Public Safety Committee on June 12th, 2006

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Yes...oh, I'm sorry. But the fact is that it was a long gun that this man was prohibited from having except for the purposes of hunting.

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

If the law had been enforced, that man would not have had that gun. He was not qualified to have that gun. He was mentally unstable. The act would have prevented him from having the gun. It was overridden by the judge.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

By the court. And that's my point about this. That man shouldn't have had a gun in the first place, whether it was a long gun or a handgun. That's not gun control, what happened there.

On this whole issue about the long guns and the firearms, I want every police officer to know where the firearms are. It doesn't matter how many firearms there are; if there's one firearm, I would like the police officer to know it's there. It doesn't matter whether there's one or twenty; it doesn't make any difference. And that's the situation with those cases.

Bill C-68 does not make life safer for police officers. We're saying let's get rid of the long gun registry, but people still have to have a licence. Police officers can still check the system, and will check the system, to be sure that there's.... Well, it will tell them if firearms should be there, it won't tell them if firearms are in the house.

Make no mistake, it doesn't change that part, and that's the part where we're saying that people have to be licensed to have a firearm. It doesn't matter what kind of a firearm. Registering a long gun doesn't change the situation and it doesn't make life safer for police officers or for you or me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Mr. Norlock.

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

I'd like to address Ms. Kadis and Mrs. Freeman with regard to how long guns equate to the safety of our women and our society.

I don't want to flog the fact, over and over again, that I was a policeman for 30 years. I wasn't a chief of police. Most of my career was front line policing. My career started at a time when, quite frankly, women were not well served by the law enforcement community. When we would go to a domestic, once we sorted it out and separated the combatants, we usually told the woman that she should find a safe place, and in the morning, if she really wanted to pursue it, we'd help her contact a justice of the peace to lay an information. I can tell you, that bothered a lot of front line policemen such as me. But policemen follow the rules and regulations of their department.

The opposite is true today, thank goodness; the policeman's on the hook, basically. The policeman is told they have to make sure that the woman is safe, that the children are taken to a place of safety. Better still, as I used to say, why should we be taking them anywhere? We should just arrest the husband, or the offending person in the residence--on rare occasion, that happens to be a woman--and place them in jail for a bail hearing the next day. That's a totally appropriate thing to do, in my view. There should be zero tolerance for domestic violence.

When you bring up the fact that women feel safer, and the statistics--you say statistics, I say anecdotal evidence--in terms of the long gun registry making women feel safer, I can only look at my own experience. Before we had the long gun registry, even before we had the FAC program, we used to call it.... Excuse me, I've been out of policing for a while, so I can't recall the specific section of the Criminal Code; there used to be a section 100. If you went to a house where there was a domestic situation, or if there was a threat of a domestic situation, and the woman told us in fear, “My husband has guns,” we went and we seized the firearms. We went to a judge and we instigated a hearing as to whether or not the husband, in most cases, should have firearms. Most of the time the judge agreed, or at least there was a cooling-off period where the marital situation could be dealt with.

The FAC system, before the long gun registry, wasn't perfect. I personally think the FAC system should have been a little bit more in-depth. We can do that here, and that's what this government proposes to do.

You know, one of the terrible things...and I have to be very careful here, because everything you say will end being misconstrued. I think we have to try to take the politics out of certain situations. This is one area in which, I must say, I know that every single person around this table, and all 308 members of Parliament, really do care about the safety and well-being of the citizens they represent.

I guess some people in our country wonder, “These guys are saying that if this happens, it's the end of life as we know it,” or “They hate women.” I really think all of us, all 308 members, want what's best for our society. But the people who I represent, or many of the people who've spoken to me with regard to the long gun registry, feel it's one more step toward the government coming in and ruling their lives.

Two of the countries that have increased their control over firearms ownership in their societies are Australia and Great Britain. Quite frankly, I've seen statistics indicating that certain firearm offences have gone up 100% in those countries. This is in Great Britain, where even the police don't carry guns. Gun violence has gone up.

We're not the United States. We're a different society. We're a blend of the European way of doing things and the North American way of doing things. I think the vast majority of firearms owners are responsible individuals who don't mind going through an FAC questionnaire, who don't mind being asked the questions that should be asked to see if they are indeed proper people to possess firearms, with police background checks, and, quite frankly, with their spouses being interviewed, which occurs. But I don't really see where the registration of a long gun will add to the protection, quite frankly, of the average citizen.

