From: Cdn-Firearms Digest [owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca] Sent: Monday, 11 February, 2002 11:28 To: cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V4 #535 Cdn-Firearms Digest Monday, February 11 2002 Volume 04 : Number 535 In this issue: the pork doesn't fall too far from the trough. health care commission hearings Registration Cards Three charged with violating firearms ban FW: JUSTICE - Blues / Bleus # 60 - as promised ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:59:59 -0600 From: "jim davies" Subject: the pork doesn't fall too far from the trough. > Subject: Location of BDP Ottawa Processing Centre > > BDP Business Data Services Limited > 2405 St. Laurent Boulevard - Unit K > Ottawa Ontario > K1G 5B4 > > BDP Business Data Services Limited > Data and Image Capture Services Contract > By Garry Breitkreuz, MP - Updated: January 23, 2002 > > This being a contractor approved by the Lieberals, there must be some connection with the party. Too fat a contract to be awarded to anyone without impeccable connections to the trough, er, party. No doubt Canada's crusading media is checking this out even as we speak... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:59:59 -0600 From: Joe Gingrich Subject: health care commission hearings If you wish to participate in the health commission hearings with presentation of an abstract you must prepare one soon. Joe Gingrich Schedule of Hearings The Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada will be engaging Canadians in a national dialogue on the future of their health care system. Citizens' Dialogue Sessions March 4 • Regina Abstract Deadline ­ February 15 March 6 • Winnipeg Abstract Deadline ­ February 15 March 12 • Vancouver Abstract Deadline ­ February 15 March 14 • Victoria Abstract Deadline ­ February 15 March 25 • Québec City Abstract Deadline ­ February 22 March 26 • Montreal Abstract Deadline ­ February 22 April 2 • Toronto Abstract Deadline ­ March 1 April 4 • Ottawa Abstract Deadline ­ March 1 April 8 • Iqaluit Abstract Deadline ­ March 8 April 11 • Sudbury Abstract Deadline ­ March 8 April 15 • St. John’s Abstract Deadline ­ March 15 April 17 • Halifax Abstract Deadline ­ March 15 April 18 • Charlottetown Abstract Deadline ­ March 15 April 19 • Fredericton Abstract Deadline ­ March 15 April 30 • Calgary Abstract Deadline ­ March 29 May 2 • Whitehorse Abstract Deadline ­ April 5 May 14 • Edmonton Abstract Deadline ­ April 12 May 16 • Yellowknife Abstract Deadline ­ April 12 Appearing Before the Commission Groups and individuals interested in appearing before the Commission during its public hearings must submit an abstract of their proposed presentation. As time constraints will limit the number of presentations, the abstracts will be used to ensure the Commission and the public are exposed to as wide a range of views as possible. Those not selected to appear may choose to submit their opinions in writing. All inputs the Commission receives will be reviewed and will become part of the public record. (Please note that groups or individuals who made formal submission to the Commission prior December 31, 2001 will automatically be considered and do not have to submit an abstract.) To register your interest in making presentation to the Commission at a scheduled hearing, please visit the Commission website: www.healthcarecommission.ca ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:59:29 -0600 From: Chris Host Subject: Registration Cards I recently bought a rifle from BC. The owner contacted me and we traded information that the CFC required. The details of the rifle were complete and correct. The length of barrel was reported to be 24". The paper registration card I received noted the barrel length as "greater than 470 mm". Does that mean that all rifles can be registered as Barrel Length greater than 470 mm, capacity, in the case of SA rifles as less than 6 or less than 11 for SA hand guns or more than one for 5, 6, or 9 round revolvers? That doesn't seem to do much for data base accuracy now does it. This, just in case someone wanted a few ideas as to how they should fill in the blanks for there registration cards. Chris Host ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:28:05 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Three charged with violating firearms ban PUBLICATION: The Hamilton Spectator DATE: 2002.02.11 SECTION: News PAGE: A05 SOURCE: The Hamilton Spectator BYLINE: Paul Legall DATELINE: St. Catharines - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- Men at Niagara bail hearing are gang members, expert says - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- The Crown expects to call a gang expert from Montreal to testify today at the bail hearing of seven men charged in connection with the abduction of a rap singer called Metal Storm and a shooting at a Niagara Falls strip bar. Andre Bourgon, who is prosecuting the case, said Serge Morin, an officer with the Montreal urban police, is expected to testify about a Haitian group called the Bogars which is believed to be establishing a presence in Niagara region. Guy Ouellette, another gang expert from Montreal, said at least two men appearing for the bail hearing are Bogars' members. The gang is well known in Montreal, where it has been involved in a drug turf war with a street gang called the Roughriders. He said the Bogars, as well as dealing drugs, are involved in the adult entertainment industry and provide protection for ethnic dancers who might be subjected to racial slurs. Ouellette, a top Canadian expert on outlaw bikers, suggested the Hells Angels -- who have a Welland chapter -- won't be happy to see an out-of-town gang encroaching on their territory. People appearing at the bail hearing were arrested in Niagara Falls on the Feb. 2-3 weekend in connection with incidents at Lundy's Lane strip clubs. The first incident started at Seductions Executive Lounge about 9:30 p.m. on Saturday. The 29-year-old rapper, whose stage name is Metal Storm, was attacked by eight or nine people. They forced him into a car and drove to the AmeriCana Hotel on Lundy's Lane where he had to hand over jewellery and cash. After breaking free from his attackers, he ran into a room where a wedding was being held and yelled, "they got a gun. They got a gun." The robbers escaped in two vehicles, including the victim's Chevy Blazer. Police found the vehicle in St. Catharines about 20 minutes later and arrested four men and a woman. The men were charged with robbery, forcible confinement, extortion, possession of stolen property under $5,000, offences and possession of a stolen vehicle. Three of the men were also charged with violating an order that bans them from owning . The woman faces similar charges, except for robbery and breaching a ban. Police said two of the men wore bulletproof vests. They found a concealed knife and two loaded handguns in the vehicle. About three hours later, at 12:40 a.m. Sunday, a 20-year-old Niagara Falls, N.Y., man was shot in the buttock while watching the show at another strip bar, the Sundowner Inn. It is located next to Seductions. Police said the shooting victim, whose injuries weren't life-threatening, didn't know the attackers and was just at the wrong place at the wrong time. About an hour later, police arrested four more men in a car on the outskirts of Niagara Falls. They were also charged with robbery, extortion, forcible confinement and possession of stolen property under $5,000. You can contact Paul Legall at plegall@hamiltonspectator.com or at905-526-3385. