Debates of May 6th, 2003

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

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, police chiefs across Canada are withdrawing their support for the government's firearms registry and are going public with their complaints. The president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police has stated that they will not be charging people under this law until the problems are resolved. They have written to the justice minister requesting that the implementation of the law be put on hold.

Can the minister explain how the firearms registry will be enforced when police are refusing to charge those who do not comply?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important question, but I am concerned by what the member is suggesting may happen.

When the House of Commons passes laws in this country, the police have an obligation to uphold those laws. I hope the member opposite is not advocating that the police in Canada do not enforce the laws passed by the House of Commons. The police have a responsibility and an obligation to enforce those laws.

In fact, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association, and the Ottawa police chief are in support of the legislation. They believe it does make safer communities and streets.

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

Mr. Speaker, I recall the days when the hon. member used to speak against gun control well before he was Solicitor General. In committee and in debate he was not the rabid gun control fan that he seems to be since he became minister.

On December 5, 2002, the Progressive Conservative justice critic, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, saved Canadians $72 million by having that amount of money withdrawn from the estimates. I would think that because the $72 million had to be withdrawn by the government, it did not have the money in its coffers to continue to bankroll this $1 billion mistake that it has made.

Where did the government find the money to continue with the gun control registry? If it diverted money from other means, how did it meet its payroll, and how could it do that and be consistent with the comments that the Auditor General made of how it was circumventing Parliament and getting the money to begin with?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member is roaring across the aisle that what we cannot do by the front door we are doing by the back door. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We have said on this side of the House that there have been extensive costs to this program. Through Bill C-10A, we have found ways to make the gun registry more efficient. We need the legislative obligations which are laid out in Bill C-10A in order to put those efficiencies in place.

I understand the opposition by some to the program. The intent of the gun control issue, as the member fully knows, is not to make criminals out of legitimate gun owners. They have a right to those guns. However, there are certain obligations they must follow through on that are part of the gun control program.

The specifics of the hon. member's question pertained to costs. One of the reasons why, as outlined in the presentation before the estimates, and one of the difficulties in terms of administering the program and getting registrations on the phone-in system is that we had to cut back on resources and on people on the other end of those phones because of the reduction of the amount of money the member talked about. It added to our problem of inefficiencies in the system because that money was withdrawn.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned a lot of interesting things in a short time. He talked about how we should not be making legitimate gun owners criminals, but neither should we be making taxpayers paupers. That is exactly what the registry is doing.

The minister talked about extensive costs. That is putting it mildly. We are talking about something that was supposed to cost $2 million. It is now closing in on $1 billion. That would buy over 200 MRI machines and also train the people to run them. If this were about saving lives, clearly that would be a better way to proceed.

The minister talked about people who oppose the registry and he understands why. The minister should, of course, because as the member mentioned just a minute ago, he used to oppose it too until all of a sudden he became a minister and everything changed.

I want to talk specifically about his comments on being a democrat. If we are democrats, does that not mean we listen to the will of the public? When the public is saying in a recent poll that 53% want the registry scrapped, a democrat would listen.

When will this alleged democrat across the way start listening to the Canadian public and scrap that registry?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, there was a lot of hot air but not much substance in that comment. Let us get to the facts in terms of the $2 million cost. Admittedly so, it was the net cost of the program as originally estimated. The member talks about the $1 billion figure. We are not at $1 billion; by 2005 we may reach that point.

I do want to make this point. The members are saying that I was opposed to this system and that since I became a minister I now support it. I think it would be useful if members opposite went back to look at the voting record in Hansard . They will see how I voted on this issue. Certainly I have debated, as have many members of our caucus; I see some of them sitting here. I have debated within our own caucus and within the House some of the concerns we had on the gun registry. We did have concerns. We tried to improve it.

That is what we are trying to do today: improve the bill to meet the concerns of the people within our party and some of the concerns of the people opposite and certainly of the general public.

On the last point on democracy, the member says to listen to the will of the public. That is what we are trying to do. The public said yes, they want this system, but they want it run efficiently.

If we could ever get to voting on Bill C-10A, we could create some of those efficiencies in the system that the public wants. That is what we are trying to do by getting this bill through the House of Commons, but the opposition members continue to try to disrupt us. Twenty days of debate between the two houses is unbelievable.

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

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the minister. What I was asking for is his opinion on whether or not the Senate should have the right to split a bill. It is not elected and not democratic. The gun registry, by the way, is a money bill, which makes it even more serious.

I have known the minister for a number of years and I know that he was outspoken. Just because he is now a minister of the crown does not mean that he has become a political eunuch. He still has his own mind, his own brain, his own opinion.

In his opinion, is it the proper thing to do to have the Senate split a bill like this when the senators are not elected, particularly when it is a money bill?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I think I answered the member's question earlier. The fact of the matter is that the Senate is appointed. It is a part of our democratic system. It is the sober house of second thought. In terms of the cruelty to animals part of the splitting, I would hope that there is some sober second thought over there. This will proceed through the system. There will be a good debate on both issues and at the end of the day we expect better legislation. That is what the other place is all about; sober second thought on some of these issues. It is part of our democratic system. I think we should be proud of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister has said that he has to have an efficient system, but I think it also has to be effective and credible. I would like him to explain how it can be credible when a man in my riding registered one firearm but got five registrations; so now the police, who are depending on this registry to know how many firearms this man has, think he has five. Another man registered five guns but only got two registrations. Another man sent money a year and a half ago and has nothing. Another person has registered 18 firearms and the system registered 36 firearms.

