Bill C-391 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (repeal of long-gun registry)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act to repeal the requirement to obtain a registration certificate for firearms that are neither prohibited firearms nor restricted firearms.

Business of the House

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I would like to inform the House that under the provisions of Standing Order 97.1(2) I am designating Tuesday, September 21, 2010, as the day fixed for the consideration of the motion to concur in the second report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

The report contains a recommendation not to proceed further with Bill C-391, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (repeal of long-gun registry).

The one-hour debate on the motion will take place immediately following private members' business, after which the House will debate the motion to adjourn, pursuant to Standing Order 38.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the deputy House leader for the Official Opposition, for her questions.

When I get into addressing the issue of the upcoming government legislation that I intend to call, I will make reference to Bill C-34, which was her first additional question. The other question dealt with private member's Bill C-391 and the report that came back from the committee about that legislation. I am sure the member is well aware of the process of private members' business. It has nothing to do with the government business and therefore those negotiations and consultations will take place between yourself, Mr. Speaker, and the sponsor of that legislation.

We will continue today with the opposition motion. Tomorrow we will call Bill C-2, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, which is at third reading.

I would also like to designate pursuant to Standing Order 66(2) tomorrow as the day to complete the debate on the motion to concur in the third report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Next week we will hopefully complete all stages of Bill C-34, Creating Canada's New National Museum of Immigration at Pier 21 Act. I would like to thank the opposition parties for their support of that legislation and for allowing it to pass expeditiously when we do call it.

There may also be some interest to do something similar for Bill C-24, First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act; Bill S-5, ensuring safe vehicles; and Bill S-9, tracking auto theft and property crime act.

I would also like to complete the remaining stages of Bill C-11, Balanced Refugee Reform Act.

In addition to those bills, I would call Bill C-23, Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act; Bill S-2, Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act; and Bill C-22, Protecting Children from Online Sexual Exploitation Act.

I would also like to announce that on Monday we will be having a take note debate on the subject of the measures being taken to address the treatment of multiple sclerosis. I will be moving the appropriate motion at the end of my statement.

Pursuant to Standing Order 66(2) I would like to designate Tuesday, June 15, as the day to conclude debate on the motion to concur in the first report of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

Finally, I would like to designate Thursday, June 17, as the last allotted day.

At this time I will be making a number of motions and asking for the unanimous consent of the House for them, starting with the take note debate motion.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as is the practice in the House, I would like to ask the government House leader about his plans in terms of government business for the next week.

I also have two very quick questions, the first one about Bill C-34 concerning the museum of immigration at Pier 21. The Liberals fully support the bill and are ready to expedite it immediately. I would like to know when the government intends to schedule the debate so we will see the bill passed at its earliest opportunity.

My second question concerns a report on the Order Paper and Notice Paper relating to Bill C-391, the long gun registry, which means that we could have a debate and a vote before summer recess. I would like to know if the government intends to take the necessary steps, working with you, Mr. Speaker, to ensure this happens.

I look forward to the minister's response.

Firearms Registry

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that our government is committed to the elimination of the wasteful long gun registry. We want to focus on effective measures that will actually keep crime rates down rather than criminalizing farmers and hunters in my riding, and other ridings across rural Canada.

I would invite those members of the NDP and those Liberal members who voted in favour of Bill C-391 to vote for it again to ensure that we eliminate the wasteful long gun registry.

Public Safety and National Security

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(1), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in relation to Bill C-391, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act.

Firearms Registry

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals continue to do nothing but play partisan political games when it comes to the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. Even members from his own party think this is nonsense.

This is what former Liberal MP, Hec Clouthier, said:

I told [the Liberal leader] the Liberal Party policies and priorities were targeting the major cities and forgetting about rural Canada.

He continued to say that if the Liberal leader continues playing these political games, he could hold his next caucus meeting in a phone booth.

Not even Liberals are fooled by the real motives behind the Liberal leader's decision to whip the vote. It is clear that the Liberal leader has turned his back on rural Canadians, whipped his members to oppose the long gun vote and empower his attack dog, the member for Ajax—Pickering, to hijack the public safety committee.

