Ottawa on Gun Control

    The Speaker: It is my duty to inform the House, pursuant to Standing Order 81(14), that the motion to be considered tomorrow during consideration of the business of supply is as follows:

 

That the government reallocate its resources from wasteful and unnecessary programs such as the gun registry and the sponsorship program to address the agricultural crisis at the farm gate across Canada.

    This motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Macleod is votable.

    Copies of the motion are available at the table.

Back to top

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Minister of Public Safety did not have her facts straight. I would like to quote what the minister said:

 

In fact, we have asked Radio Canada to provide us with its numbers and its calculations which to date it has refused to do.

    The producers of CBC's Zone Libre said that no one from the Canada Firearms Centre or the minister's office ever contacted them.

    My question is very simple. Why did the minister mislead the House? Why?

    Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, immediately after question period I will be rising on a point of order, but let me reassure everyone in this House that I did not mislead this House.

    The Deputy Speaker: I have a matter raised yesterday by the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville and as just mentioned, by the hon. Deputy Prime Minister.

    Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in relation to a question of privilege raised in the House yesterday by the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville.

    Radio Canada claimed in a report aired last Friday, February 13, that costs of the firearms program had reached $2 billion. Costs of the centre to date are nowhere near that figure and we wanted Radio Canada's numbers and its calculations. The member alleged that I never called Radio Canada to ask for a clarification prior to my comments on Monday.

    As I informed the House, we had asked Radio Canada for its calculations. I was informed that a call was made and a message left with Radio Canada last Sunday, prior to my comments Monday, by the official in my department who worked with the network on the story. I am informed that the message left asked for the calculations used. Radio Canada in fact confirmed receipt of that message. We received its calculations on Wednesday of this week.

    For the record, I would add, that we continue to say that the cost of the program is nowhere near $2 billion. The cost of the Canada Firearms Centre to date is less than half that figure.

Back to top

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I will go through this as quickly as I can. You are familiar with the arguments that I have made previously.

    On Monday, February 16, in response to my question about a CBC report on spending on the firearms program, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness said, and I am quoting now from page 613 of Hansard:

 

Mr. Speaker, let me be absolutely clear. We do not accept that number referred to in the report referred to by the hon. member. In fact, we have asked Radio Canada to provide us with its numbers and its calculations which to date it has refused to do.

    On Tuesday officials with CBC Zone libre provided my office with the following information. I want to quote it, but I have to be careful because names are mentioned.

 

I was surprised to read that [the Deputy Prime Minister] did not get a response to a request for information regarding the numbers cited in our report. I have not received any request for information on Monday from her because, of course, we would respond.

    This is from the officials at that program.

    Yesterday these same CBC officials advised, and again I quote:

 

We are so surprised by [the Deputy Prime Minister]'s claim that we did refuse to speak to her since [the Deputy Prime Minister, the former solicitor general], Bill Baker, Morris Rosenberg all refused our requests for an interview to discuss the contents of our research and that our requests for visuals in Miramichi and the Edmonton site were refused.

    Mr. Speaker, you have heard all of my arguments and I will not go through why misleading statements by ministers in the House should be treated as contempt. I will not use up any more of the House's time by repeating them, but suffice it to say that the Deputy Prime Minister made a statement that was factually incorrect. This error misled me and every member of the House.

    In order to perform my fundamental functions in the House, I have always insisted on accurate and truthful information. That is why the making of erroneous and misleading statements in the House may be treated as contempt.

    Let me summarize briefly. The Deputy Prime Minister said that she had asked Radio Canada how it had arrived at its conclusion that the $2 billion was being spent on the gun registry. We find out now that in fact this is patently false. She did not even contact Radio Canada.

    Democracy cannot function if we are not told the truth. I ask you to investigate, Mr. Speaker. This is the minister who said, 17 times in the House, “We have nothing to hide” and “we will get to the bottom of this”. In light of what I have just revealed, how can we believe a word the government says?

    I am prepared to move the appropriate motion should the Speaker rule that the matter is a prima facie case of privilege.

    Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a moment to review the record, but judging from the comments, the words and the quotes that the hon. member just used, the Deputy Prime Minister said that she had not yet seen that information.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: No, she said she had already contacted them.

    Hon. Mauril Bélanger: The member said that she had not yet seen the information. I do not think she said, and I will clarify the record, that they had refused to provide the information, which is what the member is alleging right now.

    Having said that she had not seen the information is certainly something that I have not heard disputed here from what the Deputy Prime Minister said. Therefore I believe this is certainly not a prima facie question of privilege and I would encourage the Speaker to rule against it.

    The Speaker: I think we will to have to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister in light of the allegations that have been made. I think in the circumstances we will wait to hear from her. The statement quoted from Hansard by the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville appears to be accurate in terms of what was stated there.

    I will have to hear from the minister in due course before the Chair is able to make a ruling on the matter.

Back to top

    Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, CPC): Mr. Speaker, if the Deputy Prime Minister and the government really want to get to the bottom of it, they should start at the top. The Deputy Prime Minister has the audacity to stand in this House and defend her boss's action when she herself is implicated in an even bigger fraud on the taxpayers and I am talking about the gun registry.

    When will the Deputy Prime Minister and minister of public security start demonstrating some respect for public security of taxpayers' money?

    Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, because we are both respectful of Canadians' values, they are committed to gun control and we are committed to ensuring the wise expenditure of their tax dollars, we are reviewing the present gun control program. We know Canadians are committed to gun control but we also know they are committed to having an effective and efficient program. That is what we are committed to on this side of the House. That is what we will deliver.

Back to top

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, according to the CBC, the Firearms Act has not cost taxpayers just $1 billion; it is instead approaching the $2 billion mark. There are many costs still unaccounted for in that number.

    The Prime Minister said that he was outraged by the waste of $250 million on the sponsorship program. The cost of the gun registry is now not 500 times over budget but 1,000 times over the original projection given to Parliament.

    Why is the Prime Minister not outraged about that?

    Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me be absolutely clear. We do not accept that number referred to in the report referred to by the hon. member. In fact, we have asked Radio Canada to provide us with its numbers and its calculations which to date it has refused to do.

    Let me reassure the House that to date, the Canadian firearms program has not cost $1 billion let alone $2 billion.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the cost benefit analysis of the gun registry has been kept a secret. The Auditor General blew the whistle on that. Trust for the Prime Minister is in free fall and he still keeps the gun registry reports hidden from Parliament.

    The gun registry is closing in on $2 billion and the Prime Minister just orders another review. Look at the similarities of this and the sponsorship scandal. Ignorance is no excuse on this file. The Prime Minister wrote most of the cheques. He helped hide the most damaging reports. When will he take responsibility for--

    The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.

    Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me remind the hon. House that since the Auditor General tabled her report in relation to the gun control program, we have accepted her recommendations and we have implemented her recommendations.

    Full program costs, as the hon. member should know, were tabled last October as part of the justice department's performance report. I will soon table a complete response to the public accounts committee report on the program. A ministerial review of this program is underway.

    We have been transparent in relation to the cost of this program.

Back to top

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on December 5, 2002 the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough moved a motion in the House that cut $72 million from the supplementary estimates, $72 million that were designated for the firearms program. The House agreed and voted on the reduction and get this: the government did not consider this reduction in the estimates a matter of confidence.

    Will the Prime Minister explain why he will not let his MPs have a free vote on future reductions to the firearms program?

    Hon. Jacques Saada (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as far as the firearms registry is concerned, there are two possible questions: one, the fundamental issue of its existence, and two, the way it is administered and what improvements could be made to it.

    I have no problems whatsoever with improvements to the program. But let it be properly understood: the program is in place, and it is there to stay. The firearms registry must continue to exist.

    How can they be calling for a free vote when they have absolutely no interest in applying the same principle within their own caucus?

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I think something was lost in the translation because my question was on whether it should be a free vote or not.

    The Firearms Act has already cost taxpayers $1 billion. Taxpayers want to know when it will become $2 billion. A succession of ministers in charge of this have kept Parliament in the dark since December 2002.

    Why will the Minister of Public Safety not stop this cover-up today? Just tell us, how much is the gun registry going to fully cost to implement and how much will it cost to maintain? It is a simple question. How about an answer?

    Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, in spite of all the conspiracy theories and the paranoia that comes from him, there is no cover-up here. In fact, on this side of the House we have been absolutely clear year after year in terms of what the firearms program cost.

    We should not lose sight of the fact that Canadians are committed to gun control. Canadians are committed to a function of safety in relation to firearms.

    The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville on February 3 concerning information contained in the Department of Justice performance report for the year ending March 31, 2003. I would like to thank the hon. member for drawing this matter to the attention of the Chair. I would also like to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader for his intervention.

    In his presentation, the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville stated that information regarding expenditures by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade that was provided in the government response to Question No. 194 of the second session contradicted information found in the Department of Justice performance report for 2002-03. The hon. member added that, in his opinion, a statement in the report that professed to represent the views of the Auditor General did not correspond to the opinions expressed in the Auditor General's report itself. The hon. member made reference to other information contained in the performance report that he believed to be erroneous, a list of which he provided to the Chair. He concluded that the Minister of Justice, in tabling the report, had misled the House and was therefore guilty of contempt.

    In his response to the matter, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader stated that there was no provision in the rules that required the Speaker to review government responses to questions. He added that in similar cases in the past, Speakers had consistently ruled that it was not the role of the Chair to determine whether or not the contents of documents tabled in the House were accurate. Nor was the Speaker required to assess the likelihood of an hon. member knowing whether or not the facts contained in a document were correct.

    With regard to the accusation of contempt, the parliamentary secretary stated that there is considerable onus on a member who alleges a contempt to establish that the accused member knowingly included false information in a report and did so with an intention to mislead the House.

    The need to provide the House and all its members with accurate information is very important. Hon. members have frequently pointed to the difficulties caused when confusing or inaccurate information is tabled in the House. The Chair agrees that all hon. members should strive to be accurate in the information they present.

    The hon. member for Yorkton--Melville provided the Chair with detailed material outlining specific instances where he disputed the accuracy of the information presented in the performance report, and I have reviewed the material with interest. However, I must remind the hon. member that the Speaker has no role in settling disputes as to fact.

    House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 443:

    Previous Speakers have consistently ruled that it is not the role of the Chair to judge the quality of information. For example, in her ruling recorded in the Debates on February 28, 1983 at page 23278, Madam Speaker Sauvé said in a situation similar to this one:

    I can see no grounds for departing from this practice in the present case.

    With regard to charges of contempt, providing incomplete information has not been found, in and of itself, to constitute a prima facie contempt of the House. To find someone guilty of contempt would require, as the parliamentary secretary pointed out, proof that the person provided false information with the intention of deliberately misleading the House.

    I refer hon. members to a Speaker's ruling given on December 6, 1978, and described on page 87 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice. In finding that a prima facie contempt of the House existed, Mr. Speaker Jerome ruled that a government official, by “deliberately misleading a Minister, had impeded a Member in the performance of his duties and consequently obstructed the House itself”. It is this element of deliberately seeking to mislead the House and not the presentation of information subject to differing interpretations that is key. In the case before us today, I have found no indication that there is any basis for alleging that such a contempt has taken place.

    I thank the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville for his usual vigilance and for bringing this matter to the attention of the Chair. However, I can find no prima facie breach of privilege or a contempt of the House at this time.

Back to top

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that the objective of his most recent review of the firearms registry is to remove the irritants. Let me point out the obvious. There are no irritants for criminals in the Firearms Act. Toronto police chief Julian Fantino said that the gun registry has been of no help in his war against crimes in his city.

    Why will the Prime Minister not allow his backbench MPs to reduce the estimates for such a useless program?

    Hon. Jacques Saada (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question is very clear. When we are talking about the bottom line in the budget estimates, this is a matter of confidence in the government. The question that has been asked is purely hypothetical concerning what details might be in the budget estimates. I refuse to answer a hypothetical question on a vote. That road goes nowhere.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what is not hypothetical is what the government is doing to democracy. It is deep-sixing it, burying it, and that is not acceptable.

    While the former finance minister was writing cheques for the billion dollar gun registry, the former justice minister, now the Minister of Public Safety, was cashing them as fast as she could.

    The Auditor General said that the biggest problem she saw and observed was that Parliament was being kept in the dark with regard to the gun registry. Instead of the usual practice of keeping Parliament in the dark, let me now ask, how much will it cost to fully implement--

    Hon. Albina Guarnieri (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister of State (Civil Preparedness), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand that the members opposite panic about losing their ammunition once the review comes to the forefront. Our goal is to deliver a gun registry that is reasonable, that all members of the House will want to support and I am confident that the member opposite will be among the first to applaud the results.

    Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the billion dollar gun registry boondoggle costs are completely out of control. All MPs are getting this message.

    Why not give members of Parliament a free vote on this issue so that they could freely express the wishes of the people to stop pumping their money into this bottomless sinkhole?

    Hon. Jacques Saada (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is quite fascinating to hear that from a party that refused the offer I made it two days ago to deal with the reform that we are implementing with an agreement to have a free vote among themselves. They refused that and they dare to ask questions about free votes.

    Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is the primary job of Parliament to manage the expenditures of government. Why is the Prime Minister talking democratic deficit when he is totally undemocratic in ordering his MPs to vote on command on this important issue?

    Hon. Jacques Saada (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me repeat for the nth time--and I hope that my English is good enough for my colleague to understand it--that matters such as budgets, the Speech from the Throne and the bottom line of estimates are matters of confidence and there is no debate about that. Matters pertaining to each element of the estimates is a purely theoretical question at this time. It is totally ludicrous to even say how we are going to vote on something which does not even exist at this point.

Back to top

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has already broken his promise that he made on national television only last night.

    He said one of the most important democratic reforms is to give MPs more power to represent their constituents, but now he announces there will not be a free vote on the gun registry. The Prime Minister's words and his actions just do not line up.

    An Ipsos-Reid poll this week tells us that only 43% of Canadians support the gun registry. Will the Prime Minister allow a free vote on the firearms fiasco or will he not?

    Hon. Jacques Saada (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thought that the plan of action was very clear. Votes concerning the throne speech, basic policy and budget matters are traditionally confidence votes. Therefore, it will be a whipped vote, as usual.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): The fact is he broke his promise in less than 24 hours.

    The Liberals' 1993 red book made no mention of a universal firearms registry. When the man who wrote the red book became finance minister, he wrote most of the cheques for this billion dollar boondoggle.

    The Prime Minister made national news once again about how all of his programs are going to pass seven tests. The gun registry fails all seven of the Prime Minister's expenditure review tests. It fails all seven and again he says one thing but he does another. Why is he just reviewing this firearms fiasco instead of scrapping it?

    Hon. Albina Guarnieri (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister of State (Civil Preparedness), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government's review of the gun registry is about building a better gun system. With this registry, gun advocates will ensure that they have a sustainable system and owners of guns can expect a system that listens to their legitimate concerns.

Back to top

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. On October 31, 2003, the minister of justice tabled his department's performance report for the period ending March 31, 2003.

    There are a number of factual errors in the section of the minister's report on the Canadian firearms program. These errors have misled the House and impeded my ability to function as a member of Parliament.

    This is the first opportunity I have to bring this matter to the attention of the Speaker as Parliament has not been sitting since November 7, 2003.

    While some of the so-called facts in the minister's report may be debatable, the errors I will itemize for the Speaker today are not. I will be providing the Speaker with copies of our supporting documentation.

    On May 16, 2003, in response to Order Paper Question No. 194, the government stated that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade had spent $45,000 since May 2001 on the firearms program. The minister's performance report erroneously reported that the Department of Foreign Affairs had spent nothing. The Speaker will know that foreign affairs issues import and export permits for hundreds of thousands of firearms annually. I do not think anyone in government believes that this is done for nothing or for a mere $45,000. That is the first example of an error.

    In response to the same Order Paper Question No. 194 on May 16, Treasury Board stated, “The 2002-03 Departmental Performance report for the Department of Justice will report Firearms Program expenditures accordingly”. The justice minister's performance report provided no such costs for Treasury Board.

    I followed up Treasury Board's broken promise to Parliament with an Access to Information Act request. On December 31, 2003, Treasury Board had the nerve to say that it had no records of what it had spent during its eight years of aiding and abetting the billion dollar boondoggle. Now members cannot even believe the government's response to our Order Paper questions.

    The first paragraph of the minister's performance report on the Canadian firearms program states:

 

The attention to the Program sparked by the December 2002 Auditor General's Report emphasized concern about both costs and reporting, while confirming that the program continues to be supported by the majority of Canadians.

    If the Speaker reviews chapter 10 of the Auditor General's December 2002 report to Parliament, he will find no such statement confirming that the program continues to be supported by the majority of Canadians. That is an incorrect statement.

    The first paragraph also states:

 

In addition, initiatives were undertaken to address the complexities of the compliance requirements and ensure successful completion of firearms registration by the deadline of December 31, 2002.

    This statement is misleading because it leaves the false impression that the firearms registration phase of the program was actually successfully completed.

    How could firearms registration be successfully completed, as the minister states in his performance report, when on October 23, 2003, William V. Baker, Commissioner of Firearms, testifying before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, stated, “We've had over 1 million long guns registered since January 1, the original deadline”.

    Further statistics and information obtained by my office through the Access to Information Act, prove that the gun registration is still far from completed. However, none of this information was provided in either the departmental estimates or the minister's performance report on the firearms program.

    For example, the total number of valid firearms license holders that still have not registered a gun is 414,283. How can it be said it is completed when there are that many gun owners who have not even registered a firearm?

    The total number of gun owners that still have to re-register or dispose of their handguns is 318,846.

    The government estimates of the total number of firearms that still have to be registered is 1.1 million. The total number of hand guns that still have to be re-registered is 625,829.

    The CFC also admitted that it did not collect statistics on the 288,000 guns brought into Canada by foreign visitors. Non-compliance is now so bad that the CFC has developed a national compliance strategy and program. If the government hides these important facts from Parliament, it should make everyone wonder what else it is hiding.

    In the fourth paragraph of the report it states, “The Minister of Justice accepted the Auditor General's recommendation to improve reporting to Parliament”.

    The truth is the government still refuses to provide the major additional costs recommended by the Auditor General in paragraph 10.29 of the Auditor General's December 2002 report to Parliament. The Speaker can find this fact in the government's response to Order Paper Question No. 202 in Hansard for May 26, 2003.

    We have also identified a number of other departments that have incurred direct and indirect costs implementing the Firearms Act and regulations that were not included in the minister's performance report as recommended in the Auditor General's report.

    I could go on, Mr. Speaker, and I have documented many other examples of factual errors. I have given you five in the minister's report to Parliament that are enough to prove our case.

    On page 225 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, he describes contempt as an offence against the authority or dignity of the House.

