Public Safety Committee on May 31st, 2006

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Baker, some people are opposed to the firearms registry who, nevertheless, promote safe hunting. I met recently with representatives from the Fédération québécoise de la faune who said that the courses given to all those persons in possession of firearms are largely modelled on their courses and training sessions intended for hunters.

The issue that comes up most often is that the questionnaires people who want to buy or get a permit to own firearms have to fill out are an intrusion on people's privacy. I haven't yet read the questionnaires, but from my understanding there are questions which are in all likelihood of a psychological nature.

Who wrote these questionnaires which are intended to determine whether or not a person may be dangerous should he or she be in possession of a firearm? How did it come about? How is it that this type of questionnaire was developed?

[William Baker]

The questionnaire was developed a few years ago. From what I understand, experts in the area of violence were hired to determine public safety risk factors, such as one's marital or family situation, financial difficulties and so on.

Since I arrived in 2003, the form hasn't been changed. It's still the same form the minister signed off on.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

You talked about experts in the area of violence. I don't know how one becomes an expert in that area. Are you referring to police officers or psychologists?

[William Baker]

I don't know, sir.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I'm sure you've read the questionnaire.

[William Baker]

Yes, I have.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Common sense has to come into play. You can't just assume that everybody in the midst of divorce proceedings is going to pick up a gun and use it on somebody else. And yet, that's the type of question asked. Apparently people are also asked how their marital relationship is, etc. I'm serious.

Don't you think that this questionnaire should be reviewed to determine whether it indeed adequately measures the risk of violence?

[William Baker]

I imagine we'll have the opportunity to do so. From what I understand, some parts of the questionnaire are actually statutory requirements. We'll undoubtedly have an opportunity to review these requirements the next time the government decides to review the legislation and make any changes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

We are running into a problem. We have to make room for the next committee at 3.30 p.m. and Mr. Comartin has a question.

Are you just about done with your questioning?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Comartin's questions are just as good as mine.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is a quick one. The question that Ms. Davidson asked keeps popping up. What I don't understand is that if this is automatic that the hit comes from an individual line officer pushing a button for something else and it hits on.... In 2003, when I think you started, we were at about 1,500 to 2,000 a day. We jumped very rapidly to 5,000, and we're now actually at 6,500 today. So if it was automatic, why was it not 6,500 when it started and why is it 6,500 now?

[William Baker]

Mr. Chair, I will not take credit for the increase, in any respect. I think it's a function of a couple of things. First of all, in 2003, the deadline for registration had just arrived and the amount of information in the system was really still in its infancy. Secondly, I'm aware that a number of police forces in the country have been converting to more modern systems over the last few years to allow them to access the data. I think those two factors, combined with perhaps others, have contributed to the increase in use.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Norlock, for a brief question.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

I have a quick comment and then a quick question.

Ms. Fraser, I hope that when you are accessing the users of this information you ensure that.... You know, people at the top of any organization sometimes have certain exigencies that somehow couch their responses. It's the men and women who actually do the work who would best be able to give you that information. I don't know how you can access that, but I do wish you good luck and I do hope.... I have many links to those men and women and I would not be taking the position I am if I saw this system as being a huge benefit to the men and women who are prepared to put their lives on the line for our citizens.

For a more political question, you are, and rightly so, reluctant to get involved with the politics of this issue. I commend you and the other members here for that. But from the standpoint of this committee getting to the real reasons as to why things are the way they are, do you feel it would be beneficial to this committee if we were to access those ministers of the program? There were some questions posed today that you felt reticent, and rightly so, to answer. Do you feel the committee might benefit from the testimony of those ministers who give the direction to the civil servants and to the commissioner?

[Sheila Fraser]

Mr. Chair, as Mr. Baker mentioned, we saw evidence that ministers had been informed or briefed on the issue--and I presume we're talking about the accounting issue and the decision not to record certain costs--but we saw no evidence of any direction from ministers. That has been said by several witnesses at the public accounts committee.

I believe the public accounts committee is going to be continuing their hearings on the issue. There have been conflicting views of what happened in certain meetings that we did not attend, so we are unable to shed much more light on that. But I believe the public accounts committee is going to continue hearing testimony on that. This committee might want to coordinate efforts with that committee to see if there's further action needed here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

A quick one, please.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

It will be a quick one.

I'm not specifically speaking to the direction or non-direction. I'm relating to the raison d'être of this committee, which is public safety, why we even have the Canada Firearms Centre and why we got rid of something we did before. I'm thinking specifically about the safety aspect as opposed to the fiscal aspect.

[Sheila Fraser]

I tend to go back to our report and to accounting, I'm afraid.

The decisions around the program, its continuance, and in what form are obviously a question of policy. We provide information to parliamentarians to enable them to make better judgments about policy, but policy really does come from ministers and government. I think it's up to the committee to decide if that information would be more helpful.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Do you have a question, Ms. Kadis?

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Would you say opposition, such as the gun lobby, to the initial legislation contributed to the increased costs? We've heard references to legislation that was delayed. I'd really like to understand that, because to me it appears to be a significant factor here.

[Sheila Fraser]

Without doubt, the opposition to the policy did contribute to increased costs on a number of fronts, be it delays in legislation and regulations, be it additional public awareness promotion activities, be it the reduction and even waiver of fees and the fact that certain provinces dropped out when it was expected they would contribute. Obviously we can't assess what the actual dollar amount is, but they were certainly an important factor.

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Talking about effectiveness, which has been referred to many times today, information such as almost 7,000 affidavits that have been provided by the registry to support prosecution of firearms-related crimes in court proceedings, for example, is very compelling. Would this be the type of information that you would be looking at or would be interested to see in terms of performance standards or performance management?

[Sheila Fraser]

It's really important, I think, that the centre--now it will be obviously the RCMP--that the program determine what they believe are important measures of their effectiveness and measures that they would use, in fact, for their own management. So a measure has to be not only for external reporting, but to be used as well for management to improve or track progress. I would be hesitant to say that is good, because I think it's really up to the managers of the program to look at the kind of measures--

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

The point is that I believe also it's somewhere up to 6,500 hits a day, actually--well beyond the 5,000. I just thought I should bring that to your attention.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.