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:28:08 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: FW: JUSTICE - Blues / Bleus # 60 - as promised > From: Vachon, Marie-Danielle =20 > Sent: February 11, 2002 10:34 AM > To: Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1; Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 2 > Subject: JUSTICE - Blues / Bleus # 60 - as promised >=20 > Attached are the Blues of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human > Rights for the meeting of Tuesday, February 5, 2002, 11:00 a.m. > This is an unofficial, un-revised transcript of the meeting. This > document is sent for information only and not for citation, as there = is a > potential for errors of transcription. >=20 > Veuillez trouver ci-joint les Bleus du Comit=E9 permanent de la = justice et > de droits de la personne, pour la r=E9union du mardi, 5 f=E9vrier = 2002, 11 h > 00. > Le document ci-joint est une transcription non officielle et non = r=E9vis=E9e > de la s=E9ance. Il est envoy=E9 =E0 titre d'information seulement et = ne peut > =EAtre cit=E9, car il pourrait contenir des erreurs de transcription. >=20 > <>=20 >=20 > Ad=E8le > Administrative Assistant / Adjointe administrative > Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights / Comit=E9 permanent = de la > justice et des droits de la personne > T: (613) 996-1561 > F: (613) 992-9069 [English] The Chair (Mr.Andy Scott (Fredericton, = Lib.)):=20 I'd like to call the 60th meeting of the = Standing=20 Committee on Justice and Human Rights to order. Today we will be considering a motion = presented last=20 week by Mr. Toews that the committee or a subcommittee study and hear = witnesses=20 with respect to the total cost and economic impact of the Firearms Act. = For the edification of the members of the = committee,=20 we've been asked why the subject of the motion wasn't placed on the = notice of=20 meeting. The reason for the fact the subject wasn't placed on this = notice of=20 meeting was because it is not determined until, in fact, the motion is = put that=20 this is the subject of business. As members will recall, there have = been many=20 occasions when members of the committee have given notice of a motion = but it has=20 not necessarily meant that the motion has been considered at the first = occasion=20 following. So therefore, we don't always know whether or not this would = have=20 been the day. I'm pleased, given that we have no other business = particularly to=20 deal with today that Mr. Breitkreuz is here and Mr. Toews is here, = also. So, without further ado, unless anyone wants = to=20 question that, and I don't see any inquiring minds out there, I would = turn then=20 to Mr. Toews who is the mover of the motion and I understand he wants = to perhaps=20 give Mr. Breitkreuz an opportunity to speak to this. Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian = Alliance):=20 Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. That's in fact what I intend to do. Mr.=20 Breitkreuz was the person who put the questions and it was his concerns = which=20 prompted me to put forward the motion and Mr. Breitkreuz will be = speaking to the=20 substance of his motion at this time. The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz. Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton--Melville, = Canadian=20 Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to address the motion that is = before the=20 committee, and that motion reads: Just a little background as to how this came = to be, I=20 had submitted a question quite some time ago and on January 29 I = received a=20 response from the government, but it wasn't in answer to my question. = And so=20 that's why I'm here before the committee today: to just outline what I = feel are=20 the main concerns that need to be addressed. And so I would like to spend the next 20 = minutes or=20 so just going through the various aspects of this question. Hopefully, = at the=20 end of this the committee will decide to call witnesses. In fact, = there's=20 already witnesses that have indicated quite an interest from across the = country=20 to address this topic. Now, as I said, I got a response from the = government,=20 and that response is printed in the January 20, 2002 edition of = Hansard=20 and the government really hasn't answered my question. And it doesn't = appear as=20 if they know the answers because I've been delving into this for quite = some=20 time. That's why I think it's incumbent upon the committee to really = get to the=20 bottom of this. Since 1995, the committee hasn't heard any witnesses or = had any=20 evidence before it on the Firearms Act, and that's quite some time. Now, the argument could be made it's not = fully=20 implemented. I feel that it's all the more reason. We must study it in = order to=20 know what's going on and if any remedies are need and if the problems = are=20 developing in regards to the Firearms Act and what it's creating, it's = not too=20 late to, in fact, go into that. I feel that's incumbent upon this = committee to=20 push for that. Now, some people have said this is just = political.=20 It's not. We need to examine all the spending by government. It is the = role of=20 the opposition to do that it is the role of this committee to examine = all of the=20 things that go on in legislation that's been passed. And so I believe a = cost-benefit analysis by the Treasury Board has not taken place and = should be=20 done. The current costs were the ones that were = outlined in=20 the response that I got from the government. It was initially going to = cost $85=20 million over five years, and now it's over $600 million over that cost. = We want=20 to know how much it will cost to fully implement this. Only 1.4 million = guns=20 have been registered so far, according to the information that we have = from the=20 Justice Department. Their estimates were that there were 7 million = guns. So if=20 we've spent that much and we have only got that fraction of guns = registered, I=20 think it's important that we find out what's going to happen and what = the=20 projections are. In a 1974 study by Statistics Canada, it = indicated=20 there were at least twice that many guns. So if that's in fact the = case, the=20 costs on this thing could increase dramatically. That's part of the = reason for=20 asking this question. So with the chair's permission, I'd like to = go=20 through the response that I received. I believe the committee should = investigate=20 this further, support my motion. I believe it's in the government's = best=20 interests that they deal with this. Now, if we go to the response in = Hansard and=20 to the question that I've put on the Order Paper, the government = responded that the costs were $487 million and $139 million more were = estimated=20 to be spent this year--and you can read that response. It's in the = handout that=20 I have given to you. We specifically asked fro the projected cost to = fully=20 implement and operate the program, enforce the legislation. The = government has=20 only given us the current cost of the program and that wasn't even = correct.=20 According to Treasury Board officials appearing before the Standing = Committee on=20 Finance on November 21, 2001, the current cost of the Canadian Firearms = Program=20 was reported to be $689 million. So the Treasury Board officials did = not answer=20 the question that was at the Senate committee by Senator Stratton when = he=20 said: =93You said it was $600 million more than = the original=20 forecast. How can it be that wrong from the original? Where will this = end and do=20 you have any forecast? And he said: I'm sure not. That question was never answered. So the public safety benefits that were = cited in Part=20 I of the government's response could have been far more easily met had = they just=20 improved the administration of the old FAC Program, and this would have = cost=20 only a few million dollars, not the $689 million that it already has = been=20 spent. So I'd like to go onto the B part of the = response. In=20 this we are dealing with the projected impact of this program on the = economy. By=20 and large, none of these different issues were properly addressed. =C1 (1115) In the response to the part B of my question = if this=20 had really been the answer to the questions on economic impact why did = the=20 Department of Justice declare the entire 115 page report on economic = impact of=20 the gun registry a cabinet secret? That, I think, is something that has = to be=20 answered. In that response I got to access to = information. It=20 says, and I'd like to quote =93we have identified one record responding = to your=20 request=94. It's 115 pages. =93This document has been deemed a cabinet = confidence=20 and has been excluded entirely pursuant to section 69(1)(a) of the = act=94. We need to know what those costs are. This = committee=20 needs to investigate that and that has not been done. I have tried to = find out=20 what those costs are so I need the committee's help in going into = that. The government response as contained in = Hansard,=20 firstly, indicates that they feel certain members of the recreational = community=20 suggest that active firearms owners are leaving the shooting sports as = a=20 consequence of the individual licensing and firearms registration = requirements=20 included in the Firearms Act and there's no indication that this is = true. The=20 government says there are indications that individuals who own firearms = who no=20 longer use them have chosen to dispose of their unused firearms rather = than=20 apply for a licence and register firearms they no longer want. Mr. Chair, the justice department's own = surveys show=20 that the number of gun owners in Canada has dropped from 3.3 million to = 2.46=20 million since 1994. As of December 3, 2001, the Department of Justice = reports=20 that 1.762 million firearms owners held valid firearms licenses. The department has no evidence whatsoever = that more=20 than a million firearms owners have chosen to dispose of their unused = firearms.