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 49, TÉMOIGNAGES DU COMITÉ NUMÉRO 49

UNEDITED COPY – COPIE NON ÉDITÉE

PUBLIC PART ONLY – PARTIE PUBLIQUE SEULEMENT

Tuesday June 28, 2005 – Le mardi 28 juin 2005

* * *
BREITKREUZ'S MOTION FOR OWNERS OF 12(6.1) HANDGUNS DEFEATED BY LIBERAL AND BLOC MPs IN 6-5 VOTE AT JUSTICE COMMITTEE TODAY.
NDP SUPPORTED THE CONSERVATIVES

Public proceedings resume……

(0913)

[English]

The Chair: I call the meeting to order. We are on the record as meeting number 49 of the justice committee.
Mr. Breitkreuz, you were going to proceed with your motion.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my motion is self-explanatory, and for the record I'd like to just read it.
I move that whereas the Law and Government Division of the Parliamentary Information and Research Service of the Library of Parliament has issued a report dated June 15, 2005 revealing the fact that thousands of law-abiding owners of registered short barrelled handguns are unable to renew their registration certificates because it was “not made possible due to the timing” of Bill C-10A's enactment and coming into force; and whereas neither the government nor the Canada Firearms Centre has proposed a regulation or amendment to the Firearms Act to correct this problem; therefore, I move to have this serious problem investigated and addressed by the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

And I would like to thank Mr. Raaflaub for being here today and for answering my query to the Library, and putting together that paper in response.

I had a briefing yesterday with James Deacon, the Director General of Policy at the Canada Firearms Centre, and Morgan Elliott, who is the Senior Policy Advisor to the Minister of Public Safety and they advised that they have not yet proposed an amendment to the legislation that would fix this problem, although they did suggest that this problem could not be fixed by regulation alone. So we do need some sort of a legislative amendment, and I'm proposing that we investigate this. I don't think it would take long. We could probably do it one or two sittings of the committee, and make a recommendation, and I'm sure it could clear Parliament very quickly.

Now the intent of the government is very clear on this point. The government and Parliament have made clear its intention by first proposing and passing its amendment to the Firearms Act in Bill C-10A that extended grandfathering rights to all law-abiding owners of registered short barrelled handguns, and the government has also made its intent clear by issuing at least six amnesties, that's according to the Library researchers. Talking to the Firearms Centre yesterday, there have been seven amnesties, according to them, to the owners of these short barrelled handguns since 1998, and while it's trying to find a permanent legislative solution to the problem they have issued these amnesties.

The government's intent was also made clear because the Canada Firearms Centre renewed the registrations for about 3,000 owners of the section 12 6.1 hand guns because they already owned short barrelled handguns of a similar class, and additionally by granting grandfathering rights to about 90,000 owners of registered and now prohibited firearms, the government has made it clear that it does not consider these prohibited firearms--and they're mostly handguns--to be the least bit dangerous when in the hands of law-abiding persons licensed to acquire, possess, and use them.

Also according to the Canada Firearms Centre, there are now about 1,500 owners of section 12 6.1 handguns that are caught in this catch-22 situation and are unable to renew the registrations for their short barrelled handguns and thereby achieve grandfathering status under the law, and I got these figures from the Firearms Centre people yesterday.

The purpose of my motion is to help these 1,500 law-abiding owners of section 12 6.1 handguns get out of this legislative limbo by seeking a simple legislative amendment consistent with the Firearms Act as passed by Parliament and the government's clearly demonstrated intent.
And so I ask for the members of this committee to support my motion to have this problem investigated and addressed.

Thank you.

The Chair: Any comments?

Mr. Macklin.

Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland—Quinte West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In addressing this particular issue--obviously, it is a matter that has caused some concern--I think it's important to put this motion into some form of context.

There are currently 7 million firearms registered and recorded in the Canadian Firearms Registration System. That is managed by the Canada Firearms Centre. Police, customs officers, and chief firearms officers across the country use this firearms information in the system, of course, every day to make important public safety decisions and to help investigate and to prevent crime. My understanding is that they're using it now at the rate of at least 14,000 requests a week.

