Bill C-391 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (repeal of long-gun registry)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act to repeal the requirement to obtain a registration certificate for firearms that are neither prohibited firearms nor restricted firearms.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Chair. I'll be sharing my time with Mrs. Glover.

Ms. Cukier, you referred to the Ruger Mini-14 as a weapon that will no longer need to be registered if Bill C-391 was passed. Did I hear that correctly?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

To Ms. Cukier, first of all, I'm sorry you're here, to be honest. You've been fighting this battle for a very long time, representing more than 300 victims' groups, and worked very hard for us to get an effective gun registry that does save lives. I'm sorry that you're yet again having to fight this battle.

One of the things I want to tackle is the issue of cost. I don't think anybody can deny costs were high. The Auditor General spoke clearly about that. But one of the things that wasn't mentioned about the Auditor General's 2006 report was that she said the system is now efficient and working effectively.

In fact, the Auditor General has now stated that the cost is $4.1 million. Given the fact that hopefully...and, I would say, presumably, because things are cyclical, we're going to eventually have another government, if Bill C-391 was successful and dismantled the registry, would it not be enormously costly to then have to restart the registry all over again, when we've already incurred those costs of starting up the registry and we're now down, according to the RCMP and the Auditor General, to $4.1 million a year in costs?

[Dr. Gary Mauser, Professor Emeritus, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to address the committee.

I'm a professor emeritus at Simon Fraser University. I am here as an individual criminologist to present facts, not myths; facts, not emotion.

In this presentation I will briefly show how claims made by the opponents of Bill C-391 are blatantly false or misleading. For more details, see my submission, which has already been distributed to members of this committee. It is also on the web at the Social Science Research Network, SSRN.

Suggestions that the long-gun registry is vital to police because authorities consult it 10,000 times a day or more are false. This claim confuses the long-gun registry with the Canadian Firearms Registry On-Line, the CFRO. The Honourable Peter Van Loan, then public safety minister, in November 2009 analyzed the police data and reported that 97% of the time when authorities check the CFRO, they want information about the owner, not the firearm. This concerns licensing, not registration.

Bill C-391 proposes no changes in licensing. The long-gun registry only includes information about the firearm. Contrary to some people who have testified here, it contains nothing about the location of that firearm, nor the owner.

The key question we have to look at is the effectiveness of the registry, not whether guns are dangerous. Focusing on guns is myopic. It ignores the problem of substitution. Murderers are opportunistic. This is particularly true for spousal murderers.

It is disingenuous to claim that the best approach to saving lives was to invent a new bureaucracy for $2 billion merely to track long guns, and then waste more millions every year to maintain the illusion that we are doing something when demonstrably we are not. There is no convincing evidence supporting the claim that the long-gun registry has had any effect on homicide, suicide, or domestic violence rates. On the other hand, screening and training firearms owners, which we have done since the 1970s, has been shown to be effective.

The long-gun registry was not introduced until 2001—not in 1995, as some have led you to believe. Since 2001, homicide rates have been essentially flat, even though homicide rates had been plummeting since the early 1990s. The long-gun registry has not saved any lives.

Few guns involved in violent crime have been stolen. Studies differ, but the numbers are as low as 1% and as high as 17%. This is not the bulk of guns used in crime. Almost all of the guns involved in criminal violence have been smuggled. Smuggling is a problem in Canada, Australia, and the U.K. That is the source of crime guns, not your citizens.

Suicide rates have slowly declined over two decades. Firearm suicides have declined as well, but suicides by hanging have soared. Some call this a success. In 1991, 3,500 people took their own life; in 2005, 3,700. The long-gun registry has not saved any lives.

Sixteen percent of suicides involve firearms. Almost half of suicides involve hanging. You wouldn't know this from some of the opponents' testimony. Hanging, carbon monoxide poisoning, drowning, and shooting all have nearly identical fatality rates. Eliminate one and the rest remain. But oh, we could have a $2 billion bureaucracy for each of those.

Some suggest that the costs of the long-gun registry are minimal, but $4 million a year is a gross underestimate. That would make a massive contribution to programs that are more effective: suicide prevention efforts, community clinics for abused spouses, treatment programs for those with addiction problems. It is disappointing that women's groups, even medical groups, ignore real problems to flog firearm fears.

No jurisdiction anywhere in the world can show that the introduction of new gun laws has been linked to a reduction in murder, suicide, or aggravated assault. See my Harvard paper, which I did with criminologist Don Kates, also available on the web at SSRN. Research by both the National Academy of Sciences and the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta back up my claim.

It is difficult to understand why the chiefs of police support the long-gun registry. The CFRO has so many errors that relying upon it puts the lives of rank-and-file police members at risk. This is a classic database problem: garbage in, gospel out. The police should know better.

Millions of entries are incorrect or missing. Most striking, less than half of all long guns in Canada are in the registry. The long-gun registry does worse; it misdirects the police. People who have registered their firearms are less likely to be violent than Canadians who don't even own firearms. They should be. Gun owners have been screened by the police since 1979. We are told that 15% of the guns used in homicides are long guns. What is not said is that virtually none were registered. How does the gun registry help?

When I spoke at the Ontario Police College, one of the instructors told me privately that trusting the registry was a way to get good police officers killed. Consider the four RCMP rookies who were gunned down by James Roszko in Mayerthorpe, Alberta. His firearms were not in the registry. Trusting the registry lulled these young people into a sense of safety. The registry showed no guns present: so there must not be any. When they went to his home they were killed. Poor training contributed to the deaths of these rookies. Experienced front line police officers know that when attending to potentially violent situations, they must always assume a weapon could be present. The registry is no help.

Similarly, when enforcing court orders to confiscate firearms, the registry cannot be relied upon to identify firearms at a residence. The RCMP have testified in court they cannot trust the registry. The registry is no help.

