Roy Cullen

[Supply, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not having an answer on the DNA, but that was in the supplementary and perhaps I can get back to the member on that.

With respect to firearms licensing, as it often is in life, people leave things to the last minute. Sometimes they do that because they are not very happy when they have to license a firearm. What we had was a peak load of registrations. On a five year renewal basis that would mean we would have a peak every five years. The firearms centre would have to staff up and then staff down, pay overtime, et cetera. This makes eminent sense and was adopted by this Parliament.

I would like to talk about some of the good things that are happening with the firearms registry. For example, it has now registered roughly seven million firearms. That is a good number of registered firearms, but more important , there are about 20,000 inquiries on the firearms registry by police every week.

[Supply, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in the member's question in question period he talked about the DNA in the supplementary, but I am prepared to deal with the question around the firearms registry.

The first question put forward by the hon. member concerns the licence renewal process that was approved by Parliament in 2003.

The second question deals with the costs of the program reported to Parliament in October 2004. The hon. member knows that firearm licences must be renewed every five years.

More than 50% of the 1.98 million firearms licences were issued within a 12 month period preceding the legislated deadline of December 31, 2000 that required firearm owners and users to be licensed under the Firearms Act.

Bill C-10A, originally tabled in the House as Bill C-15 in 2001, received royal assent in May 2003. It amended the Firearms Act to provide measures for the effective administration of the firearms program. Included in the legislation was a provision to allow a one-time extension of some possession-only licences, to solve the peak in workload, every five years for licence renewals, thus allowing for a more even yearly distribution of licence renewals.

Parliament passed this provision, and the evening out of the workload has been supported by stakeholders consulted on Bill C-10A in the fall of 2003. It also got the support of provincial firearm regulators, because this has created a stable operational environment while ensuring quality services and public security.

Workload levelling is a much used and effective business practice that allows a more even distribution of work over an extended period. This eliminates increased costs and staff for processing an unusual peak in workload. Workload levelling also allows the program to continue to meet application processing standards thus ensuring firearm owners receive their renewal before their existing licence expires.

The hon. member again has a question pertaining to the costs of the Canadian firearms program. Full program costing is reported in the Canada Firearms Centre's “Report On Plans and Priorities” and in its “Departmental Performance Report” which were tabled in Parliament in October 2004.

As reported in the 2003-04 Canada Firearms Centre's “Departmental Performance Report”, the full federal cost of the firearms program of $934.4 million includes: the cost of information technology; the licensing of all firearm owners; the registration of all firearms; the indirect costs to other government departments; and transfer payments to the provinces.

It is my pleasure to remind members of the House that the Canada Firearms Centre remains committed to providing Canadians with efficient and cost effective services. Workload levelling is but one of the many measures that has been taken to allow us to meet that commitment.

[Supply, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to enter the debate.

In reading the motion, there are parts of it that I support. Maybe I will introduce an amendment because I do not like the first part dealing with the Prime Minister of Canada. The Prime Minister has indicated his generosity to the provinces, on behalf of all Canadians, in terms of the investments in health care and his commitment to deal with equalization.

However, I agree there is a fiscal imbalance. I was quite happy on October 7 when a motion was unanimously adopted by the House, which said that we fully respected the areas of jurisdiction of the provinces and that the financial pressures, some call the fiscal imbalance, would be alleviated. I was quite happy with that wording because some call a fiscal imbalance one thing and some call it another. I believe there is a fiscal imbalance, but I believe it is in favour of the provinces.

My colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, has been very clear on that point. If we look at the debt, if we look at the revenue sources and revenue streams, the provinces in aggregate have far more revenue sources and far less debt. For example, if we look at debt, it is 41% of GDP for the federal government and 22% of GDP for the provinces in aggregate. If we look at the revenues, the federal government on a net basis gets about $150 billion a year and the provinces get about $208 billion a year.

I find it is strangely ironic that the Bloc Québécois would bring forward this motion. As we all know, when the Bloc emerged in Quebec, it was not a have not province. However, it has become a have not province. Why? Because investment and economic activity have left Quebec. I was born and raised in Montreal. I am a member now in Toronto. We have been the beneficiaries of that. It is a sad commentary on our country and on our province of Quebec.

The percentage that goes to Quebec is $3 billion to $4 billion now, but at one point equalization payments got up to $5 billion out of $10 billion that was in existence at the time. Half of the equalization went to Quebec.

Yes, there is a fiscal imbalance and it is in favour of the provinces. They have all the revenues and we have the debt. In fact it is a good news story. This is where it gets very ironic in my judgment. People have talked about the surplus that came in at $9 billion as some kind of bad news story. With the $9 billion, we can pay down the debt. The federal government has paid down now something in the order of $55 billion, which is saving the taxpayers of the country $4.5 billion each year as an annuity going forward. However, we still have about $500 billion of debt on our books. The provinces have much less.

We should have a discussion and we should have a committee. We should look at and talk about the fiscal imbalance which is in favour of the provinces. I would be glad to participate in that.

[Canadian Security Intelligence Service, October 28th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service public report for 2003.

[Use of Arrests, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 83.31 (3) of the Criminal Code, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the 2003 annual report on the use of arrests.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I was compelled by the argument of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands that silence is consent. I cannot sit here and be silent when I heard some of the inaccuracies and exaggerations that he made in his remarks.

I find the member's comments strange. The government has said it is going to get to the bottom of the sponsorship scandal. It set up the Gomery inquiry and day by day we get questions in the House because of the testimony of one witness. I know the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is a lawyer. Is that the way that he would conduct a review of the proceedings in a trial if it was that way? Would he pick up the testimony one day without listening to the cross examination? Would he not look at the whole spectrum and see how it would unfold?

