Debates of Dec. 9th, 2004

Main Estimates, 2004-05

[An hon. member]

That's her fault.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

That is her fault, says a member of the opposition. That sums it all up. It is that meanspirited nature of this measure. It is meanspirited, it is misdirected, it is undeserved and, in my view, it is not worthy of this Parliament.

I recommend that we reconsider this and restore the budget of a Governor General who has chosen to work hard, do her job honestly, try to elevate the nature of how we see ourselves as a country and is respected and admired by her fellow citizens.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think what the speech of the Minister of National Defence demonstrates is the old adage that “If you have the truth argue the truth, if you have the facts argue the facts, if you have neither pound the table”. That is what we saw from the minister just now.

This is not an attack on the Governor General. When this cut to her budget passed, it passed with the support of Liberal members of Parliament, including the Liberal member of Parliament from Thunder Bay, sitting right behind the Minister of National Defence. It also included the member for Sudbury and the member for Ottawa—Orléans. This had the support of all parties in the House, including Liberal members of Parliament, because all Canadians are concerned with fiscal responsibility.

Ray Hnatyshyn, George Vanier and a number of other Governors General have served this country marvellously. The argument can be made by some, as the minister did, that this Governor General has done a good job. However she has not done a good job of being a good steward of taxpayers dollars.

All we are talking about is a reduction of less than 3% of her overall budget as a message that taxpayer dollars should be treated with respect and care and that she had not done that so far. We are sending that message with the support of Liberal members of Parliament, and we want to send that message tonight.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to bring the debate down to a more rational level. I quite agree with that. However since the hon. member chooses to say that, I would say to the member that perhaps the hon. members who were on the committee have had a chance to reflect on their decision and might choose to reflect on that and decide that perhaps that was not the wisest course. That is what we are here to debate tonight.

Since he wants to give us an opportunity to reflect, I would ask him respectfully to consider the words of the President of the Treasury Board who was here this evening and who pointed out to hon. members opposite that the $400,000 cut that would be taken out of the Governor General's budget would be taken out this quarter. While they constantly talk about it as if it were going to be spread somehow retroactively backwards, it would not be. It would affect the ability of the representative of the crown, the representative of the Canadian people to do her job for the rest of the year.

The hon. member says that it is not their concern. I go back to what I said. It is misdirected. It is vicious and it is a complete desire to just cause trouble without any respect.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening closely to the minister and I am flabbergasted when he says that this motion is not worthy of this Parliament; that it is mean, ill-advised and misdirected and constitutes a personal attack on the Governor General.

I would like to ask him a question. What is mean or ill-advised? Is it to grab money from the employment insurance surplus, for example, or to cut $400,000 from the Governor General's overblown budget? What is ill-advised: to cut $38 billion from social programs over the past eight years, or to cut $400,000 from the Governor General's budget? What is more ill-advised or mean: having the Prime Minister, previously the minister of finance, table a bill to enrich himself with his shipping company in Barbados, or cutting the Governor General's budget?

Would it not be wiser to cut into the “fat“, as we say, to help the 1.2 million poor children that this government has helped to push into poverty, especially in terms of employment insurance, where 60% of parents of poor children are excluded? What is mean, ill-advised and what constitutes a collective attack on these people?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since my colleague asks what is mean, I will give him this answer. What is more mean-spirited than having members of this House who want to destroy a country and its history; who want to cut it in two? That is mean-spiritedness. That is disgusting.

He is talking about things that have nothing to do with this motion. The real shame is to have someone in this House who makes all sorts of accusations that have nothing to do with this motion.

This motion deals with the budget of the Governor General. If the member wants to talk about other matters, I will talk about other matters. I will speak about my country, Canada, and about the mean-spiritedness of his country, which seeks to destroy ours. That is what I will talk about.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us go back to the point of why we are here today.

I came to the House under direction from the people of Elgin--Middlesex--London to help control spending and to have a more accountable government.

As a member of this committee, I studied the process and learned how to read the estimates, which is not an easy thing. I attended the committee and I interviewed witnesses, some of them from the Governor General's office.

We did our homework and we looked at the estimates. We looked at the spending. We looked at where the spending had gone from $10 million in 1995 up to over $20 million. The Governor General's budget has exploded. When we asked for answers as to why the Governor General's budget had to explode to that level, we were told that there were a few more visitors visiting Rideau Hall now.

Therefore we did the only thing that a good committee could do and that was to say that we would have to take some of that money away.