Opponents to Bill C-391 argue that the long-gun registry is important because rifles and shotguns can be used in domestic homicide. This is a red herring. The problem is the murder of family members, not the means of killing. Almost all firearms used by abusive spouses to kill their wives are possessed illegally. They are not in the registry.

It has been illegal since 1992 for a person with a violent record to own a firearm. They are not even in the CFRO. There is no empirical support for the claim that the long-gun registry has reduced spousal murders. Knives are used in almost one-third of domestic homicide. Rifles and shotguns, much less often--18% or so. Why aren't opponents of Bill C-391 concerned about women being killed with other weapons?

Opponents of Bill C-391 claim that spousal murder with guns have fallen threefold since the law was passed, while spousal murders without guns have remained the same. This is false. Spousal murders with and without guns have been slowly declining since the mid-seventies. The long-gun registry, I repeat, was not started until 2001. See charts one and eight in my submission.

Bill C-391 does not change licensing or screening requirements. It only concerns the long-gun registry. Neither the long-gun registry nor licensing is typically useful to police in solving spousal homicides. In almost all cases the accused is immediately identified.

The focus on the long-gun registry is a red herring. It distracts attention from serious problems such as gang crimes. Gang-related homicides have been increasing since the early nineties. In 2008 about one in four homicides was gang-related. Almost all of these were committed with illegally possessed handguns. See my charts two and three in the submission.

In closing, I urge committee members to read my submission in full. They will find my claims to be fully substantiated. My citations are not newspaper clippings.

I support gun laws that are based on what has been shown to work, not those based on perceptions or fears. When a government program isn't working, it should be shut down rather than being permitted to drain funds for no good reason except employment.

Finally, I wish to thank the chair of the committee, as well as the committee members, for allowing me an opportunity to show how the claims of the opponents of Bill C-391 are blatantly false or misleading.

Thank you.

[Chris Bentley, Attorney General of Ontario, Government of Ontario]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the opportunity to join the debate, and quite a debate it's been already this afternoon.

I'm not delivering a letter, I'm here in person. I know you've heard a lot of testimony, not only during these hearings but during the long debate about the gun registry.

I suspect that what joins the overwhelming majority of people in this debate is that we all wish for pretty much the same things. We all want a safe society. We all want a crime-free society. We want to apprehend those who commit crimes, and make sure the system of justice meets its appropriate result.

The real question is what will be achieved if this bill is passed? What will be achieved in furthering the ends of crime prevention, the administration of justice, the apprehension of criminals, and the prosecution of offences?

It's my respectful submission to you that nothing will be achieved, and that in fact--in fact--we will undermine the efforts of those who are charged with preventing, with enforcing the law, with prosecuting.

I see at the outset that there has been discussion at various times about what a single tool in law enforcement can and cannot do. The standard is not one of perfection for any tool, whether it's a registry, whether it's a law, whether it's an approach. There's nothing. There is no one tool that is perfect. The issue really is this: does it contribute in a significant way? The evidence is pretty clear that the gun registry does contribute in a significant way. Almost 11,000 times a day, it's accessed. Almost 11,000 times a day, it's accessed by those on the front lines of law enforcement in Canada.

Now, you could say that many of those are automatic accesses. They happen when other checks occur. But it wouldn't be accessed if it wasn't useful, if it didn't have important information, information that can protect not only the officer answering the call, the officer in assessing the risk, but information that could assist in law enforcement or the investigation.

The information in the gun registry contributes to the reasonable and probable grounds officers require in search and seizure warrants, in arrest warrants. It contributes significantly to the information that investigative officers require in order to determine who committed certain offences.

But the information doesn't stop with the officer. In the province of Ontario, as the Attorney General, I'm responsible for the crowns who prosecute crime, crowns who have to make determinations and make presentations to the judiciary, justices of the peace and judges, about whether an individual is capable of being released once they're arrested, or should be held for a bail hearing, or whether their detention should continue, or they should be released on certain conditions. The information in the registry assists in that determination.

No, it's not perfect. Gosh, if you ever find the perfect tool, let me know what it is. In a system that consists primarily of men and women working their best every day and doing their best, you're not likely to find perfection in any one tool. But it does assist that determination, knowing who's registered as owning guns, what types, whether a person can be released into the custody of another who presents themselves as a surety or guarantor, and thereby might have access to guns.

These are all important pieces of information. Perfect? No, it's not perfect, but it's of significant assistance, as is the information in the hands of those who have to consider parole questions or sentencing questions, sentencing that might result in probation, or community supervision. The question of whether somebody is being released into a household where there are firearms present or not can be important information--not perfect but important information.

I suppose one of the questions is that if you get rid of it, what replaces it? Would it be the position of the proponents of the bill that the information is simply irrelevant in all cases? Or is it the position of the proponents of the bill that somehow the information could be replaced in a different way, and if so, how? Licensing is only the first step.

So the question is what replaces it, and why would you want to deny those who stake their lives on the fact that the information is important? Why would you want to deny them that information? Why would you want to deny those, who are charged with the responsibility of prosecuting, the access to that information that they maintain is important?

There is no one tool that would be perfect. In fact, the police and the crowns, every single day, access information of various degrees of completeness and credibility. They make those assessments every minute of every day in every case. Whether it's the undercover officer accessing information from an informant, whether it's the crown assessing professional or other witnesses, many of whom have contradictory stories, they're assessing information all the time. But the magic is the information, not the denial of the information, not the refusal to look at the information.

I've never met a front line professional who, when given the opportunity to look at something that they were able to look at, said “No, I don't want to look at that; I don't want to know that; I'm not interested.” I've never met that person, ever. I practised for 25 years on the other side from where I am now, but I never met that. People want to know and then they'll make their assessment using their own personal and professional judgment, which is extremely important.

In this particular case, in the case of the gun registry, it's not a question of vilifying the owners of guns in any way, shape, or form. It is minimally intrusive on the owners to register, minimally intrusive. When you have a tool that is minimally intrusive but can provide very important information, in my respectful submission we should not deny its continuance, deny its updating, deny its strengthening.

