Public Safety Committee on April 22nd, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Order.

I can put you on the speaking list if you wish, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

So in the rules of procedural fairness, there are two sides to every story, and I am prepared to have the debate. I want to hear why Chief Blair and members from the police boards and Association pour la santé publique du Québec, where a tragic incident occurred maybe 20 years ago.... I think they have relevant commentary, relevant evidence.

But similarly, and in some sense of procedural fairness, members of this House, who were elected in democratic elections, as was I, must understand that there are two sides to every issue. I don't understand, and I want some....

I'm going to wrap up my comments for now, but I want to know what the members opposite have to fear. Why are they so scared of what the government's witnesses might say that they feel compelled to put together a list of 33 names, only two of which were submitted by the government, and apparently use their mathematical majority on this committee? I'll call it a tyranny of the minority to support this motion and dictate the agenda over four days without any significant contribution from members of the public, chiefs of police, or members of the Auditor General's office who have done forensic audits of how much money was wasted on the long-gun registry. I want to know what they have to fear.

Similar to Ms. Glover, I have been inundated with people who want to appear before this committee. I believe I had over 2,000 e-mails from members of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation alone, who requested that the Canadian Taxpayers Federation be allowed to come and speak to this issue. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation, for those members who aren't familiar with it, because I don't see it on the list, so maybe Mr. Holland doesn't know what they do or what their mandate is...their mandate is to assure good value for taxpayers' money.

Certainly as a member of this House, when I hear from 2,000 members of the public on any issue--I'm not saying they were all my constituents, and I know many of them were not--my ears are alive to that issue. I certainly would like to hear from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. I would like to hear from members of the Calgary police department, some of whom have stated that the resources used in the gun registry could possibly or probably be better deployed with more effective results in the fight against crime.

Obviously if you have been listening, you will know I am vehemently against this motion. I am shocked that the members of this committee have so little regard for democracy that they simply want to hijack the agenda and dictate the witness list. And they know full well that there is public interest in this issue, so much so that the leader of the opposition decided he has to win this bill so badly that apparently he is going to order eight members of his caucus, who represent non-suburban and non-metropolitan areas, to vote against C-391, even though those members know it is in their constituents' best interest, and I would submit likely in those members' own political interests, to support Ms. Hoeppner's bill.

But there is so much attention to this bill based on the events this week that the leader of the opposition has decided to crack the whip. So before members vote on this bill, I would ask to them to consider what is at stake here, because I would submit, Mr. Chair, that it is not just C-391. This really goes to the very fundamentals of how our parliamentary institutions operate.

We have the member from Etobicoke--Lakeshore who cracks the whip to force eight members of his rural caucus to vote against their better conscience, to vote against their better judgment, to vote against, I suspect, the expressed will of their constituents, because we know that Ms. Hoeppner's bill is very popular in rural Canada and elsewhere, but especially in rural Canada.

It's historical practice in this House that private members' bills are free votes. We saw a free vote yesterday on an equally controversial bill, the right to die with dignity bill, or what's commonly referred to as “the euthanasia bill”, sponsored by Ms. Lalonde from the Bloc Québécois. Clearly, it was a non-whipped vote. Certainly most members of my party voted against the bill, but notably, I think the Minister of Foreign Affairs voted in favour of it. Similarly, the members of the opposition were divided on the whole issue of euthanasia and the right to die with dignity, and different members voted their conscience, which is the tradition of this House when it comes to private members' bills.

However, we see that tradition abrogated and abridged with respect to Bill C-391, where Mr. Ignatieff, the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, has apparently seen fit that defeating Bill C-391 is more important to him than preserving the democratic tradition of the House that private members ought to be able to vote according to their constituents' wishes or their own conscience when it comes to matters of private members' business, as opposed to government business.

We see the same thing with the chicanery going on before this committee today, where any sense of fairness, any sense of fair play, any sense of a balanced debate is thrown out the window, as we have a list of 33 witnesses, 31 of whom are drawn from names that Mr. Holland, or Ms. Mourani, or Mr. Davies, or his replacement, have submitted. It's somehow supposed to be a fair debate for this committee to hear from 33 witnesses, 31 of whom are going to say that Bill C-391 is a bad bill. Is that really what democracy is all about? Is that really what our constituents send us here to do, to hear a debate that is so blatantly biased on one side as opposed to the other?

So I call upon members to consider what is at stake in addition to Bill C-391, and that is the parliamentary tradition that committees ought to examine bills. By any definition, the examination of a bill requires a balanced debate, and a balanced debate requires witnesses pro and con. I don't want to pre-judge the witnesses, but what I anticipate seeing here is that 31 out of 33 witnesses are going to be opposed to Bill C-391 and the other two are going to maintain, as I do, that it's a great bill and ought to go to third reading and the Senate.

