Evidence of meeting #11 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was owners.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Solomon Friedman Criminal Defence Lawyer, As an Individual
Mr. Chair, vice-chairs, honourable members, good afternoon.
My name is Solomon Friedman. I'm a criminal defence lawyer in private practice with the Ottawa firm of Edelson Clifford D’Angelo LLP. Although I maintain a comprehensive criminal law practice, I specialize in defending persons charged with firearms offences. My clients, and I as their counsel, experience on a regular basis the onerous and deleterious effects of the long-gun registry.
You will no doubt hear in the coming days and weeks from various interest groups about how the long-gun registry is a minor inconvenience, merely a matter of paperwork. We register our dogs, our cats, and our cars, they say. Why not register our shotguns and rifles, as well?
As you know, the registration scheme for non-restricted long guns, and for prohibited and restricted firearms as well, is enacted as federal legislation under the Criminal Code and under the Firearms Act.
The Supreme Court of Canada, in the Firearms Act reference, held that the Firearms Act is valid federal legislation, because it is enacted pursuant to the federal criminal law power. Indeed, this very aspect of the Firearms Act that makes it valid federal legislation ensures that those who fail to comply, inadvertently or otherwise, are punished harshly and in many cases unjustly. With the criminal law power comes criminal law procedure and, most importantly, for the nearly two million law-abiding licensed gun owners in Canada, criminal law penalties. Unlike a failure to register a pet or a motor vehicle, any violation of the firearms registration scheme, even the mislaying of paperwork, carries with it the most severe consequences: a criminal charge, a potential criminal record, detention, and sometimes incarceration. This is hardly comparable to the ticket under the Provincial Offences Act or the Highway Traffic Act that goes along with the failure to register a vehicle.
In addition, registry violations are often grounds for colourable attempts on the part of police, the crown, and the chief firearms officer to confiscate firearms and revoke lawfully obtained gun licences. As defence counsel, I have seen time and time again alleged long-gun registry violations used as a pretext to detain individuals, search their belongings and their homes, and secure evidence to lay additional charges. It is absurd to think that through the requirement to register long guns and possess and carry registration certificates, it is the law-abiding citizen who is subject to greater police scrutiny than the unlicensed individual, who is truly in unlawful possession of a firearm.
Next, the long-gun registry is simply one more layer of paperwork and complexity in a system of firearms regulation that is already overwrought with process and procedure. I have two law degrees. I clerked at the Supreme Court of Canada, and I practise criminal law for a living. Even I at times find the provisions of the Firearms Act and the gun control portions of the Criminal Code convoluted, complex, and confusing. The long-gun registry is simply one more trap for the unwary, a stumbling block for the blind.
Parliament ought not to be in the business of transforming licensed, law-abiding, responsible citizens into criminals, especially not for paper crimes. Should this piece of paper really determine the difference between lawful possession of a rifle or shotgun and an illegal act punishable by criminal sanction?
I am certain that you will hear about the symbolism of the long-gun registry. Enacted as a knee-jerk reaction in the aftermath of tragedy, the gun registry, like much of the current gun control scheme, was seen as a tribute to individuals who lost their lives at the hands of gun wielding madmen. Honourable members, I can tell you firsthand, from my vantage point in courtrooms across eastern Ontario, laws make terrible memorials. They fail to honour the dead and instead punish only the living, in this case the law-abiding and responsible. In fact, I hope that Bill C-19, the repeal of the long-gun registry, will itself be a symbol. It will be symbolic to millions of licensed gun owners and stand for the proposition that the government will no longer punish the law-abiding for the acts of the lawless.
I hope, and I know many of my clients share this hope, that Bill C-19 will serve as a memorial of sorts, a tombstone marking the final resting place of wrong-headed policy-making. There are millions of Canadian gun owners who will be glad to know that in the halls of Parliament Hill, hysteria and hyperbole no longer trump reason, facts, and empirical evidence. The long-gun registry has been used as a means to target licensed gun owners for too long. I urge you to pass Bill C-19 without amendment, and end it.
Honourable members, long guns are tools used lawfully and peaceably by Canadians countless times a day without incident. Responsible citizens do not cease to act responsibly due merely to the presence of tools. Similarly, the registration of firearms, aside from having no discernible impact on crime or public safety, has merely alienated law-abiding firearms owners and driven a deep wedge between gun owners and law enforcement.
Gun owners have long been the whipping boys of Canadian politics. I hope that this bill symbolizes a change in attitude by our parliamentarians.
Thank you very much.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you very much, Mr. Friedman.
We'll now to move to Mr. Grismer, please.
Det Sgt Murray Grismer Sergeant, As an Individual
Mr. Chairman, honourable committee members, and fellow witnesses, it's an honour and a privilege to appear before you today to assist you in your deliberations regarding Bill C-19.