The vast majority of registered firearms, about 6.4 million, are ordinary rifles and shotguns, and they're classed as non-restricted firearms. Roughly another 400,000 firearms are classed as restricted firearms, and these are typically the handguns. The last 200,000 firearms are prohibited firearms. There are many kinds of prohibited firearms including the fully automatic weapons and the semi-automatic military assault-style rifles. The Firearms Act in section 12 lists the various categories of prohibited firearms.

The individuals who own these firearms were grandfathered to do so when the Firearms Act came into force. About 90,000 individuals currently have grandfathered status to own one or more categories of prohibited firearms, that is 90,000 people out of a total of about 2 million licensed firearms owners.

The short-barrelled handguns and .25- and .32-calibre handguns are prohibited due to their typically small size and potential ease of concealment. These are the firearms to which the motion directs itself, commonly called a “12(6)” firearm.

In order to be given grandfathered status and to be able to own prohibited firearms of any category, a person would have had to own at least one firearm of that kind before the Firearms Act received royal assent in February of 1995. The Firearms Act came into force in December of 1998--so a three-year difference. Between February 1995 and December 1998, some people who did not have grandfathered status purchased subsection 12(6) handguns. Those handguns were not prohibited at the time, but it was known that they would be when the act came into force.

Bill C-10A had been drafted to address this and give the people who purchased the handguns during that time period grandfathered status, but the passage of the bill was subject to long delay, as it only passed in May of 2003. In the meantime, the original registration certificates for these handguns, which had been issued by the RCMP under the Criminal Code, expired in December 2002.

This meant that these people did not continuously hold a valid registration certificate once the new provisions under Bill C-10A came into force. The effect was that these people did not acquire the privilege to own these prohibited handguns. Now, this is clearly unfortunate. There was an expectation created that the owners of the handguns would be able to keep them. Again, I underscore that this was due solely to the delay in the passing of the legislation.

The Canada Firearms Centre is confirming figures, Mr. Chairman, and at this time believes that approximately 1,000 individuals find themselves in this situation. The centre plans to send a letter to each affected individual this summer to remind every person of all of his or her options. In that regard, there is currently an amnesty order in place for these individuals under the Criminal Code allowing these people to legally dispose of their firearms. In practice, that means to sell a firearm to someone who does have the privilege to own it, to export the firearm, or to deactivate it or to have it destroyed.

The option of selling the firearm allows the owner to recover some or all of the value of the firearm. The amnesty order expires, though, this December 31, 2005. Without the amnesty order, these individuals would be in illegal possession of firearms.

Mr. Chairman, this situation obviously is not ideal. The alternative is to amend the legislation before the end of this year, 2005. The paper from the Library of Parliament raises the possibility of amending regulations to address this issue; however, we understand that this is not a possibility and that legislative change would be required. And at that moment, the government is not proposing to amend the act.

(0920)

We will ensure that all affected individuals and businesses are clearly informed of their options and provide whatever information and assistance we can in this regard through the Canada Firearms Centre, once again reminding you that this situation arose, Chairman, as a result of the delays in passing Bill C-10A--and we all recall why those delays occurred.

Bill C-10A contained numerous important improvements, however, to the Firearms Act, and most of these changes have now been implemented and related regulations made to ensure that we continue to have the most effective firearms controls possible and to ensure we provide Canadians with high quality service.

At the same time, as it would be of interest to Mr. Breitkreuz, the cost for the Canada Firearms Centre continued to decline. The main estimate for the firearms centre requests $82.3 million for 2005-06. That is about $18 million less than the approved spending for the previous year, and down 59% from its peak in 2000-01.

Mr. Chairman, there is help that is being offered. Options are being offered to the individuals who find themselves in this position. Accordingly, I think that at this point it would be unnecessary, because of, I think, the clarity. I don't think we disagree much, in terms of the numbers. Mr. Breitkreuz is estimating about 1,500, we're estimating roughly 1,000. We're going to try to approach this, as I say, on an individual basis and try to help resolve this issue.

