Debates of Feb. 17th, 2005

Official Languages Act

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak today on Bill S-3, an act to amend the Official Languages Act (promotion of English and French). I would like to thank the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell for sponsoring this bill.

Before going into the topic in depth, I would like to thank Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier, now retired from political life, for his legacy. He always worked very hard for the francophone cause in this country, to eliminate injustices and to ensure the equality of this country's two official languages. Thank you, Senator Gauthier, and happy retirement. Although he is retired, I am sure the senator is still working hard on behalf of Canada's minorities.

There are three major components to Bill S-3.

First, there is the federal government's commitment to enhancing the vitality and supporting the development of the English and French linguistic minority communities of Canada and to fostering full recognition and use of English and French in Canadian society;encourage the official

Second, the Minister of Canadian Heritageshall take appropriate measures to advancethe equality of status and use of English andFrench in Canadian society.

Third, any person who has made a complaintto the Commissioner in respect of aright or duty under sections 4 to 7, sections10 to 13 or Part IV, V or VII, or in respect ofsection 91, may apply to the Court for a remedyunder this Part.

However, the very essence of this bill is to reinforce the enforceable rather than declaratory nature of the obligations incumbent on the Government of Canada under part VII of the Official Languages Act.

For the past 17 years, the Government of Canada has had an Official Languages Act in order to remedy injustices within the francophone and anglophone communities.

Yet the problem has always been the government's failure to recognize the executory nature of its obligations under section 41 of the Official Languages Act.

Once and for all, we need to ensure that the government will honour its obligations in this respect.

The Commissioner of Official Languages has, moreover, recommended clarification of part VII, that is clarification of its mandatory nature and the commitment of the federal government. The problem encountered within federal institutions as far as bilingualism in the public service is concerned is that bilingual service to the Canadian public is poor. Francophone organizations end up having to deal with unilingual anglophones. Examples of this abound, the SANB and the SNA for instance., so there is a problem.

On that subject, I would like to add that not long ago the Standing Committee on Official Languages heard from the president of PSAC. She said there had been a complaint in the public service because an employee had received a letter of reprimand. This public servant, in Ottawa, in a federal office, had spoken in French. That is the point I want to raise.

Imagine what things would be like today if the government ignored the fact that senior managers in the federal government had reprimanded a francophone because he or she had used his or her mother tongue. The senior manager is the one who should be reprimanded. It certainly does not give an anglophone, who has worked hard to learn French in order to be able to serve the public in both official languages, a chance to put that second language into practice. It makes no sense.

The problem is really the government itself which does not respect the two official languages here in Canada, since it lets a senior manager act this way.

Yes, it is true that the law needs more teeth. At the same time, we need a government with more backbone.

If the federal government, the Liberal government, opposes Bill S-3, the message will be sent that it does not wish to respect our country's two official languages. This is the fourth time such a bill has been introduced in Parliament.

Today, Bill S-3 has come to us from the Senate. The senators thought voting in favour of this bill was the right thing and the wise thing to do. There were Conservatives there who agreed with it. We hope that the Conservatives here in the House of Commons will take a lesson from those older Conservatives, the ones that were called Progressive Conservatives. They must remember we have two languages that we must respect.

In the action plan for official languages, $751 million is earmarked to support the official languages. Each time, the francophone communities win something in court. They have had to go to court in order to obtain their rights and respect. The federal government goes to the appeal court.

I will give you an example. This morning's L'Acadie nouvelle reports:

Food Inspection Agency positions reinstated in Shippagan; Supreme Court to decide whether it will hear the Forum des maires case.

The Supreme Court will decide today whether it will hear the case of Le Forum des maires de la Péninsule acadienne v. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency in the matter of reinstating four federal positions in Shippagan.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is the Government of Canada. The Government of Canada is the one not recognizing both official languages in order to help the communities to develop. It is the Government of Canada that continues to go to court. In the meantime, Le Forum des maires de la Péninsule acadienne, an agency without means, has to use its savings to be heard in court and the Federal Court has ruled in its favour. The food inspectors are returning, but the federal government disagrees with the ruling and is appealing.

