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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I'd like to bring this meeting to order. This is meeting number 23 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We're continuing with our study of Bill C-391, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (repeal of long-gun registry), which was referred to us on Wednesday, March 3, 2010.

We are continuing to debate a motion that is on the table.

My speakers' list indicates that Mr. Rathgeber had the floor. We will continue with that.

Firearms Registry

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his strong support for Bill C-391 and his hard work to scrap the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry.

The Liberal leader has chosen to whip his MPs into voting to keep the long gun registry. Why will the Liberal leader not let his MPs consider what the ministers from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Yukon have to say?

The choice is clear for all MPs, especially those Liberal and NDP members who have voted for the bill at second reading. They either vote to scrap the long gun registry or keep the long gun registry.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that criminals do not register their guns. Those Liberal and NDP members who voted in favour of Bill C-391 at second reading also know this.

The Liberal and NDP members who voted in favour of Bill C-391 at second reading owe it to their constituents to listen to them, not the Liberal leader, and vote to scrap the long gun registry.

Could the parliamentary secretary tell Canadians how our government is continuing to stand up for law-abiding Canadians?

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, constituents expect that democracy will be respected and those elected to Parliament will vote on their behalf. This is why the Liberal leader's decision to whip the vote on the long gun registry is so concerning.

The public safety committee has heard time and time again from provincial ministers, police chiefs and front-line police officers that the long gun registry is wasteful and ineffective. As Yukon's minister of the environment stated at committee, “Our only vote in the Yukon is being jeopardized by a whipped vote by the Liberals”.

What will the members who voted for Bill C-391 at second reading do? Will they ignore the voices of their constituents? Will they allow their vote to be whipped by the Liberal leader?

I urge all NDP and Liberal members, who voted for Bill C-391 at second reading, to listen to their constituents and not allow their votes to be determined by the Liberal leader.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting two petitions today. The first concerns Bill C-391, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (repeal of long-gun registry) and includes over 2,500 signatures.

These petitioners are calling for the firearms registry to be maintained in its entirety because they believe—rightly—that this important registry is consulted by police more than 100,000 times a day also aids investigations and prevents violence in our urban areas and the regions. These petitioners believe that the bill is unacceptable and that we should all vote against it. They are also calling on the New Democratic Party to do the same.

Yesterday, René Caron, president of the Association TROP-PEACE and one of the people who lobbied for the creation of the registry, succeeded in reaching a million signatures from across Canada on a petition.

Thus, this is the first petition and I truly hope that we will all come together and vote against this unacceptable bill.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her hard work to scrap the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry.

Yesterday, in a dazzling display of Liberal arrogance, the Liberal leader's spokesman, the member for Ajax—Pickering, introduced a motion at committee to reject the bill that would finally end the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. In doing so, the message is clear: For the Liberal leader and the member for Ajax--Pickering the voices of constituents do not matter and the votes of Liberal MPs who supported Bill C-391 at second reading do not count.

When it comes to the long gun registry, one either votes to keep it or votes to scrap it. It is that simple.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberal member for Ajax—Pickering introduced a motion at committee that would circumvent the House of Commons by trying to prevent Bill C-391 from coming to a vote. This is the latest game of that member, who told a newspaper last fall:

I don't think it's the business of parliament to step in and get rid of [the long gun registry].

I wonder if the constituents in the eight Liberal and 12 NDP ridings whose MPs supported the bill at second reading would agree.

Could the parliamentary secretary please update the House on this issue?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at the public safety committee, the Liberals once again put their arrogance on full display.

Doing the Liberal leader's bidding, the member for Ajax—Pickering introduced a motion to reject Bill C-391 and keep the wasteful, ineffective long gun registry as is.

This House, including eight Liberals and twelve NDP MPs, voted in support of this bill at second reading. For the Liberals to introduce this motion shows their lack of respect and blatant disregard of their members and their constituents.

First, the Liberal leader whips his members' votes. Now, the Liberals introduce a motion that ignores the votes of Liberal MPs who voted in favour of Bill C-391, like the member for Yukon.

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

When the Liberal leader attempts to ignore the will of his members' constituents, he proves that he is not in it for Canadians. He is only in it for himself.

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

Then I'll make a motion that this committee, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, recommend that the House of Commons do not proceed further with Bill C-391, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act and repeal the long-gun registry, because the committee has heard sufficient testimony that the bill will dismantle a tool that promotes and enhances public security and the safety of Canadian police officers.

