Public Safety Committee on April 22nd, 2010

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

That's a debate.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

That has nothing to do with this. She has every right to be doing what she's doing; my attack has never been on her as an individual, but on the government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

You can get on the speaking list, Mr. Comartin.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

That's what I said, and she is misrepresenting what I said to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

If you want to be on the list, just give me your name.

Go ahead, Ms. Hoeppner, please.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you.

It has been clear over the last year to anybody who has been following this issue and following Bill C-391. As I said, this is something that I believe very strongly in. It's something I have worked hard at. I've worked to make sure that I know the issue and that I really know what we're talking about. I want to say again, on behalf of Canadians and on behalf of the good people of Portage--Lisgar who elected me to be here, that this bill is my bill. Bill C-391, an act to end the long-gun registry, belongs to me, the member for Portage--Lisgar, and I'm very proud of it.

If anybody wants to discredit what I'm doing--wants to discredit the work that I've done, wants to discredit the validity of Bill C-391 because I've introduced it--I would suggest that you rethink that. You might not have a lot of good arguments, and sometimes when people don't have good arguments they just start making ad hominem attacks. That is something that really needs to be rethought.

I wanted to clear that up, and again, on behalf of my constituents and for the record, I want to reinforce and reiterate the right that I have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Norlock, please.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I just made a few notes as I was sitting listening to this discussion. I think it's important for me—through the chair, of course—not necessarily to talk to this committee.... Quite frankly, I'm of the opinion that all minds are made up, that the opposition is united, that they had discussions on this and came up with a particular strategy, which, you know, Mr. Chair, as was mentioned, may very well work in a democracy, meaning that they may very well pass this motion that we're discussing. Basically, my thoughts were that we needed to see what Canadians thought.

Now, in thinking about this procedure or issue that we're debating, we did start off today in camera. That was the general intent, as we usually discuss back and forth which witnesses each of the four parties wants to call. We usually have a discussion. In all of the committees that I'm aware of in this place, we usually have a to-and-fro discussion and, eventually—not always, but eventually—a compromise is struck.

The compromise struck is usually that we try to balance the discussion, the people who are for the particular bill or issue or motion before us and the people who are against it. And we do this in camera only because we want to make sure that we have a wholesome discussion and can move away from the party lines that often occur and can be somewhat more collegial—which is what I would say to Canadians.

When I talk to people about where the work of Parliament really gets done, the meat of what we discuss, I tell them that it occurs at the committee level. I tell them that good work is generally done at the committee level, but that from time to time committees become unworkable. Why? Because there's a lack of cooperation, a lack of congeniality, which the democratic process requires if you're going to be genuine.

So why did we move out of that in camera discussion? Well, we can't discuss, of course, anything that occurred in camera, but I believe that Canadians need to hear about this discussion. They need to hear about how committees really work when it comes down to choosing witnesses.

So why would the Conservatives be against someone else choosing who their witnesses are going to be? In other words, we submitted a very, very wholesome number of witnesses from each of the parties. Mr. Comartin indicated that hundreds of people had contacted him--

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I said 125.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Yes, well, hundreds. I didn't write it down. He said that he had whittled that list down to 70 to 75 names. Anyway, Mr. Comartin knows that when a person makes notes, they usually are correct, because for 30 years I have made them, and defence counsel usually tried to.... But anyway, be won't get into that.

What normally occurs, and what occurred in this particular case, is that because of the importance of this private member's bill.... And nothing, save salacious comments about individuals and the substantive issues of the economy and these other things, has gripped this nation like firearms violence and public safety issues. Of course, we know that throughout the years there has been, and continues to be, a very fulsome discussion whether or not the long-gun registry fits the needs of Canadians vis-à-vis reducing firearm violence in this country. That's the reason my colleague, Ms. Hoeppner, introduced this private member's bill. She felt strongly enough that we needed to have that discussion here in the House of Commons.

We put forward a plethora of names, I would say, as did the other four parties. We put those names forward for discussion, as is the norm. But what happens when you want to hijack the proceedings, when you no longer want to be fair, when you no longer want to go forward with normal practice, is that you form a coalition—just as was formed before, and continues to be—and you reach an agreement to hijack the government's list and move a motion that you will decide who are going to be the witnesses for the other side, because, hey, after all, they did supply those names. Well, we supplied the names so that we'd have a list we could sit down with to get that balance that we normally do at committee.

