happening now is a dangerous precedent being set by the Senate and being accepted by the government.

A government bill that was introduced back in October was sent to the Senate. The Senate separated the bill into two parts, one dealing with firearms and the other dealing with cruelty to animals. As I said earlier this morning, the part dealing with the firearms registry is actually a money bill. To accept the fact that the Senate can have this kind of power with a bill originating in the House of Commons dealing with the expenditure of the public's money is a very dangerous precedent to set.

This will come back to haunt the government across the way. The precedent is set now and the same thing will be done in the future. I ask the government at this time, when it is having a leadership race for the renewal of the Liberal Party, should we not be looking at how we can democratize our Canadian institutions? Is there any reason that we should have an unelected chamber with legislative power?

Many years ago when our parliamentary system was formed we accepted from the British the idea of having a bicameral system. It is debatable whether we should have a bicameral system but it was accepted in those days to have a House of Commons, electing the commoners.

We also accepted the British idea that the aristocracy needed to have someone overlooking the commoners. The British have the House of Lords and we have the Senate. We decided the Senate should be appointed by the prime minister and the prime minister could appoint whomever he or she wanted to the Senate. Usually they are friends of the prime minister or members of the prime minister's party; a lot of hacks, flacks and bagmen for that particular party.

On top of that, the Senate has the power to change legislation. It has the power to split a government bill. I believe that is fundamentally wrong.

I wish we had a parliamentary system where members of the government side could get up and speak freely, as the member from Sarnia has done, on how they feel about the Senate having this type of power and authority.

Canada has the most handcuffed parliamentary system in the world. Even in Britain there are many free votes. The Blair government, when Tony Blair was at the height of his popularity, or Margaret Thatcher at the height of her popularity, on many occasions had government bills that were defeated in the House of Commons but the government did not fall. The bill may have been introduced in a different form later on. However we do not have that kind of freedom and democracy in our political system.

I want to say to the government that it sets a very dangerous precedent to allow the Senate to split a bill. I will put this properly. The Senate has the power to split a bill but the House of Commons has the authority to reject the idea from the Senate and to send it back to the other place. When the government decided not to do that and accepted the fact that the bill was now in two parts, one dealing with firearms and one dealing with cruelty to animals, I think set a very dangerous precedent.

It is not just the firearms part. The Senate has now made amendments to the cruelty to animals part of the bill as well. The Senate has weakened what the House of Commons sent to the Senate. I think that is the wrong thing to do.

Once again I appeal to members across the way to reject what the Senate has sent to us. I ask members to think seriously about reforming our democratic institutions. If we do not do that this place will become more and more irrelevant to more and more Canadians.

Before I sit down I want to say that on the gun registry itself there is widespread opposition to what the federal government is doing. It comes from every political corner of the ideological framework across the country.

As I have said before, when Bill C-68 was introduced and supported in the House of Commons it was opposed by the NDP Governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Yukon. The NDP Governments of Manitoba and Saskatchewan are not co-operating now with the administration of the bill, and I applaud them for doing that.

About two weeks ago I met with Saskatchewan's justice minister, Eric Cline, in Regina, and Saskatchewan's position remains firm. There is no data whatsoever that the registration of firearms will bring down crime or the causes of crime in the country.

We need more money to fight crime. We need to be tougher on criminals and tougher on the causes of crime. I represent the riding of Regina—Qu'Appelle. We have the inner city in my riding with a very high crime rate. The way to bring down the crime rate is to put more money into fighting crime and into putting more police out on the roads. The minister of justice told us that if an extra $20 million or $30 million a year could be put in a place such as Saskatchewan in having more police officers out in the communities that crime would go down.

I see in the House today the member for Souris—Moose Mountain who is from Saskatchewan. Even though he is not from Regina I think he is aware that Regina had the highest rate of auto theft of any jurisdiction in North America about two years ago. It was a very unfortunate occurrence. Much of that is in my own riding.

The Province of Saskatchewan, the City of Regina and the police now have a new program to deal with car theft. Car thefts have dropped by a huge percentage. I cannot recall the percentage but over the last year it has been 30%, 40%, 50% or more.

