Debates of May 6th, 2003

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

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is not hard to do. I have seen some of the survey questions. I would have to say yes to some of the questions and be part of that 74% because that same survey talks about safe handling, safe storage, training and screening. I have no problem with any of that. None of us do. That was all done before under the old FAC process that we had for 15 or 20 years before the Liberals twisted it around into this particular procedure.

The government has claimed that the Firearms Act under Bill C-68 would have more effective screening, and the member for Mississauga said that same thing today. He went on about percentages of rejections, that 9,000 people have been denied a firearm.

The screening under the old FAC was twice as stringent. More people were denied a licence at the FAC process from 25 years ago than are rejected under the Bill C-68 screening that we see now. We had a good system in place. It was working. Why did we have to change it? Nobody knows. It became a political football.

Let us look at what happened when this type of registration was introduced around the world. Great Britain banned all private ownership of handguns in 1997. Violent crime rose 10% the next year and then doubled up to 2000 again. In Australia, stringent new gun control laws were introduced again in 1997. Homicides involving firearms have doubled and armed robberies have increased 166%. New Zealand had it in 1983 and killed it. The police over there declared that the policy was a complete failure.

It has been tried in jurisdictions all around the word and has proven to be an utterly disastrous situation. Yet those guys go merrily down the road, saying stats this, numbers that, but they pervert them and twist them to make their point. It is not factual. It is not accurate. It just off the map and playing politics with the situation.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I indicated some figures during my speech and I am still looking for the flowchart. However the member may want to comment on these statistics. This document is a homicide survey produced by Statistics Canada involving homicides only.

In 1991 there were 50 homicides with handguns and in 2001 there were 64. In 1991 there were 103 homicides with rifles and shotguns and in 2001 there were 46, less than half.

I believe that the document from Statistics Canada shows that there has been a dramatic drop in long arm homicides over the past decade compared to a relatively flat scenario for handguns. I will not table it but I would be happy to provide copies of it to members who would like to have this information.

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member actually makes the point for me. He is showing handgun problems on the rise. We have had a handgun registry since 1934. It is not working.

Then he is saying that the stats for long guns were 103 homicides in 1991 and 46 in 2001. They have dropped to half. We still do not have a workable registry and yet they have dropped to half. Why would we continue with it? We do not need it.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in our debate today with respect to Bill C-10A, I think it is important for members of the House to remind themselves of the history of gun control in Canada.

I was interested in hearing somewhat, I felt, a little bit of English, a little bit of politicking going on with an earlier opposition member's comments on the history of how we arrived at where we are today.

We are here today as a result of cautious and considered action by previous parliaments which, over the decades, have put in place legislation that was designed to meet specific needs and specific challenges in the Canadian context.

The law of the land has changed over time. It has changed as our communities, our society and the world around us have changed and evolved.

We are painfully aware of the criminal misuse of firearms and the tragic consequences of firearms violence in our communities.

Some of the issues related to firearms are relatively new, or certainly their magnitude is new. I brought to the House's attention the example of the problems posed by guns used by urban street gangs, including youth gangs in many urban centres.

Some statistics help to tell the story of why it has been necessary to establish more safety standards for firearm use. In the past, there was a historic average of over 1,000 firearm related deaths per annum. Greater numbers of Canadians are hospitalized each year because of firearm related injuries. Among industrialized countries, Canada has had the fifth highest firearm death rate for children under the age of 15. This is truly tragic.

I am certain that everyone present here today, indeed all Canadians and members on all sides of the House, want to see concrete measures taken to reduce the criminal use of firearms and to reduce firearms related violence.

The gun control program is an essential part of this initiative. It is vital to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them, for their own safety, for the safety of others and for that of our communities.

Let us look at domestic homicide for example. We know that shooting is the leading cause of death in female spousal homicide. An overwhelming majority of domestic homicide shootings of men and women are with so-called ordinary rifles and shotguns.

In 1998 statistics showed that 63% of Canadian spousal firearm homicides involved rifles and shotguns. Sawed off rifles and shotguns killed a further 21% of Canadian spousal firearm homicide victims in that year.

Those are some of the reasons why a practical response to domestic violence must include a serious approach to both rifles and shotguns.

