Public Safety Committee on June 1st, 2010

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

No, I don't think I have the ability to direct the committee. I'm just notifying the committee and asking through the chair, Mr. Chairman; we would like to formally withdraw the motion that I made at the beginning.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay.

Mr. Holland.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have two points. First, when I suggested that Mr. Davies had removed his motion, given that we had just spent 15 minutes saying that the motion should be withdrawn and we should get to business, I thought that would have excited members and that we all would have been anxious to get to work. I didn't see that as being pre-emptive.

Secondly, Ms. Glover, when you didn't speak for several seconds and were looking in my direction, I thought you were waiting expectantly for me to speak, so that's why I spoke; and my only comment, then as now, was let's get to work. Let's stop talking; let's go to clause-by-clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Yes, but she made the point, Mr. Holland, and it's a good one, that you have to make all your comments through the chair and wait for your turn.

Mr. Rathgeber.

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

I'm just confused after having listened to this for the last almost an hour. I agree that Mr. Davies is in a tough spot. He hasn't sat through the witnesses, although he is a member of this committee and he is his party's critic on public safety. So is the proposal that we're going to adjourn the meeting and allow Mr. Comartin to be here on Thursday? In such a case, I think I'd probably be in favour of that motion. Or are we going to put Mr. Davies in the difficult spot of having to speak to a bill on which he hasn't heard the witnesses?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

We're debating the motion to withdraw the motion.

Is there anybody else who wishes to comment on this?

Okay, do we have agreement to withdraw the motion that was made?

We have agreement.

We can then go to clause-by-clause consideration of this bill, can we not?

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Holland.

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

Thank you.

Are we in clause-by-clause, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Yes.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay. I'm just going to get down the names of everybody I see wanting to speak.

I have a lengthy speaking list: Mr. McColeman, Ms. Glover, Mr. Rathgeber, Mr. MacKenzie, Ms. Mourani, Mr. Davies, Ms. Hoeppner, Mr. Desnoyers, Mr. Kania, and Mr. Norlock.

I want to suspend for a moment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay. I have gone to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and I've read the relevant section that Mr. Holland has referred to in his motion. I would like to make sure the committee understands this. I'm going to read this. It applies only to private members' bills and not to government bills. I was not familiar with this, and I'm sure you would all be very interested in the procedure here. At the end, I will re-cap this section:

97.1(1) A standing, special or legislative committee to which a Private Member's public bill has been referred shall in every case, within sixty sitting days from the date of the bill's reference to the committee, either report the bill to the House with or without amendment or present to the House a report containing a recommendation not to proceed further with the bill and giving the reasons therefor or requesting a single extension of thirty sitting days to consider the bill, and giving the reasons therefor. If no bill or report is presented by the end of the sixty sitting days where no extension has been approved by the House, or by the end of the thirty sitting day extension if approved by the House, the bill shall be deemed to have been reported without amendment.

2(a) Immediately after the presentation of a report containing a recommendation not to proceed further with a bill pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order, the Clerk of the House shall cause to be placed on the Notice Paper a notice of motion for concurrence in the report, which shall stand in the name of the Member presenting the report.

That hopefully won't be me. It continues:

No other notice of motion for concurrence in the report shall be placed on the Notice Paper. (b) When a notice given pursuant to paragraph (a) of this Standing Order is transferred to the Order Paper under “Motions”, it shall be set down for consideration only pursuant to paragraph (c) of this Standing Order. (c) Debate on the motion to concur in a report containing a recommendation not to proceed further with a bill shall be taken up at the end of the time provided for the consideration of Private Members’ Business on a day fixed, after consultation, by the Speaker. The motion shall be deemed to be proposed and shall be considered for not more than one hour, provided that: (i) during consideration of any such motion, no Member shall speak more than once or for more than ten minutes; (ii) unless previously disposed of, not later than the end of the said hour of consideration, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the motion; and (iii) any recorded division demanded pursuant to Standing Order 45(1) shall be deemed deferred to the next Wednesday, immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business. (d) When a motion to concur in a report containing a recommendation not to proceed further with a bill is adopted, all proceedings on the bill shall come to an end. (e) When a motion to concur in a report containing a recommendation not to proceed further with a bill is negatived, the bill shall be deemed to have been reported without amendment. (f) If proceedings on a motion to concur in a report of a committee containing a recommendation not to proceed further with a bill have not been concluded by the sixtieth sitting day following the date of the referral of the bill to the committee, or by the end of the thirty day extension, if one has been granted pursuant to sections (1) and (3) of this Standing Order, the said bill shall remain before the committee until proceedings on the motion to concur in the report have been concluded. (3)(a) Upon presentation of a report requesting an extension of thirty sitting days to consider a bill referred to in section (1) of this Standing Order, a motion to concur in the report shall be deemed moved, the question deemed put, and a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred to the next Wednesday, immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business.

(b) If proceedings on any motion to concur in a report of a committee requesting an extension of thirty sitting days to consider a bill have not been concluded by the sixtieth sitting day following the date of the referral of the bill to the committee, the said bill shall remain before the committee until proceedings on the motion to concur in the report have been concluded, provided that:

(i) should the motion to concur in the report be adopted, the committee shall have an extension until the ninetieth sitting day following the date of the referral of the bill to the committee; or

(ii) should the motion to concur in the report be negatived, the bill shall be deemed to have been reported without amendment.

To summarize briefly, this only applies to private members' bills. This is taken to the House as a report from the committee, and if it is concurred in by the House, if it is accepted, that's the end of the bill. If the House rejects the motion, the bill is deemed to be reported. If the committee doesn't accept this motion, then we go to clause-by-clause.

Are there any questions on this?

Mr. McColeman, please.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Would you please reread the motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

It reads:

That this Committee, pursuant to S.O. 97.1, recommends that the House of Commons do 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 has heard sufficient testimony that the bill will dismantle a tool that promotes and enhances public security and the safety of Canadian police officers.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Thank you.

This member will never agree to that, because I don't believe in the premise of the motion that we not proceed with this bill. So it's pretty simple from that point of view.

But I do want to comment about the member making this motion, because this motion being presented at this moment in—

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I thought we were having questions about your decision. Are we starting debate at this point?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

There were no questions. I have a speaking list, so we're going to debate the motion.

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

So we're on the speaking list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

You didn't raise your hand.

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

I'm just asking if we're on the speaking list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Yes.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. McColeman.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Before I am interrupted again, the member clearly made his intentions known earlier in this meeting that he'd like to deal with this clause-by-clause. So he was moving forward to say that the NDP motion was withdrawn, so let's get down to clause-by-clause. Then he stepped up and said he had a motion that this committee basically recommend to the House of Commons that we not proceed with this bill.

I mean, does it get more insane than this? I don't know. This is just unbelievable to me. It is ridiculous, preposterous, and against all logic that this motion is placed before us at this time. I will never agree to it because I don't agree with the premise of it.