What we can do is tackle crime and tackle the causes of crime. Sometimes the causes of crime have to deal with the fact that people do not have opportunities. They are living in poverty and despair. If we were to drive around part of the inner city in Regina we would see the condition of the housing. We would see the unemployed people. We would hear the stories about the drug trade and the prostitution trade. We would see the looks of despair and helplessness on the faces of many of the people. It is no wonder the crime rate is very high. If we were to put more money into fighting the root cause of crime, Canada would be a better place indeed.

The billion dollars which has been put into the gun registry means that money has been taken away from other things, like more police on the streets. Also in Saskatchewan a program was cancelled in terms of gun safety courses that would have cost only a few tens of thousands of dollars. Those are very worthwhile programs and are very helpful.

The government is fundamentally wrong by accepting the fact that the Senate can split a bill, particularly a money bill, like it has done with the one before us today. It is just wrong for an unelected body to have that kind of legislative power. It makes a mockery out of the parliamentary system.

The government should come to its senses in terms of Bill C-68. The registration is not working. It is opposed by an overwhelming majority of the people in the country and it does not have the cooperation of most of the provinces.

I am proud to say that as a member of the New Democratic Party and social democrat that our two provincial governments are very much opposed to the bill, have always been opposed to it and are not cooperating with the implementation of the bill.

I stand also four-square with the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians and other first nation people in Canada who are challenging this thing in the courts and are hoping to get Bill C-68 pulled out of the legislation in the country. It is in conflict with their treaty and hunting rights, rights that are enshrined in the constitution on behalf of the first nations people.

I invite the member across the way to come to her senses, reflect on what she has said and hopefully oppose the bill before the House.

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms ActGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine Québec

Liberal

Marlene Jennings LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I found it quite interesting to listen to the comments of the member across the way for Regina—Qu'Appelle. He made the statement that the majority of Canadians did not support the firearm registry nor did they support the gun control program as it now stands. In January 2003 a poll by Environics showed that a majority, or 74%, of Canadians supported the program's elements, including licensing and registration. The company specializes in that. Also, that same survey showed that support for gun control, and this includes the licensing and registering, ranges from 59% in western Canada to 85% in Quebec, my home province, to 78% in Ontario to 74% in Atlantic Canada. What does the member think about that support which was shown by a survey in January?

More to the point, the member also talked about how all the provincial governments were opposed to the firearm registry program and gun control program. Why did he not mention the fact that the Alberta government actually challenged the Firearms Act? It went before the Supreme Court of Canada. All the other provincial governments, and I am not sure about the territorial governments, joined in, including his own provincial government of Manitoba. The Supreme Court in 2000 unanimously concluded that both the licensing and registration were tightly linked to Parliament's goal of enhancing public safety by reducing the misuse of firearms and by keeping firearms out of the hands of those who should not have them.

When the member talked about the opposition by provincial governments, why did he not mention that opposition went all the way to the Supreme Court and that the Supreme Court ruled that licensing and registration were tightly linked to public safety and that was a good thing?

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms ActGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

NDP

Lorne Nystrom NDP Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where she was when I was speaking but I did talk about the fact this was challenged by the Alberta government and that legal action was taken. She can look at the record on this. By the way, Regina happens to be in Saskatchewan and not Manitoba. She said that I was from Manitoba.

However I was very proud of the fact that the Saskatchewan government had intervener status in terms of opposing the federal law of the Supreme Court of Canada. I think eight provinces were involved in that, including the province of Manitoba. I think all three territories were involved, or certainly two were. I did make those points and I am very pleased that they were. I am very supportive of the first nations people and their legal fight against Bill C-68.

In terms of public opinion on gun control, put me down as supporting gun control many times in the House of Commons. I have been here for all the debates in the House, except in 1995 when I was not an MP and when Bill C-68 came in. I was here for the firearms acquisition certificate debate and for the debates in the old Trudeau government and Mulroney government. I supported all the gun control bills right on through until we came to registration. Registration is not gun control and that is where I draw the line.

If a poll was done on whether people supported the registration and a a billion boondoggle, there would be massive opposition to this. If the member does not believe me, come out to my riding and go house to house. She would be amazed at the people who oppose this, from 85 year old grandmothers to young teenagers. People are universally opposed to the registration. As I read Saskatchewan, my riding and the country, the overall majority of people are opposed to this.

