Untitled Document

Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Comité permanent de la justice, des droits de la personne, de la sécurité publique et de la protection civile

EVIDENCE NUMBER 59,
TÉMOIGNAGES DU COMITÉ NUMÉRO 59

UNEDITED COPY/COPIE NON-ÉDITÉE
Tuesday November 15, 2005 / Mardi le 15 Novembre, 2005

* * *

[SNIP]

The Chair: This concludes our consideration of clause by clause of Bill C-53.
We'll now move onto Mr. Breitkreuz's motion on handguns.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Everyone will recall that on June 28, 2005, the committee, in a six-to-five vote, negatived my motion to deal with this important issue, but Mr. Comartin made it very clear during that debate, and I'd like to quote from what he said, because it has given me the impetus to do what I'm doing:

This is really a matter of the trust between us, as members of this House, the owners of those guns, and, quite frankly, the members of the House, when Bill C-10A went through. It seemed to me at that point that the government, as a whole, all parties, had said we were going to deal with this particular issue, and so I agree with Mr. Ménard that guns, generally, unless they're being used for practice shooting—and I think this would be fairly rare—are dangerous weapons. But that issue was addressed and dealt with in Bill C-10A, presumably with at least a majority of the House of Commons agreeing that that was how we were going to deal with the problem. We can't avoid our responsibility to see that legislation carried through. There has obviously been an error made just because of the reality of the lateness of the bill coming into effect. I don't think we had the right, as members of Parliament, to stand back and say, “That's too bad”. Our responsibility is to cure this problem.

That's the end of the quote from Mr. Comartin.
Mr. Marceau responded, and I'll refresh your memory on that, as well—

Mr. Richard Marceau: I did?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes.

Could we make Joe's suggestion a motion on which we could vote...

—and that's what I'm doing—

...in that way we could move forward the issue that Garry wanted us to review. We could do that on the basis of consensus, since this is what we all want, if I understand correctly.

That's the end of Mr. Marceau's quote.
And then after we took the vote, the committee chair said, and I would like to quote again:

I think there is a possibility that the motion could be brought, but certainly not today because I don't feel you have consent to do that. Someone might want to consider that for the fall.

That's the end of the quote.
Well, this time has now come, and so I am bringing forth a motion, which I think is self-explanatory, but let me read into the record the preamble that goes before it:

Whereas the amendment to the Firearms Act, section 12(6.1), passed by Parliament in Bill C-10A, which was given royal assent May 13, 2003, Statutes of Canada, 2003, section c.8, has not been implemented due to an inadvertent delay bringing these amendments into force; and

Whereas the clear intent of Parliament by amending the Firearms Act was to grandfather the law-abiding owners of handguns referred to in section 12(6.1); and

Whereas the Law and Government Division of the Parliamentary Information and Research Service have confirmed that section 12(6.1), cannot be implemented without a further amendment to the Firearms Act; and

Whereas the Minister of Public Safety has informed the justice committee that the government has no intention of bringing in a further amendment to the Firearms Act to implement the intent of Parliament to grandfather these law-abiding handgun owners;

Therefore, be it resolve that the justice committee examine the issue and report to the House with their recommendations with respect to bringing section 12(6.1) of the Firearms Act into full force and effect.

In plain English, we, in Parliament, passed a bill with the intent of grandfathering these owners, but because the government inadvertently did not proclaim the legislation in time, these people could not legally register their firearms, and so I am trying to correct that. It doesn't matter if the government has changed its position, the legislation was passed. In fact, I think you're all aware that on September 29, 2005, the Minister of Public Safety wrote us a letter stating her objections to implementing section 12(6.1) of the Firearms Act, but her personal objections make no difference to this debate. Parliament already passed the section and it is the government's and the minister's duty to implement the law as it was passed. It doesn't matter if they have now changed their position.

There was some concern during the June 28 meeting that we didn't have an amendment to consider, but we now do. I attached my clause, Bill C-433, that private member's bill, to my motion, which you have probably seen. If you haven't, I can show it to you.

(1150)

Hon. Roy Cullen: A point of order.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I would like to summarize in conclusion here. It will only take me—

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Breitkreuz.
Mr. Cullen, you have a point of order.