So that's the principle that's being challenged, the principle of fair play, the principle that committees are supposed to study a bill. You cannot study a bill when one side dictates the witness list.

I encourage all honourable members to vote no to Mr. Holland's motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

I have four people on my list here: Ms. Hoeppner, Mr. Comartin, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, and Mr. MacKenzie.

Ms. Hoeppner is first.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I obviously am not a regular member of this committee. I wanted to be here today because I knew the discussions would be about witnesses on my bill, Bill C-391. I came prepared.

I chair another committee, the HUMA committee. It is a great committee, and we are actually just looking at some private members' business. One of the things we've been able to do really well is work together. An opposition member introduced the private member's bill, and we've really worked together well in hearing from witnesses.

I have to say I am absolutely shocked, first of all, that Mr. Holland would suggest that I would be allowed only half an hour to introduce my bill and to answer questions on this bill. I don't think I've ever seen, in any committee I've been on, a time when the person who introduced the bill would be limited to half an hour. But what we see here is tremendous fear on the side of the opposition: fear of information getting out, fear of having to actually defend their position, and fear of democracy. There seems to be a pattern with the Liberals and with the opposition. There is a fear of democracy and a fear of hearing from Canadians.

It's interesting, because Mr. Ignatieff has just announced that he is going to whip this vote. He is going to whip eight Liberal members of Parliament who voted on November 4 to support ending the long-gun registry, and now, through Mr. Holland, we find out that Mr. Ignatieff also wants to whip this committee and actually whip all Canadians. Basically he is saying to Canadians, “You don't need to hear all of the information on Bill C-391. You don't need to hear all of the information on the long-run registry. It doesn't matter. Don't worry your pretty little heads over it, because we will take care of it. The Liberals will take care of it.” Well, we know what the Liberals' agenda is, and that's to shut down democracy and shut down debate.

I am extremely frustrated. We came here today with a list of witnesses and wanting to compromise. I didn't expect Mr. Holland to agree with me on this bill; obviously he doesn't. I don't expect the opposition members to agree. The Bloc have been very clear, and although I don't agree with them, I absolutely respect that they can voice their opinion and reflect what their constituents want. I really do respect that, and I think all of us come here to do that.

What I find with this motion is exactly the opposite: we're not allowed to debate. That's what I'm finding frustrating. I'm not really sure.... We need to find a solution, and I think the solution would be for Mr. Holland to withdraw this motion. I would actually respectfully ask Mr. Holland to withdraw this motion and let us look at the list and come to a compromise so that I could present witnesses.

The chief of police from Calgary would like to come and testify on the long-gun registry. We'd like to have the chief of police from New Glasgow come and testify. We have folks from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. We have people like Gary Mauser, who has done tremendous amounts of research. I have ex-SWAT officers Dave Shipman, Mitch McCormick, and Jack Tinsley. These are all individuals who have worked extensively with the long-gun registry, some on the front lines and some in universities.

I also have some groups who want to testify on behalf of aboriginals. I think we need to hear from aboriginal groups. They have a huge vested interest in this issue, and if we don't hear from them, again, it's just another way of shutting down democracy, as Mr. Ignatieff is doing by whipping Canadians.

I'd like to hear from the MLA from the Yukon. He represents a lot of aboriginal people, and I think he needs to be here. We have a wonderful young woman who is an Olympic medallist; we need to hear from women. We need to hear from victims' groups; there are some victims' groups from Quebec that have been very vocal, and they would like to be here. They would like to tell this committee what they believe on Bill C-391.

What we're finding instead is that--

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

There is a point of order.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

In terms of my friend's comments, perhaps, Mr. Chair, it would be more helpful if she doesn't utter for a third time, “Mr. Ignatieff whipping Canadians”. I don't think that's appropriate, and frankly I think she should withdraw that comment and apologize.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay, go ahead.

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

Are you going to rule on it or do you want...?

No, I won't be apologizing, Mr. Kania.

I know you're a new MP, but through the chair, Mr. Kania, when a leader forces his members to vote against the will of their constituents, “whipping the vote” is a very common term to use. What Mr. Ignatieff is doing, through Mr. Holland, is telling this committee and all Canadians that we're not going to be able to voice our opinions and that it doesn't matter what we want. Mr. Ignatieff is saying that what matters is what he wants.

Again, it's a common term. I suggest you familiarize yourself with it. It's called “whipping the vote”, and yes, he's doing it.