    On page 119 of Erskine May's 21st edition, it states:

 

The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt.

    The 22nd edition of Erskine May, on page 63, describes ministerial responsibility and states:

 

--it is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister...

    On February 2, 2002, the Speaker ruled a question of privilege to be prima facie even though the minister of justice who made misleading statements in the House said that he had no intention of misleading the House. The Speaker felt that it was in the best interests of the House to have a committee look into the matter.

    To perform the fundamental functions, the House has always insisted on accurate and truthful information. That is why the making of erroneous and misleading statements in the House may be treated as contempt.

    On October 31, 2003, the justice minister tabled a report that was factually wrong in a number of ways and clearly misled the House. I have here a much longer list and evidence of how the report was factually wrong and I can give this to the Speaker as he wishes. This continual cover up and contempt of Parliament has to stop. We are getting fed up.

    I am prepared to move the appropriate motion should the Speaker rule that the matter is a prima facie case of privilege.

    Hon. Roger Gallaway (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the question of privilege raised by my friend opposite. He has referred to a great number of reports, questions and documents, obviously none of which I have had the opportunity to peruse.

    However the fundamentals of his reasons, as I understand them, for believing that his privileges have in some way been offended or broken rest on Order Paper Question No. 194 which was raised at some point in the past.

    I refer to Marleau and Montpetit, 2000 edition, page 443 where the general principle is laid out that there are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses to questions. In fact, in the last 10 years at least, on various occasions members have raised questions of privilege on the premise that the information given in an answer to a question on the Order Paper was in some way inaccurate. In those cases they asked for a finding of a prima facie case of privilege.

    I point out that in footnote 204 on page 443 it refers to a number of cases in the past 10 years where that was raised. In fact, in all cases the Speaker has ruled that it is not the role of the Chair to determine whether or not the contents of documents tabled in the House are accurate, nor to assess the likelihood of any hon. member knowing whether the facts contained in a document are correct.

    In other words, in the response to a question on the Order Paper, it is not a question of privilege to go behind those responses to ask or to suggest that this is in some way a question of privilege.

    The second part of the question of privilege raised by my friend opposite, as I understand it, deals with a report that was tabled in the House. He is saying that there are some inaccuracies in that report. Certainly inaccuracies in reports are matters which are always debatable and open to question, and that is essentially what my friend opposite is raising.

    The most serious part of this is that he is suggesting that there is some contempt in this bundle of documents which have been referred to by the member opposite. He is saying that some of the contents of these are deliberately misleading statements, that in some way a minister has knowingly misled the House.

    Once again I will say that I have not had the opportunity to review all of the matters raised by the member opposite but we do know that there is no breach of privilege with respect to the answer to Question No. 194, as raised by the member opposite. That is an established parliamentary ruling for which there are many precedents.

    We also know that to find contempt requires a considerable onus on the person alleging that to establish that someone knowingly inserted false information into a report and, in doing so, attempted to mislead the House and the members of it. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that in no way has been established. Again I would say that he disagrees with certain statements made in a large body of documents that he has referred to over a long period of time, but the veracity of that is debatable.

    Having said that, I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no, on the face of it, prima facie case.

    I have appreciated the intervention made by the member opposite but in this case I cannot agree that this is a prima facie case of privilege.

    The Speaker: I thank the parliamentary secretary and the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville for raising these matters and offering their advice to the Chair in this regard.

    I will have an opportunity now to review the materials that were referred to by the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville in his original submission and then, having seen those materials, I will run over the arguments advanced by the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and come back to the House with a decision in due course. I thank them again for their interventions.

Back to top

    Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in tracking stolen guns over the past five years, the federal gun registry has matched only 4,438 firearms with the descriptions of more than 101,000 stolen weapons that the firearms centre attempted to trace. What a success rate, less than 5%, or put another way, a failure rate of more than 95%

    With the current $1 billion price tag, that is about $225,000 per firearm and now the registry is looking for another $10 million. At what percentage beyond 95% does the government consider the gun registry program a failure?

    Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I reject the comment that the member made about the $10 million of new spending. I have answered that previously. That is not new spending. The firearms registry is not spending a cent more than what we outlined in our targets in the beginning.

    As far as the hon. member's question goes specifically, he should be congratulating us. What he is really saying is the firearms system is working in tracing stolen and unregistered guns. That is where it is really working.

Back to top

    Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there may be a new Liberal leader but we have the same old policies of waste and corruption. I refer to the government's supplementary estimates that it has just tabled, calling for yet another $10 million to go to the firearms registry. This is after wasting a billion dollars and promising no more money would be spent until the program is fixed.

    Why, with the new Liberal leader, is the government wasting more money on the firearms registry when it has not even fixed the problems and it has wasted a billion dollars?

    Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I addressed this question yesterday. However I would think the hon. Leader of the Opposition would be at least a little more forthright. If we turn to the estimates on this money, it says:

 

This amount represents the operating budget carry forward for Justice designated for the Canadian Firearms Centre.

    Not one more cent has been allocated in the supplementary estimates than was previously announced when we put the action plan in place.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Solicitor General misled the House. He said there was no new money for the gun registry, but the supplementary estimates show a new appropriation of $10 million.

    Can the Solicitor General explain why he misled the House yesterday?

    The Speaker: The hon. member is treading very close to the line and he knows that is contrary to our practice. If he wants to ask a question for clarification, he can ask it. But to suggest that members are misleading the House I think is unnecessary during question period.

    The hon. Solicitor General.

    Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite with that kind of remark is trying to mislead Canadians on what the gun control program cost. That is what he is trying to do.

    I quoted to the Leader of the Opposition earlier from the estimates that on page 88 the amount represents the operating budget carried forward for justice designated to the Canadian Firearms Centre. That is what it represents. There is not a cent of new money mentioned in this document because we established the targets and we are going to meet them.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I ask you and all Canadians to read page 22 and then find out who is telling the truth.

    Eight provinces refused to prosecute for gun registry offences. Two-thirds of Canadians do not support this billion dollar boondoggle. Even the justice department found 90 major problems in its most recent evaluation.

    Last week the government refused to answer this question, so I will ask the minister once again, how much will it cost to fully implement the gun registry, including fixing all of those 90 problems, and how much will it cost to maintain it?

    Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to go back to the beginning of my response to his first question. Those remarks still stand.

    If he would read the most recent evaluation, and read it appropriately, he would see that the evaluation was done back last spring. We announced an action plan after that. We are on target in terms of the announcement in the action plan. We brought efficiencies into the system and we will continue to bring efficiencies into the system. We are continuing to register firearms every day.

    Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC): Mr. Speaker, an access to information request revealed that between April 14 and June 30 no full time and no part time employees of the Department of Justice were working on the Canadian firearms program. The same applies to the Solicitor General.

    If no one in either the justice department or the Solicitor General's office is paying attention to the gun registry, who exactly is in charge of this bottomless money pit?

    Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first it is not a bottomless money pit. We said in the beginning that yes, there have been some problems in the past. The Minister of Justice and I in an announcement in the spring announced an action plan of which we would bring those costs under control.

    The gun registry has been transferred to the Department of the Solicitor General. We have in fact brought the costs under control and that is what the estimates are now showing. The costs are under control and we are not spending a penny more than was targeted.

    The Speaker: The Chair has notice of two questions of privilege, one from the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, whom we will hear first.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Solicitor General misled this House and impeded my ability to function as a member of Parliament.

    Yesterday the President of the Treasury Board tabled supplementary estimates (A) in this House. On pages 13 and 88 of the supplementary estimates it is stated, “Canadian Firearms Program New Appropriation $10,000,000”.

    Later in the day in response to a question during question period, the Solicitor General said, and I am quoting from page 7705 of Hansard:

 

We are not, through these supplementary estimates, asking Parliament for one more cent for the firearms program. Not one more cent. The money is not new money. The money was approved by Parliament and the money is within the spending targets that we announced earlier.

    If the Solicitor General is right, then the supplementary estimates are wrong. If the Solicitor General is right, then Parliament is going to be voting for the same money twice. This cannot possibly be.

    Page 22 of the supplementary estimates (A) clearly states, and I quote:

 

Vote 7a

 

Canadian Firearms Centre--Operating expenditures--To authorize the transfer of $84,840,694 from Justice Vote 1, Appropriation Act No. 2, 2003-2004 for the purposes of this Vote and to provide a further amount of ...$10,000,000.

    I repeat, “to provide a further amount of $10,000,000”. Do the words “further amount” not mean new money?

    The Solicitor General's statement yesterday put in question the status of a particular item in the estimates. That status, as the minister described it, would prevent members from proceeding in what I would consider the normal process for considering the supplementary estimates.

    Its status has a significant impact on my role as a member of Parliament. All members of the House need to know if they can treat this item as a typical item in the supplementary estimates, namely, whether or not members can (a) reduce this amount at committee, (b) oppose the item on the last allotted day in the supply period and (c) include it as the subject matter of a supply motion in the context of “new money”.

    On page 733 of Marleau and Montpetit it is stated:

 

Supplementary Estimates often include what are known as “one dollar items”, which seek an alteration in the existing allocation of funds as authorized in the Main Estimates. The purpose of a dollar item is not to seek new or additional money, but rather to spend money already authorized for a different purpose. Since “estimates” are budgetary items, they must have a dollar value...the “one dollar” is merely a symbolic amount.

    Vote 8a on page 88 of the supplementary estimates is a symbolic dollar amount. Vote 7a, Canadian Firearms Centre operating expenditures, is not a symbolic one dollar amount, but a $10 million amount. When the Solicitor General said the $10 million was “not new money”, he misled me, every member of this House, the media and the general public.

    The Speaker will recall that we went through the same song and dance last year when the supplementary estimates were tabled. No one, not even you or your staff, Mr. Speaker, could figure out how much we had voted on in the 2002-03 main estimates. Even Treasury Board officials had to ask the justice department.

    But this year is different. When the main estimates were tabled on March 27, 2003, we were assured that they included the entire $113.1 million annual budget for the Canadian firearms program. This as the total program spending was approved by Parliament when the main estimates were approved in June. The Solicitor General's statement that it is “not new money” defies common sense, because it means that we would now have to vote for another $10 million that we already voted for last June.

    Finally, if the Solicitor General's interpretation of the supplementary estimates is correct, how many of the other 24 “new appropriations” totalling $5.5 billion fall into the same category? Is the $10 million for the firearms program the only one that is not “new money”?

    In the 17th century, the pre-eminent English judge Sir Edward Coke described the House as the general inquisitors of the realm. Ever since then it has become customary to refer to the House as “the grand inquest of the nation”.

    Page 697 of Marleau and Montpetit describes the direct control of national finance as the “great task of modern parliamentary government”. On page 225 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, he describes contempt as “an offence against the authority or dignity of the House”.

    An attempt to fool members into believing that the $10 million in vote 7a is not new and therefore subject to scrutiny or reduction is an affront to the dignity of the House and disrespectful to its role as “the grand inquest of the nation” and its so-called “great task” of controlling the public purse.

    To perform these fundamental functions the House has always insisted on accurate and truthful information. That is why the making of misleading statements in the House must be treated as contempt.

    Yesterday the Solicitor General clearly misled the House.

    I am prepared to move the appropriate motion should the Speaker rule that the matter is a prima facie case of privilege.

    Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member I believe knows or should know perfectly well that the accusation he is making against the minister in question is totally invalid. He may have, by mistake, he and his leader, asked for the information at the beginning of question period without knowing better. That is it, people do that from time to time around here, but after, he was corrected, and rightfully so, by the minister and informed of the content of page 88 of the supplementary estimates, which describes quite well that the dollar is the mechanism by which the transfer is made from one department to another and does not involve additional funds. It involves the funding in question to be transferred from one minister to another, but not additional funding to be put in. The explanatory note is there for everyone to see.

    Additionally, if the member wants to question the minister insofar as is it a good idea for this particular minister to administer versus another minister, if that is what he wants to do, that is why the estimates are referred to committee: so that these kinds of questions can be asked. Now that is a different proposition altogether. But to state that the transferring of responsibility from one minister to another, the parallel one dollar amount that actually gives effect to it in the supplementary estimates is wrong, is simply inaccurate.

    Finally, imagine the reverse situation. Had we published the supplementary estimates today, transferred the responsibility fully as we did and chosen not to make this transfer, this same MP would be standing up and saying, “Wait a minute, the estimates are wrong. You transferred that responsibility and you failed to put it in the estimates”. The hon. member cannot have it both ways.

    In any case, I am quite willing to return to the House with additional information if the Speaker chooses to delay his ruling in that regard. The information we have is that we have used the most transparent method in order to transfer the funding in question from one department to another but at the same time not adding, as the minister, the Solicitor General in this case, has indicated to the House today, other than the one dollar symbolic amount, which gives effect to the transaction.

    Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, as usual that is about as clear as mud from the government House leader. We have before us the supplementary estimates that state in clear English new expenditures, of which that column contains the amount of $10 million.

    On a number of occasions, Mr. Speaker, you have requested that any issues related in particular to procedural aspects of a supply bill be brought forward immediately, which is what is happening here, but I direct your attention to page 88. On that page, under the Solicitor General, relating to the infamous and disgraced gun registry and the Canadian Firearms Centre, it states uncategorically that the House is being asked to approve a new appropriation of $10 million for vote 7a and a further amount of $1 under item 8a. These amounts are clearly described as new appropriations under the estimates that have been recommended to the House by the Governor General.

    Also on the same page there is a column labelled “transfer”. This is to transfer existing spending authority within the government, which is what the government House leader is talking about. But clearly, by listing the $10 million as a new appropriation rather than a transfer there is no existing authority for this transfer to take place in expenditures. The House is being asked for new authority.

    I turn now to the “Proposed Schedule 1” of the appropriation bill found at page 22 of the supplementary estimates. There we find listed under the Canadian Firearms Centre vote 7a an amount of $10 million and, under vote 8a, an amount of $1, again, listed at page 22 as new appropriations.

    I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to what the previous member has referred to: the Solicitor General's response in question period yesterday, September 23, to a question raised by the member for Dauphin--Swan River. The Solicitor General stated:

 

We are not, through these supplementary estimates, asking Parliament for one more cent for the firearms program. Not one more cent. The money is not new money. The money was approved by Parliament--

    Mr. Speaker, I could argue semantics, that at the very least the government is asking for one new dollar, but the crux of the matter is that $10 million is being asked for under “new appropriation”. The Governor General's demand is very clear. The words are very clear: “new appropriation”. The Solicitor General says the money is not new. The estimates and the proposed supply bill call it new. They do not call it a transfer. They call it a new appropriation.

    In conclusion, if the Solicitor General is correct and there is no request for new money, the supplementary estimates are incorrect.

    You will recall, Mr. Speaker, and it stemmed from the report of the Auditor General concerning the lack of truthfulness and frankness in Parliament, the general incompetence of the government surrounding the billion dollar gun registry. The Auditor General warned us that facts were being hidden from Parliament; that Parliament was in fact being kept in the dark. We now have before us estimates calling for a new appropriation of $10 million and the Solicitor General telling the House it is not new. If that is the case, this should be listed as a transfer item.

    I invite the Chair to examine the record and the schedule with an eye to the impropriety of the new appropriation as opposed to a transfer item.

    Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would also like to quote from Marleau and Montpetit at page 732 under “Supplementary Estimates”. It states:

 

Should the amounts voted under the Main Estimates prove insufficient, or should new funding or a reallocation of funds between Votes or programs be required during a fiscal year, the government may ask Parliament to approve additional expenditures set out in Supplementary Estimates.

    “Approve additional expenditures”, Mr. Speaker, and we have heard numerous references to the word “new”. Last week the government proposed a new definition of the word “marriage” and I think we may be trying to find another definition of the word “new” if this is not new money that is going to be allocated by Parliament.

    The Auditor General pointed out last year that with the gun registry this government has obfuscated in every way it can by using the supplementary estimates rather than the main estimates to fund the gun registry. Now we find that it is disallowing its own words in the supplementary estimates.

    Mr. Speaker, you have to stand up and defend this House and rule that the minister has--

    The Speaker: I appreciate the advice of the hon. member.

    It is getting a little repetitious, I think, on the issue before the House. The government House leader in his submission has indicated that he was prepared to examine this matter further and get back to the House with more detail should the Speaker consider it necessary. The Speaker does consider it necessary in the circumstances.

    I would appreciate hearing further from the government House leader to clarify what I can only regard as confusing words in the supplementary estimates, which have given rise to some confusion in the House. I look forward to hearing from him further at which time the Chair will give a ruling on this matter.

Back to top

September 23, 2003

    Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC): Mr. Speaker, today we learned that the supplementary estimates show an additional $10 million for the firearms registry.

    Access to information requests have revealed that between April 14 and June 30 there were no full time or part time employees of the Department of Justice working on the Canadian firearms program. Another access to information request showed that during the same period no employees in the department of the Solicitor General were working on the firearms program.

    My question is, if no one in either the justice department or the Solicitor General's office is working on the gun registry, just exactly who is minding this--

    The Speaker: The hon. Solicitor General.

    Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear that the hon. member has his facts wrong.

    We are not, through these supplementary estimates, asking Parliament for one more cent for the firearms program. Not one more cent. The money is not new money. The money was approved by Parliament and the money is within the spending targets that we announced earlier.

    In fact, we are on target in terms of our action plan. We met the deadline for registrations. We are continuing to maintain registrations and we will continue until--

    The Speaker: That concludes question period for the day. We will proceed to orders of the day.

Back to top

September 19, 2003

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it has been nine months since the Auditor General blew the whistle on the billion dollar gun registry. The minister promised that he would be more open and transparent and that he would provide a full accounting of the costs, but he has done neither.

    I ask the minister who is in charge of this mess for the umpteenth time: How much will it cost to fully implement the gun registry and how much will it cost to maintain it?

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we are very pleased to say that the gun registry has been working really well.

    The Canadian Firearms Centre has met the standards that it set for processing licence applications in 45 days and registration applications in 30 days. The Internet registration, which is free of charge, has had a major uptake by Canadians.

    I think we can safely say that it is working and that Canadians support it.

Back to top

June 6, 2003

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we have just made another damning discovery about the government's firearms fiasco. In an effort to push out a pile of paper called gun registrations, the Liberal government failed to complete the background checks and call character references before issuing firearms licences.

    Talk about straining at a flea and swallowing a camel. If the Solicitor General is trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, why did he not do the reference checks? Why?

    Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have for a while discovered the benefits of the gun registry program. In fact, the registry program provided assistance with 347 investigations in the month of April alone. We conducted 113 firearms traces. We provided assistance with 17 search warrants through the Canadian Firearms Centre. We provided 19 training and/or presentation sessions to ensure that guns are stored safely and used appropriately.

