Garry Breitkreuz

[Firearms Registry, February 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the justice minister's announcement today of an action plan to fix the gun registry is very much like sending the deckhands of the Titanic out with rolls of duct tape to fix the gaping gash in the side of the ship, except the duct tape is made of gold.

The minister's action plan means that in a very few years, Parliament would be debating a $2 billion boondoggle. This is because he failed to address the real problems in the legislation and in the registry itself.

The minister proudly proclaims that even with everything he announced today, the gun registry will still cost $67 million a year. The minister's admission means that his great action plan will save $5 million a year from the $72 million a year that Mr. Hession's report estimated the gun registry would cost without streamlining. But does anyone believe the justice minister's estimates?

Let us take any one year and look at how much he forecasted to spend in the main estimates, and then look at how much he actually spent. The Auditor General uncovered the fact that the justice minister made inappropriate use of the supplementary estimates. The Auditor General said:

Between 1995-96 and 2001-02, the Department obtained only about 30% of $750 million in funds for the Program through the main appropriations method; in comparison, it obtained 90% of funding for all of its other programs through the main appropriations.

This means that the justice department's estimates were consequently wrong and understated by 70%. This would be a good rule of thumb for Parliament and the pubic to use when they are trying to figure out how much the gun registry would really cost to fully implement and how much it would cost to maintain each and every year after that.

How can the justice minister claim that he is being transparent when he has been keeping Parliament in the dark for the last 11 weeks? He was more open with the media this week when he admitted his cash management program consisted of not paying his bills. His action plan and cost estimates are fatally flawed because he refuses to acknowledge that he has to correct eight years of operational mistakes by his bureaucrats.

I have made a list of the most critical mistakes that he has failed to correct.

More than five million firearms are registered in the system but still must be verified by the RCMP. Up to four million records in the RCMP's firearms interest police (FIP) database must be corrected. Some 78% of the registration certificates have entries that have been left blank or marked unknown and they must be corrected. Hundreds of thousands of gun owners still do not have a firearms licence and they cannot register their firearms without a licence. None of these issues have been addressed.

More than 300,000 owners of registered handguns do not have a firearms licence authorizing them to own one, and they cannot re-register their guns without a licence. Up to 10 million guns still have to be registered or re-registered in the system, and six million guns are registered without the names and addresses of the owners on them. The provinces have registered 18.6 million cars and they have the names and addresses of the owners on them. Police will not even be able to tell where the registered guns are stored.

These are just a few of the problems that the minister does not address. The justice minister thinks that moving the gun registry bureaucrats to the Solicitor General's department, as he announced this morning, would improve things. He should give his head a shake and fire a few bureaucrats instead of promoting them.

Does anyone know what they are doing over there? For example, on Monday of this week, if the government had its way, it would have used closure to ram Bill C-10A through the House.

The bill would have created a commissioner of firearms reporting to the justice minister and move the RCMP registry of firearms under the direct control of the minister.

Four days later he is now proposing to move all of these positions to another department, four days after we were going to pass the legislation. This means that in a very short order Parliament will be debating another gun registry bill. This was not one of Mr. Hession's 16 recommendations, by the way.

Still we are left not knowing how much it really will cost to fully implement and how much it will cost to maintain the program year after year. The minister will not even tell Parliament or the public what it cost to run the program for the last 11 weeks. Does he even know? I do not know. And for what benefit?

The minister tells us that it will improve public safety while in the meantime police chiefs tell the Canadian people the truth. In December, Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino was asked about the escalation of firearms crime in the city. He said, “A law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped solve any of them”.

In January, the president of the 66 member Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police said the gun registry laws are, “unenforceable until the mess is sorted out”.

It is clear that the unenforceable mess, to which Chief Thomas Kaye was referring, will not be fixed by the amendments in Bill C-10A.

[Vimy Ridge Day Act, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the biggest challenge is for Parliament to get an answer. Was the parliamentary secretary listening to my question? I wanted to know how much the program has cost. We did not get an answer. It did not even come close.

The parliamentary secretary went on and had this mantra about how this is gun control. It is not gun control. It is government out of control. The government does not even respect Parliament enough to answer the question.

The Auditor General complained that the biggest problem was that Parliament has been kept in the dark. I would like to mention something else that the Auditor General said.

The parliamentary secretary said that the requirements of the act are to be met. What did the Auditor General say? She said that the regulatory impact analysis statements of the Department of Justice that were to be followed were not followed. They were supposed to find out the costs incurred by the provincial and territorial agencies in enforcing the legislation and the additional costs incurred by firearms owners, firearms clubs, manufacturers, sellers, importers and exporters. All of this was supposed to be determined in order to comply with the legislation.

We have heard nothing about this. There is no answer here. It is a contempt of Parliament.