=20 The police department have not received millions of firearms as would = be=20 happening if this statement had any validity. In fact, the RCMP reports = that=20 only 58,000 firearms have been surrendered to police since January = 1995. Now, if you go back to my original question, = part=20 two, I was asking what about the number of hunters. The government said = that=20 nothing in the Firearms Act precludes Canadians or non-residents from = hunting in=20 Canada. I feel that since the government started introducing gun = control laws,=20 targeting the law abiding firearms owners in 1979 the number of hunters = in=20 Canada has been in a steady decline. While some of this drop may be due = to=20 cultural attitudes toward hunting and shooting sports, much of the = decline can=20 be attributed to government red tape. I would like to refer to an access of = information or=20 statistics that I received from the Canadian Wildlife Service. It's = pretty=20 obvious from that that the number of migratory game bird hunting = permits issued=20 was 380,000. It was as high as 524,000 in 1978 and has dropped to = 191,000 in=20 2000. That is a very serious drop in the number of hunters in = Canada. I would also like to refer an article in the = Ottawa=20 Citizen of Monday, October 2, 2000 and I would like to quote = from that.=20 That needs to be investigated as one of the = key=20 things that is causing a decline in the number of hunters in Canada and = that of=20 course would have a severe impact on the economy. The government really = has=20 failed to provide evidence of another significant drop in the number of = hunters=20 since the January 1, 2000 deadline for obtaining a firearms license. = In Quebec's Label County alone there it was = a 50%=20 drop in the number of deer licenses sold and triple the number of deer = killed in=20 car accidents between 2000 and 2001. This is having an equally dramatic = impact=20 on tourism and outfitting operations and we have to hear from them = directly. =C1 (1120) Just an aside on this. This is not only = going to=20 have an impact on the economy. It's going to have a severe impact on = the=20 environment. That's not the mandate of this committee. But that is also = something that has to be addressed. Now when we get to parts 3-5, the government = has=20 grouped those three together, that includes the number of visitors to = Canada,=20 the tourism outfitting operations and the wildlife populations, the = impact that=20 is having on these. The government says =93Well it's not within our = purview to=20 deal with these issues=94. Now the reason we ask the government these = questions=20 is because the Department of Industry, and the Department of the = Environment,=20 and the Department of Finance have all responded negatively to our = access to=20 information requests. When we look at what these departments are = saying, they=20 have cumulatively said, and I'd like to cite from January 31, 2001, = access to=20 information response. They said: So again, these are all areas that need to = be=20 addressed. In number six, this is the aboriginal = people,=20 communities, businesses and employment. The government responded by = saying that=20 nothing precludes aboriginals, aboriginal Canadians from participating = in their=20 traditional lifestyles. Well if the government's response is true, = why then=20 have the Saskatchewan Federation of Indian Nations and the Territory of = Nunavut=20 launched a constitutional challenge to the Firearms Act? It would be = very=20 prudent for us to hear directly from these challenges to find out how = the=20 Firearms Act is affecting their participation in their traditional = lifestyles,=20 and how it's affecting aboriginal employment in guiding and outfitting=20 businesses. Going to number seven. Seven dealt with = international=20 trade. The government responded that: On March 7, 200, the Department of Foreign = Affairs=20 and International Trade responded to our access to information request, = saying=20 they could find no records to show how the implementation of the = Firearms Act=20 will effect imports and exports. Mr. Chair, that has to be done. That's = why I'm=20 requesting this committee look into this. Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton--Melville, = Canadian=20 Alliance): Now if we deal with 8 and 9 which the government has = grouped=20 together, I wanted to know the economic impact that shooting sports, = Olympic and=20 international shooting competitions, would experience as a result of = Bill C-68.=20 The government says nothing in the Firearms = Act=20 precludes Canadians or non-residents from participating in shooting = sports in=20 Canada. Well we have received many complaints from American hunters and = American=20 shooting organizations concerning the red tape, delays and fees that = they=20 encounter at the border when entering Canada for their annual hunting = trips.=20 I would like to quote from a letter from a = publisher=20 of the Grosse Point Almanac of Fairfax, Vermont. He said: Now that indicates clearly that there is = going to be=20 an economic cost. And he concludes by saying =93Repeal this law before = the damage=20 is done=94. I am asking that the committee check to see = what the=20 economic impact of this legislation is having in this area. Now going to number 10, the firearms and = ammunition=20 manufacturing sales and service sector. The Firearms Act the government = says=20 provides for the licensing of firearms businesses and nothing in the = act=20 precludes a business from operating on the terms of its licence. Now I have documents available on the = Department of=20 Justice's own website that show the number of firearms business permits = issued=20 dropped from a high of 16,000 in 1979 to just under 5,000 in 1998. = Government=20 red tape has driven hundreds of thousands of hunters away from their = sport and=20 consequently there have been a corresponding drop in the number of = firearms=20 related businesses. =C1 (1125) Mr. Andy Scott: Excuse me, Mr. = Breitkruez. I=20 know you're eager to get a lot of the information forward, could I ask = you to=20 just to slow down a little bit for the translaters. Particularly when = you're=20 reading, they have a hard time keeping up. Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Okay, yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is = also=20 available in the other Official Language. Going now to number 11 and number 12, these = deal with=20 sporting goods sales and manufacturing and recreational vehicle sales = and=20 manufacturing. The government responded by saying that the = Firearms=20 Act does not regulate the sales of such materials in any manner. When I read this response I couldn't believe = it=20 because, really, this is a ridiculous response. The number of resident = and=20 non-resident hunters are in dramatic decline due largely to onerous gun = control=20 laws and this fact can no doubt be having an equally dramatic impact on = sporting=20 goods and recreational vehicle sales and manufacturing. The Canadian Sporting Goods Association = completed a=20 survey in 1997 that revealed that for men hunting was the second most = important=20 sporting activity and we would be well advised to hear the testimony = from these=20 organizations. Mr. Chair, the second most important sporting activity = for=20 men. Going now to number 13, what impact does = this=20 legislation have on gun shows. The government responded by saying the = Firearms=20 Act show regulations are not yet in force. The changing demographics of = firearms=20 ownership may be reflected in the participation rate at gun shows. = However, it=20 should be noted that these changes may reflect the result of other = recreational=20 opportunities being available to all Canadians. Gun shows have been directly affected since = the=20 Firearms Act came into effect on December 1, 1998. All firearms sales = and=20 transfers have to be approved before a sale could be completed and, Mr. = Chair,=20 that's one of the main activities that take place at a gun show. = Government=20 appointed firearms officers have to attend these shows to speed up the = transfer=20 process and many times without success. The only way to assess the economic = importance of=20 hundreds of gun shows to local economies and the economic impact of the = Firearms=20 Act is to hear directly from the organizers and participants of these = events and=20 that's important and that's what I'm asking that this committee do. Now, going on to number 14, that's the = economic=20 impact on gun clubs and shooting ranges. The government responded that = the=20 changing demographics of firearms ownership may be reflected in the=20 participation at gun clubs and shooting ranges, and the rest of that = can be read=20 in Hansard. Now my response to that is that many gun = clubs and=20 shooting ranges have been driven out of business or have to pay for = expensive=20 renovations to their range facilities as a direct consequence of the = Firearms=20 Act and this, despite the fact that the government has been unable to = produce a=20 shred of evidence that any of these ranges represented any danger to = public=20 safety. Number 15, firearms collectors and = museums--what is=20 the impact on these? The government responds that Canadians continue to = maintain=20 their firearms collections and that new entrants may begin firearms = collecting.=20 Museums may be licensed to maintain firearms in their collection. Now you have to know, Mr. Chair, that = museums have=20 been complaining about the Firearms Act since day one and I would like = to give=20 you an example. TheAlex Roberson Museum in Alonsa, Manitoba=20 complained to his MP that the fees alone represented 5% of their annual = budget.=20 On December 10, 1998 Roy Bailey, the MP for Souris--Moose Mountain, = reported:=20 This illustrates just how ridiculous the law = is=20 declared Bailey. =C1 (1130) One of the brothers told me it took 20 = hours to=20 register just one of their rifles. This illustrates just how ridiculous = the law=20 is declared really. This is really forced labour because if they don't = spend=20 that time registering their guns, the government will consider them = criminals.=20 This is not an isolated example, Mr. Speaker, but I cite this as one of = the key=20 problems and the economic impact of this on museums is substantial. Number 16, movie and television production. = The=20 government responded by saying the Firearms Act provides a framework to = regulate=20 movie supply companies and nothing in the Firearms Act prevents = licenced=20 production supply houses from providing material to productions. Mr. Speaker, while Bill C-68 was being = debated in=20 1995 we had movie production companies complaining that the provisions = in this=20 bill would negatively affect them and we need to hear from this = industry to see=20 what the economic impact is going to be. We know that they are severely = impacted=20 by this. Number 17, the heritage and historical = re-enactments.=20 Again the government says nothing in this Firearms Act precludes = Canadians or=20 non-residents from pontificating in these historical re-enactments. On = Thursday,=20 September 21, 1995, Mr. Richard Feltoe representing the British North = America=20 Living History Association appeared before the standing committee on = legal and=20 constitutional affairs during their hearings on Bill C-68 and he = requested=20 specific amendments to ensure the Firearms Act would not negatively = affect=20 historical re-enactments. The Senate passed Bill C-68 without any of = these=20 amendments and it's now time to find out what that economic impact has = been.=20 And finally, Mr. Chair, number 18 asks for = the=20 economic impact on employment in all impacted industries and activities = and the=20 government brushed this off by saying that nothing in the Firearms Act = precludes=20 Canadians from participating in activities which they participated in = before the=20 coming into force of the Firearms Act. And while the forces of = demographic=20 change and the free choice of other recreational activities may have = resulted in=20 the decline of active participation in hunting and shooting sports, = there is=20 nothing to indicate that any decrease was the direct result of that = introduction=20 passage coming into force or implementation of the Firearms Act. And my = response=20 to that, Mr. Chair, is that just from the information provided above, = it is=20 clear that the implementation of the Firearms Act will have a = significant=20 negative impact on the economy, on specific industries and certain = types of=20 business. In just 20 years, more than 11,000 firearms=20 businesses have closed and of course employment in these impacted = industries is=20 affected and these layoffs have a negative impact on other businesses = and the=20 communities where they operate. And unfortunately the government has = chosen to=20 declare 115 page study on the economic impact of the Firearms Act a = state secret=20 and have chosen not to study the issue. I appreciate your patience, Mr. Chair, and I = think I=20 have clearly indicated that there is a need to study the economic = impact of=20 this. It is incumbent upon the government to clearly indicate to us = what that=20 economic impact is. I have a list of witnesses from across Canada who = would like=20 to appear to relate the economic impact this is having and it's = generally=20 negative and all of this, Mr. Chair, contributes to economic woes in = this=20 country. And we have too much too lose by not taking a close look at = this. If=20 you would like I have that list of witnesses here but first of all I = guess this=20 committee has to decide where they're going to go with this. I appreciate the time you've taken to allow = me to=20 present this case. I think it's a very important study that needs to be = made and=20 so I await any questions that you may have. =C1 (1135) The Chair: I see, Mr. Maloney, I'll = be taking=20 the list, John. Mr. John Maloney: Just a comment, Mr. = Chair. I=20 think we have to look at what we have on our platter and discuss = priorities. We=20 have the health provisions, we have conditional sentencing, we've been = asked the=20 blood content levels Bill C-284, responsibility of directors. We have a = tremendous amount on our platter already and to undertake a study of = the=20 magnitude that Mr. Breitkreuz is suggesting I say where would these be = and which=20 is more important to all Canadians. In a few days or a few weeks we'll have the = Minister=20 of Justice appearing before this committee on main estimates and = certainly Mr.=20 Breitkreuz could leave questions that could be posed to the minister. = When you=20 throw out the figure, a cost of $85 million what it was supposed to be = and we're=20 over $600 million, certainly this is an area that certainly we should = be looking=20 at or there should be answers for and I think there probably are = answers for it.=20 But I think it's a balancing of priorities and I certainly couldn't = support this=20 motion in light of that. Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton--Melville, = Canadian=20 Alliance): I believe that three issues have been = raised. One is,=20 you know this committee is pretty busy, in my motion I made it clear = that a=20 sub-committee could be struck to study this. It would not have to be = the whole=20 committee and that sub-committee could hear the witnesses. I think this too important an issue for it = not to be=20 a priority and a sub-committee could be struck, that's very clear in my = motion. The indication is also that this is really = not of=20 importance to Canadians. It is of importance and I think if you go out = into the=20 highways and byways of this country you will find a lot of interest in = this.