Public Safety Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Please finish very quickly.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

So we do have some hard evidence. I don't understand where the idea comes from that this is not based at all on the best evidence we have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Scarpaleggia.

Now we will go back to Mr. Sandhu, please.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our guests today from our northern part of Canada. I want to thank the YWCA for providing a great service throughout Canada, not only in northern Canada.

I think it's becoming pretty clear that my colleagues talk about science and facts, and this is not something that Conservatives are concerned about. Basically, they want to push this through without any concern for the public safety of Canadians.

We've heard from our men and women in uniform; I'm talking about the leaders from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the leaders of our force in Canada, and they're clearly against it. I'm hearing today from our friends in northern Canada that this is of great concern to them in regard to violence against women. Yet it's a different story from the other side.

I'm going to read a quote, and I'm going to ask Ms. Decter or Ms. Fuller to comment on it. If I said there is no evidence that it has stopped a single crime or saved a single life, what would you say to that?

[Lyda Fuller]

I'd say that's not true. I think it has saved lives, for sure. We've had emergency protection orders where people have been threatened with guns, and the police have confiscated them; the person has continued to harass the partner but hasn't killed them.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

In your experience, can you comment on how the gun registry is an important tool in saving the lives of women? Can you tell us how it's important in domestic violence, and how it may have saved a woman's life?

[Lyda Fuller]

Again, it goes to our conversations with women and with the RCMP around the emergency protection orders, and other incidences of violence.

The RCMP use this for every single domestic call they get. Even in cases where they can't get into the community for a day, they still want to know, when they go there, what they're going to be facing.

I'm not saying they don't know that there might be other weapons, because you're darn tootin' they're not going to let their guard down, but they know what specific weapons they need to make sure they collect when they're there. Otherwise, they could collect one gun and that might be it, but that's not the case. They need those records. They use the records every single time they go to a domestic.

[Ann Decter]

I will add that our YWCAs in other parts of the country say the same thing. It may have started as a very expensive tool, but it is now effective, efficient, and relied on. It has become part of policing in this country, in particular, with regard to domestic violence.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

That's certainly the case. Yes, it did start with quite a bit of money, but the operational costs are pretty minimal right now.

We've talked about gun licences, and we've talked about the registry. Is it your understanding that under Bill C-19, if gun owners are licensed, they can give or sell guns to unlicensed owners without consequences?

[Ann Decter]

I'm sorry, I don't know the bill that well.

It is my understanding that you could purchase a gun without having your licence verified. You have to show something, but maybe you're showing something like the way an underage kid goes into a bar—it's somebody else's.... So the verification process is lost, and we consider that a problem. It sets the regulation of guns back to 1977.

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

I have a point of order. That is completely inaccurate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

That's more of a point of information.

Continue, Mr. Sandhu. You have another 40 seconds.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

I have a question for our commissioner.

How difficult would it be to destroy all of the data? Would we have to destroy the backup data also?

[Suzanne Legault]

I really don't know what the registry is like or how it's set up. I think you have to ask somebody who is an IT professional.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right. That sounds like a pretty good place to adjourn this first hour of meetings.

I want to thank all four guests for appearing today. We appreciate hearing different perspectives on this question. Certainly, as our study continues, I would also encourage you to forward more information to our committee if you want to, or if you feel you didn't answer the question because of time. I know, because of the timelines, I cut a few of you a little short, so I apologize for that, but I do thank you for appearing.

We are going to suspend momentarily. I ask our next guests to come to the table, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Good morning, everyone.

We'll reconvene our meeting. In the second hour we are continuing our consideration of Bill C-19, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act. Appearing before us on the panel this morning, we have a number of individuals.

From Project Ploughshares, we have Kenneth Epps, senior programs officer.

Also appearing as an individual by video conference from Vancouver, British Columbia, we have Linda Thom, a sport shooter and a Canadian Olympic gold medallist in women's events. In 1985, she was made a member of the Order of Canada, and she has been inducted into Canada's Sports Hall of Fame.

We have John Gayder, a constable with the Niagara Parks Police Service in Ontario. He helped found the sporting clubs of Niagara in 1994, and he has served two terms as president.

We also have Mrs. Jennifer Stoddart, who is the Privacy Commissioner, and Patricia Kosseim, general counsel.

Welcome here. We're glad you made it. We actually started about five minutes prior to our advertised time for starting, so that we can do some committee business. We apologize for that, and for your haste in coming here.