We call upon all opposition members who voted in favour of Bill C-391 at second reading to stand up for their constituents and vote to scrap the long gun registry once and for all.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his effort to support our efforts to scrap the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry, and I thank him for that support.

While the member for Ajax—Pickering and others in the opposition continue to play political games, Canadians know that any vote on the long gun registry is clear. Members either vote to scrap it or they vote to keep it. It is as simple as that.

We call on all opposition members who voted in favour of Bill C-391 at second reading to listen to their constituents, not the Liberal leader and to scrap the long gun registry.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, today the member for Ajax—Pickering missed an opportunity to table in the House his motion that would derail Bill C-391 and keep the long gun registry as is. Why is this? It seems that he was too busy playing political games and forgot.

The choice is clear on any vote on this wasteful, ineffective long gun registry. Either members vote to keep it or they vote to scrap it.

Can the Minister of Public Safety explain to opposition members why Canadians will not be fooled by their political games?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her hard work on this important file.

In November 2009, 12 NDP and 8 Liberal members, including the member for Malpeque, listened to their constituents and voted in favour of Bill C-391 to scrap the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry.

The choice is now clear, even for the member for Malpeque: members either vote to keep the long gun registry or they vote to scrap the long gun registry. We should have no more political games by members, like the member for Malpeque. The constituents deserve better.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week at the public safety committee, the NDP alongside the Liberals and Bloc Québécois ganged up and passed a motion to try to derail Bill C-391 and keep the long gun registry as is.

The passing of this motion by the opposition parties is further evidence that they are more interested in playing partisan political games with the long gun registry than doing the right thing and speaking on behalf of their hard-working, law-abiding constituents.

On this side of the House, we are committed to ending the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. We call upon those opposition MPs who voted for Bill C-391 at second reading to vote on behalf of their constituents at home, not on behalf of their weak-kneed, iffy political bosses in Ottawa.

Canadians will not be tricked by these political games. They know that when it comes to the long gun registry, MPs can either vote to keep it or vote to scrap it. It is that simple.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in committee, the member for Ajax—Pickering's motion to derail Bill C-391 and keep the long gun registry as is passed with the support of all opposition parties. This vote by the opposition parties proves that when it comes to the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry, the opposition is more interested in playing political games than doing the right thing and standing up for their constituents.

Could the parliamentary secretary update the House on the Conservative government's continued commitment to end the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in a shocking display of political gamesmanship, the NDP joined forces with the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois to pass a motion to keep the long gun registry as is.

In November 2009, 12 NDP and eight Liberal MPs listened to their constituents and voted in favour of Bill C-391 to scrap the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. Now they are trying whatever they can do to derail it.

The Liberal member for Malpeque voted to scrap the long gun registry in November. Will he now vote to keep it? Will he allow his vote to be whipped by the Liberal leader, or will he listen to the voices of his constituents instead?

Those 20 opposition MPs who did the right thing at second reading and voted to scrap the long gun registry will have to explain to their constituents why they allowed their party bosses to whip their vote and silence their voices.

When it comes to the long gun registry, MPs can either vote to keep it or vote to scrap it. It is that simple.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Since the beginning of the debate on this motion, I have remained silent. Now, I feel we should at least explain why we will support the motion.

Our position on Bill C-391 has always been very clear, right from the start. We are opposed to this Bill. We feel it is a bad piece of legislation because it will have a negative impact on public safety in Quebec and Canada, and because we think it could not be amended.

It cannot not be amended, as we have been told by several persons such as Mrs. Cukier and other people representing victims groups.

Furthermore, we did not and will not have any amendments for the Bill. We believe the issue has been fully debated. As far as I am concerned, the die is cast and Mr. Holland's motion will only confirm that the debate is over and that we should not continue studying this piece of legislation.

We will support the motion. I find it unfortunate that, during all those meetings, we have not listened to the voice of Quebec. The Quebec public safety minister has spokenn to the committee but does not seem to have been heard. Quebec has not really been heard on this issue.

