Peter MacKay

[Citizenship and Immigration, December 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the immigration minister refused again to say how many ministerial permits she issued during the campaign. She did state, “I referred the issue in question to the Ethics Commissioner”. We know that is not true. The Ethics Commissioner confirmed that the only issue referred to him was the awarding of one permit to her campaign worker, which occurred after she got caught. The minister herself said it had the appearance of breaking the rules.

The minister has abused her position, ducks accountability, refuses to answer questions, and now misleads the House. Having lost public confidence, will she now resign her post?

[Main Estimates, 2004-05, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the hon. member who just asked that question. The response is simple. The differences between the United States and Canada are cultural. To make an accurate comparison, it is necessary to compare both cultures.

The issue in the United States, as it is in the large cities in Canada, is handguns. What we have talked about and what we have overlooked, and I appreciate the hon. member trying to bring this back to some rational level, is the registration of long guns versus handguns. There is no connection with putting this registry system in place, therefore taking resources away from front line policing.

While at the same time what is being done in the United States, and I hear the chipmunks opposite again getting agitated, taking resources away from front line policing, closing detachments in the province of Quebec and suggesting this is going to enhance law enforcement is asinine. It does not work because the criminals do not participate.

[Main Estimates, 2004-05, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, to round out my presentation I quoted the former British prime minister Winston Churchill. I want to respond to this by quoting the great Labour leader of Great Britain at that time, Aneurin Bevan, who in response to some of the rhetoric that used to come from the benches in Great Britain said, “I welcome this opportunity of pricking the bloated bladder of lies with the poniard of truth”.

What we have heard from the parliamentary secretary, suggesting that these statistics represent the truth, is absolute nonsense. What happens, and we have seen it consistently from Statistics Canada, is that rifles and handguns are interspersed. We have known since 1975 that weapons-related crime has been on the decline. The government likes to suggest that there is some connection with the long gun registry and the decline in the use of firearms. It is simply not true.

According to Statistics Canada, in relation to firearms-related homicides, most firearms that are used to commit homicide are not registered. It says that in 1997 the homicide surveys began to collect additional information on the firearms-related homicides, including firearms registration, ownership, possession.

It goes on to say that this information that has been reported, and documented by police services, shows that in 87% of the firearms-related homicides, the firearms were not registered.

[Main Estimates, 2004-05, December 9th, 2004]

I hear the member opposite shouting and shaking his head. I can hear it rattling from here. He is suggesting that front line police officers are in favour of this. I do not know who he has been talking to. We have heard from plenty of front line police officers. Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, the police chief of the biggest city in Canada, said on January 3, 2003:

We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States.

Here is the final unkindest cut of all. He continued:

The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.

There are many other references that could be made and a lot of issues that the Liberals like to overlook. They talk about the number of firearms registered. They say 7 million. It is estimated that there are over 16 million firearms in the country. They suggest that the firearms are just going to disappear or evaporate once the computer system is up and running. More than 300,000 owners of previously registered handguns still do not have a firearms licence.

If the emphasis is to be on licensing, let us put it on licensing, training, public safety and proper storage, all of which were put in place by a previous Conservative government, where the emphasis was actually on public safety. There was some nexus to protecting the public, not simply putting money into a registry.

I will explain very simply how the firearms registry is flawed. If I took one of the little laser-guided stickers that are placed on a long gun and stuck it to this chair and picked it up, and hit my friend from Cumberland--Colchester--Musquodoboit Valley over the head with it, it would not prevent a thing, whether that number was registered in a computer or otherwise.

It is completely flawed from start to finish. It was presented to Canadians in the wake of a terrible tragedy that we commemorated this week, the terrible massacre of women at École polytechnique de Montréal.

The totally offensive way in which the government has tried to play on the sentiments of Canadians in suggesting that somehow this registry would have or could have prevented that tragedy is asinine and offensive. That incident took place because a deranged individual used a restricted weapon that would never have been caught by this firearms registry.

I would like to put on the record some more facts. More than 315,000 owners of a registered handgun still have not re-registered them. We have had the registration of handguns in Canada for 70 years. The biggest problem in Canada today is related to handguns, not Uncle Henry's duck hunting rifle or a person who has collected a rifle for sentimental reasons or a person who engages in a completely lawful and understandable practice of hunting or shooting for sport.

Only 282,000 plus of the 2 million firearm licence holders have taken safety courses. There is a bit of a focal point that maybe we should revisit. More than five million of the seven million firearms in the gun registry still have not been verified, according to police. There is no requirement in the Firearms Act for gun owners to tell anyone where they store their guns or who they would loan them to. Firearms registration for the Nunavut Inuit has been temporarily suspended for two year. There is an entire region of the country where this registry is not even operating.

A briefing note to the current minister when she was the minister of justice back in 2001 in relation to the firearms registry stated:

There are currently just over 1,800 employees associated with the firearms program, counting processing sites, the regions and all partners including the Registrar and CCRA.

It continued, “The Liberals have refused to provide a complete statistic on the number of employees associated with the firearms program since that date”. This is part of the ongoing mystery as to how close to $2 billion could be spent on a registry system.

I am told there is a program in the country now, and many of my colleagues from the west would know this, where every cow in the country has been registered for somewhere in the range of $2 million. The registry is aware of every cow in the country, but we cannot register firearms for a cost of less than $2 billion. It is absolutely shocking.

Here is what $2 billion would pay for, just to put it into perspective for some members. It would be the average income of 76,136 Nova Scotians for a year. It would be the salary of 4,444 new police officers for eight years with an average salary of $66,000. It would be the maximum annual salary for 25 years for over 1,500 nurses in the province of Nova Scotia. It would have paid for 500 installed MRI machines. It would have paid for all kinds of practical programs that would actually save lives, prevent crime, and enhance the lives of Canadians living at home.