=20 People are asking what are we getting as a result of the hundreds of = millions=20 that's being spent on this. And last of all, the point was made that = well, the=20 minister is going to be appearing before the committee and you can ask = the=20 minister these questions. Mr. Chair, we have asked the minister time = after time=20 these questions and we don't get a response. Either the minister = doesn't want to=20 reveal that to us or doesn't know the answer and so we need more than = just the=20 minister appearing before the committee and brushing this off. I mean this is a key thing that this = committee should=20 be dealing with. The Chair: Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Just a comment = on that=20 as well. I would be of the view that a lot of the business that we have = been=20 dealing with that we're proposing to look at for my province of = Saskatchewan=20 generally would be low priority items compared to a lot of other things = that=20 would be high priority. Or on the contrary are having a negative impact = on my=20 province. People of Saskatchewan don't have the virtue = of=20 living in a big center like Toronto, where the economy is doing very = well and=20 everything seems to be going along fine. We have a lot of problems in Saskatchewan = and the=20 sport of hunting and fishing industry and so on is important in that = province.=20 It may not be important to somebody in a large urban center, but it's = important=20 where I come from. To me this is a very important issue. I'd like to see something from Saskatchewan = or the=20 prairie region made a priority in one of these committees, one of these = days in=20 this house. =C1 (1140) The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur. [Fran=E7ais] M. Michel Bellehumeur = (Berthier--Montcalm, BQ):=20 Ce serait un commentaire. Je pense que ce serait important qu'on = sache=20 v=E9ritablement le co=FBt de la mise en application de la Loi sur = l'enregistrement=20 des armes =E0 feu. Vous savez fort bien que le Bloc qu=E9b=E9cois, on a = appuy=E9 une loi=20 pour enregistrer les armes =E0 feu parce qu'on disait que dans un pays = libre et=20 d=E9mocratique comme le n=F4tre, =E7a prenait une loi pour avoir une = meilleure=20 surveillance, bien que l'ancienne loi, si elle avait =E9t=E9 mieux = appliqu=E9e--on=20 revient toujours =E0 la m=EAme affaire--peut-=EAtre qu'on aurait eu des = meilleurs=20 r=E9sultats dans la Loi sur les armes =E0 feu. L'accord que vous avez eu du Bloc = qu=E9b=E9cois et=20 l'accord de plusieurs citoyens du Qu=E9bec et du Canada =E9galement, = c'=E9tait sur=20 certaines donn=E9es. Entre autres, on disait que la Loi sur = l'enregistrement des=20 armes =E0 feu =E9tait pour s'autofinancer dans les cinq premi=E8res = ann=E9es et on=20 parlait de dizaine, mais il me semble, de m=E9moire, que c'=E9tait une = douzaine de=20 millions par ann=E9e durant les premiers cinq ans. Mais l=E0 m=EAme = avec les chiffres=20 du minist=E8re de la Justice, on est loin du compte. Et si on prend les = chiffres=20 du Conseil du Tr=E9sor, on se rapproche dangereusement du milliard de = dollars pour=20 enregistrer les armes =E0 feu. Moi, le cinq ans, au moment de l'adoption de = cette=20 loi-l=E0, si vous m'aviez dit, moi en tant que gouvernement = f=E9d=E9ral, j'ai un=20 milliard de dollars =E0 mettre pour la s=E9curit=E9 des Canadiens, ma = priorit=E9 du Bloc=20 qu=E9b=E9cois et du Qu=E9bec n'aurait peut-=EAtre pas =E9t=E9 de le = mettre sur les armes =E0=20 feu, mais de mettre le milliard ailleurs tout en am=E9liorant la loi = actuelle qui=20 existait =E0 cette =E9poque-l=E0. Du c=F4t=E9 des co=FBts, je pense qu'en = quelque part, il y=20 a quelqu'un qui s'est mis le doigt dans l'oeil. Et moi j'aimerais = savoir, en=20 gestionnaires que nous sommes, c'est quoi exactement le montant que = =E7a co=FBte=20 cette loi-l=E0. Est-ce que c'est le Conseil du Tr=E9sor qui a raison ou = si c'est le=20 minist=E8re de la Justice? Il y en a un des deux qui ment. C'est lequel = des deux?=20 Et peut-=EAtre que c'est ni un ni l'autre. C'est peut-=EAtre un autre = chiffre.=20 J'aimerais =E7a le savoir =E9galement. Quand je vois qu'un document aussi anodin = qu'un=20 rapport sur l'incidence =E9conomique de l'enregistrement des armes =E0 = feu est=20 assujetti au secret minist=E9riel, j'ai un probl=E8me. Moi ici, je = repr=E9sente les=20 gens de Berthier--Montcalm et je dois rendre des comptes. J'imagine que = le=20 gouvernement a des comptes =E0 rendre =E9galement. Et lorsqu'on cache = de=20 l'information aussi anodin que cela, l'incidence =E9conomique, ce n'est = pas un=20 secret d'=E9tat. =C9coutez...c'est quoi l'incidence =E9conomique de = l'enregistrement=20 des armes =E0 feu? Je suis s=FBr que vous voulez le savoir vous aussi, = si vous=20 voulez faire votre job correctement. Et l=E0, c'est secret. Qu'est-ce = qu'ils ont =E0=20 cacher? Je pense qu'on doit se poser des questions. = C'est=20 quoi la v=E9rit=E9 dans tout =E7a? Ce qu'on pr=E9sente ce matin, c'est = soit que le=20 Comit=E9 ou le Sous-comit=E9 fasse la lumi=E8re l=E0-dessus. Personne = n'est contre la=20 vertu ici. Tout le monde doit appuyer =E7a. On a, semble-t-il, beaucoup de choses sur la = planche.=20 M=EAme avec sursis, l'alcoolisme, un projet de loi =E9manant d'un = d=E9put=E9, on en a=20 d=E9j=E0 vu d'autres. Depuis 1993, on a abattu pas mal d'ouvrage ici. = Si on n'est=20 pas capables de le faire dans le comit=E9 principal, faisons un = sous-comit=E9.=20 J'appuie =E7a sans aucun probl=E8me. On pourra avoir l'heure juste dans = un dossier=20 aussi important que celui-l=E0. D'autant plus, je sais que vous en avez dans = vos=20 propres comt=E9s. J'ai des gens qui sont obstin=E9s encore =E0 ne pas = enregistrer les=20 armes =E0 feu pour toute sorte de raisons. Peut-=EAtre qu'on aurait des = arguments=20 pour les convaincre avec l'=E9tude qu'on ferait de les enregistrer. = Peut-=EAtre=20 aussi qu'on aurait des arguments pour dire, vous faites bien parce que = c'est un=20 panier sans fond et ce ne sera jamais applicable cette loi-l=E0. Mais moi je veux le savoir. Bien que je le = r=E9p=E8te, au=20 d=E9but de tout, le Bloc qu=E9b=E9cois, on a appuy=E9 le gouvernement = dans =E7a. Mais=20 aujourd'hui, c'est le temps de commencer =E0 regarder comment on l'a = appliqu=E9e=20 cette loi-l=E0 et si c'est possible de l'appliquer, parce que, encore = aujourd'hui,=20 il y a plusieurs personnes qui n'ont pas enregistr=E9 leurs armes =E0 = feu, qui ne=20 les enregistreront pas et demain matin, on va avoir des probl=E8mes = dans nos=20 comt=E9s respectifs parce qu'on va conna=EEtre d'honn=EAtes citoyens = qui vont =EAtre=20 trait=E9s comme des criminels. Et l=E0 chacun de nous, on va avoir ces = probl=E8mes l=E0=20 sur le dos. Je pense que c'est le temps d'avoir les r=E9ponses. = J'appuie, sans=20 aucune r=E9serve, la motion qui est pr=E9sent=E9e. =C1 (1145) [English] Mr. Andy Scott: Merci, Mr. = Bellehumeur. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: One further = comment and=20 it's an observation I have. I practiced law for 25 years and I've been = on the=20 output end of this legislative record of government. I think a mistake = a lot of=20 us are making in this place is we're real quick to pass laws and put = them into=20 place, as opposed to business that initiates policies and so on. They = monitor=20 and evaluate those programs constantly to see if they're working, = achieving=20 their purpose and continuously improving the product to get the thing = to do what=20 it's supposed to be doing. I find here too often we're just the front = end. We=20 push a button and pass some laws that makes us all feel good, or the = people on=20 the other side of the House feel good, but we're very, very weak on = evaluating=20 and monitoring this legislation, its effects, its results, its = purposes, and=20 unintended consequences, and so on. In a lot of cases, I think some of = this=20 public policy becomes a disaster in time and people have even forgotten = what=20 it's original purpose was. So I think a really worthwhile function is = to really=20 evaluate something that we've embarked on here and see whether it's = achieving=20 what people thought it might do and so on, rather than just assuming = it's doing=20 that. The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz. Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you, Mr.