Let me conclude with this. Bad things happen to good people. Guns are stolen. Guns go into circulation. The criminal may be found with the gun, but the investigation may extend not only to that one offence but to others, and knowing where the gun started and knowing what the trail is, is enormously important in the resolution not only of the one crime but others, in assessing the degree of seriousness with which that individual at the end of the trail should be assessed because of the apprehension.

So I say simply that the Province of Ontario's perspective, the perspective of the Attorney General, is that this registry should be maintained and Bill C-391 should not be supported.

Strengthened? Absolutely. Enhanced? Absolutely. But the registry should be maintained. It contributes significantly to the protection of the people, not only in the province of Ontario but, I believe, throughout the country.

Thank you very much.

[Kevin Gaudet, Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, and my fellow witnesses.

My name is Kevin Gaudet. I'm the federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. We're a national, non-profit, non-partisan organization with more than 74,000 supporters nationwide. We have offices in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Toronto, and Ottawa, and soon to be Atlantic Canada. The mandate of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is to advocate for lower taxes, less waste, and more accountable government. We've been doing this for a long time, celebrating our 20^th anniversary this year. We don't take government money or issue tax receipts.

I'd like to take this opportunity now to thank the supporters of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, whose contributions allowed me to be here today to testify. We refused the offer of the committee to cover our expenses. Instead, we relied on the support of our supporters. I'm pleased to be here today on their behalf, to speak against the wasteful long-gun registry and for its appropriate elimination, thanks to Ms. Hoeppner's Bill C-391.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the chair of the committee on behalf of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation for his many years of work on this issue and to thank all the MPs on the committee who supported our attendance today.

Mr. Chairman, all the members of the committee and their parties are to be commended for the open free vote that allowed this bill to come before the committee. Free votes are a key element to a fully functioning democracy. If it wasn't for the support of MPs from the NDP and the Liberal Party, joining the Conservatives in support of this bill at second reading, we wouldn't even be here today having this reasoned discussion. All of these MPs should be applauded for their courage and conviction on this issue.

That same open and free approach, we submit, should be continued in the House when this bill comes up again for vote after third reading. This has been a long-standing privilege that MPs have enjoyed for decades. It is a practice that ought to be followed without exception, after third reading on this bill.

Given the sensitivity of this debate, many have been calling for a compromise on this issue, and I agree. I suggest that Ms. Hoeppner's bill does just that. It provides a reasonable compromise for responsible and trustworthy gun owners, and we support it. This bill is a compromise because many responsible and trustworthy gun owners would have preferred to see more changes regarding hand guns, licensing, and other restrictions. It became clear that a bill with such changes was not going to get majority support from the House, so Bill S-5 was introduced in the Senate. It was deeply flawed, with the possibility of creating a new gun registry in every province. Thankfully, it too would not gain majority support.

As a result, this bill was created. Ms. Hoeppner's bill provides a compromise, having stripped away all other changes save for this one: the elimination of the wasteful long-gun registry. The long-gun registry has been an extremely wasteful and burdensome placebo that provides false impressions of improving public safety. Most importantly, the long-gun registry has been a substantial financial boondoggle since its creation in 1995 by then Minister of Justice Allan Rock. It has cost well beyond $2 billion, and the final figure is still yet unclear.

Some would like to argue that annual operating costs associated with the registry run at only $3 million. This is false. This figure does not reflect true fully-loaded direct costing, nor does it factor in indirect costing. In fact, the registry costs taxpayers more than $106 million per year, and a final figure cannot be known. As the Auditor General has pointed out, not once but twice, for a program that does little to nothing to keep Canadians safe, this is and has been a huge waste of taxpayer money. And all of this wasted spending originates due to misleading information having been given to Parliament when Bill C-68 was passed.

Related, of course, is that Canadians don't even know if the $2 billion is a complete figure. In 2002 we in the Canadian Taxpayers Federation presented Auditor General Sheila Fraser with a petition of over 14,000 signatures, requesting that her office audit the program. She did so and found astonishing waste.

In the second audit of the program, in 2006, Ms. Fraser found that whenever costs ballooned beyond what Parliament had authorized, or above what the government had publicly promised, the true amounts were hidden from legislators and the public. The Auditor General concludes that hiding these costs broke the law and violated the government's own accounting practices. It also meant that Parliament's constitutional power to decide how taxpayers' dollars are spent was usurped by bureaucrats. This is where the committee ought to be focusing its time more appropriately.

In 2006 my predecessor delivered to then public safety minister Day another petition, this time with over 28,000 petitions, calling for the elimination of the wasteful long-gun registry.

To quote from the Auditor General's report from December 2002, “From the start insufficient financial information was provided to Parliament”. The Auditor General says that Parliament was misled in 1995 to believe that the program would cost a net of only $2 million. Canadians may never know the full and true cost of this program.

We know, thanks to the Auditor General and the CBC, that it has cost over $2 billion. The program has been disastrously managed. According to the Auditor General, 70% of all money approved by Parliament for the creation and management of this program came from supplementary estimates. As you parliamentarians are aware, this is a clear indication of just how out of control the program has been, as this spending had not been budgeted.

The Auditor General's report is scathing. It outlines waste and mismanagement of immense scale. An important excerpt from the audit reads:

In our view, the financial information provided for audit by the Department does not fairly present the cost of the Program to the government. Our initial review found significant shortcomings in the information the Department provided. Consequently we stopped our audit of this information....

The Auditor General notes that costs exceeded $1 billion, according to the department. And she noted that the cost was importantly incomplete.

The auditor also highlights that the program's focus had changed from high-risk firearms owners to excessive regulation and enforcement of controls over all owners and their firearms. The department concluded that, as a result, the program had become overly complex and very costly to deliver, and that it had become difficult for owners to comply with the program. Importantly, the Auditor General notes, “The Department also did not report to Parliament the wider costs of the Program as required by the government's regulatory policy.”