[Vimy Ridge Day Act, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on December 12, 2002, I asked the justice minister a question, which I would like to quote:

Parliament demonstrated its lack of confidence in the registry by removing $72 million from the scheme last week. Now the minister will be using sleight of hand to keep it on life support.

What programs will he take the money from to fund the registry?

The justice minister answered:

...I respect this parliament and as well, the notion of transparency.

Then he went on to talk about using “cash management”, but he never answered my question.

On February 18 of this year the justice minister was a little more transparent with the National Post than he has been with Parliament on how his cash management system-scheme really works. Here is how the minister explained cash management to the reporter:

[If there's] some project at the present time, [it doesn't mean] that you have to pay for your project right away. You may have to pay in just 30, 60, 90 days or sometimes more. It's not called a debt, it's cash management actually.

If the rest of us do not pay our bills, it is called debt. Only the Liberal government would try to convince Canadian taxpayers that not paying its bills was actually something called cash management.

While the minister is racking up millions of dollars of debt, has he ever thought what would happen if Parliament does not approve the spending necessary to pay those bills? It has happened before: on December 5. It has been 11 weeks now and the minister still has not given us a straight answer. Where is he getting the money to run the program? How many millions has he spent since Parliament cut off the funding for the program on December 5? How many millions in bills has he not paid in the last 11 weeks?

Now we have the little $77 million discrepancy for the minister to explain. This is the difference between what the Speaker says was actually approved by Parliament in the main estimates and what the justice department and Treasury Board officials are telling the media.

On Monday, February 17, the Speaker ruled on a question of privilege by the member for Sarnia—Lambton. The Speaker said that Parliament approved $113.5 million for the gun registry in the main estimates and that the $72 million pulled from the supplementary estimates was “additional” money.

Then on Wednesday, February 19, the Ottawa Citizen quoted a justice department official who said the $72 million was part of the $113.5 million budgeted for that year. Today, the Saskatoon StarPhoenix quoted a Treasury Board official who agreed with the justice department's version of the events and claimed that Parliament had only approved $35.8 million in the main estimates.

We understand the Treasury Board official sided with the justice department's version of events, but he had to get the $35.8 million number from the justice department and everyone knows how good the justice department is with numbers. Even the $35.8 million and the $72 million do not add up to $113.5 million.

When asked for a clarification today in the House, the Speaker said that committees of the House have the power to get to the bottom of the main estimates question.

Maybe the parliamentary secretary can clarify the justice minister's position for the record. His officials seem to have taken a public stand that is at variance with that of the Speaker of the House and the justice minister has kept Parliament in the dark for the last 11 weeks. We can only hope that the parliamentary secretary will be a little more transparent than his boss.

So I ask him, how much money has been spent for the last 11 weeks? Where is the money coming from? How much will it cost to complete the registry?

[Points of Order, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in the last two days there have been articles in the newspapers that question the facts as stated in your ruling with respect to the question of privilege by the hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton. The Speaker said, and I would like to quote your words:

Practically speaking, what occurred on December 5, 2002 was that the additional funding being requested for the Canadian firearms program was withdrawn from the package of supplementary estimates that was finally approved. This still left the Canadian firearms program with the original $113.5 million authorized by the House last June in the main estimates. That may not have been what some hon. members understood to be the case, but that is exactly what happened.

Officials from the justice department and the Treasury Board told the media that this was factually incorrect.

Would the Speaker be able to provide the House with clarification of this important issue?

[Firearms Registry, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like an answer to my question. They are avoiding it, definitely.

Members on that side of the House are in agreement with the Canadian Alliance that the government has wasted $1 billion on the firearms registry. This House spoke with one voice in restricting any further spending, yet the minister continues to fund the program from unnamed sources.

Why does the minister believe that he can override a vote of this Parliament?

[Firearms Registry, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the Minister of Justice spoke of “cash management” in reference to funding the firearms registry. Yet, on December 5 this Parliament unanimously withdrew the funding to the Canadian Firearms Centre.

Why has the Minister of Justice continued to fund his gun registry in spite of the expressed will of the House to discontinue funding?

[Privilege, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I support the hon. member's question of privilege. I will bring forth a few quotes but first I will put this in perspective.

Approximately a week ago I raised a very similar issue which I am waiting for a ruling upon. This strikes at the very heart of democracy. It strikes at the very heart of what we do in this place. If we make decisions as a Parliament and those decisions are completely ignored and gone contrary to by a minister of the crown, that minister of the crown must be found in contempt of this Parliament. That is what is at the heart of this issue.

After reading the answer that the minister gave yesterday to that question, the first thing that occurred to me was, what is cash management. If we vote in the House to de-fund something, that program can no longer exist because Parliament has clearly indicated it no longer has confidence in that program when it no longer funds it. That program should have ceased. That did not happen, and that should be contempt of Parliament.

