Public Safety Committee on May 4th, 2010

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

I understand. You are saying that this is part of your values. That is what you are saying.

But you still have to realize that there are a number of reports, be they police reports, reports prepared by groups that deal with women or suicide, or be it the Public Health Agency.

Everyone is unanimous in saying that, when an individual loses their head and has access to a firearm, suicide risks are higher. Spousal and domestic violence risks—killing one's partner and children—are also higher. We cannot deny that controlling access to firearms is fundamental for combatting violence.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Yes. I'll say two things on that.

First of all, the majority of homicides in this country are committed with knives. The second way that people are killed in Canada is with beatings, then strangulation, and the fourth is long guns. But I agree with you that we need to make sure that people don't get guns who shouldn't. I'm a huge supporter of licensing. Licensing is where we make sure that guns don't get into the wrong hands. That's what we need to strengthen. We need to make sure that it's in place.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

It is about values.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Comartin, please, you have four minutes.

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

As is so typical with this issue, Mr. Chair, Ms. Hoeppner's last statement of course ignores the reality that the incidence of using knives to commit murders has increased in proportion to guns committing murders since the licensing was tightened up and since the registry came into effect. If you go back before that time, the reality is that guns were used to commit a greater number of murders than were knives.

Mr. Chair, I just want to make a statement before I ask what will probably be my only question.

What is going on here today—and I want the Canadian public to know this—is really a farce in terms of democracy. If this government were serious about dealing with gun crimes in this country, they would have continued, as opposed to sitting back and not proceeding, as they should have.

They introduced a very similar bill in June of 2006. We then had the election in 2008, so it died on the order paper when it had made absolutely no progress at all; it never even came for debate. They then reintroduced it as Bill C-24 after the 2008 election, and it had exactly the same fate: it just sat there. It has now been introduced again in the Senate, after one of the prorogations that this government has called, and it's sitting over there doing nothing.

The farce of democracy that's going on here is that the person sitting in that chair where Ms. Hoeppner is should be either the Minister of Justice or more likely the Minister of Public Safety and National Security, with whom we should have sufficient time—perhaps even having him come back more than once—to deal with the types of factual inconsistencies that we're getting from Ms. Hoeppner today.

We're not going to see that. We're going to proceed in a way such that there is no way the Canadian people will actually be able to hear enough evidence to make a logical decision on this bill and on the registry as a whole.

Let me finish with this question.

You have raised the issue today of the.... I'm assuming you don't know this, but the reality is that in 2009 there were four million inquiries to the Canadian firearms registry online—not to CPIC, which received 67 million inquiries. There were four million inquiries: police officers in this country asked four million times about whether there were firearms, including long guns, in the residences they were going into.

Do you not think that this alone justifies keeping the long-gun registry in place?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

First of all, I want to address your initial point.

For the record, I want to say that as a duly elected member of Parliament for Portage--Lisgar, even though I am a backbencher, I'm very proud that I've been able to bring this bill forward. I think it's important that a free vote was allowed on this issue, which we've seen to be a very important piece of this whole issue: how are members going to vote?

I think for the sake of democracy that my bringing it forward as a private member's bill is very positive for Canadians. I think that as this discussion continues, whatever the outcome is, we will see much more positive effects because it was a private member's bill. I proudly represent this. This issue is something I believe in, and I certainly won't take a back seat to anyone on it.

As far as the queries to CPIC are concerned, what I would suggest you do is look at what police are actually looking at. They want to see whether there is a potential for a firearm to be there. If we look at when they are using it as an actual investigative tool—for example, how many times they are putting a serial and a registration number in so that they can see gun-specific information—it accounts for under 3%; it's 2.8% of the time.

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

That's four million times a year, Ms. Hoeppner—four million times.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

But overall—no, no. That's the name; under licensing they will be able to see—

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

That's the only inquiry that they ask for when they're going online to the registry: the information is about firearms. That's what their inquiry is about.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

No, it's not. I have the information right here, and it's not—

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

Well, we'll hear from Detective Sweeney when he comes up next.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

The time is up. I would just ask those who are asking questions to allow the answers to be given.

We'll go over to the government side.

Ms. Glover, please.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have to say that I'm absolutely appalled—appalled at the treatment of women in this committee here today, by Mr. Comartin and first by Mr. Holland. The press have said—

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

Shame, shame.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Excuse me, Mr. Holland, but you're being disrespectful. I'm a woman as well and I have the right to be here just as much as you do. So if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to speak.

The media has reported that women are being ignored in this debate. Time and time again in this committee, Mr. Holland and the opposition have completely ignored some of the statements made by women like you, Ms. Hoeppner, and by me. This bill was put forward by you because you believed in it, and I have every faith in your ability to defend your position. I just wish that the other members would give you an opportunity to do that.