Internationally there is an increasing concern with respect to illicit movement of firearms to feed criminal markets. Countries have come to recognize that international co-operation is key to combating illegal firearms and stemming firearms related crime. It is a vital part of not only our safety agenda but that of the international community.

If we look a little at the backdrop of the current legislation, we see that the registration of handguns was first required by law back in 1934. Four decades later, the Criminal Code was amended to require persons wishing to own firearms to hold a firearms acquisition certificate.

During the period of 1992 to 1994, the firearms acquisition certificate process was enhanced. A requirement for a person to submit references was introduced, along with a 28 day waiting period before a certificate could be issued. Mandatory safety training was also introduced at that time, along with clearly defined safe firearms storage regulations. These measures continue to be in place today.

Bill C-68 was passed in 1995 and it established the Firearms Act and amended part III of the Criminal Code. It came into force in 1998, setting the stage for the regime that we have today.

Just to remind ourselves, the legislation included, among other things: enhanced eligibility criteria for being allowed to possess a firearm; a requirement for licensing of firearms owners; a requirement for the registration of all firearms; provisions allowing for the regulation of the import and export of firearms; and tougher Criminal Code penalties for serious firearm offences.

Under the current legislation, licensing of all firearms owners became mandatory January 1, 2001. The registration of all firearms became mandatory as of January 1 this year.

Put in context, the current regime is the result of careful progression and of measured consideration. Canadians now have a gun control program that is there to ensure that the public safety is protected and, at the same time, to ensure that legitimate gun owners and gun users are not unduly burdened. We have the balance right.

The issue now is, and this has been reflected in the recent public debate, how to make the program work as economically and as efficiently as it can. This, too, is in the public interest.

The gun control action plan announced by the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General in February responds in concrete, practical ways to the observations and concerns that have been expressed by Canadians. We know we need to make the program work in the most effective manner, making the best use of public resources. There is a clear plan of action in place now and it is being implemented as we speak.

That is why Bill C-10A is so very important. It is a vital element of the plan to improve the gun control program. Bill C-10A would allow for important changes to the gun control program, building on the existing legislation. We are on the right track.

The bill includes amendments to the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code that would support and facilitate public compliance with the firearms program. The amendments would also consolidate administrative responsibility for the program, as well as help Canada meet new international obligations. I would underline and stress again that this is an issue that many nations are grappling with.

While the amendments the bill would make respond to concerns expressed about the firearms program's efficiency and cost, I would emphasize that these changes and these economies would be found through the administrative process. The amendments do not change the basic public safety goals and the elements of the Firearms Act, nor that of the gun control program.

Let me also mention some key amendments. Bill C-10A streamlines the process of transferring firearms from one owner to another. This would not only result in the elimination of a step in the approval of transfers saving time for all concerned, but it would also reduce costs.

The bill introduces pre-processing of non-residents who wish to enter Canada with firearms, for example, those who want to come to Canada on a hunting trip. This would also assist in reducing the lines at the border and support businesses that are involved in servicing sport hunters and shooters.

The process for licence renewals will be streamlined. That would include the renewal of the licences in an evenly staggered way, rather than receiving a huge surge of applications every five years. This is a key practical measure and will result in cost savings and better client service.

In addition, under Bill C-10A business licence terms will be extended from one year to three years for most businesses. This again means less cost and a simpler system.

Those and other changes proposed in Bill C-10A are a direct response to the extensive consultations that we have undertaken over the past several years with program partners and stakeholders. It is important to recognize that included the policing community and gun owners themselves.

The changes provide solutions to issues raised by the firearms community. While doing so, the bill will allow for more effective administration without a negative impact on the safety provisions which are fundamental to the entire program.

It is a win-win situation. Firearm owners and businesses will be getting many of the changes that they have told us they are seeking. The Canadian public at large wins by getting a more cost effective program while maintaining the public safety aspects on which they place such a high value.

I note that the government will not be losing touch with Canadians on the firearms front. There is a commitment in the gun control action plan, as announced by the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice on February 21, to hold consultations with stakeholders and the public on the program design and the service delivery. I am happy to say that this commitment also includes consultations with parliamentarians.

