Marlene Jennings

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in the House today to Bill C-17, the public safety act.

As members of the House who have followed the debates on Bill C-17, including the consultations in committee, will be aware, Bill C-17 is a necessary tool to improve the safety and security of Canadians, of our neighbours and of global air travel.

While I will be addressing my remarks primarily to one or two clauses of Bill C-17, those clauses that relate directly to the role, mandate and powers of the RCMP and of CSIS, I am aware that some of my colleagues will be speaking to Bill C-17 and will be addressing their remarks to the much broader aspect of Bill C-17, the public safety act.

I would like to look specifically at how the bill would help to improve the government's capacity to identify potential terrorists and other threats to transportation security in order to prevent deadly attacks here, at home or abroad.

At the same time, once Bill C-17 becomes law, and I hope it will receive the consent of the House and in the other House, it will give our law enforcement and security agencies an effective and timely tool to improve transportation security and the safety of all Canadians.

How will Bill C-17 do this? I believe the bill, if passed, will protect Canadian security within a framework of respect for privacy rights. I am aware that privacy rights have been a concern throughout the evolution of the bill but I am convinced that the Government of Canada has taken the necessary steps to address such concerns.

The concerns of the privacy commissioner and representatives of various interest groups and community groups within Canada were brought forward to the legislative committee that dealt with the bill upon direction from the House. A lot of their concerns with respect to clause 4.82 were addressed.

What would clause 4.82 do? Clause 4.82 amend the Aeronautics Act to require airlines, upon request, to provide a small core group of specially designated RCMP and CSIS officers with access to air passenger information for very restricted purposes. These purposes are limited to transportation security, the air carrier protective program and counterterrorism.

The specially designated officers would work with an automated system that will alert them when there is a possible match between an individual passenger record and an RCMP or CSIS record. Once this has occurred, the matched information will be verified by the designated officer.

These designated officers in turn, under clause 4.82, would be authorized to disclose passenger information to a third party only for very restricted purposes.

What are these purposes, members may very well ask, and rightfully so? In practical terms, CSIS needs to identify known and suspected terrorists before they board a plane, so a designated CSIS officer would be able to disclose the information to another CSIS employee for the investigation of a threat to the security of Canada.

Similarly, the RCMP needs to know if there may be potentially dangerous passengers on flights if they are to deliver an effective air carrier protective program. As a result, clause 4.82 would allow a designated officer to disclose information to the aircraft protective officers to assist them with their duties.

I will remind members what an aircraft protective officer is. Under previous legislation the government now allows the RCMP to have officers in civilian clothes who will travel on airlines undisclosed to regular passengers. They are protective officers and their job is to ensure the protection of passengers on airlines and of air transportation safety in general.

As a general public safety provision, if a designated RCMP officer in the course of reviewing this data for the purposes of transportation security, comes across the name of someone wanted on a warrant for a serious offence listed in the regulations for section 4.82 then he or she could also provide the appropriate police agency with this information to help lead to an arrest.

I would like to underline for my colleagues and for Canadians who are watching this debate that the types of offences we are referring to here are: terrorism offences, transportation security offences, serious violent offences, serious drug offences, and organized crime offences. They are offences punishable by a prison term of five years or more.

It is important that I highlight that because in the original proposed legislation the list of offences was indeed unacceptable. There were offences for municipal issues. There were outmoded, outdated criminal offences, minor crimes, et cetera. Many interested groups and many of my colleagues brought to the government's attention the inconsistency of having this whole list of criminal offences that had absolutely nothing to do with public transportation, nothing to do with security threats to our country, and nothing to do with serious violent offences, serious drug offences, and organized crime offences. The government took note and brought in appropriate amendments to the list of offences that would be covered under section 4.82.

The bill does not allow information sharing on individuals wanted on warrants for minor or possibly outdated offences. For example, it would not allow information to be shared on someone wanted for municipal corruption or for taking possession of drift timber. Those are just two examples of some of the original offences which were included on the list and have now been deleted because the government listened to the representations and the concerns raised by members of the House, interested community organizations, and other interested parties in the wider community.

The bill would allow the RCMP to notify local police in cases where a data match identifies a dangerous wanted criminal or terrorist so individuals could be apprehended before they harm someone else. The public would not expect any less from the RCMP. I would also like to stress that any passenger information that is collected by the RCMP or by CSIS under section 4.82 must be destroyed within seven days after it is provided by the air carrier unless that information is required for transportation or national security purposes.