My colleague, the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, said that the government would like to respect both official languages, but the legislation does not allow it to. Stop appealing. Accept the court decision and the problem is solved. That is why I think it is the government that does not want to act. I have a hard time believing it will accept Bill S-3, because it does not want it. Bilingualism costs too much. I think that is the real issue.

There needs to be a desire to follow through and take the time. We have been waiting for 17 years. It is time for something to happen.

The government has the responsibility because there are laws in this country about bilingualism. We have two languages and we have to respect both languages and get services in both languages.

If the government continues to go to the appeal court or the Supreme Court saying it does not have any rights, then do not tell me it hopes and wishes for laws it could respect. The government has to respect the court's decision, but that is not what it is doing. I hope that attitude will change.

The Liberal government has always maintained that it recognizes the enforceability of the Official Languages Act, but never gave it any real recognition, because that would result in too many court cases. That is what it is saying. That is ridiculous. It wants legislation, but does not want it to be too good, because this would mean that minority communities would go to court.

Parliament passes legislation but the government does not want it to be strong legislation, because it does not want people to go to court. What is this nonsense? The government made this point on many occasions. If part VII of the Official Languages Act is strengthened, everyone will want to go to court.

If everyone goes to court, that means that there is a big problem. It means that the Official Languages Act was never respected. That is enough. The government has to show the political will to change that.

Today, we heard a group that appeared before our Committee on Official Languages. It was a group of parents, anglophone parents, who support the French language. They told us that they wanted to send their kids to immersion schools.

They said they want them to go to school to learn French. That is where we are in 2005. As for the people of this country now, when we go into the field, into the community, the majority of people understand that we need services in both languages in our country. They want to learn French, but we are not giving them the tools to do it, not the schools, not the teachers and, after that, not the follow up.

We had a situation, which I said was a shame, where a francophone was working in a public establishment in Ottawa and was reprimanded because she was speaking French. I can tell my friends in the House that if that is what is happening, what can we expect from an anglophone who worked hard, went to school, learned the French language and sees a francophone being reprimanded because she is speaking her mother tongue language? Why will he want to speak French at the age of 16?

The little bit of English I speak today I learned in Ontario when I moved here. I know this little bit of English today because I had the opportunity to practise it. That is what the English parents were telling me today. They were saying that they do not have that opportunity, that they do not have the tools. If we want the two communities to work together in order for people to speak their own language and learn the other language, then we are going to have to respect that.

Let us look at other countries. They do not fight over language. People learn six languages in some countries, five languages in others; it is a goal to learn different languages. As a Parliament, we have to provide the tools to do it and we will support Bill S-3. It is time to deal with it. It is time the government is forced to deal with it because we have a law in our country and there are two bilingual communities, the English and the French.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to take part in the debate today in the House on Bill S-3, an act to amend the Official Languages Act (promotion of English and French).

As members are no doubt aware, I represent the unique riding of Saint-Boniface, Manitoba. This riding has an extremely dynamic francophone community currently experiencing significant development in a minority situation.

From my active involvement in Manitoba's francophone community, I can tell you that I am extremely concerned by the challenges and opportunities this community faces. This subject has held a special interest for me since my arrival in the House. So, it is a pleasure for me to speak on something close to the heart of those I represent.

This bill was presented in the other place by Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier and was adopted by the senators on October 26, 2004. Today, it is being sponsored by my colleague, the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. All the members in the House recognize the commitment of the hon. member, who has worked tirelessly to move the official languages file forward.

The intention of this bill amending the Official Languages Act is to reinforce the equal status of the official languages of Canada and Canada's commitment in this regard.

Mr. Gauthier introduced an initial version of this bill, S-32, on September 19, 2001, in the Senate. Subsequently, Bills S-11 and S-4 were introduced. Each time, the bill made it a little further in the parliamentary process.