If this is not a deficit of democracy, trying to put this back, then I do not know what is.

Could the hon. member opposite help me bring a more accountable government?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very reasonable approach. However, if we are going to take that approach I would ask that the hon. members opposite listen to what the President of the Treasury Board said and look at the effect of these cuts in the budget of the Governor General.

I would respectfully suggest to the hon. member that if he is going to look at increases in the Governor General's budget he should look at increases in what the Governor General does. We are getting value for money. It is not fair to compare $10 million in 1995 and activities today. If the hon. member wishes to discuss that then that is another thing.

Let us also not forget that some of the expenses of the household of the Governor General are made by decisions of the commission here in Ottawa and others for repairs to the house that she has nothing to do with.

If the members are going to go through this exercise, all I ask is that they at least make it an honest exercise and make honest comparisons.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Central Nova.

We just heard the phrase “value for money”, and that is exactly what I will be zeroing in on as I make some remarks about one of the biggest areas of misspending that the Liberal government has ever endeavoured upon. It is an area in which we would like to have a modest reduction of about $20 million, or $24 million if we take in both motions, that we would like to see in the vote that will take place later today.

The issue I am talking about is the gun registry. The government wants to portray this as gun control but it has gone 500 times over budget at this point and it could even be more than that. It is unbelievable that we would have the government portray this as wise spending and a good investment.

I want to begin with a statement that was made by the Auditor General in December 2002 when she brought down her report on the gun registry. She said, “Parliament is being kept in the dark”. I assert today and I want to impress upon the members of the House of Commons that Parliament is still being kept in the dark. I believe that the minister and the bureaucrats are still deceiving MPs and Parliament.

I have put in over 500 access to information requests on this issue trying to find out what this government is doing. It hides the information, not just from me, but by extension Parliament and all Canadians. It is one of the hugest boondoggles ever and we as Conservatives would like to reduce the spending in this area a little bit.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety sent out an e-mail a couple of days ago. In that e-mail he made 17 claims that I am going to point out are blatantly false. They are at variance with the truth and I will take them one by one and go through them.

Twenty minutes ago a Liberal, who has since disappeared, came in here and said that she wants to hear some rational arguments. I am going to give some and I wish she would be listening because I do not think they can vote to support the ridiculous spending that is still going on with the gun registry.

The following is the first claim that was made by the parliamentary secretary. He said, “important client service and public safety results are being achieved by the gun registry”. Nothing could be further from the truth. The entire premise of the gun registry defies all logic. Let us think about this. We have a firearm and beside it is a registration certificate. How can laying this piece of paper beside this gun prevent anyone from pulling the trigger or doing something with that firearm? It defies logic that it would ever work and yet that is the entire premise of the gun control measure that the government has portrayed as being an important client service and public safety results being achieved. That is why we do not see anything being accomplished by this.

The following is the second claim the parliamentary secretary makes. He says, “An Environics survey taken in January 2003 found that 74% of Canadians support the current gun control legislation”. The questions that were asked in that survey were: Do you support gun registration? Do you support safe storage of firearms? Do you support background checks before people buy a firearm? Do you support safety courses being taken by firearms owners? If they had asked me those questions I would have forgotten they were even talking about gun registry by the time they went through the whole list and I probably would have said that I support those things, which I do, but the registry is the biggest boondoggle. Therefore to say that 74% of Canadians support the registry is misleading at best.

I want to tell members about another survey that was taken in April, 2004 by JMCK. The question it asked was whether we would want the gun registry scrapped and put that money into fighting violent crime and devoting it to other areas such as frontline policing. The results, which I think were a very accurate indication of where Canadians were at, were that 76.7% of the people said to scrap the registry and put the money into places like frontline policing where it will do some good. That is what we are asking.

It is very misleading for the Liberals to say that the public is on side. They are not.

Another claim that the Liberals make is that the Canadian firearms program is much more than gun registry. It comprises safe storage, handling and transportation of firearms, safety, training and education, effective border controls, in addition to the licensing of firearms owners.

Before the government passed Bill C-68 we had all of those things and it was done for approximately $10 million a year. Now the government is saying it will try to get the costs down to $85 million per year. It has been way above that at the present time.

We had all of those things prior to 1995. Now the Liberals are starting to make the claim, “Oh, this is what it is all about”. That is extremely misleading and Canadians had better take a closer look when they begin to support the Liberals on this because it is not true.

