Public Safety Committee on May 6th, 2010

[Jack Tinsley]

I can name the Saskatchewan police officers association and individual members of the Winnipeg Police Association. Those matters appear to be largely politically driven. Personally, I don't have a lot of interest in the politics of it. I know from talking to rank and file officers, who are all association members, that an awful lot of them, hundreds of them, do not support the registry.

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

I disagree with the assertion of the chiefs....

We know the Canadian Association Chiefs of Police has come out and said this is vital for keeping our communities safe. Of the 430-plus chiefs, only three have spoken out against the registry.

But let's talk about the police associations, which represent and are voted in by, other constituent members. We have a system of representative democracy. Right now I'm only aware of one that's taken a formal position against the registry, and that's the Saskatchewan police association, which represents six police associations. That's six of 156. Of that six, the individual who represents them, their president, has now said that, based on facts he's received from the RCMP, he is taking that back and reconsidering the position.

Obviously there are going to be different opinions. But if there was a true division, you would expect of those that are representing others there would be more divergence than six of 156, and the six now revisiting their position.

But just let me ask this. Mr. McCormick, today you said that police do use this registry. We have officers, not just police associations but all kinds of officers, saying that it's vital when weapons are stolen, that it helps identify stockpiling, that it's essential for prohibition orders, that they use it in domestic disputes. If you say that it's being used, and even if there was division in the police, given that the Auditor General and the RCMP say it would only save $3.1 million a year, should it be a top public safety priority to kill a program that most say they need and use to keep our communities safe? Should that really be a priority?

[Mitch McCormick]

Are you asking me what a priority should be for the government?

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

No. I'm asking, do you think it should be a priority for the sake of $3.1 million to eliminate something that so many people say is so vital, even if there is division?

[Mitch McCormick]

You know, Mr. Chair, I am not very political by nature. I'm not really in a position to comment on that type of.... I don't know what best should be spent with the money.

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

Perhaps then I could pose the question to...because I'm running out of time. I want to get a chance to ask the victims groups as well.

First of all, I want to commend you for your courage. It is not easy for you to be here, 20 years later, and still be fighting for the same cause.

My first question has to do with just how hard it is for you to be here, 20 years later. Do you find it difficult to still be fighting this battle?

[Nathalie Provost]

I must say I find it incomprehensible that, 20 years later, we are still in the process of trying to build our country once again, and are still afraid that it will come apart. When I say “build our country”, that is very broad. Personally, I see this as one system among many. It needs to be improved, and it has to meet the needs of Canadians; but it is not by taking it apart that we will improve things. Rather, it is by building on it. I don't understand why we are still at this point, some 20 years later, after all the progress that has been made and proven by many very serious organizations.

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

I would just like to ask the same question I asked a little earlier. As I see it, there is practically no disagreement, because almost all the police associations and all the chiefs of police have voiced their support for the registry. Although there may be some disagreement, and the system costs $3.1 million a year, as mentioned by the Auditor General, why should we cancel this program, when so many police officers are telling us that it is absolutely critical to their ability to protect our society?

[Nathalie Provost]

I will answer that question and Ms. Heidi Rathjen may want to add something after that.

I really don't understand. Many police officers are recommending that the government bring in tougher sentences for gun crimes. However, keeping people in prison costs a great deal of money. If, instead, we get to work as soon as possible on the system that leads to crime, in my opinion, that will be a much better investment of taxpayers' money.

[Heidi Rathjen]

I would just like to add that there is no comprehensive public safety measure, or any measure for that matter, which has unanimous support. Just because a minority is opposed to it does not mean we should not go ahead or retain a system like gun registration. As I see it, opposition to the registry is ideologically motivated. I think the facts, the experts, the numbers and the comments of police officers everywhere all support maintaining the registry. If there is opposition, it is mainly ideologically motivated. Police officers may also share that ideology and be opposed to the registry for the same reasons.

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

Could I ask some questions in English?

The witnesses said guns don't kill people. They say the registry doesn't protect women. Can both the groups that represent victims and women today respond to that claim?

[Heidi Rathjen]

I'll answer that very common argument that guns don't kill people; people kill people. You could say the same thing about cars, that cars don't kill people, cars don't cause accidents; drivers cause accidents. Nevertheless, we still have tons of controls on cars, as we do on drivers. Cars are registered and they're subject to many safety norms.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Ms. Mourani, please.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank all our witnesses for being here today.