I personally look forward to participating in those consultations as part of my service to my constituents. I am certain that others here in the House also look forward to that same opportunity to contribute in a positive manner.

We also have the opportunity today to make another contribution. We can ensure that Bill C-10A moves forward so that vital improvements in the gun control program that are important to all Canadians can be made as soon as possible.

A group of police officers was on Parliament Hill a few weeks ago. A couple of members of the Waterloo Regional Police were part of that delegation. I spoke at length with them as to what their views were of the gun control act and whether they supported it.

They mentioned to me some interesting statistics, such as that over 2,000 inquiries are made to the gun registry on a daily basis by police forces and that while it is often heard as an anti-gun control lobby tactic that criminals do not register firearms, the firearms registry allows police to track stolen weapons. That is very important to them. They support this legislation.

According to an Environics poll that was done recently, over 74% of Canadians support the spirit and the enactment of this legislation. It is time for the debate to conclude so that we can move forward with this very important piece of legislation that Canadians have said they value and need.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to devote a couple of minutes to comments and a question regarding the use of time allocation yet again on this very important issue of so-called gun control or firearms registration.

The reality is that I and many of my colleagues would have liked to represent our constituents on this very important issue. This issue simply will not go away, especially in the rural ridings across the nation. We are not going to be allowed the time to speak yet again.

When the legislation that this is attached to, Bill C-68, and I would add the infamous Bill C-68, was debated in the House, the Liberal government brought in time allocation. That was eight years ago. The bill we are debating today, Bill C-10A, contains some 22 pages and 63 clauses of amendments. If the Liberals had allowed a little more time to debate this issue eight years ago, perhaps they would not have to continually come back with more and more amendments that the member says are going to fix the problems.

People in the real world outside the Ottawa bubble and outside the Liberal Party of Canada know that nothing is going to fix this. Yet here we are again with time allocation and members are being denied the right to represent their constituents and are being denied the right to speak in the House of Commons. The Liberal member had the audacity this afternoon to call this a win-win situation, a win-win situation that has cost Canadian taxpayers $1 billion and counting, the net cost of which was originally going to be $2 million to implement. She called $1 billion a win-win situation. It is absolutely unbelievable.

She bragged that there are 2,000 inquiries a day. The policeman that she spoke with told her that there are 2,000 inquiries a day, but she did not tell us how accurate the information is that goes back to the police. If it is inaccurate, it is worse than no information. We know from the Auditor General that we cannot trust the information in this computer program.

I would like to ask the member what guarantees we and the people of Canada can have that if Bill C-10A does not fix all of the problems in this failed and farcical firearms registry, the government or perhaps the new prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, will cancel the thing. Are the Liberals prepared to make the commitment that if Bill C-10A does not live up to the great and wonderful improvements that she talked about in her canned speech that was probably given to her by the justice department, she and her party will cancel this abomination?

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to answer the issues raised by my hon. colleague opposite. I realize that this is a contentious issue for many members on all sides of the House.

This is something that is in the public good. To talk about $1 billion is so misleading, I am absolutely amazed. It is $785 million that has been spent to date. One of the issues of this entire process has been that we have continued to consult. I ask the member opposite, is it not good government? I contend it is absolutely good government. Not only do we re-debate this issue in the House, and this is not the first time this issue has been debated in the House, but we continue to consult with Canadians. As a matter of fact, we embrace the Auditor General's reports because that is how we improve the system and make it responsive to Canadians.

What the government will not do is abandon the bedrock ideals that this is predicated on, which are a safer community and a safer Canada. That is what Canadians have asked us for. We will continue to work on that. We will continue to consult with Canadians to improve this system but we will not abandon those principles.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, this debate and the kind of reaction we just had from the member are really frustrating and aggravating.

Since 1993 for example, the people of this country have been tabling petitions in the House numbering over hundreds of thousands for the government to take some action against child pornography to protect our children. There have been thousands and thousands of signatures. Polls indicate that 90% to 95% of all Canadians are begging members of the House of Commons to quit spending their time wasting money on a program that is not going to work and start dedicating it toward a program that will work, that will protect thousands of young children in this land, that will get pedophiles and sexual predators off the streets and protect communities.