This program has been perhaps one of the most abject failures of any program. It is probably the biggest and most serious case of fraud ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public by any government at any time in this country's history. It should be reduced, cancelled, and the money should be put into front line policing where it would actually do some good.

[Main Estimates, 2004-05, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate in the House of Commons tonight that deals with the opposition's efforts to bring responsible spending back to the forefront. I want to take a moment to congratulate my colleague from Yorkton--Melville for the incredible tenacity and work that he has done on this file, as demonstrated by his very factual and erudite presentation moments ago.

When I personally think of the gun registry, I think of a comment by Winston Churchill that is somewhat apropos because never have so few spent so much and achieved so little.

The debate tonight should focus in on the ineffectual and completely intellectually bankrupt approach that the government has taken in presenting the gun registry to Canadians. It promised almost 10 years ago that this was going to cost $2 million. We now know that this has ballooned and is now approaching $2 billion. That is like a kid going into a store and picking out a bag of candy that is priced at $2 and by the time he gets to the register, he is told it is going to cost $2,000. One thousand times over budget is what we have seen with respect to the gun registry.

Let us take a look at some of the facts that the parliamentary secretary and the current Deputy Prime Minister and Minister Responsible for Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness do not tell us. They do not tell us about the inaccuracy of the information that is found in the registry. They do not tell us the number of long guns that are still not registered. They do not tell us about the inescapable fact that is so absent from the discussion on gun registry. The Hells Angels are not registering their long guns, shocking as that may be.

To hear government members opposite trying to defend this complete waste of money in this black hole is reminiscent of the great Lincoln Alexander, the member from Hamilton, who used to talk about the personification of bamboozle and bombast. I am reminded very much of that statement when I look at the President of the Treasury Board and some of his characterizations of why we should put money back into the budget of the Governor General.

In terms of the out of control spending on behalf of the government, most Canadians sitting at home tonight would be shocked to learn that we were actually going to put millions more into a system that has proven to be so ineffective, not connected to public safety in any way shape or form.

The suggestion that the police are using this to any great effect is simply not true. We just need to talk to front line police officers. They approach every domestic call as if a weapon is present. That is the way they should do it.

[Main Estimates, 2004-05, December 9th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to participate in the debate. One thing I find troubling about the presentation of the President of the Treasury Board is that his logic, as was pointed out by my colleague, seems a little perverse. He suggested that because the overspending took place in the previous budget year that somehow this would bar this Parliament from paring back or calling for greater responsibility and accountability in her budget, something for which he himself, at a previous incarnation as chair of the committee, called.

It is important to put into perspective just how much this amount is. What it represents is 2.2% of her current budget. We are talking about a little over $400,000 out of a budget currently of $19.2 million. That is up from $10.7 million just over seven or eight years ago. What needs to be put forward in the debate is that there is accountability for our actions.

When the Governor General took 59 of her friends and colleagues from the arts community to circumnavigate the globe, a trip which was exorbitant by any standard, costing over $5 million to the Canadian taxpayer, there was a price to pay for that. That price to pay is coming from the pockets of hard-working Canadian taxpayers. To that end a very strong message is being sent, a strong message that addresses concerns that the Prime Minister used to hold over the democratic deficit, concerns that Canadians should have over the way in which the government and the Governor General have spent their money. Let us not forget, there is one taxpayer in the country. No matter how many levels of government may be at them, there is one taxpayer.

To simply reiterate the point that was made by my colleague, a strong message should be sent and should be received by the President of the Treasury Board. Yet he is trying to, as has been pointed out, reverse the democratic decision that was taken by all members of Parliament who sat on that committee, including government members. We hope we will not see a repeat of hypocrisy in this.

[Citizenship and Immigration, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am just glad to see the Prime Minister finally get up and answer questions for us.

Yesterday the Ethics Commissioner confirmed the only thing that he was investigating was the immigration permit that the minister gave to her campaign worker.

For the last three weeks the minister has refused to answer questions about deportees, questionable election donations, privacy violations and inappropriate staff conduct. Day after day she has stood in this House and has told us that the commissioner was looking into those things. That was false. The minister misled this House about the scope of the Ethics Commissioner's investigation.

When will the Prime Minister simply do the right thing and fire that minister?

[Citizenship and Immigration, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Ethics Commissioner is not there as a shield for the Prime Minister to dither and dodge on this issue.

Yesterday, the Ethics Commissioner revealed that the one and only question submitted to him by the minister concerned the campaign worker. There was nothing about meetings in clubs, nothing about invasion of privacy, nothing about threats to MPs and nothing at all about fraudulent campaign expenses.

How long is the minister going to continue to try our patience?

[Citizenship and Immigration, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Ethics Commissioner said that there was nothing preventing the Prime Minister from asking questions or, more important, firing the minister of immigration. The Prime Minister, by refusing to do so, is accepting the standard for his government of trafficking in ministerial permits for selected friends and campaign workers of the minister.

Why does the Prime Minister condone this low ethical standard? Does he believe that this is the best minister of immigration that he can produce from his Liberal caucus?

[Petitions, December 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to section 36 of the Standing Orders to table a petition from citizens of Toronto, Ontario, and Antigonish, two booming metropolises.

I table on behalf of the petitioners, a petition calling upon the government to enact amendments to the Criminal Code, pursuant to sections 450 and 452, that deal with the punishments meted out for being in possession of counterfeit money or uttering these counterfeit documents.

The amendment calls for the lessening of charges from an indictable offence to a summary offence if the amount of counterfeit currency in question does not exceed the amount of $100.