Mr. Chair, I think the committee has had an opportunity over the last number of weeks to hear from expert after expert who I think have made it very clear. Whether it's the chiefs of police, the Canadian Police Association, the police boards, physicians, or paramedics, we've heard again and again the imperative nature of securing this bill.

I think it's been debated to death. I'm not going to talk ad nauseam on all the points that have been made. All committee members have heard the points on one side or the other and are probably ready to make a determination. I think it's time this committee turn this over to the House and allow the House to make a determination. After hearing the testimony, that's my firm conclusion, and that's the motion that I present.

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

Thank you.

I will speak to the original motion and to the amendment. I would disagree with both of them and recommend the committee not support either.

I would just say that all of us have been paying very close attention to this bill, not just those of us on this committee, but really throughout the country. We've been paying very close attention to the contents--those who are very opposed to the bill and those who support the bill. It hasn't come up by surprise.

I would very respectfully say to Mr. Davies, who has been put in a difficult position, that if Mr. Comartin is as concerned about this bill as Mr. Davies indicates, he would have been prepared. If he could not be at this meeting, it would have taken him maybe half an hour or maybe even an hour to prepare Mr. Davies to present those amendments.

All of us have worked in committees before. I also chair a committee. I chair the HUMA committee. I've seen the NDP before where they had amendments and the mover couldn't be there and that member really prepared one of his colleagues very well and she came and presented those amendments really with great excellence. So I don't think it's a stretch, especially when this is a bill, as I said, that has not just jumped up on us, or “oh, I didn't realize we were at this place”. We knew this was happening. I think Mr. Comartin could have prepared Mr. Davies to present any amendments.

This committee planned today and Thursday to look at Bill C-391, and I would respectfully ask that you follow through on the commitment that you made, not just to the House of Commons, but to all Canadians. This isn't just a few of us who are paying attention and who are affected. This is all Canadians who are affected.

Now, if Mr. Davies would agree that we could start going through clause-by-clause right now, and if we're not finished on Thursday then hopefully Mr. Comartin would be here.... If we are finished today, then that's kind of the risk you take. All of us know you just can't think that somehow everybody will change all of their plans and the whole country will just wait because you're not prepared.

Mr. Chair, I think you need to look at what this committee has made a decision on. The whole committee cannot stop because one individual is not properly prepared. That would be my respectful submission.

Again, I think Mr. Davies has been put in a bit of a difficult spot having to defend, in this case, the indefensible. I think all of us should just say let's start right now. It's ten after; let's start on the business. Let's get moving on this bill, clause by clause. Let's deal with it, and this committee can then move on to the other business you have.

Thank you.

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

To clarify, my amendment would be that the committee deal with clause-by-clause on Bill C-391 this coming Thursday and the committee sit until such time as it has completed clause-by-clause deliberations. That would be the motion.

Good news for you, Mr. Chair: I am available until whatever hour the committee needs me. I'm sure that members have all talked about the importance of this bill and the urgency of getting it out. I'm sure all members are willing to burn the midnight oil if need be to be here. But it also provides an incentive to members to more efficiently utilize their time and their speaking if they know they're going to have to go until four in the morning the longer they talk.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chairman, right now, just to inform the committee, I'm seeking instructions from Mr. Comartin. I will be able to give a final answer very quickly.

As it is my turn to speak on this issue, I just want to quickly say that I think Mr. Rathgeber made some offensive comments about our study. He said in the mental health study that we travelled across the country, into Norway, into Britain, and “hither and thither and yon”. Actually, the committee went across this country and we went to Norway and Britain, and that was it. If he's suggesting that was not a wise use of resources of this committee, then it's certainly contrary to what his colleague just spent the last ten minutes prattling on about.

I think it's offensive to regard the work of this committee on mental health as something that is put in nursery rhyme terms. It was a valuable study, and it certainly was a good use of our time.

I also want to point out that we have time in June. I know the committee time has been allocated, but there are a few days still in June. The purpose of my motion would move things one day. This is a very important bill, Bill C-391. It deserves to have the full consideration of this committee. Mr. Comartin wants the opportunity to put some amendments forward. That was the spirit of my motion—to enable that to happen, so that this committee would be able to consider every conceivable aspect of the gun registry bill before a very important vote comes up in Parliament, and so that amendments would be put before this committee for all parliamentarians' consideration.