Mr. Speaker, the legislative committee which you chaired on Bill C-17 regarded seven days as a reasonable length of time. Seven days would provide the RCMP and CSIS with the minimum amount of time they need to analyze passenger information access before planes actually depart. As for the information that is retained beyond the seven day period, section 4.82 would require the RCMP or CSIS to each conduct an annual review of information retained by designated officers. If continued retention were no longer reasonably required for transportation or national security purposes, it would have to be destroyed.

To ensure accountability and transparency the bill requires written records to be kept to justify retention and disclosure of any passenger information. This would enable review agencies, governing agencies, and civilian oversight agencies like the Security Intelligence Review Committee, the inspector general for CSIS or privacy commissioner, to readily examine records to determine compliance with the law.

I would like to emphasize that the government listened to several recommendations made to the legislative committee on Bill C-17. As a result of the government listening to these recommendations, Bill C-17 has been improved to include additional privacy safeguards. Based upon recommendations from committee members the government brought in a motion to amend section 4.82 in order to restrict urgent disclosures to only those persons who are in a position to take measures to respond and who need the information in order to do so.

Acting on a Canadian Bar Association recommendation the government brought in another motion to ensure that the destruction test used at the annual review is the same as the one required within seven days. That test would require the destruction of passenger information unless reasonably required for transportation or national security purposes. In the original manifestation of Bill C-17, that test for information that was retained past the seven day delay was not the same test. As a result of the Canadian Bar Association's recommendation the government has amended the bill in order to ensure that the same test is used. That test stipulates that the information would only be required for transportation or national security purposes.

In closing, the proposed data sharing scheme would provide a balanced approach that would achieve the goal of public safety while maintaining the privacy rights of individuals. Canadians want safe air travel and they want protection from terrorism. Canadians are entitled to expect that information collected under a scheme such as this one would be used effectively for their safety while at the same time respecting their privacy.

I am convinced that the government has taken into account concerns expressed about proposals in the previous legislation. The government has listened to others and believes that we have struck the right balance between public safety and respect for the privacy of individuals.

[DES Awareness Week, May 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House and all Canadians that May 26 to 30 has been designated as DES Awareness Week.

DES is a synthetic estrogen prescribed to women between 1941 and 1971 to prevent miscarriage and ensure a healthy pregnancy. However, DES did not work as it caused serious health problems for both mother and child, problems that continue to this very day.

DES Action Canada is an organization that works tirelessly to identify everyone who was exposed to DES. Its purpose is to inform victims and their physicians of the devastating consequences of DES.

Join with me in congratulating DES Action Canada and its members, who provide an essential service to Canadians. I wish them an excellent DES Awareness Week.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 9th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I have listened with some fascination to the comments that have been made by the various members of opposition parties to Bill C-17, the public safety act, and to the amendments that the government has brought to that bill.

I would like to put a little bit of context to my comments before I address some the concerns that have been raised. First, how do Canadians feel about the government dealing with their rights for the sake of fighting crime and preventing terrorism?

Canadians understand that privacy is extremely important, that it is one of the fundamental tenets on which our democracy is built, but they also understand that public safety, individual safety is also a very important issue.

In April 2002 the Ipsos-Reid poll showed 66% of those Canadians surveyed felt that the police should be given more power to fight crime even if it might be seen as an infringement of some individual rights. Some 66% felt that terrorism threats outweighed the protection of privacy rights. As of September 9, 2002, the Ipsos-Reid poll indicated that 59% of Canadians felt that the federal government had not done enough to ensure that the police had the necessary tools to fight terrorism.

At times government has to lead public poll. I do not believe that the government has not done enough and I certainly do not believe that we should willy-nilly infringe on individual rights to privacy, and the government does not either.

Now let us address some of the issues that were raised by some members of the opposition. They said that there was a problem on disclosure to third parties when if the information that is retained from the airline passenger manifests, that the RCMP or CSIS could disclose to a third party and there would be no control over respecting privacy rights.

The member from the Bloc just talked about how they have consulted their communities and the public and that they have taken into account the consultation with their communities and their public.

Personally, I think that all federal MPs have an obligation to hold public consultations on this issue. I think that those members, on both sides of the House, who take an interest in this issue have held consultations. It is not the exclusive privilege or the exclusive responsibility or the exclusive duty of members of opposition parties to consult their community, their constituents and the general public regarding a bill or a motion, whether it comes from the government or from the opposition.