Instead Liberals have spent millions and billions of dollars to come up with ideas that just do not make sense. Criminals will not register their guns. Does that not sink in? They will not. Criminals who intend to use a gun in the commission of a crime will get a gun regardless of what kind of program is in place. They have the capability of doing it. There are people supplying guns illegally. Instead of fighting that with all the dollars, the government is bringing forward legislation to make sure that honest people do their duty.

Why does the member not get up and demand that people in her own party start bringing in legislation that will fight child pornography which is a detriment to this land? It is affecting thousands of victims. The registry of long guns is not near the problem.

What is wrong with the government that its members sit on their backsides and will not get out of their seats to fight the real problems instead of being a thorn in the sides of most Canadians who are law abiding? What is wrong with the government? What is wrong with the member who will not represent 90% of the people in her riding who I know want to get rid of child pornography? She should get up and fight for the right things.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have to acknowledge the passion of my friend opposite. Child pornography is a huge issue and it is one that Canadians care about. I would invite the member on that issue as well as the issue of gun control to work with the people on the ground, to work with the officers across Canada.

Over two million hits have been made on this system since 1998 by police forces. This is a tool that they value. I invite the member to work with me and all members of the House and with people right across Canada. We will battle this issue.

[An hon. member]

You guys should be ashamed of yourselves.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I do believe that it is out of respect for hon. members that we put our questions or comments and then we listen for the answers from the hon. members and we try as much as possible not to shout back and forth. It is also very difficult for the Chair to hear hon. members when they respond to questions or when they ask a question.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my hon. colleague from Kitchener Centre would like to address the issues about the cost of the program a little further. How does she feel the measures that have been taken in this bill will help to address those costs?

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, that does seem to be a bit of a contentious issue. I would be the first to acknowledge that this has not been a perfect system. That is why we are bringing in recommendations to address some of the concerns of the Auditor General.

Quite clearly the original proposal when we brought in gun control was predicated on the full participation of the provinces. It was also predicated on some revenues that actually were deferred and some of them were not realized. That did change the actual cost but there is no way near the amount of expenditure that the opposition would have us believe.

This is a good system. As a matter of fact, a representative of the Canadian Police Association told me that before 1995 about $30 million a year was spent on gun registry and only $10 million of that was borne by the federal government. After we brought in our legislation, that entire amount was borne federally.

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

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the calming effect you have on the House. I will try to follow your lead, after the outburst from my colleague, the member for Wild Rose.

I rise to speak to this bill, consideration of which began a long time ago. In fact, the government tried, unsuccessfully, to pass what is now known as Bill C-10 during the previous Parliament, and since then has had to contend with a variety of problems of a procedural nature, and let us say it, some related to political leadership.

It is unusual that at this stage in the debate the Senate is asking the House to split the bill. Of course, this bill was passed by the House at third reading and referred to the Senate for its consideration. The Senate's wish to split the bill in two, at this advanced stage in the legislative process, seems to be bizarre, and may not even be permissible.

So, we would like to point out the particularly eloquent relevance—I never thought I would hear myself saying this in the House—of the amendment to the motion before us, submitted by our colleague from the Canadian Alliance. The amendment reads as follows:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“, 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, this House does not concur with the Senate's division of the Bill into two parts, namely, Bill C-10A, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms) and the Firearms Act, and Bill C-10B, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals), since it is the view of this House that such alteration to Bill C-10 by the Senate is an infringement of the rights and privileges of the House of Commons; and

That this House asks that the Senate consider Bill C-10 in an undivided form; and

That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours therewith.”

Members will recall that this controversial legislation was already split by Bills C-15A and C-15B during the first session of the 37th Parliament.

On December 5, the Chair heard a lengthy point of order on the issue of dividing the bill. In our opinion, the Senate is overstepping its powers by again proposing division of the bill.

According to the procedures and practices of the House of Commons, the Senate has no power to make any orders at all to the House; at most, it may make suggestions.

We all know that the upper chamber, the Senate, is non-democratic in nature. We realize that those who sit in the other place are appointed by the Prime Minister. That is a quite incredible form of nepotism in an advanced democracy such as ours. In short, it is unacceptable that unelected people, friends of the party and particularly friends of the Prime Minister, can come and tell us what to do here in the House where the elected representatives of the people sit, the 301 men and women who were elected by the people of Quebec and Canada.