The same thing can be said about the government's action with regard to the official languages. Much has changed since the end of 2001. The Minister responsible for the Official Languages has been appointed, the action plan for official languages has been officially unveiled, and the accountability and coordination framework that was part of the action plan, is starting to show results.

The Government of Canada's commitment to linguistic duality is unequivocal. The throne speech of October 5 reaffirms that the government will work to implement the official languages action plan and continue to promote the vitality of official language minority communities.

What then is the nature of that commitment? Section 41 of the Official Languages Act includes a formal statement of the commitment of the Government of Canada: promote linguistic duality and support and assist the development of minority francophone and anglophone communities.

This is a solemn commitment, permanent and visible to all Canadians, because it is formulated not only by the government but by the act itself. Only another act of Parliament could alter that commitment by the federal government.

How is this commitment to be implemented?

The Official Languages Act provides in section 42 that it is the Minister of Canadian Heritage who is responsible, in consultation with other ministers, for coordinating the implementation by federal institutions.

Furthermore, section 43 of the act sets out the specific mandate of the Minister of Canadian Heritage to take such measures as the minister deems appropriate and “to advance the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society”.

This mandate, like part VII as a whole, is clearly built upon the principle of advancement of official languages that underlies subsection 16(3) of the charter.

The commitment of the federal government in section 41 and its implementation under section 42, as well as the specific mandate set out in section 43, are very broad. Their realization depends not only on establishing and managing priorities and allocating funds and other available resources. To a large extent, we depend on the cooperation of many other actors, including provincial and territorial governments, private sector enterprises, voluntary organizations and other institutions and associations which do not fall within the legislative and regulatory control of the federal government.

If Bill S-3 were not amended to limit the scope, it could create obligations that would be impossible to meet and would affect our relations with the provinces and territories. This is why, while supporting the underlying principle of Bill S-3, we would like to be sure that it will not have the effect of hampering relations with the provinces and territories. The Government of Canada works in close cooperation with the provinces and territories in this regard, and that cooperation must continue.

Clearly, the Government of Canada assumes the commitment set out in part VII of the Official Languages Act, but this does not mean it cannot be proactive. That is why we support the underlying principle to Bill S-3, while wishing to restrict its scope. We must not lose sight of everything that has happened since the first version of this bill was tabled in 2001.

In April 2001, the Prime Minister gave the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs the new mandate to “consider strong new measures that will continue to ensure the vitality of minority official-language communities and to ensure that Canada’s official languages are better reflected in the culture of the federal public service.”

As a result, on March 12, 2003, the Government of Canada announced that it would be investing $751 million over five years in an official languages action plan. It also made a commitment, through that action plan, to improve accountability and horizontal management and to provide better support to official language minority communities.

I am pleased to have had this opportunity to speak on Bill S-3. May I express my thanks in closing to Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier for his defence of Canada's official language minority communities over so many years.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share concerns, representing one of my constituents from Langley, regarding the compassionate care benefit program.

The compassionate care benefit program started a year ago in January 2004. The brochure reads:

One of the most difficult times anyone can face is when a loved one is dying or at risk of death. The demands of caring for a gravely ill or dying family member can jeopardize the employment of Canadians and the economic security of their families...The Government of Canada believes that, during such times, Canadians should not have to choose between keeping their jobs and caring for their families.

I have a true story to tell but to respect the confidentiality and privacy of the family I will be using the name Sue. Sue is a 43 year old woman from Langley who has been caring for her 73 year old mother for a number of years now. It is a very close, loving family. Sue was recently diagnosed with terminal cancer and given two to eight weeks to live. Sue is no longer able to care for her mother so her sister left her job and home in Okanagan, British Columbia to come down and care for Sue.

On January 17, Sue's sister and family applied at the EI office for the compassionate care program, which is there to make it possible for family to take care of one another in a situation like this. Sue's family was told that the sister could not qualify for the compassionate care benefit because a sister was not considered family under the legislation. Sue has no husband and no children and, as I said, her sister is her family. The EI staff said that they could not make the assumption that she was family.