It is unnecessary. Let us put the money into fighting crime, let us put the money into more police officers to put them on the streets and let us not waste all this money on the registry which will not help public safety whatsoever.

I think those were the two questions. Regina is in Saskatchewan, I come from Saskatchewan and I did mention the court cases.

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms ActGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Stockwell Day Canadian Alliance Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is not often in the House that one sees the NDP agree with the Canadian Alliance positions, so those are moments which we treasure and savour. On this issue related to the Liberal gun registry disaster, the Liberal member talked about polls.

I think the question that was not asked of citizens was, “Do you support a gun registry system which is proven not to work and which the Auditor General has said is a billion dollar disaster?” If Canadians were asked that question, the response would be overwhelming. Canadians do not support the misuse of their hard earned tax dollars. Canadians do not support legislation which does not work. If that had been the question, we would have seen resounding public support for the Canadian Alliance position and the NDP position.

I also agree with my NDP friend when he talks about the inappropriateness of an unelected body, the Senate, having control over legislation that affects the lives of people. People who control legislation, who are responsible for legislation, need to be accountable. Again, this is no reflection on the people themselves, but the role of a senator does not include accountability to the electorate. That is why it is deficient and needs to be reformed.

We support firearms safety and we support the fact that arms are controlled by the fact that people have to have a certificate to purchase a firearm. However we do not support this billion dollar disaster.

One of the distinctions with the Canadian Alliance position is that we support more police officers on the street. Does the NDP position also accommodate the Alliance position which is that there should be an increase in severity of sentencing for those who commit crimes with firearms?

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

NDP

Lorne Nystrom NDP Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK

Mr. Speaker, I guess I would have to ask what he means by the increase in severity. I have always believed one has to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. That is what we have to do in our society.

We also have to do restorative justice where we can as well and try to rehabilitate people. I have seen many cases of younger people who have gone into a prison or into a youth centre and if there has been no restorative justice, they have come out more hardened criminals. That is an extremely important case to make in this debate as well.

We cannot just have a tough penalty and throw away the key for absolutely everybody. We can restore some people and make them a useful citizen of our country. We can give them training, skills and education, then they start paying taxes and so on. That is a very useful thing to do.

It is not just a simple yes or no answer. As I said, we have to be tough on crime and the cause of crime. Also, we have to do whatever we can to rehabilitate people, to retrain them and ensure that they have skills and training in jobs to make a useful contribution to our society.

I have spent a fair amount of time looking at the criminal justice system and it is not a black and white issue in many cases. In many cases the judge has to have a certain amount of flexibility in terms of the punishment that is handed out.

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval West, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to discuss the Canadian firearms program in the context of Bill C-10A and specifically to address the public's support and the benefits of this legislation.

Canadians have often indicated that they want—indeed, demand—to live in a fair, peaceful and safe society. Public safety is the prime objective of the Canadian firearms program.

The firearms program is designed to improve public safety by controlling access to firearms and ammunition, encouraging safe use of firearms, controlling specific types of firearms, and giving police officers a valuable tool for their investigations. This program is intended to keep firearms away from those who should not have them, that is, individuals who present a danger to themselves or to society.

I would like to point out that the purpose of the program is not to interfere with the legitimate use of firearms in Canada but rather to promote firearms safety and thus prevent death and injury by firearms and dissuade criminals from using firearms in the commission of crimes.

As the program has been implemented, the Government of Canada has been careful to respect the legitimate interests of hunters, target shooters and others who use firearms for legitimate purposes.

According to a recent Environics poll, a great majority of Canadians support the public safety objectives of the firearms program, including the licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms.

Licensing makes it possible to ensure that firearms owners meet rigorous public safety criteria. The registry makes it possible to link each firearm with its owner, which leads to greater accountability. Safe storage and training in proper handling of firearms are two other important aspects of the program.

In their letters indicating support for the program, citizens from one end of the country to the other are unanimous: public safety comes first.

The program has the support not only of the Canadian public, but also many experts in health and safety, including the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association, the Canada Safety Council, and the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, to name just a few.

I will give a few examples of organizations that have expressed their support for the firearms program.

For example, Debbie McGray, president of the New Brunswick Nurses Union, wrote the following in a letter on December 13, 2002:

Nurses see the devastating effects of the misuse of firearms every day—however, thanks to the screening process and the requirement for owners to register their firearms, the program has resulted in a considerable decrease in the number of deaths from firearms.