I am very surprised that we can accept such proceedings in a representative democracy, such as Canada claims to be. It should be the duty of every elected member in this House to tell the hon. senators, “You have no right to do what you are doing. You have no right to tell the House of Commons, with its elected members, what to do”.

This wake-up call is too late for the Senate. Could it be a deliberate stalling tactic by the government in order to prevent passage of this bill? Considering the prevailing climate in the Liberal caucus—as we saw during question period, the shots are flying; serious divisions are being aggravated by such things as the leadership race—anything is possible.

Dividing the bill in two does not change anything in the Bloc Quebecois's stated position.

As we address the tricky issue of cruelty to animals, the arguments invoked by the various points of view must inevitably collide.

On one hand, there are the powerful lobbies, some with a position that is a bit extreme and, on the other hand, there are more reasonable groups that make a real contribution to the public debate by presenting very specific arguments.

However, the major coups of groups in the first category have the unfortunate and overly frequent consequence of lumping together all the animal rights activists. The government is being forced to retreat by some of these groups due to a lack of leadership, as seen in many areas.

In terms of amending the Firearms Act, is it necessary to spell out the firearms registry fiasco highlighted by the Auditor General? A program that, originally, was to cost barely a few million dollars and then pay for itself, will have cost one billion by the end of the fiscal year, without producing the anticipated results.

It is important not to forget the firearms registry fiasco; the Liberal government's lack of rigour in managing the firearms program has created two victims: the taxpayers because they will have to dig into their own pockets to keep the program going, and second, as serious, is that this has provided ammunition—no pun intended—to those ideologically opposed to the bill. This means that many people who had supported gun control are asking themselves questions, and some are even saying, “Yes, I support this in principle but perhaps not at that price”.

Due to its incompetence, the federal government has become the objective ally of those most strongly opposed to any form of gun control. I think that Quebeckers and Canadians will remember the huge responsibilities resting on this government's shoulders.

This legislation could always be split into as many bills as it has clauses, but it would still be a bad initiative. In fact, by literally combining two such distinct issues in one bill, the government should have anticipated the impasse that lay ahead.

Today, faced with its inaction and incompetence, the government is once again interfering with the right of members to speak freely on the matter, by having the government majority pass a time allocation motion for the consideration of this bill. Once again, the rights of members of Parliament are being violated.

The Liberal government should have put the finishing touches to its bill before introducing it. The difficulty it is having getting it passed reflects to some extent the ad hoc attitude and lack of leadership in the back rooms of government.

Finally, what the Senate has done this time, with the arrogance for which this non-elected institution is well known, is the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. Such an affront to decisions of the House and an attempt to strip members of Parliament of their powers, even if only temporarily, are unacceptable and argue more than ever—this is one more example to add to the list—for abolishing that undemocratic, unelected and frankly outdated chamber.

[The Speaker]

Before moving to questions and comments, I have a ruling to deliver to the House on a point of order. I hope the hon. member can be patient for a little while. It will not take too long.

Points of Order

[The Speaker]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised earlier today by the hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton concerning the procedural acceptability of the motion in response to the Senate message concerning Bill C-10, the Criminal Code amendment.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton for raising this matter, as well as the hon. government House leader for his comments.

The hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton has contended that the motion responding to the Senate message on Bill C-10 cannot be considered because the House has no power to waive its constitutionally guaranteed rights and privileges.

The hon. government House leader maintains that it is precisely the decision as to whether the House chooses to insist on these rights and privileges that members are being asked to make.

I would like first to reiterate what I said in a ruling on a related question delivered on December 5, 2002. Your Speaker cannot comment on the internal workings of the Senate. My procedural authority is limited to the application of the rules and practices of this chamber as they affect this chamber.

The hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton raised a number of interesting points with respect to the Constitution Act of 1867 in making his case. While I do not doubt that they are worthy of consideration, hon. members know that questions of a legal or constitutional nature are not dealt with by the Speaker. This is clearly set out in House of Commons Procedure and Practice , at page 219 to 220.

The hon. member also made reference to proceedings before the Senate of Australia. Although it is often useful to make reference to precedents in other jurisdictions when the application of our own rules is unclear, this approach is not without pitfalls of its own. While proceedings in other countries may bear a strong superficial resemblance to our own, there are often important differences and rules and practices which make comparisons problematic, if not misleading.

In the case before us today this point, while not without interest, is somewhat academic.

Both my own earlier rulings and the ruling of Mr. Speaker Fraser on a related case make quite clear the Canadian practice in such cases. As Mr. Speaker Fraser stated on July 11, 1988, at page 17384, of the debates:

The cure in this case is for the House to claim its privileges or to forgo them, if it so wishes, by way of message to Their Honours, that is, to the Senate, informing them accordingly.

I cited this remark in my ruling of December 2, 2002, and with all respect to the hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton, I have heard nothing today which persuades me that the House should not follow the course on which it is now embarked. My earlier ruling pointed out that the Speaker had no power to enforce the rights and privileges of the House with respect to what went on in the other place. At the same time, it is also not my role to reject messages and thereby halt progress on legislation which this House has approved.

I would also like to point out that the motion under discussion recognizes the existence of the rights and privileges of this House. The question as it is stated is not that these rights and privileges should be deemed not to exist or to repeal them. Rather the motion states that in the case before us, Senate amendment to Bill C-10, the House will not insist that its privileges be respected. The rights and privileges of the House continue to exist and the House continues to have the right to insist that they be respected if it wishes. No argument has been presented to the Chair that suggests that the House may not decide to insist or not insist as it sees fit.

I feel that I can only maintain the position that I took earlier, a position congruent with the stance adopted by Mr. Speaker Fraser in 1988. While there are serious considerations concerning parliamentary privilege that must be considered in dealing with the motion concerning Bill C-10, the judgment that is needed on these matters is that of the House and not that of the Speaker.

I therefore find that the motion concerning Bill C-10 is properly before the House and that it is for the House to decide if it will insist on its rights and privileges or waive them in this case.

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 Act

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask my Bloc colleague a question.

Before I ask my question, I would like to say for the record on behalf of my constituents of Prince George--Peace River, who I am always pleased and privileged to represent in the House of Commons, that never before in the history of Liberal boondoggles is there anything to rival the Firearms Act for the sheer stupidity of this legislation.

I wanted that on the record because, as I said earlier in a brief question and comment that I made, unfortunately the government has again invoked time allocation and many of us will not have the opportunity to represent our constituents with a 20 minute or even a 10 minute speech on the legislation before us today, Bill C-10.

I could not agree more with my Bloc colleague when he talked about the problems with the Senate. I think he referred to the fact that it could split this bill as many times as it wanted. It can be divided up into bite sized pieces and it is still a zero.

My concern and the question I want to raise with the member is one of computer security. This list, even as inaccurate as it is, obviously is not secure. We already know that. That concern for computer security is one that I hear repeatedly from constituents who have not registered their firearms and will not register their firearms. When IBM and pentagon can routinely have their systems hacked into, obviously this is not a secure list either, and I hear that.

Does the member also hear these types of concerns being expressed by his constituents in the province of Quebec?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River for his question. First, I would like to comment on how ironic it is that what we are dealing with in this debate is an unelected and undemocratic chamber trying to impose the splitting of a bill, while here in the House of Commons, which ought to be the democratic counterbalance to the other place, we are again having imposed upon us a time allocation motion, thereby depriving members of the privileges they ought to be entitled to as elected representatives within a representative democracy.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Speaker has ruled on the point of order which was raised by the member for Sarnia—Lambton and I find it curious. Is it in order for another member to continue commenting on a Speaker's ruling?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I have just checked with the Clerk, and the hon. member could raise that issue if she wanted to.

In fact, the hon. member has the right to comment on a Speaker's ruling. These are comments, if I have understood properly, because I have heard nothing else.

The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier.

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

Madam Speaker, while members are trying to have a democratic debate in the House, how ironic that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General would deny me the right to say not only what I think of that other place, but also what I think of the time allocation motion.

This is a good example of the attitude of the Liberal government and the Liberals in general with respect to how the House operates.