Another portion of this compassionate care program says that “other” could also qualify for this, and I will share further on the word “other”. The problem with “other” in the legislation is that it was never defined. The EI staff said that they did not have the authority to define “other”, and therefore Sue's sister did not qualify for this package.

The family was told no on January 17 and on January 19 they visited our Langley office. On January 20, I sent off a letter to the Minister of Human Resources regarding this urgent matter. On February 2, I personally delivered a copy of that letter to the minister. On February 4, I stood in the House and asked the minister to do something on this. On February 7, I received a response from the minister in which she said that she did not have discretion to help this family.

I have been working with the minister and with this family for about a month now and to this point nothing has happened. We have been told that the minister does not have the discretion. The Library of Parliament has shared that the EI Commission does have the discretion.

I am here today to ask the minister when she will do something. Will she direct the EI Commission to look at this in a timely manner so that the needs of the family can be met and the compassionate care program can truly meet what it is there for?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada and the minister and I understand the distress experienced by anyone who has a family member with a serious illness, the sort of case described by my colleague. That is why we are committed to supporting working Canadians to ensure that they are not forced to choose between their jobs and caring for their family during a serious medical crisis.

It is for these very humanitarian reasons that the government introduced the compassionate care benefits program in the year 2004 to help Canadian workers faced by these situations, the program to which my colleague refers.

Research shows the vast majority of Canadians facing these types of crises are caring for a spouse, parent or child. These benefits ensure that eligible workers can take a temporary leave of absence from work to provide care or support for a gravely ill child, spouse or parent who are at a significant risk of death.

The six weeks of benefits can be shared among family members and can be taken consecutively, concurrently or one week at a time by family members over a 26 week period. This provides families with greater choice so that they will contribute to quality care of gravely ill Canadians.

The six week benefit was found to represent a balanced approach that would meet the needs of Canadian families and establish a sound foundation for the compassionate care benefits.

In determining an appropriate duration for the leave, a variety of evidence was examined, including medical evidence on the duration and cause of grave illnesses, as well as best practices in the public and private sectors.

However my colleague will be glad to know that an evaluation is being conducted in 2005-06 and part of this evaluation will include an assessment of the adequacy and scope of the benefits. As of December 31, 2004, 5,383 workers had filed a claim for compassionate care benefits, an average of 449 a month.

The Canada Labour Code and most provincial and territorial labour codes already provide job protection for workers in this type of situation. Even in those provinces that do not, workers can still receive the federal compassionate care benefit.

Employers recognize the importance of providing a balance between work and family. Of the firms surveyed on this question in 2001, 73% indicated that they did not have to change their practices or operations to accommodate the enhanced leave.

This is a relatively new benefit. It is too early to know if the initial pattern of demand will continue. As I said, we are working to ensure that Canadians are aware of the program. We will work in consultation with the health care community to ensure that patients and their families are aware of the compassionate care benefit, and aware that it is a resource that they can call on.

Evidence based analysis and ongoing monitoring and assessment will ensure the compassionate care benefit responds to the pressures faced by workers caring for a gravely ill family member, such as the tragic case mentioned by my colleague.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not rising in the House today to hear an hon. member read from a brochure. I am here for answers. Dying people cannot wait.

I have some statistics. The annual budget for this program is $221 million. It has been in operation for one year and only $7 million of that $221 million have been spent.

There is a category of “other”. I am asking the minister to define “other”. Is a sister family? Is a brother family? I believe they should be because these are the types of Canadians who are taking care of one another. A sibling is family. The sloppy legislation that we have here where “other” is not defined, needs to be dealt with in a timely fashion, not an hon. member reading from a brochure.

Ministers do have discretion. We have heard that ministers have had discretion to bring strippers into Canada. We have heard that ministers have discretion to fast-track legislation, like trying to undemocratically redefine marriage. We are hearing now that ministers do not have discretion and they will not be dealing with compassionate care in a timely fashion.