I have also found it regrettable that, during this whole debate, there has been a tendency to try and discredit some chiefs of police. Personally, I found that regrettable, especially when someone seemed to say that Mr. Blair had muzzled police officers who do not support the registry.

As we say in French, “les carottes sont cuites ”, the die is cast, and the only thing left to do is to vote to put an end to the filibustering.

So, we will support the motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Since Mr. Holland's motion specifically uses the words that “...the Committee has heard sufficient testimony that the bill will dismantle a tool that promotes the public security and the safety of Canadian police officers”, I thought it would be instructive for this committee, before we vote on this motion, to review some of the evidence we have heard.

The first witness was Candice Hoeppner, MP for Portage—Lisgar, who is of course the sponsor of the bill and is admittedly not unbiased. But her evidence raised a couple of points.

She says that, statistically, individuals who have a licence to use and/or possess a firearm are actually 50% less likely to commit a crime than individuals without a licence. Ms. Hoeppner testified that the long-gun registry is at best “a partial investigative tool” that police officers cannot rely on and that this bill—and this is very, very important—will not end licensing.

Ms. Hoeppner has spoken in the House. She has spoken in the media as to the merits of Bill C-391. She makes a very valid and very compelling point with respect to her bill not affecting licensing in any way, shape, or form.

There was considerable agreement from all of the witnesses that licensing is where the authorities, the state authorities, whether they're the RCMP, which administers the firearms registry, or whether they're the municipal police officers.... It's through the licensing provisions that people who ought not come into possession of firearms are weeded out. One has to submit to a criminal records check. One has to comply with rigorous safety checks. Unless you can pass the safety checks and the criminal records check, you're not getting a licence.

So it's through the licensing provisions that there is valuable gun control, Mr. Chair. It's not through the long-gun registry, which only talks about who owns the weapons, not who's going to come into contact with them. As many of the witnesses testified, it really is only valuable when it comes to counting weapons. It's in the licensing provisions that people who ought not to come into contact with weapons are denied the licence and therefore denied the legal opportunity to come into contact with those weapons.

I think Ms. Hoeppner is quite right on that point--and others--and certainly I commend her and thank her for all the hard work that she has done on this file.

Then we heard from Chief Rick Hanson, the chief of the Calgary Police, who has testified before this committee and the justice committee. I will read a couple of his quotes for the benefit of the members who may have forgotten what Chief Hanson had to say. He said:

It is vitally important to maintain criminal sanctions for the illegal possession of restricted and prohibited weapons, but in my opinion, the registry only marginally addresses the broader issues of gun crime and violence in Canada.

Under questioning from the opposition, Chief Hanson stated that Canada needs “a comprehensive gun strategy”, but that the registry “goes too far”. For criminals, he said, the risks are worthwhile because the consequences are minimal. Most guns used in the commission of crimes are handguns and a large portion are smuggled into Canada. That's certainly with respect to the organized crime that's a problem in his city of Calgary, and certainly in my city of Edmonton, and my friend Ms. Glover's city of Winnipeg.

This is key, Mr. Chair: no direct links have been made between the existing gun registry and the behaviour of criminals. I think that's a very valid point.

Mr. Holland is fond of saying that there are only three rogue police chiefs in all of Canada and that Chief Blair speaks for the other x minus three, whatever that number is. Statistically that might be right, but I think before we decide how we're going to vote on this motion that would recommend to the House that it proceed no further with Bill C-391, we have to do a qualitative analysis of what the respective chiefs said, not just count hands.

I think a quantitative analysis of the police chiefs is insufficient. I think we have to actually look at the quality of their arguments and what they're saying.

Speaking of individuals who had a great deal to say, we had Jack Tinsley, who was with the Winnipeg Police Service for 33 years, 11 years of that on SWAT. He testified that drugs are the underlying cause of most crime.

Criminals do not obtain firearm licences and do not register their guns. The long-gun registry is not a proven deterrent of violent crimes.

He also told this committee that it is not a useful investigative tool, and this is very, very important and the subject of some controversy. Ultimately, I think, this committee, if and when it has time, should look into this issue of officers having been silenced, stopped from speaking out.