As a result, the CBC submitted a freedom of information request to attempt to gain better information on full costing. They ran a story in February 2004 reporting the full wasteful program costs at more than $2 billion. Canadians likely will never know how much the wasteful program costs to date. Equally, we don't know fully how much it costs annually in direct and associated costs.

The RCMP reports it spends $8.4 million a year on registration. Leave aside for a moment the credibility of this number. Simply add it to the $98 million annual operating costs for other related programs, as outlined in the detailed research report from the Library of Parliament in 2003, and the total operating costs for the impact of this wasteful registry exceed $106 million a year. Of course, we don't even know the real cost to the RCMP, as the ongoing registry's operating costs have been routinely, purposely misrepresented.

In her 2006 audit, the Auditor General points out repeated examples of improper accounting where spending was hidden from Parliament. One example is for $17 million and another example is for $22 million. She notes in 2006 that the managers intended to continue with this accounting practice of hiding costs.

Nor do we know the true feeling of the rank and file members of the force. On May 5 of this year, Deputy Commissioner Killam issued an outrageous memo to all commanding officers regarding Ms. Hoeppner's bill, ordering the commanders and all their employees to keep their opinions to themselves and their mouths shut. With this kind of culture of chill in the RCMP, the true costs of managing the wasteful registry may never truly be known, nor may the true attitudes of the front line officers.

The only way to save taxpayers from this ongoing debacle is for this committee and Parliament to put an end to the wasteful long-gun registry.

Thank you for your time.

[Patty Ducharme, National Executive Vice-President, Executive Office, Public Service Alliance of Canada, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thanks, Barb.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada represents 172,000 workers across the country, including the 238 workers who work in the federal firearms registry in New Brunswick, and we are proud to be members of the Canadian Labour Congress.

Our union supports gun control. Our union also supports a firearms registry, which we believe has proven its importance and its success. Abolishing the long-gun registry serves no useful purpose, and we urge the committee to stand against Bill C-391 and reject its proposed amendments for the following reasons.

We've provided a written brief, so I am just going to address some of our concerns in bullet form.

We believe the long-gun registration is a necessary tool in the fight against violence against women. The long-gun registration helps ensure public health and safety, and gun control helps police do their work.

I'm going to talk briefly about the experience of our members--Public Service Alliance of Canada members--who work in the gun registry. Our members working at the registry provide information on the legislation and facilitate the registration, licensing, and transfer of ownership for gun owners. They answer anywhere between 75 and 120 calls per day working in a call centre environment, and they tell us that the people they interact with in general also support the program. These workers have first-hand experience of the importance of this registry.

As Charline Vautour, who works at the exception handling unit of the program, says,

We see results every day. We know the registry is useful when we see who uses it--in police investigations, when police visit people's homes, in situations of domestic violence, in legal matters. It is also used by health care workers who are first responders who need to know if there are weapons in a house and by fire departments which need to know if there are any explosives in a house. In a house fire, a long gun might just melt, but the ammunition can be very dangerous. Eliminating the registry would be a huge step backwards. All those records would be deleted. The outcome would be negative and it would be dangerous.

We agree that most gun owners have been registered and have registered their firearms. Of course, most Canadians support gun control, with a recent Léger poll indicating that 59% of Canadians consider the gun registry a good investment.

Are you asking me to stop, sir?

[Barbara Byers]

Thank you very much.

On behalf of the 3.2 million members of the Canadian Labour Congress, I want to thank you for the opportunity to present our views on Bill C-391, an act that would repeal the long-gun registry.

The CLC opposes Bill C-391. Our members have debated the issue of gun control at our conventions, and delegates have supported various forms of gun control in Canada, which led us to support the creation of the gun registry in 1995.

We know the debate about gun control and the gun registry can be difficult, but we must keep it in perspective.

The vast majority of Canadians do not own guns. There are as compelling reasons today as there were in 1995 for a national gun registry: to enforce safe storage requirements; to ensure gun owners are held accountable for all the guns they own, including non-restricted firearms like rifles and shotguns; to compel gun owners to report missing or stolen firearms; to reduce the illegal trade in rifles and shotguns; to give the police and first responders modern tools to protect their health and safety and take preventive action; and to trace back stolen guns to their rightful owners.

After a decade of use, first responders and police testify to its effectiveness, and a database that is consulted thousands of times a day by police across the country can no longer be dismissed by opponents as useless.

In domestic violence situations and child endangerment situations, both police and social workers can access the registry to assess the situation they are heading into and are able to take precautions and enter dangerous situations knowing what they may expect on the other side of the door. I can say, as a past social worker, that the registry would have been very helpful for me when I was doing emergency duty.

We know that rifles and shotguns are the guns most available in people's homes. A gun in the home increases risk factors on many levels, risks that the registry helps mitigate by providing those first responders with vital information: the number of guns in the home and, more importantly, what kind of guns. It allows them to assess risk to themselves and to others, particularly in domestic violence situations.

Rifles and shotguns are the guns most often used in domestic violence situations. They are the guns most often used in suicides, particularly those involving youth, and they are the guns most often used to kill police officers.

We are aware that in one high-profile case, a registered gun left at the scene of the murders of four RCMP officers in Mayerthorpe, Alberta, was traced back to its owner through the registry. The owner was eventually convicted as an accessory in the killing of those officers.

The registry clearly plays an important role for our nation's police forces and first responders. We do not ignore the fact that mistakes were made when the gun registry was established. Cost overruns were documented by the Auditor General in 2002, although most of the costs were spent on the licensing aspect of the 1995 law, not on the registry itself.

Any new program has unanticipated costs, as this government has learned recently. The Globe and Mail reported last week the estimated cost to provinces for the federal government's new Truth in Sentencing Act has gone from an estimated $90 million over the next two years to $2 billion over five years, according to justice minister Vic Toews, and Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page estimates the projected costs at $7 billion to $10 billion over five years.

