The aim of my motion is essentially to maintain the status quo until the government presents us with a proper bill, to do what it had promised to do, in other words to abolish the registration of some firearms. Although the firearms registry gave rise to a major administrative scandal, it has been useful.
For instance, since 1995, the total number of deaths involving firearms, expressed both as a percentage of the Canadian population and in absolute numbers fell by 27 per cent. That is really the most important statistic for our purposes given the increase in the population between 1995 and 2004. Even better yet, there has been a 34 per cent drop in the number of deaths per 100,000 inhabitants.
There's also been a 10 per cent decrease in homicides involving firearms per 100,000 inhabitants, which is particularly significant, given that that would involve hunting rifles, long guns. Homicides involving hunting rifles decreased by 43 per cent, whereas those committed with handguns increased by 7 per cent. This indicates that there was no change in the status of handguns because they were already being registered. They had already reached their cruising speed, if you will, and there was a slight increase.
On the other hand, in the case of the specific weapons being considered, in other words hunting rifles, there's been a 43 per cent drop. Otherwise, there was a slight, one per cent increase in the number of homicides not involving firearms. The most striking finding is that the rate of women murdered with firearms decreased by 31 per cent, whereas the number of women murdered without firearms increased slightly, by 2 per cent. Armed robberies decreased by 48 per cent.
Clearly, it must be said that despite all of the registry's administrative problems it has delivered significant results in terms of public safety. That is something that will have to be considered if the government chooses to introduce a bill, as announced. I think the first thing that should be done would be to hold hearings, to give the main stakeholder organizations a chance to state their views.
I also noted that the costs associated with registration and the firearms monitoring system have been under control since 2002, as stated in the most recent report from the Auditor General.
The savings that would arise from abolishing the long-gun registry would be relatively insignificant. When Mr. Baker testified, Mr. Comartin referred to 2 to 3 per cent, a figure he could not really refute.
Only $14.6 million would be provided for the registration of all firearms. Yet, as Mr. Baker explained, removing only one category of weapons from the registry does not in any way decrease fixed costs such as those related to the computer system.
The minister himself estimated the reduction would save $10 million. He suggested reimbursing people who have already paid for registration, which we support. That would however cost approximately $19 million. Although the minister believes he can save $10 million, there would be $19 million in costs. He said he was prepared to provide for this expenditure within his budget.
The minister is referring to $19 million, which I find rather conservative compared to the estimates of others. Actually, most of the people who register their firearms, in other words two million people, will have to renew their licences. Two million people paying $60 each does not amount to a total of $19 million, does it? Actually it is more like $120 million. I think the savings would be somewhere between the conservative estimate made by Mr. Comartin and the $10 million referred to by the minister. The savings would be minimal, given the amount the minister is prepared to reimburse and the aspects of the system he is willing to do without.
The inconvenience to hunters would essentially be removed, since there is no fee for registering weapons and the renewal fees for licences would be eliminated. What is so urgent that an order in council is required before properly introducing and debating the bill? Given what the government is prepared to give up, we can only conclude that the announcement will result in minimal savings. On the other hand, when it comes to public safety, there is evidence that the system works. Moreover, practically all of those who in the course of their duties deal with the legal and illegal use of firearms find that the registry has been very useful.
I am referring here to professional police officers, all the way up through the system. There is the Canadian Professional Police Association as well as the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. They all praise the firearms registry, despite its shortcomings. They use it on a regular basis. It is a system that saves lives and attains public safety objectives. As I mentioned earlier on, the grounds we've been given cannot be justified financially.
These people did not even consult our committee, whose mandate it is to consider issues of public safety, before deciding to make such drastic changes to a system which saves lives. I have eloquent statistics in hand, and I am aware of others, although I don't have them before me. There has been a drop in the suicide rate, for instance.
We received letters from psychiatrists stating that section 111 of the Criminal Code is used in some crucial circumstances. For instance, some depressed patients consider suicide. There is an even worse scenario, which is that an individual may decide to kill his spouse and children before turning the gun on himself. That would be the most tragic situation which could occur.
Section 111 of the Criminal Code allows for communication with the firearms registry or even with a peace officer. A peace officer may apply to a court for an order to remove the weapons owned by an individual. But if there is no registry for these firearms and if the person does not cooperate, how can police officers track weapons? The same situation arises each time a person is found guilty of a criminal offence. I think that under the previous section, judges may issue orders to seize firearms. That would probably be when people are reluctant to cooperate with the police. But how can the police ensure that the person no longer owns any firearms if the registry no longer exists?