May I continue?

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Chair, that's not what she indicated. She said, twice, “whipping Canadians”.

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

Yes.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

You were giving your explanation saying “whipping the vote”. So perhaps you would consider that--

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I think she's clarified it.

You may continue.

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

Yes, I think I have. Thank you very much.

As I said, I think what would be productive is if we could take a step back. I want us to be able to look at this bill with honesty and integrity. I think we know there are both sides of the issue. There are some people on every side who are very, very passionate about this.

I think one of the problems, even in the discussions about the long-gun registry--and I would say on our side, too--is that it gets so political. Instead of actually talking about the facts on both sides, it gets political.

I think this committee was an opportunity for us to listen to others, not just ourselves. We're politicians. We have something we want to promote. We have something we want to do. This was an opportunity to hear from average Canadians.

I submitted a list of 57 witnesses who I thought would be productive. I certainly didn't expect to get 57--not at all. I think there are three names you've taken from my list, and one of them is actually a duplicate; you folks put it on your list as well. The only group that is represented is sports shooters, and one lady who is a farmer.

Basically what you're saying with respect to this list is that you don't want to hear from police officers. You've been saying you want to hear from police officers, but when you look at the list you've proposed you're saying to police officers who don't agree with you that you don't want to hear from them. You're saying you don't want to hear from women's groups that don't agree with you.

Liberals don't want to hear from aboriginal groups that don't agree with them. Liberals are saying to politicians from outside the federal jurisdiction, to provincial politicians, that you don't want to hear from them. You don't want to hear from victims' groups.

Over and over and over again, this list that Mr. Holland has proposed is saying to Canadians that they don't want to hear from them.

I'll tell you why I'm frustrated. We came here with the complete opposite in mind. We are still willing to go through this list to have an equitable amount of witnesses so that we can hear each other's side. I'm not here proposing that we want 60 witnesses and you get none--of course not. That's ridiculous.

This is a democracy. I have a right to be able to present my bill. It's something that Canadians want to hear about.

Obviously I can't support this motion. I will be doing everything I can to ask each one of you to please reconsider.

Please withdraw this motion. Let's look at the list and let's find a compromise. I do believe that we could. I think we actually could look at this bill with real honesty and integrity.

A lot of us work...we're in the House of Commons and sometimes we cross the floor to chat with each other, because there are a lot of things we do agree on. Many times that's not what Canadians see. Canadians see the arguing. I see that we have a lot more in common than not. I think there are times we build on that. I think probably one of the best things I've learned in being a new member of Parliament is that there are times we really do get along and we have so much in common.

I know that on this issue we're not on the same page. I understand that. But I think that on the matter of deciding witnesses and on moving forward in this process, where Canadians are watching--Canadians care about this--let's look each other in the eye. Let's be real. Let's be genuine. For the sake of Canadians, let's have an equitable discussion on it, not where one side has more than the other. I'm not asking for more; equality is all I'm asking for.

Instead, with this witness list, with my being told I get half an hour, I feel I'm being told to sit down and shut up, which I've heard before from the Liberals and I haven't appreciated it. I feel that now, indirectly, basically the same thing is coming through.

I am very glad to hear that Mr. Comartin will be speaking. I will be very interested to hear the NDP position on this. I commend the NDP. They have been consistent in allowing free votes on private members' bills, and they've been consistent on allowing democracy.

Again, I don't agree with everything the NDP do, but I respect their stand. I respect that you know where the NDP stand. I believe that they really do stand on what they believe is principle. Democracy is a principle that the NDP has a long tradition of supporting.

I certainly am hoping that Mr. Comartin will not support this motion, that he will agree with me.

Let's have an equitable and good discussion, so we can each have the same amount of witnesses, so we can hear all sides of this issue, so that Canadians can be heard.

I thank you very much for the time, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you, Ms. Hoeppner.

Mr. Comartin, please.

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

I thought Mr. MacKenzie was next?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

No, I'm sorry, I should have told you that he switched with Ms. Hoeppner.

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

I see, okay. I wouldn't want to take a place ahead of Mr. MacKenzie, that's for sure, Mr. Chair.

I think we need to set this in the context of where we are at with this list of witnesses. We are faced with the inevitable, that on June 11 this bill has to be back in the House of Commons. So we have a very short period of time to deal with it.

I started off with I think up to 125 groups and individuals who approached me and wanted to testify. I would say that without exception I think they were all opposed to this private member's bill.