Back to top

June 5, 2003

    Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are concerned upon learning that during a period of high volume last December, the information inputted into the gun registry system may have been lost. Can the Solicitor General assure gun owners who attempted to register during this time period that their information is in the system? What about those gun owners who may have been unable to register?

    Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is in fact the case that people were unable to log into the system last December, but I want to clear up some confusion around the issue. No vital information was lost.

    We want to ensure that those who tried to log onto the system in December and did not get logged on are not under the perception that they did get through. They can call the 1-800 number or the Internet line, which is now working. We want these people to have the opportunity to register and obey the laws of the land.

    Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House an hon. member raised a question of privilege concerning the registration of firearms. I promised to get back to the House as soon as possible, which I am now doing.

    As promised, I wish to give the House more information on the question of privilege raised yesterday by the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

[English]

    The hon. member alleged that the Minister of Justice did not comply with a requirement under subsection 119(4) of the Firearms Act that requires the minister to table in the House a statement of reasons concerning certain regulations.

    On December 5, 2002 the governor in council enacted four regulations under the Firearms Act. These were published in the Canada Gazette on December 18.

    Subsection 119(4) of the Firearms Act requires the minister to table a statement of the reasons, which the marginal heading to the subsection describes as a “notice of opinion”.

    The Minister of Justice tabled the statement of reasons for these regulations and this is noted in the Journals of March 17, 2003. Under “Returns and Reports Deposited with the Clerk of the House”, it states that pursuant to subsection 119(4) of the Firearms Act, a notice of opinion was laid upon the table for the above-noted regulations.

    As further evidence, this notice is cited as Sessional Paper No. 8560-372-779-01, with which we are all familiar, and was permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. In other words, the statement of reasons for all of these regulations was properly tabled and the Minister of Justice has fulfilled his statutory obligations under the Firearms Act.

    As a result, I would suggest to the Chair that in fact there is no question of privilege before the House. The point is moot and should not have been raised to begin with.

    The Speaker: I thank the government House leader for his intervention in this matter. Fortunately the Chair had done some research as a result of the question of privilege being raised and had discovered facts very similar to those alleged in the minister's statement. Accordingly, I find the question of privilege is not well taken and that is the end of the matter. I thank him for his assistance, as always. And the member for Edmonton North is always very helpful as well. All hon. members always strive to help the Chair.

Back to top

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General is now faced with the sixth province that refuses to prosecute the 600,000 gun owners who have so far been unable or unwilling to register their guns. The Solicitor General simply deals with the problem by telling the Nova Scotia justice minister to “get up to speed”.

    Only Prince Edward Island and Quebec still support the gun registry. When will the Solicitor General start listening to the provincial justice ministers instead of insulting their intelligence?

    Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I neglected to mention is that maybe the member for Yorkton--Melville should get up to speed on what is happening in terms of this legislation and the changes that we have made to it to make it more efficient. Maybe it would be helpful if that member would go out and encourage people to register their guns before the deadline.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to wonder if the Solicitor General has any idea what is going on in his department. The minister's officials admit they cannot even process all the paperwork before the deadline at the end of this month, a completely arbitrary deadline.

    The firearms database crashed. Does he know that? They have lost an unknown number of records. His own incompetence will criminalize legitimate gun owners. The minister's stubbornness will cost taxpayers even more.

    Is the minister willing to criminalize more law abiding gun owners, or will he just scrap the program?

    Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said a number of times, the intention of this legislation is not to criminalize legitimate gun owners. We would hope that all Canadians who have legitimate guns out there register by the deadline and then that move will not be necessary.

    Speaking of the member getting up to speed, he should be reminded that the crash in the system was in December. That has since been improved and we can handle the registrations now.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning the justice minister's direct contravention of the Firearms Act and contravention of one of your rulings.

    On November 21, 2001, at Commons debates pages 7380 and 7381, Mr. Speaker, you ruled on a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Surrey Central concerning the failure of the minister of justice to table a statement of reasons for making certain regulations as required by subsection 119(4) of the Firearms Act.

    I would like to now cite three separate quotes taken directly from the Speaker's ruling. I quote:

 

I should point out to hon. members the Firearms Act provides that where the minister is of the opinion that the ordinary regulatory process in section 118 should not be followed she may in cases specified by the law proceed directly to the making of new regulations or to the modification of existing regulations. However in such cases the minister is required by subsection 119(4) of the act to table in both houses a statement of her reasons for so doing.

 

The hon. member for Surrey Central drew to the attention of the House 16 cases between September 16, 1998, and December 13, 2000, where the minister made use of this exceptional power but failed to table the required documents in the House. He argued that although no deadline is specified in the Firearms Act it is surely unreasonable for the House to be kept waiting for up to three years for the tabling of the minister's reasons.

    The ruling went on:

 

In the case before us, the legislation drafted by the justice department contained from the outset the provisions obliging the minister to table in parliament reasons why section 118 should not apply for certain regulations. Furthermore, in the orders in council relating to each case, a standard paragraph is included which reads as follows:

 

And whereas the Minister of Justice will, in accordance with subsection 119(4) of the Firearms Act, have a statement of the reasons why she formed that opinion laid before each House of Parliament;

 

Therefore, Her Excellency, the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, pursuant to paragraph X of the Firearms Act, hereby makes the annexed regulations--

 

The Chair must conclude from this evidence that far from being an arcane technicality cloaked in some dusty statute or other, the requirement for tabling of reasons is not only perfectly clear in the legislation but is invoked as an integral part of each such order in council. All the more reason, it seems to me, for the department to comply readily with the requirement given a modicum of efficiency in advising the minister.

    The ruling went on:

 

Strictly speaking, these defects do not negate the minister's fulfillment of her statutory obligation, but they do point to a carelessness that appears to be characteristic of the way in which these matters are being handled by the officials in her department.

 

Were there to be a deadline for tabling included in the legislation, I would not hesitate to find that a prima facie case of contempt does exist and I would invite the hon. member to move the usual motion. However, given that no such deadline is specified, I can only find that a legitimate grievance has been identified.

 

I would encourage the hon. Minister of Justice to exhort her officials henceforth to demonstrate due diligence in complying with these and any other statutory requirements adopted by parliament. I look forward in future to the House being provided with documents required by law in a timely manner.

    That was your ruling, Mr. Speaker. The parliamentary research branch has informed me that despite your stern warning and contrary to your explicit instructions, the justice minister has on four more occasions failed to table his statement of reasons for avoiding the laying of his regulations before Houses of Parliament, as required by subsection 119(4) of the Firearms Act.

    The four orders in council identified by the Library of Parliament are: SOR/2002-440, 5 December 2002, regulations amending the importation and exportation of firearms regulations; SOR/2002-441, 5 December 2002, regulations amending the authority to export or import firearms regulations (businesses); SOR/2002-444, 5 December 2002, regulations amending gun show regulations; and, 5 December 2002, regulations amending the public agents firearms regulations.

    While you ruled that the member for Surrey Central did not have a prima facie case of privilege, mainly because there is no deadline in the Firearms Act for the minister to table the statement of reasons, the situation we have today is different.

    The minister is now in a clear contempt of Parliament, because not only has he shown complete disregard for the legislative requirements of this House, just as his predecessor did, but he has ignored your very clear instructions in your previous ruling.

    I ask the Speaker: At what point does the minister's disregard for the legislative requirement of an act passed by this House become contempt? How many times does the minister have to be caught before it becomes contempt? Sixteen times last time. Four times this time. If not this time, will the minister be in contempt the next time we catch him?

    Finally, how can we expect ordinary Canadians to obey the Firearms Act if the justice minister himself does not, cannot, or will not, regardless of what you say or rule?

    If the Speaker rules that these four new violations of section 119(4) of the Firearms Act by the Minister of Justice constitute a prima facie case of breach of privileges of this House, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

    Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have heard what has just been raised by the member. I consider it to be very serious. I will raise it with my colleagues. I will endeavour to report either to the House myself, or himself; it is mid-week now but hopefully by the end of the week or at the least sometime next week about the--

    An hon. member: Oh, oh.

    Hon. Don Boudria: No, I did not say that. This is serious, Mr. Speaker. I intend to report. If there are documents that should have been tabled and there is a reasonable period of time elapsed, I will do my best to ensure that they are tabled, and if not, that someone at least inform the House why they will not be tabled in the time that is judged to be appropriate if such is the case in the accusation that is being made.

    The Speaker: I want to thank the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville for his diligence in pursuing this matter. It is always appreciated when hon. members support the rulings of the Chair and I notice his proper diligence in that respect.

    I know that the government House leader is now going to do the same sort of thing and exercise proper diligence to see if the ruling has been fully complied with in every respect.

    I thank the hon. members for that and I look forward to hearing further submissions on the matter in due course. In the meantime, of course, I will reserve my decision.

    We have a notice of a point of order from the hon. member for Calgary Northeast.

Back to top

    Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, at a news conference this morning, Nova Scotia's justice minister, Jamie Muir, called Ottawa's gun registry a “bad law”, a boondoggle, and unnecessary red tape, and he is directing provincial prosecutors to refer any charges relating to long guns to their federal counterparts. Why will the Liberal government not just admit that its so-called gun registry simply does not work and scrap it?

    Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do find it strange that a person in that high authority would be advising people in his own province to basically break the law.

    The member knows, and I would encourage the minister in that province to get up to speed, that we are improving the system. I have said a number of times in the House that it is not our intent within the legislation to criminalize legitimate gun owners. It is our intent to use the registry system to assist NWEST in its ability to track down illegal weapons and make this country safer.

    Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, eight provinces and three territories now say they will not support this fiasco. How does the government plan on implementing the law if these territories and provinces refuse to implement it?

    Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I fully believe that when people understand how this system works and when it continues to work more efficiently than it has in the past, those sensible Canadians out there, and that includes legitimate gun owners, when they see the benefits of the system, will want to register on time so that we can use the system the way it was intended to be used, which is to make our streets and communities safer.

Back to top

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, last week the first of many charter challenges was launched against the gun registry.

    Courts will not begin to hear these challenges until the fall. However the government has imposed an arbitrary registration deadline of June 30. Courts may rule that the registry violates the charter.

    Will the government extend the registration deadline until a court decision has been reached?

    Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government on this side of the House has argued a number of times that we are trying to work with gun owners to have them understand that the intent of the system is not to penalize hunters and legitimate gun owners. The intent of the system is to make our streets safer.

    Specifically in answer to the member's question, no, the deadline will not be extended.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the final deadline for registration is less than a month away. Almost 300,000 gun owners have not yet registered and over 300,000 gun owners have yet to re-register their handguns. The government has received letters of intent of registration from only a fraction of these.

    What is the government planning to do with half a million gun owners who are non-compliant come July 1?

    Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the intention of the government, myself as Solicitor General and the Canadian Firearms Centre is to not leave the impression that we will extend the deadline because we do not intend to do so.

    I would advise that the system is working much more efficiently than it was sometime ago. Internet registrations are working well. The 1-800 number is working well. I would encourage all gun owners to get on the system and get registered.

Back to top

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance has just uncovered that another $17.5 million has been wasted on the gun registry and that the government's accounting is still incomplete. Seven other departments and agencies incurred gun registry costs but they were not reimbursed or reported to Parliament by the Department of Justice.

    Why did the government hide the $17.5 million in additional gun registry costs from Parliament? Why was that hidden?

    Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I really find it difficult to understand where this member is coming from. The government hid nothing in terms of costs. The costs were all tabled before the committees and before estimates.

    Let me provide an example. There were 325 actual police investigations using the services and information database of the Canadian firearms program in the month of December. The member would have us believe that if there is an arrest as a result of that investigation, we should charge the cost of incarceration to the firearms--

    The Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, even the Auditor General of Canada said that answer was not correct, that it was being hidden from Parliament.

    It has been almost six months since the Auditor General blew the whistle on this billion dollar boondoggle and the government still cannot tell Parliament or the oppressed and exhausted taxpayers how much the gun registry will cost.

    I ask again, how much will it cost to fully implement the registry and how much will it cost to maintain it?

    Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, maybe when we were discussing estimates before the justice and human rights committee the other day the member should have raised that question. He continues to blow all things out of proportion in the House of Commons.

    The fact of the matter is that the Minister of Justice and I announced an action plan for the firearms centre some time ago in which greater efficiencies are now being brought into the system. Measures have been taken to improve the system. The Internet registration is working well. There is a continuous improvement plan on which I have already reported.

    Maybe when the member comes to committee he should listen to the facts.

Back to top

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the justice committee heard yesterday that the Liberals have spent more than $29 million to advertise their gun registry fiasco. Yet the government could not see fit to renew a $65,000 funding agreement with the Saskatchewan Association for Firearm Education.

    Could the Solicitor General please explain why safety falls so far below advertising on his list of priorities?

    Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at this question in which she asks why safety falls so far below the horizon with the government.

    First, on the money to Saskatchewan, that was a three year contract. The contract ended. As the commissioner for firearms answered yesterday at committee, it was explained how there were 500 firearms people in Saskatchewan working on training with communities, and that is going well.

    On safety, the purpose of the Firearms Act is to make our communities safer and members opposite--

    The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Haliburton—Victoria—Brock.

Back to top

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the member for Malpeque was once opposed to Bill C-68 because of its search without a warrant provisions.

    In 1995 the same MP questioned justice officials about ways to enforce gun registration without turning innocent people into criminals. Why has the MP suddenly become Bill C-68's greatest promoter? Is it perhaps because he is now the Solicitor General?

    Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my golly, the member for Yorkton—Melville obviously does not realize the world has changed since 1995. I know he is back in that time and age, that is for sure.

    If we look at the record, we will see exactly where I stood. Look at the voting record, not statements that were made, as the Minister of National Defence talked about earlier. We debate issues on this side of the House. We are not afraid of having differences of opinion. We do not always vote the party line as they do over there.

    The fact of the matter is the world has moved on. These are different times.

Back to top

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, a former head of the Canadian Firearms Centre, at the public accounts committee yesterday, said that no one was fired or demoted because of the firearms fiasco. This is contrary to what the Prime Minister told the media, and I quote:

 

Some people have been demoted; some lost their jobs in the process. It's not the same people who are in charge today.

    The reason the same people are not in charge is because they have all been promoted, not demoted. Does the Prime Minister regret making this statement?

    Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville likes to stick with the past. The government has moved on since those days. We have moved on and we have moved progressively on. In fact, we have passed legislation in the House that will create more efficiencies in the system.

    I would think that the member should be looking at helping us to move that program forward in the country and have gun owners come into the system so that we have safer streets.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the best thing the government could do to move on is scrap Bill C-68.

    Yesterday the Solicitor General told the House that his billion dollar gun registry does not even track the addresses of 131,000 criminals who have been prohibited from owning firearms by the courts.

    The Solicitor General said that this information on the most dangerous people in Canada with firearms was not necessary for the management of the program and, therefore, was not authorized by the Privacy Act.

    Could anyone on that side of the House please explain why these criminals are protected by the Privacy Act, but two million law-abiding firearm owners are not?

    Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as usual the member's facts are not quite on target. The fact of the matter is that in the month of December 2002 there were 325 actual police investigations using the services and information databases of the Canadian firearms program. Those investigations went some distance in terms of using the registry to find illegal weapons, to find stolen weapons and to make our communities safer. Will the hon. member start to get with the program?

Back to top

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the fourth minister of the firearms fiasco maintained his government's track record of keeping Parliament in the dark. It is clear from his feeble responses that even he does not know how much the gun registry has cost so far.

    Newspapers reported that shortly after the government gave $380,000 to the Coalition for Gun Control, it went out and hired two paid lobbyists to lobby the government to spend even more on the billion dollar gun registry.

    Why is the government using tax dollars to make it look like it has more support for its fiasco than it really does?

    Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Yorkton--Melville has done a lot of research into the gun control issue. I know he has a certain mindset and it is all negative toward trying to make the streets and communities safer.

    However it amazes me that with all the research he has done that he would be so much in the dark as to the benefits of this program and to the efficiencies we are trying to bring into the program with the passage of the bill yesterday.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have had to put in over 260 access to information requests to try to piece together this stupid fiasco the government is pushing on us. That is not open and accountable government. That is keeping Canadians in the dark.

    I would like the minister to answer the two questions that I posed to him yesterday and that he ducked. How can he justify funding the Coalition for Gun Control to the tune of almost $400,000 and at the same time cut $65,000 from an effective firearms safety training program? How many more types of guns did he promise the coalition he was going to ban?

    Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is really interesting about the member for Yorkton--Melville is that he only tells the Canadian public and the House half the story.

    The fact of the matter is what access to information should have told the hon. member, and I assume it may have, is that the contract for safety training was for one year. It was worked out with the province of Saskatchewan. Those people did a good job of training individuals on the gun safety program.

Back to top

Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday there was a question of privilege from the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville. I responded at the time indicating that I would like to have the opportunity to respond further after doing some more research, which I have now done.

    The member asked how it was possible to transfer ministerial responsibility for the firearms centre from the Minister of Justice to the Solicitor General when the firearms legislation passed by Parliament specified that the Minister of Justice was the responsible minister.

    The member quoted from research prepared by the Library of Parliament that the authority to make this transfer was provided under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act. The government had the authority to make this transfer because Parliament, as I said yesterday, has provided the authority in that act.

    The act provides a mechanism for the efficient reorganization of government and it has been used in the following recent cases. It has been used in the creation of new departments and related changes in ministerial responsibility in 1993, which included the Departments of Human Resources Development, Canadian Heritage, Industry, and Public Works and Government Services. All those departments were included. Another example is the transfer of responsibility for the Pest Control Products Act from the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to the Minister of Health in 2000. Transfer of responsibilities to the Minister of Transport from the Minister of Public Works for the Royal Canadian Mint in 2002 is the third case.

    In each of these cases, the minister actually responsible for the organization is not the same minister found in the statutes. As the Library of parliament's research indicates, and as a reading of statutes confirms, this is not a matter of privilege. It is a request for a legal opinion by the Speaker, which of course is quite another issue.

    The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his intervention. Of course, the matter of the question is already under advisement and the Speaker will be ruling on the matter very shortly.

Back to top

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the justice minister's Plans and Priorities report confirm that the firearms program will cost more than a billion dollars by 2005. However, in an unprecedented move, the minister tabled his estimates report with 105 blanks, so no one can tell how much it will really cost.

    In December the Auditor General told the government to stop keeping Parliament in the dark.

    Why is the minister's report to Parliament filled with blanks rather than facts and figures?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should do his homework. On the government side we did our work. First, we have accepted all the recommendations of the Auditor General's report. Second, we have asked for a few studies as well in order to move forward with a good plan of action and with the supplementary B estimates that have been tabled in the House for about $59 million. For next year we are talking about $113 million.

    Having said that, the numbers have been established based on Mr. Hession's report. The hon. member should read Mr. Hession's report in order to know the exact calculation that we have used.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that is no answer.