Clearly only time will tell, but regardless of whether you feel the money setting up the licensing and gun registry was money was well spent or not, it is money spent. Its current annual operating costs do provide value, particularly in terms of the access to the database by police across the country thousands of times a day.

The vast majority of gun owners in this country are clearly law-abiding citizens. They continue to register their guns despite this government's attempt in recent years to undermine the registry. As one member of a CLC affiliate said recently at his union's convention debating a resolution to support the gun registry—and I quote—“I am a proud hunter, and I am proud to register my rifle.”

As many have pointed out, registering guns is not an onerous task. When compared to the rules and regulations governing car ownership, the restrictions are put into perspective. You need a licence to operate a car. You have to renew your licence every year. In many provinces, you have to bring your car for emissions testing before you can renew your licence. You're required by law to wear a seat belt in your car. You need to purchase insurance, otherwise you cannot operate your car. In some provinces, you can't talk on a cellphone while driving your car, and in some provinces you have to buy and put snow tires on your car in the winter.

In contrast, gun owners need a licence to own a gun. The licence can be revoked if you use your gun recklessly. You need to register guns when you buy them. You must store your guns safely.

In 1995, a majority of Canadians favoured even stricter gun control legislation than the Firearms Act mandated. The same can be said today. Our own polling by Vector Research in January of this year continues to show majority support by Canadians to abolish gun ownership outright. The Firearms Act of 1995 is a uniquely Canadian example of compromise, a balance between the interests of those who favour stricter controls on firearms and those who prefer less restrictions.

Bill C-391 eliminates that balance, eliminates the tool used by police to work safely, eliminates the tool that keeps our communities safe and that has helped to reduce deaths by shotguns and rifles.

Patty Ducharme will complete our time on the agenda.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I'd like to bring this meeting to order.

This is the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, meeting 19, and we are today looking at Bill C-391, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (repeal of long-gun registry).

We have quite a long list of witnesses.

Have you made any decisions on who goes first, or have you discussed this amongst yourselves? Shall we just start on the right side and move across, if that's okay?

On the right side, then, to start, we have the Canadian Labour Congress. Please introduce yourselves.

Ms. Byers, are you going to present, or Ms. Ducharme?

Firearms Registry

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure today, May 25, 2010, to present a petition on behalf of the people of Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley.

The petition requests Parliament to support Bill C-391, a bill that would eliminate the long gun registry. The petition contains over 3,000 signatures.

Criminal Records Act Review

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of my friend's speech, she essentially focused on Bill C-23 but we are here today with respect to her Motion No. 514. I also will speak to Bill C-23 but I will read her motion first. It reads:

That the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security be instructed to undertake a review of the Criminal Records Act and report to the House within three months on how it could be strengthened to ensure that the National Parole Board puts the public's safety first in all its decisions.

There is one thing I do not think my friend mentioned, but I actually did speak with her beforehand and she was agreeable that the three months should be three months of sitting days. I just wanted to clarify that that is what we are discussing, not just any three months.

In terms of the motion, I support it.

I am on the public safety and national security committee, and the reason I wanted to clarify that it should be three months of sitting days is because there is just no way we could do it otherwise. Right now we are involved with a discussion of Bill C-391 on the gun registry, and we have far too many witnesses that we are going through, various victims' rights groups, police officers and mental health persons, all of whom want to come and testify to try to keep the gun registry. So there is just no way that we could do that in the short period of time that we have.

The motion is a good motion but it needs to be compared and contrasted to the reaction of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety once the Graham James story came out. When this story came out, there was an immediate reactive decision to overhaul the Criminal Records Act because of the story. My problem with the immediate reaction that they had was that there was no thorough and thoughtful suggestion or review of the pardon system whatsoever. It was just an immediate reaction to this news story.

I actually compliment my friend for putting something forward that is more thoughtful and thorough in terms of what she would like to see accomplished. I compliment her for standing up to what has occurred in her own party, because by her motion, she is actually recognizing that we need a full and proper discussion, not simply an immediate statute because of a news story.

In terms of the Bill C-23, it is important to remember that this issue was raised first in 2006 by the Conservative government because there was another news story with respect to convicted sex offender, Clark Noble. At that time, the public safety minister indicated that the government would review the need for possible changes to the pardon system because of the 2006 news story. Why were the changes that it is currently proposing not made or introduced back in 2006 in response to the first news story? If the changes had been made at that time properly, we would not be facing this exact situation with the new news story with respect to Graham James.

When my friend speaks of the law and order agenda and how the Conservatives are trying to solve a problem, to be honest about this, there must be recognition that this problem was already recognized in 2006 and ignored by the Conservative government. I applaud my friend for trying to fix the problem now that was ignored back in 2006.

In terms of Bill C-23, any pardon system must operate in the best interests of public safety, 100%, but that also means we have to figure out what that is, and that means having a proper study. I personally welcome the opportunity at the public safety committee to do that.

My friend went through what Bill C-23 seeks to accomplish in terms of changes. I will not repeat it but I will reiterate that based on all of these suggested changes, if they were so urgent and so important, why did we not hear about any of these in 2006 when this first review took place after the other news story? It was ignored. Who is at fault for this?

I want to point out some things in an article by Dan Gardner of the Ottawa Citizen.

What happened in 2006 was that the minister of public safety at the time studied the process, the policy and the facts and concluded that changes were warranted. For example, two Parole Board members, not one, would be involved in applications and, rather than relying on local police to bring forward information related to the applicant's conduct, the Parole Board would be required to get information the local police may have.

However, on the fundamental question, which is key for the Graham James news story that has now come out: Should sex offenders continue to be eligible for pardons?, the then minister of public safety considered the question and gave an affirmative answer. Why?

The current proposal in Bill C-23 suggests that sex offenders who have harmed children would not be eligible. I am in favour of that. I have actually spoken out many times against the Conservatives' law and order agenda saying that it was not tough enough. A lot of it is window dressing, in my respectful view. When the bill says that it would exclude sex offenders who have harmed children, I wonder why it is only children. What about all the other victims who have been hurt by sex offenders? Why is the government again ignoring all of those other victims?

