Evidence of meeting #15 for Public Safety and National Security in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was gun.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Alok Mukherjee  Secretary-Treasurer, Canadian Association of Police Boards
Carol Allison-Burra  Director, Canadian Association of Police Boards
Commissioner William Sweeney  Senior Deputy Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Superintendent Marty Cheliak  Director General, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Paulette Senior  Chief Executive Officer, YWCA Canada
Rick Hanson  Chief of Police, Calgary Police Service

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz

Okay.

Let's move ahead immediately so we don't waste any more time.

Ms. Hoeppner, please go ahead.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I did prepare, as I was requested, a 30-minute presentation. I will do my utmost to shorten it, but I would ask your indulgence. It's very short notice for me to have to shorten this. I will do my very best.

First of all, I want to thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for inviting me to present my private member's Bill C-391, which would end the requirements for individuals and businesses to register their long guns.

Before I begin, for the record, I would like to indicate my deep disappointment that I was not allotted the same amount of time at this committee that is given to every other member of Parliament who is presenting a private member's bill. It's normal practice for members of Parliament to be given one full hour to present and introduce their private members' bills. In my case, the opposition members of this committee fought hard to win the ability to limit my time. It's highly unusual.

I would suggest that if the tables were turned and a Liberal, Bloc, or NDP woman had introduced a private member's bill that had garnered the attention of the nation, as this one has done, and if she were silenced by Conservatives the way I have been silenced by the opposition, the outcry would be deafening.

In the short time I have, I want to tell you why I introduced this bill, what it does, and why it merits your support.

Mr. Chair, although I am not a gun owner, I grew up in a loving and peaceful home where there were long guns present. I had no reason to fear guns or view them as bad. I respected their potential to cause a dangerous situation, just as I respected and knew that the sharpness of a knife, the heat from an oven, or the speed of a car could cause harm and even death if not respected and treated accordingly. Some in this room may find that hard to believe. Doesn't everyone fear guns? Aren't all guns dangerous and to be feared? I don't believe so, Mr. Chair, and I have no doubt that is because I grew up in rural Canada. In rural Canada we view firearms very, very differently than some would in urban Canada.

I will tell you I am very much afraid of guns if they are in the wrong hands. If I were to walk on to any farmyard in my riding and the farmer walked out of his barn holding a rifle in each hand, I would not be the least bit worried or concerned. However, if I were walking home today to my condo in the city of Ottawa and I saw someone walking around waving a gun, I would be very, very concerned. The difference is who is in possession of the firearm.

What makes these situations very different—one frightening, the other commonplace—is, as I said, who is in possession. The same can hold true for knives, bats, chains, ropes, and any other object we can name that has a legitimate function but can also serve as a weapon. I believe that firearms hold a legitimate function for millions of Canadians, and in those instances they are not used as weapons to hurt people.

Statistically, individuals who have a licence to use and/or possess a firearm are actually 50% less likely to commit a crime with a gun than individuals without a licence. If we look around this table, and let's say by a show of hands we would indicate who has a licence to own a firearm and who doesn't, those who raise their hand and have a licence are actually 50% less likely to commit a gun crime than those who don't.

The point is that legally licensed long-gun owners in Canada are by and large law-abiding individuals who are not committing crimes.

I introduced this bill because I don't believe firearms are inherently bad. I believe people can be, and in the wrong hands firearms do become weapons. We need to focus on the person, not the firearm. Licensing is the place where real gun control happens. I believe it's vital because it is the only way to help ensure that guns don't get into the wrong hands. That's why my bill does not touch licensing at all.

However, the long-gun registry does not provide any such function. The long-gun registry is not gun control. Clearly the sole result of a long-gun registry has been that it has created an inventory list of long guns in Canada. It only works and it is only complete if all firearms owners comply with it. Of course, we know that hasn't happened, and it never will, because criminals don't register their guns.

Even as a partial inventory list, its only functional purpose has been reduced to being a partial investigative tool. Even as a partial investigative tool, police officers know they cannot rely on the information provided in the long-gun registry portion of the data. Police will all agree, whether they support the long-gun registry or not, that much of the data is inaccurate and out of date. Because of that, and because of their police training, their tactics when approaching a potentially dangerous situation are not dependent on what the long-gun registry may tell them.

The long-gun registry at best is a minimal and unreliable investigative tool for some police, and at worst it's an expensive and faulty system that does absolutely nothing to make sure that guns do not get into the wrong hands. It's also an extra burden on police who have to enforce compliance with it. The long-gun registry focuses on the long gun, rather than the person, and that's why I believe it needs to end.

There's no logical process in the government approving a person to own a long gun by allowing them to have a licence and then forcing them to report to the government each long gun they own. I would understand and accept the argument that maybe we need a database of those who are prohibited from owning a gun; that would make sense to me. Maybe we should be tracking individuals who are dangerous and should never own a firearm. Interestingly enough, we don't do that. Instead, under this current system, we follow, track, and many times even harass Canadian citizens who are not criminals. They don't have a record, they've gone through every police background check, and they are not contributing to gun crime, yet we spend precious police time and resources making sure they have registered each long gun they own.