    Why are all those spaces blank with the costs unreported? We do not know what it will cost. If Mr. Hession's report was so valuable why is there not some reflection of that in the bill that is now before Parliament, Bill C-10A?

    These amendments to the gun registry, which were tabled yesterday and debated yesterday, have been kicking around this House for more than two years.

    Why does the minister not just admit that there are no amendments that can fix the firearms registry? Why not just scrap it?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. As I have said, this government has a very good plan of action. The estimates are quite clear. He should read, as a member, the report of Mr. Hession. We based our calculation on Mr. Hession's report.

    Having said that, it is a strong policy and a good policy for Canadians that we support and Canadians support.

    However those members do not support it and will never support gun control because when they read in a press release that gun control will result in more crime, more injuries and more deaths, they cannot support a good policy. They will never do that.

Back to top

April 1, 2003

Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In recent weeks the government has introduced an action plan that will improve the efficiency and accountability of the gun control program. It is apparent that Bill C-10A, which is currently awaiting House approval, is a lynchpin of this action plan.

    Could the government tell the House what specific benefits will be delivered by Bill C-10A?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for this very important question.

    We all know that we have tabled a good plan of action. Of course one very important part of that plan of action with regard to gun control policy is Bill C-10A. Bill C-10A will have a very positive effect and impact on the program. Just to name a few positive effects, we will simplify the requirements for licence renewal, for example, stagger firearms licence renewals as well, increase the use of the Internet and establish a pre-application process for temporary importation by non-resident visitors.

    Therefore I look forward to the support--

    The Speaker: Order, please. It is almost impossible to hear in the Chamber today. I know members are full of enthusiasm in their questions and answers but we have to be able to hear the person who has the floor. It now happens to be the hon. member for Windsor West, who sits a distance away from the Chair. If everyone is making a lot of noise I cannot hear.

Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, Ind. BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

    The government's recently unveiled action plan for the gun control program is already failing. In fact, moving the program to the Solicitor General, which was supposed to be a major shift and which was supposed to happen today, has been put off indefinitely.

    Instead of getting bogged down in this all but vaudevillian improvisation, what is the minister waiting for to suspend the gun control program in order to get to the bottom of this waste of public money?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a somewhat surprising statement from the member, because she knows quite well that the gun control program has a great deal of support among Canadians.

    Second, this is a program that is already providing benefits in terms of public security. This is something that goes to the core of Canadian values.

    Since the Auditor General's report, we have drawn up an action plan. It is a good action plan to ensure that we move forward with the program. That is exactly what we will do, specifically by proceeding with—

    The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver East.

Back to top

March 31, 2003

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday the justice minister tried to keep Parliament in the dark again when he told the House that the firearms program would cost $113 million next year.

    On Thursday, the justice minister's report on plans and priorities tabled in the House said the expenditures for the next fiscal year could actually be as high as $128 million.

    Why did the minister give the House the lower number? Did he not know what was in his own report?

    Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that the $15 million that is talked about over and above the $113 million that is outlined in the main estimates is a contingent liability flagged in the report on plans and priorities that is due to the alternate service delivery contractor. He has indicated that is the scope of the work necessary to complete the first phase of the contract that could exceed the budget provisions.

Back to top

March 28, 2003

Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Hession report reveals that $400 million was wasted on the failed computer system of the firearms registry. The government's answer to this problem? Outsourcing. But the privacy commissioner has concerns with this outsourcing.

    Given the government's slipshod record with hundreds of millions of dollars and its lack of concern for citizens' privacy, could the justice minister tell us how many external groups hold personal information databases related to the firearms program, and when was the last privacy impact assessment done?

Á  (1150)  

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that when we are talking about the money invested in the gun control program we are not talking about a waste of money. We have built a good program and we, as well as Canadian society, are starting to see the benefits of the program. When we talk about the technology is in place, we have a good tool for public safety that we are using as a government and that police forces are using in order to make sure that we will keeping building a safe society.

    With regard to the question of privacy, of course there is a question involved there and it is not the first--

    The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Elk Island.

    Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, our daughter lives in Saskatchewan, the presumed home of medicare. She told me that two of her friends had to travel to Alberta and Manitoba to get critical health care. Her father-in-law had to wait six months for a critical heart operation and was told to be very careful while he was waiting. Our daughter was very upset about this. This is her question, and I quote, “Why does the government insist on spending billions of dollars on a useless gun registry when this money is so badly needed for health care?”

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me come back to the gun control program, which is a very important part when we are talking about public safety. One more time, we are not talking about $1 billion. Second, we have never said, and the Auditor General as well has never said, that money has been wasted. We have to talk about an investment in a very good program. We are starting to see the benefits of that program, and as we have said in the past, we will keep proceeding with that fantastic public safety tool.

Back to top

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, back in 1993 this Prime Minister told the Toronto Star that Canadians felt alienated from their political institutions and that they wanted to restore integrity to them, that they had enough of the abuses of Parliament and the arrogance of government.

    For his information, Canadians still feel that way but we are wondering about him. Will the Prime Minister stop riding roughshod over Parliament and his caucus and allow Liberal MPs a free vote on the plan to dump another $59 million into the useless firearms registry?

    Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, if my memory serves me right, is the chief whip of his own party, charged with discipline on his side of the House. For him to remonstrate from across the way about discipline on our side, he is pontificating from afar. The hon. member across should know that his own predecessors as chief whip have sent people to the back row of his own party. Some of them are still there today, waving at me as I speak.

    Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that was neither a yes nor a no, but I would like to remind the Prime Minister that he is doing exactly what he criticized the Tory government for doing in 1990. He said at that time, “You cannot say over and over that what you do does not matter, and that you are right and everyone else is wrong. That is not democracy, that is a dictatorship”. What he has on that side of the House is just that: a dictatorship.

    Here he has an opportunity. Will the Prime Minister keep one promise? Will he allow a free vote so that his MPs do not have to wimp out or duck out?

    Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across the way knows perfectly well how Parliament functions. He knows perfectly well of the confidence convention of the House. He knows how it operates. He knows better than what he is saying. I should suggest to him that he should concentrate on discipline on his own side of the House, particularly in view of the fact that so many of his own colleagues have been kicked outside of caucus back to another party and back in several times. We cannot even follow which side they are on.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

    The Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Chair could remind the House that question period is intended to be one question and one answer, not a hundred questions and a hundred answers and all at different times. It is very difficult for the Chair to hear today and it is only Tuesday, so I would ask for a little co-operation from hon. members.

    The hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. On April Fool's day, the Solicitor General inherits one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated on the Canadian public. I can only say they picked the right day.

    The truth about the costs and the practicality of the gun registry have been hidden from Canadians and continue to be hidden from Canadians. Will the new Solicitor General stop this Liberal sleight of hand and guarantee public disclosure on a regular and consistent basis on all gun control costs and information?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well what the costs are for the gun control centre. He knows that last fiscal year we were talking about $688 million. He knows as well that this party, this government, will be voting on the supplementary estimates (B) tonight, and on the main estimates as well. He knows that we have been reacting to the report of the Auditor General before Christmas.

    As well, he knows that we have tabled a good plan of action in order to make sure that we will improve management and improve services. Having said that, it is a good and sound policy and we are starting to see the results, and this party and this government will keep talking--

    The Speaker: The hon. member for Gander—Grand Falls.

Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Canadians have no problem with the concept of checks and balances as they relate to gun control but they do have a problem with unbalanced cheque books and billion dollar cheques for unworkable programs like firearms registration.

    Canadians know that Liberals cannot grasp the difference between gun control and firearms registration. Gun control targets criminals; firearms registration targets law-abiding farmers, ranchers and duck hunters.

    Will the Minister of Justice scrap his ill-conceived gun registration scheme and redirect future money to fighting crime?

¸  (1450)  

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, licensing and registration are two important components of gun control. We do it here. We as well are not the only country to do it.

    If we look at Germany, for example, it has exactly the very same system. Having said that, when we look at the results we have obtained through licensing and registration, I guess it tells a lot about what we want to do in terms of public safety.

    In terms of cost, over a seven year period of time, it has been $688 million for Canadians. We are heading in the right direction. It is a good and sound policy and we will keep talking about gun control and public safety.

    Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would not be very proud of that. I certainly would not be shouting it from the rooftops.

    It is apparent to Canadians that the uptown Liberals across the way have never been in a rural area where firearms are actually a day to day part of everyone's life and it is painfully obvious to Canadian taxpayers that the Liberals have absolutely no regard for Canadian tax dollars.

    Does the minister deny the firearms registration will cost an additional billion dollars for enforcement?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. That opposition party does not believe in gun control. However I would like to refer to a press release from the member for Yorkton—Melville dated January 25, 1995. He said:

 

Gun controls will not improve public safety, it will put the public at more risk. Gun controls will not reduce violent crime, it will increase violence. Gun controls will not save lives, it will cost lives.

    When we see such nonsense, how could they understand common sense?

Back to top

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice promised Parliament that he would make public the total cost of the firearms registry prior to the registry being shuffled over to the rookie Solicitor General.

    Will the Minister of Justice guarantee the House that he will actually table the report before we vote on any more money going to the failed registry? Tomorrow we vote. Is this another broken Liberal promise or does he have an answer?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, essentially as we all know we have been facing the report of the Auditor General since before Christmas. What we said was that we were proceeding with two reports to look at the management of the program. Those two reports have been tabled. We have seen those recommendations.

    Over the past few weeks we have tabled a good plan of action to ensure that in the future we will, together, be able to proceed with that program which is about public safety. We have tabled as well the supplementary estimates (B) for this year and for the next fiscal year as well. People will be supporting the government tomorrow on that.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, last week the Treasury Board president could not tell us how much the gun registry has cost so far. The Auditor General said that she was still waiting for the government's report on the total costs.

    Before the Prime Minister whips his MPs into tears and forces them to approve another $59 million, should he not tell them how much the gun registry has cost so far?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they know very well the numbers. As a matter of fact, I was at the public accounts committee for a few hours and I would just like to raise the fact that they have not asked the question.

    If we look over the seven years of operation, it means the last fiscal year we are talking about $688 million. This fiscal year we are talking about $100 million. If we look at supplementary estimates B we are talking about $59 million, which is part of the $100 million. For the next fiscal years they know the numbers. They have seen the budget. We are talking about $113 million. The numbers are clear.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today the Library of Parliament reported that the costs to enforce the gun registry could be a billion dollars in the next few years. We do not know how much the gun registry has cost so far. We do not know how much it is going to cost in the future to implement.

    Why is the Prime Minister forcing his MPs to vote more money for this firearms fiasco? Why?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all government programs somewhere down the road, if they are permanent programs, will cost a billion dollars. However we are talking about, as I said, the last fiscal year. We are talking about seven years of operation. We are talking about an amount of $688 million.

    Now if they are talking about the estimates for this year, we are talking about $100 million. For next year it is $113 million. However are talking about public safety. We are talking about a good program that we will keep supporting as a party and as a government.

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast on March 17 regarding his claim that the President of the Treasury Board misled the House concerning the use of the expression “major crown project” in relation to the Canadian firearms program.

    I would like to thank the hon. member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast for having raised this matter, as well as the hon. President of the Treasury Board, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville for their comments. I would also like to thank the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville for the documentation he supplied to the Chair.

    In his presentation, the hon. member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast alleged that the President of the Treasury Board had misled the House in a reply made to an oral question on February 25, 2003. In response to a question posed by the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville, the hon. President of the Treasury Board stated:

 

Mr. Speaker, according to my information the program was not formally designated as a major crown project.

    I urge hon. members to read the Debates for February 25, 2003 at page 3985 to see this answer in print.

[Translation]

    The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast contrasted that statement with statements made in the Auditor General’s letter of February 26, 2003 to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville has kindly provided the Chair with a copy of that letter and I have noted with great interest the references there to various documents of the Department of Justice and the Treasury Board where the term “major Crown project” has been used with reference to the Canadian Firearms Program.

[English]

    In the letter, the Auditor General outlines a number of occasions, beginning in 1998, in which formal documents concerning project approval that were passed between the justice department and the Treasury Board Secretariat either describe the program as a major crown project or indicate that it will be managed as such. Moreover, the letter points out that in response to documents submitted for comment by her office to the justice department and the Treasury Board Secretariat during 2002, no exception was taken to the use of the expression “major crown project”. On one occasion, in fact, the Treasury Board Secretariat requested that the expression “major capital project” be altered to read “major crown project”. It was only last month, in February 2003, that the justice department began to object to the use of the expression “major crown project” to designate the Canadian firearms program.

[Translation]

    The hon. President of the Treasury Board responded to the charge made by the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast by stating that in her reply to the original question she was pointing out to the House that the program had never been formally designated as a major Crown project.

    She went on to explain that such formal designation would have involved a decision of the ministers who comprise the Treasury Board, adding, in the Debates, on March 17, 2003:

 

To my knowledge, after an examination by my senior officials of all Treasury Board records and decisions, there has never been a written decision by Treasury Board formally designating this project as a major Crown project.

¹  (1505)  

[English]

    On examining the statements made here in the House and the additional information submitted to me, it seems to your Speaker that the Department of Justice and the Treasury Board Secretariat were prepared to regard the firearms program as a major crown project, or at least, were prepared to agree that it should be managed as though it were such a project. The House is now informed that such a designation was never formally made by the Treasury Board and that it is therefore incorrect to apply it to the firearms program.

    As the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader pointed out, the decision to designate or not to designate a program as a major crown project is a prerogative of the government. Based on that decision, the government may require a different level or a different type of management structure and may impose reporting requirements that do not apply in other cases. All of these are matters that are internal to the government's administration. They are not matters of privilege. The House may choose to exercise its right of oversight of government activities to pursue these matters, but that does not require intervention by the Chair.

    These are no doubt critical questions for hon. members and for the House, but they are not questions for your Speaker to resolve. Just as it is not up to the Chair to settle the dispute surrounding the issue of the proper designation of the firearms program, it is not the role of your Speaker to determine the consequences for good or ill of its designation. Rather, as Speaker, I am being asked to ensure that the privileges of the House have not been breached. In the circumstances of this case, the only argument for such a breach is the allegation that the President of the Treasury Board deliberately misled the House.

    The hon. member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast cited a precedent where prima facie privilege was found in a case where a minister made a statement at one time and a different assertion on another occasion, but the precedent is not helpful in this case because there has been no inconsistency in the statements of the President of the Treasury Board. She has not said one thing at one time and something different at another time; she has been clear, stating only that the Treasury Board did not formally designate the Canadian firearms program as a major crown project. The Chair has not been presented with any evidence to indicate that that statement is incorrect. Others may have had differing views on whether or not this was the program designation, but their views are irrelevant to the narrow question of privilege that is before the Chair. On that question, I have concluded that the House has not been misled by the President of the Treasury Board and there is therefore no breach of the privileges of the House.

Back to top

March 18, 2003

Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, Ind. BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

    On February 21, after the financial fiasco of the gun control program, the government unveiled its plan of action. Among the measures that will be implemented, the Department of Justice will try to combine the processing sites located in Montreal and Miramichi.

    Instead of creating another administrative structure, which will surely be as ineffective as the last one, what is the minister waiting for to suspend firearms registration and take the time to overhaul the current ineffective system?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the firearms registry system and the firearms permit system reflect values that are dear to the Liberal government. But they also reflect distinctly Canadian social values.

    I am pleased to see that my colleague referred to our plan of action. The plan will move us in the right direction and allow us to introduce some changes based on the Auditor General's report and all her recommendations. In terms of the different sites, we are talking about consolidating—

    The Speaker: The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.

Back to top

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General in her report found that the Canadian firearms program was a major crown project and that the Treasury Board reporting requirements for major crown projects were not followed. Now the minister wants $172 million more in funding for a program that continues to keep Parliament in the dark on its costs.

    Why were the reporting requirements for major crown corporations not followed in the case of the $1 billion Canadian firearms program?

[Translation]

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already told the House that according to department officials, the program was never officially designated as such. If that were the case, a decision would have to be made by the Treasury Board. However, it was never officially designated as a major crown project.

    That said, I believe that the Department of Justice and the Treasury Board Secretariat agree that more information should be reported to Parliament.

[English]

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, just being told to bite the billion dollar bullet is not good enough for Canadians.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

    The Speaker: I hear hon. members saying they cannot hear. I am not surprised; I cannot. The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke has the floor and we will want to hear her question.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Mr. Speaker, since I am unable to get a satisfactory answer from the minister, I will ask the chair of the public accounts committee what the committee is doing to ensure that Parliament is being properly informed on the management of this program.

    Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise that the President of the Treasury Board will be at the committee this very afternoon. We fully expect that we are going to get much better answers than we just had from her right now.

Back to top

Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, according to the latest spending estimates, the Canadian firearms program will be spending yet another $21.5 million to develop a new computer system. This is in addition to a $35 million contract with CGI Group Inc. for a new off-the-shelf system. The justice department had already paid $400 million to EDS. It modified that some 12,000 times before deciding to ditch it.

    Did EDS compete with CGI in a public tendering for this new off-the-shelf system?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I just do not know why they keeping asking questions on that notion of gun control. First, they should listen to the Canadian people. The polls that we have seen lately tell us exactly where they are, and they strongly support the gun control program that we put in place back in 1995.

    As well, they should start to look at the statistics. They should listen to what stakeholders have said over the past few days. However, when they have a colleague such as the member for Yorkton—Melville saying that gun control will result in more crime, more injuries and more death of course we cannot support--

    The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes.

Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is in fact not a new question of privilege. It refers to something that was raised in the House yesterday. I committed yesterday to return to the House on the question of privilege at the earliest opportunity, which of course is today.

    Yesterday the hon. member for St. Albert asked about details on the firearms funding in the supplementary estimates by way of a question of privilege.

    A total of $77.5 million was requested for Justice in the supplementary estimates. Of this amount, $59.4 million was requested in support of the Canadian firearms program, of which $50.5 million is in Justice vote 1, operating, and $8.8 is in vote 5, contributions. The remaining $18 million is to cover four additional items, namely: incremental funding--which has an asterisk beside it and I will get back to that in a moment--to address core operational requirements, $16.4 million; public security and anti-terrorism initiatives, $.4 million; additional operating costs, $1 million; and partnering with the voluntary sector, $.2 million.

    On the use of Treasury Board vote 5 for Justice, as it was alleged yesterday, in the 2002-03 supplementary estimates part B, the member for St. Albert also asked whether Treasury Board vote 5 was used for firearms funding. As I answered yesterday, and I am willing to provide more detail now, the answer is no.

    As I indicated yesterday, $14 million was provided from Treasury Board vote 5 specifically for prosecution and legal costs associated with an increased workload in drug prosecution. When the minister appears before committee he can give details of that. That is the custom. The remainder is for aboriginal litigation cases.

