Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank Mr. Cullen for bringing forth this amendment. In fact we've adopted the Conservatives' approach to naming things, and we call this the bad scary guns amendment. I know they like to name things, have some fancy names on things, so simply to help everybody understand what this amendment is for, we call it the bad scary guns amendment.
Mr. Cullen has showed us some of the guns that end up in a category, and I call it a category for a good reason, because there are different categories. There are prohibited weapons, there are restricted weapons, and there's everything else. The everything else the government likes to call the long-gun registry, but in fact the everything else includes bad scary guns.
Now, some of them they may not think are bad and scary, like sawed-off shotguns, double-barrelled 12 gauge shotguns that are actually manufactured in the same shape and size as a sawed-off shotgun, with a 12.5-inch barrel. In fact it's called the outlaw; that's what the manufacturer calls it. It's called the outlaw shotgun and you can buy it for $300, according to the advertisements. You can stick it in your backpack. Now, why you want a 12 gauge double-barrelled sawed-off shotgun in your backpack, I'm not sure. People saw off shotguns--as some members opposite have been engaged in why they are illegal--so they can conceal them.
This amendment.... I think Mr. Cullen talked about it being required within two years. But it's also before any of the provisions of the act come into force, and every two years thereafter, conduct a review along with experts on the classifications of firearms. So which ones should be in what category?
There's a very good reason for this, even outside of the provisions of this bill, because there's a habit among gun manufacturers to actually change the model numbers, make slight modifications to their guns for the sole purpose of them fitting into one category or another. Under our Criminal Code, I haven't looked at this particular schedule lately, but there's a schedule of guns that are listed as restricted, and they're very detailed--the manufacturer, the name, the model number. So all the manufacturers of guns have to do is change the model number, and then it's not on the list any more. They probably have to make some modification to demonstrate that it is actually a different gun, but as I understand it this is a habit of gun manufacturers, and I think anybody involved in law enforcement would be aware of that.
Mr. Cullen told me, and he made the speech privately, but apparently a whole episode of The West Wing, the famous TV show about what goes on in the United States White House, was devoted to how gun manufacturers get around the gun laws. They had a big conversation about what they do, the specifics of what they do to make that happen.
This is why we think the government is being irresponsible here. When they seek to throw out the gun registry for rifles and shotguns, they're also throwing out the registration requirements of guns like these semi-automatics, like these assault weapons, like the guns that were used in the Montreal massacre at the Polytechnique in 1989 on December 6, with the next anniversary being next Tuesday. That weapon is in the same category as hunting rifles and the shotguns that people might use for hunting ducks or birds. That weapon, along with shotguns and others, will now be in the category where not only is there no registration required, but the information concerning who owns and who has those particular guns, if they're registered, will be destroyed--irresponsibly, in our view--by this government. The consequence would be that the buying and selling of these types of firearms, as well as the rifles and shotguns, will be without record.
As the RCMP said, in their evaluation of the gun registry and the gun control system in Canada in February 2010, “anyone can buy and sell firearms privately and there would be no record”. There would be no record of what happens to these guns, who buys them and who sells them. Also there is the concern expressed by the RCMP that the registration of these guns “...is very useful in investigating licensed owners in the trafficking of firearms to unlicensed users. Without the registry it becomes almost unenforceable.”
So when you take away the transfer requirements to verify the accuracy of a licence.... That's not something that Ms. Hoeppner, in her bill last year, would allow, but this year, in this bill, there's no problem; we'll reduce that requirement. We're going to have essentially unenforceable laws related to the transfer of guns. The bad, scary guns that we're talking about here will be in the same category and be able to be transferred willy-nilly in our society.
That is something we have heard a lot of frightened people talk about—women who have come before this committee, victims of violent crime. We had a person who survived the assault on the women engineers of the Polytechnique before us last week. In the circumstances on the committee, the witnesses were given five minutes to speak. Essentially, they were begging this committee to be concerned about the proliferation of guns and weapons that will come with this bill.
This amendment is a responsible measure that would ensure....
It's one thing for the minister to go into the House and say we're not doing anything, or as Ms. Hoeppner said last week, we're not changing classification; we're not doing anything with the classification of records.
Well, let me say this. You are responsible for the consequences of your actions. If you take away the protection of a whole category of weapons, you can't just say we're trying to help out duck hunters and farmers, when you're letting loose these bad scary guns, which happen to be in the same category. You're not changing the categories, but the category they're in now requires them to be registered, requires them to be stored in a certain way and registered. It requires that if you transfer them, the registration particulars have to be sent, you have to verify who's buying them, you have to make sure they actually have a valid licence and that there are no gun prohibitions in place, you have to phone the registrar of records to make sure that licence is still valid and that there are no changes.
Now they're in a category that says you have to ask for a licence, and as long as you have no reason to believe it's not valid, then you're okay. If you want, you can phone up the registry, but—and here's the “but”—the registrar is not even allowed to keep a record of the fact that you called.
So somebody comes by—the police, maybe—and says “We're looking for this gun, which was used in a homicide, and we think you had a gun like this.”
You say: “Oh, yes, I had one, but I sold it to this guy who came by. I forget his name, but he showed me this licence. In fact, I even went so far as to phone the registry, and they said it was valid.”
“Well, what's his name?”
“I don't know.”
“Do you have a bill of sale?”
“Nope. I never kept that; I just sold him the gun. I complied with the act. Who can prove that I didn't?”
That's how loosey-goosey this bill will be if it passes—and we always live in hope—and that loosey-goosey control, or lack of control, will apply to these bad scary guns. That's what this amendment is for. It's an opportunity, folks, for you to put something in that actually recognizes the consequences of what you're doing. They're negative consequences. You can't just say you're not changing the registration—you're changing the law, and one of the effects of this change in the law is to allow these bad scary guns to proliferate in our communities and get in the wrong hands, get in the hands of criminals.