I suppose Canadians have to decide whether this is fair. Is this fair? What I want to impress upon Canadians--because I believe it's useless to try to persuade the other side, since their minds are made up--is that it's inappropriate, because we all discuss with each other while one side or the other is speaking to the chair or to the issues. We sometimes consult with each other.

I won't mention the fact that there is some disinterest with what's going on here.

I did listen to Mr. Comartin, and I think he would find it very difficult to argue against what I've just said. It is a fact that we submit numerous names and then, during the discussion, we come to an appropriate balance of for and against, or of those who have a different view that is maybe not totally against. We have that discussion and we choose names. It's very rare that one side decides the priority for the other side.

He talks about opinion polls. In the interest of a little levity, I can recall a past Conservative Prime Minister saying, “You know what dogs do to poles.” The real poll, the only poll that really counts, is the poll at election time. Yes, at election time Canadians decided to send Conservatives to government with about 10 or so fewer people than the opposition. When the opposition--or, for that matter, anyone in the House of Commons--says, “Canadians want...”, what they're saying is, “The people who voted for me want....” I think the people with the most substance behind what Canadians want are the people most Canadians voted for. When it comes to opinion polls, we have to be very careful, because a poll can be slanted either way, depending on the question and the demographic you're going after.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj says we are governed in this place by rules. Well, he was correct, but we're also governed in this place by tradition and by practice. The tradition and the practice are that, once again in the interests of fairness, we have certain discussions in camera, because, to an extent, we can drop that party stance and become a little more relaxed in our discussions when it comes to who we're going to invite before the committee to best portray something or to give us evidence that will allow the analysts to help us.

I would have to say, quite frankly, that we wouldn't be able to function without the analysts. In terms of who's more important, they would say that we MPs are and that they're not, but the truth is that we're a team, and they are often asked to suggest names to us. Sometimes, and maybe in this case, we need to revisit that, but we do it, once again, in camera. We're not in camera now, so I can talk in generalities only because I can't speak specifically about what we discussed in camera.

I would like to go back to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj and say we should do what we normally do. Let's do what is the norm. Let's do what is the tradition. Let's show Canadians that we can cooperate. All you need to show is some goodwill. All you need to say is, “Look, Conservatives, we put forward this motion for you folks to have six witnesses, but we're big people; we'll allow you to choose the six names that you want to put forward.”

Canadians looking at this would ask what would be fair. Isn't it fair that the Conservatives would be able to prioritize part of the 70-some names that they put forward? Wouldn't it be fair that they could put six of those names forward without having the other side decide? I would say that they would expect from the Conservatives that we would say to the NDP, to the Bloc Québécois, and to the Liberals that you should decide among yourselves. You decide, and we won't object to whatever names you want to put forward. We won't object to your fair share.

Once again I go back to fairness, tradition, and what's seen as right. It's just plainly the right thing to do. You can have all the fancy lawyers' words; I'll leave all the fancy lawyers' words to my friend, Mr. Rathgeber, because he is a lawyer and he's very articulate, as is Mr. Kania. He knows lots of good lawyers' words that a poor old policeman like me doesn't understand, but what I do understand is fairness.

Now, if all that's important here is winning--if all that's important here is to get our motion passed and to shove this motion up the noses of the Conservatives or some other body or place--they may very well win, but in the end, Mr. Chair, will Canadians feel this is fair, especially those Canadians who are conversant with how this place operates and conversant with the way committees operate? No, Mr. Chair, they will not find this fair.

I think we need to have a breather. I think we need to go back and ask what the harm is in this committee maintaining the norm of fair play, justice, and goodwill. If that happens as this committee....

I've been on the public safety committee now going on five years, and generally speaking, when we have discussions as MPs around this place, this is one of the committees that is looked to as one of the best operating committees. By that we mean there isn't the kind of wrangling and hoo-ha that goes on in other committees. Whether it was in camera or whether we were discussing very important legislation such as the Anti-terrorism Act, I was very proud to belong to that committee, because we did work as a team. We were able to sit down and go through some of the most important things.