When the Conservatives talk about a law and order agenda and about protecting victims, how are they doing it? They did not fix it in 2006 when they did study it and made some changes. Now all they are proposing deals with a sex offender who has harmed a child. What about all the other victims?

In order to come to a logical, reasoned analysis of what the best overall system is, because I do not want to prejudge it, there should be a proper study. That means experts, various persons interested in coming forward and victims groups appearing before the committee. I welcome that. The motion is good for that very reason. We need to have a thoughtful analysis so the Conservatives do not make another mistake like they made in 2006 when they made some changes but ignored some of the things that really mattered.

In terms of the 2006 story, there is an October 21, 2006 article by Timothy Appleby and Peter Cheney, called “[The Minister of Public Safety] calls for review after sex offender obtains pardon”, and it goes through this. The Conservatives did this the first time in 2006 but they did not get it right.

What happened because they did not get it right in 2006? I will describe exactly what happened because Canadians need to know. An article in the Globe and Mail by Daniel Leblanc dealing with criminal records states:

Nearly all the sex offenders who apply for pardons in Canada successfully wipe out their criminal records from public view, despite the Conservative government’s promise four years ago to make the system tougher.

Over the last two years, 1,554 sex offenders applied for a pardon with the National Parole Board; only 41 of them were rejected, leaving 1,513 without a trace of a criminal record, unless they apply to work with children or vulnerable individuals.

Because the government ignored this in 2006, 1,513 convicted sex offenders since that time have received these pardons. That was an intentional decision by the government.

I want to be fair. I want to quote somebody with respect to victims. Victims essentially say that Bill C-23 was a knee-jerk reaction. I would rather not see a knee-jerk reaction but rather a considered, thoughtful debate and evidence given before the public safety and national security committee. I intend to be strong on this but I also want to be reasoned and thoughtful with proper submissions.

I thank my friend across the way for having the courage to recognize that a problem has existed since 2006 when it was not fixed and for trying to fix it now.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Drummond, the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians opposes Bill C-391 and supports the gun registry. Your organization is just one of many medical and health organizations that also oppose it. Can you tell me what other organizations oppose it?

[John Edzerza, Member of the Legislative Assembly, McIntyre-Takhini, and Minister of Environment, Government of Yukon]

Thank you for inviting me here today.

Mr. Chair and members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, it is an honour to be here today to speak as a witness before the committee in support of Bill C-391. It is my understanding that I am the first aboriginal person to come before this committee, which is very disappointing.

Mr. Chair, there has been a long history of opposition to the long-gun registry in the Yukon, and indeed across the entire north, ever since the introduction of the registry in 1993. The registry was set out in Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons. This bill was given royal assent in 1995.

I want to read into the record a motion presented to the Yukon Legislative Assembly on December 14, 1994, by the late Johnny Abel, the former MLA for Vuntut Gwitchin. The motion read as follows:

That it is the opinion of this House that the proposed amendments to the federal government's firearms legislation to be presented to the Parliament of Canada in February, 1995, do not accommodate the needs of northern Canadians and their lifestyle; and

That the Yukon Legislative Assembly urges the federal Minister of Justice, the Hon. Allan Rock, not to proceed with the proposed firearms amendments until such time as the needs of northern Canadians are met.

The motion passed unanimously. The words of Mr. Abel at that time are still relevant today. He said:

The people in Toronto do not go ratting, nor do they need to hunt caribou like the people of Old Crow do. When they want food, they just go down to the nearest grocery store. The grocery store for the people of Old Crow is the land itself, our traditional territory: Old Crow Flats.

To my constituents, a firearm is a tool. We need a rifle to hunt and to live off the land. A carpenter needs tools, such as a hammer and a saw, to do his or her job. A mechanic needs tools, such as wrenches and screwdrivers, to do his or her job.

My constituents are hunters. We need to use firearms to do our job.

Mr. Chair, over the years since MLA Johnny Abel's motion in 1994, other motions have been presented in the Yukon Legislative Assembly opposing the long-gun registry, but all to no avail. The Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut--Canada's entire north--are unified in their position in calling for the revocation of the long-gun registry. As I speak here today, the three northern premiers are meeting in Whitehorse, and I am sure that the revocation of the long-gun registry will be a topic of their discussion.

Mr. Chair, I stand before you today to speak on behalf of Yukoners to ensure that the wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry comes to an end. The registry forces law-abiding citizens to register their tools, which are used in many cases to fulfill their responsibilities in their everyday lives. The registry targets people who live off the land—first nation citizens, ranchers, farmers, hunters, and outfitters—not the intended criminals. Registration is only for those who respect the law. People who plan to commit a crime using a weapon will not register the gun.

The legislation that created the registry hoped to reduce violent crime. Usually handguns and other smuggled firearms are used in organized crime and drug deals, not hunting rifles. Domestic violence and violence against women is a problem in our society. Registering hunting rifles, unfortunately, will not change this dysfunction. Most violence against women is usually as a result of physical force.

In Canada, most murders are committed with a sharp-edged weapon. In 2008, a knife was used against 6% of all victims of violent crime. In comparison, 3% of violent crimes were committed with a blunt club or blunt instrument, and 2% with a firearm. These data are from a Statistics Canada article, “Knives and violent crime in Canada, 2008”.

I'm here to talk to you today about life in Canada's north and how long guns are a part of everyday life for many Yukoners. In rural Yukon, carrying a rifle may be the only defence against attack from many predators. The rifle is a tool to be used by rural citizens to safeguard their lives when going about supporting their families, prospecting, fishing, and gathering other food sources. To many Yukoners, a rifle is a means to feed their children, elders, and, in some cases, their community.

For some, registration and the cost involved with registration will cause hardship. These law-abiding citizens have had these rifles safely for all of their lives.

I would now like to share with you some of my experience with long-gun life in the Yukon Territory.