This issue clearly raises important public safety and public interest issues. I respect people who do not share my views. However, this is a democracy, and Parliament, which is divided on this issue, has heard from victim advocacy groups as well as from people who say they are scandalized by the cost overruns and the administrative scandal, as well as from the poor hunters who were inconvenienced by the mandatory questionnaires they had to fill out.
I had the opportunity to read some of those questionnaires, and perhaps they do indeed go too far. However, that is no reason to do away with them. Whenever hunters criticize the firearms registry, their association refers to the fact that they already have systems in place to ensure that hunters are responsible and well informed about the precautions that need to be taken with respect to the handling, maintenance and storage of firearms.
We only want firearms in the hands of responsible individuals. We do not want to open the door to anything else. That is what hunters' associations need to know. Also, no one should take any undue risks.
Mr. Chairman, why do you think there is a Criminal Code provision stipulating that sawing off a firearm is a criminal offence? Why do you think some people have taken to sawing off their firearms in the past?
Sawed-off shotguns are less effective. Handguns are effective by virtue of their precision. That precision would be lost. And why would someone choose to do that? Because a sawed-off shotgun is easier to hide. Why did people start sawing off their weapons in Canada? Because it is easy to buy hunting weapons and because handguns have to be registered. Criminals found that it was easier to get access to hunting rifles, to saw them off, and to use them in armed robberies, for instance.
If you abolish the registry, it will be impossible to track long guns once they leave the store. I do not want to see this bill passed. Regardless, I wouldn't be surprised to see an increase in sawed-off shotguns. At this point, it is almost as complicated to get a long gun as it is to get a handgun. Sure, some may say that there will always be people willing to break the law. However, I do not think that those who say that would go so far as to say that because drug addicts will always be able to find drugs, all drugs should be legalized, that there is no point in passing any drug legislation if we know people are using.
The same thing applies to firearms. Obviously, criminals are going to try to obtain firearms illegally. However, that is done at a very high cost. To buy something illegal, you need special connections, and the people you deal with want to make considerable profits.
Once the long gun leaves the store, nothing is registered. Street gangs are currently the greatest threat to public safety in our cities and even in the rural regions. Now that we've managed to dismantle some large criminal organizations, one of the major threats are the street gangs.
For the time being, these street gangs are not very rich. They're mostly made up of youths embarking on a life of crime. These are young thugs who would have a great deal of difficulty obtaining a possession and acquisition licence. The idea doesn't even cross their mind because it is so long and complicated.
However, if there is no more control of firearms, these people simply have to find an individual, family member or group member, who can go purchase the firearm and sell it to them. So there is an immediate risk.
In my opinion, it is unthinkable for Parliament to take that risk without committees considering amendments to this bill which goes to the very heart of public safety and stems the increase in crime.
The government has followed an exceptional procedure. Rather than properly introduce the bill, which would have satisfied most of the voters it is trying to please, it has circumvented the usual parliamentary process. Why?
I'd also like to add that on page 23 of the Conservative Party of Canada federal election platform 2006, the Conservative government would “repeal the wasteful long-gun registry legislation”. They do not refer to the bit they actually want to repeal. The government would also “reinvest savings from scrapping C-68” — no suggestion of anything else — “hiring front-line law enforcement officers and assisting victims of crime.”
The Conservatives wanted to repeal the entire registry. But now, they have a minority government and they know where public opinion stands on this point, generally in favour of the registry, and they recognize the necessity of it. In fact, I'm wondering if they recognize that. They insist upon the fact that they're only talking about long guns, but in the platform they refer to all weapons.
Enforcement issues have been raised along with the fact that the registry is not perfect, that it is flawed in some respects. Perhaps it is, but why keep the rest of it then? They have forgotten about section 86 of the Firearms Act, dealing with the registration of police officers' firearms as well as those used in police schools. They won't touch that. I don't want to insist on that. But I have to say that there are some contradictions pointing to the fact that essentially, the government simply wanted to say that it was going to do something.
Honestly, I think that before any amendments to this legislation are made, we should hear from various witnesses. As members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, we would not be doing our job if we did not hear from them. Until such time as a bill is duly introduced, let's keep the status quo. On the one hand, lives have been saved, and on the other hand, there aren't even any savings.