I don't think it would be necessary for this committee to “investigate” this problem because the problem is well before us. It's very clear. The only issue is how we seek the solution. At least at this point the government is proposing a solution that should, hopefully, lead to these individuals being able to extricate themselves from this situation. Accordingly, we would not be supporting the motion.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP): A question, if I can, Mr. Chair, to Mr. Macklin.

It just seems to me, though, that the government's breaching an agreement with these owners. I don't understand why none of the three alternatives comply with the original undertaking that the government had given to these owners.

To add to that, has an attempt been made to draft a quick amendment? This is pretty straightforward what needs to be corrected: you, in effect, need a retroactive amendment to the legislation, probably one paragraph, two or three at the most. I don't understand why that option wasn't...

(0925)

Hon. Paul Harold Macklin: At this point, I'm not aware that any draft amendment has been prepared, but, obviously, that is something that could be considered.

The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I would like to comment in regards to that, as well.

First of all, the government made its intention clear that they want to register as many firearms--or all the firearms--in the country that they can. The approach that you've just outlined really flies in the face of that, I think. The whole purpose of Bill C-10A was to try to draw everybody in. I think it could be a very simple amendment that could address this. With the committee's permission, I'd ask Mr. Raaflaub maybe to comment on how complex an amendment like this would have to be.

The second comment, in regards to costs, if something isn't done here this will dramatically increase the costs of this legislation because there's going to be a lot of court cases now. Some of my sources tell me that the government is not going to win these court cases, so I think it's in the government's best interests to address this problem.

I wonder if Mr. Raaflaub would be willing to maybe comment on some of the things that have been said here to date. How complex would an amendment like this have to be? Could it not be done quickly?

The Chair: I can ask clarification from our researchers.

Mr. Philip Rosen (Committee Researcher): Before my colleague answers the question, I do want to make it clear that, as Mr. Breitkreuz indicated, this paper was prepared at his request and it's not something we did on our own initiative. The second point I'd like to make is that neither my colleague nor I are drafters.

But I think my colleague may have something to say which could be of some assistance.

Wade Raaflaub (Committee Researcher): There are really two aspects to this problem, the first of which is that the relevant registration certificates expired in December 2002, and nothing can be done about that. But the section currently drafted in the Firearms Act requires people to have a continuous registration of those particular handguns, so the amendment would have to resolve the problem of continuous registration. It would simply be, I think, relatively easy to create a retroactive amendment where you'd remove that requirement, at least for these particular individuals. It would have to be cleverly drafted so that you're only applying it to these intended individuals, but that continous requirement would be what would have to be removed from the legislation.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, you have a comment.

[Français]

M. Serge Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, BQ): Je comprends que les armes en question sont actuellement interdites par une loi qui était déjà connue en 1995. Les gens qui sont actuellement en possession de ces armes présentent des problèmes n'avaient pas ces armes avant 1995, si je comprends bien. Ils ont donc décidé d'acheter des armes qui seraient interdites en 1998 en le sachant. Ces armes ne présentent à peu près aucun intérêt qui ne soit pas un intérêt malsain. J'évite de dire illégal, mais malsain. Cela n'a pas d'intérêt pour les collectionneurs. Ce ne sont pas des armes de précision, ce sont des armes qui n'ont qu'un intérêt, celui d'être faciles à cacher, donc de pouvoir déjouer certains contrôles, pas tous, de possession d'armes à feu. Ce sont également des armes qui ne sont pas très chers et qui, par conséquent, peuvent facilement tomber dans les mains des gangs de rues.

Je sais que parmi les interventions qui sont continuellement faites par les conservateurs sur l'enregistrement des armes à feu, nous sommes généralement d'accord avec les critiques sur le coût représenté par l'enregistrement. Sur la question de principe, ils disent toujours que les vrais bandits vont encore se procurer des armes à feu. Oui, mais cela va leur coûter plus cher et cela va être plus compliqué.