I can say that members on the government side have held consultations. Indeed, we have seen the results of these consultations in the questions that Liberal members sitting on the legislative committee that studied Bill C-17 asked of witnesses who made representations and presented briefs to this committee.

I would even say that the most relevant and the most difficult questions that were put to the RCMP, to CSIS and to officials from the departments of transport, immigration, revenue and the solicitor general came from government members.

I do not want to deny the fact that difficult questions also came from opposition members.

However, I believe that anyone reviewing the transcripts would see that Liberal members generally asked more difficult questions than did opposition members.

Questions were asked and statements were made by the privacy commissioner during the legislative committee hearings.

During those hearings the privacy commissioner raised some very important issues. He said that he had concerns, if subclause 4.8(2) were to remain as it is laid out, about the RCMP's ability to scan passenger information to search for persons wanted on warrants. He had very serious concerns about that.

What did the government do? The government took those concerns seriously and, therefore, the “identification of persons for whom a warrant has been issued” was removed as a primary purpose for collecting passenger information. What does that government amendment, which was approved and adopted in committee, actually mean? It means that the RCMP would now only be able to access passenger information for the purpose of transportation security.

That was a clear concern of the privacy commissioner. The privacy commissioner had no issue with the RCMP being able to access airline passenger manifests for the purpose of transportation security. His problem was with subclause 4.8(2) which, as it was originally written, the RCMP, as a primary purpose, would have been able to search for people for whom warrants had been issued.

Subclause 4.8(2) has now been amended and, hopefully, when the vote in the House at report stage happens, the House will adopt the amendment, which was approved and adopted in committee, that would limit the RCMP.

We took the privacy commissioner's concerns on that issue very seriously but we obviously needed to retain the aspect of transportation security in the regime because it is necessary for public safety. That is the raison d'être of the bill.

What was one of the other privacy commissioner's concerns? He had a concern that as Bill C-17 was initially written there were outmoded offences for which warrants had been issued, such as fraudulently altering brands on cattle or other offences that, we could almost guarantee, would not put public safety at risk nor public transportation safety at risk, such as municipal corruption.

The privacy commissioner made a big point about that and said that it was ridiculous. Many of the offences that were listed under this clause would have allowed the RCMP to detain a passenger if it found that the passenger was wanted for an outstanding warrant. We changed that definition and narrowed it substantially to apply to only serious offences. Those offences would be directly related to terrorist or transportation security threats, such as the use of explosives or participation in a terrorist group. I give that as an example.

The privacy commissioner raised his concerns at committee and the government took those concerns seriously. The last point I want to make is that the privacy commissioner stated clearly in committee that he had all the oversight mechanisms required for him to ensure that the application of this legislation, once it is adopted, will be respected by the RCMP and by CSIS.

[Supply, May 8th, 2003]

I would hope, Madam Speaker, that we would never as a Parliament be in a position where we would invoke the notwithstanding clause during my lifetime.

I deplore the fact that there are some provincial legislatures that have in fact invoked it. But what is interesting is the case of my home province of Quebec, which in fact did invoke the notwithstanding clause on the sign law. While I deplored it, I applauded the government because it used that five year period in order to find a legislative solution to the problem which respected the needs of the majority of the population in Quebec and the survival of the French language and at the same time respected minority rights. The legislation Quebec came out with afterward in fact did meet the charter test. It met the charter test at fifteen and it met it the charter test at one.

While I deplore the use of the notwithstanding clause, I do recognize that at times a provincial government may have had to do that in order to allow time to seek a solution. However, I would never be in favour of repealing our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as was debated at the Alliance convention. I can only say that the fact such a thing was debated, while there was a watered down version, is still somewhat appalling. I guess it reflects that leader's view that the justice system is only for the protection of property and for punishment and not for the protection of individual rights and freedoms.

It is too bad that I am not permitted to ask questions at this point in time of the members opposite. I hope the member opposite will be taking part in this debate if he has not already done so because I have a few questions for him.

I find it amazing that this attitude comes from the Alliance Party, which has so often criticized the use of the notwithstanding clause in the province of Quebec. There is a disconnect there. On the one hand, that party thought about or proposed repealing the charter. On the other, it asks me if I would be in favour of using the notwithstanding clause. This would allow the conclusion that those members are in favour of that. At the same time, that same party, or its previous incarnation as the Reform Party, criticized the Government of Quebec for using the notwithstanding clause. I wish that party would get its act together and make up its mind.