I was taught the value of a rifle at a very young age, whether it was a .22 calibre or a .30-06. I was taught how to respect a gun and honour it. I shot rabbits and grouse at age 9, and I shot my first moose at the age of 13.

Mr. Chair, first nations people have been under the thumb of federal governments for hundreds of years--only first nations. What other race of people are subject to an act like the Indian Act?

We are guaranteed inherent rights to hunt and put food on our tables to feed our families. Would one believe this registry system has diminished those rights? As a first nations elder, I believe it will and it has. It will be hard for first nations persons to own a gun. I know of one elder in Teslin, Yukon who had his rifle taken away, and it took two years of court cases to get it back. It was taken away because it wasn't registered. That's unbelievable. What's next?

Mr. Chair, this long-gun registry even affects our traditional ceremonies in a negative way. For example, when someone passes away we have a headstone potlatch one year after, and in this ceremony we give gifts to members of the opposite clan. The most honourable gift one could give at this ceremony is a rifle. We can not, and do not, do this any more, and it hurts our spirit. It's just another law put on us to strip us of our pride.

Members of the standing committee, I must ask why no one consults with first nations on important issues such as this. Does anyone in Ottawa really know how much this affects first nations people right across Canada? It's another put-down to us, almost as though we aren't important and we have no voice in the matter.

Speaking of voice, Mr. Chair, I also heard the Liberal leader in Ottawa say that all his members have to vote to save the gun registry. If this is the case, then not only the first nations will lose their voice, but the majority of Yukon citizens will. We have only one voice in Parliament, and he belongs to the Liberal Party. One has to question whatever happened to democracy.

I could possibly talk for days on this topic, but time does not allow me to do so. However, I will summarize in this way. First, to first nations and others in the Yukon, a rifle has one of the highest values, so valuable that it is a necessity for living on the land, more precious than diamonds or gold. Second, first nations were not consulted on how this law would affect our aboriginal rights and traditional ceremonies. Third, we don't know how much money was spent to date on this law. We have heard it was billions. Our only response is that we sure could have used this money to upgrade our homes.

We feel this law was written for the big cities in the south, and no thought was given to those who live off the land. In first nations families, guns are passed down to others through death. I was given one of my dad's rifles when he died. We are unable to do this any more.

Our only vote in the Yukon is being jeopardized by a whipped vote by the Liberals. I say this with respect for Larry, because I sincerely believe he would support his constituents and vote in favour of Bill C-391.

Members of the committee, I thank you for your time today. I thank you for giving me a chance to be heard. It took a lot of courage to come here today, because I don't know you and you are much more powerful than I, but I had to. A friend of mine said to me at a potlatch ceremony two days ago, and I quote, “When you go to Ottawa, tell those people guns don't kill. It's the stupid bastard who points a loaded gun at someone and pulls the trigger.”

I respectfully ask all of you members, from every party, to support Bill C-391, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act.

I thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, I had documents to table, but they were not translated into French. The committee members will receive them in a few days. Thank you.

[Charles Momy, President, Canadian Police Association]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. How are you today?

Thank you, committee members, for allowing us to speak here today.

My name is Charles Momy. I am president of the Canadian Police Association. I would also like to introduce, to my right, Detective Constable Nadine Teeft, a member of the organized crime enforcement gun and gang task force of the Toronto Police Service as well as a member of the Canadian Police Association. I will provide my remarks, which should take, Mr. Chair, about five or six minutes, and Nadine will finish up for about three minutes.

The CPA welcomes the opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security with regard to Bill C-391. By way of background, the Canadian Police Association is the national voice for 41,000 front-line police personnel serving across Canada. In our more than 150 member associations, the Canadian Police Association membership includes police personnel serving in police services from Canada's smallest towns and villages as well as those working in our largest municipal cities. They include provincial police services, the RCMP, railway police, and first nations police associations.

Our goal is to work with elected officials from all parties to bring about meaningful reforms to enhance the safety and security of all Canadians, including those sworn to protect our communities. For decades police associations have been advocating reforms to our justice system in Canada. The CPA has worked very positively with the current government, providing input and support on several pieces of legislation. In fact, this past week I attended a round table discussion organized by Public Safety Canada on the review of the DNA act, yet another tool assisting police in bringing criminals to justice. However, when it comes to the long-gun registry, we respectfully have a difference of opinion.

I'm not here today to inundate the committee with statistical information. Much of that information has already been provided by the RCMP Canadian firearms program, but that type of information is also contained in our brief, which we have circulated to the committee.

In 2007 the RCMP Canadian firearms program surveyed our front-line officers with regard to online queries of the Canadian firearms registry. In total, 56 police services were surveyed from across Canada. There were 408 police officers surveyed in total; 262 of them were general duty patrol officers, 64 were criminal investigators, and 82 were police officer supervisors.

The survey results were as follows: 92% of police officers have used the Canadian firearms registry online system, 65% responding that they use CFRO in day-to-day functions; 73% use CFRO in responding to calls for service; 69% report CFRO influences how they respond to calls for service; and finally, 74% indicate use of CFRO aids in their investigations and operations in policing.

We have continuously stated that law enforcement uses the Canadian firearms registry. Does every single police officer in this country use the system? Of course not. Do thousands? Very possibly. What we do know for sure is this: in 2009 there were four million CFRO queries, of which 45% were autolinked when using CPIC. The other 55% were specific requests usually related to domestic incidents.

The Canadian firearms registry is about keeping our communities safe, period. I'm here to state that the long-gun registry represents one of many tools available to police. Other examples are the DNA data bank and the sex offender registry. Does every single police officer use those tools, the sex offender registry or the DNA data bank? Most likely not. The gun registry is a valuable tool that has significant preventive and investigational value and is used towards keeping our community safer. Will it solve every gun crime? Will it solve or prevent every firearm death? Of course not, just as the Criminal Code does not prevent murders or sexual assaults.

