Marlene Jennings

[Foreign Affairs, May 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to provide a response to the member at this time.

I do wish, however, to state that the RCMP is an independent organization. It has to operate under its rules and procedures.

We will look into the issue of this report that he is talking about and an answer will be given in the House.

[Canadian Firearms Control Program, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, once more, I would like to thank the honourable member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert for putting Motion M-387 forward in the House because this gives me an opportunity to talk about the Canadian firearms program and about the action plan that the government developed last February to make it more efficient and less expensive.

The motion before us today calls upon the government to suspend the application of the Canadian firearms program in order to hold a public inquiry into the cost of the program. Let me explain why this is not in the best interests of Canadians.

The government of Canada remains firmly committed to both major components of the gun control program; that is the licensing component and the registration component. Both are key elements in achieving the program's public safety objectives.

The government has the legal obligation to administer Canada's firearms program. Suspension of the program could not occur without repealing the Firearms Act and the related Criminal Code section which deal with firearms and which were passed almost eight years ago. This would not be in the public interest. The firearms program, as the member of Parliament for Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert has herself stated, has already proven to be an effective tool to protect the safety of Canadians.

I would like to remind the House that, as the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert said previously, the government's gun control program has the support of the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. These people are experts in the area of public security and they know that the program is working.

May I note here that the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert herself recognized the efficiency and the real positive benefits from the firearms registry program.

This program yields significant savings for police services. As part of this program, police are no longer burdened with the paperwork and administration involved in accepting firearms applications because these are now mailed to a processing site. This frees up significant police time and resources that can be redirected to investigations and policing.

The information contained in the firearms databank is very useful to the enforcement agencies, our police forces. For example, police have ready access to information on firearms, information regarding the very existence of firearms, which ensures a certain protection in potentially dangerous situations. This information is also used in countering firearm trafficking and theft. Police consult the databank about 2000 times a day for investigative purposes.

Safety training courses are integral to the firearms registry program. Anyone wishing to purchase or borrow a firearm must first pass a firearm handling safety course developed by the Canadian Firearms Centre.

The safety courses are taught by qualified inspectors who are located in thousands of communities across the country in both rural and urban Canada. Hundreds of thousands of individuals and minors have completed the required safety training. The courses teach people how to handle guns, how to transport a firearm and how to safely store firearms.

Safety training plays an important part in preventing accidents and promoting the safe use of firearms. Just as licensing and registration promote responsibility toward one's firearms, safety training ensures that those who wish to acquire firearms have the knowledge they need to do so safely.

The motion of the hon. member refers to cost overruns within the firearms program. Let me address that. It has been well established by all of the various reports, which the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert mentioned in her speech, that implementing the firearms program has been a logistical and technical challenge. Program development included many changes in the first five years as a result of evolving policy and administrative needs.

Let me give one example. After the legislation allowing the creation of the registry was adopted and as the registry was being put into place, the police community, after its own consultations, requested that it be able to access the firearm data online. Such a request meant that the program needed to be overhauled because the information system that had been put into place did not allow for that. That obviously required further funds and meant that the costs were then higher.

Higher costs were the result of several factors, one of which I just mentioned but let me mention a few others. One of the factors that created higher costs was the delay coming into force of the Firearms Act. Another was the development of the new information technology infrastructure. Another was the opting out of the program by some provinces and territories which resulted in significant one-time costs to the federal government when it had to assume responsibilities for administration in these jurisdictions. Another factor which contributed to higher costs was the loss of anticipated revenues because fees were waived as a result of a restructuring of the program and/or to encourage people to get their licences and firearm registration certificates.

Since the Auditor General presented her report, our position could not be clearer. The government has recognized the merits of these recommendations and is taking steps to improve the program's cost-effectiveness.

On February 21, 2003, as the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert mentioned, the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General announced an action plan to improve the management and operation of the firearms registry program. These improvements will make the program more efficient and less costly while improving transparency and quality of service for legitimate firearms owners.