[Supply, May 8th, 2003]

I did answer the question, Madam Speaker. I was asked if I would be in favour of invoking the notwithstanding clause, and I made it clear that no I would not and--

[Supply, May 8th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, as I said, section 33, the notwithstanding clause, may not be used to override section 3 of the charter, which guarantees the right to vote. This would require an amendment to the Charter and such an amendment can only be made with a resolution of the House and the Senate, as well as resolutions from the legislative assemblies of seven provinces representing 50% of the population.

I simply wanted to provide the context for my response. As for his specific question, I am a lawyer by training; I am not an expert in constitutional law, despite having studied it in law school. However, I can say as a Canadian citizen who is very proud of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that I hope that our federal government and this House will never be called upon to enact legislation invoking the notwithstanding clause.

I hope that we will never get to that stage. I believe that with the intelligence of members of our society, with the creativity to be found here on both sides of the House and in the Senate, among the executive and our judiciary, we will never be in that situation. I believe that we will have the ability to reach a consensus that will respect the Charter and our Constitution, without the need to invoke the notwithstanding clause.

I know there are some provincial legislatures that have invoked it. Personally, I deplored this. According to our Constitution, when the notwithstanding clause is invoked, it is valid for only five years.

That means the issue will come back every five years. Parliament will be called upon to debate and decide whether it agrees to invoke the clause again. This would mean that the issue would never be resolved for the public and for the people who are directly affected by the issue and by the right with respect to which the notwithstanding clause was invoked.

I find it quite surprising that a member of the Canadian Alliance asked this question.

I said I was surprised, but in fact I am not surprised: At its last convention, the Alliance Party debated a policy resolution calling for the repeal of the Charter of Rights. Even the watered down version that it finally passed reflects, in my view, an appalling disregard for individual liberties and personal freedom. It also in my view reflects an appalling disregard for a society founded on the rule of law, on a constitutional democracy, on the separation of powers of the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. I for one would not want to live by choice in a society where we did not live, work, legislate and rule under a Constitution, under a charter that guarantees individual rights and freedoms.

[Supply, May 8th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the people of Lachine are very happy that you pointed out that they live in my federal riding.

Today I have the honour of speaking to the opposition motion that proposes debating the respective roles of the judiciary and the legislative branch.

The motion asks the opinion of the House on whether federal legislation should not be amended or rewritten by our judiciary. For the benefit of the House and Canadians across the country who may be following this debate right now, I would like to reiterate what, exactly, the motion says.

The Canadian Alliance motion moved by the member for Provencher proposes:

That this House call upon the government to bring in measures to protect and reassert the will of Parliament against certain court decisions that: (a) threaten the traditional definition of marriage as decided by the House as, “the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”; (b) grant house arrest to child sexual predators and make it easier for child sexual predators to produce and possess child pornography; and (c) grant prisoners the right to vote.

That is the motion we are considering today.

Democratic society depends on the intervention of several levels, such as Parliament, the executive and the judiciary.

I would like to remind members that it is not the courts that restrict Parliament, but our Constitution as well as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This debate on the role of our courts should not be surprising, given how new our charter is. There is no doubt that the role of Canadian courts is to interpret our laws, our constitution and our charter.

Since the charter was enacted, 20 years ago, this role has taken on a new meaning. There is nothing ambiguous about the fact that the charter has had a direct and indirect impact on the lives of Canadians.

The result is that a dynamic dialogue has been established between the courts, the executive and Parliament. I believe that this dynamic dialogue is healthy for society and democracy.

Unconstitutional legislation is regularly replaced by legislation with similar objectives that meets constitutional criteria. Interpreting the charter gives the courts a greater role in the life of Canadians.

Since the charter was enacted, the courts have certainly had a greater impact on Canadian law. Decisions handed down by our courts are based on the constitution and follow well-established rules used to interpret the constitution and legislation, not on the intellectual or philosophical preferences of each judge.

The critics of judicial activism are deliberately creating the impression that the courts are usurping Parliament's role. This has caused Canadians to wonder about the legitimate role of the courts in interpreting legislation.

Inevitably, some individuals or groups will disagree with some of the decisions by our courts. Normally, the public only becomes aware of the debate when a court hands down a controversial decision.

Canadian judges have an increasingly demanding constitutional role, ruling on issues that are fundamental to all Canadians.

I am the first to recognize that the decision-making role of judges is often not the most popular. This is inevitable, given that the legislator asks them at times to make difficult and controversial decisions on economic, social and legal matters.