Hon. Roy Cullen: I just have, Mr. Chair, for you to consider, a couple of procedural questions.
One, the committee dealt with this motion on June 28, 2005 and it was defeated, six to five, so I'd like a formal ruling from you, sir, as to why we're dealing with this again if the motion was already defeated.

My second procedural question is this: Mr. Breitkreuz has a private member's bill in the House dealing with precisely the same question and looking for the same remedy. Procedurally then why would this committee be dealing with this motion when there's a private member's bill that deals with the same topic and proposed the same remedies that is on the floor of the House right now?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Chair, can I respond to the point of order?

The Chair: As long as it's not identical, Mr. Cullen, I believe the motion is in order to proceed. I would rule that this motion can proceed.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Cullen, the committee directed me to do this. I'm following the direction of the committee, so how can you object when you sat here and agreed to what we were doing? Now I am complying with the committee's direction, and the Chair of the Committee said to bring it forth in the fall. Well, it's November.

The Chair: Is this the same point of order?

Hon. Roy Cullen: Yes, just to elaborate, if a word is changed, or does the remedy or the motion have to alter what was said in the original motion substantively? Is it just a matter of putting an “and” or a “the” or a comma? I'm just confused. I don't know why we're dealing with the same motion again.

The Chair: It's a matter of interpretation. I don't have the original motion before us. Maybe our clerk could provide us with that and I'll do the comparison.

It was the indication of this committee at the time that we may revisit this in the fall after we resumed sitting.

Hon. Roy Cullen: On my second point then, why are we dealing with it if there's a private member's bill on the floor of the House? It's going to take up time in the Chamber, and now it's going to take up time at committee. If the bill is accepted in principal in the House it will be referred to this committee. We'd be dealing with it the second time. Why are we dealing with it potentially twice--three times?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: This committee directed me to come up with a solution to the problem, so I put it on the public record as per your request. You and I know that private member's bills don't automatically come before Parliament in any kind of a timeframe. At the end of the year, these people will become criminals if we don't act. That's going to result in a lot of drawn-out court cases, which the government likely would lose. It's in your best interests, I believe, to deal with this issue in the affirmative.

Hon. Roy Cullen: I'll deal with the substantive issues later. I just had a couple of procedural questions that I wanted to raise first.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Okay, let me conclude. It will take me a couple of minutes here.

Hon. Roy Cullen: The chair is ruling on that, isn't he?

The Chair: I'm comparing the two motions. They aren't substantially the same, although the intent obviously is the same.
I would say there's sufficiently enough difference that I wouldn't rule it out of order as the same motion.

Hon. Roy Cullen: Okay.
Mr. Chair, what about the second question? Are there any rules of the House to deal with two or three times, on the floor of the House, at committee, in motions? That wouldn't make any sense to me.

The Chair: I'm not aware of any rules. Perhaps our clerk or researchers can provide some insight.

(1155)

Mr. Philip Rosen (Committee Researcher): I'm not aware of any rules either, Chair, and you could see of course that a private member's bill would deal with a particular issue and if that were the rule, it would prevent a lot of issues being dealt with in committee. I'm not aware of a rule that allows that.

Hon. Roy Cullen: Okay, I'll come back to the substantive issues later.
Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Breitkreuz, do you want to conclude?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes. I'm just really surprised that the government is now trying to use procedure to block this.
I just want to read into the record here today what I said when I introduced the bill on October 26, and I quote:

The federal government issued the owners of these firearms a firearms acquisition certificate before they purchased these handguns. Then the government approved the registration of these handguns in accordance with the law that existed up until December 1, 1998. They complied fully with the law then and they want to fully comply with the law now, the law passed by Parliament. All these law-abiding gun owners want to do is re-register their handguns in accordance with the Firearms Act as it exists today. The problem is that the government failed to implement the will of Parliament because it did not bring the Bill C-10A amendments into force in time to allow these law-abiding firearms owners to take advantage of the grandfathering privileges we provided for them in section 12(6.1).

My simple amendment to the Firearms Act would remedy this dilemma and save the government embarrassment, and of course the cost of hundreds of lawsuits.