I ask the minister to do the right thing, to represent Canada and provide compassionate care so families can stay together.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has pointed out, the minister has said that she has no discretion as to who can access the compassionate benefits. The legislation, which is still relatively new an which passed by the House, clearly states that these benefits are open to eligible workers providing care or support to a gravely ill child, spouse or parent who has a significant risk of death.

As I have mentioned, it is still new legislation, but already an evaluation is being conducted and part of that evaluation will include an assessment of the adequacy and scope of the benefits prescribed in the legislation.

I repeat again, I feel strongly personally and as does the minister with respect to the case described by my colleague. He has done fine work on that behalf. We are dealing with a prescription of legislation.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of this Parliament, I have asked many questions in this House concerning the federal government's treatment of Mr. Mohamed Cherfi. Both the officials of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the minister are still dragging their feet in this case.

In Mohamed Cherfi's case there are several important elements. Mohamed Cherfi is an Algerian who fled his country and sought refuge in Canada. His request for refugee protection was turned down in 1999. He was able to remain here because of a moratorium on the deportation of Algerians. Like his countrymen, Mr. Cherfi lobbied to have his status recognized. It has been his bad luck to become the spokesperson for these people treated so unfairly by Canada.

Faced with such lobbying, the then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration had no other choice but to give in. An amnesty was declared for non-status Algerians, but in a vengeful gesture, their spokesman, Mr. Cherfi, was excluded.

The only solution remaining to him was to hide out in a religious sanctuary. In an unprecedented move, Citizenship and Immigration Canada insisted that the Quebec City police force violate the sanctuary of the Église unie de Saint-Pierre, on Saint-Ursule Street in Quebec City. From there, Mr. Cherfi was taken to the American border and ever since, he has been held in the United States.

These actions by Citizenship and Immigration have mobilized the community.

To help Mr. Cherfi return, five upstanding citizens of Quebec, including Marc Ouellet, agreed to sponsor him as a person in need of protection. Mr. Cherfi has a great deal of support in the community in Quebec.

Since he went public with his position on non-status Algerians, the risk to his safety has increased tenfold. He is now perceived as someone who has tarnished Algeria's image abroad.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada promised the sponsoring group it would make its decision quickly so that Mr. Cherfi could return, if possible, before he is deported from the United States.

A coalition was created to support him and his family at every turn.

They have received support from the Civil Liberties Union, the Amnesty International French Canadian chapter, the Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes, the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, the Centrale des syndicats du Québec, the Fédération des femmes du Québec and many others.

I have the following question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration: why did the Government of Canada not allow Mr. Cherfi to return?

Has his department lost all human sensitivity? Is the presence of a non-status Algerian in Canada, who exercises his freedom of expression, an embarrassment to Canada?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, as I think the hon. member is aware, I cannot comment on the specifics of this case or in fact of any other case. Nor do I intend to comment on the U.S. immigration system because Canada is a sovereign nation and like every country is guided by its own domestic immigration laws and regulations.

I can assure the member that all levels of due process are followed in Canada. At the same time, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question which allows me to emphasize the important role Canada plays in providing a safe haven for genuine refugees.

Canada has a long-standing tradition of generosity toward those seeking our protection, people who are fleeing persecution, torture or risk to life in their home countries. Canada has in place one of the most generous refugee determination systems in the world. The principle of fairness, openness and transparency form the core of Canada's refugee protection program.

To maintain the integrity of this system, it is imperative that once all levels of review have been exhausted, unsuccessful candidates leave Canada when required or they are to be removed. Anyone who wants to live in Canada must go through the appropriate channels. When a visa officer looks at an application, it is processed according to existing, clear and transparent guidelines. Each case is judged and decided on its own merits and on the individual circumstances.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that history and the past few months have shown that, in every instance where individuals had church protection, including church sanctuary, their applications were valid. The current minister has approved such applications and granted special status.

In the case of Mr. Cherfi, Citizenship and Immigration Canada violated the sanctuary. Mr. Cherfi enjoys very wide support from various people, people who knew him and well-known community figures.