For these reasons, our judges must not base their decisions on an issue's popularity or pressure from certain lobbies. This is essential for all Canadians, so as to preserve the independence of the judiciary. Its independence is one of the most important tenets of the Constitution, so as to instill in Canadians trust in our judicial system.

Despite the fact that some members of society will not necessarily agree with a particular decision, the public must understand that our judicial system in Canada makes its decisions without interference from any corner.

These attacks that insinuate that there is a problem with the judicial system and the role of judges undermine the trust of Canadians in our judges and courts. Moreover, they also have a disinformation effect on the public regarding the role of the judiciary. Judicial tribunals have demonstrated that they recognize their role within a democratic society.

It should be noted that judges must be independent and free to make decisions that are often difficult and unpopular. This independence adds to the public's respect for equity and the rule of law.

In spite of this, elected Parliaments, acting through their members—like the hon. members of this House here today—remain free to amend legislation or introduce new legislation in the public interest. Still, such legislation must also go through the test of constitutionality. Why? Because we live in a democratic society based on a constitution and, for 20 years now, a charter of rights and freedoms.

I agree that there should be an informed public debate on the role of the courts. I am happy to say that this debate is going on today in this House, as well as in society at large. In order to see through the often groundless attacks on the judicial system, the public needs to have a better knowledge of the important role of the judiciary in our Canadian democratic system.

The opposition motion presented by the hon. member for Provencher is related to judicial decisions on three issues. The first is the issue of “the definition of marriage as decided by the House as, 'the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others'”. The second part of this motion concerns court decisions that “grant house arrest to child sexual predators and make it easier for child sexual predators to produce and possess child pornography”.

Lastly, the third part of the motion is opposed to judges' decisions granting inmates the right to vote.

I will start by looking at the issue of inmates' rights. According to the Canada Elections Act, any person serving a sentence of two years duration, or longer, was ineligible to vote. A court judgment found it was unconstitutional to impose a blanket prohibition on the right to vote of all those sentenced to over two years.

Let us look at that. It was in the Sauvé decision of October 31, 2002, that the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court of this land under our Constitution, ruled that the blanket prohibition violated the constitutional rights of federal prisoners to vote under section 3 of the charter and could not be justified as a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society under section 1 of the charter. This is the second time that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in favour of the voting rights of prisoners.

The Government of Canada must respect the court's decision. What does that mean? In my personal view, it does not mean necessarily that all prisoners who have been sentenced to two years or more of imprisonment constitutionally have the right to vote. What that decision says is that we may not, by blanket decision, remove the right to vote for all.

I would suggest that our government should look at the possibility of putting into place a legislative system with the proper checks and balances. It would allow a judge, for example, when declaring someone who has been condemned to more than two years as a dangerous offender to hear a submission from the Crown that the judge should also order that the individual would not be allowed to vote. We could do a reference to the Supreme of Canada asking it whether that kind of limitation would be constitutional or a violation that is unjustified under section 1 of the charter? I think there is an interest in doing that.

I agree, however, with the Supreme Court of Canada that a blanket prohibition is not constitutional. A prohibition should be well defined for certain offences under specific conditions and where it is not blanket, where there is an independent decision that is made, and where the individual's charter right to vote may be limited or taken away, there must be an opportunity for that individual to speak to the issue and to defend his or her right. That is my personal opinion.

However, I would not be in favour of using the notwithstanding clause. I believe that a proposal to amend the charter of rights is not a realistic option given that such an amendment would require resolutions of the Senate and the House, as well as the legislative assemblies of at least seven provinces that have in total at least 50% of the population. The special voting rules of the Canada Elections Act allow prisoners to vote who are serving sentences of less than two years. Elections Canada has adopted those rules to collect the votes of those federal inmates who are Canadian citizens and are serving a sentence of less than two years.

To reassure Canadians, prisoners vote by special ballot. Their votes are counted in Ottawa by the special voting rules administrator. Prisoners vote for a candidate in the riding where their place of ordinary residence is located. This is not the penitentiary or the prison, but the place where they lived before being incarcerated. If there are fears on the part of some Canadians that the fact that they live in a federal riding where a federal penitentiary or prison is located and that this might have some impact on who actually is elected, there would be little risk of votes by prisoners significantly affecting the result in any given riding.

