PUBLICATION:
The
Leader-Post (Regina)
DATE:
2003.03.11
EDITION:
Final
SECTION: Viewpoints
PAGE:
B7
BYLINE:
Lee Morrison
SOURCE:
Special to The Leader-Post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MPs
should rein in Justice department
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What
purpose, if any, does our increasingly impotent House of Commons serve? As
originally conceived in Britain, Parliament's principal responsibility was
control of the public purse. From the 16th century until the monarchy lost its
real governing power in the 19th century, Parliament could, and did, restrain
royal excess by the simple expedient of withholding funds.
In
theory, the Parliament of Canada retains that same power to deny appropriations
for the more madcap adventures of Cabinet. That's a great theory.
On
Dec. 5, 2002, the House voted overwhelmingly to deny $72 million in
supplementary funding for the gun-control debacle. There was no equivocation.
Parliament clearly directed that no monies be appropriated, which should have
fairly quickly reduced firearms registration expenditures to zero. Never-
theless, spending on the out-of-control venture continues at a daily rate of
about $1 million.
When
questioned about this defiance of Parliament, Justice Minister Martin Cauchon
responded, ". . . up until the approval of the supplementary estimates, we
were with what we call cash management." In plain English, he admitted to
delaying the payment of bills and shuffling money from elsewhere in his
department, like a compulsive shopper juggling credit cards and demands from
creditors.
On
Feb. 12, Liberal MP Roger Gallaway rose to question Cauchon's contempt of
Parliament. Speaker Peter Milliken, a functionary with a less than notable
reputation for independence, took the matter under advisement and, in due course
ruled that no wrong had been done. Surprise!
Now
Cauchon has served notice, not in Parliament but through a press release, that
he will soon be back at the pay window to request $59 million to cover his
fiscal sleight of hand, and another $113 million that he optimistically claims
will sustain the registry until the end of the fiscal year.
Far
from showing contrition for an unprecedented departmental snafu, or for the
ham-handed attempt of his bureaucrats to conceal the mess, he continues to
defend it. (In fairness, the disaster should be credited mostly to its creator,
former Justice Minister Allan Rock but, as designated fall guy, Cauchon
continues to loyally humiliate himself, on an almost daily basis, with his
attempts to defend the indefensible).
On
Nov. 28 he actually referred to the program, which has already cost almost 500
times the original estimate, as "a bit more costly" than anticipated
and "a fantastic value as (sic) protecting our society."
Cornered
by damning reports by both Auditor General Sheila Fraser and the Senate Justice
Committee and by years of tenacious investigation by Canadian Alliance MP Garry
Breitkreuz, Liberal apologists are again appealing to the memory of the 14
female students slaughtered in the Montreal Massacre. They are, in the memorable
words of journalist Margaret Wente, "shamelessly taking cover behind the
bodies of the victims".
A
campaign to overcome public disgust with the gun registry mess by invoking
sympathy for victims' relatives is being extended to other murders. For example,
Mark Hogben, son of one of four men gunned down by deranged professor Valerie
Fabrikant in 1992, is quoted as saying, "I know that I, as well as other
victims of gun violence will not rest until the law is fully implemented."
But, Fabrikant's guns were already restricted, subject to stringent controls and
registered. You can't legislate against madness.
There's
a very human tendency for those who have suffered unspeakable loss to project
their pain onto others. In this instance, "others" are Canadian
taxpayers and gun owners. For 13 years, the ghosts of the 14 murdered women have
steered government firearms policy and fostered a culture of "cost is no
object". If parliamentarians of all parties had any backbone they would
rise up against the Justice Department's affront to their dignity and say,
"No more."
Callous?
Perhaps. I've never had a loved one killed by a gunman nor, like the vast
majority of Canadians, am I acquainted with anyone who has. However, if it
happened, my rage would be focussed on the perpetrator, and not on my duck
hunting neighbours. At least, having once suffered a nearly fatal accidental
gunshot wound, I understand the vulnerability of human beings to bullets. Would
my injuries have been less serious if the gun had been registered? I hardly
think so.
The
saddest part of the whole sad saga of the failed gun control system is that,
with more rational priorities, the squandered money could have served some
useful purpose. It could have, for example, financed the purchase, installation
and one year of operation of 208 MRI systems in cash-strapped Canadian hospitals
or even paid to twin a few sections of the Trans-Canada Highway and really saved
some lives.
However,
what's done is done. Almost a billion dollars has been wasted, but to continue
flushing hundreds of millions more down the same toilet would be inexcusable.
Parliament has spoken and been ignored by arrogant bureaucrats and a pathetic
minister. The chicanery and duplicity surrounding this program from its
inception marks one of the most disgraceful episodes in Canadian parliamentary
history. If ever a government deserved to be brought down, this is the time.
However, when the showdown comes with a vote on Cauchon's latest budgetary
requests, the majority of MPs will almost certainly cave in, as usual.
That's
too bad. By voting to restore the relevance of Parliament and repair its
tattered public image, they would become popular heroes, and a forced election
would be a salutary lesson for future ministers with regal aspirations.
-
Morrison is a retired Canadian Alliance MP from southwest Saskatchewan.