Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was debate.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Liberal MP for Leeds—Grenville (Ontario)

Lost his last election, in 2004, with 33% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply March 25th, 2003

Mr. Speaker, how can I answer questions that have not yet been asked? He is just asking them now.

Let us go back to grade two, then, and show and tell. I come here with something to present, I reference statistics and I get called a liar by the member. It is a personal attack.

Supply March 25th, 2003

Mr. Speaker, I guess the point I am trying to make is that it is very difficult to carry on a reasoned debate on this when it sounds like it is a zoo across the way.

It is also interesting to hear the members say that we should look at what Ontario does with its licensing of cars, that maybe we should just do what Ontario does. I have a copy of the Ontario auditor general's report, which discusses their computerization of the land registry system in Ontario, a project called POLARIS. It was supposed to cost $28 million, is now at over a billion dollars and is 11 years late. Oh yes, let us go running to Ontario and have them implement this for us.

One of the issues that I think members have to get their heads around is that the ditches are littered with large scale information technology projects at any level of government. If members would have read the management report, I think they would have seen that the management consultant made it very clear that one of the problems in this particular case was structural. What we had was a consultant that was also a vendor. I am not criticizing the consultants, but that is a lot like putting on a blindfold and opening your wallet.

We had structural problems in how this system was put together. If we look at the KPMG report, we see very clearly that all money is accounted for. The Hession report, I think, outlines very clear guidelines about how we can move forward in terms of large scale projects. We can think ahead because, based on Romanow, we are looking down the road at a potential national health registry. I think we are in a lot better position now to look at how we implement large IT projects.

In Ontario, by the way, the very minister who tabled a petition through the member for Lanark—Carleton today in opposition to the gun registry oversaw an integrated youth justice tracking project in Ontario. It cost $329 million. Ontario never even got it working. The people of Ontario have wasted money on that, but on our particular project here the critical difference is that we have an asset that works. Why do I say that? I am just quoting the Canadian Police Association:

In short, the system is now up and running. Approximately 90% of gun owners have been licensed, and at least 70% of all estimated firearms in Canada have been registered. It would be irresponsible to suspend or abandon any element of this program, now that it is starting to deliver the intended results.

That is from the organization that represents the front line officers in this country.

What do we get in response when we bring that up? Anecdotal things: “I talked to somebody somewhere and they said this”. I think this quote certainly has more credibility than anecdotal statements.

A member stood up and said that this is the number one issue in Ontario. The last survey I could find was taken within the last four weeks. If the members have another one I would be glad to take a look at it. The survey said that 74% of Canadians support the current gun control legislation. What are the Ontario numbers? In support for gun control by region, says Environics Research group, in Ontario in 2001 it was 79%. In 2003 it was 78%, within the statistical margin of error. On support for a firearms registry, and this is the part of the program that accounts for one-third of the costs, with licensing being approximately two-thirds, Ontario had 57% support, with 40% opposed. In light of those statistics I do not know on what the opposition members are basing some of the statements they are making.

To come back to the steps taken, what the government did, I think responsibly, is that the Auditor General's report was timed with the request for additional supplementary estimates. I think the government acted quite responsibly.

We took a look at the issue, at how we could get this program to meet some of the criticisms the Auditor General levelled at the structural components of this thing. We have an additional piece of legislation that addresses directly some of the lessons learned as we try to implement this thing. But at the end of the day, this is the way the argument breaks down for me. I took the time to attend all the briefings. I took the time to request and get a tour of the facility actually using this system, which the police are accessing over 2,000 times a day, to see what we have.

At the end of the day, the government has built a program. Let us use an analogy. We have built a house. The opposition argues, and there may be some merit to it, that we spent too much money on some aspects of that house. Is it responsible to the taxpayers to demolish the house in some of kind of childish fit now? The asset works. What differentiates this from the IT projects that Ontario is trying to launch is that this one actually works. This one is supported by the police that use it.

As I say, in the face of what can only be described as anecdotal evidence contrary to the statistics that I put on the table, I think we have to act responsibly and follow the lead of the front line officers in this country. If members think that nothing has changed from December, I think they need to take a detailed look at what the government has done to get this project back on the rails.