I know that this question was put specifically to Chief Blair. He unequivocally denied that he or anybody under his command has silenced or muzzled any officers with respect to their views on Bill C-391.

I take the chief at his word, but we have heard, and not necessarily from Toronto, so I take the chief at his word..... But we have heard anecdotes from coast to coast to coast in this country, anecdotes of police officers, who will not let us use their names, not ironically, Mr. Chair, who want to come out in favour of Bill C-391. They don't believe the long-gun registry is an effective tool of law enforcement.

Neither Chief Blair nor Charles Momy from the Canadian Police Association speaks effectively or accurately for them, but they won't speak out because they're scared that they're not going to be promoted or they're going to spend the rest of their time writing out tickets to senior citizens with fake bus passes. I know that's not a very welcome job to a police officer: to be on parking patrol for the next 20 years of your life.

So we have heard that, and I think it's important that officers have been stopped from speaking out. That's according to Jack Tinsley. He told us about New Zealand, a country that I've never been to but should go to, because New Zealand scrapped the registry after seven years. Australia's program has been a failure. Violent crime actually increased in Australia during the tenure of the long-gun registry.

On the same day that we heard from Mr. Tinsley, May 6, 2010, we heard from Dave Shipman, also from the Winnipeg Police Service, a veteran of 25 years, with 19 years in the homicide and robbery division. He was very candid with his testimony. He was very humble.

He told us, Mr. Chair, that in his experience, domestic homicides were perpetrated by legal gun owners with legal long guns where no previous domestic disturbances had occurred, and that--this is important--the long-gun registry did not stop these from happening.

He was in homicide and robbery. He acknowledges that from time to time, and maybe more often than time to time, long guns are used in domestic disturbances, but the preponderance of those were without any history of problems at that residence, and the long-gun registry didn't stop these from happening. The long-gun registry was useless in stopping that offence or even in solving it.

Mr. Shipman told us that criminals do not register their guns. The majority of guns they use are either stolen or smuggled into Canada and the long-gun registry has not deterred the illegal possession of these guns.

In northern Canada, it is not designed to deter the illegal possession of the guns. Even if the long-gun registry worked to the maximum of the way in which it was designed, it would only be a registry of people who lawfully own and possess those guns. It can't possibly help law enforcement track illegal possession of guns. It's not even designed to do that.

Mr. Shipman confirmed what members on this side of the table have always suspected: that the long-gun registry is about counting guns. Many legally owned guns are outside the registry. I talked about that a few minutes ago. Amnesties are going to cost millions and millions of dollars to get 50% of the firearms that are currently domiciled in Canada registered, if the government decides that this long-gun registry has value. Certainly, with respect to long guns, I don't think so.

Mr. Shipman told us that most police officers don't use the registry. In fact, they don't even know how to use the registry. This was very remarkable and cogent testimony, Mr. Chair. We know from Charles Momy and the Canadian Police Association, from Chief Blair, the head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and from Marty Cheliak, who is the superintendent at the registry, that police forces are going coast to coast as we speak to.... I know they've been in Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Estevan, and elsewhere; they've been all over the country. In fact, we have a copy of their power-point deck, where they teach front line officers how to use a--

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When we last gathered in this room, we were debating a motion put forward by the member from Ajax--Pickering that, “pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(1), this committee recommend to the House of Commons that the House “not proceed further with Bill C-391, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (repeal of long-gun registry), because the Committee”—and I need to underscore the next part—“has heard sufficient testimony that the bill will dismantle a tool that promotes and enhances public security and the safety of Canadian police officers”.

I would submit to this committee through the chair that I think the evidence we have heard is much to the contrary of the expressed wording of Mr. Holland's motion. In fact, I outlined some of that evidence on Tuesday. In fact, I think that when we adjourned on Tuesday, I was talking about the Mayerthorpe incident.

The Mayerthorpe incident, as the members will undoubtedly recall, was mentioned by Chief Blair, the Chief of the Toronto Police Service and head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, as an incident where the long-gun registry somehow promoted the safety of front line officers, and I found that very, very remarkable.