The action plan contains several significant measures to simply the program and make it more efficient. These measures include transferring responsibility for the firearms registry from the Minister of Justice to the Solicitor General. This was done on April 14.

The action plan also states that national standards and performance measures for client service and program delivery will be developed and that an external advisory committee will be established to provide regular advice and feedback on ways to improve program delivery.

There are a number of features in the action plan but the crucial point here is for Motion No. 387 to go forward, it would mean repealing the Firearms Act and related Criminal Code dispositions. That is not something which is in the best interests of Canadians.

The member herself has stated that what the program and the register have done have been of positive benefits to Canadians, to the community and to public safety. I am sure she would not want to see the Firearms Act repealed, and the only way to do what she is asking is to repeal the Firearms Act.

[Canadian Firearms Control Program, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert for her motion.

Since she seems to be in favour of gun control and states herself that she was involved in the battle waged by many Canadians to get real gun control after the events she mentioned, particularly the 1989 tragedy at the École polytechnique, I would like to know this. How does she think a gun control program can contribute to public safety and a reduction in the number of crimes? She just touched briefly on this.

I would like to know how, from her own experience, real gun control can make a positive contribution to public safety and a reduction in the number of crimes.

[Food and Drugs Act, April 9th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place between all parties as well as the member for Nanaimo—Alberni concerning the debate on second reading of Bill C-420. I believe that you would find consent that should the debate on the second reading stage of Bill C-420 collapse later this day and if a recorded division is requested, the said vote shall be deemed deferred until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, April 29, 2003.

[Right Hon. Prime Minister, April 8th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister is celebrating today the 40th anniversary of his first election to the House of Commons, and I would like to mention some of the highlights of his career.

First, we all know the importance, for the environment, of ratifying the Kyoto protocol. The Africa plan, the antipersonnel land mines treaty and the international criminal court are recognized by our partners around the world. Children, aboriginals, and seniors benefit from the measures introduced by the government of this Prime Minister. Last but not least, national unity has been reinforced during the mandate of our Prime Minister.

I invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating our Prime Minister for his unparalleled dedication to our country and to Canadians.

[Citizenship Act, April 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak about some very important changes that the government is proposing to the Citizenship Act and to speak to the private member's bill, Bill C-343, which was tabled by the member for Okanagan—Shuswap.

Our proposed Bill C-18 would give applicants, who want to resume their citizenship, flexibility in meeting the residence requirement. What is being proposed is that instead of being required to reside in Canada for a full year prior to application, as is the case in the current legislation, the applicant must be physically present in Canada for one out of the two years preceding application.

We in the governing party believe that it is very important to help people regain citizenship they have lost. From this perspective, we approve of the principles laid out in Bill C-343. They are the same as those found in the current Citizenship Act and in Bill C-18. It is perfectly natural that people who have lost their citizenship, especially if it happened when they were minors, would want to come back to our beautiful country and apply for citizenship. We have nothing against regaining citizenship; we support it. In fact, we believe that people who lost their citizenship when they were a minor and now want to demonstrate their commitment toward Canada by coming here and contributing to our society, should have the opportunity to regain their Canadian citizenship.

However, we cannot support the private member's bill before us today. It would require us to automatically grant citizenship, without taking into account the applicant's place of residence or commitment toward Canada.

Do members know what this would entail? Under Bill C-343, the government could be forced to grant citizenship to a person who left Canada at a young age and who has no intention of returning to live here. It could also force us to grant citizenship automatically, without taking into account whether or not someone has a criminal history, or the danger they could represent to public health here in Canada. And finally, Bill C-343 could require us to automatically grant citizenship to someone who may not have any other ties to Canada except for the circumstances of his or her birth.

I am pleased to report that our current and proposed legislation would allow us to carefully weigh commitment, health and security considerations while also facilitating the citizenship application process. Canada's current Citizenship Act allows former citizens to resume their Canadian citizenship. To qualify under the current Citizenship Act a person must demonstrate a commitment to Canada through residence. They must become a permanent resident under immigration law and must reside in Canada for one year immediately prior to making their citizenship application. Knowledge of Canada, the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship and one official language, however, are not requirements for resumption as they are for a regular adult grant of citizenship. The period of residence is also less; one year as opposed to three. Therefore the requirements are not onerous.