Dr. François Desbiens, Director of Public Health for the Régie régionale de la santé et des services sociaux du Québec, wrote the following on February 21, 2003:

The Canadian firearms program comprises a broad range of concrete measures aimed at decreasing injuries by firearms—with a view to saving lives, avoiding accidental shootings because responsible owners will store their weapons better, protecting spouses in the event of family violence and making it harder for potential suicides to have access to weapons.

Finally, Kathy Belton, Co-Director of the Alberta Centre for Injury Control and Research, made the following observation on December 11, 2002:

Firearms kill more young people in this age group, that is the 15- to 24 year-olds, than cancer, drowning and falls combined. The Canadian firearms program is just beginning, but the figures show that it has already brought about a reduction in the number of deaths and crimes involving firearms.

Clearly the program works and enjoys solid support. The firearms program has delivered good results. Up to this point, several thousands of firearms permits have been denied or revoked by those responsible for public safety.

The Canadian Firearms Centre has received a great many calls to its notification lines, which were set up to allow Canadians to express their public safety concerns with respect to certain persons who possess firearms.

Law enforcement agencies across the country have consulted the online registry data several millions of times since December 1, 1998. All of these efforts help us prevent people who should not have firearms from possessing any. In the end, it saves lives.

It is fairly easy to imagine dangerous situations that the program has already prevented. The purpose of the Canadian Firearms Centre is to make our families and our communities safer.

Through measures contained in Bill C-10A, the government plans on improving client service, reducing costs and increasing transparency, as Canadians have requested.

The bill contains a certain number of initiatives which, if adopted, would assist the government in responding to the concerns expressed by the Auditor General and the public.

One of these measures is to stagger licence renewals in order to avoid a bottleneck every five years. With a steadier volume of work, more effective methods can be used that will make it possible to improve client service and realize significant savings.

Simplifying the formalities for transfers of non-restricted firearms and transfers between businesses will make it possible for the provincial chief firearms officers to concentrate their efforts and their resources on other public safety functions. It will improve service to clients without compromising public safety.

Moreover, by grouping all administrative power in the hands of a commissioner, a more direct linkage is made with the minister responsible, now the Solicitor General. In this way, too, financial and political accountability will be improved.

The annual report mentioned in the bill will now be prepared by the firearms commissioner, who will provide complementary information on the Canadian firearms program and on the reports already presented to Parliament by the government.

The bill fulfills the expectations of the general public and other observers by building upon the strong support the public has already demonstrated for the firearms program.

Points of OrderGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Liberal

Roger Gallaway Liberal Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order related to the motion before the House. I want to ask for your indulgence while I say to you that the motion now before us is null and void and is therefore out of order. In legal parlance it is void ab initio . The motion should not be put to the House. The motion asks the House to waive its privileges or rights in this case with the understanding that this waiver cannot be construed as a precedent.

The motion was put on the Order Paper on December 6 in the name of the Minister of Justice, who is also the Attorney General. The motion in the name of the justice minister asks us to do something which cannot be done; it is an impossibility. The Minister of Justice knows that this motion, if it were passed, would be an order of the House. The minister knows that those rights and privileges referred to in the motion are those received and contained in section 18 of the British North America Act. It states in part:

The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and by the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, but so that the same shall never exceed those at the passing of this Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the members thereof:

The minister knows that this is a fundamental part of our constitution and the law of the land. The rights and privileges referred to in the motion are fundamental constitutional matters. It is clear that this cannot be done. Any motion of the House cannot waive any other law.

I will give an example. Let us assume that on March 1, 2003, John Doe, who happens to be a member of the House, was charged with impaired driving under the Criminal Code of Canada. A motion is subsequently brought to the chamber requesting that the House waive the law of impaired driving against John Doe. It is clear we cannot waive the law of impaired driving. The Crown may decide not to proceed to lay charges or proceed in any way against John Doe, but the Crown has not waived the law concerning impaired driving. The law still exists; it still applies. It has not been waived in such case, so choosing not to apply the law is not a waiver of the law. Waiver of the law, in the case of privileges as contained in section 18, would require an express act of Parliament.