Ms. Mourani likes to giggle and laugh through the whole thing. I can remember one meeting at which she actually admonished me because I dared to talk while she was talking, but I guess she can't hear me because she's too busy.

Anyway, Mr. Chair, I think it's very important that we begin to think along the lines of fairness. If it's all about winning at any cost and getting the motion passed to fix those Conservatives, then in the end they will win, but I suggest to you, Mr. Chair, that in the end they may very well lose. There's an old saying that you may win the battle, but you end up losing the war, and the war will be fought not in this place but at the polls. Sometimes, win or lose, you lose. You may, as I say, win this battle, but I think in the end you're going to lose the war.

With that, Mr. Chair, I shall relinquish my time for the time being.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Mr. Kania, please.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

There have been some unfortunate comments made by people around the table in terms of this issue. It has gotten heated. I'd like to tone it down. I think we need to be looking at all of this from a reasonable perspective.

I'd like to know, first of all, why this isn't a government bill. I understand that Ms. Hoeppner has the right to do it. I'm not challenging that; I'm not saying she did anything wrong. But I do think, given the seriousness of this, that the government should have brought this in as a government bill. On a practical basis, because it's been brought in as a private member's bill and not a government bill, there are reporting requirements back to the House of Commons that are in force only for private members' bills.

As we know, this has to be reported back by June 12 of this year, whether we like it or not. That changes the dynamics of how things are handled in terms of this bill. Obviously we can get through as many witnesses as possible, and it would be ideal to have as many witnesses from all sides as possible. But because of the fact that it's a private member's bill, it just can't be done, because we have limited time.

I have discussed with some of my colleagues--and I'd like to hear from them perhaps at a different time about this--about amending the reporting rules for this, so that there isn't a requirement to report this back to the House of Commons by June 12. Perhaps we could enter into some arrangements. This is me speaking. I'm not speaking for the Liberal Party; I'm not speaking for the critic. I am saying this to you, in terms of a reasonable position. Because you have all stated--and I think you're right--that this is a serious issue for Canadians, and you think it should be heard properly and that as many witnesses as possible should be heard so that all points of view are heard, why not change it so that there is no automatic reporting requirement by June 12, so that it can then be extended? If that occurred, we could have many more days of witnesses and we could get all the people who want to be heard in front of the committee in some way.

Now, I want to talk about having open minds. From the government's perspective, because it's a private member's bill and because it has to go back by June 12, they complain, under the current restrictive rules that we have, about not having enough witnesses from the government side if this motion were to be adopted. That could be fixed in a moment if we didn't have the June 12 reporting requirement to go back to the House. So why not try to fix that and extend it so that we could open it up and have more Canadians have an opportunity to testify?

In terms of having an open mind, I do have an open mind. I'm not happy with the debate that I've heard in the national press, in this room, in the House of Commons, about the gun registry, because from what I hear it is not, in my view, intellectually defensible to say that we only have one choice. What I hear from the government side, and, to be fair, from some of the people on the other side as well, is to keep it or kill it, and nothing else. I don't see that as a wise or logical position that anybody should have on behalf of Canadians.

When you speak about having witnesses come before the committee, I would hope that you would want to include, from your own perspective, some witnesses who might say it's not perfect but here are our ideas to fix it. I've not heard that. So when the government complains about not having enough witnesses to call on its own behalf, I question that, because from what I can see, from everything I have read and the rhetoric and the advertising and the ten-percenters, the minds are already closed. The minds are already saying it has to be killed; it's not possible to modify it in any way to change it and still make it effective on behalf of Canadians.

I have a problem with legislators having closed minds. I personally do not.

There are many examples. Chiefs of police who support the gun registry and want to keep it are ignored. I have not heard anyone from the Conservative side say, “Okay, you have a point. Maybe you're wrong. What about if we modify it this way and try to fix it?” I don't hear that. I just hear them criticizing the chiefs of police, which I'm surprised about because the Conservatives have no difficulty using the police for this supposed law-and-order agenda when it suits them. Why don't we hear, “Because the chiefs of police actually believe it should be kept, maybe they have a point. Maybe we should listen to them. Maybe we should see what their opinions are. Maybe we should take them into account. Maybe we should try to fix it.” I've never heard that from one Conservative ever. Why?