And Mr. Cullen, I compliment you on what you said as the minister's parliamentary secretary on cutting to the heart of this issue. You told the newspapers on October 24 that handguns in the right hands are not a problem, and of course I agree with you, you're right. Parliament has already decided that the section 12(6.1) handguns are in the right hands, and so I urge the committee to get an amendment into the House and finish the job Parliament started in Bill C-10A, and I appreciate the opportunity to bring this forward once again.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Breitkreuz.
We have on the speakers' list Mr. Cullen, Ms. Sgro, Mr. Marceau and Mr. Toews.
Mr. Cullen, you're first.

Hon. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just on that first point of vote, what I said about handguns, I've issued some clarifying letters which have been published in a couple of papers. Just to put it into context, I stand by what I said. Handguns in the right hands are not the problem. And the best example is registered handguns in the hands of licensed law enforcement officers. There are probably others, you know, legitimate people who use them at firing ranges and stuff.

But my remarks were made in the context of someone proposing that the government sue the handgun manufacturers, which I personally have got a problem with. It's sort of like.... Suing tobacco manufacturers is one thing, but at least there's some sort of cause and effect. Suing handgun manufacturers, if you want to do that, why not just ban handguns, which I don't think is a reasonable proposition either. So anyway, just so that comment is put into context.

But I'd like to come back. I'm absolutely amazed that Mr. Breitkreuz would be pursuing this matter. We were just in Toronto last week with the Prime Minister, and talking about a very serious and aggressive initiative with respect to handguns and gun violence in the city of Toronto. It's not limited to the city of Toronto, but we certainly have had a spate of violence with handguns there. And our government is, as is one of your colleagues with a private member's bill, very concerned about crimes committed with handguns.

And, in fact what these guns are--let's be very clear--these are what we call the Saturday night specials. These are the handguns that are used by criminals to commit criminal acts. So the other part that I think, Mr. Chairman, is important to put on the record, we know that Mr. Breitkreuz has a long history of being against the gun registry and being supportive of gun owners, and that's fine. But the individuals who acquired and registered their first 12(6) handguns between February 14, 1995 and December 1, 1998, were informed in writing that they would not be permitted to keep the firearms, should the Firearms Act pass as proposed. And a copy of the notice--maybe I could just put into the record some of the excerpts of what they were provided with in writing.

It goes like this:

Notice to prospective handgun purchasers. If you intend to acquire a 25 or a 32 calibre handgun or a handgun with a barrel length of 105 mm or less, after February 14, 1995, that is not already registered or a subject of an application to register dated no later than that date, please read this note carefully.

Present registrants of any of the above categories of guns--

and they go to the different categories--

under the proposed legislation be permitted to continue to possess them and trade amongst themselves. Note that certain conditions may apply. Handguns that were registered, or an application made by February 14, 1995 that were manufactured before 1946 are exempt if they are being transferred to a spouse or brother, sister, child or grandchild that were an eligible individual. Individuals who acquire any such handguns for the first time after February 14, 1995 will not qualify to possess them after passage of the legislation if it is passed in its presence form. These firearms

--And then they were asked--

I have read and understand the foregoing.

And they signed and dated it.

Mr. Chairman, Breitkreuz has mentioned the fact about law suits. Well, what about the 2,500 individuals who complied with the prohibition and with the grandfathering provisions? What about Parliament's undertaking to them?

And we also know, Mr. Chair, that these individuals have options. Before the end of December, they can turn them in; they can transfer them to a grandfathered individual or sell them to a grandfathered individual. So the rules were very clear when this happened. They knew what they were getting into. And I'm pleased to note that in the last debate we had on this very same topic, Mr. Ménard who has a lot of experience in these matters, he said the following. Mr. Ménard from the Bloc Québécois:

We are going to be voting against the motion put forward by a Conservative colleague. In my opinion, it would simply encourage those who possess these firearms. These weapons are dangerous and I do not think we should encourage their distribution.

(1200)

And he went on:

I feel no sympathy for these people. Why would someone want to possess a weapon that can kill and has no other use except to kill or to inflict serious injury, unless he or she wants to use it, or sell it illegally?

These are “Saturday night specials”, Mr. Chairman. I would urge this committee, given the extent of handgun violence in our cities, to defeat this motion.

The Chair: Thank you.
Ms. Sgro.

Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): I'll echo what Minister Cullen has said. I clearly have no sympathy on this issue. I would actually introduce a motion to ban all handguns in Canada, if I thought I could get that somewhere. Clearly, I am not doing that at the moment. I have no sympathy for any of them.