The minister is hiding money. He is deceiving Parliament by allowing a program to continue to be funded without explaining to us how that funding is taking place. Without this transparency the House cannot function and, by extension, democracy cannot function. The Canadian people are also being kept in the dark because we cannot get answers to these questions.

On page 141 of the nineteenth edition of Erskine May it states:

Conspiracy to deceive either House or any committees of either House will also be treated as a breach of privilege.

That is what we are talking about and that is one of the issues with regard to what is being raised here today.

I also would like to read from Erskine May's twenty-first edition. He describes contempt as:

...any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent for the offence.

That is what is happening here.

We have made a decision. We are trying to function as a House and the minister is thwarting that. He is going against the entire intention that the House clearly signalled when it did not fund the gun registry.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that you would rule in favour of the issue raised here. The minister clearly is in contempt of Parliament. I hope you will give this due consideration.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, February 5th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on Bill C-13. This is one bill that needs much thought and consideration because of its ethical issues. Our answers to these ethical questions will help to define our society.

Bill C-13 is related to reproductive technology. The bill is a very broad bill and contains many areas of concern to Canadians, including cloning of human beings, therapeutic cloning and the importing and exporting of human gametes. There are numerous issues that need to be considered before the passing of the bill.

In Bill C-13 there are some excellent statements already in place, but there are others that need to be thought out and revised. I fully support the bans on reproductive and therapeutic cloning, chimeras, animal-human hybrids, sex selection, germ line alteration, the buying and selling of embryos, and paid surrogacy.

Just because we are now able to do something in reproductive technology does not necessarily mean we should. Human life is like that of no other creature on this earth. There are additional dimensions to the human life because of the human ability to think, to feel and to have all kinds of emotions. Human life is valuable and should not be treated lightly.

I also support the proposal that there should be an agency to regulate this sector. Although changes still need to be made, the people who would sit on the board of directors of the agency would be selected through orders in council, which needs to be subjected to some form of scrutiny. Currently there are not enough checks and balances in place for regulating the agency. With this issue and many others, we need to be aware of the conflict of interest. This situation needs to be avoided at all costs by not allowing any oversight of the board of directors when it comes to the agency.

I support the recognition that the health and well-being of children born through assisted human reproduction, or AHR, should be given priority. However, the priority of AHR and other sections of the bill fail to meet my standards. The bill specifies that the consent of the donor of a human embryo be required in order to use a human embryo for experiments, but the bill leaves it to the regulations to define “donor”. On top of this, there are two donors to every human embryo, a woman and a man. Both parents should be required to give written consent for the use of a human embryo, not just one.

I believe that the children born through donor insemination or from donor eggs should be given the right to know the identity of their biological parents. These sperm and ovum donors make a conscious, intentional choice to assist in the creation of life. This is contrary to adoption, where a decision to adopt a child is usually made after an unintentional pregnancy has begun. These children would be deprived of their history and the roots of either their biological mother or father. Such a vital chapter of the child's life would be denied.

There are other questions that also arise. How would people know that they were not marrying their brother or sister? If their biological heritage were unknown, then how would they know? This could all be avoided if we were to just tell the truth. An identified donor is a responsible donor. If all donors had to be willing to be identified, then people would donate for the right reasons, not for money.

Dealing now with the issue of embryonic stem cell research, embryonic research is an ethical topic that divides Canadians. Embryonic stem cell research always results in the death of an embryo, an early form of human life. To many Canadians, this is murder. This violates the ethical commitment to respect human dignity, integrity and life. There is also a very high chance that the body would reject the embryo because it is foreign tissue and subject to immune rejection. As well, even if medical therapies had been developed using human embryos, people might refuse them if they do not believe that this is ethical.

Why would embryonic stem cell research be able to continue in Canada when we know that adult stem cells have already been proven to be far superior?

Adult stem cells are very easily accessible and are a proven alternative to embryonic stem cells. The huge advantage is that they are not subject to tissue rejection and pose minimal ethical concerns.

With adult stem cells, there is usually tissue taken from a person's own body. Adult stem cells can be taken from the umbilical cord blood, skin tissue, bone tissue and other areas. This would eliminate the years of anti-rejection drug therapy that embryonic stem cell patients would require.

Adult stem cell researchers have already found many great possibilities with adult stem cells. They say that some day adult stem cells could replace bone marrow transplants in humans and also that stem cells circulating in the blood stream could grow new tissue in the liver, gut and skin. At Duke University Medical Centre, researchers have already turned stem cells from knee fat into cartilage, bones and fat cells. At the University of Minnesota it has been shown that adult bone marrow stem cells can become blood vessels.