I would submit that the motion before us is identical to the example of John Doe just given. The cabinet, by this motion in the name of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, asks the House to “waive its claims to insist upon such rights and privileges”. The cabinet is asking the House to waive its privileges as against it. It is asking the House to waive section 18 of the British North America Act, the very privileges that we were given as collective members of this House. It is asking us to waive these section 18 privileges. That is an impossibility and therefore the motion is void ab initio .

I want to give a second example. John Doe, a member of the House, makes a statement inside the chamber about an individual I will call Bill Black which, if made outside the House, would be actionable in law. A motion is laid before the chamber waiving the privileges for the statements made by John Doe in the chamber and permitting Bill Black to bring a suit arising from the statements of John Doe in the chamber.

The House could not waive the privileges of a member of Parliament by a simple vote of the majority. Such action would make mockery of section 18 of the British North America Act. The majority of members of the chamber cannot strip a member of privileges enjoyed as a member of the House in that individual's capacity by a simple vote of the majority on a resolution or a motion.

This motion purports to do what cannot be done. It purports that the collective privileges given to the chamber under section 18 will be gone. It purports to do what we cannot do in law.

Section 18 is the legislative legal authority to call the executive to account, so by waiving our privileges we live in a system of crown prerogative, that is, government by cabinet. If this motion were to pass and privilege is purportedly waived, I as a member of the House could apply to a court for a declarative order that this motion is ultra vires. The powers of this chamber would be gone. In purporting to waive our privileges, nothing would preclude a court from assuming jurisdiction with respect to this motion that has been brought to the chamber in the name of the Minister of Justice.

This chamber and we the members of the chamber would be reduced to no more than a municipal council, an elected assembly, without the powers bestowed by section 18 of the British North America Act. Without section 18 privileges, responsible government is gone.

Finally, I want to refer to a debate which occurred in the Australian parliament in 1985. It has been said about this, and I have read about it, that somehow--

Points of OrderGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The subject matter raised of course by the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton is one that has been before the House on other occasions. Certainly unless there is something very specific to be added, the Chair has heard what it would consider more than satisfactory information about the subject matter. I would undertake to take it under advisement and report back to the House.

If the member has something else to add, I would like some indication as to how much longer it might take, because I have really heard the thrust of his intervention. I turn to the hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton.

Points of OrderGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Liberal

Roger Gallaway Liberal Sarnia—Lambton, ON

I will be no more than two minutes at most, Mr. Speaker.

I want to refer to the Australian parliament Debates of 1985, because in 1987 the Australian parliament actually dealt with its privileges. It codified them. In 1985 a debate came on about waiving privilege on a particular point. I just want to refer to Odgers because the thought is that because it was codified it does not apply here. This was before it was codified.

I refer to page 1038 of Odgers' sixth edition. It states:

In the course of debate, views were expressed by Senators that the Senate does not have the power to waive privileges. Senator Durack, a former Attorney-General, said:

I agree with Senator Gareth Evans that this Chamber does not have the power to waive privilege. It is a privilege conferred by the application of the English Bill of Rights of 1688 by section 49 of our Constitution. I do not think it is open to one House of the Parliament to waive or alter it. A declaration of both Houses of Parliament or another Act of Parliament would be required to change it.

I would say we are confronted with a similar situation, an identical situation. The motion before us would order that this House waive its privileges, those same privileges received under section 18 of the British North America Act, the cornerstone of our Constitution. They came to the House through the English Bill of Rights of 1688. It is one of the fundamental laws of the country.

For that reason I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that in waiving privilege we cannot do it because it requires an express act of Parliament, of both chambers. In this case to purport to waive privilege is an impossibility and therefore this motion is null and void. It is void ab initio.

Points of OrderGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I was not previously aware that this issue would come up at this point, although I believe I have responded to something similar a number of weeks back. I will only take a couple of minutes to bring a few issues to the attention of Mr. Speaker today on the issue of privilege.

First, in the Canadian context, a motion virtually identical to this one was ruled on. It was debated in relation to another bill in approximately the late 1980s in the House. I do not have the specific reference. I remember the incident well; I was in the House when the issue occurred at the time regarding another privilege.