Toutefois, ce qui fait hausser le taux d'homicides, ce n'est pas tellement les vrais bandits que les petits bandits, ceux qui commencent, ceux qui n'ont pas de moyens, le grand problème des gangs de rues. Ici, la dissémination des armes à feu en général est une des choses qui amène des gens à commettre des crimes impulsifs. Le meilleur exemple de cela est que le taux d'homicides aux États-Unis est trois fois plus élevé que celui du Canada. Quand on regarde le taux de conjoints tués par des armes à feu, je pense que cela monte à huit fois plus aux États-Unis. On voit donc très bien que quand on diminue le nombre d'armes à feu en circulation et qu'on le réserve à des gens responsables et biens formés, on a une influence sur la criminalité la plus dangereuse.

Dans ce cas-c, ce serait le genre d'armes à feu que pourraient facilement se procurer des gens dans des gangs de rues qui pourraient rapidement ces armes, ainsi de suite. Il s'agit d'un objet, ce n'est pas un véhicule que les gens acceptent d'enregistrer et qui sont uniquement confiés à des gens qui ont passé des examens, qui ont des permis, etc. Un véhicule sert à se déplacer. C'est assez dangereux pour qu'on l'enregistre et qu'on garde un contrôle. Une arme comme celle-là n'a qu'une fonction: tuer ou blesser sérieusement.
On est en présence de gens qui, sachant que ces armes seraient prohibées dans trois ans, ont décidé de s'en procurer quand même. Quel intérêt peuvent-ils avoir? Collectionneurs? Si c'est leur intérêt est de collectionner, ils ont une solution, c'est celle de désactiver l'arme en question, de la rendre inutilisable. Il y a des moyens pour le faire.

J'avoue que je ne me sens pas beaucoup de sympathie pour ces gens. Quoique je n'aime pas le processus et l'idée, le temps que le gouvernement prend à mettre en vigueur une loi a des conséquences sur des gens qui pouvaient, un certain moment donné, espérer, après plusieurs amnisties et un projet de loi qui leur permettrait de continuer cette possession, conserver « de bonne foi » sous cet aspect ces armes à feu. Je dis simplement « de bonne foi » parce que leur seule bonne foi c'est de penser défier la loi au début en 1998, quand la possession de cette arme est devenue illégale, donc que c'est devenu une arme prohibée, alors qu'ils savaient que ce serait une arme prohibée. Ils ont été avertis quand elle a été achetée que ce serait une arme prohibée. Des amnisties leur ont permis de conserver ces armes pendant un certain temps.

(0930)

Ces gens soulèvent, à mes yeux, aucune sympathie.

Pourquoi veut-on être en possession d'une chose qui peut tuer et qui n'a d'autre utilité que de tuer ou de blesser gravement? Si ce n'est pas éventuellement pour s'en servir ou pour le vendre sans contrôle sur un marché illégal.

Cela étant dit, s'il y avait une solution législative facile, peut-être. C'est cela l'aspect qui m'embête. Par contre, encore là, il faut la placer dans les circonstances.

M. Macklin dit: « Tout le monde se souvient ». Je regrette, je ne m'en souviens pas, je n'étais pas ici et pourtant, il me semble que je suivais le débat des armes à feu. Mais, je comprends que pour quelqu'un qui était membre du comité ou qui participait au débat. Je comprends que c'était dans la suite d'une objection systématique où tous les moyens de procédure ont été utilisés. Je soupçonne, on était aussi largement subventionné par les lobbys américains sur les armes à feu où on a fait tellement de difficultés au passage de cette loi et je n'ai l'impression d'ailleurs que les difficultés qu'on y a apportées c'était pour améliorer la loi, mais plutôt pour poser tellement de difficultés que cette loi ne serait jamais appliquée.

Or, ma conviction reste formelle, c'est-à-dire s'il y a bien une chose qui est évidente quand on s'est occupé de criminalité pendant quelques années, s'il y a bien une mesure de prévention de la criminalité la plus dangereuse qui fonctionne et qui donne des résultats, contrairement au minimum qu'on voudrait voir placer dans toutes les lois, à tour de bras, s'il y a une mesure qui diminue la criminalité, c'est bien le contrôle des armes à feu.