I can tell you that the father of one of the officers killed in Mayerthorpe sent me a letter--which I have--and it was a very supportive letter, saying that our party was on the right track with regard to this. I'm reticent to ever bring up the life or death of an officer and politicize it. I would like to say some things here that I will not say. But quite frankly, I think there may be some officers alive today if we were to enforce the Criminal Code much better than we do, from the standpoint of all the people involved in our Criminal Code system; I will not point the finger at any one.

I really think, if some of the laws we have were properly enforced, we probably wouldn't be here discussing some of the things we are discussing. But they aren't, and that's one of the reasons I got involved in politics. I didn't like the direction our country was going in, and I really think now we are going in the right direction with this government.

That's the politicization, in general, but in particular, I would never, ever be part of a government that would disadvantage the life of any group of people in our society, least of all our women, I can tell you that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Our last speaker is Mr. Alghabra--

Ms. Kadis has a point of order.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I'll defer to Ms. Kadis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Ms. Kadis.

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment to the motion. I know we're moving toward calling the question.

I'd like to move, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), that the chair or vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security report to the House within five sitting days of the adoption of this motion by the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Can the chair make one little comment in regard to the motion? I've been biting my tongue the whole time here, because of course some of the statistics quoted have been somewhat misleading.

Monsieur Ménard, Mr. Comartin, some of you have assumed that the--

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Can I just finish, please?

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

We have the amendment before us, so maybe we should deal with the amendment and then speak to the main motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

We haven't started the voting on anything yet.

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

No, but my point is that there's a motion before the committee right now. We're dealing with the amendment. I'm just saying that procedurally we should deal with the amendment and then go back to the main motion. Certainly I wouldn't have any problem--

I move that we call the question, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

There's no debate?

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

We can now deal with the main motion. We're going to go back to debate.

Go ahead.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to say that, as an average Canadian, it would be very difficult for me to say no to a law that requires an individual to register any type of firearm that can be deadly. But before jumping to any conclusion on that, I decided to meet with the chief of police of Peel region, where I reside. I had a frank discussion with the chief. I wanted him to talk with him about it so that I wouldn't be totally tainted, maybe, by my own biases. He was very firm about maintaining the registry as it is. The registry, along with the gun control legislation, is a tool that police officers use as a preventative measure to protect the safety of Canadians. It's a preventative measure.

Yes, we need other measures to protect the safety of Canadians, but this is one instrument that police officers have been telling us about. I really hope we don't dismiss the arguments that police officers are bringing forward to us, as parliamentarians, as the government. They're telling us that they use these tools.

So we should not dismiss arguments that may not agree with what we believe is necessary, and we should take them seriously. I know that a few police chiefs have said it was maybe not that effective, but the majority of police chiefs have said that their police officers use it on a daily basis. It's the combination with the gun control measures we have that gives police officers the ability to know where guns are.

On another level, it's a deterrent for gun owners to act irrationally occasionally. Most gun crimes are committed without any premeditation. If a gun owner knows that his or her gun is registered, it's another deterrent for them; they'll think twice before committing a crime. Perhaps that's the reason why a lot of gun crimes are not committed by guns that are registered.

This government is not only dismantling the gun registry, it is also providing amnesty for people who want to own long guns. It's a concern. The burden is on the government to explain why it wants to dismantle the existing gun registry, as it works.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. MacKenzie.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I thought that the members opposite, when they spoke, all agreed that we needed to get some people in here to talk about this thing, whether it works or it doesn't work, as opposed to “My idea”, or individual ideas on that side. Why would we be moving ahead on this motion until we have called some of those people before the committee, people who can talk to us from a professional perspective?

I mean, I still hear from across the table the same arguments, that this is some kind of gun control. To understand the system, we need to bring people forward.

The motion talks about hunters. This isn't just about hunters. It's about the safety of Canadians.

Mrs. Freeman, with all due respect, I have as much concern about women as you do. All of our people do. We have all worked in that area. I agree with my friend Mr. Norlock that we did a terrible disservice to women for the first 100 years of this country in domestic violence. I think we're doing a far better job, and there are things we can still do, but you know what? It doesn't change this. Instead of us having some sort of a reaction here, without having experts, we're doing a disservice to all Canadians.

I heard from the members opposite that they thought it was a good idea. I'm wondering why we've changed in the last few minutes, and why we want to go ahead with this motion without having some experts come forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Can I just pick up on that point?

How do we handle that? Does the committee want to hear from witnesses?

Is that an amendment you're going to make?

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

You have to call the question on the motion that's before us right now, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

But you can propose an amendment.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Can I speak to that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Yes, Monsieur Ménard.