Let me talk about another Liberal claim. The government says that there are about two million firearms licence holders and about seven million firearms registered, a true success story in just over five years.

I gasp when I hear the Liberals make this kind of a claim. They know and I have revealed to them the information that I have garnered through my access to information request. The government says five years. The Liberals cannot even count. The bill was passed in 1995. They cannot count years.

The Liberals claim it was a success, when according to academic studies that have been done on this, more than 400,000 firearms owners are still unlicensed. Some 400,000 are unlicensed. According to the government's own import and export records, there are still at least eight million guns in this country that are unregistered.

The government claims this is a success story. If there are less than half of the firearms registered, how can that be a success?

That begs the question, even if the firearms were registered, how does that piece of paper affect what the criminal does with his firearm? It does not. He is probably not even in the registry.

Here is another Liberal claim. Approximately 12,000 individual firearms licences have been refused or revoked to date by the chief firearms officers across Canada. What does that amount to? It is a 0.6% success rate. Canada had a 20 year licensing program previous to this which had over twice that rate and we did not have to spend over $100 million per year.

What does that $2 billion firearms centre do with the 12,000 newly identified criminals, the 12,000 who have not been approved to buy a licence? They are taken off the list and they are never checked again.

In fact, there are 176,000 people in this country who have been prohibited by the courts from owning firearms. There are 176,000 people who do not have to report their change of address, but if they are licensed firearms owners they do.

If a person does not report their change of address within one month, that person could end up in prison for up to two years. However, if a person does not have a licence and the person is one of those 176,000 that should not own a firearm, that person does not have to report a change of address and no one will check.

If I were cynical I would say that if a person wanted the government to stop hassling him, he should apply for a licence and be rejected and then he would not have to worry any more. Then he would not be hassled by the government.

I have counted 17 claims that the parliamentary secretary made that are blatantly false. I would like to deal with more of them, but my time is running out.

I will read something that was said in reply to the Liberal claim that there are 6,000 firearms that have been traced in gun crimes and firearms trafficking cases within Canada and internationally. Here is what the police chief of the largest police force in Canada said:

We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety.

That sums it up.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I do not agree with much of what the member for Yorkton—Melville said, but I admire his tenacity. It is sort of like the flat earth society, never yielding to the fact that its theories are wrong. In fact, day by day, month by month and year by year, the firearms program is proving that it is making Canada safer.

If what the member for Yorkton—Melville said is true, then he is saying that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is wrong, because it supports this tool. In fact, there are 2,000 inquiries a day at the firearms registry by police officers, by law enforcement people. Are we to think they sit around all day just playing with their computers? What an insult to front line policemen who also support the gun registry and the firearms program.

The member minimizes the effect of 12,000 individual firearms licences that have been revoked. Why have they been revoked? Because of a history of domestic violence, drug offences, mental health issues and other public safety concerns. They are 12,000 firearms owners who would have been in the possession of firearms and able to do something with serious consequences. That is the benefit of the firearms program. I could go on and on.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the person who asked the question had been here from the beginning. I have already refuted a lot of what he said.

I want to pick up on the issue of the 2,000 inquiries at the firearms registry every day. I have put in numerous access to information requests. I have tried to find out if they are made by bureaucrats in the justice department or front line police officers. I have talked to front line police officers. They have no use for the registry. They have told me that any self-respecting police officer who trusts any of the information in that registry would be taking his life in his hands.

In fact, the Auditor General herself said that over 90% of the registration certificates contain errors. Over five million registrations have never been verified.

I know the minister is not listening to what I am saying but if the Liberals would listen to some of the arguments in regard to this, and some of the research that has been done, they could not support the registry. It is riddled with errors. The 2,000 hits per day are not being done by policemen who are interested in public safety or finding out where the firearms are.

We cannot find out from the government who is accessing the registry.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member has done a lot of work on this and I would ask him to think outside the box a little bit. I am wondering whether in order to deal with public safety he would advocate compulsory penalties for those who use a gun in the commission of an offence. Those penalties would run consecutively and not concurrently, those penalties could not be plea bargained away and there would be penalties for those who trafficked in weapons.

The trafficking in weapons is a big problem. Weapons are one of the products involved in the trafficking of illegal products across our border with the U.S., something which concerns all of us. I am wondering if he would be an advocate for those types of solutions to address the gun problem but also to address the trafficking issue which obviously involves organized crime.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could go into some depth. That was a very good question and I appreciate the member raising it. I wish he would raise this issue within his own party and start talking it up.