    The asterisk in the supplementary estimates denotes the fact that the request was made by the Minister of Justice for access to vote 5 for this specific item only. The department will use this temporary allocation only for this purpose.

    It should be noted that all departmental expenditures in either the main or supplementary estimates are approved by Parliament and reported in the public accounts, which of course ultimately is the verification method. They are subsequently reviewed, as we know, and verified by the Office of the Auditor General.

    I am pleased to inform the House on this. I hope it will assist the Chair in making its decision as to whether or not the privileges have been breached, which of course we maintain they have not.

  (1205)  

    Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I think the government House leader is just trying to deflect the whole issue.

    The point of my question of privilege was that he gave information, and he repeated some of that information today, that is not in the main estimates for 2003-04 that was supplied by the spokesperson for the Department of Justice outside this chamber to the general public, referring to the fact that the House would be advised of this information later when the plans and priorities, the part IIIs, were tabled in the House later this month.

    This is information that first belongs here before it goes out there, not the other way around. That was my question of privilege.

    The Deputy Speaker: Of course, this original question of privilege was heard yesterday by our hon. Speaker himself. He has undertaken to review the matter so I am sure that today's information will again give him more subject matter for reflection. His decision will be brought to the House at the appropriate time.

Back to top

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, there has never been a worse example of fiscal sleight of hand, a gun registry shell game, than yesterday's supplementary estimates providing $59 million for the gun registry and another $14 million accessed through Treasury Board contingency, again for the gun registry.

    The Minister of Justice probably does not know the answer, but in the off chance that he does, could he tell us exactly how much money was given to the gun registry is yesterday's supplementary estimates?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important to see that the hon. member cannot even read.

    If we look at the supplementary estimates that were tabled yesterday, essentially we are talking about $59 million for this fiscal year. It is clear in the document that I have with me, which was tabled yesterday by the President of the Treasury Board.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government was forced to withdraw $72 million for the firearms registry last December. The minister is now asking for $172 million. Would the minister please explain why the House should provide him with the funding that Parliament, including his own colleagues, has already rejected?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member should get in touch with those organizations that decided to speak out over the past few days and weeks supporting the notion of gun control. She should also have a look at the statistics since the time we decided to proceed with that wonderful policy. As well, she should have a look at the plan of action that we tabled last Friday.

    It is clear in my mind that there is strong support from the Canadian population. It is also clear that we are going in the right direction.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, a fouled up list of duck hunters does nothing to protect Canadians.

    The government is determined to throw good money after bad. This is $18 million more than the minister was originally planning to spend in the 2002-03 report on plans and priorities.

    The minister is unable to tell Canadians how much this program is going to cost because he does not know himself. Why should Canadian taxpayers be on the hook for the minister's incompetence?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us have a look at the statistics. We see for example that 9,000 licences have been revoked or refused with our system. We see that the number of lost or missing firearms has declined by 68% from 1997 to 2001. We see that the number of stolen firearms has also decreased by 35% for the same period of time.

    Of course when one's colleague sends out a press release saying that gun control will result in more crime, more injuries and more deaths, one cannot support common sense.

Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to charge the Minister of Justice with contempt in regard to his release of material to the media that was intended for Parliament.

    Yesterday, the President of the Treasury Board tabled the main estimates in the House. The estimates reported that the government was seeking more funds to keep the firearms registry running.

    Despite the urging of the Auditor General, the government has failed to provide a proper accounting of the program, a program that the Auditor General considers a major crown project. Apart from an $18 million item under Department of Justice, contributions to provinces and territories, there is no mention of any other funding for the firearms registry in the estimates.

    However some cost estimates and details not mentioned in the estimates were revealed yesterday in a government news release. The release reads:

 

Firearms Program Funding 2003-04 (Main Estimates)

 

Treasury Board material on the Main Estimates mentions $74 million for the Canadian Firearms Centre. What is this for?

    It goes on to say that:

 

The $74 million is part of the $113 million sought in the Main Estimates for the Canadian Firearms Program. These funds are needed to operate and administer the firearms program for fiscal year 2003-04.

 

The $113 million figure is arrived at by adding the $74 million to the A-base estimate for the program ($35 million, which was included within the Department's Main Estimates figures for the 2003-04, tabled last year). The $113M includes employee benefits and accommodation costs.

    I am not sure what the A-base is. The news release goes on to detail how it was spent.

 

The $113M consists of the following major elements: $21.5M to the “Alternative Service Delivery”; $8M to operate the Miramichi facility (costs for the Quebec processing site are included in provincial contributions); $16M in contributions to provinces that are administering the program (eg. Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, etc.); $11.3M to administer the program in opt-out jurisdictions; $4.6M for NWEST; $16M in other contributions to federal partners involved in the program; $14.4M for maintenance of the current Electronic Data Processing system and current business operations; and $9.2M for program administration.

    The NWEST may be the Northwest Territories but I am not sure. The news release then goes on to provide details of the $74 million. The latter half of the release concerns itself with program funding of $59 million for 2002-03 supplementary estimates.

    Mike Murphy, a spokesman for the Minister of Justice, reported to the National Post that the more detailed breakdown contained in the news release would be tabled in Parliament in late March. Mr. Murphy is admitting that the information in the news release is intended for Parliament and that Parliament will be provided with the information later.

    Later in March would mean that the detailed information in the news release would be provided to Parliament when the reports on plans and priorities, or part IIIs of the main estimates, are tabled in the House as required under our rules. As you are also aware, Mr. Speaker, those reports are intended for the House.

    The Minister of Justice has decided to release this information to the media one month ahead of providing it to Parliament. His spokesman has made the link between the information in the news release and information intended for Parliament in an interview with Bill Curry of the National Post.

    I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a question of privilege that was raised by the member for Provencher on March 14, 2001. His question of privilege was in regard to the Department of Justice briefing the media on Bill C-15 prior to its tabling in the House.

    On March 19, 2001 the Speaker ruled on the matter and stated:

 

In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government's discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence.

¹  (1510)  

    We had another case on October 15, 2001. The opposition House leader raised a question of privilege with regard to Bill C-36. The National Post had reported the contents of Bill C-36 and indicated that it was briefed by officials from the Department of Justice. The article published on October 13, 2001 entitled “New bill to pin down terrorism” described the bill in detail and quoted officials from the department.

    The Speaker ruled that the case of Bill C-36 was similar to Bill C-15 and that there had been a breach of privileges of the House and the matter was sent to committee.

    I would argue that the reports on the plans and priorities are material placed before Parliament and like legislation, if they are to be released, the House must take precedence.

    The supply process deserves the same respect, integrity and protection as the legislative process. I would argue even more so than legislation because the estimates are the fundamental reason that Parliament exists.

    The minister's attempt to appropriate money through a news release is an affront to Parliament.

    In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, supplementary estimates (B) 2002-03 for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2003. were also tabled by the President of the Treasury Board yesterday. On page 82, the Canadian firearms program will receive another $59,447,000. In addition to that it also has with an asterisk, “Incremental funding to address operational requirements, Vote 1, at $16,436,000”. At the bottom the asterisk states:

 

Funds in the amount of $14,098,739 were advanced from the Treasury Board Contingencies Vote to provide temporary funding for this program.

    If I go back to the 2002-03 main estimates, part I and II, the government expenditure plan in main estimates at page 1-54, for the vote 5 of the government contingencies for the Treasury Board it states:

 

Subject to the approval of the Treasury Board, to supplement other appropriations for paylist and other requirements and to provide for miscellaneous minor and unforeseen expenses not otherwise provided for, including awards under the Public Servants Inventions Act and authority to re-use any sums allotted for non-paylist requirements and repaid to this appropriation from other appropriations.

    Note the word “unforeseen”.

    We do know that the Minister of Justice has been telling us that he has been funding the firearms program through cash management after the government withdrew a request for $72 million last December.

    I am raising this point with you, Mr. Speaker, at the earliest opportunity because supplementary estimates (B) were only tabled in the House yesterday. I have not been able to verify whether that $15 million was for the Canadian firearms program as the $72 million was in December 2002.

    If we find that this money actually was used for the firearms program to replace the money that the government did not request in December 2002, it was not unforeseen. It was to replace a request that was withdrawn which is a significant difference. Unforeseen we can understand; to replace a request that the government withdrew from the floor of this House, for reasons we do not know, cannot under any circumstances be classified as unforeseen.

    Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you will find that the Minister of Justice is in contempt of the House for the total disregard for the historic and constitutional role of the House in financial matters and the business of supply. If you agree and if you do so rule, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

    Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think some of the applause is a little premature. Some of these accusations are getting more than a little overstated in the House.

    I want to go back to the statement made by the Auditor General, an officer of Parliament, some time ago. The opinion of the Auditor General, at least on that point, was that it was not specifically identified in the main estimates, although funding for the firearms program had been in the supplementary estimates at the time. I do not think anyone can allege that the information is not in the estimates. It is quite clearly there. No one could make an allegation otherwise.

    The second point I want to raise is the statement that the minister somehow gave information to the media that was not otherwise available to the House. For the minister to have talking points, further elaboration on any point within a minister's department, whether it is the staffing of my office, or whether it is another minister's programs anywhere, is quite normal. The minister and his staff would have further explanation to further enlighten those who want to ask questions.

    Similarly, ministers have briefing books in the House of Commons when opposition members ask questions about a particular item so they can give other information about the item in question. That is not abnormal in itself, although it perhaps shocks the hon. member from Edmonton, and I can understand her shock, given that she will not have a riding anymore.

    The hon. member raised an item, and I believe he was serious, contrary to the member from Edmonton, which I believe is on page 82 of the supplementary estimates B. It is in regard to the asterisk portion which refers to funds in the amount of $14,098,739, I believe. I see the hon. member nodding. These funds were used for drug prosecution and aboriginal litigation.

    I hope that any suggestion that the minister had used these funds improperly will be rectified by those who made the accusations. To make these accusations against the minister just because one does not know better is not justification for doing so.

    Finally, I will carefully review Hansard and I would like to come back tomorrow, or possibly the President of the Treasury Board would return to the House tomorrow, to further elaborate on what I just said. Meanwhile, maybe someone can prepare the necessary apologies to the Minister of Justice.

¹  (1515)  

    Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say a few brief words to the question of privilege with which I agree. The government tabled supplementary estimates at the time when it knew there would be no time to examine them in committee, perhaps one 90 minute meeting.

    This delay and the promised statement further impedes the House and the committees by holding back information during the time meant for the procedure of committee scrutiny. This is another example of keeping the House in the dark, just what the Auditor General said was the cardinal sin of the government.

    Yesterday I complained about alterations to the budget being made outside the House. A budget was presented but the Prime Minister went out and said, no, that was not what it was, that it was something else. This is more of the same conduct.

    This proves that the words of the Minister of Finance about accountability to Parliament are just words and not actions. We are left with the words of the former minister of finance who said that there was a democratic deficit in Parliament.

    The Speaker: The Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has asked that the matter be deferred so that further submissions can be made in response to the hon. member for St. Albert on his very elaborate question of privilege, which I sense is two different points really. I managed to get thoroughly confused on the second one. I found it difficult because figures were being bandied about by both sides and I did not have all the books in front of me.

    Obviously this will take a little time to sort out but we will hear from others either tomorrow or on Monday, and the Chair will then take the matter under thorough advisement and get back to the House in due course, as is usual in circumstances of this kind.

¹  (1520)  

     The Chair has notice of a point of order from the hon. member for Mississauga Centre.

Back to top

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today the justice minister is going to come to Parliament and ask for another $170 million for the gun registry. That is unbelievable. Just yesterday for the umpteenth time the justice minister refused to tell us the total cost of the gun registry for all federal departments.

    How can he possibly expect any parliamentarian to approve more money when he has no idea as to what the total cost will be? In fact, he cannot even tell us what has been spent so far.

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question is interesting knowing that I spent two hours at the beginning of the week at the public accounts committee and I do not remember the hon. member asking the question.

    One thing is for sure. If members look at the support that we have had from the Canadian population since the tabling of our plan of action, people know that we are going exactly in the right direction. People know as well that gun control does make a difference in our society. People know that the program has already delivered some very good benefits for the Canadian population.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we now know what the minister means by cash management and running the registry at minimum levels. It has been spending $1 million per day since Parliament pulled the $72 million out of the gun registry budget in December. That is what it is, $1 million per day.

    Why does the minister have nothing but contempt for the House and Canadian taxpayers?

¸  (1450)  

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadian taxpayers know exactly that we are doing the right thing for Canadian society.

    How could we convince the member of Parliament knowing what he said in a press release back in 1995? I will repeat it. The member said:

 

Gun controls will not improve public safety, it will put the public at more risk. Gun control will not reduce violent crime, it will increase violence.

    He should talk to the victims associations from across Canada and to police associations that are supporting gun control. We are doing what is right for our Canadian society.

Back to top

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Auditor General stated that the firearms program is a major crown project that requires more stringent Treasury Board reporting policies. The Auditor General also stated that the gun registry should have its own business line in the main estimates.

    The deputy minister of justice disagreed, so the cover-up continues. Who is right, the Auditor General or the deputy minister?

¸  (1450)  

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, according to my information the program was not formally designed as a major crown project.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the justice minister displayed no ability to explain anything at the committee meeting yesterday. The gun registry goes 500 times over budget and his answers are all of the Forrest Gump variety, “It just happened”.

    It has been almost three months and the justice minister still has not told the House what the total costs of the gun registry have been for all departments and agencies, including all the unreported costs itemized in the Auditor General's report.

    If the minister cannot give us the total cost of the gun registry so far, how can we possibly trust him on the future cost projections?

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

    The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Yorkton--Melville has put a question and his colleagues must want to hear the answer. The hon. Minister of Justice has the floor. If they did not want to hear the answer they would not have asked the question. So we must be able to hear the answer and the Minister of Justice will give it.

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously the member did not listen. I was in committee for two hours yesterday. I had an opportunity to explain the challenges that we have been facing through the development of that fantastic gun control program.

    The member cannot understand knowing what he said in a press release in 1995. He said that gun control would result in more crime, more injuries and more theft. He should be ashamed knowing the stats that we have.

    Gun control works. It is about value. It is about saving lives and we will keep proceeding with that program.

    Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

    An hon. member: You should be ashamed. You've got a million dollar boondoggle going.

    The Speaker: Order, please. We have finished with that question and that answer now. Perhaps hon. members could go behind the curtains and carry on some of these discussions. We want to get on with question period or we will lose time. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has the floor.

Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, Ind. BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Last Friday, the government unveiled its action plan to correct what is wrong with the firearms registry. Among the measures announced is the transfer of responsibility for the Canadian Firearms Registration Program from Justice to the Solicitor General.

    Can the minister explain what makes the Solicitor General more competent than he to administer this program, or is this more a way of ducking questions about a scandal that might hurt his campaign for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think that what is important here is for us to continue together to build a firearms control system that will meet the government's and the public's desired objectives, that is to provide maximum protection to all of Canadian society as well as to develop the values we share as Canadians.

    That said, there are certain elements within the action plan that address the issue of administration, different technologies, and consultations. Among the elements raised by the action plan is the matter of transferring the portfolio to the Solicitor General, which is essentially a—

¹  (1500)  

    The Speaker: The hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

    Yesterday at public accounts, a Liberal member referred to one of the Auditor General's advisers on the gun registry by name, but those names are generally only made known to the department. Could the minister tell the House whether those names were ever made public? If not, could he explain why those names were known to the member of Parliament for Mississauga West? Did the minister or anyone in his department pass on that information to the member for Mississauga West?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, maybe he should ask the question directly to the member of Parliament himself, for sure, I have not been involved in that at all. But having said that, we have to remain focused on what happened last night. Last night we were able to discuss the challenges that we have been facing in the implementation of the program. We have been able as well to talk about our plan of action, which is indeed a very good plan of action. In looking into the future, it means for our Canadian society that we are going to have a very good gun control program in order to share our values and to increase public safety as well.

    The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to hear a point of order from the right hon. member for Calgary Centre.

Back to top

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the justice minister is about to wash his hands of all accountability for the firearms registry. In five weeks the whole mess will be handed over to the Solicitor General, the next in a long line of ministers who cannot answer for their predecessors. This is a major move and must have been the subject of indepth studies before the decision was made.

    Will the Minister of Justice tell exactly how much the transfer will cost while the Minister of Justice is still able to speak on this matter?

¸  (1445)  

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member did not look at the plan of action that the government tabled on Friday.

    We saw the report of the Auditor General before Christmas. As well, we asked consultant Raymond Hession to prepare a report. He has tabled his recommendations.

    We have decided to move ahead with a good plan of action which has been accepted by the Canadian population and police forces as well. We are talking about improving program management. We are talking as well about improving service to the public, engaging stakeholders in discussion and strengthening accountability and transparency. As well, we will--

    The Speaker: The right hon. member for Calgary Centre.

Back to top

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when I asked the Minister of Justice when he planned to table his action plan on the gun registry, he refused to answer. We now know that he has scheduled a press conference for 1 p.m. today, supposedly to transfer the failed registry to the office of the Solicitor General.

    Will the new minister actually deal with the registry's problems, or can we expect more Liberal window dressing?

    Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is the second time in only a few weeks that we have had an instance on the floor of the House where members have been given a document under embargo and before the embargo has expired it is being raised in question period.

    This is despicable. The hon. member should know that this is wrong. It goes against all our rules which we are all called upon to respect.

    Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we know the government's billion dollar failed firearm registry has done nothing to curb crime or improve public safety in Canada. A majority of Canadians, 53% according to a recent poll, agree with the Canadian Alliance position and are calling on the government to scrap the failed registry. The registry is not even supported by most frontline police officers.

    Why will the minister not cut his losses, scrap the registry today and instead direct the money toward more police officers on the street?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House know that when we are talking about gun control we are talking about public safety.

    The member referred to some polls. We have some polls as well and those polls show strong support from the Canadian population on the question of gun control and therefore public safety.

    When the hon. members are saying that they would like to scrap the gun control program that we have, which part of it: the licensing stage, which has been a success; or the registration stage, which has been a success?

    We are talking about six million firearms that have been registered. The screening process in order to have access to the registration--

    The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Surrey North.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period the government House leader stood in the House and accused me of divulging embargoed information from the Minister of Justice. That is categorically untrue. If he would care to check the record, the press release first ran at 10:36 Ottawa time and it was on the CP wire at 11:07 Ottawa time.

    It is exactly those types of actions and shenanigans that give this place and individual members of Parliament a bad reputation. I demand an apology and I want it right now.

    Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will check into what the hon. member has just stated and act accordingly at the appropriate time.