In terms of a private member's bill, everybody opposes it? We were talking about Mr. Ignatieff earlier, about how he has announced that he wants the Liberal caucus to be unified. Which Conservative member of Parliament is against this bill? Are there any? Are you telling me that among all the members you have there is nobody who might have some second thoughts and might think maybe it should be amended and saved? I don't believe that. Whether there is perhaps the whip you speak of behind the scenes.... I don't believe for one moment that there is not one Conservative member of Parliament who thinks it would be reasonable to perhaps try to save it by making changes. But we don't hear from them. We're not allowed to hear from them, I suspect.

Look at other organizations. We had here on Tuesday of this week the ombudsman for victims, Mr. Sullivan, who's not been renewed. He was very clear in stating that he believes the gun registry is something that should be maintained on behalf of victims. It's his job to make that comment about victims. I listened to that, and I thought, okay, maybe it should be saved. Maybe there should be changes, but we should save it in some manner.

Nobody on that side had any questions that were positive towards him. In terms of that issue, nobody agreed, and nobody even opened their mind to the possibility that perhaps it should be saved with changes.

You have victims groups that are very vocal in trying to save this. They're not listened to. Nobody on the other side is saying that maybe we should listen to them, or maybe we should come up with some ideas to save it.

I challenge the members opposite to put forward any proposal that seeks to reform it and save it, rather than having the very narrow-minded view that it must be killed, that's it, and there's nothing else to talk about. When you indicate that you need to have all these witnesses come forward simply to say the same thing, which is, “kill it, kill it, kill it”, what's the point? I would challenge you to put forward some witnesses who actually might have a more nuanced view.

That being said, I would like to have more witnesses testify, but in order to do that, I suggest we change the rules for this bill so that we don't have the June 12 deadline.

In terms of changes, the Liberal Party has suggested the following:

A first-time failure to register a firearm would be treated as a simple, non-criminal ticketing offence, instead of a criminal offence, as it is currently.

Why can't we discuss that from a perspective of attempting to modify this and keep it, rather than entirely eliminating it? Why can't the government propose witnesses who would actually be nuanced and suggest changes to the registry, rather than proposing a slate of witnesses who simply say “kill it”?

Another proposed change is that the fees for new licences, renewals, and upgrades would be permanently eliminated. Why not? Why don't we discuss that reasonably? Why don't we have witnesses proposed by the government to consider that as a proposed change to keep the registry, rather than simply saying it needs to be eliminated?

Another change is that the registration process, especially the forms, would be streamlined to make registration as easy as possible. What's wrong with that idea?

That's just an example of one of the other suggestions. Maybe others need to be considered.

Maybe we could consider calling witnesses who would come and give proposals for how it should be saved and modified, rather than simply eliminated. That seems to me to be a reasonable position.

I've made those various points. My main summary is that I'd like everybody to have an open mind about this legislation.

I have one final comment, which is that long guns are principally responsible for the deaths of police officers. Long guns are the principal weapon of choice to hurt or kill persons in domestic abuse situations.

Considering all these various factors, I think it's incumbent on all of us—and I have this approach—to treat this as something that needs to be considered fairly, reasonably, with an open mind, and not with this dichotomy of having to kill it no matter what and not be willing to listen to anything else.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you, Mr. Kania.

We'll now move over to Mr. MacKenzie.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Actually, I have a lot of issues.

Mr. Kania, I don't know where to begin with your whole list there. You made some statements that I don't think are borne out by the facts. You made unequivocal comments about long guns. I don't think you know how many of those long guns that you talked about were registered. I don't know where you come from with that whole issue about unrestricted long guns. The issue in Canada, including from your leader.... Your leader has been quoted as saying that our problem is not long guns; it's handguns that are brought into this country.

What you've just said is beyond belief, and certainly Canadians will have the opportunity to look at what you said.

I'd like to go back to when you initially started. You said something about a reasonable perspective, and then you got off into some area about whether Ms. Hoeppner's bill...that we somehow are responsible for the timeframe.

Well, I know Mr. Kania is an honest man, and I know he has a good memory, and I know he will recall that when the agenda was set for this session there were all kinds of dates. The decision was made that there would be three days towards the end of the session.