I'm a sergeant with the Saskatoon Police Service, with almost 25 years of service protecting the citizens of Saskatoon and Saskatchewan. I supervise a team of 10 constables, front-line men and women responsible for policing the second-largest geographic area in the city of Saskatoon. The courts of Saskatchewan have qualified me as an expert witness, enabling me to give opinion evidence on firearms. In that capacity, I've provided assistance in over 50 cases to both federal and provincial prosecutions. I'm a master instructor for both Canadian firearms safety courses and an approved verifier certified by the registrar of the Canadian firearms program.
I want to make it clear from the onset that my comments here today are mine, and mine alone. They do not reflect the opinion or opinions of my employer, the chief of police or police service. That said, I am the appointed spokesperson for the Saskatoon Police Association on the Firearms Act and the firearms registry. Further, until the fall of 2002, I was a spokesperson for the Saskatchewan Federation of Police Officers on the issues of the Firearms Act and the firearms registry.
I understand that this august committee will have opportunity to hear from other police officers who share my belief that the registry for non-restricted rifles and shotguns, commonly referred to as long guns, should be abolished. Thousands of police officers across Canada, who are in my opinion the silent or silenced majority, also share this position.
To say that the police community is divided on support of the registry is an understatement. When the Canadian Police Association initially endorsed the registry, they adopted their position without ever formally having polled their membership. The CPA's position is not that of the Saskatchewan Federation of Police Officers, nor that of the Saskatoon Police Association. The Saskatchewan federation is the only provincial police association that polled its entire membership on the issue of the registration of firearms. When polled, the Saskatoon Police Association was 99.46% against the registry, while our compatriots in many of the other Saskatchewan police forces were 100% in opposition to the registry.
There are some who would arrogantly or foolishly consider those opposed to the registry as uninformed or uneducated. Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead, we recognize that the true cornerstone of public safety is training, screening, and the licensing of owners, not the registration of non-restricted rifles and shotguns.
Although the mantra of the former government, the CACP, and the CPA was “gun control is crime control”, the registry misses the target of the criminal use of firearms. Instead, it targets millions of lawful, legitimate firearms owners in the name of crime control. The fact is, the registry can do nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining or using firearms. École Polytechnique, Mayerthorpe, Spiritwood and Dawson College are synonymous with tragic events involving firearms. However, the firearms registry for long guns would not, could not, and did not stop these tragic events. The retention of the firearms registry or records will do nothing to prevent any further such occurrences. Training, enhanced screening and licensing of firearms owners, as we see today, may have prevented those individuals from being able to obtain a firearm in the first instance. However, even Canada's strict licensing regime and firearms registry cannot prevent random acts of violence. The best example of this failure is the shooting rampage at Dawson College by Kimveer Gill.
The CACP contends that Canadians continue to support a registry that costs over $2 billion and which cannot be shown in over a decade to have prevented even one death. Unfortunately, public opinion polls do not support their position. The CACP and others will attempt to convince you that retention of the registry is an officer safety issue. Further, they will advocate for the retention of the records accessible on a database to police investigators if the registry is abolished. To the layperson having little or no knowledge of firearms or the registry, this may appear reasonable. However, once one knows and understands the failing of the registry, the issue of officer safety takes on a far more sinister meaning. For the officers using the registry, trusting in the inaccurate, unverified information contained therein, tragedy looms at the next door.
The argument to retain the registry for investigative purposes is disingenuous or specious at best. Once the registry is abolished, the information contained therein is immediately stale-dated. The limited evidentiary value of such erroneous information deteriorates by the minute as firearms across Canada are acquired, sold, altered, or destroyed.
Knowing what I do about the registry, I cannot use any of the information contained in it to square with a search warrant. To do so would be a criminal act. Thus, I cannot in good conscience tell any officer—junior or senior—to place any faith in the results of a query to the Canadian Firearms Registry.
Projections from within the Canadian Firearms Centre privately state that it will take 70 years of attrition to eliminate all of the errors in the registry and to have all of the firearms currently in Canada registered. This level of inaccuracy is unacceptable for any industry, let alone law enforcement. Police officers deserve better. The public and the courts demand better. If the National DNA Data Bank or the automated fingerprint identification system had the same potential error, the public and the courts would be outraged, and with just cause. Every entry in these latter databases is empirical--a level of accuracy that the registry has not attained.
As a team leader for the Olympics security force, I had the opportunity to speak with officers from across Canada. The vast majority of those I spoke to do not support the registry. They do not trust the information it contains, and see it as a waste of time and money.
Again I take you back to the issue of officer safety. Police across Canada cannot and must not place their trust in, or risk their lives on the basis of, the inaccurate, unverified information contained in the registry. From my perspective, if doing away with the registry saves one of Canada's front-line police officers, it's elimination is worth it. Retaining the registry at the risk of one police officer's life is too great a price to pay.
