John Manley

[Firearms Registry, December 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we discovered that at the last Canadian Alliance convention, when the Leader of the Opposition was chosen, it removed the words, “We are committed to keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals as a necessary part of making our communities safer”.

Speaking of funding, why has he refused to disclose more than 13% of the contributors to his leadership campaign? Is this removal of that important statement part of the price that was extracted from his party by contributors to his leadership campaign?

[National Defence, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it was my privilege as foreign minister to see members of the Canadian Forces in action on the ground in various parts of the world. In every case I was proud of them, their capability, and their skill at what they were going. I am sick and tired of listening to people like that member get up and rip them to pieces.

Either this is an excellent organization that deserves increased funding or it is as bad as she and others on that side say it is, in which case maybe it should have less money.

[Firearms Registry, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I understand to a certain extent the hon. member's bloodlust in this, but I think what Canadians want is a gun registry. They believe that it will improve safety. It is a policy that we have advocated for and argued for over a number of years. And yes, they expect us to do it in a fiscally responsible manner. We will do that. We will see that it is done responsibly.

[Firearms Registry, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, what we have now is an obligation to ensure that the registry system that we committed to and that we put into place by Bill C-68 works and is up and running in the appropriate way.

Clearly, the Auditor General has had some criticisms about how the administration of the program was done. It is our obligation and our commitment to improve it.

[Airport Security, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it would not be prudent and responsible to do so. We believe in running a balanced budget. We believe in retaining the flexibility based on the amount of revenues that we will receive. Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence that the fee has reduced air travel.

[Airport Security, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the tax will be reviewed based on the numbers we are generating in response to it and also the expenditures that are being made. We believe that the charge will need to continue to pay for the necessary security enhancements that are being implemented.

[Firearms Registry, December 12th, 2002]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, it deleted that part from its statement of policy in 2002. It is gone.

[Firearms Registry, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the report on spending is available through the estimates over and over. The Prime Minister has made it clear, as all of us have, that we remain committed to the gun registry.

I was looking at the statement of policy of the Canadian Alliance Party, article 31, where it says:

We are committed to keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals as a necessary part of making our communities safer.

[Airline Industry, December 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, if it were that simple, fine, we could deal with it, but we do not charge that tax in the United States and air travel is down in the United States as well. Maybe the member should be able to explain that.

The point remains this: that we believe the users of the service ought to pay for the additional security. We have put out a paper showing why we expect there may be some ability to reduce the charge. We will wait to hear from stakeholders how they think the charge should be structured. I think that is the prudent and appropriate way to deal with it.

[Airline Industry, December 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will take it as a representation from the Alliance that they are prepared to add additional costs. They like spending money. We have learned that, with $2 billion for this and a billion for that, and in this case $400 million.

To be perfectly frank, one has to wonder how much research the hon. member did in concluding that at a period that followed September 11, 2001, she thinks all of the reduction in air travel was because of a charge for additional security. I do not think so.