Furthermore, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act allows flexibility for permanent residents to retain their status while travelling and working outside of Canada. The residence requirement may be difficult for a person who must travel out of Canada regularly for employment or business purposes. Most former Canadians wishing to resume citizenship, however, intend to live in Canada and do not encounter difficulty with the requirement to live here for one year. Where a person is required to be away from Canada frequently, the legislation gives that person flexibility by requiring that he or she be present in Canada for 365 days out of two years.

The procedures in place are perfectly fair, and the courts have already confirmed this. We do not discriminate against anyone. By continuing along the course we have already laid out, we are guaranteeing Canadians a citizenship program that is just, effective and fair for many years to come.

I would like to state that the changes or modifications that are being brought to the Canadian Citizenship Act under Bill C-18, as it pertains to re-acquiring Canadian citizenship for those who lost it, particularly as minors, I believe is equitable, is efficient and addresses the fact that these individuals may have lost citizenship through no fault of their own. Therefore, they will not be put to the same requirement as a foreign national who wishes to come to Canada as a permanent resident and then wishes to become a citizen.

The requirements are much less onerous, much more generous and flexible.

[Sex Offender Information Registration Act, March 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some amazement to the hon. member on the other side. He talked about the fact that after the House adopted an Alliance motion which called on the government to set into place a sex offender registry, the government was not able to comply with the suggested date of implementation.

Normally the Alliance is the party that talks about grassroots, consultation and in particular consultation with other levels of government. It has scolded the federal government when we have made a decision, taken a position or adopted a policy without, in his party's view, properly consulting with the other levels of government.

In this case the federal government consulted with the other levels of government, the provincial and territorial governments. There was a working group. It was the consensus of all the levels of government that the sex offender registry would not be retroactive. It was agreed that it needed to be charter proof, not to put into play and into jeopardy the entire regime.

I would like to know what the member has to say in particular about making a registry charter proof. It is clear under our charter there is to be no double jeopardy. No individual who has already been convicted and sentenced to a particular sentence is to have that sentence added on to. I would like to hear from the member about that. If he is in favour of changing that, it changes many other things, labour relations and many other domains. I would really like to hear what the member has to say about that.

[Sex Offender Information Registration Act, March 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the member opposite for her thoughtful comments on Bill C-23. I do, however, have an issue that I would like to discuss with the member, that is, her comments about the Manitoba government wishing there were a provision allowing for retroactivity in the application of the sex offender registry.

Is the member not aware that it is a basic tenet in criminal law and also in labour law that when one establishes a sanction for an act there is no retroactivity? We do not reach back in time in order to capture people who committed those acts at a time when it was not illegal or criminal. Having done a bit of labour law, I know that this is a basic tenet in disciplinary administrative law. For instance, let us say that an employer creates a sanction and says that as of such-and-such a date one must call in sick, otherwise one may be found to have violated the employer's rules and regulations or the collective agreement and could be liable for a three day or five day suspension. It is a basic tenet in labour law that we do not reach back into the past. It is also a basic tenet in criminal law.

Given that the member has said the Manitoba government wants retroactivity in this legislation, how does she feel, as a member of the New Democratic Party, which pretends to represent labour, about the fact that the provincial government wants to reach back into the past?

[Criminal Code, March 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, since Bill C-20 has been thoroughly debated by all parties represented in this House:

I move:

That the question be now put.

[Auto Theft, March 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, auto car theft is a serious public safety issue that costs Canadians between $1 billion and $2 billion a year in property losses, damages, injury and even death. Particularly alarming is the involvement of our youth in auto theft.

Therefore the government, working with its stakeholders, has acted. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, in collaboration with the national crime prevention strategy, has developed a CD-ROM and website on youth and joy-riding which was launched on March 24, 2003.