Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

Comité permanent de la justice et des droits de la personne

EVIDENCE number 79,
Témoignages du comité numéro 79

I call to order the 79th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 1, we're studying the process by which judges are appointed to the Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada.

As a witness this morning, we have, appearing as an individual, Edward Ratushny, Professor University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section. So we will be hearing from the professor. Perhaps you could explain the way you like to proceed. I only want to advise that we will be possibly interrupting the session for probably no more than ten minutes to entertain a motion put by Mr. Breitkreuz. So, Professor Ratushny.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Prof. Ratushny. Mr. Breitkreuz wants to put a motion. We've been given notice. It's in order. And since Bill C-20 is being debated in the House we have members who are going to be coming back and forth so we may not be able to sustain quorum, only by virtue of the fact that we're concurrently having a justice bill in the House and the justice committee meeting on this subject. So I'm going to entertain the motion now.

The Chair: You can do that, but you don't have to do that. I thank you and yes, but you may. Mr. Breitkreuz has sort of suggested that he can do this within just a few minutes. But you needn't be excused, Prof. Ratushny.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the committee allowing me to present that at this time while we have a quorum at the committee.

I hope you have before you the wording of the motion. I would like, in light of the problems that were identified during the recent review we had of the draft firearms regulations and the submissions that have been received by the clerk of this committee, that the committee prepare a report to Parliament with some recommended amendments to these draft regulations.

Those of you who have read the transcript or heard the problems realize that there are some very serious things and I'm going to give you one example in a moment, but the bottom line is that we as legislators--and not the bureaucrats--are responsible for correcting the problems and I believe we should take charge of this and recommend changes.

I think you heard when we had hearings on this how dangerous it is not to correct them and, because of poor drafting, they are unenforceable. I think that's a serious problem and because they're unenforceable it makes the billion dollars even more a waste of money.

The Senate has just had similar hearings and if you read the transcript of what is going on at the Senate, it will underline that what we heard at this committee was also verified at that committee.

In the interest of time I'm only going to give you one example of the problems that are going to arise within the near future because of the amendments that have been proposed.

In one area alone--the airgun issue, and this is a submission that was sent to this committee. I don't know if you've all had a chance to read this--but Hamilton, Ontario would like to get the Commonwealth Games. Those games are likely going to be negated and Hamilton will not get those games because of the amendments that have been put forward in regard to the airgun issue. In Toronto we're also probably going to lose the 2004 air pistol competition.

This all comes to light because people now are not allowed to come into Canada with those air pistols because of what's happening here. There was only one model, of all the air pistols, that was not restricted from coming into Canada, here.

Whether this committee thinks that is important or not, that's how it's going to impact on us in a material way. So I give that one example as a problem that has come up in the last little while. I appeal to the committee to have us prepare some kind of a report with recommended amendments.

I realize that's a lot of work and there's not a lot of time, but I put that forward and hopefully the committee will approve it.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Breitkreuz. Does anyone want to respond and again, out of respect to Professor Ratushny, let's keep this brief.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Just very briefly. The committee, following a motion that we adopted, did in fact hold a hearing on the regulations. We heard from CFC and we did not hear from any of the stakeholders that Mr. Breitkreuz is talking about, and the committee, if I'm not mistaken, has already reported back to the House on Monday, October 27. Therefore, I would ask the members of this committee not to support Mr. Breitkreuz' motion.

The Chair: For the record, we did not report to the House. We did not have to report to the House. Basically there was a legislated time. If we did not report at that time, the process finished itself and we did not report and we did not ask the chair to make a report.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you, Mr. Breitkreuz. I think the principal point, or the main point is that we heard from CFC. We did not hear from any other witnesses before we allowed the process of adopting regulations through governor in council to continue along its merry way and therefore I personally don't have enough information to determine whether or not amendments are required and if so, what amendments would be required. So I can't support this motion and I would simply ask the members of the committee not to support it.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Jennings. Mr. Breitkreuz, please, if we don't engage in trying to convince Ms. Jennings--

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I appreciate the indulgence of the committee to do this, but October 27 I think is being confused as the date on which the regulations could come into effect. They have to be laid before the House of Commons for one month, but they don't necessarily have to come into effect, and they aren't at this point in effect. They could wait another year, so we have time.

With all due respect I wanted to have more witnesses, but there are many who have written submissions to the committee, so we don't need to have them appear before the committee. We can go by the written submissions and the suggestions they have made. There are some experts who have made some excellent suggestions and there's no reason why we can't use those as well. It doesn't have to be somebody verbally reporting to the committee.

There's 20 countries that will likely not come to some of these games because of the regulations that are coming into effect. This is serious.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes, there are written submissions. The problem when we simply have written submissions is that there are contradictory recommendations to be found in those written submissions.

The Chair: Are we ready for the question? The question is put, so to read the motion:

The Chair: You want a recorded vote? That is your right. A recorded vote, please.

The Chair: The motion is defeated. The Chair does not have to cast a tie breaking vote.