In fact, Mr. Cherfi has been accused of not working. A man who volunteered so much time to help his people deserves at least to be considered on humanitarian grounds. The work he has done must be taken into consideration. We must not forget that he has made a life for himself here, that he is a part of Quebec's society now and, also, that has a spouse impatiently waiting for him here.

Now, his life is threatened because this matter has caught media attention. We ask the minister to approve his application.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, church sanctuary is a tradition. We all know that. However, it is not a law. Canada's refugee determination system is a fair and generous one that follows clearly defined processes.

The government is committed to ensuring that our refugee determination system reflects the values of Canadians and that it has their confidence. In cases where there are humanitarian and compassionate grounds, that is again determined on a case by case basis, weighing all of the issues. Therefore, we cannot comment on that individual case or process either. When all avenues of due process have been followed and a final judgment has been made, we expect the individuals to return home.

If a visa officer receives an application for resettlement as a refugee, the officer has an obligation to review it against the standards outlined by the United Nations convention. Our system must continue to provide protection to genuine refugees, but it must also continue to follow clear and transparent due process.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, for the people who are viewing us on TV, I will briefly rephrase the question which I am bringing forward again in adjournment proceedings tonight. I put the question to the Minister of Finance, but it was answered by the Deputy Prime Minister, concerning the thousands of RCMP officer vacancies that are across Canada. In my particular case, I was most concerned about the province of Saskatchewan.

I referenced an earlier quote from the current Minister of Public Works which said that $1 billion would be better spent on the RCMP rather than wasting it on the gun registry. That was an admirable thought.

In the justice committee of the House, the Conservative members of the committee had brought forth the motion to transfer $56 million from the gun registry to training for the RCMP. The motion was defeated in committee with the support of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP supporting the government. So I put the question to the minister to encourage him to put more resources properly where they should be, to the RCMP.

During the election campaign I ran into eight or nine RCMP officers door knocking and campaigning. If I may say so proudly, they all pledged to vote for me. I asked them, “What do you need, what do you want? Is the government adequately supporting you?”

We find in the province of Saskatchewan that we have severe problems with crime. It is unfortunate that the province has a high murder rate and in particular, the city of Saskatoon has one of the highest which is not something we are proud of. We need more police services to deal with the crystal meth problem and the drug abuse problem. We need more police services to deal with break and enters. I realize that some of this has to do with cities and so forth, but the RCMP needs more resources.

I would go out and talk to the individual members, not in front of the cameras, not for consumption, so that they would tell me face to face what they would say to someone who they were viewing as their potential member and now is their member of Parliament. I would ask, “What do you really need?”

The Mounties told me that they needed more basic equipment. The buildings used by their rural detachments were falling apart. They needed better cars and just the basic equipment to handle their jobs.

They did not need the gun registry. They found it burdensome and a nuisance. In fact, one of the RCMP officers who first questioned me was in civilian dress and questioned me about the gun registry. I of course explained why I was saying it was such a disaster. He said, “Good, because we need that money for more proper and useful things. We have to actually deal with crime in the community and we need money resourced and reallocated. It was not the entire waste of the gun registry that we were asking for but just a portion”.

Therefore, my question for the government is, why not take the money and put it into filling these vacancies, and put it into something that the communities and the RCMP rank and file officers are calling for?

I know the parliamentary secretary will recite what the government has done, but the need is so great. The need continues and the need is not met. Irrespective of what the government will claim to have done, there is still a need for more funding. I wish the government would address that by transferring it from waste to proper spending.

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

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP has a long-standing reputation for providing Canadians with policing services at the federal, provincial, territorial and municipal levels in over 750 detachments across the country. The government has made a significant investment in the RCMP on the federal side, as well as by meeting our contracts with the provinces. Indeed, the RCMP is now recognized internationally as a modern, sophisticated police force.

We provide the RCMP with a spending authority of almost $3 billion. In fact, since 1999-2000, the RCMP's annual spending authority has increased by about $850 million, from just under $2 billion to more than $2.8 billion.