Coming back to Ontario, the other argument we hear is that if we just gave this money to Ontario, it could come up with much better ways of dealing with it. I just went to the Ontario auditor general's website, where there is a multiple page and very critical analysis of how it spends its money in institutional services young offenders operations in terms of early parole systems. It was a very scathing auditor general's report. How did the same minister who is criticizing us on the gun registry and ignoring his own IT projects respond to his auditor general? With a personal attack. He accused the Auditor General of Ontario of having a political agenda.

I distinctly remember graduating from grade two and I get sick and tired of those kinds of tactics being replicated in this House.

Supply March 25th, 2003

Go ahead. She said it. Maybe the member should keep in mind that he has two ears and one mouth.

What I said was, that was what she said. If you have a problem with the Auditor General, take it up--

Supply March 25th, 2003

I'm not the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. Maybe you should keep up on events.

I will proudly stand in my place tonight. I think it is important to point out some facts. Late last fall, the Auditor General tabled a report that has been characterized in any number of ways, but at the end of the day she was absolutely clear that her report was not an indictment of gun control. I went to the public accounts committee when the Auditor General presented because I was interested in this. She made a very specific complaint that the money was allocated through supplementary estimates rather than main estimates. Before I put Canadians to sleep on that technicality, let me say that she said that every cent “was approved by Parliament...”. If the learned members opposite want to dispute that statement--

Supply March 25th, 2003

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be splitting my time with the member for Ottawa Centre.

I have listened quite closely to the debate as it has unfolded today and thought I might just put some thoughts and issues and maybe some facts on the table, something novel; I might try that.

I was a little disturbed by the previous speaker. There is an old adage in politics that if we disagree with somebody we attack their argument. If that does not work, then we attack their motive. If that does not work, then we attack the person. I sat here and listened to that member attack the credibility of the executive director of the Canadian Police Association and the reason I say this is that there is a pattern. The people who oppose this legislation are very quick to attack people on a very personal level. It is a kind of ends justifies the means approach, but I think it should be very clear to Canadians what they are doing when they do that. They are defaulting on being able to attack the argument and they are defaulting on being able to attack the motives.

In fact, the Speaker of this House has been subjected to this. The gentlemen who prepared the management report that outlined the history and the costs associated with this found themselves at the other end of that. When I stood up today, they started yelling out my plurality and my riding. I am a backbencher. I am one of these people they would paint as having some sort of yoke around my neck.

Supply March 25th, 2003

The member may not want to hear this but he is the one who talked about a responsible debate. There is a gap in what he is saying and the reality we as members face.

Could he specifically address the position by the Canadian Police Association? Without attacking the association, as they sometimes do, how does he reconcile the fact that frontline police officers, through their association, have said it would be irresponsible to scrap any element of this program?

Supply March 25th, 2003

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member. I just met with representatives of the Canadian Police Association. Today is the association's lobby day. In its kit is a very strong statement of support for this registry. In fact, in its press release it says that it would be irresponsible to scrap any element of it. Also included is a list of anecdotes of how this registry and system have enhanced public safety.

The member accuses the government of leaving Canadians with the impression it is a public safety issue. How does he reconcile that view with the fact that not only is the government saying this but the association that represents the frontline police officers in the country is saying it as well?

I know he is very good at referring to anecdotal evidence but at the end of the day that party is very quick to cite police support in its criminal justice public policy issues. That is all well and good. Could he explain to the House and to Canadians if the police confused? Are the police acting in a political way? Do they not understand the issue as well as the member?

I am having a hard time, when I get very clear signals from not only the Canadian Police Association but from the chiefs of police and the coalition of issues for--

Supply March 24th, 2003

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given the unprecedented events of the weekend and the fact that the war was brought home to the living rooms of Canadians, and given the fact that some parties may disagree as to the fact that they are there, I think we can all agree or should agree to the following motion. I would ask the consent of the House to put the following motion.

I move that this House express its unequivocal support for the Canadian servicemen and women and other personnel serving in the exchange program with the United States, and for those servicemen and women performing escort duties for British and United States ships, our full confidence in them and the hope that they all will return safely to their homes.

Specific Claims Resolution Act February 28th, 2003

Madam Speaker, I think if you would seek it you would find consent to see the clock at 1.30 so we can begin private members' business.

Specific Claims Resolution Act February 28th, 2003

Madam Speaker, I think if you seek it you would find consent to further defer the recorded division to Tuesday, March 18 at the end of government orders.