We've seen recent examples of this in the city of Toronto. The Toronto Police Service spent hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of police hours poring over lists of those who have a licence to own a firearm, but were past a deadline on the registry, or vice versa. Then more police hours were spent going to each individual's home to tell them that their paperwork was not compliant and that they needed to surrender their firearms. In the end, not one arrest was made, not one gang member was discovered, not one drug dealer was found, and not even an outstanding warrant for a traffic violation was served. After hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hours of police work, the only people found were law-abiding gun owners who didn't have all of their paperwork in order. None of these people were selling drugs, they weren't involved in gang activities, they were not contributing to gun crime, and yet they were targeted by a massive, labour-intensive police hunt.

I want to say that I believe the Toronto Police Service had the very best intentions in mind when it undertook this investigation. But I think if we look at the larger picture, their time could have been much better spent investigating and tracking down real criminals and real gang activity in the city of Toronto. This illustrates the fatal flaw of the long-gun registry and the primary reason why I believe it needs to end: it forces law enforcement to focus on the wrong people when trying to fight crime.

I know the defenders of the long-gun registry say that police do use the registry when they go on a call. They say the police use it to check to see if there might be a firearm at a location they are at, if they are there for a domestic dispute or another type of call. I want to address this on a couple of levels.

First of all, I'll repeat that my bill would not end licensing; therefore, police will still be able to check and see who may possess a firearm, based on their having a licence. I already know some are saying, yes, but the police won't be able to see exactly how many firearms are at a specific location. I would argue, and have already pointed out, the fact is that the police currently know that the registry, especially regarding gun-specific information, is not reliable. Even defenders of the registry admit it is a mess and needs massive work. But there's another reason that police are, and should be, very cautious when it comes to checking the CFRO, and I'm going to give you one example.

Did you know that people who are licensed to own a firearm can lend their firearms to other individuals who have a licence to own a firearm? That means that if I am licensed to own a firearm and the chair is licensed to own firearms, but he actually has three registered firearms, he can legally lend those firearms to me. So the police would pull up my name up in the registry and it would tell them that I was in possession of zero firearms, whereas in fact I was legally in possession of three. That's all completely legal, according to the system as it is set up now. That's one reason the licensing portion is so important and why police, I believe, should be—and I believe they are—looking at who has the potential to own or be in possession of a firearm.

I also want to bring up another point. There's also the argument that police are checking the long-gun registry 10,000 times a day.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz

You have two minutes left.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

On that, there are the facts and there is the truth, and sometimes the facts don't always make up the truth. The fact is there are almost 10,000 hits or checks on the CFRO per day. The truth is that many of the police agencies in Canada have set up CPIC so that it automatically hits the long-gun registry, but they are not purposely checking the registry. We know a hit is also generated if somebody does any type of administrative work. Any type of activity contributes to the 10,000 hits a day. It's a misleading argument. It doesn't accurately tell us when police are checking the registry.

There are also some defenders who say it will only cost $4 million to keep the registry. I want to remind you of a couple of facts.

There are currently 6.8 million long guns legally registered. We know there are estimates of up to 16 million long guns in Canada. There are still a lot of long guns that would have to be registered if this registry remains intact.

You can add to that the cost of making the data current and correcting the data and the police hours that will be spent enforcing its compliance. We were suspicious about 15 years ago when the Liberals told us not to worry and that it wouldn't cost very much. I would say we have to be very suspicious of a $4 million cost when we take into account updating and making the registry completely current.

In closing, I want to address the very real and valid issue of the emotional connection there is for some to the long-gun registry. I'm not talking about a political attachment. I'm talking about individuals who have lost loved ones to gun crime. I'm talking about individuals who don't care about the politics of this issue. All they care about is that a loved one has been killed or murdered because somebody took a gun and shot that person. I think we have to be very aware of that. We have to know this registry was created with some of these people and their loved ones in mind. I think it's something that has to be taken into account.

I would say to these people that the long-gun registry is not gun control. The man who went into the Polytechnique had a licence to own a gun. He should never have had a licence. We need to toughen up licensing. We need to do something to make sure that people who are dangerous, violent, and full of hate don't get guns. The long-gun registry does nothing to address that issue. The long-gun registry only makes an inventory list.

I would ask that we keep those facts in mind. As members of Parliament, we should try to look past the emotional attachment we might have and look at the facts of the long-gun registry and what it has not been able to accomplish.

I have a lot more I'd like to say, but I will close with that.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz

Thank you. I appreciate that.

On behalf of the committee, I apologize that we changed our minds here this afternoon, after passing the motion allowing for 30 minutes, but I have no control over that.

We'll immediately go to the Liberal Party for four minutes, please.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Hoeppner.

I'm sure you appreciate that our time is very short. I have a number of questions. I wonder if you could address them succinctly.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has come out and said the registry is vital to their jobs and it's vital to community safety. They've taken a very strong position. They represent 431 active members. How many individuals of the 431 support your bill?