The funding provided permits the RCMP to fulfill its obligations under the various police services agreements. Under these agreements, the provinces are responsible for the appropriate level of policing service in consultation with the commanding officers. The provincial police services agreement includes a cost share formula, 70% provincial, 30% federal.

Since 1999-2000, the RCMP has been authorized to spend an additional $505 million amount for the provision of contract policing services, an increase on the federal side alone of $225 million.

For the upcoming fiscal year, we will support the RCMP with additional spending authority of $88 million and more than 500 new officers for contract policing services. The federal share of this increase is $33 million, with the remainder being paid by our contract partners.

The RCMP is also a responsible partner with the provinces. The force addresses vacancies in consultation with the provinces and municipalities for detachments across Canada on a continuing basis. In fact, the RCMP is processing requests for more than 180 additional contract officers in Alberta and 142 new municipal police officers in British Columbia. In addition, the RCMP continuously works with provincial governments and municipalities to address resource issues.

In Saskatchewan there are currently 1,100 RCMP members providing contract policing services.

The RCMP is committed to ensuring that necessary resources are available and allocated to fulfill its policing requirements.

As has been previously indicated in this House, the RCMP's Depot Division in Regina, Saskatchewan is training a record number of cadets this year. In comparison with the 586 newly hired RCMP members in 2001-02, the RCMP has hired well in excess of that number of regular members every year since: in 2002-03, 649; in 2003-04, 839; and a total of 850 regular members to be hired in 2004-05.

In addition, the RCMP is currently conducting a review of all recruiting processes to identify strategic improvements to its recruiting program to ensure that the RCMP continues to meet its law enforcement commitments.

There is strong public support from local and national public health and community safety organizations and workers for all aspects of the firearms program. This government is committed to providing the RCMP with the tools it needs to do their work. This speaks directly to the reference to the Canadian Firearms Registry. The registry is an important tool for the RCMP. It queries it on average 2,000 times a day.

The Canada Firearms Centre costs have been coming down for several years. In 2004 the government announced improvement to the firearms program and measures to control costs, with a commitment to the centre's annual funding of approximately $85 million starting next fiscal year, including a cap of $25 million on registration related costs. This is half of what the funding of the centre was in 2000-01. In fact, there have been major improvements in terms of the organization of the firearms centre and the firearms program in recent years.

In addition, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Professional Police Association support the licensing of all firearms owners and the registering of all firearms. Indeed, the police association passed a motion in 2004 saying just that.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I heard a lot of numbers over there. I heard a lot of posturing about they had done this and they had done that. I urge the parliamentary secretary to get out there, talk to the rank and file police officers and talk about their needs.

I am a Conservative. I do not like spending money by and large, but there are certain things the government has a need for, and spending for police services is one of them. It is an economical way to spend money. If we cut down on drug use, it will save our health care costs. If we cut down on property crimes, it will allow for more productivity in our economy. This is a wise and prudent use of resources, but spend it to meet the needs.

The government rattles off all these numbers. Talk to the police officers. What do they really need? I have asked those officers. They are not asking for any luxury. They have said that their rural detachments are declining. They have problems with their equipment. They need real resources. They do not need posturing. They do not need statistics.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know it is inappropriate for me to say that the member is a liar and I am not going to say that. However, if he goes out and talks to people and says that the cost of registration is $1 billion and then asks them what they would do with that $1 billion, he is going to get a certain response. That is wrong. It is completely wrong and if he listened to the figures, he would know it is wrong.

The firearms registry has never cost $1 billion. Even in the full 10 years of startup it was nowhere near it. Members heard my figure of $25 million. If the member gives false information, he is going to get a very different response than if he gave the real information.

The police associations support the registration of firearms.

The government has also invested $112 million to fight organized crime, $100 million to update the criminal record and fingerprint analysis technology, $34 million to address criminal exploitation of children, and $27 million for the DNA data bank alone. These are expenditures for law enforcement which help the RCMP and the people the member was talking about.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:45 p.m.)