I'll point out that I hear one of my friends interrupting me, and it makes it difficult to speak, but I will respond. He asked why he is not here. I've explained why he's not here to the chair, but I'll do it again here, as I did to Mr. MacKenzie. He's not here because he was called to a meeting of the Afghanistan committee. Mr. Comartin is our party's nominee, and that's going on right at this moment. I might also point out that Mr. Comartin also advises me that he sent this request to defer this one day to the government House leader, Jay Hill, who didn't even give the courtesy of a reply. That's why I'm bringing it up at the committee here, but if we want to get into that kind of politics, I'll bring that forward for the record so everybody can hear.

As well, I would point out that I did talk to the chairman, I talked to the government leader on this committee, and I talked to all the other leaders. Frankly, before I moved this motion I thought I had the agreement of everybody on this. Apparently we don't. This is what I have to say on this subject.

In terms of the mental health committee study, of course I think we're all in agreement that it's a very important thing, and I think we can get that done by the end of the summer. I don't think one day is going to make that much of a difference on it. That's what I wanted to say to the substance of the matter.

I'm awaiting instructions from Mr. Comartin right now. I'll certainly be able to advise the chairman right away if there's a way I can get this out of the way and move the committee business forward.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There is a problem. The problem is that this committee has no flexibility with respect to its timetable, an issue that was of great concern and great consternation to me at an in camera meeting that I can't talk about. But the end result of that was that this committee has an agenda—that's public, so I can talk about it—that sets certain days for certain matters. As I understand it—and any honourable members of the committee may wish to correct me—clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-391 was set for two hours for today and two hours for Thursday of this week. If my recollection is correct, next Tuesday and Thursday we are to give instructions to the analysts regarding a very comprehensive study on mental health and the state of corrections that this committee undertook last fall, October and November, with trips across Canada and to Norway and Britain, and hither, thither, and yon. I think it behoves us to move forward on that report, given the amount of time and money the committee has expended on studying mental health in corrections. I'm sure Mr. Davies, who's the mover of this motion, would not want to see all the work and time and energy and toil and labour he's put into studying the state of mental health in corrections be put off yet again.

I don't know how you prioritize the state of mental health in corrections versus Bill 391. Certainly the members on this side of the House are anxious to move forward. We support this bill wholeheartedly, at least speaking for myself, and I think I speak for all the members on this side of the table. The committee, as you know, Mr. Chair, is the author of its own procedure; it's the author of its own affairs. This committee has made a motion, and the motion was, as I understand it, to do clause-by-clause consideration today and Thursday. But there may be some technical problems with that.

I'm a little confused as to the starting lineup for today's match, because Mr. Davies—we welcomed him back a few moments ago when he made the motion—hasn't been participating in the hearing of the witnesses, and I was under the understanding that Mr. Comartin, the senior justice critic for the NDP, had a lead on this file. Is the problem that Mr. Comartin is not available today? I don't know. I would suggest, if that's the problem, that's not a legitimate or bona fide reason to adjourn what is to be clause-by-clause consideration from Tuesday and Thursday to Thursday and Tuesday of next week.

Maybe the amendments aren't ready. I don't know if the NDP needs more time. I don't know if the other parties are proposing amendments. I'm a little confused and I'm a little concerned by all of this. All that I do know—or I guess I might know more than this statement—is that the committee had resolved to do clause-by-clause today and clause-by-clause on Thursday of this week. This committee has set its own timetable, against this side of the table's strong opposition, essentially to the end of what was anticipated to be the spring session. So with Tuesday and Thursday already booked to do mental health and the state of corrections, I would suggest to you, Mr. Chair, that this motion is out of order, and I'm sure my colleagues would like to support me on this proposition.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Chairman, there is something that I do not understand. I was under the impression that Mr. Holland had a motion to put forward regarding Bill C-391.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is regarding the long gun registry. It says that the long gun registry was originally budgeted to cost Canadians $2 million but that the price tag has spiralled out of control to an estimated $2 billion a decade later and that the registry has not saved one life since it was introduced.

The petitioners are calling upon the House of Commons to support and pass Bill C-391 and any other legislation that will cancel the long gun registry and streamline the Firearms Act.