I think it is an aberration of justice. I am sure that the member realizes that the only reason it is done is to score political points. It is quite disgraceful, frankly. We should let the inquiry do its work and wait for the outcome. We all want to get to the bottom of it.

In terms of Canada-U.S. relations, I find it strangely ironic that last week we had U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge here in Ottawa. This week we have U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft visiting us. I am not sure that the relations with the United States are as strained as the member opposite would predict.

I, too, share his concern about comments that come from whatever source and attack our relationship or make some derogatory comments about our partner and neighbour, the United States.

The other night I chatted with the U.S. ambassador. The reality is that they do not lose a lot of sleep over those kind of comments because they look to where they came from. They wish of course that the comments were not made, but I do not think it is a deal breaking type of issue.

On the gun registry, the cost of $2 billion is totally exaggerated. It makes a nice round number that the media and opposition parties like to throw out. In fact, it is nowhere approaching that kind of figure. Would the member realize that right now the gun registry is getting about 20,000 inquiries per week from police officers? Does he know that the Association of Chiefs of Police is saying that it is a good tool, that it is helpful, especially with domestic violence situations?

How can he argue that, at a cost of $25 million a year and a total program cost of $80 million a year, it is not a good thing if it helps to save the lives of Canadians?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in his remarks the member for Hamilton Centre talked of a number of things and about following the money. If we follow the money, then $41 billion for health care tells us something.

The member talked about the steelworkers in Hamilton. There has been a lot of news lately about the difficulties faced by Stelco. A recent report said that GM and DaimlerChrysler were looking to pull away their contracts from Stelco, which could be the last straw.

I have always been fascinated contrasting Stelco with Dofasco. Dofasco talks about its assets being its people.

Could the member talk about what it is that is causing the difference between the results that Dofasco achieves, which seem to very good, and the results that Stelco achieves? Are there management problems? Are there different labour agreements? Is it a different type of business strategy that it has implemented?

I wonder if the member could comment on that because it is of great concern to many Canadians.

[Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, October 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Halifax for her comments and for her support in principle for Bill C-6. I hope that over the course of the debates we will be able to bring her on side beyond the principles of the bill.

However, I understand the sensitivity on some of the points she has raised. The balance between our national security interest and the rights of Canadians is never an easy balance to achieve, particularly in this new world, to which I am sure that Secretary Ridge was referring, where we have the threat of global terrorism.

I should reiterate what I said in my remarks on the bill. Bill C-6 does not give the minister or any of the portfolios any new information exchange authorities. It simply replicates what is there already. It gives the opportunity to improve the way we share information in terms of technology and protocols, et cetera, so we can be better positioned to share information. However, the authorities in terms of the actual information in the bill do not go beyond what is already there.

We have designed the bill to be a made in Canada solution, respecting Canadian cultural norms and values. That is why I share the member's concern about racial profiling and issues around that. The bill will do nothing to accelerate that. In fact it might help to put a better light on it.

That is why the minister is forming the cross cultural round table so we can hear the views of many of the communities across Canada who have expressed some concern about the potential for racial profiling. That is why we are sensitized to that type of information.

The member for Halifax also is aware, as I pointed out to her colleague yesterday who was aware, of the many oversight agencies that are implicit in the bill and indeed are already in place, the oversight of CSIS, the RCMP. I will not bother to name them as I did yesterday, but I am sure the member for Halifax is aware of them.

However, we live in a different world today. Yesterday the member for Central Nova asked about perimeter. We use this terminology, for example, economic integration. What does that actually mean? The reality is that economies of the United States and Canada are integrated. There is movement of $1.8 billion a day between Canada and the United States. Does that mean we need to integrate fully? There has been discussion around a whole range of options.

I cannot speak for Secretary Ridge, but I know we are cooperating. We have some shared objectives. We want to ensure that we have secure borders and that the flow of people and goods moves freely across the border. That is what we are facilitating. Economic integration is a buzz word that I am not sure I fully understand. It goes in some cases beyond what I personally am prepared to accept, but we need to have that debate in the House.

Our economies are integrated and we are cooperating. That is the level we are pursuing certainly.

I would like to thank the member for Halifax also for her support on emergency preparedness. I had the opportunity to visit our operation centre. It contrasts very well with the operation centre in the homeland security in Washington.

[Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, October 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I was remiss earlier in not congratulating you in your new role.

I understand the member's concern about oversight. I wonder if she is aware of the oversight bodies that are already in existence. Just to remind the House, there is the office of the inspector general for CSIS; the office of the correctional investigator; the RCMP external review committee; the commission for public complaints against the RCMP, which reviews complaints against that organization; and the security intelligence review committee, which reviews the activities of CSIS.

There is a parliamentary committee looking at some other aspects of oversight. I wonder if the member for Vancouver East could acknowledge that these oversight bodies exist and if she thinks they are doing an adequate job.

[Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, October 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin for his speech and his comments. In light of his experience and his career in the province of Quebec, I am confident that he will make a very significant contribution, in this House and in committee, to the debate on the issue of public safety.

The hon. member talked about the level of cooperation in emergency response. At the time of the big ice storm in Quebec or the flooding in the Saguenay, whether or not he was the minister at the time, could he describe what kind of cooperation existed between the Province of Quebec, Hydro Quebec and the federal government. What form did that take? Does he think there are still improvements that can be made in that area?