I would like you to address the fact that you were provided with a 30-minute opener. It was something that was voted on by this committee, even though we knew at the time that this was already limiting you, because most movers of bills get one hour. So already the female backbencher gets limited by the opposition to half an hour. They put forward a motion, we voted on it, and of course it's for 30 minutes uninterrupted to allow you to make your point, and we are told we are not allowed to ask questions. We didn't like that either on this side, but the opposition insisted, and it's in the minutes that this is what they wanted us to vote on.

Today we arrive, and once again the woman is bullied by the male Liberal, who seems to think he can walk all over women, and Canadian women in general. I am completely unsatisfied with the way this has regressed. This is something we believe in and this is something that—

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I have a point of order, Chair.

I believe it's unparliamentary for another member to be characterizing in such a negative fashion the conduct of another parliamentarian. I believe that Ms. Glover, if she wishes to characterize her own colleagues, may do so, but the way in which she is characterizing other members of this committee is unparliamentary—

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I'll give you extra time, Ms. Glover.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

I maintain that Mr. Holland has been bullying not only the committee but the women who are on this committee, and I don't appreciate it.

I want to know how you feel about the fact that the Liberal members not only have tried to whip this committee, but that the leader of the Liberals has whipped his members into not following what they believe is the right thing for their constituents. I want to know from you how you feel about the fact that you are once again being told by a male member of the opposition that your rights don't count, that your rights here in this committee don't count.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I'll just begin by saying that obviously I had prepared for a 30-minute presentation; that was what had been explained to me. I was actually quite surprised. I looked at the blues. I read it myself; it did say 30 minutes. I can tell you, I worked all weekend on my 30-minute presentation and that's what I was prepared to make. Frankly, it doesn't surprise me....

Ms. Glover, you've heard what I've heard. When we're speaking on this issue, how many times are Liberals yelling at us, “sit down and shut up”?

Now, I will just say this. I won't sit down, I won't shut up, I'm not a victim, I'm not weak. They can do what they want. It's not going to stop what we're doing. This is politics, so I guess if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. I'm in the kitchen and I'll take the heat, thanks.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Very good. Now, part of the whole reason for our proceeding is that we know there are a number of people who are speaking out on this. I want to know your opinion on the impact that the passage of this bill will have on the safety of women.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Well, I think that's a very good point, and it's something that I think has to be taken into consideration.

Part of what I would like to see us do is end the registry and focus very strongly and precisely on licensing. I've seen, as I've been working on this bill, that one of the things I think we need to look at is how we make sure that individuals...maybe there are red flags, maybe they should never have a gun because they're violent, they have some emotional problems, maybe they have family abuse in their history.... We need to look at real ways to make sure that people who have a chance of being violent towards their families don't get guns. That's why I believe we need to look at licensing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Unfortunately, the time has expired. We're going to suspend for a moment and bring in the next set of witnesses.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I'd like to reconvene this meeting.

We have four groups before us.

There is the Canadian Association of Police Boards, with Mr. Alok Mukherjee. I'll allow you to start. You can introduce yourself and the person who's with you.

Then we have, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Mr. William Sweeney, Senior Deputy Commissioner. You can go second, sir.

Then from the YWCA, we have Ms. Ann Decter. You can introduce yourself at that point.

We did have a fourth person, Mr. Hanson, with the Calgary Police Service.

Go ahead, Mr. Mukherjee. You can introduce yourself or whoever is going to speak.

You have 10 minutes. I should have explained that.

[Dr. Alok Mukherjee, Secretary-Treasurer, Canadian Association of Police Boards]

We'll split it five and five.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Alok Mukherjee. I am secretary-treasurer of the Canadian Association of Police Boards and chair of the Toronto Police Services Board.

[Carol Allison-Burra, Director, Canadian Association of Police Boards]

I am Carol Allison-Burra. I am a director on the board of the Canadian Association of Police Boards as well as chair of the Kingston Police Services Board.

On behalf of the CAPB and our members, I'd like to thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to appear before you on the important issue of Canada's firearms registration system, which Bill C-391 would eliminate for all firearms that are not restricted or prohibited.

We are especially pleased to appear before you at the outset of the committee's hearings, and we have prepared a brief that we hope will be of assistance to you as you proceed in your important work.

The CAPB is the national association for police boards and commissions from across the country. Our members provide governance and oversight of more than 75% of municipal police in Canada. These boards and commissions are made up of ordinary residents as well as elected members of local municipal councils, and often provincial appointees as well. As such, they give voice and respond to the concerns and expectations of their specific communities.

One concern that has been expressed by communities throughout Canada pertains to violent incidents involving firearms. These include both handguns and long guns. Firearms are used in a wide spectrum of violent incidents, such as domestic disputes, bystander shootings, robberies, homicides, as well as drug- and gang-related activities. While different kinds of guns are more or less frequently involved in different kinds of crimes, the communities we represent understand that crimes involving guns of whatever kind or classification are especially serious and require special attention.