    The fact still remains that earlier this morning at approximately 10 a.m., coordinated by my office, a copy of an embargoed statement, which will be made in a few minutes from now, was distributed to all political parties, the subject of which was the question posed by the hon. member only a few moments ago.

    If the content of the minister's statement had been released to the media before, and perhaps that is what the hon. member is saying now, I will check into that. As far as I knew the only thing that had been circulated to the media was notification that there would be a press conference after the minister's statement was made in the House of Commons. However, I will verify that.

    Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I was listening to question period as well and the point that was raised was that there would be a news conference held by the minister at 1:30. That was something that was brought up in an interview that the House leader and I attended this morning at 10 o'clock, so I do not think there was any breach whatsoever.

    The Deputy Speaker: Respectfully, to the three members who rose on this point of order, it is not a point of order. I would submit to the House that there is a difference of opinion. Given the undertaking from the minister I will leave that matter to be resolved among the parties. However, at this point in time it is not a point of order.

Back to top

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has promised for months to present an action plan on how he will fix the gun registry.

    Are the people writing the action plan the same ones who ran up the registry's billion dollar debt? And, when will the minister table his action plan?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been following the file he would know exactly what we have been doing since the tabling of the Auditor General's report before Christmas.

    We asked KPMG to table a report. As well, we asked Raymond Hession to table another report. At the present time we are looking at 16 recommendations in Mr. Hession's report.

    The system is actually working. We have to improve the system to be more precise on the management side. We want to fix the problem. We will have a good gun control program in Canada for the safety of all Canadians.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): 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?

    The Speaker: The Chair will look into the matter and come back to the House, I hope very shortly, with the facts and figures that we relied on in making the ruling which I believe was amply supported by the documentary evidence that was tabled in the House and will refer the hon. member to it in due course.

Back to top

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's attempt to force every Canadian to register their rifles and shotguns has been a dismal billion dollar failure.

    Canadians living in Nunavut have a court order saying that they do not have to register their firearms. First nations people have said they will not register as it is against their treaty rights. Hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Canadians have not registered as of January 1 and have sworn that they never will.

    My question is for the Prime Minister. Instead of forcing firearms registration on some Canadians and not on others, why does he not treat everyone equally and repeal the gun registration law?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member should come on side with the government and talk about Canadian values and public safety as well.

    In terms of numbers, I must mention in the House that 1.9 million owners' licences have been issued, 6 million guns registered, 9,000 licences revoked or refused to potentially dangerous individuals, and police forces are using the registry 2,000 times per day.

    We are talking about values. The government is firmly committed to keep proceeding with gun control and this is exactly what we will do.

Back to top

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): 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?

    Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if my memory serves me right, this issue is the subject of a question of privilege which your honour will rule on. I would rely far more on the objective answer of your honour than the rhetoric I am hearing from across the way.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): 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?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, we are not talking about $1 billion and the member knows it very well.

    Second, let us talk about the benefit of the program. Some 1.9 million owners have been licensed. Six million guns have been registered. Police use the registry 2,000 times per day. Some 9,000 licences have been revoked or refused.

    We are talking about a good program. We are talking about Canadian values. We are talking about public safety. We are heading in the right direction and we will proceed with the program.

Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we do not believe in fairy tales or the Easter bunny.

    Earlier in question period the Minister of Justice was up bragging about his unfinished, error prone, and billion dollar gun registry. How could he justify quietly funneling millions of dollars more into this system when his own colleagues say it is a contempt of this House?

    Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this issue is before the Speaker for a ruling. We contend on our side of the House that nothing has been breached.

    The hon. member now is contesting that something has been breached. That discussion took place yesterday. We will wait for the Speaker's ruling which we will respect. I only hope that he and his colleagues will as well.

Back to top

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, according to the lobbyist registration form, Raymond Hession was a registered lobbyist of the Department of Justice on behalf of EDS Canada.

    EDS is the same firm that was paid $227 million by the Department of Justice to design the gun registry system. Raymond Hession was the lobbyist during the period when these computer purchases were made. Despite these facts, the Minister of Justice hired Raymond Hession to write a report on what went wrong with the gun registry.

    How can the Prime Minister justify this blatant and shocking conflict of interest?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they are getting lower and lower on that file. This is an important file for Canadians.

    Mr. Hession is a highly respected business person. He is highly respected as well in the public sector, since he was a deputy minister. If the hon. member would read the report of Mr. Hession, in his 16 recommendations he recommended to move away from the EDS system.

    Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that minister would hire a Groupaction employee to investigate Groupaction. It is probably beyond the grasp of the Prime Minister and his government but they should think about the need for justice to be seen to be done.

    Raymond Hession, the lobbyist for EDS Canada; Raymond Hession, the lobbyist always welcomed with open arms in the Department of Justice; Raymond Hession, the lobbyist who was called in to review what went wrong with the firearms fiasco in the Department of Justice.

    To the minister or the Prime Minister: is this what he meant yesterday when he rattled on about political cleanliness? Does he think this meets the clean smell test?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one more time, this is a cheap political comment. Mr. Hession is a highly respected business person with 40 years of experience.

    Second, if they would read Mr. Hession's report, they would discover a fantastic piece of work, with 16 recommendations. Those recommendations will help the government produce a good plan of action.

    What they do not like is that the government is heading in the right direction. We will keep gun control on behalf of public safety and to protect Canadians

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

    We all share a concern about the costs associated with the gun registry. Will the Minister of Justice outline how he will achieve a more client friendly and cost effective gun control program?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is talking about costs; therefore, he is talking about Bill C-10A.

    Bill C-10A indeed talks about cost reductions with regard to the gun control program. It is a shame to see that the official opposition is trying to block that bill, which would save taxpayers money. That bill would be able to streamline the process. I look forward to the support of all members of the House.

Back to top

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on December 5, 2002, in the House, the supplementary estimates were passed devoid of new money for the firearms program. Today, without that funding, the national gun registry continues to receive new registration forms.

    Could the Minister of Justice tell the House from where the operational funds are coming?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, up until the approval of the supplementary estimates, we were moving with what we call cash management. We said that before Christmas. The program is running at minimum cost but we are able to fulfill our duty.

    Of course it is a short term solution and we are sure that the House will support gun control and will support public safety when we vote on the supplementary estimates.

Back to top

Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Gary Webster was dumped last week as the CEO of the Canadian firearms registry.

    As a reward for his mismanagement of the $1 billion firearms registry he received a soft landing and has been made a special adviser to Morris Rosenberg, the deputy minister of justice. Incredibly, Morris Rosenberg and 49 of his 52 executives received a performance bonus for wasting $1 billion on the registry.

    My question to the Minister of Justice is, why are bureaucrats who have proven their incompetence rewarded with plum postings?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when we look at the whole group of people who have been working on the question of gun control, there are many people in the group who have been working hard and who have given our Canadian population their time and experience.

    Members on the other side of the House do not believe in public safety. On this side of the House we believe in gun control. We believe in public safety and we will proceed with gun control because it is in the best interests of Canadians as a whole.

¸  (1440)  

    Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member for Leeds--Grenville said that the gun registry is no more complex than the income tax system. Coincidentally, Bill Baker, the new CEO of the firearms registry comes from the tax department where he was responsible for compliance. That is code for squeezing taxpayers till they squeak.

    Now he will be setting his sights on duck hunters and farmers, and forcing them to sign up with the $1 billion firearms registry. We have hired a tax collecter to run the firearms registry. Can duck hunters and farmers now expect to be squeezed till they squeak?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, members opposite should be open minded with Canadians and tell them the truth. The truth is that they do not believe in public safety. They do not support gun control at all, whether licensing or registration. What hon. members opposite do not like is that the government is heading in the right direction.

    The Auditor General tabled her report, we accepted her recommendations, and we will fix the problems. Last week we received two reports. We said that we wanted to proceed with a good action plan, and this is exactly what the government will do.

Back to top

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, I very much regret that position and hope that when the Prime Minister comes back, it will be reconsidered.

    Earlier this week, the supporting documentation on the long gun registry report was published in English only. The government leader in the other place said it is a legitimate position to ask that official documents be published in both official languages. It is more than a legitimate position; it is an obligation under the Official Languages Act.

    Why did the Government of Canada abandon the spirit and perhaps the letter of the Official Languages Act in this case? May we have a guarantee that the government will begin again to respect both the spirit and the letter of the Official Languages Act?

Á  (1130)  

    Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member has it incorrect. In fact what happened was that all documents that were available at the time were tabled in the House of Commons. A backgrounder for the people that were working on the information had not been translated at the time and therefore was not tabled. It is in the process of being translated. I am informed that it could be tabled possibly as early as next Monday.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the House has been seized with the issue of gun control and public safety for some time now.

    Following the report of the Auditor General and given the concerns expressed over cost, are there any measures that can be introduced to reduce these costs while maintaining the high level of public safety that Canadians currently receive?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for that very important question. As everyone knows, at the beginning of the week, reports were tabled with regard to the situation in the gun control program. If we look at Mr. Hession's report, for example, there are 16 recommendations that will have to be taken into consideration to prepare our plan of action.

    One thing that is very important as a first step is the implementation of the amendment of Bill C-10A. Bill C-10A would streamline the process and at the same time would reduce the cost of the program. I need the support of the House because we believe in public safety.

Back to top

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on Monday the justice minister tabled the 27 page version of the Hession report in Parliament. Then I found out that the media received an additional 65 page report containing all the financial information Mr. Hession used to prepare his report and recommendations.

    Why does the justice minister persist in hiding key information and keeping Parliament in the dark? Why?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must say that the hon. member is keeping himself in the dark.

    I said yesterday that obviously he did not go to the briefing session and it shows even more today. We have tabled two reports, two very important reports, in order to prepare our plan of action. The report which was produced at the briefing session and which the media have had access to, and other members of Parliament as well, is a report which has been used as a backgrounder to prepare Mr. Hession's report.

    He called the department yesterday and received a copy. I guess he finally has read the press release.

¸  (1440)  

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): 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?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I did not have to table those two reports in the House. I did it because I want to work in a very transparent way. I did it because I want to work with parliamentarians in order to make sure that all together we produce a good plan of action.

    If he would have done his homework, he would have been at the briefing session and would have had access to the documents that have been used by the media.

    The problem is that they do not believe in gun control and they do not believe in public safety. On this side of the House we believe in gun control and public safety and we will proceed with that program. We will fix it once and for all.

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Minister of Justice confirmed that the government intends to continue to fund the gun registry.

    Will the Minister of Justice tell the House whether the government intends to use closure on Bill C-10A which the government needs to pass before any changes can be brought to the gun registry? Will he advise whether the government will allow a free vote on this gun registry bill?

    Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the right hon. member has his facts incorrect. First of all, Bill C-10A is not before the House. It is an amendment produced by the Senate to C-10A, the result of which is to lower the cost of gun control. He is now trying to depict that it increases the cost. He has the facts backwards. The facts speak for themselves again.

Back to top

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is becoming obvious that gun registration is not gun control.

    Yesterday the justice minister tabled two reports that failed to tell Parliament how much it was going to cost to fix the big problems with the gun registry, and there are many. Even the minister's own reports indicate that it will cost another half a billion dollars. Past estimates were so out of whack that Canadians want to know, how much will it really cost? Another half a billion? Or one billion? Or two billion?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously that question tells me that the hon. member was not at the briefing session that we gave them yesterday afternoon. If he would read Mr. Hession's report, based on his own numbers over the next 10 years we are talking about an economy of around $50 million.

    Having said that, there are 16 recommendations in the report. We will have a close look at those recommendations. We will come forward with a good plan of action which will make the system more user friendly and as well more cost effective.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister says that with a straight face. I cannot believe it.

    The issue is still that this is not about gun control. This is about government out of control.

    Parliament has been waiting two months for answers. Now the justice minister says we have to wait a few more weeks for his action plan. He will not have a final total of the program's costs until fall now, he tells us. At this rate we will be into an election before taxpayers know the truth about this billion and a half dollar boondoggle.

    My question is, where in these reports does it show that the gun registration is effective in reducing violent crime--

    The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice.

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that obviously the opposition is totally out of control.

    They do not support the policy. They do not want the government to keep proceeding with a policy which is highly supported by Canadians.

    We said of course that there are some problems. We will fix the problems. The two reports that were tabled yesterday are very good reports that are giving us the foundation in order to proceed with a very good plan of action.

    We are talking about public safety. We are heading in the right direction--

    The Speaker: The hon. member for Mercier.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, with the reports tabled yesterday, Canadians were shown again that the Canadian firearms registry is a flawed, overly complex, bureaucratic mess. The reports prove the registry will not only cost Canadian taxpayers more millions, but there is no guarantee of success and no connection to public safety. Another $15 million is called for to fix the faulty database with another system that will fail.

    Will the Minister of Justice break his government's money wasting addiction on this ridiculous registry, given there are no assurances that the new guidelines, new timeframes or costs are any more realistic than the previous ones?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to start by saying that the party of the hon. member voted for gun control and it was a step in the right direction. When we are talking about gun control, we are talking about public safety.

    The two reports, which were tabled yesterday, are interesting in the sense that it gives us a foundation to proceed with a good and valid plan of action. As I have said many times, the Canadian population is supporting our policy. It wants the government to proceed with that policy, and we will ensure that we proceed with the program, which is user friendly and cost efficient as well.

    Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister did not hear my question. I am not asking about gun control. I am asking about gun registration, the system that is not working.

    The Hession report states that the organizational structure of the firearms program is cumbersome, unfocused and inefficient. The latest government plan will gobble up an additional half billion dollars over the next six years and cost $62 million annually to operate. These issues are further aggravated by the existence of multiple headquarters in Edmonton, Ottawa, Montreal and Miramichi.

    Clearly the political decision to spread the wasteful system around added to the cost and confusion. How can the minister justify these expenditures given the dubious records and results?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, we asked for the Hession report because we wanted to have some recommendations regarding the future and recommendations about the management. We have 16 recommendations that are very interesting. We will look into all those recommendations and come forward with a plan of action.

    I would just like to tell the member that when we say that the Canadian population is supporting our policy, we are talking about gun control with the two components of licensing and registration.

Back to top

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on January 8 the justice minister said that KPMG was “contracted to...verify the adequacy” of the gun registry's “financial systems” and confirm “the validity of the Program's financial statements”.

    The minister's comments seemed to leave little room for KPMG to find any mistakes with his billion dollar boondoggle. Will he please explain to Parliament how the consultants were able to find financial records that the Auditor General could not, or is this just an elaborate spin job?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since the tabling of the Auditor General's report, we on this side of the House have been saying, first, that we believe in our policy and in gun control and in public safety, and as well, we have been talking about cost and efficiency, and transparency as well.

    We have asked for these two reports. I am pleased to tell the House that after question period this afternoon, I will table the two reports, the one from KPMG and the one from Mr. Hession on the management.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this is not a gun control issue. This is a government out of control issue.

    The justice minister has been banking his future and the future of the billion dollar gun registry on two consultants' reports to help him answer questions he has not been able to answer for the last two months.

    The Auditor General said the gun registry will not be fully implemented for three or four years. Is the minister prepared to tell us today how long it is going to take to fully implement the gun registry and how much is it really going to cost?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, actually the program is up and running, and of course it is running at low cost at the present time.

    I know as well that the hon. member does not like it, but we have said that we like our policy. We like this policy because it is about public safety, and we will fix the problems. It is a policy that is highly supported by Canadians. We said that we wanted to be transparent and we wanted to fix the problem, so this afternoon, and it is another stage, we will table the two reports and after that we will come forward with a good plan of action for Canadians.

Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the gun registry is a billion dollar garbage collection system. Two years ago, documents from the minister's own department predicted that it was going to take 8.8 years to register all the firearms accurately.

    Last August, documents from the minister's own department showed that three-quarters of the firearms registration certificates had blanks and unknown entries. More than 800,000 had been issued without any serial numbers.

    How long is it going to take to go back and correct all these mistakes and how much is that going to cost the Canadian taxpayer?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member is talking about is the question of the quality of the data. We are aware of that and the RCMP as well is aware of that. It has invested in technology and in training as well in order to make sure that we will keep having very good data, which is important for our gun control system.

    The member said that the gun control policy is not good. I just would like to say that it is a valid and important tool for our Canadian society, and that again we must bear in mind as well that we are talking about public safety. We can look at what stakeholders have said over the past few weeks. People are asking the government to keep proceeding with the policy, and this is exactly what we are going to do. We will fix the problems that we have seen in the Auditor General's report.

    Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the gun registry simply does not work. It has already cost Canadian taxpayers well in excess of $1 billion, with another eight years to register all firearms and another billion dollars to fix this registry mess. When will the government finally admit that the system is a failure and just scrap it?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a question of good faith here. The hon. member should recognize that the policy of gun control is a good and valid policy that works in this country and elsewhere. Gun control exists in other countries in the world.

    In terms of licences, about two million people have a licence. In terms of registered firearms, we now have close to six million registered firearms. Of course there are problems with the management. I have already said that we will table the two reports, one from KPMG and the other from Mr. Hession, this afternoon. We will move quickly to make sure we have a good tool for public safety.

Back to top

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this week the RCMP sent me documents that show five million guns in the billion dollar registry still have not been verified; that is most of the guns. This has become one of the most expensive garbage collection systems in the country.

    I remind the justice minister that accuracy was one of the conditions of support for the Canadian Police Association. Would the minister tell Parliament how much it will cost to go back and verify these five million firearms? Will this be the second billion that will be flushed?

    Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I really believe it is time that this member turn the page and start to work with Canadians so that we have a safe and secure society.

    The Minister of Justice has indicated that he will accept the recommendations of the Auditor General. There comes a time to move on and maybe it would be better for society if that member, instead of undermining the system constantly, tried to work with us to improve it.

    Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the firearms program involves the use of highly sensitive personal information, yet the privacy commissioner states that bags containing personal information collected by the gun registry were found in a dumpster. These documents originated with a private company, BDP, hired by the government.

    When the system is breached by police personnel they are either charged, fired or disciplined in some way. Therefore what is this justice minister going to do to BDP for breaching our privacy rights?

    Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the concerns expressed by the privacy commissioner. When the privacy commissioner raises some concerns, we constantly try to accommodate those concerns and work with them. That is what we are doing in this case.

Back to top

January 29, 2003

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Parliament continues to be kept in the dark about the costs of the gun registry. Maybe the public accounts committee will shed some much needed light on the subject.

    Could the chairman of the public accounts committee provide Parliament and Canadians with a status report of its upcoming review of the federal firearms fiasco?

    Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his excellent question.

    The public accounts committee will begin hearings on February 24 into the Canadian firearms program. We will start by calling the following witnesses: the Auditor General, the Minister of Justice, the Deputy Minister of Justice, the President of the Treasury Board and the current and former CEOs of the Canada firearms program.

