Evidence of meeting #15 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The amendment is to insert a new clause after clause 30:
30.1 The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness must, within three years after the day on which section 29 of this Act comes into force, undertake an analysis of the cost to the federal government associated with the destruction by the Commissioner of Firearms of all records in the Canadian Firearms Registry related to the registration of firearms that are neither prohibited firearms nor restricted firearms, as well as all copies of those records, and must report to both Houses of Parliament on the particulars of that cost.
This is a transparency function, Chair. We are opposed to the destruction of these records. We've offered opportunities for other people to use them. There is some confusion as to what's going on here. We've got objections from the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner that this is in violation of legislation, which obviously is being changed here now. This is something there's been no openness about. We know the firearms we're talking about here, the records themselves, are extremely important.
We haven't talked about the clauses themselves, other than the amendments, but our major concerns here, of course, are the ease with which guns will be able to be transferred without any proper controls on them, and this is going to incur a cost. It's not simply saying that we're abandoning the registry. As has been pointed out, those who followed the law, the law-abiding citizens that the government likes to talk about, have paid to have their firearms registered. The government is going to be spending considerable money to do this, and we want that to be reported to the House.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right, thank you.
The chair rules this is admissible, so it's a clause we can look at.
Madam Hoeppner.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to indicate to Mr. Harris that the government won't be supporting this amendment. We're not asking for any new money to enact this part of the piece of legislation. Tremendous cost has been associated with setting up the long-gun registry, and abolishing it will not cost any new money. So we won't be supporting this.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
I'll be brief, Mr. Chair.
I think this amendment is entirely reasonable, under the circumstances. Even today, we have absolutely no idea how much destroying the registry information will cost.
The Conservative government is trying to get rid of this issue as quickly as possible. When the registry was created and over the years, we have seen just how much this could go off the rails and be an astronomical cost to Canadians.
Over the past few years, we have learned to run the registry properly and ensure its viability at a reasonable cost. But we have some concerns about destroying information. I understand that we are in an era where things are done instantly, but the information will not be destroyed until the bill is passed and receives royal assent. This information will not be destroyed in a single click.The registry contains personal information. There are ways of doing this properly.
We have heard a bit about this. If we use the tiniest bit of judgment as politicians, as lawmakers, we will realize that it isn't completely unrealistic to think that destroying the registry will lead to astronomical costs.
I have no indication that it will cost nothing, because I have no indication that it will cost as much as it did to set up the registry. I don't know, so I can't say. The government has given absolutely no information on this.
Let's remember that it cost billions of dollars to create the registry. It's a serious concern.
This proposed amendment is not necessarily costing the government anything. Sometimes you have to spend a little bit of money in order to save money, but this doesn't seem to be in my colleagues' vocabulary.
In two, three or four years, we may have another scandal on our hands or some other horror that will need to be negotiated. This was a measure of prudence, which seems self-evident to me, because we are heading into totally choppy waters and we are not too sure what will happen.
Not a single witness who appeared here, not even the minister, was able to tell us how much this will cost.
Conservative
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Frankly, I was a bit surprised to hear Ms. Hoeppner's comments. All this amendment seeks to do is ask the government to describe the costs to Canadians three years from now as to what it took to destroy the records. What was the cost? We know there will be a cost. That's clear. It's not simply pressing a delete button. We know that's not how it works, because we're hearing from both folks within the RCMP and people who do this for a living. I'll quote one. Carleton University computer science professor Somayaji says, “If it was intermingled with other data from other backups, this is a nightmare”.
This would be a very involved process. We're asking for tabling of costs. The government has made much noise about being accountable to the taxpayer. It's all the same taxpayer.
There were two central principles when the gun registry was introduced, and of the criticisms since then, one was around cost and one was around the concept itself. Those were fair criticisms. It seems somewhat ironic, at this stage when we're asking the government to simply be accountable to the taxpayers of Canada as to how much this process will cost, that it is loath to give that information to the public. It's deja vu all over again to listen to a government say, “We're going to do something. We don't know how much it will cost, and we're not going to tell you.” That's exactly how the Liberal government talked about this registry in the first place.
There's a cost for destruction of data. My friends can shake their heads, but it's absolutely true. If anyone is under the delusion that you simply click on the computer and press “delete” and this thing is gone, that's a falsehood. Let's be honest and let's be fair to the taxpayers who send us here to take care of their money: there is a cost associated with the process that's in front of us. That's all we're suggesting. For the government to say it doesn't want to be accountable and it doesn't want to actually measure the costs of this particular initiative is categorically wrong. So let's address those same things that it was so driven to in previous governments.
I'll quote my friend, Ms. Hoeppner:
They do not really care what price has to be paid and at whose cost, they want to score a political point, and that's too bad.
That was from just last year. I agree. So let's not be here just to score political points. Let's tell people what this thing is going to cost. That's what this amendment does. I would imagine the government members would be in support of that. I'm surprised to hear they are not. I hope they change their minds in the next minute or so.
Conservative
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Do we have any other...? All right, then, we'll call the question.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right, we'll have a recorded vote on the amendment.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
We will now proceed to clause 31.
Mr. Cullen, you have reference number 5279569. Is that correct?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
There you go. I just want to pick it up from where you were last time.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Are you sure? You were captivated last time, Chair. I wouldn't want you to forgo that experience again.
Just to be clear on the reference number, if I have it right, it's 5279569.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
That's correct. It's the last amendment, on clause 31.
(On clause 31)
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It's NDP-7 in your manual, for those following at home.
To be specific, what this requires a minister to do is to reopen classification records every two years at the moment this bill receives royal assent, when this bill is approved, and consult with experts who understand what kinds of weapons we're talking about. I think sometimes members of Parliament struggle with the ability to understand what all these weapons are for.
I referenced some of them for the committee members earlier because I think it's critical that in this conversation we know what a Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic range rifle looks like, what the Steyr HS .50, which is a tactical sniper rifle, looks like, and that the L115A3 long-range sniper rifle was used by the British to record the longest successful sniper kill in history, at two and a half kilometres in Helmand province in Afghanistan. That's where this thing's used, not in the backwoods of Manitoba or northern British Columbia. The Tavor TAR-21 assault rifle is designed, by its own manufacturer's description, for urban combat—urban combat.
What we're asking here is in direct correlation with what the RCMP has told us. It has said:
Without registration there is a failure of accountability on behalf of the owner, and it is registration that drives this accountability. Without registration, anyone can buy and sell firearms privately and there would be no record.
The government knows this, and the government must admit to this: that when people legally buy this gun with a proper licence, they can transfer it and sell it to anyone they want.
Conservative
November 29th, 2011 / 11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I believe there's a convention if not an outright rule against using props, both in the House and in committees.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I would ask you to determine whether or not Mr. Cullen is using a prop as he's introducing his amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I agree that there is a convention that says props will not be used in the chamber. Historically, we've had a little more leniency at committee. We have allowed some props or some pictures to be used in the past.
I don't know if that corresponds, Mr. Clerk, with what the ruling from the book would be, but I'll let this proceed.
Be careful, though.