How can anyone have any faith in the system with this incredible amount of inefficiency and error in the system?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

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

In fact, in Regina about two weeks ago I talked to a gun shop owner. He spent, in my view, much too long on the telephone trying to register in that case a twenty-two, I believe, that had a duplicate number. That should not happen in the system. I agree with the hon. member. There are problems within the system and there are examples out there, and I am not denying that, not for a minute.

What we are trying to do through the bill and what I am trying to do personally is talk to some of those individuals, and the new chief executive officer at the Canadian Firearms Centre, Mr. Baker, is trying to do the same, because we want to talk directly to those people who have problems and we want to fix those problems. That is what this bill is all about: making the system work efficiently and effectively. That is what we want to do.

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the firearms registry was imposed on Canadians with the promise that it would cost only $2 million. The government was wrong, which is not surprising. This program has cost, to date, nearly 500 times more than the initial estimate.

Last fall, the Auditor General published a scathing report on the government's bad management of this program.

For the past three months, the Canadian Alliance has tried to get an honest answer from the minister. Can he tell us how much the implementation and maintenance of this program will cost?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is not what today's motion is about. There will be a chance to get into that kind of detail when we go to estimates.

What I can do is talk about past history. I have already outlined that, where, yes, there have been extensive costs. The Auditor General made a report, a very well documented report, and we appreciate having received that report from her. It was not good news, I will admit that. There was bad news in it, but what this government and what I as the minister now responsible for the firearms centre are willing to do is look at this. We have said that we would adopt those recommendations. We will accept them and in fact some of them are in Bill C-10A, this bill that we are talking about. We want to learn from what the Auditor General said and create efficiencies in the system and manage the system more effectively.

That is what I cannot understand: Where is the official opposition on this? On one hand it is talking about the program costing too much money, and I admit it is, but we want the program to cost less money and to be more efficient, and yet those members will not give us the opportunity to make this program more efficient and have safer streets in the process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Solicitor General's remarks and I appreciate the fact that he recognizes the registry is costing too much money, but I know for a fact that at one time in the member's career he raised dairy cows and I am certain he is also aware of the fact that we manage to register 28 million head of livestock, cows alone, in this country for somewhere around $2 million a year. Each of those cows has a serial number and each has its sire and dam written down. To waste $1 billion on something that should have cost $4 million or $5 million cannot be excused and he cannot find a way to justify it.

My final point is quite clear. The former minister of justice who used to have this portfolio, the member from Etobicoke, tried to make his mark on this registry and become the next prime minister of Canada. He made a mark. It cost $1 billion. This member is going to leave--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. Solicitor General.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I will say this on the member's question. When the program he is talking about was started, I believe Charlie Gracey was the president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association at the time, or at least he was one of the consultants on that national cattle identification program. It is an exceptionally good program, no question about it. Twenty-five million livestock are registered, transfers are happening, sales are happening, and some are going to slaughter.

They are doing that and I congratulate them for doing it, but this is like comparing apples and oranges in terms of this particular program. There is a 95% compliance rate with the NCIP, but in the beginning there was considerable opposition to the program, the same as there is with this program.

I believe that if government can get the message out of what this program is all about, it is that the intent is not to criminalize legitimate gun owners. It is not; it is to make safer streets and safer communities. We want to do that. Without Bill C-10A, which we are having the discussion on, the firearms centre, taxpayers are incurring costs to maintain and operate the old system as well as costs for the new system. We need this piece of legislation so that we are working with the new system, a more efficient system, and so we can provide the kinds of services that Canadians want in an efficient way.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, just as an aside, it is interesting to note that there were 18 Tory senators who voted for Bill C-68, and without those votes we would not have the firearms registry.

My colleague down the way talked about the police and the individuals who said that they would not be enforcing this law. There is another problem for the minister opposite and that is the provinces that will not support this law and say that they want it scrapped.

My question is directed to the minister. How will the law be enforced when a number of provinces, eight of them in fact, say that they do not want the registry in their jurisdictions? What will he do about that?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, we want to work with the provinces and work together in the way that this country was intended to work, with the provinces and federal government working together, and we are going to sit down and try to do that. If we have to go our own way we may have to do that too, but I want to come back to what was said earlier, I believe by this member, about the Association of Chiefs of Police.

This is what Chief Vince Bevan of the association had to say and I think this sums it all up:

Information is the lifeblood of policing. Without information about who owns and has guns, there is no way to prevent violence or effectively enforce the law. This law is a useful tool which has already begun to show its value in a number of police investigations.

There is a second quote from the same individual:

We have seen a number of concrete examples of police investigations that have been aided by access to the information in the registry.

If the party over there were as interested in law and order as it claims, it would be supporting us today instead of jeopardizing and causing disruptions in getting these efficiencies through the system.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House. The question is on the motion. Is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen: