Debates of Nov. 17th, 2004

Whistle Blower Rights and Protection Act

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-288, an act respecting the protection of employees in the public service of Canada who on reasonable belief make allegations respecting wrongdoing in the public service of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Newton—North Delta and indeed all Canadians, I am reintroducing my private member's bill with respect to the protection of employees in the public service who, on reasonable belief, make allegations respecting wrongdoing in the public service.

This bill, written with the assistance of actual whistleblowers, is also known as the whistleblower rights and protection act. The public interest is served when employees are free to expose wrongdoing, waste and abuse within the public service without fear of retaliation and discrimination.

Whistleblowers should be praised and rewarded, not punished or harassed. They should not pay for their public service by putting their jobs on the line. My bill would offer them protection from retaliation. This bill is a very important one and all members of the House should support it.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Firearms Act

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-289, an act to amend the Firearms Act (criteria for firearms licence).

Mr. Speaker, this bill brings into consideration whether or not anybody has been convicted of an offence under part III, section 264 of the Criminal Code, or has been discharged under section 730 of the Criminal Code. In essence this private member's bill would create a lifetime ban for firearms licence ownership for anybody convicted of a violent crime.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Criminal Code

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-290, an act to amend the Criminal Code (consecutive sentences).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House to introduce this bill. This is part of the Conservative Party of Canada's platform and is something which the vast majority of Canadians support, which is to hold violent criminals accountable for their actions.

The bill would mandate in law that violent criminals have consecutive, and not concurrent, sentencing for their crimes. It would hold people accountable. There would be no discount, where the more crimes are committed, the less time is served. Every crime deserves its punishment. The bill provides for consecutive sentencing, not concurrent sentencing, for violent criminals, and it is about time.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-291, an act to amend the Criminal Code (weapons trafficking).

Mr. Speaker, unlike the firearms registry which the Liberals tout as real firearms control, what this bill does is it makes it a separate criminal offence and facilitates the distinction between possessing firearms and trafficking in firearms.It puts in place tougher penalties for people who illegally bring into the country firearms and ammunition that have been prohibited by the government.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-292, an act to amend the Criminal Code (child pornography).

Mr. Speaker, this bill enforces a minimum sentence of two years in prison for persons convicted of transmitting, making available, distributing, selling, importing, exporting, or possessing child pornography for the purposes of transmission, making available, distribution, sale or exportation of any sort of child pornography.

The Liberals have talked for a long time about getting tough on child pornographers. This bill would put real teeth into our laws so that children would be safe from the people who would abuse them for the sake of child pornography.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions

[Chuck Cadman, Independent, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by 59 individuals. They are asking Parliament to amend the Canada Health Act to include, as medically necessary, therapy for children suffering from autism. The petitioners also ask Parliament to contribute to the creation of academic chairs at Canadian universities, chairs dedicated to the research and treatment of autism.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions for Papers

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

moved that Bill C-6, an act to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and to amend or repeal certain acts, be read the third time and passed.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of Bill C-6, an act to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and to amend or repeal certain acts.

First, I would like to congratulate the chair and the members of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

Over the past few weeks, the committee has had in-depth discussions on Bill C-6. These discussions allowed us to better understand the issues relating to public safety and emergency preparedness.

It became clear that the members of all the parties represented in the House of Commons share a deep and unfailing commitment to the safety of our country and its citizens.

Even though the government did not always agree with the comments made and the amendments proposed, we were aware that committee members were trying to make the bill as effective as possible.

I would also like to acknowledge the participation of the Privacy Commissioner who appeared as a witness at the committee hearings and also wrote directly to the minister. The Privacy Commissioner raised concerns about protecting the privacy of Canadians in the context of examining Bill C-6. She reminded us about the constant tension between privacy and other rights, including the right to security and how we need to strike an appropriate balance.

I would like to reiterate the minister's response to the Privacy Commissioner because I know many Canadians are concerned that the priorities of public safety may somehow compromise the privacy of personal information.

It is worth reminding the House that, like all legislation, Bill C-6 is subject to the Constitution and the Charter of Rights. We have drafted the legislation carefully to ensure that in the delivery of public safety, personal privacy is protected appropriately.

The proposed legislation provides no new legal authorities to collect, disclose or share information within or outside the agencies that are part of the Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness portfolio.

Indeed, the sole purpose of the provisions on the exchange of information is to ensure that all relevant and authorized information on public safety is communicated as it should be.

As the Auditor General pointed out last spring, Canada must be more efficient in the exchange of critical and timely information between the bodies that are responsible for our safety.

The proposed legislation would contribute to a better sharing of that information without infringing upon the privacy rights of Canadians in any way.

I would now like to comment briefly on the three amendments to the bill approved by the committee.

The first amendment concerns clause 5, the coordination and leadership of the Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness portfolio. The committee saw fit to approve an amendment that includes a non-exhaustive list of entities for which the minister is responsible. The government did not support the amendment.

We contended that modern legislation does not include all the various organizations that a portfolio may include. There are good reasons to respect this legal convention, particularly in the context of the responsibilities of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

In a rapidly evolving security environment, where the government needs the flexibility to respond to emerging threats by adjusting structures or creating new ones, we believe it made more sense not to list any entities.

Even if the list had been clearly illustrative, we feared the casual reader may still believe such a list constituted the complete portfolio. We were concerned that, despite the best of intentions, an incomplete list might therefore lead to confusion rather than clarity. We also argued that other acts clearly spell out relationships between the minister and various agencies, such as the RCMP. As a result, we saw no value added to be gained by including the names of some entities in clause 5 of Bill C-6.

I would also like to make clear that Bill C-6 does not give the government authority to add or subtract names from such a list. This authority comes from the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act.

All that said, the government does respect the will of the committee and accepts the amendment as approved.

The second amendment, which was proposed by the Bloc, was also problematic and once again the government did not support it. The amendment concerns clause 6, which explains the functions of the minister. The clause was amended at committee to state explicitly that the minister would exercise his or her powers “...with due regard to the powers conferred on the provinces and territories...”.

In fact, the government has sufficient concern about the amendment that we sought an amendment at report stage to strike the wording from Bill C-6.

I would emphasize very clearly, however, that despite our concerns with this amendment, the Government of Canada fully understands that respect for provincial jurisdiction is a fundamental principle of our Constitution. It goes without saying that the Minister of Public Safety will continue to respect provincial jurisdiction in the exercise of her powers.

The public safety file is one on which there has been a strong history of cooperation between the federal government and the provinces. In fact, Bill C-6 contains a provision expressly calling for continued cooperation between the two levels of government.

As I indicated in my remarks in support of the government's amendment at report stage, the Bloc amendment to clause 6, in the view of both the minister and the government, is redundant and unnecessary. It is redundant because ministerial powers must be exercised within federal constitutional jurisdiction in any event. It is unnecessary because clause 4(1) of Bill C-6 already sets out that “...the powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction...”. This wording establishes the scope of the powers of the minister under the Constitution and is the standard limiting formulation in departmental statutes. Clause 4(1) is a legislative drafting convention.

As members are aware, this matter was given full consideration and debate during report stage. In keeping with the principles of democracy that Canadians hold dearly, the hon. members in the House voted down the government's amendment at report stage and the government respects their decision.

The government will, therefore, treat the Bloc amendment to clause 6 as, at most, a for greater certainty clause, a reminder that the minister cooperates with provincial authorities in the exercise of their respective jurisdictions in areas of national and local importance.

In speaking to this matter at report stage, hon. members of both the Conservative and New Democratic Parties emphasized that the amendment pertaining to jurisdiction should not be viewed as precedent setting for other legislation, but rather, as indicated by the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh, amendments of this nature must be considered on a case by case basis. The government also endorses this approach for, as I indicated previously, how such an amendment would affect other legislation depends upon the very nature of the matter being legislated.

The third amendment deals with the last clause of the bill. Clause 38 is about the coming into force of the act. The committee felt that the original wording of that clause could allow the government to give effect to certain sections of the act at different times.

The purpose of the amendment was to ensure that all the provisions of the act, with the exception of sections 35 and 36, would come into force at the same time.

I am pleased to say that the amendment received all party support. This unanimity, to my mind, stands as a positive symbol for the cordial nature of the entire deliberations.

On that note, I would like to thank the committee members for their thoughtful analysis. Even if the government did not agree with all the proposed amendments, we never doubted for a moment that the committee had the best interests of Canadians at heart.

There can be no doubt that we must create the department of public safety and emergency preparedness. Our world, with its vast range of natural and man-made threats, demands a strategic and effective response to protect the safety and security of Canadians. The proposed legislation provides the necessary legal foundation for the department and it is my hope that, in the interests of all Canadians, it receive the full support of members of the House.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I said some things earlier in the House. I was caught up in some anger I felt about the kind of language that was used in the House and I was perhaps less than fulsome in my apology and withdrawal. I simply wish to say to the member for Central Nova that I apologize for the language that was used. It does not dignify the House for me to add to the cacophony.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the parliamentary secretary. I want to thank him personally for the efforts that were made on his own behalf and on behalf of the minister to involve members of the opposition in consultations on the very first bill that has come before the justice committee. I appreciate his cooperation in that regard.

I do, however, want to ask him, in a serious vein, with respect to these amendments that have been presented, he has referred, in particular, to the Bloc amendment as being redundant and therefore really of no substance and no relevance.

I am curious as to why the government has gone to such great lengths to continually oppose this amendment, where there is no harm and no consequence according to the member himself. What the Bloc sought to do, which was supported by the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party, was to enshrine and protect provincial and territorial jurisdiction with respect to the administration and the application of Bill C-6.

Therefore I am a bit at a loss and baffled as to why the government has so adamantly opposed and even taken the opportunity at third reading to again reiterate its opposition to what the parliamentary secretary himself has described as an inconsequential amendment.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do in this Parliament especially, which is what we should do in all parliaments, is provide opposition members with the full opportunity to become engaged in the discussion and debate on various bills before the House. We will continue to do that.

The best way I can explain why the government moved an amendment at report stage to remove the amendment put forward by the Bloc and approved by the committee is that, in the context of the bill, the government felt that it was fairly innocuous and redundant since the powers of the minister are clearly laid out in the bill and the minister, obviously, would not intrude into areas of provincial jurisdiction because that would run counter to the Constitution of Canada.

The government was concerned that it might be precedent setting. In the area of emergency response or public safety, the cooperation between the provinces, the territories and the federal government is at a very high level. In fact, the critic for the Bloc talked about when he was the minister of public safety in the province of Quebec during the ice storm in Quebec and the flooding in the Saguenay and the high level of cooperation between the various federal departments and provincial agencies.

I was pleased that some of the members of the opposition were able to elaborate that this was not precedent setting, that each consideration of this clause would be looked at on every bill because it would not surprise me in the least if the Bloc would propose an amendment similar to this for other legislation. For other legislation it might prove more difficult because clauses that are in statutes are presumed to have a special meaning if it is already part of the bill. So that was the rationale behind that.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I realize that my question might require a longer answer, but it might move us to reflect upon the future of the department whose establishment we support.

When I go over the powers granted in clauses 4 and 6, I wonder what the parliamentary secretary might do in a situation where provinces ask for military support. Can the Department of Public Safety really ensure that our armed forces will be able to react rather quickly when police forces cannot keep up?

The question is not without merit. Members will remember a very painful period, the Oka crisis in Quebec, in the early 1990s. When I was minister, I was worried about having to face a similar situation.

I asked the military authorities, when they agreed to meet with me, how long it would take them to react if we had to request their support. They explained to me all the training the troops would need to carry out civilian duties where personnel that is better armed is required. I pointed out that the troops had to be trained to carry out this type of operation when they were sent abroad to take part in UN missions.

Clause 4 stipulates that “The Minister shall, at the national level,exercise leadership relating to public safety andemergency preparedness”. Does that mean that the Minister of Public Safety can go so far as ensuring that the staff of another department gets the training they would need to be able to react quickly if needed?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin for his question. I will try to respond briefly, but this is quite a complex and difficult question.

With respect to the member's question, the bill has not in any way changed the current powers of the minister. There is a demarcation with respect to matters of national defence and public safety.

We felt the Bloc amendment was redundant because the minister is required by the act to act within the powers of the Constitution and within the realm of those powers that are within the jurisdiction of the federal government. The focus really is on dealing and responding to public threats in the sense of coordinating a federal government response. That threat could be a natural disaster, a man made disaster or an imminent threat to the safety and security of Canadians.

Ottawa has the operations centre which rises to a certain level of preparedness, depending on the threat assessment. All agencies and departments of the federal government are represented in that operations centre, based on advice from the threat that is determined to be posed to the security of Canadians. Within the operations centre, depending on the level of the threat, someone from the Department of National Defence would be there. If they had to be engaged for whatever reason, then that decision would filter up through a committee of cabinet and then ultimately to the Prime Minister in terms of how to respond. There is a vetting of the response.

When we are dealing with matters of national security, armed insurrection or a threat from outside the country, be mindful that this is an escalation and a threat which is clearly dealt with at the highest level of government through a very rigorous process as defined within the government itself.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question of the parliamentary secretary. My specific community has a crossing between Canada and the United States. With 40% of our trade going through it, it is the busiest international crossing in North America.

My question is specifically with reference to the supports necessary for the service at the border. I know our customs officials have been frustrated with the lack of supports. The municipality basically is doing the lion's share of protection of our border. We do have some RCMP, but it is deficient in what is necessary. With the restructuring, will we get the adequate supports that our men and women need?

Last, can we get a resolution to the current labour situation to a benefit so our borders are protected in a thorough way?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity a few weeks ago to visit Windsor-Detroit and meet with the member and his colleague to discuss some of the issues.

Clearly, the border at Windsor-Detroit is a huge and important trade corridor for our country where much of our goods and people traverse back and forth between Canada and the United States. Resources are a never ending issue. We feel that the response is a pretty good one at the current time. These matters are always under review by the Government of Canada and the minister to determine if more resources would assist in the expediting of people and goods across that important crossing.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the report stage debate on Bill C-6. It is an important bill, given the current climate around security. It is an enabling bill, legislation that in essence puts in the place the legislative framework for the new Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. It is worth noting that the department has been operating for six months or more. The legislation is somewhat late in coming.

It is also worth noting that the bill itself will, for all intents and purposes, do away with the very traditional name of the Solicitor General. I hasten to add that I am somewhat saddened to see that label disappear, given that my father served in that office in the years 1984-85. I know the member for Calgary Centre sat with my father in the House of Commons, and I am pleased to be speaking in his presence today.

The bill brings together a number of departments under one umbrella. It is intended clearly to create a more coordinated effort, and one would hope that information sharing would be improved as a result of the bill.

As I noted earlier, I am encouraged by the efforts made by the minister and the parliamentary secretary to consult more broadly within the House, within Parliament, to ensure that on legislative initiatives, even a bill as technical, and one that could be described as a housekeeping bill, as this, to include the opposition. Given the dynamic and the numbers in the House, in the committee and in the chamber, the opposition already has played a more effective role in amending the bill.

The legislation will bring together, under a single department, departments such as the RCMP. CSIS will have efforts made to include a more coordinated effort around response to provincial disasters, as we have seen in the Saguenay region and even in my own province of Nova Scotia as recently as last week with a devastating snowstorm. Similarly, just under a year ago we suffered the effects of hurricane Juan. The ability of the federal government to intervene in a more meaningful and expeditious way will hopefully be aided and abetted by a more coordinated department such as this.

I would also add that the Conservative Party, under then Prime Minister Kim Campbell, had proposed a similar bringing together of departments such as this and it was vigorously opposed by the Liberal Party of the day. Therefore, we are pleased once again to note that an idea that was proposed some years ago, much like free trade and some of the other initiatives that were taken by a previous government, has now been endorsed and very much embraced by the government.

The legislation brings into being the new department. The legislation also touches upon areas of Canada's border security, which is an extremely important entity at this time. We hope to have a more fulsome debate in the future around the issues of the border security officers themselves in terms of their own personal safety; the ability to carry firearms, for example sidearms, to issue vests and a more coordinated effort with their counterparts on the other side of the border.

The smart border initiative is something that will be the subject of further debate. More important, we hope to see implementation of some of the initiatives that have been discussed around the important issue of our border security, such as putting in place the necessary critical infrastructure and fast lanes, funding and resource allocation for the technology that will accompany the efforts to improve greater ease of traffic flow at the border and at the same time ensure the very critical level of security needed. In the future I would suspect we will also be engaging on the subject matter of a larger North American security perimeter.

Then we would get into the context of discussions around improving, in particular, our ports. This is perhaps the most vulnerable point of entry in the country today. I know there is reported activity of organized crime at ports like Halifax, Vancouver and even the port of Montreal . There is the ability currently, with the resources and technology, only to examine I believe it is in the range of 1% of the amount of container traffic that comes through the ports.

We had an incident in Halifax quite recently where an entire container went missing. That is alarming in the sense that those containers are large. We hear repeatedly of efforts made to bring contraband material and illegal immigrants into the country through the ports of entry.

While the airport security has been incredibly improved in the wake of 9/11, it is our ports now that need greater emphasis. The disbanding of the ports police by the Liberal government in 1994 has contributed to the vulnerability. That specialized police force was tasked solely with protecting and enhancing security in ports throughout Canada. I state simply for the record that this is an interest and a pursuit of the Conservative Party. We will continue to advocate for a greater degree of funding and protection of ports in Canada.

The Conservative Party and my colleague from Palliser as well as my colleague from Elgin—Middlesex—London have spoken out repeatedly against the proliferation of the long gun registry and the incredible waste that has flowed, now approaching $2 billion. Under the questionable guidance of the previous finance minister, this legislation was brought forward back in the early nineties in the wake of a terrible disaster in Montreal. It was done at that time, I would suggest, for political posturing rather than actual public safety.

It was stated at that point that the cost of such a registry would be somewhere in the range of $2 million. As it approaches $2 billion that has been identified by none other than the very impartial and very able Auditor General, this is probably the largest fraud ever perpetrated on the Canadian public in the history of this country.

The bill puts in place or brings along with the new department the Canadian Firearms Centre. The reason we moved an amendment was to ensure that there was actual clarity and actual enunciation of the various departments as opposed to the way in which it was referred to originally, simply as entities. We want to be able to track the activities and in particular the monetary shenanigans that we have seen in the past when it comes to the firearms registry, the long gun registry, which we continue to oppose on principle, not because in any way, shape or form should it ever be misconstrued as the Conservative Party not being for effective gun control.

That is a completely different issue. Hon. members know very well that the Conservative Party of the day brought in some of the most effective public safety gun control measures ever seen in this country: issues related to safe storage, to the storage of ammunition and keeping that separate from firearms.

We have had handgun registration in this country since the 1940s. The biggest problem today on the streets of large cities, even in small towns and communities, is not long guns; it is not rifles or shotguns. It is handguns; it is nine millimetres that are coming into this country illegally.

We know that the resources that have been put into this useless fiasco of a gun registry, this bureaucratic quagmire, if that money had been placed into front line policing, training or even a registry of sex offenders as opposed to inanimate objects, the public safety, the crime control, and the ability of police to enforce crime control would have increased exponentially.

The bill itself, as I indicated, is one that the Conservative Party supports in principle. It is enabling legislation that will bring together these various entities, referred to already as the firearms centre. I hope it will also lead to a greater degree of sharing of information, in particular between the RCMP and CSIS.

There is as well an effort to set up an oversight body in Parliament that will allow for a greater review by parliamentarians of the activities of CSIS, the activities of CSE, and security information gathering within the country.

I note as well that Bill C-36, the antiterrorism legislation, will be back before a committee for a mandatory review. That was put in place and will require a review of the provisions and in fact the use of those new enabling powers that were put in place under Bill C-36. I look forward to taking part in the discussions in committee on behalf of the Conservative Party along with my colleagues and members from all sides of the House. There is certainly a need for a vigorous and vigilant review of security measures in the country.

It is our hope that this new department will continue in the same vein of cooperation that we have seen thus far. We hope that continues. We hope that the minister will continue to come before the committee, as she has already done in this Parliament.

We call upon all parliamentarians to be very vigilant and serious in their examination of issues such as this that pertain to the critical area of security, given the heightened degree of threat that exists in the world today. Canada has been specifically named by none other than Osama bin Laden as a potential target. We know that there continue to be active threats in this country. The raising of funds to support terrorism continues, sadly, in Canada today.

There is much to do. There is much that we and the government can do with respect to our security forces in Canada today. Providing them with the proper resources, tools and support, first and foremost, should factor very highly on the parliamentary agenda. This legislation is now giving this department the mandate to do just that.