Si le gouvernement, à un moment donné, trouve une solution simple de régler, parce qu'il y a quand même un problème.... Ce n'est pas une injustice, mais c'est qu'à un moment donné on permet à des gens qui se sont placés eux-mêmes, ils le savaient, dans une situation légale difficile, d'illégalité. On leur donne des amnisties et on a un projet de loi pour leur laisser entendre qu'ils pourraient régulariser leur situation. À partir de ce moment-là, je comprends que ces gens puissent garder en leur possession ces armes à feu.

Si j'avais un moyen simple pour le moment, quant à moi, nous allons voter contre la motion de mon collègue conservateur et je crois, à mon avis, que cela encouragera ceux qui sont en possession d'armes. La seule solution qui s'offre à eux pour le moment... si c'est des collectionneurs c'est parce qu'ils ne veulent pas s'en servir. Alors, s'ils veulent nous démontrer qu'ils ne veulent pas s'en servir, qu'ils désactivent l'arme et à ce moment-là, ils pourront montrer cette arme de collection. Je comprends qu'il y n'y a pas de concours de tire avec des armes comme cela qui ne sont pas des armes précises, ce sont des armes qui peuvent tuer et de très courtes portées. Ce sont des armes qui sont développées justement pour être facile à passer à travers certaines mesures de sécurité.

Alors, elle représente un danger. Je ne crois pas qu'on doive encourager leur dissémination.

(0935)

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Comartin, Mr. Warwawa, and then Mr. Breitkreuz.

[Français]

M. Joe Comartin: Monsieur le président, je suis d'accord avec presque toutes les paroles qu'on a reçues de M. Ménard, mais cela n'est pas le problème et ce n'est pas la solution qu'on doit avoir.

[English]

This is really a matter of the trust between ourselves, as members of this House, and the owners of those guns, and quite frankly, the members of the House when C-10A went through. It seemed to me, at that point, the government as a whole, all parties, had said, we are going to deal with this particular issue. I agree with Mr. Ménard. The guns generally, unless they're being used--and I think this would be fairly rare--for practice shooting are dangerous weapons, but that issue was addressed and dealt with in C-10A presumably, with at least the majority of the House of Commons agreeing that's how we were going to deal with the problem.

We can't avoid our responsibility to see that that legislation is carried through. There's obviously been--I won't say an error made--just because of the reality of the lateness of the bill coming into effect. I don't think we have the right, as members of parliament, to stand back and say, well, too bad. Our responsibility is to cure this problem. The amendment to C-10A, it seems to me, in my mind, from looking at what needs to be done here, is a relatively straightforward one. It's going to be a retroactive amendment; we're going to say, anybody who had the weapon of this nature registered at this period of time, they are legal. That's, in effect, what we are going to be saying. It's probably a one paragraph amendment and if we could get all party support on that, we could sent it through the House as we have a number of bills in the last couple of months, very quickly. We could be doing this in the fall at the early start of the session at that point. It's not a major problem.

I'd say to Mr. Breitkreuz, I'm not sure the solution is to bring the matter before this committee anymore, because if we do, I think it's just going to delay it and given that what's going to happen by December, I'm a bit concerned. I'd prefer to see if we can't get the government on side and get all the opposition parties on side to agree to a quick amendment and we run it through without it even coming to this committee.

The Chair: Mr. Warawa.

Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Being a relatively new member of this parliament, having been here now a very quick and short year, I've come to this table expecting a degree of open mindedness and was disappointed comments that had been made around this table that we prejudge the people that have these weapons. I will be supporting the suggestion that's just been made by Mr. Comartin that there could be a quick amendment, as he said, a possible one paragraph and looking for a speedy resolve to this problem.