I had to say to a good number of them that it is not possible to testify, that we are faced with a limited period of time. It was a decision made by the whole of government, the way I will attribute it, to do this as a private member's bill rather than a government bill, which is the way they should have done it. If they had, then we would have had unlimited time to deal with this in a democratic fashion to allow an unlimited number of witnesses. We never have an unlimited number of witnesses, but we always put a limit on them when we can get a clear view of the pros and cons of the various aspects of legislation before whatever committee it is. We don't have that luxury here, Mr. Chair, at this time, because of a decision made by that side of the table, by the government, to allow this to go ahead as a private member's bill rather than a government bill.

As I said, I had to tell some 50-plus people, I think, or groups that I am not going to put their names forward, because I know we are not going to get through them. I did submit a list of 70 to 75 names to the clerk a week or two ago.

Moreover, I saw some of the lists from the other parties, including the one circulated by the clerk. I've done an analysis of the names on this list, and this is the way they break down.

There are 33 individuals or groups on this list. I have been involved in this issue for as long as I've been elected, and even before I was elected, so I know what I am saying about these groups. There are currently nine individuals or groups who are in favour of this legislation. There are 19 who, to my knowledge, are opposed to it. There are five who I know are neutral, and I'll use the Auditor General as an example. She, or somebody from her office, is being asked to come to provide information about the cost of the registry, but she will be coming as a resource, if I can put it that way, not an advocate either pro or con. By my identification, there are four other individuals or groups like that.

I look at the names I have seen submitted so far, including my own, and I look at the valid opinion polls showing that roughly two-thirds of Canadians support the registry, with changes. Those are the valid opinion polls, and I know, Mr. Chair, you and I have argued about this a number of times and disagree vehemently on the opinion polls, but that aside—

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Just to interject, the opinion poll I saw from a lot of the big newspapers was that 74% opposed the gun registry.

Anyway, go ahead.

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

Well, if you look even at that one in depth, in terms of amendments, some of which I hope to propose before we have to send this bill back, and you talk in that light and you give those alternatives and you give real information—which is what this should be about, as opposed to the contracted hearings forthcoming—and you give the Canadian people real information, you see that two-thirds of them are in fact in favour of keeping the registry with those types of amendments. That is my position, and I know I will never convince you, Mr. Chair. We've had too many arguments and too many discussions about this over the years; and vice versa, you are never going to convince me either. I'm coming at it from that vantage point.

So to respond to Ms. Hoeppner's question about what I am going to do, I am going to support this because basically it is about two-thirds and one-third of Canadians. That is where the Canadian people are. So we are going to hear from witnesses, two-thirds of whom are opposed to your proposed legislation and one-third of whom are in favour of it. There are some very strong voices included. I know some of these people and they represent a good cross-section of the people who are in support of your bill, just as we have a good cross-section in this list of those who are opposed to it.

So that is where I'm at, Mr. Chair. I think, quite frankly, we are getting pretty close to exhausting all of the possibilities, and I would suggest to the committee that we consider taking a vote on the motion as presented by Mr. Holland.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, go ahead, sir. You are next.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I was planning to do a point of order earlier when Mr. Rathgeber was speaking, but he was in full flight, so I didn't want to interrupt him.

He referred to what was going on here as the tyranny of the minority.

I'd like to point out that we govern ourselves by rules, and one of the fundamental rules by which decisions are made is by votes, and votes are decided by a majority, so it was a complete misrepresentation. In fact, it is possible to prevent a majority from having the opportunity to vote or to arrive at a decision, and one of the ways to do so is to filibuster. It is a procedure that is allowed, and, as I said, Mr. Rathgeber was in full flight. It was interesting to watch him as he filibustered. I didn't want to interrupt him, but I wanted to make the point that we don't have a tyranny of the minority. We decide things by votes. That is how committees decide on how they will conduct their business.

In terms of not liking certain votes and certain decisions, those things can be discussed, whether in committee or privately. Those options are available.

I just wanted to clarify that particular point.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

We will go back to Ms. Hoeppner, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to respond to something Mr. Comartin said, and it has been said a lot during this overall debate over the last little while. What's been said is that because I'm a backbencher, somehow the validity of my introducing this bill isn't there.

I have to say for the record that I am a backbencher. I was elected by the people in my riding. I am their duly elected member of Parliament. I have every right to introduce a private member's bill and I have every right to move it through the process.

It has been very obvious and clear over the last year that this is something I believe in very strongly. I think it's very careful--

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

On a point of order, I didn't say that. I want to make the point that when you presented bills over the years, I said it shouldn't be you doing it either, that it should be the government doing it. It has nothing to do with the fact that Ms. Hoeppner is a backbencher or inexperienced.