I'm sure that committee members know all too well that these kinds of firearms crimes have cost many innocent lives, including those of young people, women, and police officers. It's important to appreciate that not all the perpetrators of these violent criminal acts were people with criminal records or self-professed risks in their community. Many were ordinary people who for any number of reasons committed or were involved in the act of using their firearms illegally. Equally, in many of these instances the firearms that were used were legally owned or had once been legally owned.

By having a national firearms registry that records the existence and identified locations of all firearms, we have created an important preventative and investigative tool, as well as one that enhances police officer and public safety. Our brief to your committee identifies the specific preventative investigative and public safety benefits the registry currently provides. We believe you will receive tangible examples of identified benefits of the current registry from the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

We urge the committee to explore, in the course of these hearings, whether these benefits are real or illusory. We are confident, frankly, that such an objective analysis will lead you to the same conclusion we have been led to, which is that the current registry performs cost-effectively and provides important public and police officer safety benefits.

Although we can discuss this in greater detail during questioning, let me take a moment to identify what we have determined to be irrefutable preventative officer safety and investigative benefits of the current registration system. I know that the advocates of Bill C-391 dispute many of these suggestions, but I hope that from this day forward the committee will receive accurate information, ask pertinent questions, and discern for themselves fact from fiction.

From our association's perspective, the current system's benefits include: increased officer safety through more detailed awareness of the existence, quantity, and type of firearms at specified locations; preventative awareness of potential access to firearms involving persons with mental health issues; dramatically improved ability to enforce court-ordered prohibitions to firearms possession made through bail, sentencing, firearm prohibitions, licence revocations, or preventative orders. The alternative seems to be to ask the offender or any other intimidated third party what guns they have.

Other benefits include the enhanced ability to detect and return stolen firearms; the enhanced ability to investigate and prosecute crimes involving stolen firearms, which saves resources; the identification of an accumulation of firearms that could potentially harm public safety; the enhanced ability to investigate crimes through links established by the registry; the reduced ability to traffic stolen firearms and reduced illicit export or import of firearms; the reinforcement of the inherent public safety interest; and the responsibility inherent in firearm acquisition and possession.

Let me add that the reported annual cost of the registry today is $4.1 million.

In the weeks ahead, you will be hearing from law enforcement officials directly, and we encourage you to seek specific details.

I hope our submissions before you will assist you in ascertaining from proponents of Bill C-391 the reasons they discount these benefits. I sincerely hope that you have more success than we have had in trying to get a straight answer.

In light of the clear benefits of the firearms registry, it is important to understand the articulated rationale for its elimination as proposed by Bill C-391. In order to do this fairly, the CAPB has reviewed the public statements in Hansard made by the bill's sponsor, which are, to say the least, noteworthy. If the assertions made to justify the bill are unfounded, then clearly the bill itself is unnecessary and ill-advised. This reality was recognized by no less than the bill's sponsor herself, when she noted on September 28, 2009, in the introduction of the bill, “if I believed that the long gun registry would help reduce crime or make our streets even a little bit safer, I would be the first one to stand up and support it.”

Should the committee reach the conclusions noted above, then even the bill's sponsor has indicated that Bill C-391 should not be supported.

We invite the committee to closely examine the objections to the current system put forward. In doing so, it's important to be clear that this necessarily means assessing the value and the cost-effectiveness of the firearms registry as it is today, not as it was previously.

Thanks to the fact-based inquiries of the Auditor General and the informed actions of this government since 2006, the firearms registry is a vastly improved, cost-effective, public safety tool over what it was when it was under the operational control of the Department of Justice. Bill C-391 would, however, eliminate today's firearms registry and not the one that it appears to target.

It is like a vein. The actual benefits of a firearms registry need to be candidly and objectively determined. False expectations of the past do not justify ignoring tangible results today. While asking the wrong question may be a successful political strategy, it is not an advisable basis for informed and effective police policy-making.

Regrettably, due to the issues that predate the current registry, the debate surrounding the firearms registry has become politicized to an extent rarely seen in Canadian public policy development. We have witnessed that already this afternoon. The sponsor of Bill C-391 has made the accusation that groups that support the registry sit “behind a desk trying to score political points or gain favour”. This would be insulting were it not so patently ridiculous. The leadership of the CAPB are representative of the communities we come from and have a statutory responsibility to provide effective and efficient policing. We are accountable for public safety in our communities, and we are concerned for the welfare of our employees, the sworn officers on the street. Therefore, we are concerned about the development of a public policy that would jeopardize safety in our communities and the safety of the officers serving our communities.

We are here to contribute to a factual and respectful debate so that members of Parliament can make an informed decision on an initiative that seeks to significantly change an incredibly important public policy. The consequences of eliminating the registry are enormous. The current registry has value that this bill will eliminate.

No doubt there are improvements that can be made to the registry, and we will be the first to support the government in justifiable, fact-based, positive changes.

Thank you.