=20 Chair. I'd just like to respond to what the Bloc = has said=20 here. The original projection was for a $2 million = --just=20 $2 million--deficit on this. It's obvious now the deficit is hundreds = of times=20 that. In fact, with collecting only $44 million in fees and now = refunding those,=20 the deficit is going to be much larger. But if the priorities of this = committee=20 are to deal with all the issues that have just been listed, I think = that=20 reviewing this act and making some key amendments to it could in fact = release=20 resources to make some of the other programs that the government is = embarking on=20 much more effective, and if those resources were focused, as my Bloc = colleague=20 has said, on certain key parts of the act, such as licensing and doing=20 background checks, and putting more police on the street to enforce the = laws=20 that would be effective in controlling crime involving guns, I think = that this=20 would be a much better way for the committee to go. So, what could happen as a result of = examining the=20 economic impact and where we're spending this money is maybe the = committee would=20 recommend some key amendments that could be made and would make a lot = of the=20 other things that this committee is embarking on much more effective. = So, I=20 would suggest that this can be tied in to what the committee is doing = in other=20 areas and make it much more effective. I just cite as one example in conclusion. = Hundreds of=20 millions are being spent on this--it's almost $700 million now. Only a = quarter=20 of a million approximately was allocated to fighting terrorism, so = we've got=20 three times as much virtually being spent on enforcing the Firearms Act = and a=20 registration system that I don't think is going to produce nearly the = results=20 that combating terrorism would have. So I think that puts it in = perspective as=20 to what our priorities should be and where we should be heading in this = regard. The Chair: Mr. Sorenson. Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian = Alliance):=20 Thanks, Mr. Chairman. This last week I spent in my riding and I = had seven=20 town-hall meetings. As a new member of Parliament, I was not in former=20 parliaments that brought in Bill C-68 on the gun law, but let me just = say that=20 when we did town-hall meetings, you know, what we were anticipating = talking=20 about was Bill C-5, Bill C-15, and all the other bills that have = basically come=20 through this place and to give an update to the constituents as to = where they=20 were at. By the second town-hall meeting it became very evident that = Bill C-68=20 was still the issue that many in my riding wanted to talk about. I = received a=20 letter from W. Douglas Fossett, who wrote out his concerns about = security and=20 also his concerns for where the government was going. The question that = kept=20 coming was: One of the things I appreciate about what = Mr.=20 Breitkreuz said is =93as the official opposition we have certain=20 responsibilities=94. Our responsibilities are to hold the government in = check, you=20 know, to make sure that they're accountable. I applaud Mr. Breitkreuz = in that=20 everything that he has tried to do is to hold the government to = account. But when we ask the questions and we aren't = receiving=20 the answers, where do you go? I think what he's done is he's come to = committee=20 and said, =93Listen, can the committee deal with this? If the committee = can't deal=20 with it, can a subcommittee be struck to deal with this, because we = have to find=20 answers.=94 I again say, you know, when I receive = four-page=20 letters about concerns of where our government is going in security and = personal=20 security and all those types of things, I have to be able to give = answers. My=20 only answer is, =93We can't get them from this government.=94 So I would appeal to all members of this = committee to=20 allow us the opportunity to do our job as an official opposition and to = allow=20 this motion to go through. =C1 (1150) The Chair: : Mr. Cadmen. Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian=20 Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair. As you know, I come from an urban riding and = generally there is support for gun control in the urban ridings. But = that's the=20 operative phrase =93gun control=94. The more and more that my = constituents see the=20 costs rising with this firearms registry, there is very little support = for the=20 actual firearms registry. Gun control they support, not the registry. = We just had the figures released for the = number of=20 crimes committed with firearms and what they're saying is that they're = still=20 increasing and they're handguns, which have been registered since 1934. = That's=20 what the majority of the crimes are being committed with--at least with = the=20 statistics that I'm getting locally. So, again, people see that and they say, = =93Well, what=20 good is this thing doing, what good is this registry doing? We're still = seeing=20 crime going up that require the use of firearms.=93 I'm not a hunter myself. I'm not a gun = collector or a=20 hunter, but I have hunters on either side of me and sometimes they = share their=20 game with me, which is nice. The Chair: This side, or back in = Surrey? Mr. Chuck Cadman: Back in Surrey. These are responsible people and I get = complaints=20 from them all the time about the problems they're having. I have a very = close=20 friend who is a hunter and a gun collector. He has 16 firearms, 16 = weapons. At=20 last count, given all the screw ups with trying to register, he had 57 = different=20 registration certificates for 16 guns. Some of them were erroneous, = some of them=20 were scratched off the system. He showed me 3 separate registration = certificates=20 for 1 particular firearm. The serial numbers were the same, but they = were taken=20 off of different parts of the gun. They were taking numbers off the = barrels, off=20 the stocks, so he had 3 different certificates for 1 individual weapon. = He=20 showed me 3 others where he had 2, and these were current, these are on = the=20 system. What does this make this guy look like when = it comes=20 up on the system? He's got 16 weapons that he's trying to register and = the=20 computer shows that he has 57. This is nuts. We've got to get to the bottom = of this.=20 How much is it costing us to do all this in the first place, the cost = for the=20 individual firearm owner, the time that he's been spending trying to = comply, and=20 what's it costing the system to correct the errors? It's just one error = after=20 another. And this is only one guy that I'm talking about. I have, on = average,=20 one person a week coming into my urban constituency office complaining = like hell=20 about what's going on with this firearms registry. So I support this = motion. We=20 have to get to the bottom of this. The Chair: I thank you. I thank you all, and I thank = Mr. Toews=20 and his for bringing this forward for the committee's consideration, = and Mr.=20 Breitkreuz for a well-researched, well-presented argument. Now I'm going to put the question. Mr. Lee, sorry. Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough--Rouge River, = Lib.):=20 I thought it might be useful for the record to have some comments = from this=20 side on the motion. I was around when Bill C-68 went through and = throughout all of the elements of it--from the very beginning to the = very end,=20 including the regulations and even precursors to Bill C-68--and what I = would not=20 be interested in doing is re-fighting the battle. Maybe my colleagues = here don't=20 feel that way, but I'm tired. I regard the battle as over and there is=20 substantial support for the firearm control legislation across the = country. It=20 is not consistent right across the whole country and I accept that = there are=20 significant areas of the country where there is a lot of concern about = the=20 implementation of it but Parliament has decided that there will be = comprehensive=20 firearm control, including all of those long guns. As difficult as the = exercise=20 was--and perhaps is in some places or some circumstances--that is = ongoing, so=20 I'm not interested in re-fighting the battle over comprehensive firearm = control.