I referred to the CACP magazine--the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police--in which they do in fact list the Mayerthorpe massacre in support of their position or in their advocacy in support of the long-gun registry and against Ms. Hoeppner's bill. A very short excerpt says:

Following the killing of four RCMP officers, the RCMP used registration information in the Canadian Firearms Information System to link a long gun recovered at the scene to a licensed owner. This helped police focus their investigation and identify and convict two accomplices.

Well, that's true as far as it goes, but that wasn't the question.

Mr. Chair, you will recall that the question I posed to Chief Blair was specifically with respect to front line officer safety. I was talking about the Mayerthorpe massacre, a tragic event that occurred two and a half hours northwest of Edmonton--where I live--in March 2005. I remember the day very well. Mr. Roszko had two unregistered rifles.

I was not aware that there was quite a lot of interest in the proceedings of this committee. An individual who was listening to my explanation of the Mayerthorpe incident on Tuesday wanted to correct my lack of knowledge of firearms. I readily admit that I am not as familiar with the names and model numbers of firearms as I might be.

This individual—I'm not going to read his name—claimed to be a friend of the brother of one of the fallen officers. He has seen the effects the shootings had on the fallen members' families and he always wants to make sure that individuals have the right facts. Although he certainly agrees with my premise, he wanted to correct my lack of knowledge about restricted and prohibited weapons.

The rifle James Roszko used was a Heckler and Koch model 91, which is the civilian version of a military assault rifle. There is no firearms manufacturer called Koch and Hegel, as I think I referred to it on Tuesday. He states, “While you are correct that the Heckler and Koch 91 is a semi-automatic, it is, in fact, prohibited by name as part of the C-68 prohibitions by order in council”.

“Specifically”, he says, “G3 rifles and variants, including the Heckler and Koch HK 91, HK 91 A2, HK 91 A3, HK G3 A3, HK G3 A3 ZF, HK G3 A4...” are therefore prohibited firearms and they are not restricted. Also, according to the agreed statement of facts in the Cheeseman-Hennessey case, the firearm given to Roszko was a scoped, bolt-action hunting rifle, not a shotgun, as I referred to it erroneously on Tuesday.

But that doesn't change any of the facts. The fact remains that Mr. Roszko, who had no respect for the law, no respect for order, and ultimately no respect for himself—he ended up taking his own life—did not register those two very dangerous weapons, one of them being the Heckler and Koch model 91 and the other being the 9mm Beretta handgun.

As members will recall, what started out as civil enforcement of the repossession of a truck, over a 24-hour period, more or less, turned into the worst massacre in RCMP history.

When the civilian enforcement officers had trouble gaining access to seize the vehicle, they called in the RCMP for assistance. The RCMP went to assist the civil bailiff. In the course of that attempted seizure, they discovered a marijuana grow operation of some considerable size. They got warrants and seized the drug plants, and then I guess they waited for Mr. Roszko to return so they could effect an arrest.

Things went very badly thereafter. Mr. Roszko somehow snuck back onto his farm unbeknownest to the four RCMP officers, and into a Quonset where he had stashed the aforesaid Heckler and Koch model 91. I think he probably had the 9mm Beretta on his person. In any event, when the officers went into the Quonset he mowed them down, one by one, in a tragic, tragic, horrific massacre that to this day is a black mark in the annals of Canadian crime.

The lessons to be learned from the Mayerthorpe massacre are severalfold. First of all, Roszko did not register his firearms, so if the RCMP had in fact done a Canadian firearms registry search before they entered that Quonset--and there's some dispute as to whether or not they did--the information would have been inaccurate. It would have told them that Mr. Roszko had no registered firearms.

What we do know is that the RCMP and the people of Alberta have mourned these four brave officers through videos, through charity hockey games for their families, and through the Fallen Four Memorial in Mayerthorpe.

But these four officers were not prepared for the heavily armoured Mr. Roszko who was holed up with two unregistered rifles. So any suggestion that the Mayerthorpe massacre in any way supports the proposition that the long-gun registry promotes front line officer safety is just erroneous.