In closing, I wish to thank you for your attention and will leave you with these thoughts. Polls indicate that the majority of Canadians want the registry for non-restricted rifles and shotguns abolished. This position is supported by a majority of front-line police officers in Canada. Further, this government ran on a platform of ending the long-gun registry. The last election represented a referendum on that platform, and a majority of Canadians voted to support it.
Bill C-19 is worthy of your consideration and support, for it brings to an end a registry that represents the largest and most contentious single waste of taxpayer dollars. It is full of errors and inaccurate data. It is a registry that front-line police officers do not trust, use, or support. More importantly, it risks the safety of front-line police officers across Canada.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you very much.
I want to thank all our presenters today for presenting their perspectives. They did a good job.
We'll now move to the government side for seven minutes.
Mr. Leef, please.
Conservative
Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all our witnesses here today.
This line of questioning will be for Mr. Grismer.
We've heard some conflicting testimony today. It's indicative of what we've heard throughout the debate on the long-gun registry itself and what the community feels about it. Maybe you can clarify one question I have, to see if we can bring some resolution to the conflicting information before us.
I was formerly a conservation officer in the Yukon territory. I checked hunters all the time and hundreds of firearms in a season. I never had access to the firearms registry. I never felt that put me at greater risk, because we used universal precautions training to protect ourselves. We didn't have a great deal of faith in the registry anyway. The point is that we did not have access to the registry.
We heard Ms. Byers indicate that firefighters and social workers have access to it. Mr. Front said that was absolutely inaccurate. Can you give us the facts on that? Do social workers and firefighters have direct access to the registry, or are they able to call the police and just access registry information?
Sergeant, As an Individual
The registry is a police-access database. To the best of my knowledge, firefighters do not have access to it, paramedics do not have access to it, social workers do not have direct access to it.
From my experience and my position when I was in professional standards, to divulge any information contained in that database to any unauthorized person is a breach of security, and a breach of the Privacy Act in regard to the individual to whom that information pertains.
Conservative
Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT
Being in a rural part of Canada, so to speak, I'm sure at some point in your career you have worked with other agencies like the Canadian Wildlife Service, conservation officers, and Fisheries and Oceans officers.
Sergeant, As an Individual
I've worked with the wildlife officers within our jurisdiction. I don't come into much contact with federal fisheries and wildlife officers.
Conservative
Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT
Okay.
So when we're talking about officer safety, which is one of the things that is unfortunately really being spread out across the public, to the masses.... On this, I've spoken with numerous front-line police officers—and not to run my resumé, but I've been a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police—I know that the members I worked with daily have no confidence in the registry and don't support it.
But let's talk about the safety. When you're called to a residence, would the absence of firearms or a hit on that registry provide any greater measure of safety for an officer?
Sergeant, As an Individual
Universal precautions are used any time any one of my people go to a residence. I try to get to as many domestic disturbances as I can, because I find that the presence of a supervisor there, someone of senior rank, tends to help people out. And to the best of my knowledge, I know of no front-line police officer in Saskatoon who queries the registry en route to a call. It's just not anything that happens. Their first priority is to get there. They use precautions in approaching a residence.
As for a hit on that registry, if they were to query that registry and they were to believe the information saying there were no firearms there, they would be placing themselves at great jeopardy in proceeding further if they didn't take precautions in approaching that residence. If you go there with the thought process in mind that there are no firearms there--that's what I've tried to convey--you're putting yourself at risk. You are doomed to some kind of terrible tragedy.
We take every precaution. Once we find there's a firearm there, or if we have any indication there are firearms there, we seek to cordon off the area to secure it so that we can bring in qualified people, people from our emergency response team, who have the tools and the ability to deal with armed or barricaded individuals.
Conservative
Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT
In respect to weapons across the board, which ones are really of most concern to front-line police officers?
Sergeant, As an Individual
Knives are a far more predominant as weapons than rifles, shotguns, and handguns.
Conservative
Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT
When you're searching a detained or arrested individual, what would you say would be the greatest issue of concern for an officer going hands on with a detained or arrested individual in terms of weapons or objects that would be a safety issue for officers?
Sergeant, As an Individual
--because they are secreted on the person, and often when they are found, they are found in various places like.... For some people we've transported to our detention centre, when they get searched really closely or skin-searched in our detention area, we end up finding weapons on them, and generally they are knives, cutting instruments.
Conservative
Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT
Would you say that, on a daily basis, street checks, vehicle checks, and person checks be more frequent than residence-based checks? This may be a rough figure.
Conservative
Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT
When you're doing a street check, would you have an immediate and accurate access to the registry that would provide a greater measure of safety for front-line officers?
Sergeant, As an Individual
We don't do that on street checks. When we're doing a street check of an individual, that's not something that my people do: we query CPIC. Through CPIC, running somebody's licence plate will automatically generate a CPIC query on the individual. That will bring up whether he has wants or warrants and that kind of thing.