Before I go down that road, I want to just make a quick response to Mr. Ménard's comments. There is an opinion expressed here, which Mr. Comartin said he endorsed that opinion, that these weapons are easy to be used by gangs. Well, these 1,000 or 1,500, whatever the number is, law-abiding Canadians, what percentage of these people who are looking for some assistance here, are providing these weapons to be used by gangs? I would speculate none, so why the comment? The comment was that they'll be used for spousal abuse to kill or seriously injure. What percentage of these weapons of these 1,000 to 1,500 people have permitted their weapons, or personally used their weapons to kill, or seriously injure? I would speculate none. They bought them knowing...they were informed. Well, what evidence do we have? To prejudge the situation shows, I believe, a strong bias, an unhealthy bias, at this committee. I think we need to be open-minded and listen to all the facts, not to come with a frame of mind that, don't confuse me with the facts.

I would encourage us to be open-minded. I think Mr. Breitkreuz's request is a fair one and for us to spend one or two meetings to come up with an open-minded consensus looking for real solutions to this problem. I think the government does have a responsibility to correct this problem. Some would call it mismanagement; whatever we want to call it, we have a problem here; there's an obligation by this government to create a solution to the problem that we've created. To spend two meetings to find a solution to this, I think is appropriate and I would encourage the government, there's a responsibility on this government, to find a solution to this problem. These are law-abiding people; they're not gang members; they're not killing their spouses; we have an obligation to provide a solution to this problem.

Thank you.

(0940)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Warawa.

Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you.

I appreciate the comments that have been made around the table here, and I'm glad people are open to this motion. I didn't think it required a whole lot of debate, but I have to react to some of the comments made.

I appreciate Mr. Comartin's approach. I agree, it can be done quickly. If the government drew up an amendment, within two hours we could have experts here analyzing it and saying whether it is good or not good and it could be a done deal. I don't think it has to take a lot of our time. We're spending more time deciding whether we should do it than how long it would actually take to do it.

I have to react to what Mr. Ménard said. There is one serious flaw with his line of reasoning, and that is these are law abiding citizens trying to comply with the law. That assumption he made that these people have somehow intentions to do something wrong with these firearms is completely inaccurate. They wouldn't have come to me if they hadn't been frustrated with the fact that they can't comply with the law.

It is a matter of trust. We screwed up--I shouldn't say “we”. It was the government. In Parliament we didn't get it right, and we should have gotten it right. Because we made the mistake, it is incumbent upon us to correct the mistake.

These people had enough faith that government would do it right when they purchased these firearms, and that the government would be encouraging registration and making it possible for them to do so. When that didn't happen they were extremely frustrated. We should honour their faith in us that we are going to correct this.

Mr. Ménard talked about street gangs. These people are not part of street gangs. They are not part of organized crime. These are friends and neighbours who are trying to do what's right. I would suggest to Mr. Ménard that he read the research, which counters most of what he said. I don't want to get into that at this point, but most of those statements were not factually accurate.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

(0945)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Moore.

Mr. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC): Notwithstanding anybody's opinion here on the merits of whether the gun registry works or doesn't, one of the things that is essential, which the government has acknowledged too, is that it does require cooperation. It requires stakeholders to buy into it if it's going to even attempt to be successful.

Just reading this, it reminds me of a similar but different scenario that I noticed is happening in New Brunswick. It was brought to my attention by two constituents. I raised it in this committee with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and also Mr. Baker when he was here.

On legally owned long guns that were in the prohibited category where these individuals were grandfathered, the guns were grandfathered, they were legally purchased, the person was legally licensed—and you have to understand that I know some of these people personally and they are law abiding to a t, they bend over backwards to obey the letter of the law, they dot all the is and cross all the ts to make sure they're in compliance—my understanding is they were informed by the Chief Firearms Officer for New Brunswick that they could no longer transport their legally owned and legally acquired firearms. That was completely without warning. Again, it was on amendments in Bill C-10A but it's bureaucrats interpretation of those amendments and what has happened is it's bringing the whole thing into disrepute.

That's one group. They were complying with the law and, all of a sudden, because of something that wasn't even contemplated when Bill C-10A was debated—I've talked to people who were on the committee at the time and they said that possibility never came up—that wasn't the intent of the committee when we passed Bill C-10A, that, all of a sudden as of April 1 these individuals would not be able to legally use their legally acquired firearms. You have that group of people.

