Evidence of meeting #16 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 registered.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And I'd like to say thank you to all of the witnesses for being here today and contributing your testimony to these hearings.
Mr. Chair, I don't have any questions at this time.
Conservative
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
I, too, would like to thank all of you for coming today and delivering the information you have to our committee. It's very important that we hear from all groups, and you're greatly respected for taking the time to do this with us today.
I'd like to put my first question to Mr. Tinsley. I took from your testimony today, sir, that it appears from your speech that you were disciplined for speaking out against your chief's position. You held up a newspaper and such that indicated that. Is it accurate, and are you suggesting, that there is some pressure right now on active street constables and members not to speak up?
As an Individual
Absolutely. In my case, the chief of police who was serving that day was one of this country's biggest advocates of gun control. And he let that fact be known and made it perfectly clear that his senior administration should fall in line with his beliefs about that.
A couple of us didn't. I, in clear conscience, said what I believed to be true about criminal activity in Winnipeg at that time and as a trend across this country. Another of my fellow senior officers spoke out as well. I believe he, too, was disciplined. But we said what had to be said.
Today we have chiefs of police telling their rank and file that they cannot speak out against this gun registry, and they're ordered not to attend here or speak out elsewhere about their beliefs about that. And their beliefs are based on facts and street experience, not on some sweeping statement from a leader who says, all my police officers agree with this.
Some police association executives have spoken out and said, our membership supports this long-gun registry. They were literally taken apart by the membership after making those statements, because most of them said, we don't support that; who are you to be saying that on our behalf? And these chiefs are doing the same thing now. They're saying, we support this--but that's not the case.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
I appreciate that answer.
Can you just keep the answers brief, because I have limited time?
Madame Rathjen, I'd like you to just answer as briefly as you can, yes or no. In your comments--and I was making notes--you said that there are two experts in this area. One is law enforcement officers and the second is women's groups. Is that correct, yes or no?
Representative, Group of Students and Graduates of Polytechnique
Among others. Suicide prevention experts also--
Representative, Group of Students and Graduates of Polytechnique
There is the Canadian Criminal Justice Association.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
S in your opinion, those are the experts in this area of gun control.
Representative, Group of Students and Graduates of Polytechnique
I would actually say that the most important experts are police organizations because they deal with firearms.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
Great. Okay. Thank you for that.
I like to think of things as tools, because I'm a contractor and that's what I grew up with, with people having a tool box in their trade. I also have close connections to law enforcement through the father of my grandchildren, who is my son-in-law, who is a front-line police officer, and I get to chat with several people in that regard about that. I asked about the tool box he has at his disposal, because he's out there right now, in fact, making calls on domestic disputes.
I'll speak for myself and I believe for my colleagues. We're not against removing gun control. We're looking for the tools that work most effectively and most efficiently, and that's what we are asking for through this legislation, which is to develop tools.
It's on that licensing piece that I'd like to ask my next question. Again, I'd like to go to Mr. Tinsley. As far as the comments...and I believe it was you who talked about how the interview process went, how you identified individuals in law enforcement, and how that was a more effective piece. I'm not sure whether it was you or one of your colleagues who spoke to that, but could you just describe a little more how we could improve licensing? We're all for gun control, but effective, efficient gun control.
As an Individual
Absolutely.
The very key to it--the success of the old firearms acquisition certificate system--was that when a person went to apply for that FAC, they went in person, they completed an application, and they submitted it in person to a police officer or a group of police officers, in our case our firearms unit.
The application was reviewed; they made many checks. They checked everywhere, like CPIC and NCIC, all criminal background checks to see if he had any history of violent crime whatsoever. Then if he was married or living common law, they called his spouse or partner and asked hard questions. Has he ever threatened you? Does he have any history of alcoholism? Is he addicted to prescription drugs? Non-criminal things that normally wouldn't be caught in a criminal background check.... Has he ever threatened suicide? Is he seeing a doctor or a psychiatrist for depression? They asked a lot of questions. That led them oftentimes to say this person is unstable and we're not giving him a licence.
Today that doesn't happen. The process is not dealt with face to face.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
That was interesting, because I took from Mr. McCormick's comments.... The case he outlined, which the CBC, I guess the fifth estate, did a news show on, indicated exactly that, which is that you target individuals for crime. He was able to get registration without any process.