Yes, I am in favour of punishing people who use a weapon in the commission of a crime. More and more knives and all kinds of other things are being used in the commission of crimes. It is not just guns with which we have a problem.

As far as consecutive sentences, I think that is an excellent suggestion. I wish we would start talking more about these kinds of solutions to crime problems in this country, and not just with firearms. We should be talking about consecutive sentences in many other areas. It becomes a deterrent and we should be looking for deterrents. We should be looking for ways that substantially improve public safety. The gun registry does not. It is a bureaucratic exercise.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate in the House of Commons tonight that deals with the opposition's efforts to bring responsible spending back to the forefront. I want to take a moment to congratulate my colleague from Yorkton--Melville for the incredible tenacity and work that he has done on this file, as demonstrated by his very factual and erudite presentation moments ago.

When I personally think of the gun registry, I think of a comment by Winston Churchill that is somewhat apropos because never have so few spent so much and achieved so little.

The debate tonight should focus in on the ineffectual and completely intellectually bankrupt approach that the government has taken in presenting the gun registry to Canadians. It promised almost 10 years ago that this was going to cost $2 million. We now know that this has ballooned and is now approaching $2 billion. That is like a kid going into a store and picking out a bag of candy that is priced at $2 and by the time he gets to the register, he is told it is going to cost $2,000. One thousand times over budget is what we have seen with respect to the gun registry.

Let us take a look at some of the facts that the parliamentary secretary and the current Deputy Prime Minister and Minister Responsible for Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness do not tell us. They do not tell us about the inaccuracy of the information that is found in the registry. They do not tell us the number of long guns that are still not registered. They do not tell us about the inescapable fact that is so absent from the discussion on gun registry. The Hells Angels are not registering their long guns, shocking as that may be.

To hear government members opposite trying to defend this complete waste of money in this black hole is reminiscent of the great Lincoln Alexander, the member from Hamilton, who used to talk about the personification of bamboozle and bombast. I am reminded very much of that statement when I look at the President of the Treasury Board and some of his characterizations of why we should put money back into the budget of the Governor General.

In terms of the out of control spending on behalf of the government, most Canadians sitting at home tonight would be shocked to learn that we were actually going to put millions more into a system that has proven to be so ineffective, not connected to public safety in any way shape or form.

The suggestion that the police are using this to any great effect is simply not true. We just need to talk to front line police officers. They approach every domestic call as if a weapon is present. That is the way they should do it.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

They passed a resolution supporting it. Speak the truth.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

I hear the member opposite shouting and shaking his head. I can hear it rattling from here. He is suggesting that front line police officers are in favour of this. I do not know who he has been talking to. We have heard from plenty of front line police officers. Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, the police chief of the biggest city in Canada, said on January 3, 2003:

We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States.

Here is the final unkindest cut of all. He continued:

The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.

There are many other references that could be made and a lot of issues that the Liberals like to overlook. They talk about the number of firearms registered. They say 7 million. It is estimated that there are over 16 million firearms in the country. They suggest that the firearms are just going to disappear or evaporate once the computer system is up and running. More than 300,000 owners of previously registered handguns still do not have a firearms licence.

If the emphasis is to be on licensing, let us put it on licensing, training, public safety and proper storage, all of which were put in place by a previous Conservative government, where the emphasis was actually on public safety. There was some nexus to protecting the public, not simply putting money into a registry.

I will explain very simply how the firearms registry is flawed. If I took one of the little laser-guided stickers that are placed on a long gun and stuck it to this chair and picked it up, and hit my friend from Cumberland--Colchester--Musquodoboit Valley over the head with it, it would not prevent a thing, whether that number was registered in a computer or otherwise.

It is completely flawed from start to finish. It was presented to Canadians in the wake of a terrible tragedy that we commemorated this week, the terrible massacre of women at École polytechnique de Montréal.

The totally offensive way in which the government has tried to play on the sentiments of Canadians in suggesting that somehow this registry would have or could have prevented that tragedy is asinine and offensive. That incident took place because a deranged individual used a restricted weapon that would never have been caught by this firearms registry.

I would like to put on the record some more facts. More than 315,000 owners of a registered handgun still have not re-registered them. We have had the registration of handguns in Canada for 70 years. The biggest problem in Canada today is related to handguns, not Uncle Henry's duck hunting rifle or a person who has collected a rifle for sentimental reasons or a person who engages in a completely lawful and understandable practice of hunting or shooting for sport.