Today, adult stem cells are being used in the treatment of Parkinson's, leukemia, multiple sclerosis and other conditions. However, embryonic stem cells have not been used in the successful treatment of a single person. Researchers need to be focusing on a more promising and proven alternative like adult stem cells rather than ethical non-proven embryonic stem cells.

Turning now to the issue of the regulatory agency, there is a problem with the assisted human reproduction agency of Canada not reporting to Parliament but only to the minister. It should therefore be made an independent agency.

In Bill C-13, clause 25 allows for the minister to give any policy direction to the agency and it must in turn follow it. The clause also ensures that everything must remain secretive. This clause could be completely eliminated if the agency were an independent agency answerable to Parliament.

I strongly feel that the health minister has it all wrong with wanting to undo committee amendments to subclauses 26(8) and 26(9). The clause requires that the board members of the assisted human reproduction agency must come under the conflict of interest rules. On the other hand, the health committee got it right in saying that the board members should not have commercial interests in the field of assisted human reproduction or related research.

I hope that members will consider seriously that there are amendments to the bill that need to be changed while others should be supported. This issue has many ethical concerns and needs to be treated with great care. It is also a matter that needs to be taken very seriously.

[Privilege, February 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in regard to the Minister of Justice deceiving the House and its members, falsifying documents, misleading the House, and impeding my ability to perform my duties as a member of Parliament.

On December 12, 2002, during a statement in the House in regard to the firearms registry boondoggle, the minister said:

I will report back to the House with an accounting of how we manage any shortfalls. I will be open. I will be transparent.

This would be in keeping with ministerial responsibility as outlined in the 22nd edition of Erskine May at page 63:

...ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments...it is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament...Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation...ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament...

We were off to a good start on December 12. However, I have learned that the justice minister held back a crucial document from the House of Commons when he tabled reports from two inquiries into the controversial firearms registry this week. By so doing the minister is in contempt for withholding a complete version of one of the reports.

The minister tabled two reports in the House on Monday concerning the gun registry: a 27 page report from former top bureaucrat Ray Hession about management failures in the program, and a separate 27 page report from KPMG accountants.

The minister held back the 65 page report on which Mr. Hession's report and recommendations were based. I was not aware of the existence of the 65 page report until I read about it in the newspapers the next morning. The Journals branch did not have a copy of the 65 page report and the Library of Parliament was not able to locate one until 5:30 p.m. yesterday.

The 65 page report contains 10 year spending and revenue forecasts for the registry and licensing system that were not included in the report tabled by the minister in the House.

The report tabled in Parliament acted like a decoy. As a member of Parliament I assumed the report would be complete and I conducted my business as a member of Parliament accordingly. Meanwhile, a more complete version was released upon demand by the media and others. The House was not even told of the existence of the 65 page report. That was and is clear deception.

On page 141 of the 19th edition of Erskine May it says:

Conspiracy to deceive either House or any committees of either House will also be treated as a breach of privilege.

The forecasts in the unedited version are crucial for the accurate picture of how the government intends to manage the registry, particularly after the Auditor General was critical of the minister's department last December for allowing the program's budget to balloon to $1 billion over the original 1995 forecast price of $2 million.

The forecasts in the 65 page report that was withheld from Parliament predict the gun registry will cost another $500 million over the next 10 years unless the government makes drastic changes to streamline the program and begins collecting stiff registration and licensing fees from firearms owners.

The 65 page report also reveals the cost of the gun registry. It reveals that the cost of the gun registry for 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be higher than the government's 2002-03 estimates of $95 million and $80 million respectively. The 65 page report also reveals the actual cost will balloon once again to $115.4 million and $103.4 million for each of the next two fiscal years.

The edited version of Mr. Hession's report that was tabled in the House of Commons does not contain those forecasts. As a result, there is no record in the House of the spending forecasts. The House was deceived and my privileges were breached.

In addition, if the Speaker finds the minister did in fact edit a report paid for with public funds and promised to the House, that, in my opinion, would constitute falsifying a document meant to be tabled in the House which is also considered contempt. I refer to Erskine May, Twenty-first Edition, which describes contempt as:

...any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.

Since the minister on December 12 told the House that he would be open and transparent and was not, I would add the charge of deliberately misleading the House.

In summary, the minister deceived the House and its members. He falsified documents, misled the House, and impeded my ability to perform my duties as a member of Parliament.

[Firearms Registry, February 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, one of the Auditor General's biggest complaints about the gun registry issue was that Parliament was kept in the dark. After her report was released, the minister promised to be open and transparent.

The 65 page report was released to the media but was not tabled in this House.

How can Canadians trust the minister when he deliberately withholds important information concerning the future costs of this billion dollar boondoggle?