I believe I heard you say that in your testimony, sir, did I not?
As an Individual
Yes, that's correct, Mr. Chair.
As far as I know, we never went back to see how he got it. The fact is, in 2003 he was able to get a firearms licence and, in 2004, shotguns and assault rifles.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
I'd just like to go to Ms. Riendeau and your comment about $3.1 million. As my colleague has said, what's $3.1 million?
I'd just like to respond to that, because in my part of the country--small-town Ontario--$3.1 million is a lot of money, and I think to a lot of Canadians it is a lot of money. We want to make sure the expenditures of our government, the hard-earned dollars that taxpayers make and pay to our government, are spent effectively. That's what my question is driving at.
So it may be a small number relative to the overall spending of government, but it's not a small number...and also the fact of the amount of money it takes.
On that point, there was a comment made about numbers of guns that are registered in this country and the ones that still are unregistered. What was that number that you used?
As an Individual
There's something in the order of 16 million to 17 million guns in total, and we only have about 6 million to 7 million--actually under 7 million--registered currently.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
One last point on that. If we were to add the cost, so if it takes $3.1 million to maintain a registry on basically 7 million guns, and there are 16 million guns out there, we could perhaps do the math to extrapolate. Would it be at least double the cost to add in the enforcement on those?
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Thank you. We'll have to wrap it up there because you're over time.
It's very difficult for me, because I've done so much research on this, not to interject a little fact in here. The revocation rate for licence applications under the old FAC system was much higher than under the present system. The committee may take and ponder that.
Ms. Jennings, please.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to begin by thanking all our witnesses for being here today and especially Mr. McCormick, Ms. Rathjen and Ms. Provost, for sharing their personal experiences. I also appreciate the expertise you demonstrated in your presentations. I am happy to have been made aware of that difficult information from Statistics Canada and the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada. I have a few questions.
My riding includes safe houses for women and children who are victims of domestic violence. Before becoming a politician, I was the Assistant Police Ethics Commissioner, and before that, I was a member of the Quebec Police Commission. I chaired public inquiries involving domestic violence. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, police departments and society did not react to this kind of problem the same way that they do now: they no longer say it's a privacy issue.
So I would like the Committee to take advantage of your expertise, Ms. Riendeau and Ms. Villeneuve.
First of all, what approximate percentage of women and children who come to Quebec transition homes are victims of violence involving guns—and particularly long guns—be it threats or a failed attempt?
My second question is addressed to any of you who wishes to answer. Mr. Shipman, I believe we met in Manitoba. You are the former--
I'll say it in English. The firearms acquisition certificate and the whole process that was put into place in order to ensure that anyone who received a licence was not dangerous, etc.--you actually believe it's a better system than the current firearms registry in place.
If I follow your logic, then, there were fewer homicides with firearms under that old system, number one, and of those homicides, there were fewer homicides involving long guns at that time than there are today. I'm following your argument now. Either I've got your argument wrong, or the conclusion I've come to is the correct conclusion, if I follow your argument. I'll leave it at that.
May I suggest that any witness who wishes to add something and does not have the time may do so in writing through the chair. It is then distributed and becomes part of the official record.
Thank you.
Coordinator, Political Issues, Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale
Fortunately, the women we see in transition homes are still alive. They come to us before the worst occurs. I can't give you any figures about the number of cases where women were wounded with guns or something else. However, I can tell you that a great many of these women have been intimidated, and particularly in the rural safe houses, where there are a lot of guns in circulation.
Women often report to support workers that, after a domestic dispute somewhere that results in a woman's death, their spouse says to them that they will be next. That is even more of a concern if there is a gun in the house. That's why the registry, which makes it possible to declare that there is domestic violence, and therefore secure a prohibition order, is very useful in the area of prevention.
We know that access to guns can make all the difference between people using it or not using it. It will not prevent domestic violence, but at least, women will have more of a chance. We know that when there is a gun around, they don't have much of a chance, nor do they have much time.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
The question was directed at our three gentlemen over here. Does anyone want to respond?
Mr. Shipman.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Mr. Chair, how much time do I have in my round?