Because rifles and shotguns are the firearms most often in people's homes, they are the firearms police most often face when they are called to investigate domestic violence and disturbances. Last week retired Winnipeg police officers were testifying at this committee—and we agree with them—that most real criminals--gang members and organized crime groups--do not register their guns.

There are many examples of the use of the registry by law enforcement, and I'll give you a few. For example, it was evidence from the registry that assisted in the arrest and conviction of two men as accessories for their involvement in the 2005 murder of four RCMP officers in Mayerthorpe, Alberta, specifically through a registered unrestricted rifle found at the scene of the crime. This information was yet another piece of evidence in their ultimate convictions.

Did the registry save the lives of these four Mounties? No, it did not, but it did bring these individuals to justice.

In a second example, NWEST provided support to an RCMP detachment after a suspect was stopped with four long guns in his vehicle. The suspect was evasive when questioned, leading investigators to believe the firearms had been stolen. NWEST conducted CFRO checks on the recovered firearms and determined that all four were registered to a local resident and not the person who was in possession of these rifles.

The registered owner, who was working out of town, was contacted by police and said that as far as he was aware, all his firearms were safely stored at his residence. Police attended the owner's residence and discovered evidence confirming that his residence had been broken into and that all 16 of his long guns had been stolen. Subsequent investigation resulted in the recovery of the remaining 12 long guns from the suspect.

Where would these guns have ended up if we hadn't stopped this individual? Possibly in the hands of real criminals. What would they have planned to do with these particular firearms? I'll allow you to come to your own conclusion with regard to that. I could go on and on with regard to how police use the firearms registry, but let me present you with some facts.

The gun registry is now in place. It's not in the planning phases and it's not in the beginning phases; it's in the operational phases. It's working today. Voting in favour of Bill C-391 will not bring back any of the money originally invested in the creation of the program. We have heard repeatedly that eliminating the long-gun registry would save Canadians approximately $4 million per year.

As police officers, we share the front-line responsibility of keeping our communities safe. The safety of children, women, and men across Canada is paramount to everything we do. In addition, I also have a responsibility to ensure the safety of our members. To the Canadian Police Association, community and police officer safety is the basis of our opposition to Bill C-391. There has been a great deal of misinformation surrounding this issue, and it has been very confusing to Canadians, including politicians and even our own members on occasion.

Allow me to make one final point as I come to the end of my presentation. Like many of you, I have a driver's licence. It allows me to operate a vehicle, but my vehicle is also registered. To give you a quick example, if I were to stop Chair Breitkreuz for speeding after this committee hearing today, I would suggest to you that Mr. Breitkreuz would provide a driver's licence and I would suggest to you that his vehicle would also be registered.

What that does for me as a police officer is that it allows me to confirm that the vehicle Mr. Breitkreuz is driving is his own, or is a stolen vehicle, or is being used for some other purpose, or has been involved in some other criminal activity. That is how I provide the examples of licensing and registration, whether it impacts or deals with vehicles in this country or whether it deals with firearms in this country.

Allow me to pass the floor to my colleague Nadine Teeft, who will be providing you with her viewpoints in the next couple of minutes.

[Manon Monastesse, Director, Fédération de ressources d'hébergement pour femmes violentées et en difficulté du Québec, Fédération des femmes du Québec]

Good afternoon.

My federation operates 41 shelters in Quebec for women who are victims of domestic violence and in distress. This is about half of all such shelters in Quebec. We take in around 10,000 women and children per year. Domestic homicide, more specifically homicide committed by a spouse or ex-spouse where the victims are wives and children, is a major issue. It is the key issue in our involvement with clients at our shelters, whether from the standpoint of safety or prevention.

The Firearms Act has made possible significant progress, especially in reducing the number of armed assaults in situations of domestic or family violence. Rifles and shotguns are the weapons most commonly used in spousal homicide for the simple reason that long guns are the most common in Quebec homes, and therefore the most easily accessible.

Please understand that, in the opinion of those of us who have signed the brief that has been tabled, Bill C-391sends a dangerous message. If there is no need to register long guns, is that saying that they do not present a real danger? Too many examples prove the opposite, such as the case of Marie-Josée Desmeules, killed by her husband with his shotgun in Saguenay in December 2009. Rifles and shot guns do not just increase the number of victims, they increase the deadliness of the assaults. Like all firearms, rifles and shotguns pose a serious threat.

Let us be clear that, in Quebec, since 1995, the policy called Prévenir, Dépister, Contrer la violence conjugale [Prevent, detect and stop domestic violence] requires police officers to ensure that victims and their loved ones are safe and protected. If possible, firearms are seized as soon as an arrest takes place or, if not, bail conditions are arranged so that they are handed over to peace officers without delay. That is what police officers do in Quebec. The first thing that they do when they get to a domestic violence scene is to check whether the spouse or ex-spouse has firearms.

No less a person than Christine St-Pierre, the Quebec Minister of Culture, Communications and the Status of Women, said in an interview that, if Ottawa decided to dismantle the national registry, the lives of Quebec police officers and of victims of domestic violence would be put into danger unnecessarily. For us, the direct consequence of eliminating the registry or making it ineffective is to deprive the police of an essential tool of investigation and prevention and to endanger the safety of the women and children who come to our shelters.

In conclusion, we would like to remind you of the importance of the present system of gun control in the context of our ability to assist victims of domestic violence. We ask you to reject this bill, specifically because of the dangerous consequences that it would have for public safety and, most importantly, for the safety of the women and children to whom we provide shelter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I call this meeting to order.

This is the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, meeting number 18, and today we are continuing our study of Bill C-391, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act, the repeal of the long-gun registry.

We have quite a number of witnesses before us today and rather than take a lot of time to introduce them right from the beginning, I'm just going to start on my left here and have you each give your presentation. I hope you understand that you're allowed approximately 10 minutes to give a presentation; after that we open it up for questions and comments.

Who would like to present first? Is it the Fédération des femmes du Québec?

Ms. Conradi, please go ahead. Welcome to the committee.