37th Parliament, 2nd Session
(September 30, 2002 -     )

 [Parliamentary Coat-of-Arms]

Edited Hansard • Number 064

Thursday, February 20, 2003


ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS

[Hansard  - Pages 3847-49]

Firearms Registry

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on December 12, 2002, I asked the justice minister a question, which I would like to quote:

 

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

 

 

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

    The justice minister answered:

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    

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

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

 

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville for the opportunity to answer his question.

    I must begin by reiterating that the firearms programs is more than a firearms registry. The program has been designed to improve public safety by controlling access to firearms and ammunition, deterring their misuse and controlling specific types of firearms.

    The Firearms Act called for the licensing of all gun owners by January 1, 2001 and the registration of all firearms by January 1, 2003. Licensing ensures that firearms owners meet high public safety standards while registration links owners to their firearms, leading to greater accountability.

    I am pleased to report that we have now passed the two major deadlines associated with this program and that the majority of firearms owners have complied. Over 1.9 million Canadians are licensed and over 6.1 million firearms have been registered.

    With extensive and continuous background checks on applicants and licence holders, about 9,000 firearms licences have been refused or revoked by public safety officials. That is over 70 times more revocations from potentially dangerous individuals since December 1, 1998 compared to the total for the last five years under the old program.

    As for registration, it provides the link between the firearm and its rightful owner. It works to enhance accountability for one's firearms, for example by encouraging safe storage, which helps reduce gun theft and accidents. The ability to trace firearms back to their owner also facilitates police investigations and helps crack down on illegal smuggling. This information also facilitates the enforcement of prohibition orders and allows the police to take preventive action such as removing firearms from situations of domestic violence.

    Already law enforcement agencies across the country are making use of this valuable tool in conducting investigations and responding to incidents such as domestic violence situations. Police are accessing information from the registry on average about 2,000 times every day.

    As I mentioned before, the government remains committed to this sound public safety policy, but it has been complex and expensive to implement.

    The recommendations of the Auditor General have been fully accepted and we are already acting on those recommendations. We have committed to providing Parliament annually with more complete, accurate and up to date financial and management information regarding the program. The costs of the firearms program have come down and we are determined that they will continue to decline.

    Measures are being taken to address all of the Auditor General's recent recommendations regarding the gun control program. On February 3, 2003 reports from independent experts regarding the Canada firearms program were tabled in Parliament. The report by the consulting firm KPMG examined a sample of the past transactions to determine if certain internal controls were followed.

    Independent management consultant Mr. Raymond Hession examined the licensing and registration processes and made 16 recommendations for improving the management and operations of the firearms program. The recommendations contained in these reports are now being considered carefully in the development of an action plan which will set out how in the future we will reduce the costs of the firearms program and improve its efficiency, service and accountability.

    During the review period, the minister directed that the program be run at minimum cost, which includes operating at essential service levels only. The withdrawal of supplementary estimates for the firearms program has been compensated for on an interim basis only.

    At the same time, the Firearms Act imposes legal obligations on the Department of Justice to implement Canada's firearms program. While the program will continue to operate at minimum levels until the current program review is complete, there is no question that the minister has an obligation to ensure that the requirements of the act are met.

    Operating the firearms program on a short term, cash management basis has not affected other programs in the Department of Justice. We are looking at the budget of the Department of Justice to manage the shortfalls. Expenditures such as advertising, contracting and travel have been reduced. This exercise is being done to bridge the gap between the withdrawal of the supplementary estimates on December 5 and the vote of supplementary estimates B.

    As the minister has said before, implementing the program has always been a challenge and it is still a challenge. However, when we look at the positive impact it has had on our society, it represents values that are highly supported by the Canadian people.

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

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

    

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

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

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

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Mr. Speaker, I understand the hyperbole of the hon. member, but the reality is the minister has stated clearly in the House that he was going to take the KPMG plan, take the Hession report and in fact build an action plan that he can present to Parliament.

    In the process of doing this he is going through a review process that deals with the cost efficiencies and operations. The fact is all of these are being reviewed. They are dealing with the matter in terms of cash management within the context of the moneys that are available within the departmental budget.

    Major expenditures have been stopped and frozen. Some hiring that was to take place is not taking place and some people are being laid off.

    The reality is that everything possible is being done to run this program without in any way adversely affecting the most important part of this program, which is the government's continuing commitment to public safety.

[Translation]

    The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

    (The House adjourned at 6:13 p.m.)