Only 282,000 plus of the 2 million firearm licence holders have taken safety courses. There is a bit of a focal point that maybe we should revisit. More than five million of the seven million firearms in the gun registry still have not been verified, according to police. There is no requirement in the Firearms Act for gun owners to tell anyone where they store their guns or who they would loan them to. Firearms registration for the Nunavut Inuit has been temporarily suspended for two year. There is an entire region of the country where this registry is not even operating.

A briefing note to the current minister when she was the minister of justice back in 2001 in relation to the firearms registry stated:

There are currently just over 1,800 employees associated with the firearms program, counting processing sites, the regions and all partners including the Registrar and CCRA.

It continued, “The Liberals have refused to provide a complete statistic on the number of employees associated with the firearms program since that date”. This is part of the ongoing mystery as to how close to $2 billion could be spent on a registry system.

I am told there is a program in the country now, and many of my colleagues from the west would know this, where every cow in the country has been registered for somewhere in the range of $2 million. The registry is aware of every cow in the country, but we cannot register firearms for a cost of less than $2 billion. It is absolutely shocking.

Here is what $2 billion would pay for, just to put it into perspective for some members. It would be the average income of 76,136 Nova Scotians for a year. It would be the salary of 4,444 new police officers for eight years with an average salary of $66,000. It would be the maximum annual salary for 25 years for over 1,500 nurses in the province of Nova Scotia. It would have paid for 500 installed MRI machines. It would have paid for all kinds of practical programs that would actually save lives, prevent crime, and enhance the lives of Canadians living at home.

This program has been perhaps one of the most abject failures of any program. It is probably the biggest and most serious case of fraud ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public by any government at any time in this country's history. It should be reduced, cancelled, and the money should be put into front line policing where it would actually do some good.

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

Mr. Speaker, it looks like the member for Central Nova has paid his $25 and joined the flat earth society. Perhaps he has subscribed to some of the statistics supplied to him by the member for Yorkton--Melville.

First of all, the figure of $2 billion for the firearms program is a total myth. The member knows it and he is trying to deceive the Canadian public, but they are not so naive.

Second, I would like to rebut his statement of how many firearms there are in Canada. The government engaged a private consultant with a methodology that was signed off by an expert in methodological approaches. That is the reason why the government is saying that there is a 90% compliance in licensing and a 90% compliance in registration. The member's numbers are totally fallacious.

Third, we all know that there are crimes with handguns and that the Hells Angels do not register their guns. The police are saying that this is a useful tool. In fact, our government will be introducing measures which will bring in tougher sanctions for crimes using long guns and shotguns. Crimes using long guns and shotguns have actually been on a steady decline. That is the kind of result we are getting from this firearms program.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, to round out my presentation I quoted the former British prime minister Winston Churchill. I want to respond to this by quoting the great Labour leader of Great Britain at that time, Aneurin Bevan, who in response to some of the rhetoric that used to come from the benches in Great Britain said, “I welcome this opportunity of pricking the bloated bladder of lies with the poniard of truth”.

What we have heard from the parliamentary secretary, suggesting that these statistics represent the truth, is absolute nonsense. What happens, and we have seen it consistently from Statistics Canada, is that rifles and handguns are interspersed. We have known since 1975 that weapons-related crime has been on the decline. The government likes to suggest that there is some connection with the long gun registry and the decline in the use of firearms. It is simply not true.

According to Statistics Canada, in relation to firearms-related homicides, most firearms that are used to commit homicide are not registered. It says that in 1997 the homicide surveys began to collect additional information on the firearms-related homicides, including firearms registration, ownership, possession.

It goes on to say that this information that has been reported, and documented by police services, shows that in 87% of the firearms-related homicides, the firearms were not registered.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question I just want to say that I do not intend to defend the administrative fiasco surrounding the gun registry. I would also like to add that this subject seems to get a very passionate response. If ever there were a subject we should speak rationally about, it is the use of weapons that can kill, it seems to me.

I want the hon. member for Central Nova to tell me what he thinks of the statistics that have been presented to us. The homicide rate in the United States is three and a half times higher than in Canada. The rate of gun-related homicide is five times higher than in Canada. The rate of gun-related homicide in which women are killed by their partners is eight times higher than in Canada.