I understand that Canada-wide, according to Mr. Baker's testimony, they used to be able to go to a range or competitions and they can no longer do that. Now we have individuals who Mr. Breitkreuz has identified. Unless we address this, as parliamentarians, knowing that in both those instances apparently it was some sort of either bureaucratic shortfall or timing issue...it is incumbent upon us, for Canadians to have faith in us as parliamentarians, that these things don't happen by stealth with no warning whatsoever, or by accident, so that all of a sudden their rights are being impacted.

I do support Mr. Breitkreuz' motion.

The Chair: Any further discussion? Are you ready for the questions?

Very quickly, Mr. Ménard.

[Français]

M. Serge Ménard: Je croyais qu'on discutait justement pour en arriver à une solution. Finalement, je suis prêt à me ranger à l'opinion de M. Comartin. Je dirais simplement que je ne comprends pas le but des gens qui ont acheté cela en 1995. Peut-être pourriez-vous me l'expliquer.

Vous dites que ce sont des law-abiding citizens. Mom Boucher respectait la loi lorsqu'il enregistrait sa moto. Ce n'est pas parce qu'il respecte quelques lois, n'est-ce pas? En fait, quelqu'un qui veut posséder un fusil pour ne pas s'en servir...Personnellement, je trouve cela malsain cette idée de collectionner des armes qui servent à tuer. Cela existe. Alors, je suis prêt à leur permettre des dispositions. Je ne vois pas quelle différence il y aurait pour un collectionneur d'avoir une arme désactivée et une arme qui fonctionne. Pourquoi fonctionnerait-elle? Je comprends bien qu'il soit nécessaire pour un honnête citoyen de se défendre chez lui parce qu'il faut pratiquement être à côté de la personne pour pouvoir se servir de l'arme. Alors, si vous pourriez me l'expliquer, je crois avoir l'esprit assez ouvert. Quel est l'intérêt de se procurer une arme semblable, autre que d'avoir une arme qu'on peut cacher de façon sécuritaire?

Probablement qu'il ne sert à rien de discuter. On devrait peut-être réserver notre temps pour discuter de sujets plus sérieux. Donc, je suis prêt à me ranger à la solution proposée par M. Comartin. Alors, si le gouvernement est prêt à reconnaître qu'il pourrait apporter, au cours de l'été...
Quant à moi, monsieur Breitkreuz, je m'inquiète des amendements qui sont rédigés en une journée. Lorsqu'on rédige des lois, c'est de cette façon qu'on peut faire des erreurs pour le futur. Lorsqu'on rédige des textes importants, il est bon de se garder un temps de réflexion avant d'y revenir. Or, si on va de l'avant avec la solution de M. Comartin, peut-être que cela vous satisferait. Cependant, il faudrait que le gouvernement manifeste une certaine ouverture.

(0950)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

A thirty second response, Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I forgot to respond earlier on why not deactivate the weapons. If you know anything about firearms to effectively deactivate it would completely devalue it and it wouldn't be a collecting item any more. You have to alter the firearm so much that it's not worth anything anymore. So that's the flaw in that argument.

Thank you.

The Chair: Okay. All those in favour of the motion please raise their hand.

[Français]

M. Serge Ménard: Est-ce que vous avez trouvé une solution?

[English]

The Chair: Pardon me.

[Français]

M. Serge Ménard: Est-ce qu'avec l'accord unanime, on ne pourrait pas demander s'il aurait une solution?
Quelle est la réaction du gouvernement à la proposition de M. Comartin?

[English]

Hon. Paul Harold Macklin: Well I think everyone has put themselves on the record here and I will go back and based on the information that's been brought forward here and have appropriate discussions. The question before us is not necessarily that. It's whether we should have an investigation and have a review of the entire matter. I submit that the motion as before us is not a motion that I can support. That doesn't say that I can't take back obviously the information that's been brought forward here today.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, I called the question. We have had half the vote. We had ample opportunity for discussion. I think I have to proceed with the balance of those against please raise their hands.

(Motion negatived)

The Chair: Mr. Marceau.