We also have before us here an issue that comes from the standing orders that we have before us, where we affirm in one of our standing orders the issue that is before us today. This involves, at one point, a dispute between both Houses. I suppose it has never been resolved in the end, because we have of course a standing order and the other House does not recognize that this standing order could have the effect that we in our House do. That perhaps is an issue that will not be settled today. I do not propose that it come before us at this point, but we have to recognize that it is in a way, I suppose, part of what is at hand.

So we have, then, the issues before the House today, and first, whether this is properly before Parliament. Need I remind the House that we have debated this motion about half a dozen times up to now. Had it been out of order it would have had, I believe, to have been ruled at that time for this motion not to be properly before the House.

As a matter of fact there were interventions many weeks ago about whether or not this motion was properly before the House, not basing it on the same question as today, perhaps, but nevertheless invoking that the motion was not properly before the House. The Speaker ruled that it was properly before the House. From that ruling of Mr. Speaker at the time, then, the logical conclusion is that the issue is properly before the House.

In summary, then, there are three points. First, the issue is properly before the House. Mr. Speaker has already ruled in that regard. Second, regardless of what has been invoked regarding the Australian parliament, we have our own precedent in the House of Commons based on the issue of the late 1980s as we dealt with it at the time and as the Speaker ruled upon it at the time. Third, the House does not recognize that its privileges are breached; it reaffirms, at the same time, its privileges, which we claim we always had and which we also reassert in our standing orders.

Points of OrderGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I thank the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton for the point of order that he raised and of course I thank the Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for his intervention on the same point of order. The Chair will respond without too much delay on the matter over the course of the day.

There was a period remaining of questions and comments, but I believe we will move to resuming debate. The hon. member for South Shore.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, and of the amendment, and of the amendment to the amendment.

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms ActGovernment Orders

May 6th, 2003 / 1:10 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say at the beginning of debate that if you will allow it I would like to share my time with the member for Cumberland—Colchester. I realize that we do not have a lot of time to speak on this subject. It will probably be the last opportunity most of us get to speak directly to the bill. Therefore, it is important that as many members as possible speak to the bill.

I would like to make a couple of points in the time allotted. First, I would like to go back to December 5, 2002, and point out that the member of Parliament for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, the Conservative justice critic, on that day saved Canadians $72 million. The motion he brought up, which was subsequently passed by all the members of the House, read:

That the Supplementary Estimates (A) be amended by reducing vote 1a under Justice by the amount of $62,872,916 and vote 5a under Justice by the amount of $9,109,670 and that the supply motions and the bill to be based thereon altered accordingly.

The motion was passed unanimously by the House of Commons.

Twice I have referenced the fact that the motion was passed unanimously by the House of Commons. Today we have the same government that agreed that the $72 million should be withdrawn from the estimates, that the long gun registry was totally out of control, while all the opposition parties were in unanimity and the government even supported withdrawing it from the estimates. Yet somehow today we once again are being forced us to vote on this bill that will allow these same players to put that $72 million back into the gun registry, and to add on to that a total, by conservative estimates, of a minimum of $100 million a year until 2008. We have $1 billion spent now and it is 2003. That is $1.5 billion. It is unbelievable that the government can find a way to support and to continue to support this flawed piece of legislation.

Earlier today I referenced the fact that we have a cattle registry in this country that registers I believe around 28 million animals. Each one of those animals has a serial number and a bar code. We know where they are, who they are sold to and where they are moved to. I think, although I do not have the number right in front of me, that the total cost of that registry for 28 million animals and a lot of information is in the neighbourhood of $2 million a year. Yet somehow the government has managed to spend $998 million more registering less than 20% of the total number of cows and bulls registered. It would seem to me that even as mathematically challenged as many of the government members are, they should be able to do the math on this one.

Members stood earlier and asked what we could buy with $1 billion. The point was made by one of the Alliance members that we could buy 200 MRI machines. Better than that, we could run the MRI machines that we already have 24 hours a day and we could probably do it for the next 10 years with $1 billion. We could utilize the equipment that we have.

It has been said that $1 billion would pay the tuition for a full degree program for every university student in Canada. I would expect that would add a lot more to the economy of the country than the expenditure of $1 billion that is not working and will not work.

When the Solicitor General was speaking today he refused to say that it will be his job to apply the law. He did say that he fully expected police forces in Canada would apply the law. Well, I would hope not. There are a lot of people, not a dozen, not 50, not 200, not thousands, but hundreds of thousands of people who have not complied. Some of them are old ladies of 85 years of age who inherited firearms from a spouse and who have no intention of registering them. Some have, but many have not. I know a number of them personally and they have no intention of registering their firearms.