I agree with him that perhaps Hells Angels and other criminal organizations will still acquire guns, but does he not agree that the difficulty in obtaining guns in Canada will have an impact on street gangs that do not have a lot of money and do not plan very far in advance?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the hon. member who just asked that question. The response is simple. The differences between the United States and Canada are cultural. To make an accurate comparison, it is necessary to compare both cultures.

The issue in the United States, as it is in the large cities in Canada, is handguns. What we have talked about and what we have overlooked, and I appreciate the hon. member trying to bring this back to some rational level, is the registration of long guns versus handguns. There is no connection with putting this registry system in place, therefore taking resources away from front line policing.

While at the same time what is being done in the United States, and I hear the chipmunks opposite again getting agitated, taking resources away from front line policing, closing detachments in the province of Quebec and suggesting this is going to enhance law enforcement is asinine. It does not work because the criminals do not participate.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Parkdale—High Park.

I rise today to speak in favour of reinstating the full budget of the Governor General. I do this because I believe the Governor General is an important institution of the country not something to be used as a political pawn.

The Government General, as representative of the Crown, along with Parliament and the judiciary, forms the foundation, one of the three pillars of our democratic system in Canada.

The institution of the Governor General is a powerful symbol of the Canadian national sovereignty and identity, a symbol as powerful and as etched in our national psyche as Canada's flag, our extraordinary geography and the very Parliament buildings in which we are now sitting.

The Governor General is first and foremost Canada's de facto head of state and commander-in-chief of the Canadian armed forces. This constitutional role is central to the responsibilities of the office.

The Governor General has not only the ability but the responsibility to bring Canadians together, to engage them in non-partisan dialogue on issues of importance to them, to know what their preoccupations are, to know what their values are and to reflect these to other Canadians right across the country. The current Governor General does all of those things, particularly bringing Canadians together better than any other.

I wish to address the important work that our Governor General is doing to bring Canadians from all walks of life, from all corners of this land together. Whether it is by plane, train, car or canoe, the Governor General travels the country visiting Canadians and bringing Canadians together to meet one another.

There are stops in every province and territory beyond our capital cities and continuing off the beaten track to visit Canadians on their farms, in their small towns in rural areas and in northern communities.

I rise today to address the important work that our Governor General is doing to bring Canadians from all walks of life and from all corners of this land together. Visiting Canadians, meeting with Canadians, bringing Canadians together to meet one another.

The current Governor General has made it clear that her goal is to experience how Canadians live and to see how they live. The Governor General uses her visits to speak to Canadians about Canadians and about Canada, and to open their eyes to the originality of the people, of the land and of our languages.

Imagine the type of travel schedule involved. As MPs, we often complain about how many nights we spend away from home. It is no different for the Governor General. At least one week per month is spent outside Rideau Hall or outside of La Citadelle in Quebec City. While visiting different parts of Canada, the Governor General and His Excellency John Ralston Saul meet Canadians of all ages and all walks of life.

They organize round table discussions on questions of social justice and participate in school and community events. As part of the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Canadian Governors General, Governor General Clarkson presided over ceremonies to invest Canadians into the Order of Canada in four different cities across the country, not as has been the practice simply here in Ottawa.

Events at Rideau Hall and at La Citadelle also provide occasions for Canadians to meet and exchange ideas. In February 2002, Rideau Hall for example, was the site of the first ever Governor General's youth forum. More than 100 high school students spent four days with the Governor General and His Excellency John Ralston Saul talking about challenges to community building and ways to involve more young people in their home towns.

Since 1998, His Excellency John Ralston Saul has been bringing together French immersion and francophone students from across the country for the annual French for the Future, Français pour l'avenir conference. The conference has grown from a one community event in 1997 to a cross-country forum which links students in nine different cities from Vancouver to St. John's.

Through a video link, students are able to interact with other French immersion and francophone students from across the country and share their experiences and thoughts on being bilingual in today's wonderful Canadian society.

Through the annual Lafontaine-Baldwin conference, His Excellency John Ralston Saul encourages Canadians to come together in national debate around the future shape of Canada's civic culture. If we are not encouraged from time to time to think about ourselves, to think where we are and where we should be going, where is our future?

By looking back at the historical context of our democratic roots, all members of the House and all Canadians are in a better position as a society to discuss the way we imagine ourselves and the way we imagine us continually evolving democracy. This also means ensuring that the rest of the world understands that the greatness of Canada is based on our economic, political and cultural resources and values.