[Français]

M. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, BQ): Est-ce que la proposition de Joe pourrait être mise sous forme de motion sur laquelle on pourrait voter, ce qui ferait en sorte de faire avancer l'enjeu sur lequel Garry voulait qu'on se penche et le faire d'une façon consensuelle, comme nous le souhaitons tous, si je comprends bien?

[English]

The Chair: On consent I think we could, but I think maybe the message is to, Mr. Macklin, that there seems to be some strong support to doing some legislative changes to effect the result that Mr. Comartin has suggested.

Hon. Paul Harold Macklin: It's been clear today as to the feeling of the parties generally. I will take that back and see what effect that may have on the decisions that have been made today. I think that is likely an appropriate way to go.

The Chair: I think there is a possibility that a motion will be drafted I assume another day because I don't feel you got consent to do that. Someone might want to consider that for the fall.

Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Point well made.

The Chair: I think we might find an appropriate resolution when we get some more time to think this through.
Thank you very much on that motion.

We're not finished yet. Mr. Myron Thompson expressed concerns about the rotation of questioning. We have before us several options that could be considered in this respect.

Does anyone have any comments? Are we not content with the current situation? We would like to codify it a little more in one of these options here.

Go ahead, Ms. Sgro.

Hon. Judy Sgro: Mr. Chair, can I just make a suggestion that we deal with this issue at the first meeting when we come back in the fall?

The Chair: Well, it was on the agenda for today. If we could do it on consent here today to defer it--

Hon. Judy Sgro: Just deal with it as a first item of business when we come back to clarify what the rules will be.

(0955)

The Chair: The whole idea was to get it done now so we wouldn't have to worry about it.

Hon. Judy Sgro: Well, you can see from our end that the numbers are diminishing. I think it's inappropriate to deal with it in isolation of the other members not being here.

The Chair: Trying to be impartial, that's not the fault of the committee.

Hon. Judy Sgro: I'm just putting it on the table.

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Marceau.

[Français]

M. Richard Marceau: Monsieur le président, suite à des discussions informelles avec M. Thompson tout à l'heure, je n'ai pas l'impression que M. Thompson a, sur la table, une suggestion concrète. Je suggérais, pour éviter de parler dans le vide et on a tous la capacité et les talents pour pouvoir parler longtemps sans tout à fait dire plein de choses, si M. Thompson pouvait nous arriver, au retour, avec une suggestion de ce qu'il voudrait voir et on en discutera à ce moment-là.

[English]

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC): Mr. Chairman, I didn't have any real proposal or way to do it. I just suggested to yourself one day on the street that on that particular day, and it happened more than once, there were some of us who got to ask no questions, while Mr. Comartin--and I'm not picking on him, he just happens to be the only one here from the NDP--had three questions. I pointed out that I felt the fairest way was that everybody should have at least one chance before anyone else gets two. That seems like a fair way to do it.

Now, how you set it up on a rotation, my mathematical brain wasn't working in that sense. I just said I felt it was fair that everybody at least have one opportunity before anyone else has two chances, because there were many meetings when some of us left here and had no chance.

The Chair: We have a couple of suggestions on the floor. Two are to defer it.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Being as I'm the one who brought it up, I'm willing to defer it to the fall, because I'm sure we won't be doing any more sitting for now. But I do think it's something we should get straight right off the bat and make it as fair as possible, and to me that seems to be the fairest.

The Chair: Mr. Warawa, do you have any comments?

Mr. Mark Warawa: Just that I would agree on a deferral. I think we should look at all options. These are just some of the options.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

This is the second time it's been on the agenda. I think we have to deal with it. Ms. Sgro's suggestion that we deal with it first thing on our agenda in the fall is probably a very good suggestion. We will do that before we start any more questioning of witnesses. It will be the first item on the agenda. That's in agreement with the committee. Please consider it. I don't think we should either leave it the way it is, or make a recommendation and deal with that at the first meeting.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Should I put a suggestion on the floor?

The Chair: No, I don't think we need that. The understanding--no suggestion--is that this will be the very first item that we deal with at the meeting in the fall.

Agreed?

An hon. member: Agreed.

The Chair: Any other items?

We're adjourned. Thank you.