    Let me be clear. Parliament has a responsibility to investigate this billion dollar boondoggle to the fullest on behalf of all Canadian taxpayers to find out how the program could have spiralled so far out of control.

Back to top

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on January 10 the Auditor General sent me a letter saying that the Department of Justice estimates that the gun registry will not be fully implemented for three or four years.

    How much is it going to cost to fully implement the gun registry and how much is it going to cost to maintain it each year after that?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe that a member has come back with a question that I answered before Christmas.

    We have said that we accept the recommendations of the Auditor General's report. As well, there are two reports that we expect to be tabled shortly. As soon as we get those two reports with their recommendations, we will come forward with a plan of action, but making sure that we will keep proceeding with gun control because it is about public safety.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, any competent minister would know what his department is spending on each of its programs.

    On December 12 the minister said this about the funding of the firearms program, “I will report back to the House with an accounting of how we manage any shortfalls. I will be open. I will be transparent”.

    He has had six more weeks since I asked him the question which I just asked again. Is the minister ready to be transparent with Parliament? How much is the gun registry going to cost to fully implement and how much will it cost to maintain?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, gun control is a very important program for Canadian society. We will keep proceeding with gun control, with the stages of licensing and registration as well.

    Before Christmas we were very transparent. We said that we were proceeding on a cash management basis within the department in order to keep the system up and running. We expect the two reports to be tabled shortly.

    I will report back to the Canadian population. By the way, the Canadian population supports gun control in this country.

Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on December 5 the Minister of Justice told the House that major funding for his billion dollar gun registry had been frozen after the government withdrew a request for $72 million in funding.

    Would the minister now tell the House how much it has cost to keep the gun registry running for the last two months and, more important, where did he get the money?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the rules of the Treasury Board, I said before Christmas that with regard to the functioning of the program, we were proceeding on a cash management system within the department, which is normal based on Treasury Board rules.

    With regard to the future of the program, we expect the reports to be tabled shortly. I will get back to the Canadian population, and we will keep proceeding with gun control in two stages because it is about public safety. We believe in gun control on this side of the House.

Back to top

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Parliament refused to give the government another $72 million for the gun registry, a gun registry that will end up costing Canadian taxpayers a billion dollars. Yet, that is no big deal for the justice minister. He says that he will to find another way to fund it through other departmental sources.

    If we took $72 million out of the gun registry, why is the government funding it through a backdoor scheme?

    Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we discovered that at the last Canadian Alliance convention, when the Leader of the Opposition was chosen, it removed the words, “We are committed to keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals as a necessary part of making our communities safer”.

    Speaking of funding, why has he refused to disclose more than 13% of the contributors to his leadership campaign? Is this removal of that important statement part of the price that was extracted from his party by contributors to his leadership campaign?

    Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in a language change in our policy, this is what the Canadian Alliance said:

 

We will especially emphasize a more stringent punishment of individuals who use a firearm or other weapon in the commission of a crime involving a threat of or actual violence.

    Let me ask the Deputy Prime Minister this one more time. Why would we take $72 million out of the firearms registry and fund it through a backdoor scheme?

    Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we know Alliance members do not care about $72 million or anything else. They are against gun control. They are against the fact that we have already had more than 7,000 firearms licences refused or revoked, 50 times higher than had been the case before. They do not care about the fact that the police access this online system 1,500 times a day. They are against gun control. It is as simple as that.

    Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Let us be really clear, Mr. Speaker. We are against the gun registry and that is all we are against.

    Let us go further. When firearms owners, who are trying to reach the deadline, phone the 1-800 number, there is no answer. When they try to get applications, there are no applications.

    My question for the Deputy Prime Minister is this. If this gun registry is so good, then why are legitimate, law-abiding citizens having trouble doing what the government says is the law?

    Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if this gun registry is so bad, then why do the police agencies access it 1,500 a day? Why has the number of lost or missing firearms declined by 68%? Why has the number of stolen firearms decreased by 35% over the same period? Why are fewer firearms being used in crime?

    They are against gun control. They are not just against the registry, and we do not even know who gave the money to their leader.

Back to top

Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister apparently admitted to his caucus that he knew of cost overruns on the gun registry for years. This is just one more piece of evidence that the government, in the words of the Auditor General, “kept Parliament in the dark” about spending on the registry.

    Will the government now come clean and admit when it first became aware of the billion dollar cost overruns on the gun registry?

    Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the report on spending is available through the estimates over and over. The Prime Minister has made it clear, as all of us have, that we remain committed to the gun registry.

    I was looking at the statement of policy of the Canadian Alliance Party, article 31, where it says:

We are committed to keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals as a necessary part of making our communities safer.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

    The Speaker: Order, please. The Deputy Prime Minister has the floor.

    Hon. John Manley: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, it deleted that part from its statement of policy in 2002. It is gone.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

    The Speaker: Order, please. I have to remind hon. members that Christmas is coming and Santa Claus will reward the good and the virtuous. We are hoping that everyone will be quiet today so they will be well treated when Santa appears. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

    Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I will remind the government that violent criminals do not register their guns.

    We obviously will not get a straight answer to that question, so let me just follow up on the minister's statement this morning. He admits that the gun registry is running at minimal levels. Gun owners across the country are trying to register by the year end deadline but they cannot get through on the 1-800 number and they cannot get forms.

    Will the government announce a general amnesty for gun owners who cannot register by the January deadline?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have said many times, and I repeated it this morning, that the deadline of December 31 is still there and has to be respected. Canadians have known this for a long time ago. Two weeks ago we announced an amnesty for those who would act in good faith respecting the deadline.

    Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government has been unable to respect its own deadlines. It has bungled the system. There has been no accountability for minister after minister who has screwed up the system. Now today it has announced that it will have a general amnesty for the bureaucrats who screwed this up, so why not a general amnesty for the gun owners who cannot meet the deadline?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer them to the press release which has been issued regarding the question of the deadline. The deadline remains. People were aware of that deadline a long time ago.

    As well, regarding the numbers, the Auditor General has stated that all the spending was approved by Parliament. That is quite clear.

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister now admits that he was both aware of and complicit in the cover-up of the gun registry costs that are climbing to $1 billion.

    Canada has a system of responsible government. That means that when something goes seriously wrong, a minister or the Prime Minister must have the courage and the honesty to accept that responsibility.

    Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us, does the Prime Minister intend to hold any minister responsible for this $700 million mistake?

    Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what we have now is an obligation to ensure that the registry system that we committed to and that we put into place by Bill C-68 works and is up and running in the appropriate way.

    Clearly, the Auditor General has had some criticisms about how the administration of the program was done. It is our obligation and our commitment to improve it.

    Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, the obligation is to hold accountable the minister who let $700 million and counting of Government of Canada money be wasted. This is not something the Deputy Prime Minister can shift off to officials. If responsible government means anything, it means that a minister has to carry the can.

    Is it the policy of the government that no minister was awake, no minister was watching, no minister was responsible for this terrible and unacceptable waste?

    Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand to a certain extent the hon. member's bloodlust in this, but I think what Canadians want is a gun registry. They believe that it will improve safety. It is a policy that we have advocated for and argued for over a number of years. And yes, they expect us to do it in a fiscally responsible manner. We will do that. We will see that it is done responsibly.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, rhetoric does not save lives.

    This morning the justice minister in his statement said he will pull money out of other programs to fund the gun registry. 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?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been talking about transparency. I made my statement this morning because I respect this parliament and as well, the notion of transparency. It is important as well to inform the Canadian population.

    As I have said many times, we believe in that policy. The policy is working. The gun registry is up and running. Of course we will keep proceeding at low cost. As I said this morning, there is still funding in the program. Of course at one point we will have to proceed with the same cash management as departments are doing on a regular basis.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Parliament is still being kept in the dark. The minister could not make it work when he spent $1 billion. Logic tells anyone that it will not work when it is funded at minimum levels.

    Today the justice minister once again refused to extend the gun registration deadline and as a consequence will criminalize one million law-abiding Canadians. The Auditor General reports a 90% error rate in the registry. Only one-third of the guns are registered. Gun owners cannot register their guns even if they want to.

    One more time, Mr. Speaker, will he please tell us how much it will cost to complete and how much will it cost to maintain?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has to understand that there is a deadline. Actually I would like to report that 70% of the guns have been registered at this point in time.

    The policy works. The program is up and running as well. We will keep proceeding at low cost, as I said. This morning my statement was about transparency, telling Canadians that we are proceeding and at one point we will have to proceed with cash management. As I said, this is done on a regular basis by most of the departments.

Back to top

December 10, 2002

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, last week the government was forced to withdraw its backdoor request for an additional $72 million for the farcical firearms fiasco. There was evidence of enormous cost overruns, blatant mismanagement and no connection to public safety. Against that, the justice minister has stubbornly refused to cancel this ridiculous registry.

    Examples of the government downloading the costs and cuts, and leaving the program administration to the provinces include: legal aid, youth justice, health care, and infrastructure.

    Will the minister guarantee Canadians he will not surreptitiously sneak more taxpayers' money into the gun registry or leave the provinces holding the empty bag?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was not a backdoor request. It was part of the supplementary estimates which were tabled last week.

    If the hon. member would read the report of the Auditor General he would see that we were talking about numbers that were reported through Justice Canada or other departments. What the Auditor General signaled essentially is that she would like to have a single point of accountability. We are working on that and we will keep proceeding with the registry because we believe in safety.

Back to top

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, in 1991, in the so-called Al-Mashat affair, the precedent was established that a minister of the crown could choose to appear before a standing committee of the House to give testimony regarding events with which that minister had been involved in a previous cabinet portfolio.

    My question is for the Minister of Industry. In principle, should an invitation occur, would he agree to follow that precedent and agree to appear before the public accounts committee's investigation of the firearms registry?

    Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it does not take a parliamentary expert to know that is grossly out of order.

    Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, if it would not take a parliamentary expert to know that then we have heard from the right person. May I redirect the question to the Prime Minister.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

    The Speaker: Order, please. The Chair is having trouble hearing the person who has the floor. Whether it is the right person or not, I am not sure, but I know who I have to hear and it is the right hon. member. I missed a good part of the first question because of something else and I am having trouble hearing because of all the noise in the Chamber. I would appreciate some assistance from hon. members so we can hear the right hon. member for Calgary Centre.

    Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Speaker, let me redirect my question to the Prime Minister, who does have authority in these matters.

    Bearing in mind the Al-Mashat precedent, and in the event that the current Minister of Industry is invited to appear before a public accounts investigation of the firearms registry, would the Prime Minister instruct the minister to appear and to testify?

    Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, talking about people who do not know how to count, I remember very well in December 1979 when the leader of the fifth party could not count his own members in the House.

    Second, I do not think he would be very keen to re-open the Al-Mashat affair.

    Third, I just want to say that the Minister of Justice is handling the file very well. The gun registry program is very important for the Canadian people because of the safety in the cities and in the homes of all the nations. We have had some problems with it and--

     Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, last week the Auditor General's report did not tell us what are the big costs still to come in the gun registry, namely, enforcement costs, court costs, economic costs, and annual maintenance costs.

    Parliament and the public have been misled for seven years. Will the minister now come clean and tell us how much it will cost to complete the registry and how much it will cost to maintain it?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is clear in my mind and it is clear from the Auditor General's report as well that all the numbers have been reported and all the numbers have been approved by Parliament.

    If we look at the recommendations of the Auditor General, which we have accepted, the question is the consolidated report that we have to table. The question is the way we should be accountable and to what extent we have to be accountable. We will answer those recommendations. On this side of the House we will be transparent. We will keep proceeding with the gun registry because we believe in public--

    The Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkton--Melville.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that answer is irrelevant. I have to conclude that the minister does not know the answer.

    Last week the Ontario Police Association said that the $1 billion that has been wasted on the gun registry would have been better invested in front line policing.

    Today's newspaper reports that the minister's claimed drop in firearms deaths predated the gun registry by a decade. Also, the 20-year-old gun licensing system that was supposedly producing these results cost less than half of the present system to operate.

    How much will it cost to register all the guns and--

    The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice.

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, safety is not irrelevant to us. We believe in safety. We will proceed with the program. It is a good program. We are starting to see the benefits of the program as a society as well.

    I have said that I have accepted the recommendations. We will fix the problems.

Back to top

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, on June 12, 1991, the Prime Minister said:

...every minister in the cabinet that I will be presiding over will have to take full responsibility...If there is any bungling in the department...The minister will have to take the responsibility.

    Which minister will take the full responsibility for the $700 million bungling on the gun registry? Will it be the current Minister of Industry, who started the scheme, or the current Minister of Health, who hid the costs from Parliament, or the present Minister of Justice, or will the Prime Minister himself take responsibility, and, Sir, what will the penalty be?

    Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice, who is handling the file at this time, is a very competent minister and he is doing what is needed at this moment.

    Obviously the Auditor General indicated very clearly to us that we have some problems with this program and we are taking the steps to correct them.

    Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Then, Mr. Speaker, my next question is for the chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

    Will the chair seek agreement of the committee to conduct early public hearings on the report of the Auditor General concerning the overspending on the gun registry and the failure to report that overspending to Parliament?

    In addition to hearing from the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Justice, will the committee seek evidence from the current Ministers of Industry and Health, who are directly involved in these cost overruns, and from the member for LaSalle—Émard, who on at least five occasions as a member of the Treasury Board had an opportunity to put an end to this billion dollar fiasco?

    Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the right hon. member for his question.

    I will say that I will place this question before the public accounts committee and if there is agreement from the Liberals as well as this side we will be glad to hold these investigations and table a report on what we find.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): We will all sleep easy tonight, Mr. Speaker.

    We know that Liberal largesse extends to the firearms registry. Evidence links the firearms contracts to the government's friends in Groupaction.

    One blatant example involves Gilles-André Gosselin billing over $625,000 for 3,673 hours of work, a mathematical impossibility in the same calendar year.

    Will the Minister of Justice request the RCMP to extend its investigation into the advertising contracts awarded as part of this firearms fiasco?

    Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this particular matter is at this moment the subject of a time verification audit to determine the exact facts.

    Depending on the results of that audit the appropriate action will be taken, either of the direct recovery of funds that were overbilled or a reference to the police if that is appropriate.

    Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, the minister must be in a time warp if he does not see the need for an RCMP investigation.

    We know from the feigned wide-eyed innocence of the member for LaSalle—Émard that all the spending on the firearms registry should be frozen until this mess in the justice department has been cleaned up. He said that this weekend. He also claims in a Janus faced position that it is the same position as the Minister of Justice.

    Will the Minister of Justice confirm that it is his government's position that all the spending will be frozen on the registry, and if not, why not?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member has read the report from the Auditor General, as I have. We have accepted all the recommendations.

    Last week I said that there are problems that we recognize and we want to fix them. I announced last week that we have frozen all major spending in the program, which we have done.

    We have legislative responsibilities. We are running the program at minimum cost, but of course we will respect our responsibilities.

    Having said that, we are all saying the same thing. We want to proceed with the registry. We want to make sure that we offer Canadians a safer society.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is getting even worse. I have in front of me a report from a former Liberal justice minister, Ron Basford, saying that in 1976 there were 10 million guns in Canada with a quarter of a million guns being added to that stock every year. That means there are 16 million guns in Canada today and only one-third of them have been registered; $1 billion and only one-third of the firearms have been registered. The firearms fiasco is becoming an even bigger boondoggle.

    I ask again, how much will it cost to complete the registry?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, about the costs, let us be clear. If we read the report of the Auditor General, she mentioned that all spending was approved by Parliament. We came back to Parliament and reported through the main estimates and through the supplementary estimates. As I said, if we read the program carefully, all of the numbers have been reported through Justice Canada and all partners involved in the program delivery.

    The question now between the Auditor General and the Department of Justice is to what extent we should report. We are working on that. We will report to Canadians because we believe in transparency.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the cover-up continues. The government has not answered the question. Listen to this.

    The Auditor General reports that about 90% of licence and registration applications contain errors. The RCMP says that there are so many errors in the gun registry that criminals could be issued firearms licences. This Goliath of a gun registry has been dealt a mortal blow and now the Liberals have put it on life support. Why do they not just pull the plug?

    How much more is it going to cost taxpayers?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have said many times that the gun registry is indeed a very effective tool. Police forces access the registry online 1,500 times a day.

    The member is raising a question about the quality of the data. The RCMP is fully aware of that and has been working on that question. When we are talking about the quality of the data, it is a question of technology. They are working on that.

    The difference is that on this side of the House we believe in safety. We will proceed with the registry. Yes, there are problems. We will fix it.

Back to top

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government was asked over and over how much it would cost to complete the firearms registry and how much to maintain it. Either unwilling or unable to answer that question, it has had 24 hours to go through its advisers and strategists, so I will ask the question again.

    How much will it cost Canadian taxpayers who are paying the bill to complete the firearms registry and how much to maintain it?

    Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice dealt with these questions yesterday. He has taken very firm action in response to the Auditor General's report.

    At his request, less than 24 hours ago, all parties of the House agreed to withdraw the supplementary estimates of $72 million. The minister has frozen discretionary spending. He has asked a private firm to audit the program and report in January. Once this happens, we will be able to come forward with more details.

    Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the answer still is not forthcoming. I did ask two questions but I will make it easier for the minister answering for the government.

    How much is it going to cost to complete the firearms registry? Just one question this time.

    Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has acknowledged the criticisms in the Auditor General's report and has agreed to accept the recommendations.

    What we cannot forget is the real end game here of the Canadian Alliance. The real end game of the Canadian Alliance is to undermine a law that is supported by 80% of Canadians, which went through this House and the Senate, and is working.

    Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I wonder how many Canadians will still support the law when they realize that we were promised it would cost $2 million and it ended up costing $1 billion.

    Let me ask the second part of the question since the minister is either unwilling or unable to answer the first part. How much will the annual cost be to maintain the registry when it is completed? That one is easier.

    Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is interesting to note is in the last 24 hours other people from the law enforcement community have come forward to support this law and how effective it has been at reducing crime with weapons. In fact, the commissioner of the RCMP said that the wider community in the country supports not only the law, but the gun registry.

    The gun registry will continue. Any problems we have had with the administration of it will be dealt with and they will be dealt with very quickly.

    Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the minister is not answering that question.

    In fact, the minister yesterday stated that all major spending for this program had been frozen, yet he said the registry will remain operational. How is that going to work? The money has to come from somewhere.

    Can the minister guarantee to the House that he will not be taking money away from front line police officers to pay for this gun registry of his?

    Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if we looked back at some quotes over the last few years we would see a systematic attempt by the reform party, now the Canadian Alliance, to undermine the law passed by Parliament.

    The former member for Crowfoot, remember him? He was another great member of the reform party. He released details about a loophole that would have allowed people to avoid the registry by leasing guns instead of buying them.