It is true that months and years later.... Well, there was a third weapon recovered at the scene, and it was a registered hunting rifle, not a shotgun. It was hunting rifle that was registered to the grandfather of one Shawn Hennessey. The RCMP were able to link that unfired registered rifle back to Mr. Hennessey, and then, through an elaborate and very expensive “Mr. Big” sting operation, they were able to prosecute and ultimately convict Mr. Hennessey and his brother-in-law, Dennis Cheeseman, of aiding and abetting the murder of the four officers. Hennessey and Cheeseman are now serving time in a federal penitentiary somewhere.

I concede that the long-gun registry did assist in the investigation of the aiders and the abettors, but it did absolutely nothing to protect the front line officers who were tragically, tragically murdered by an individual who had no respect for law and did not register his rifles.

With respect to the motion, I suggested on Tuesday--and I'm going to reaffirm my belief--that I suspect this motion was actually drafted months ago, prior to Mr. Holland's attempt to stack this witness list in favour of the adversaries of Bill C-391, because if in fact he had been able to produce his witness list and no others, then perhaps we would have heard overwhelming testimony against Bill C-391.

But of course, through some procedural manoeuvres and, ultimately, negotiation with Ms. Mourani, who was very helpful, we were able to get a balanced list of witnesses. We heard evidence for and against the value of the long-gun registry, and for and against the efficacy of Bill C-391.

Certainly, the evidence that I've heard--the vast preponderance of evidence--would support Ms. Hoeppner's proposition that the long-gun registry has done little, if anything, to reduce crime. It's a huge bureaucratic nightmare for those who are forced to comply with it. It has been expensive. There's much dispute over the current cost. We know that the original overrun costs were well over a billion dollars.

The RCMP are flagging the number of $4.1 million as its current operating costs. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation calls that number nonsense and believes that the actual cost of the long-gun registry, on an amortized basis, is more like $106 million.

But in any event, it's a lot of money--$106 million is a lot of money--and we know it's not $4.1 million. Those who propose that number I think do a disservice to the debate, for the following reason, Mr. Chair.

Everybody knows--and I think even the witnesses and I suspect the members on the other side of the table will probably concede--that the registry in its current form is ineffective. We know that close to half, if not half, of the firearms in Canada are not registered. Thankfully, there has been amnesty from prosecution since 2006, I believe.

Many, many firearms are not registered, through neglect, or wilful blindness, or known amnesty and therefore immunity from prosecution, or blatant disrespect for the law, which is the majority when it comes to organized crime and hardened criminals. For whatever reason, the registry doesn't even purport—even by its proponents—to accurately reflect all of the firearms in Canada.

So it's going to cost millions and millions of dollars to rectify that if this bill is defeated. The Liberal Party, surprisingly to me, did not propose any amendments to this bill, because its leader was “spoof-balling” about taking out the criminal sanction for not registering and turning it into more of a ticketing offence, similar to a highway traffic offence for speeding or failing to stop at a stop sign--something that wouldn't come with a criminal sanction. I was kind of expecting an amendment, but there is no amendment.

Perhaps there will be another bill with this amendment to decriminalize the sanction for not registering, but in any event, if Bill C-391 is defeated and the long-gun registry is to carry on in its existing form—or in any form, for that matter—I think it's to be assumed that it's going to cost millions and millions of dollars, if not close to a billion, to bring it back up to speed and make it even remotely accurate and reflective of the current state of gun ownership in this country. So it is a lot of money, no matter whose figures you choose to accept.

Of course, the Auditor General appeared before this committee and was very critical of the long-gun registry in its infancy. She was the one who pointed a finger at the billion-dollar overrun and the lack of efficacy. She hasn't studied it since then. I think she was called as an opposition witness; she certainly wasn't on our witness list. I'm not sure which of the three opposition parties called Ms. Fraser. In any event, she wasn't particularly helpful to their case that the long-gun registry is now operating efficiently and the taxpayers are getting good value for it, because she simply hasn't studied it.

The evidence I've heard, and I'm sure Mr. Holland, if he wakes up, will tell me if he has a different recollection of the evidence, but—