It's pretty hard to blame the system for the fact that the 60-day notice is there for private members' business. It is there, and one of the reasons it's there is so it gets heard in a proper time. This proper time was not there because the committee filled the agenda so that this item was towards the end instead of at the beginning. We could have put in anything.

I think when you talk about open minds, Mr. Kania, we all would agree with that. I don't think there's a parliamentarian who would want to believe that others don't have open minds. But it begs the question that if members on the other side have open minds, why did they come here this afternoon prepared to shut down discussion about where we might go with witnesses?

Mr. Comartin, you'll probably be pleased to hear that I spoke with a young police officer from the city of Windsor last night who thought you were a pretty good guy. He thought you were a fair man. I don't think that if he saw what happened here today he would say that's the Joe Comartin he knows from Windsor.

Mr. Comartin probably won't understand this, but I did agree that he is a good, honest, fair-minded individual. Today's comments would be less than that. I think Mr. Comartin has indicated it's only his opinion of polls that really matters. Your one-third, two-thirds is how you justify this kind of a schedule. I don't think Ms. Hoeppner would agree that one-third of those witnesses would be the witnesses she would ask. I think your number was somewhat different from her belief.

We would have asked Rick Hanson, the chief of police in Calgary; Delaney Chisholm, the chief of police in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia; Sergeant Duane Rutledge, an active police officer; and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. I'm sure you have all heard from them, because we have. They seemed to have in their correspondence that they were sending it to all of the committee members.

We would have liked you to consider Bob Head, the retired assistant commissioner from the RCMP; some former SWAT police officers: Dave Shipman, Mitch McCormick, Jack Tinsley, Gary Mauser, Steve Torino. Diana Cabrera is an Olympian sports shooter, and I can't believe this committee would not want to hear from her.

There is a member from Yukon: an aboriginal MLA, John Edzerza. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu has represented victims, and my colleagues from the Bloc know full well who he is. He has been a victims' advocate, and we're going to hear from victims. Riccardo Di Done is another victims' rights individual.

Alison Redford, the Alberta Attorney General--you don't want to hear from an attorney general from another province. Conservation officers Don Weltz and Quinton Isley--talk about a closed mind.

We didn't ask for a lot of people. We wouldn't have asked for a lot of people. Ms. Hoeppner already made it clear that she had a list of about 57 or 58. If the doors opened up, she would have said bring them all. But she knew coming into this meeting that we needed to spend some time paring down all of our witnesses.

Somehow, to get here with no discussion and a motion already in hand that would totally fill not only the two days or three days that were scheduled, but another day, a fourth day.... I don't believe Canadians thought they were going to elect a group of parliamentarians who wouldn't come in here with some idea about some sense of democracy.

I can't believe they wouldn't want to hear from Rick Hanson, the chief of police in Calgary. I know Bill Blair, and I respect his opinion, but surely Canadians would expect to hear if there were other chiefs of police.

I don't think I can go out and say everybody in this country likes the gun registry, because I know they don't. I wouldn't for a minute want people to believe I think there aren't people who legitimately believe in the gun registry. But to not get the opportunity to hear from these police officers who have an opposing view of the current president of the chiefs' association....

I didn't even talk in here about Chief Blair's predecessor. His predecessor was a believer in the gun registry, but then he realized that the gun registry didn't do what other people were saying. He's now the head of the largest police force in Ontario. I didn't mention him. We didn't ask him to be here. We thought there was a good balance from across the country.

We have all kinds of police officers. Last night we met with a number of them. One young man in particular came over and spoke to me. He said, “Long guns are not a problem, Chief. Our problem is handguns, and every gang-banger we get has a handgun in his pocket. That's our problem.”

I don't know why you want to shut people out. Talk about a closed mind. My friend says we have closed minds. Give us the opportunity to bring some of these people forward. Maybe we can look at some of these things.

When he talks about what the Liberals are suggesting--Mr. Comartin certainly knows, and I'm sure Mr. Kania knows--if it's a Criminal Code offence, it's a criminal conviction. We need to look at how we think we can make this move from a Criminal Code offence to a non-criminal offence. Maybe there's some way in what he's talking about, but it doesn't work. If it's a Criminal Code offence, it's a Criminal Code offence. That's the end of the story. You can do whatever you want. If we have whatever regime he's talking about--a ticketed situation--and there's no record and no criminal offence, we won't know when the first offence happened or the tenth offence.