I was saying then, to answer my hon. colleague from the Canadian Alliance, that unlike his party—and he knows this; we have agreed to disagree—we support gun control in principle; his party does not.

The problem we have raised many times, is that, due to its incompetence and bad management, the Liberal government has given strength to the bill's ideological opponents, to those philosophically opposed to the very principle of gun control. This point is raised over and over when people say they agree in principle.

Unfortunately, the government's actions and how it has managed the program have raised many questions in our minds. This is what is so sad about how the government has managed this whole program.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Chair for clarifying the Standing Orders as I had asked. I think that it goes without saying that members are free to ask for clarifications regarding the Standing Orders in order to better understand the rules and procedures of the House.

I have a question for the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois. The member spoke about opponents and said that it is unfortunate that the federal government's mismanagement of the firearms program and the firearms registry has given ammunition to people who are ideologically opposed to the program.

Will the member from the Bloc Quebecois acknowledge here today that ideological opponents have never let go, since day one, on the issue of a real gun control program, a real, effective and efficient firearms registry, and that they have never stopped arguing against this program and the very idea of it?

Whether or not the government managed the program badly or not, ideological opponents to it would have continued to fight it, as they did even before the Auditor General's report was released. First, will the member from the Bloc Quebecois admit that?

Second, on the issue of program costs, I have in front of me—and this was tabled and discussed in the House by the Minister of Justice and by the Solicitor General—the actual program costs from 1995-96 through 2002-03, so over an eight-year period.

The total cost is $785,710,000. Therefore, if we break it down, we see that administration costs were $72.5 million; communications and public affairs cost $64,347,000; costs for the development and maintenance of the registry were $251,040,000; program delivery costs were $380,364,000; system administration, including the transition, cost $11,073,000; the costs for the national weapons enforcement support team, the total cost for this eight-year period— however, this has only existed in the last three years—is $6,382,000. The total cost then is $785,710,000. That is very clear.

I would ask the member to answer these two questions. The costs are very clear. Will the member admit that regardless of how the program has been operated in the past, or will be operated in the future, ideological opponents will continue to have the same position?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine for her question.

Briefly, I would like to say that those ideologically opposed remained opposed, naturally. But before this scandal and before the Auditor General pointed a finger at the Liberal government's incompetence, they were preaching in the desert so to speak. It had gone under the radar. Nobody was really talking about it. Yes, there was discontent in certain quarters. However, overall, it was relatively well accepted in Canadian society as a whole, despite some resistance.

What the Liberal government has achieved through its incompetence is get it splashed over the front pages of the newspapers again. The ideological opponents took that opportunity to say, “See, we were right. It makes no sense. Not only does this program make no sense, but any form of gun control management is bound to result in this kind of overspending”. That is precisely what I criticize the federal government for.

They could have gone on being opposed and preaching in the desert, but this scandal and the government's incompetence have provided them with a wonderful forum to attack the principle of gun control.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the House and to Canadians about Canada's gun control program.

We have heard a lot in recent months about the focal points of the public safety initiative of the bill and the program. We have also heard much about the costs of the firearms program and the concerns expressed by the Auditor General in her recent report.

Canadians are justifiably concerned about the program's delivery costs and problems. At the same time they continue to support our efforts to keep guns out of the hands of individuals who may pose a risk to themselves, their families, their neighbours or their communities. Those are important efforts.

We must not forget why the government brought in this public safety program in the first place. Yes, we decided to act because of incidents like that which occurred at École Polytechnique in Montreal and other gun incidents. The government acted also because Canadians demand that their laws reflect our values as a society, the values of Canadians generally, not just in one part of the country but across the country.

Canadians demand safe homes and communities now and in the future. That is what we are committed to deliver. The firearms program encourages the safe use of firearms, provides vital information to police and helps to keep guns out of the wrong hands. The gun control program enhances public safety by controlling access to firearms and ammunition, deterring their misuse and controlling specific types of firearms.

When I hear the heckling and yelling from across the way, it reminds me that of course is the party which came to Ottawa promising to bring new decorum to the House of Commons, to act in a civilized manner, to show respect--

[An hon. member]

Yes, and we learned from you.