I understand that there are some members who have been elected with a one vote majority, a five vote majority and a 10 vote majority. I understand their concern if they are in a riding where a penitentiary is located. However, as I said, the votes taking place in the penitentiary are not attributed to that riding unless the inmate casting the vote lived in that riding prior to being incarcerated.

There are approximately 12,000 prisoners in federal penitentiaries. The national average of prisoners associated with each federal riding is approximately 40. It could go up. It could be somewhat less, but it is the national average. The government has already referred the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) with a request that the committee consider the impact of the Sauvé decision and the scope for legislation in light of the ruling.

Members have already heard a suggestion from my part as to how the committee may wish to look at blanket prohibition, but there is the possibility that we could develop a definite scheme that would meet the test under the charter. Another part of the motion deals with marriage.

Marriage is a recognition of the union of same-sex partners. As I said, the motion addresses the fact that lower courts in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec have brought down divergent judgments on the heterosexual requirement of marriage.

These judgments were appealed and a decision was brought down just recently by the British Columbia Appeal Court, on May 1, 2003. The Ontario appeal was heard in late April of 2003, and is still pending. The date for the appeal hearing in Quebec will be set shortly.

As hon. members are aware, the three lower court decisions were appealed because the government wanted clarification from the courts on certain legal matters on which judges had given a variety of interpretations.

Marriage, however, goes beyond the strict limitations of the law. I acknowledge that, I agree with that. The Minister of Justice has said that he firmly believes that Parliament is the best place for us, as a society, to address this important issue.

On November 12, 2002, the minister announced that he was referring the issue of marriage and recognition of same-sex unions to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, He asked the committee to study possible policy approaches to this issue, to hear from Canadians and to provide him with recommendations on possible legislative reform. We are waiting for the committee report and hope that recommendations will be forthcoming.

I am a member of that committee. We travelled all across Canada, and heard from hundreds of Canadians. Now we are drafting the report and holding in camera discussions. I cannot say more on this, therefore, but the government is treating this seriously.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, May 6th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Chair for clarifying the Standing Orders as I had asked. I think that it goes without saying that members are free to ask for clarifications regarding the Standing Orders in order to better understand the rules and procedures of the House.

I have a question for the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois. The member spoke about opponents and said that it is unfortunate that the federal government's mismanagement of the firearms program and the firearms registry has given ammunition to people who are ideologically opposed to the program.

Will the member from the Bloc Quebecois acknowledge here today that ideological opponents have never let go, since day one, on the issue of a real gun control program, a real, effective and efficient firearms registry, and that they have never stopped arguing against this program and the very idea of it?

Whether or not the government managed the program badly or not, ideological opponents to it would have continued to fight it, as they did even before the Auditor General's report was released. First, will the member from the Bloc Quebecois admit that?

Second, on the issue of program costs, I have in front of me—and this was tabled and discussed in the House by the Minister of Justice and by the Solicitor General—the actual program costs from 1995-96 through 2002-03, so over an eight-year period.

The total cost is $785,710,000. Therefore, if we break it down, we see that administration costs were $72.5 million; communications and public affairs cost $64,347,000; costs for the development and maintenance of the registry were $251,040,000; program delivery costs were $380,364,000; system administration, including the transition, cost $11,073,000; the costs for the national weapons enforcement support team, the total cost for this eight-year period— however, this has only existed in the last three years—is $6,382,000. The total cost then is $785,710,000. That is very clear.

I would ask the member to answer these two questions. The costs are very clear. Will the member admit that regardless of how the program has been operated in the past, or will be operated in the future, ideological opponents will continue to have the same position?

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, May 6th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Speaker has ruled on the point of order which was raised by the member for Sarnia—Lambton and I find it curious. Is it in order for another member to continue commenting on a Speaker's ruling?

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, May 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's history lesson on gun control or gun registry in Canada. I found it quite interesting. I found there were also some elements that were quite dismaying. However she mentioned lessons learned. The lessons have been learned.

The fact that we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that ensures Canadians will not be singled out and will not be discriminated against on the basis of their ethnic origin, the colour of their skin, their religious beliefs, their race or their gender demonstrates that the Canadian government has, regardless of political stripe, over time learned the lessons. One of the lessons may be the lessons that the hon. member raises about gun registry.

I would like to bring the member however into the present, into 2003, and ask her what is her view on this. On one hand, she says that the overwhelming majority of Canadians do not support gun control. On the other hand, a poll in January 2003 indicated that a majority, 74% of Canadians, supported the program's elements, including licensing and registration. It is an Environics--