    Another former reform member from Cypress Hills--Grasslands, remember him? He said, “There will be many thousands of people who will resist this law, even with the jail sentence staring them in the face. I will be in there and if I have to do a year, fine”.

    That is what is really motivating the Canadian--

    The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Peace River.

    Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that does not address the issue of the Minister of Justice of the day saying it would cost $2 million and it is now running to over $1 billion. That is incompetence.

    If the minister is determined to keep this program running, it is obvious it will have to be financed. Will the Minister of Justice tell the House what justice department program he intends to pilfer to pay for this latest billion dollar boondoggle?

    Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is quite evident that the Canadian Alliance has been taking its lead on this issue from the National Rifle Association in the United States. The Alliance should know that Charlton Heston is not really Moses, he just played him in a movie.

    Unlike the Alliance, we do not believe that Canada with guns on the street is the way to the promised land.

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, we know that yesterday the government was forced to back down from the $72 million increase for the firearms registry. This issue is not about guns. It is about unacceptable waste by the government.

    On at least five occasions the government secretly shifted money to the firearms registry through the Treasury Board contingency fund and then repaid that money to the fund. Will the government give a commitment now that the Treasury Board contingency funds will not be used to fund the firearms registry? What we want is a guarantee that the government--

    The Deputy Speaker: I regret, but the time is up. The hon. Minister of Transport.

    Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it was evident in the reply yesterday from the Minister of Justice that all appropriate measures necessary to deal with this unfortunate situation will be taken by the government. I think the minister should be taken at good faith.

Back to top

Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has confirmed that the costs of the universal gun registry have ballooned from $2 million to $1 billion; 500 times more. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Industry and other Liberals are out there blaming gun owners, blaming the provinces and, in some cases, getting it accurate and blaming each other.

    Today the Minister of Justice has on the Order Paper a request for another $72 million for the registry. Is he now prepared to withdraw his request today for that additional money?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, the Auditor General has been pointing at some elements of the program. I have said many times as well that we accept all her recommendations. One more time, all the numbers have been reported through Justice Canada or the other ministries or departments involved in the program delivery.

    Having said that, through supplementary estimates, we have obtained an additional amount of money. We are getting ready to vote on $72 million tonight, which we will postpone to give us the time to have access to the audit, if we have unanimous consent of the House.

    Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government will get consent from this party not to spend any more money, I can assure him of that.

    However, for a majority government to walk into the House on the day of its estimates and pull its request for the money is unprecedented political and financial mismanagement. It has already committed to spending $113.5 million. This request for supplementary money was tabled in October.

    I want to ask the Minister of Justice this. If we do not proceed with this today, is he assuring us that none of the $72 million has already been spent?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said, the amount of money that has been authorized through the supplementary estimates has to be voted on tonight.

    I said yesterday that we had frozen all major spending with regard to the program. We are keeping the system up and running because on this side of the House we believe in protecting our society. We have said there are problems and we will fix the problems.

    Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, society is protected by being tough on crime, not by spending $1 billion on a gun registry.

    The government says that it will go ahead. If the government actually needs the $72 million that it is now not asking for and not spending, how will it finish the gun registry when, by its own admission, 2.5 million to 3 million guns still need to be registered? How will this thing go ahead?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a valid, sound policy which is there to offer good protection for our society. They, of course, do not believe in protecting our society.The hon. member should repeat what he just said to Vince Bevan, the Ottawa Chief of Police, who has said:

 

--without information about who owns guns...there is no way to prevent violence or to effectively enforce the law. Information is the lifeblood of policing... this law is a useful tool which has already shown its value in a number--

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

    The Speaker: Order, please. I would remind hon. members when they ask questions that they have to be able to hear the answers and the Speaker has to be able to hear the answers.

    Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, what this party will do is tell the chiefs of police across Canada to put policemen on the street to enforce real laws against real criminals including the thing the minister is unwilling to do today, to have tough laws against child pornographers and pedophiles.

    Let me go on. The minister has no idea how the policy will work but he continues to defend it. Let me ask him a couple of straightforward questions.

    How much more money will he need to finish the gun registry? How much will it cost annually to maintain after that? Does he have any idea?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.Speaker, if the hon. member believes in protecting our society he should believe in gun registration. As we said--

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

    The Speaker: Order, please. I have already urged hon. members that if they do not want to hear the answer to the question they should not ask the question. A question has been asked and we have to be able to hear the answer. The minister might say something out of order and then we would have real objections. I want to hear the minister and I ask hon. members to allow him to speak.

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, as we said, we will keep proceeding with the policy because as a society we are starting to see the benefits of it. For example, more than 7,000 firearms licences have been refused or revoked. The number of persons prohibited from firearms ownership has also continued to increase by almost 50%. The number of lost or missing firearms has declined by 68%. Those are the benefits and we will--

    The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

    Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there is not one of those things that could not have been achieved without spending $1 billion on a gun registry and Groupaction advertising and promoting.

    I will ask my question over again because I think it deserves an answer. The government has spent $1 billion. It is now coming in today pulling $72 million off the table. How much more will it cost to complete the gun registry and how much more will it cost to run it each year after that?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, we will fix the problem. To start with we have accepted on this side--

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

    The Speaker: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition said that he wanted an answer but I do not know how the Leader of the Opposition can hear the answer for all the noise. The Speaker cannot hear the answer so I do not know how the Leader of the Opposition can hear it. I urge hon. members to restrain themselves and listen to the answer. The Leader of the Opposition said that he wanted an answer so now we will try to get one from the Minister of Justice. Let us listen.

    Hon. Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we on this side of the House have accepted all the recommendations of the Auditor General. As I also said, we will fix the problem. To start with, I said that we want to postpone the vote on the $72 million but that we need the unanimous consent of the House. Why will he not stand up today and say that he supports that?

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, in response to the Auditor General's scathing report on his department's handling of the firearms registry, the Minister of Justice has hired KPMG to audit the department's financial statements.

    We know the Auditor General must report to Parliament. We know that no such requirement exists for a private firm. Other than the opportunity to hide the report from Parliament, is there any reason why the minister chose KPMG over the Auditor General? Does he think a private firm will be any more successful at getting to the bottom of the mess than the Auditor General?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we said, we accept all the recommendations of the report of the Auditor General. Basically, as we looked at the situation there were two big concerns.

    The first concern was the cost escalation. I have explained in the House the reasons, which were, of course, that the provinces opted out and then there was the challenge in terms of technology.

    On the other side is the question of being accountable. Of course the Department of Justice is the single point and therefore is accountable. We are accountable for all other departments and will make sure we put the books in a fashion that will please the Auditor General and the whole population.

    Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, he might want to ask his seatmate for some help on these questions. On second thought, maybe not.

    The Auditor General has concluded that the Department of Justice hid from Parliament the fact that there were massive cost overruns. Rather than suspend or cancel the registry, the minister has now called for an outside, after the fact audit. He owes it to the House to not make the same mistake twice.

    The current report states that Parliament was kept in the dark. Will he commit today to table the KPMG audit as soon as he has received it?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, everyone in the House and the Canadian population know that all the numbers have been reported. They have been reported for Justice Canada and for all the other departments that were involved in the program delivery.

    What I said was that it was a question of accountability, and how we should be accountable for the whole program. We have said that we will make sure that we put the book in a format that will be transparent to the Auditor General, as well as to better inform the Canadian population. We are deeply committed to accountability.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in case the justice minister did not understand the Leader of the Opposition, who clearly indicated that he would consent to the withdrawing of funding from the gun registry, I would like to ask the question again. How much will it cost to complete the gun registry and how much will it cost to maintain it?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what we are dealing with now are the recommendations of the Auditor General with regard to managing the program. What we said is that we agree with all the recommendations. I said yesterday as well that we had frozen all the major spending that could take place within the program itself.

    I am also glad to hear that we now can postpone the vote on the $72 million to give us time to see the audit. Are we concerned? Yes, we are concerned and we will fix the problem.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I gather from the answer that he does not know what he is doing, so I will ask him again. How much will it cost to complete the registry and how much will it cost to maintain it after that?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well that the numbers have declined over the past two years. The member also knows that big spending is behind us. We on this side of the House believe that our policy is protecting society and its values. What we want to do on this side of the House is to fix all the problems in order to have a very good and valid program for the whole Canadian population.

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the answers or non-answers that we are getting from the justice minister with respect to the firearms registry are a complete disgrace. Canadians are very concerned about whether or not the government has any clue how it is spending money on the registry. Today the minister is confirming that in fact it has no idea.

    Could the minister tell us how much it will cost to finish this registry and how much it will cost every year to maintain it?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have all the numbers going back to the beginning of the program as well as the past seven years. We have the numbers that we have tabled in the supplementary estimates. If members were to look at the supplementary estimates they would see the situation with regard to justice is very clear in the program.

    There is no money missing. Everything has been reported. The question here is, how should we be accountable? How should we make the situation clearer for all Canadians in order to access the costs? This is what we will do in answer to the recommendation of the Auditor General.

    Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, if this minister knows the numbers then it is a contempt of Parliament and a contempt of Canadians not to reveal them here today.

    What I would like to know is, how much will it cost to finish this registry and how much will it cost every year to maintain it? We want an answer.

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, members know very well what I said many times. We want to fix the problems. There is some question in terms of management involved in the department.

    We managed to fix the problem. Having said that, the difference between that side and the Liberal side is that we believe in the protection of our society. We believe in our policy and we also believe in the gun registry. We will ensure it will be a good and valid program to protect our Canadian society.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice said today that he will keep the gun registry running because he believes in protecting society. What he does not believe in is ministerial and financial accountability. There is absolutely no proof that gun registration is working for Canadian society.

    If it can be proved that the gun registry has no benefit to public safety will the minister cancel the gun registration right now?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says there is no proof.

    What about the more than 7,000 firearm licences that have been refused or revoked? What about police agencies that access the firearms on-line registry 1,500 times daily?

    The number of persons prohibited from owning a firearm has also continued to increase by almost 50% from 1998 to 2001. The number of lost or missing firearms has declined by 68% from 1998 to 2001. This is why we are going to keep proceeding--

Back to top

Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the justice minister says the numbers are known. In his defence of the massive overspending on the firearms registry, yesterday the Ministry of Justice, his office, put out a press release stating that the projected costs for this year are $113.5 million. That forecast did not even include the extra $72 million that the justice minister asked for and received from the House in supplementary estimates two months ago.

    My question is this. How can the justice minister's financial oversight be so incompetent that he does not even know about the current expenditures in his own department?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, the numbers are well known. The Auditor General recognizes that all the numbers have been approved by Parliament.

    The question which is raised by the Auditor General is on the way we should report. Of course, the Department of Justice and I, as Minister of Justice, are accountable and are seen as being the single point for being accountable to Parliament. We will manage with the external audit that we have asked for. We will manage in order to make sure that we will organize the books in a manner that is supported by the Auditor General.

Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the numbers, he says, are well known. The truth is, the justice minister does not have a clue about how much this is costing.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, here is the Liberal legacy price tag thus far: $1 billion wasted in the HRDC grants; hundreds of millions on an ill-conceived advertising campaign; hundreds of millions lost in a helicopter cancellation; and now it is $1 billion wasted on the faulty firearms registry.

    Almost 10 years ago the Prime Minister was quite prepared to play politics in cancelling the helicopter contract replacement for the aging Sea Kings. Will the Prime Minister today cancel a program for the right reasons and cancel this firearms registry fiasco?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, on this side of the House we are strongly committed to that policy. It is a valid policy. We will keep proceeding with the policy.

    Having said that, of course I have some concerns after reading the report of the Auditor General. In her recommendations basically she is talking about reporting, about the way we should be accountable to Parliament. She is talking about the question of cost escalation as well, which there are reasons for, as I have explained.

    We will be working hard in order to make sure that we will keep that policy and we will fix the problems.

    Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, on that side of the House the members should be concerned.

    They have wasted hundreds of millions of dollars, according to the Auditor General. She has exposed the government's shell game. Evidence shows that the registry does not save lives, but it sure can waste taxpayer dollars. What is worse, the minister is about to ask the House for millions more dollars.

    I know he is between a rock and a hard place, but will the Minister of Justice withdraw his request for an additional $71 million until this mess in his department has been cleaned up? Will he do that?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have to be precise here. All numbers have been reported. They have been reported through Justice Canada or they have been reported through other ministries, but all numbers have been reported.

    The question raised by the Auditor General's report and her recommendations is that Justice Canada, being the single point of accountability, should be able to table a report that is clear about all of the spending regarding the gun registration system, which we will do.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, due to the government's cost laundering, the Auditor General found it so difficult to obtain reliable information from the justice department that she called off her audit of the gun registry before it was completed. The true cost may be even worse, more than $1 billion.

    The justice minister and his predecessors used to say they were completely responsible and accountable for the firearms program. Obviously accountability means nothing to the government because all three are still sitting on the front bench.

    Given the scope of this financial disaster, why has the Prime Minister not fired the minister responsible?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said, of course we have been discussing with the Office of the Auditor General with regard to the way we should report, as well as to what extent Justice Canada should report. That has been the subject of many discussions between the two departments.

    Having said that, we have accepted the recommendations. We have asked for an external audit as well. We will make sure that we fix the problems.

    The difference between those members and us is that on their side, they do not believe in our policy.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, let me tell the minister about his policy.

    The Auditor General reported that the gun registry has cost 500 times more than what Parliament and the public was originally promised. The RCMP has been registering handguns since 1934, but firearms homicides with handguns have doubled over the past 30 years.

    Clearly, registration does not lower homicide rates. Obviously this is bad policy. Given all of this, why not just scrap the program?

    Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the member just said proved that those members do not believe in safe communities. They do not believe in our policy. They do not believe in gun registration.

    What we are talking about here is about values. It is about making our communities safer. Having said that, let us proceed with a quote from Mr. Vince Bevan, the chief of police from Ottawa-Carleton. He said, “Information is the lifeblood of policing. Without information about who owns and has guns, there is no way to prevent violence or effectively enforce the law. This law is a useful tool which has already begun to show its value in a number of police investigations”.

Back to top

December 3, 2002

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, two years ago the Department of Justice told the justice committee that it had spent $327 million on the firearms registry. That same year the same department told the government the registry would cost $1 billion by fiscal year 2004-05. The government did not tell Parliament, a $700 million secret.

My question is to the Prime Minister, what minister in his government authorized the deliberate withholding of this information from Parliament?

Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a question of accountability. Based on the charter of the program the justice department is accountable, not just for the justice department, but all other departments as well. We will ensure to do an audit, which has been demanded last November. We will be able to come forward with our books in a format that the Auditor General would like to have.

As I said, could we do better? Yes, we can do better, but we must also look at the benefit to society. When we look at the stats they actually show the benefits to society. We have a more secure society and we will keep going--

The Speaker: The right hon. member for Calgary Centre.

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, the minister cannot get away with saying I am sorry. He broke the law of Parliament and so did his Prime Minister. They knew about a $700 million overspending. They had an obligation, as he said, to tell the House of Commons. They zipped their lips and did not tell the House of Commons the truth.

My question is to the smiling Prime Minister, who in his government authorized this breaking of the law of Parliament? Was it the Prime Minister himself?

Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that we were proceeding with such a program with regard to firearms. It has been a complex program. We started the infrastructure from scratch and we have been facing cost escalations.

For example, we went through a consultation process. We had to adjust the program based on the consultation. Some provinces opted out as well. We have been facing another challenge in terms of technology, but having said that, we are starting to see the benefits of the program. At this moment we are firmly committed--

The Speaker: The hon. member for St. Albert.

Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, when the gun registry was introduced Canadians were told that its net cost would be $2 million, and that is million, not billion. Now the net cost of the registry is $1 billion and rising.

The Auditor General said today that the government has done everything in its power to hide the cost of the gun registry and its effectiveness, or lack thereof, from Canadian taxpayers while murders by firearms in Toronto continue unabated.

My question for the minister is, how can he justify spending on paperwork $1 billion which the Auditor General says should have gone to police forces to ensure--

The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice.

Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if we read the report of the Auditor General it seems clear to me that there is no wrongdoing at all. We have been facing what we call cost escalations and, as I said, it is because of the consultation process. As well, some provinces have opted out, and we have been facing a challenge in terms of technology.

If we look at the stats, for example, we will see that police agencies are accessing the firearms online registry 1,500 times daily. More than 7,000 firearms licences have been refused or revoked since the law came into effect. The--

The Speaker: The hon. member for St. Albert.

Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, he is just quite wrong. The Auditor General says the government spends so much money on bureaucracy for the gun registry that it does not have the money to stop trafficking in firearms and no money to train police, customs or wildlife officers.

The RCMP has also admitted that its databases for gun crimes are inaccurate and obsolete. The justice minister is clearly more interested in pushing paper than in fighting crime and ensuring the safety of Canadians.

Why does the government insist on sacrificing the safety of Canadians on the altar of a bureaucratic, unworkable gun registry?

Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the RCMP is aware of the concern about the databases. It has been acting on that. It has been very proactive. Of course we have to understand that the quality of the databases is directly linked to the question of technology. I am told that it has improved the system and it will keep doing that.

Look at what the registration system means. It means fewer firearms on the black market from break-ins. It reduces the unauthorized use of guns. It reduces heat of the moment use of firearms. It also reduces accidents, particularly involving children. These are not my words. These are the words of David Griffin, who represents 28,000--

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, only 30% of the $1 billion cost of the gun registry has come from the government's main estimates which are approved by Parliament. Seventy per cent of the cost overruns come from the supplementary estimates. Under the government's own rules the supplementary estimates are only to be used for unknown and unexpected expenses.

Why did the government deliberately hide the cost of the gun registry from Canadians?

Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, we have reported through the main estimates the costs of the gun registry. As I said, it was not reported in a format to the satisfaction of the Auditor General.

As I said many times as well and as I would like to repeat, in the future we will make sure to report in a format that is accepted by the Auditor General, meaning that we have to report for all the other ministries involved in the delivery of the programs.

It does not mean that those numbers were not reported. Those numbers were reported for Justice Canada through the main estimates or the supplementary estimates of the other departments.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General confirms that the firearms registry database is not only off the rails financially but that it is also inaccurate and untrustworthy. The RCMP made this known in 2001. There are also 900 other police agencies using this database and the Auditor General cannot even examine them.

Clearly, there is no accountability and no ability to do accounting.

When will the Liberal government end this farcical, face saving exercise and cancel the billion dollar bureaucratic blunderbuss?

Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we all know that the costs related to the program have started to go down.

With regard to the database, the RCMP is fully aware of the situation. It has been very proactive. Of course when we are talking about the quality of the database we are talking as well about the numbers.

Let me say exactly what we are talking about. It is to increase safety in our society and to have safer communities. We have started to see the benefits from this. For example, if we compared the homicide rate using firearms in the United States and in Canada, it is six to nine times higher in the United States.

Back to top