Does the government intend to enforce the rule of law? If we have laws, I suspect they are supposed to be enforced. Does the government intend to start arresting 85 year old grandmothers? I would hope not, and shame on it if it does. Yet government members are going to vote in support of the bill and they will be voting in support of that law.

There are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have never broken the law. They do not have so much as an infraction on their driver's licence. They do not have a parking ticket. However they do have unregistered firearms. I personally know dozens of hunters who have told me they have registered one shotgun and one rifle.

What happens at the end of the day? We are forcing into place a law that is wrong-headed and which will end up putting more illegal firearms on the street. Instead of actually controlling guns, the government is encouraging people not to control them. It is encouraging people to get rid of them. Their firearms may be stored safely and may even have firearm acquisition numbers, but instead of registering 12 guns they have only registered two. Can we blame them? There is no trust among Canadians and among gun owners especially that the government will not turn around and use this piece of legislation against them.

We are in a terrible situation. One billion dollars has already been wasted. Another $500 million at least will be spent in the next five years, and the bill before us encourages misuse and abuse of the system.

I do not know what the government's alternative is here. I do know there is an obvious door open to the government. That door is for the government to admit that the registry has failed. The government should reverse its position on it and give up totally on this ill-founded idea which it has had eight years to put into place and which has cost Canadian taxpayers $1 billion. It is my belief that is the only door open to the government.

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member referred on more than one occasion to wasting $1 billion. Coming from an area where the gun issue was not as pronounced as it is in some areas of the country, we have to inform ourselves a little more about some of the facts.

With regard to the $1 billion, I was surprised to find out that the Auditor General had discovered that some 80% of the applications to register firearms in fact were incomplete or incorrect. This was a deliberate action, a protest as it were, by firearms owners. As a consequence, there was a requirement to invest in a lot more human resources to process those applications. The magnitude of that, I understand, was that over $300 million was spent to correct or to do the human intervention into a process that should have been computerized.

In addition, because of the protest activity that was going on, a substantial amount of money was also spent on advertising. I understand that figure was in excess of $200 million to make sure that the correct information was in front of Canadians and to encourage Canadians that the registry is important. That was a responsible action.

Also, the Auditor General reported that the $1 billion was not spent, but it was a projected number to 2005. What had been spent up to the date of the report was only about $600 million, I am advised, subject to check.

Having said that, I understand that delay and disruption is part of the democratic governing principles. People have a right to protest. However, it reminds me of the kids in Los Angeles who trashed their own community and said “There, take that”.

Why is it there would be a protest? Why is it the website was clogged up at the last minute so that people could not register? It was a protest. I think the member should acknowledge that the consequences of that process were the real reason that additional moneys were spent, that money was not lost, but in fact it was caused by those who disagreed with the law.

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of points I would like to make on the member's statement. I will leave the one on the protest until last.

First, the program did waste $1 billion. It had nothing to do with safety and it had little to do with gun control. It was simply one more example of the government using the opportunity to take away any criticism that might have been put on the shoulders of the government about the policies it had undertaken as a fairly new government in 1994.

The Liberals made promises, some of which they kept. One of them was to scrap the helicopters, which has come back to haunt them. Their promise on Pearson airport came back to haunt them. There was also their promise to get rid of the GST which they never intended to keep.

Those were the issues that the gun control bill was brought in on, as well as the issue of free trade that the Liberals were going to scrap. That is the issue. It had nothing to do with gun control.

Most members in the House support gun control. I support gun control and I have no problem in saying that. I do not support the registry. It has wasted $1 billion.

The member wanted to break it down as $300 million to catch up on the people who had not registered accurately. Perhaps the forms were too complicated. Did he think of that? Somehow, for 80% of the people who registered, it is their fault but not the fault of the system that did not work.

On the $200 million in advertising, that was a waste of money. He should be ashamed of himself for even bringing it up. I do not think any member of the government should bring up advertising after the sponsorship program where again, hundreds of millions of dollars were wasted in advertising. One such advertisement we got a photocopy for cost the people of Canada $500,000. I do not think there ever should be a member of the government who would want to talk about advertising. If $200 million was spent on advertising the gun registry, I would like to see a forensic audit done on every penny of it.