If you believe in what the situation is, what does a ticketable offence mean? It doesn't mean anything. It's something a political leader was talking to a group about to convince them he was doing something. At the end of the day, surely my good friends who understand criminal law know that if it's a Criminal Code offence in the Criminal Code, it stays as a criminal offence. It doesn't just change because we wish it would change and make it into some sort of ticketable Highway Traffic Act offence or provincial offence; it stays as a criminal offence. So don't try to fool Canadians and talk about something or do something that is just not doable. As I said, my good friends the lawyers on the other side certainly know that. It's not in the Criminal Code.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Stop picking on lawyers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Order. Everybody has to go through the chair, please.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Sorry, Mr. Chair.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Chair, I guess what Canadians will really find most offensive about this is the lack of democracy within this body. We should not have gotten to this position without some discussion. Somebody could have walked across the floor and said this is what their list of must-have witnesses is. It didn't happen.

We came here today firmly believing that we would have that opportunity to say this is the list of witnesses; we've got 57 or 58, whatever it might be, but we recognize that is going to be too many.

So if we're going to have three days, which was scheduled, and I think it's reasonable that we might have looked at four or six people on those three days.... Our understanding from the whips--the agreement was that it would be balanced in the numbers. If we're going to have 12 witnesses, that side would get six and this side would get six. I'm not sure that Ms. Hoeppner was going to be happy with that because that wasn't what she had thought or wanted, but we would live with that. Unfortunately, when you come in here with guns blazing, fill up the whole agenda, and then want to add another day to it, I just can't believe that Canadians on either side of the issue....

I know my friend, Mr. Rathgeber, mentioned the Taxpayers Federation. They're in all of our ridings. They're in my riding and in your ridings. These people feel they have some right to at least ask to be considered. There was no consideration given. And I don't know where they are on that issue. They may very well support the retention of the long-gun registry. But surely there should have been some discussion about some of those people.

Why would you not want to have some of the sport shooting people here--you know, an Olympian? At least you could have given us the decency of discussion. You might have said no, we think this is better or that's better.

Why would you not want to hear police chiefs who have something different to say than the current chief of Toronto? He's the president, and we all know that presidents don't necessarily speak for everybody, but they may speak for the majority. That's fair enough. We would have been more than willing to have heard Chief Blair come in and say that. If that's what you want, that's fine. But surely you wouldn't have minded Chief Hanson coming in with a different point of view.

If you want to talk about compromises, how do you ever get to a compromise if you're not prepared to listen? In this case, all we've got are the witnesses that you have decided we should hear, that Canadians should hear. I don't think the public out there are going to be one bit happy when they realize what's going on. And they will; they will know.

This is an important issue. It's important from the perspective of the people that you represent and we represent. It's important from the perspective of the people who want to retain the gun registry. They won't see it as being a very democratic process that the other side didn't get heard. I don't know what you fear. Why would you fear having somebody out there who may say something different from what Chief Blair says?

There was no consideration. You want to bring in a current assistant commissioner of the RCMP because you've heard his own personal opinion. Fair enough. Well, what's wrong with hearing Mr. Head? He's a retired RCMP officer; he's got nothing to gain--nothing to lose, nothing to gain--the same as everybody else. Why not hear him? It just seems like common sense and decency that we would do that.

I would hope that the side opposite would come to some reasonable expectation that this side should get some input into these things. If you want to withdraw your motion, I would certainly encourage that, and we could sit down and come up with a reasonable list of witnesses that would fit Mr. Kania's timelines. Fair enough. But with what you have now, you haven't given this private member's bill any opportunity to be heard from the private member's side. You wouldn't be happy if the government did that to you. We wouldn't be happy to do it to you.

So I would just think that there would be some decency, some common sense that would say that we need to rethink the motion you've brought forward. It doesn't give the opportunity for a fair hearing on both sides of the issue. To hear one side--

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

A point of order.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Chair, we've come to the end of the meeting. I ask that you call the question and make a determination. Call the question--

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm not finished talking.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

It's out of order.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

No, it's out of order. I'm sorry, you can't do that.

Mr. MacKenzie.