Martin Cauchon

[Justice, April 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is quite simple. I cannot comment on a specific case while it is pending before the courts.

[Firearms Registry, April 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. As I have said, this government has a very good plan of action. The estimates are quite clear. He should read, as a member, the report of Mr. Hession. We based our calculation on Mr. Hession's report.

Having said that, it is a strong policy and a good policy for Canadians that we support and Canadians support.

However those members do not support it and will never support gun control because when they read in a press release that gun control will result in more crime, more injuries and more deaths, they cannot support a good policy. They will never do that.

[Firearms Registry, April 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should do his homework. On the government side we did our work. First, we have accepted all the recommendations of the Auditor General's report. Second, we have asked for a few studies as well in order to move forward with a good plan of action and with the supplementary B estimates that have been tabled in the House for about $59 million. For next year we are talking about $113 million.

Having said that, the numbers have been established based on Mr. Hession's report. The hon. member should read Mr. Hession's report in order to know the exact calculation that we have used.

[Justice, April 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should read Bill C-22, the amendments to the Divorce Act. Essentially the starting point of that bill is the question of the best interests of the children. Taking into consideration the best interests of the child, we list for the very first time some criteria that a judge will have to use in order to come to that conclusion. With regard to the Lisa's law case he just referred to, he should look at the bill as well. In the amended bill, we deal with that situation.

[Justice, April 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, essentially the hon. member should have a look at the amendments to the Divorce Act, which have been tabled before the House. The bill has not received second reading. It is before the committee and in that bill there are provisions to that effect.

[Young Offenders, April 2nd, 2003]

Not at all, Mr. Speaker. The act has come into force. It is now in effect and we will proceed with it. Incidentally, last year when we decided to delay its coming into force for one year, we did so based on a consensus reached around the table at a federal-provincial-territorial meeting.

That said, it is important to look at the Court of Appeal judgment as a whole. It is a reference which comments on six issues. It is important to understand that the reference confirms that when the Canadian government passed the legislation, it was acting within its jurisdiction.

[Firearms Program, April 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this is a somewhat surprising statement from the member, because she knows quite well that the gun control program has a great deal of support among Canadians.

Second, this is a program that is already providing benefits in terms of public security. This is something that goes to the core of Canadian values.

Since the Auditor General's report, we have drawn up an action plan. It is a good action plan to ensure that we move forward with the program. That is exactly what we will do, specifically by proceeding with—

[Young Offenders, April 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation, which has wide support in this House and among the Canadian public, has come into force today.

Yes, we have received the judgment of the appeal court. We are particularly pleased to see that the constitutionality of the act was upheld, which means that this act is indeed within the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada.

There are a few elements that are more closely linked to the charter, and we will take the time to analyze the entire judgment and come back later with an official position on these two aspects.

[Firearms Program, April 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for this very important question.

We all know that we have tabled a good plan of action. Of course one very important part of that plan of action with regard to gun control policy is Bill C-10A. Bill C-10A will have a very positive effect and impact on the program. Just to name a few positive effects, we will simplify the requirements for licence renewal, for example, stagger firearms licence renewals as well, increase the use of the Internet and establish a pre-application process for temporary importation by non-resident visitors.

Therefore I look forward to the support--

[Question No. 159, March 31st, 2003]

The government’s regulatory policy requires a regulatory impact analysis statement, RIAS. A RIAS is prepared in accordance with a prescribed format, although the information in a RIAS will vary depending on the context of a specific regulatory proposal.

Regulations made under the Firearms Act must be tabled before both Houses of Parliament and may be scrutinized by House of Commons and Senate committees. There are three circumstances when such scrutiny is not required: (1) When an altered version of a proposed regulation has already been considered; (2) in cases of urgency, such as the amendments affecting the fee waiver in 2000; and (3) when “the Minister is of the opinion that the changes made by the regulation to an existing regulation are so immaterial or insubstantial” that committee review is not necessary.

In this case, the original set of regulations was considered by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Both committees heard evidence from numerous witnesses. Witnesses provided information on a wide variety of subjects including the cost impacts on their particular interests.

The RIAS stated that the regulations were in accordance with the government’s response to the committee report. Ordinarily, consultations are conducted by officials and reported to the public in the RIAS. In this case, the consultation was conducted by parliamentary committees and the entire body of evidence, including cost impacts, heard by the committee was readily available to both Parliament and the public at that time.

In light of the recommendations of the Auditor General and as indicated in the 2003-04 Report on Plans and Priorities, the program will report all revenues collected and refunds made in the future.