Clearly, if you talk with our police officers and live in our cities in some of these areas, they're not driving the cars with the shotguns. They are driving around with handguns. I think the faster and the easier we can do to eliminate handguns completely in this country, we will be far better off. They're far too easy to hide, and they're far too easily stolen. For us to turn around and weaken our own legislation by allowing this, it's clearly a waste of our time. These are weapons that are used to hurt people, and tell me that you want to go target practising, well, I just don't see the benefit of having handguns in the country, period. I think we should just move on to the other major issues that we have on our agenda and not waste any more time on this one.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Sgro.
Mr. Marceau.

[Français]

M. Richard Marceau: Je n'ai rien dit.

M. Marc Lemay: Pour l'instant.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews: I think the issue here is more than just dealing with handguns. To me the issue is quite periphery to what is the issue here.

What I'm concerned about is that Parliament made either a legislative commitment or other commitment to a certain group of people. Whether we agree with these individuals' right to possess a handgun or not is quite irrelevant. What I'm concerned about, and all this motion is asking, is that we examine the issue. My concern is that we've made a commitment to individuals, apparently that commitment has been broken. I simply want to know why the Government of Canada is going back on its word. Whether I would ultimately support the motion in terms of having these handguns registered, for me is an entirely different issue. I'm concerned that we made a commitment, and now to breach that commitment causes me some concern.

That's why I would support this motion, not on the issue of the handgun, but rather on a broken commitment. This was a process that was recommended that we proceed in this way, and that's why Mr. Breitkreuz has done this. Where does this stand in terms of our integrity as parliamentarians where commitments have been made? Commitments have been made, and they've not been followed. Let's explain that very properly, rather than doing it in a preliminary way like this. That's all I am suggesting.

(1205)

[Français]

Le président: Monsieur Lemay.

M. Marc Lemay: Nous voterons contre la proposition de M. Breitkreuz pour plusieurs raisons.

La première raison, et c'est très important de le souligner, c'est que les personnes qui ont acquis des armes de poing entre le 14 février 1995 et le 1er décembre 1998 savaient qu'elles devaient s'en départir avant l'entrée en vigueur de la Loi. C'est important dans cette proposition. De plus, ça ne touche pas les collectionneurs d'armes, parce que ceux-ci pourront l'obtenir, dès que l'arme sera neutralisée. Ils peuvent, une fois l'arme neutralisée, conserver leur arme de poing.

Alors nous ne pouvons pas donner notre accord à cela, c'est clair. D'autant que ces armes sont dangereuses et surtout faciles à dissimuler. Elles ne portent pas le nom de handgun sans raison. Elles sont toutes petites. C'est pourquoi, entre autres, nous nous y opposons; c'est clair.
D'autant plus que leurs détenteurs savaient qu'ils devaient s'en déposséder, s'en départir avant l'entrée en vigueur de la Loi. Or nul n'est censé ignorer la Loi, comme dirait un juge de la Cour suprême que je connais bien.

Merci.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz:
There is an error in what you have said. Many people acquired these very same handguns during that period and are allowed to keep them, legally, and register them. The government screwed up. The government passed legislation and Mr. Cullen said a letter was sent to these people. That letter said that if legislation wasn't passed, but the legislation was passed. The government screwed up. They did not proclaim the legislation in time. So you are actually supporting the incompetence of the government if you do not support my motion. It's as clear as that.

Mr. Cullen said that these people knew they couldn't keep... The legislation was passed authorizing them to keep them and many people acquired those exactly, identical guns by the thousands and are allowed to keep them but there is a very small group who are affected because their registration certificates expired and at the end of this year they can't get them, yet the legislation was on the books there. That's what I'm trying to correct. It's as simple as that.

I don't understand. All of these other arguments are really irrelevant. That's the issue and if we start going and focussing on all kinds of other things we've missed the point of what I'm trying to do. You're not pro-gun control, you're not pro-gun registry or anti-gun registry. You are trying to ensure that the law of this land is kept. When we as Parliament speak, that voice should be respected. It was not and for the government to now go back on that is unacceptable and I want to correct that. That's why I've brought this forward.

I hope you will focus on what I am trying to do here; not on all kinds of other peripheral issues. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Cullen, and Ms. Sgro again.