Abroad, the Governor General and His Excellency John Ralston Saul paint a contemporary image of Canada by bringing together a cross-section of people who contributed to society. First nations, Inuit representatives, film makers, playwrights, novelists, poets and business people accompany them on state visits. They also invite people who make wine, people who are concerned about the environment and people who study and write about our social policy.

For the Governor General, these people are part of Canadian culture and it is through them that our society becomes known in other countries.

I would now like to turn to one of Canada's most enduring symbols, the residence of the Governor General, Rideau Hall. I believe the work that is being done by the Governor General to showcase Rideau Hall is extremely important. Whether it is the flowers in the gardens, hospitality offered on behalf of Canadians during state visits or the art collection that adorns to the walls of Rideau Hall, Government House is now a showcase of Canadian excellence and creativity.

At home and abroad, the Governor General takes pride in work produced by Canadians. When we walk down the corridors of Rideau Hall, the walls come alive with the creative spirit of Canadian artists. Working with the National Gallery and many other galleries across the country, the Governor General has turned Rideau Hall into a temporary home for many of Canada's finest art works. It is a showcase of Canada's best art, ranging from classic to contemporary. That is what the Canadian public and visiting dignitaries deserve to see when they visit the official residences of the Governor General. The doors are wide open.

In what other country in the world is the resident of the head of state wide open to the public?

The Governor General hosts foreign dignitaries and heads of states at Rideau Hall. Not only do they find an office vividly linked to excellence in the arts, they discover a menu featuring Canadian products from all parts of the country.

His Excellency John Ralston Saul leads working delegations of industry representatives and ambassadors from countries that produce wine and represent potential markets for Canadian wines to the annual Cuvée at Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario and the Okanagan wine festival in British Columbia.

Rideau Hall and its grounds, as I say, belong to the Canadian people. The gates are wide open.

I support the motion before us to reinstate the full budget of the Governor General as prescribed in the estimates and I do this: (a) because of the office; and (b) because of the quality of the present incumbent.

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary South Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before we conclude the debate, we have been listening to a lot of this Liberal drivel all night. I want to put the record straight in response.

It is not about the office of the Governor General. No one here is out to attack the office of the Governor General. It is simply about trimming her sails and taking her down a notch or two. Maybe she was living a little high on the hog and the folks just said that it was enough. Before she destroyed the office of the Governor General in the minds of Canadians, because of this profligate waste of spending, we wanted her to just tone it down a bit. It is about that.

It is not about her travelling across Canada. It is about her travelling around the world with an entourage of friends, flaunting our money and wasting it. That has annoyed Canadians. Canadians said that it is enough and that it should be toned down a bit.

It is not about some great dramatic loss of money for the Governor General or people not getting their Order of Canada or their bravery medal because we are cutting her back. We are talking about $400,000 out of an almost $20 million budget.

It is a slap on the wrist to say, “ Enough is enough. Just tone it down a little Your Excellency”.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is speaking out of two sides of his mouth. If he has so much respect for the office and for the incumbent, why this slash and burn approach to the cutting? It is not the amount of money. It is the way it has been done. That has been made very clear from this side. This is the last quarter of her budget.

What would the member opposite think and would he be respectful if I now substantially cut his budget in the last quarter of the year when he had hired staff and so on? If he respects the office so much, why does he not wait and make the arguments for this at an appropriate time? Then if these changes should be made, they can be made in a proper, efficient and respectful fashion.

I suggest it is a witch hunt and that the members opposite are after the office of the Governor General.

[Bill Casey, Conservative, North Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, when I listen to the talk about the Governor General is a thorn in my side. The hon. member said a minute ago that Rideau Hall is a showcase for Canada's best art. That may be true. However, it is not a showcase for Canada's best people. When the Governor General wants to hire someone, she hires them by postal codes. She would not hire someone from the member's riding. She would not hire someone from your riding, Mr. Speaker. She would not hire someone from my riding. She puts restrictions on by postal code.

A person can only apply for a job in her office if he or she has a postal code around Ottawa. When I complained about that, she wrote me back to say that we must do this in the interest of several factors, such as efficiency and cost control. Here is the same person that spends $5 million on a trip to Europe. Yet she will not spend a few dollars going through resumes from Nova Scotia or from any other province other than this little bunch of postal codes around Ottawa.

Would the member explain why people in his riding cannot work in the Governor General's office because it costs too much to go--

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.