I have a question for Ms. Provost or Ms. Rathjen. Mr. Layton says he hopes to be able to amend Bill C-391 in such a way as to rally the troops. As you know, 12 NDP members of Parliament voted with the Conservatives. The idea behind amending the bill is to rally those MPs. I must admit that I have been thinking about this for some time now. The practice is that when the bill is being considered by members of the Committee, we hold discussions with a view to amending it. However, I do not understand the idea of rallying the troops, and I will tell you why. There are already 12 NDP members of Parliament who voted in favour of the bill. If the NDP wants to bring forward amendments, logically, the idea would be to rally those MPs who voted in favour of the bill. I have to admit that I am a little lost. It seems to me that you either vote in favour or against the bill, but amending it just to secure the support of others is a concept I do not understand. Do you understand it? Speaking for myself, I really do not get it.

[Heidi Rathjen]

Well, you certainly have a better understanding of procedure than I do . It seems to me that when you are considering changing a bill, the amendments have to be consistent with the purpose of the bill. I do not see how amendments to this bill, which proposes the repeal of the registry, could possibly make the bill acceptable. No amendment would make it acceptable, in my view, unless every single clause were to be deleted.

As regards the concerns of some members of Parliament with respect to the registry, it is possible to make changes. We would accept the amendments proposed by the Liberals—not to amend the bill per se, but to amend the Firearms Act—in other words, to table a new bill. That would decriminalize certain violations under the Firearms Act. Those amendments would guarantee the integrity of the registry. The police would then still have the tools they need to enforce the law.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

So, if I understood you correctly, Bill C-391 cannot really be amended. I agree with you on that.

Furthermore, Mr. Boisvenu, a Conservative senator, sees the registry as a symbol. Do you think that the 14 young women who died are just a symbol, or are we not talking about the very clear and very real fact of women having been assassinated just because they were women?

[Nathalie Provost]

They are not a symbol and, in any case, if they were, I suppose that I, too, am one in a way. The Firearms Registry is a practical means that Canadian society has developed to try and prevent another slaughter of the magnitude of the one that occurred at Polytechnique. In honour of our dead sisters, we tried to take concrete actions that would meet a real societal need.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you.

I have a question for Ms. Riendeau or Ms. Villeneuve. Let's talk about domestic violence. Women's groups, police officers—indeed, everyone—agree that this is a way of sometimes preventing people from murdering women. In your opinion, is the life of one women worth $3 million, which is the amount of money that would be saved by abolishing the Firearms Registry? We would save $3 million by doing away with the long gun registry. Do you not think that saving the life of even one women is worth $3 million?

[Louise Riendeau]

Let's look at the current situation. The transition home network in Quebec costs $60 million. Putting people in prison is very expensive. Here we are talking about $3 million to save the lives, not of one woman, but of many women. We see this every day in the safe homes: when spouses are armed, it's a lot more of a concern. These individuals are not known criminals; often they do not have a criminal record. Allowing the police to seize guns when there is domestic violence would save more than one life. In fact, $3 million is not that much money.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you.

I also have a question for you, gentlemen. I have figures here for 2007; so they are quite recent. According to the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the majority of street gangs use sod-off long guns to commit crimes. In Quebec, Ontario and many other provinces, they tend to use handguns more often. Out in the Western provinces, where you are from, it is mainly sawed-off long guns.

I have to admit that I do not understand your logic, and I would like to understand it. You know full well that these registered long guns are not attractive to criminals, because they are registered. So, do you want almost seven million guns to be in circulation and in use, so that people don't have to go to the United States to buy them and saw them off? Do you think that will improve public safety in your province?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Who would like to take that on?

Mr. Tinsley.

[Jack Tinsley]

Criminals, Ma'am, will utilize any weapon available to them. I personally can't recall there being an abundance of handguns as compared to long weapons in a lot of crimes. Criminals don't use registered firearms. They will break into houses and steal legitimately purchased, legitimately stored long guns, and then the world is open to them. They cut them down, they sell them, they traffic in them, they kill people with them, and they throw them away. And they'll take the handguns, they'll take the long guns--they will take anything that's available.

I'm not sure where your numbers came from, Ma'am, but I can assure you, as--

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

The Criminal Intelligence Service Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Our time is up. I'm sorry, we'll have to come back to this.

[Jack Tinsley]

I believe that's just a regional numbers coincidence.

They will utilize any firearm they can get, and I assure you of that.