Hon. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just wanted to correct Mr. Breitkreuz. He quoted me and I was quoting from the notice to prospective handgun purchasers who bought these handguns. And in this paragraph it says,

Individuals who acquire any such handguns for the first time after February 14, 1995 will not qualify to possess them after passage of the legislation. If it is passed in its present form these firearms will be seized without grandfathering or compensation.

Mr. Breitkreuz knows full well that what happened here was that this bill got split into 10a and 10b. There were certain grandfathering provisions because the legislation was not passed--

(1210)

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: It was passed.

Hon. Roy Cullen: --in the timelines that were originally contemplated--

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: That's not true.

Hon. Roy Cullen: --that's creating this problem.
So the point is that there were 2,500 individuals who complied with the grandfathering provisions and what about Parliament's commitment to them as well?

So I rest my case, Mr. Chairman, and we should just get on and vote on this.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Can I just... That's not true.

The Chair: We have Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Thompson, and I'll give you one final word after, Mr. Breitkreuz, and then we'll call the question.

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC): I'll be very short. I don't see how we can, in good conscience, not support this motion. I mean, we did, as legislators, pass this legislation to protect these people. They're tax-paying people. They're law-abiding people. They need the protection of which they're so deserving.

Why are we balking on this? We're going to make them criminals. That's exactly what it will do if we don't pursue this and I really fail to understand why people with any common sense would want to criminalize people who don't deserve to be.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Breitkreuz. Again, this is the final word and then we'll call the question.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes, I go back on what Mr. Cullen said. We passed the legislation in Parliament. The problem was that it was not proclaimed. You know the procedure where you can pass legislation but then it has to be proclaimed. There is the issue. It's not that we didn't pass the... We actually passed the legislation allowing these people to register their firearms and now, because the government didn't proclaim it, they can't register it. It's as simple as that. Don't you recognize that's the issue?

Hon. Roy Cullen: We're going to agree to disagree on...

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes, that's--

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Cullen, please.
Calling for the question, all those in favour of the motion, please indicate.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Could we have a recorded vote, please?

The Chair: A recorded vote, please.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Just so we know who's voted which way, yes.

The Chair: (Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

The Chair: The motion is defeated, again the same, six to five.

NOTE: The two Bloc MPs voted with the four Liberals to defeat Garry Breitkreuz's motion supporting the law-abiding owners of 12(6.1) handguns. NDP Joe Comartin voted with the Conservative MPs in support of Garry's motion.

The Clerk of the Committee: Because he didn't vote. The chair is not voting.

The Chair: No, I don't have to. It's not a tie.

Ms. Diane Diotte: No.

The Chair: Just a couple of housekeeping matters---
Yes Monsieur Lemay.

[Français]

M. Marc Lemay: Monsieur le président, j'ai une petite question. Maintenant que le débat est terminé, comment allons-nous faire? J'ai été surpris, je n'ai rien contre la motion de M. Breitkreuz, mais nous n'en avons pas été avisés. Je veux savoir comment cela fonctionne. Est-ce que je dois traîner avec moi toutes les motions possibles et que peut-être pourrions-nous en débattre dans un comité? Comment cela fonctionne-t-il vraiment? J'ai fait courir mon personnel pour aller chercher la motion. J'avais tous mes documents, j'avais pris des notes pour pouvoir répondre. J'aurais aimé qu'on ait un débat un peu plus long mais c'est fait.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lemay. The procedure is, as long as there is a 48-hour notice of a motion it could be debated any time thereafter. But you made a good practical point, that members of the committee would like to perhaps to have notice of when this motion is in fact coming forward. Mr. Breitkreuz was not prepared to go forward with it at the first meeting after the 48-hour notice, he was prepared to go ahead today but it's probably a good comment on your part that additional notice should be given as to exactly when that member would prefer to have his motion---

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: To my Bloc colleague, I didn't know I was going to do this today either. It's because we had time. It's because we had time that we put it on the agenda.

[Français]

M. Marc Lemay: D'accord

[English]

The Chair: As housekeeping, on the supplementary estimates both Minister Cotler and Ms. McLellan are confirmed for December 1, Mr. Cotler will go between 11 a.m. and 12:30 p.m.. and Minister McLellan will go from 12:30 p.m.. till 2 p.m..