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

I'm not the political leader of an association. I would think it would actually be a very good question to ask the head of the association. I would think that if you're a political leader of an association, you should poll your members to find out.

I will tell you this. Police are completely divided on the issue.

Mr. Holland, one of the facts that I think is very important to look at is how many times police check the long-gun registry when it comes to serial and specific certificate information, which would be where they would investigate--

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

Sorry, I hate to interrupt.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

It's 2.8%. They're using it as an investigative tool less than 3% of the time.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

If I could, we have a system of representational democracy. You represent a riding. We asked you to speak on behalf of your riding.

Police chiefs are speaking on behalf of the members they represent. Three of 431 supported your bill, that we know of. All the rest are supporting the registry. It represents less than 1% of chiefs of police supporting your bill.

The Canadian Police Association represents 150 associations across the country. Again, we have a system of representative democracy. Of those 150 associations, how many support your bill?

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Mr. Holland, this is a much bigger issue than what you're trying to bring it down to.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

With respect, it's a simple question.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Sorry, can I finish?

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

These are the people who are charged with the safety of our communities. How many agree with you?

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Holland, please, I think you need to show a little respect to our witness. You asked a question. You don't like what she's saying, but you have to respect that she gets the opportunity to answer, please.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

Absolutely, Mr. Chair. I'm just looking for an answer to my question.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Mr. Holland, my job was not to poll every single police association or every single member. My job was to find out, do police overwhelmingly support this, and why, or do police overwhelmingly not support it.

I can tell you, the information that I have received has been by hundreds and hundreds of e-mails and by police approaching me. I don't know how many e-mails you've received from police, saying, “Good job, Mr. Holland, we like what you're doing.” I can tell you I've received thousands.

Have I polled police officers? No, that's not my job. But when I look at this issue and the broad spectrum of how police view this issue, and how farmers, hunters, women, our constituents, and taxpayers view this issue, I am very confident in my position.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

Okay, this is the problem I have. You have no empirical evidence, so I'm just going to go on what we do know.

We do know that there has only been one police association of 150 members, that's 0.06%, who say they support your bill, and that one association is now saying it might be changing its mind.

So we have the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, with 99% of their membership; the Canadian association representing police across the country, with 99% of their membership; the Canadian Association of Police Boards; the Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP; medical organizations such as the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, the Canadian Paediatric Society, and l'Institut national de santé publique du Québec; victims groups such as the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime; the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime; the student victims at Dawson College and l'École Polytechnique; mothers such as Suzanne Laplante-Edward, whose daughter was one of the 14 women who died at l'École Polytechnique....

I'll go on. There are many other victims' groups and women's groups that deal first-hand with the effects of domestic violence, including YWCA Canada and le Regroupement des maisons pour femmes.

I could go on and on. The Canadian Bar Association and the Barreau du Québec....

They all say that your bill is wrong, that the registry is vitally needed to protect public safety in Canada.

So I'm sorry if I side with all those organizations, but let me ask this one last question.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz

There is no more time. You're out of time.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

The Auditor General and the RCMP say the cost is $3 million. Do you disagree with the Auditor General and the RCMP?

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz

You're out of order, Mr. Holland. You have used up four minutes.

Ms. Mourani, you have the floor.

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC

Good afternoon, Ms. Hoeppner.

While I was listening to your speech, three things jumped out at me. You compared the heat from an oven to that from a firearm. All of a sudden, an image came to my mind. Could someone take an oven and mow down 14 people in a school? I do not think so. I must admit that your analogies seem very strange to me.

You are also saying that individuals who have a license are half as likely to commit a crime with a gun than individuals without a license. First, where are those numbers from? Are you trying to say that people who own firearms are less likely to commit crimes than those who do not own them?

4 p.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Yes, actually that's what I'm saying: statistically, individuals who are legally licensed to own a firearm.

I have a report, and I believe you will actually hear testimony from the author of this report. But individuals who are legally licensed--we're not talking about criminals but about individuals who have legally obtained a licence to own a firearm--

4 p.m.

Bloc

Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC

You are talking about a report, but which report is it? What is that data? What is the study you are talking about?

4 p.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

It's a report that I have from Professor Gary Mauser. I have it. You'll hear testimony from him. It's my own report, but you will hear from him.

But statistically, when we look at who has been convicted of gun crimes over the last several years, individuals who are legally licensed to own firearms are 50% less likely to be among those individuals who are convicted of gun crimes. That's the statistic that I'm telling you.

You made a comment about the objects, about a gun versus the heat of a stove. I completely respect what you're saying, and that's what I'm hoping to help you, and all of us, understand, because we come from different backgrounds and different areas. Somebody could set something on fire and kill a lot of people with a fire, for example, just like they would take a gun and tragically kill innocent human beings.

What I'm saying is that where I grew up--this might not be your experience, but where I grew up--guns were not an object to be feared; they were to be respected. We knew they could be dangerous, but I never thought that somebody with a gun was going to shoot me. That was just my experience growing up. And I understand that's not everybody's experience, but that was mine.