I see in this legislation wherein subclause 6(2) a commission or advisory committee will be set up. Given past practices, we have reason for skepticism, but it is certainly our hope that this will not become another area of patronage or an area in which the government will simply put people into positions without any form of consultation, at least not the token consultation that we saw in the appointment of Supreme Court judges. That is one other area that I highlight that appears in the bill itself.

We look forward, on behalf of the Conservative Party, to participating fully in the further discussion around this legislation.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Central Nova touched on the gun registry, which of course generates a lot of emotion and different points of view among all Canadians. Certainly, all Canadians, I suspect, are worried and troubled by the cost overruns and the way the moneys were expended.

There is an adage that my mother used to tell me that I think still has some wisdom. She said if a house costs too much to build, does one burn the house down or look at where to move to, and what the forward program would be? There is a concept that I also learned in economics called sunk cost.

What we should be looking at as Canadians is the gun registry today. We should have accountability if there are cost overruns because people have mismanaged or not managed it optimally. I would like to inform the member of something he may not be aware of. Right now, the gun registry is receiving approximately 15,000 inquiries a week from the police across Canada. If there are 15,000 queries of this gun registry, does that not indicate that it is of some value to people? Why else would they be asking?

Second, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police have steadfastly supported the gun registry. Even now the Canadian Police Association has passed a resolution supporting the gun registry.

I am wondering if the member is aware that the government has committed and managed down the costs to a level of half of what the costs were. In fact, we committed to keeping the gun registry costs at an annualized basis of less than $25 million a year and total program costs at around $80 million a year.

I am wondering if the member is aware of that and the kinds of inquiries that are coming from police across this country.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the commentary. I am astounded frankly that the government still tries to defend the indefensible.

To use his own example, and I say this with the greatest respect to his dear sweet mother, if the cost of his house was going to be $2 million and it ended up costing $2 billion, I do not suspect he would have to burn it down, he would have to go bankrupt. Thankfully, the Government of Canada has not gone bankrupt. We know that it has collected almost $9 billion too much from Canadian taxpayers.

I want to get back to the real issue here. I have kept in touch with a lot of law enforcement officers who are still out there on the street doing the important work of law enforcement. What I hear from front line police officers is that they cannot rely on the gun registry. If they receive a domestic call where there is a suspicion of violence, it does not do them any good to go to the computer system to find out whether in fact there is a gun present or not. They should presume that there is a gun present in every case.

I have also heard the argument about the tracking of the gun and that it may help solve crime. I do not buy into that either because in many cases the weapon in question, if it has been stolen from a household, if it is traced back to the original owner and then determined whether it was stored safely or not does not do anything to prevent crime. It is a nice after the fact way to maybe attribute blame to somebody for safe storage. The difference here is that there has not really been an effective case ever made on behalf of the government that this has an effective prevention element to it.

It is just as if I took one of those little laser stickers that they are now putting on guns and put in on a chair, and then punched that number into a computer. It would not prevent me from picking that chair up and hitting my friend over the head with it. That type of thinking, and this type of Cartesian thought, that we can simply legislate away crime and put in place these convoluted systems is simply lost on the Canadian public.

More to the fact, the cost overruns are simply astronomical. It is absolutely beyond belief that they would be a thousand times more than were initially predicted by the government.

I am afraid I do not buy the argument. I have met with many police on the issue. I continue to maintain that the money would be better spent putting actual live, breathing, trained law enforcement officers on the street.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my remarks to the member who just spoke. He is shocked at the gun registry, which is now at about $2 billion. He asks the minister's representative a question and is told that this is an emotional issue. I am sad to hear such an answer. We are concerned with how our money is being used. Yet, Liberals think that this is an emotional issue.

The question that was asked is far from being emotional. This is a waste of money, a waste of about $2 billion, and the member is told that this is an emotional issue! For a taxpayer, for someone who lives in La Tuque, who loses his job and waits for employment insurance benefits, is it an emotional issue to have his money stolen in such a way?

I would like to ask the member if he is satisfied with the answer that he was just given. I think it was an insult. When does he think that the government will stop trivializing these issues, when this is extremely important?

I think that no one is against the gun registry. I own two guns. I have registered them. Unfortunately, I have still received only one registration. I have paid the other one for nothing. Anyway, I recognize that this may be a means of saving lives.

However, when the government spends billions of dollars and say that this is an emotional issue, I am deeply shocked! I would like the member to comment on this.