=20 However, there is an issue. There are, in = fact, quite=20 a few issues. Mr. Breitkreuz has listed a whole truckload of issues, = many of=20 which are related to gun control. Tourism, perhaps, isn't but in each = case=20 there's a connection and it's quite natural that the justice department = wouldn't=20 have a whole lot of information about impacts on deer populations and = tourists=20 coming across the border. I'm not even sure who would have all of that=20 information but these are legitimate questions for those who are very = concerned=20 about the implementation of Bill C-68. All of us around the table will be concerned = about=20 the cost overruns. They are apparently substantial and maybe I'm wrong = but I'm=20 not so sure there's been a full explanation of all of the cost = overruns. It is a=20 public interest issue and there's no way we can really say it is a = non-issue. We=20 can't sweep it under the rug, this lovely new rug here today, for = example. It=20 could probably cover up a lot of issues. So those questions have to be = asked and=20 there will certainly have to be answers and I'm sure there will be. I'm not so sure the issue of the cost = overruns, while=20 it's one we can all agree is there, is the most important issue the = committee=20 has to deal with this spring or this year. On the pure issue of the = financial=20 elements of this, I think the estimates procedures are fully adequate = at least=20 to raise a number of questions, to publicly have the Minister answer. = The=20 procedure itself as it has evolved is clearly inadequate to go into the = kind of=20 depth that Mr. Breitkreuz has urged upon us here but because I believe = there are=20 issues there--I'm not in a position to say that I don't want to hear = about=20 this--I don't want to re-fight Bill C-68 but I am interested as an MP = in the=20 financial issues and in the implementation issues. I would first like to hear the Minister = address these=20 and I'm sure the estimates procedures...we're going to be there in = about six=20 weeks, give or take. I'm not sure how long it will take to get into = that but we=20 will have the benefit of that and I would prefer to see that. I know = there are=20 other issues and I don't have to mention them all but the restructuring = of the=20 port police...there are just so many issues that may arguably have a = higher=20 priority than this particular one. =C1 (1155) In my view, I'd like to see this, either the = proposal=20 kept alive for a couple of months till we get through the estimates, = see how the=20 other business of the committee is going, or simply to have Mr. = Breitkreuz or=20 someone else raise it again later as future business, later in the = spring. That's my view. I accept it as an issue. I'm = not=20 prepared to endorse it as an item of committee business right away = now. =C2 (1200) The Chair: Mr. Sorensen. Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Just very = quickly, because=20 I don't want to speak too long on this, but, you know, Mr. Lee has = mentioned=20 that he doesn't want to refight Bill C-68. I really don't believe that = that's=20 what this motion is doing. This motion is not refighting Bill C-68. = This motion=20 is giving us the opportunity to hold to account a government that has = promised=20 that it would be $80 million and it's been $680 million. In those town = hall=20 meetings, and I was feverishly looking through my briefcase here to = find the=20 response that one gentleman gave me because the question just kept = coming=20 up. The question that keeps coming up from the = people is=20 what do we do? Initially we had to send in a registration and then we = had to=20 send in money. Now they've sent the money back. Am I going to go to = jail if I=20 don't comply? Will I be a criminal if I don't comply? I've never had a = traffic=20 ticket in my life. Am I going to go to jail when I don't comply? Can I = buy=20 ammunition if I don't comply? All these questions are asked. That isn't = even what=20 this motion is doing. This motion is simply allowing us the opportunity = as a=20 committee or as a subcommittee, if we can strike a subcommittee on = this, the=20 motion isn't one that's saying let's derail everything this committee = is about=20 to do. What this motion is saying is, is there = another=20 avenue we have to get answers because all the other avenues that we've = been told=20 to take in the past have come up against a brick wall. So, all I would simply say is give us the = opportunity=20 to go back and at least get some answers because the answers were not = given in=20 the document that we've been passed today. Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton--Melville, = Canadian=20 Alliance): Mr. Chair. The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz. =C2 (1205) Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you. I'm = not=20 exactly sure where this is heading, Mr. Chair, and so I would seek your = advice=20 on this. Could this committee not direct a = subcommittee to=20 hold the hearings in such a way that they would address the concerns = that Mr.=20 Lee has raised? You could strike a subcommittee so that the parameters = were to=20 strictly deal with the economic impact in all the different areas that = I listed=20 and you wouldn't have to go into refighting the whole battle. If that's = the=20 concern of the government, then...you know, see it's our job as = opposition to=20 hold the government to account and especially in the area of spending, = we need=20 to know what's going on. My fear is that we're going to get the = minister=20 before the committee and the same thing will happen as has happened in = every=20 other year, that they will simply brush this off and give us a number = that does=20 not reflect all of the economic impacts that this bill is having. So I would seek your advice there. Could you = not have=20 a subcommittee struck with certain parameters that would limit and = address some=20 of the concerns that the government has raised.? The Chair: Clearly, the committee can = do=20 generally whatever it wants and the motion that is put would entertain, = as a=20 possibility, the striking of a subcommittee, and if the committee = decided to=20 strike a subcommittee it could give that committee whatever mandate the = committee decided to give it. So if the question is as to whether it's in = order,=20 then clearly it is. I would hesitate to intervene in this discussion or = debate,=20 but I heard a pretty significant signal from Mr. Lee, I think, having = to do with=20 the fact that perhaps while the subject at hand is of interest to the = committee,=20 that perhaps the timing is a little bit less urgent, and that maybe = after=20 estimates I would...I think I heard Mr. Lee suggest something like = that. So I=20 would bring to the mover's attention that I would seek counsel. Can the = committee make a friendly amendment, not that I'm suggesting this, but = by way of=20 process, in the absence of the mover? Can that be done in the absence = of Mr.=20 Toews? An hon. member: Yes. The Chair: It can. Okay, well, if = that's the=20 case, because I bring to your attention the fact that if the committee = votes on=20 this today, and defeats it, if that were the outcome, then we would not = be able=20 to entertain this question again this Parliament, as a matter of = process and=20 procedure. The Chair: I only make the point for = all=20 committee's consideration, to make sure that all the information is=20 available. Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes. The Chair: Mr. McKay is next, Mr.=20 Breitkreuz. Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): = I=20 also wanted to comment much along the same lines as Mr. Lee. Stated = from my=20 constituency standpoint, certainly I have very little to do with the = gun control=20 legislation. In my constituency, there's a few issues rising out of=20 registration, but beyond that, it's virtually a non-issue in my own = riding. And I simply do not want to get into the = rehashing=20 over C-68, that debate has been held. Having said that, Mr. Breitkreuz = does=20 raise a number of issues which, arguably, to which he has not received = an=20 adequate response. Possibly, there are adequate responses, and so I = urge Mr.=20 Breitkreuz to consider deferral of this motion pending the appearance = of the=20 minister at estimates. And if the answers of the minister are = inadequate, you're=20 at liberty to bring back the motion to see whether they should be = pursued by way=20 of a sub-committee, or indeed a full committee hearing. So, I would = think that=20 would be in order. The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz. Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I appreciate = those=20 comments. My understanding is that if we bolt this = down, I=20 can't bring it up in this Parliament, and I don't expect Parliament to = be=20 prorogued, as the news indicates, in the near future. I would like to be more positive about this = and make=20 this suggestion, that we pass the motion today, and then put in place = some kind=20 of a time frame and deal with it after the minister appears at = committee, and if=20 the minister adequately answers all the different concerns that I've = raised,=20 it's a done deal. But, if we pass it, if we negative this = today, then=20 it's done, it could be three or four years before we'll ever come back = to it,=20 and that might mean another half a billion dollars that is spent. But, = if we say=20 yes to this, then we can put in place a sub-committee, and put an = appropriate=20 time frame in place. The Chair: And who knows, Mr. = Breitkreuz, in=20 three or four years some of us may not even be here. I think that possibly, there's an = emerging...=20 perhaps, a consensus around the idea that we defer, and again, I'm not = making=20 the suggestion, I'm just reading the committee. Because if the = committee is=20 interested in hearing the minister in the estimates process, and we've = discussed=20 that as a committee just last week, if the committee is interested in = hearing=20 from the minister and then making a decision as to whether or not the = response=20 from the minister at that time is adequate, my sense is there may be = some=20 interest in proceeding. And what I'm hearing from the government's side = is the=20 fact that, as you point out, if we vote on this today and it's = defeated, then we=20 won't be able to do that, at least not in the context that you've put = it. So, an option exists, and I think there = seems to be=20 some interest in this, and maybe Mr. McKay can help out. Mr. John McKay: Can I offer a = motion? A motion to table pending government = estimates, and=20 I'll move it. Mr. Lee, second it? Mr. Derek Lee: Sure, I'll second = it. The Chair: I think we have a = friendly.... Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Chair. I = would like=20 to see us pass the motion, and then put in place a timeframe that might = address=20 some of the concerns of the government here. Because I'm afraid that if = we table=20 this.... The Chair: I have to entertain a = motion, as=20 put by Mr. McKay, to defer. Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes, okay. The Chair: And we'll have a vote on = the motion=20 to defer. I think in the interest of trying to accommodate the = committees wishes=20 in as non-partisan was as I can, I think there is genuine interest in = coming=20 back to the question after the minister. Whereas, I think if the issue = is forced=20 today, I think the outcome might be that it would be defeated, and if = that=20 happens, then even those from the government side who wish to come back = to this=20 after the minister would not have that opportunity. So, perhaps, Mr. Breitkreuz, I know this is=20 probably.... If you would be in agreement I think we can. =C2 (1210) Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Something has = just been=20 brought to my attention. If the House prorogues, now or in eight = months, can I=20 be assured that this brought back if we table it now? The Chair: If the House prorogues, = you can=20 bring it back. Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: You can. = Okay. The Chair: You can bring it back to = the=20 justice committee. You as a member of Parliament, you can get a status = of this=20 committee. Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: All right. If I = can have=20 the assurance of the government that they will seriously consider this = at a=20 later date, I guess I can go along-- The Chair: I can't speak for a future = committee, but I can tell you that it would be in order for you to come = back to=20 the committee after the House prorogues, although.... Mr. Lee, procedure Mr. Derek Lee: I think, Mr. Chairman, = you have=20 reflected my view and some of our colleagues here in terms of building = a=20 consensus. I would suggest also to Mr. Breitkreuz that = the way=20 the motion is framed now, the economic impact, the direct and indirect = impacts=20 of this ripple through the whole country, and that is a huge... I mean, = you=20 could really--I know how involved you are in the issue--open up 25 = separate=20 envelopes of economic impact and chase them for a year. So this thing is going to come up again, I'm = sure the=20 issue will, and I would suggest you think about trying to narrow the = scope to=20 the economic impacts that really matter, rather than the whole thing, = because=20 the whole thing... If I were the researcher working on the committee, = or the=20 subcommittee, you just follow those little chains of ripple effects and = you end=20 up in Cincinnati and in Moscow and in-- A voice: A motion to travel? Mr. Derek Lee: So I just make that = suggestion=20 that we try to narrow things so that we can do a good job of the = elements we=20 choose to study, rather than looking at everything. Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I appreciate = your=20 advice. The Chair: I want to make sure that I = have the=20 consensus I perceive. What I read is that we are going to withdraw the = motion=20 today, table it, so it will remain on the record for our committee, and = so will=20 the comments that have been made by members, including myself. It's my understanding of the will of the = committee,=20 that after we hear from the Minister of Justice on main estimates, we = will be in=20 a position to once again consider this particular motion, or one that = might be=20 amended slightly to accommodate some of the things we've heard today. = Is that a=20 fair reading of the room? Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Agreed. Mr. Derek Lee: Agreed. The Chair: That being the case, we'll = do that=20 with the motion. Once again, I had an opportunity to commend = members=20 of the committee last week when we were dealing with Mr. Toews' motion = with=20 regard to how we handled the first ever referral of a question that was = not=20 dealt with in time. I said in the House at that time that I was very = proud of=20 our committee in terms of its capacity to do the work of Parliament in = a very=20 civil way. Once again today, I think we've been able to do that, and I = think=20 that in good faith the entire committee.... Mr. Breitkreuz would like = to hear=20 from the minister and then deal with this after that fact. Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I'd like to = thank the=20 committee for hearing this issue. The Chair: With that, the meeting is=20 adjourned. Moderator: Sorry for this one- it is the best i could get out of that format. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V4 #535 ********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:acardin33@shaw.ca List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca FAQ list: http://www.magma.ca/~asd/cfd-faq1.html and http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/homepage.html FTP Site: ftp://teapot.usask.ca/pub/cdn-firearms/ CFDigest Archives: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/~ab133/ or put the next command in an e-mail message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca get cdn-firearms-digest v04.n192 end (192 is the digest issue number and 04 is the volume) To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next five lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-alert unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".) If you find this service valuable, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to the freenet we use: Saskatoon Free-Net Assoc., 1702 20th St. West, Saskatoon SK S7M OZ9 Phone: (306) 382-7070 modem lines: (306) 956-3700 and (306) 956-3701 Home page: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/ These e-mail digests are free to everyone, and are made possible by the efforts of countless volunteers. Permission is granted to copy and distribute this digest as long as it not altered in any way.