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this subject. I want to hit on two issues; one is the effectiveness of the process and the other is the waste that we have heard so much about.

The Solicitor General was up on his feet this morning saying that we have to have an efficient system. He must have used the word efficiency a dozen times but never once did he say effective. One of my beefs with the system is that it is not effective.

There is a person in my riding who registered one rifle. He got five registrations. That may sound like an insignificant issue but the police out there, who the Solicitor General said are counting on the system to help them do their job and protect them, may go to that man's house, call the firearms registry and be told he has five rifles. He does not. He registered one but the registry registered five.

Another man I know registered 18 firearms and got 36 registrations. Another man registered five firearms and he only got two registrations. He is a doctor. He knew how to fill out the forms. He did the best he could. He filled the forms out right and that is what happened.

When we tried to find out what had happened with one of the men I mentioned earlier, we found there were five lines on the form to fill in. He had one rifle. He filled it in five times with exactly the same information on each line and still the firearms registry registered five firearms. Anybody who looked at it could have seen there was a mistake, that he had listed the same gun five times but the system is so ineffective and lacks such credibility that nobody could even understand it.

When I asked the Solicitor General this morning about some of these problems, he agreed. He said that there are bad examples. The minister said the government is trying to personally contact some of these people at the very least to find out what happened to see if it can be corrected.

We as a party have established a website exactly for that. People can contact us or Parliament, and tell us exactly the problems they have had. It is really simple. People can access www.gunregistry.ca and type in their problems and difficulties. They will be given to the Solicitor General and hopefully he will deal with them in the way that he promised in his statement this morning.

In that way we hope to deal with the ineffectiveness of the program which I am sure has ruined the credibility of it so that no police officer could depend on it. If it is not credible, I do not know what good it is in any case. Never mind the money that was wasted on the whole program, if the information is not right, and I know it is not right, the Solicitor General admitted it is not right, then what is the point in having it? Even though some people support it, it is no good if the information is not credible and it is not.

I want to touch on the waste aspect of it as well. The government side often says that we are just complaining, that it is the opposition being the opposition, but it is not only us. It is people, organizations, authorities across the country, provinces and attorneys general. It is everybody.

One for whom I think most of us around here have a great deal of respect is the Auditor General. She is a person for whom I have the utmost respect and I think we are very fortunate to have her in her position. We are very fortunate that she does the job she does.

The Auditor General has said that only 30% of the funds used for the program came through the right system while 70% of the funds came through inappropriate systems, supplementary estimates and other departments. It is incredible that the government could try to hide this. That is exactly the point she was trying to make.

The Department of Justice, in the Auditor General's report, did not provide Parliament with the estimate of all the major additional costs nor did it give us an accounting of the additional cost. The original cost was to be a couple of million dollars and now it is estimated, by the time it is done if it ever gets done, at over a thousand million dollars. It has gone from two million to a thousand million dollars.

I talked to a CEO of a major privately traded company on the plane the other day. He said that if they start a project in that company and there is an overrun of 5%, the project manager has to report back to the board of directors and explain why it is 5% over. If it is 10% over, the project stops. That is in the private sector.

We have a government project which we were told would cost about $2 million. Now it looks like it will cost a thousand million dollars, and the government runs and hides. The word now is that the government is trying to privatize the process so it can further confuse everybody and avoid answers. Then the government can say that it is privatized and it cannot answer those questions.

The Auditor General says that she was unable to complete her report because of the multitude of discrepancies and shortcomings in the information provided by the Department of Justice. That must make the government feel very proud, to say that the Auditor General could not even do a report because of the inconsistencies, the discrepancies and the shortcomings of its accounting, especially when it knew the whole country was watching this program. It is one of the most controversial issues. It did not even bother to account for the money and it cannot explain where the money went.

The Auditor General, who has proven to be extremely capable, extremely effective and efficient, cannot do an audit on the firearms registry expenses of a thousand million dollars.

It is a shame that we are back at this once again trying to get more money. I want to remind the House that if members wish to register their complaints with the firearms registry, all they have to do is send us an e-mail at www.gunregistry.ca. We will be glad to hear from members and all the problems they have had in registering their guns.