I'm going to ask each of you to open for approximately seven minutes with an opening statement, and then we hope you would entertain some questions from our committee members. Perhaps we would begin with Mr. Epps, in order to allow Mrs. Stoddart some time.

Mr. Epps.

[Kenneth Epps, Senior Program Officer, Project Ploughshares]

Thank you.

Thank you for the invitation to address the standing committee on Bill C-19. As you heard, my name is Ken Epps and I am the senior program officer at Project Ploughshares, which is a project of the Canadian Council of Churches on peace building and disarmament issues and is based in Waterloo, Ontario.

My statement today will focus on the international dimensions of Bill C-19, in particular on the implications of the act for Canada’s international commitments related to reducing and eliminating firearms trafficking and on Canada’s controls for the export of firearms to other states.

Every UN member state recognizes that the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons is a widespread and persistent problem. This is because international arms trafficking coincides with and supports other illegal activities, such as drug and human trafficking, and it feeds lethal violence worldwide. In spite of a general global decline in the number and lethality of armed conflicts, the devastation from criminal, urban, domestic, and other forms of violence persists and is even growing in many states. The authoritative 2011 publication, Global Burden of Armed Violence, estimates that more than half a million people die each year as a result of violence.

In the past decade and a half, Canada has actively supported the development of several regional and global agreements designed to establish international laws and norms to reign in the illicit trade in small arms. I would like to briefly mention four of the most important of these agreements for which Canada will not be able to meet core commitments as a result of Bill C-19.

Canada signed the CIFTA firearms convention of the Organization of American States in 1997. CIFTA is a hemispheric, legally binding agreement to tackle illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms and related materials. Canada has yet to ratify the treaty, largely because it cannot meet CIFTA requirements for marking of firearms imports. The elimination of registration of non-restricted weapons under Bill C-19 will mean that Canada also cannot meet record-keeping and exchange of information requirements of CIFTA, especially those related to international tracing requests. This means that Canada will not soon become party to the most important anti-firearms trafficking agreement of the Americas. Only three other OAS states have failed to ratify CIFTA, including the U.S., where President Obama has called on the U.S. Congress to pass the treaty into law.

Canada also has signed, but not ratified, the firearms protocol of the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, which entered into force in 2005. The protocol contains provisions similar to CIFTA, and for the same reasons, Bill C-19 will likely condemn Canada to not be party to the protocol for some time. This is despite the fact that at the recent Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Australia, Prime Minister Harper agreed to the outcome document that called on all Commonwealth states to ratify and implement all the protocols of the UN crime convention.

The third agreement, the 2001 UN Programme of Action on small arms and light weapons, is arguably the pre-eminent global agreement on small arms and light weapons. It was agreed upon by consensus at the United Nations and calls on all states to prevent, combat, and eradicate small arms trafficking by strengthening national, regional, and global legal systems. Canada, like all other UN member states, is politically bound to implement its provisions. At the national level, the Programme of Action calls on each state to implement provisions related to improving national standards and in particular “to ensure that comprehensive and accurate records are kept for as long as possible on the manufacture, holding and transfer of small arms and light weapons under their jurisdiction.” The elimination of registration requirements for non-restricted firearms by Bill C-19 will mean that Canada cannot meet this commitment and others in the Programme of Action.

Finally, as an additional product of the Programme of Action process, the UN international tracing instrument was agreed to by the UN General Assembly in 2005.

ITI provisions also include commitments to keep accurate and comprehensive records for all small arms and light weapons in their jurisdiction. Bill C-19 will create a significant hole in Canada's firearms record keeping that will reduce Canada's ability to participate in international cooperation on firearms tracing.

Bill C-19 will have an impact on the Canadian implementation of each of these four international instruments. At a time when the emerging international norms on firearms trafficking require more cooperation among states, based on greater firearms accountability by states, Bill C-19 will open significant gaps in Canadian commitments.

State partners will conclude that Canada has withdrawn support for strong regional and global action on firearms trafficking and on the proliferation and misuse of small arms. Canada's influence in multilateral small arms forums will be weakened accordingly.

I would like to conclude my remarks with a few words and a question about Bill C-19 and Canada's export controls. Canada's control of military exports governed by the Export and Import Permits Act is important to the practice of foreign policy and international security. Canadian export control guidelines call for the close control of military exports to states that are strategically or legally problematic for Canada. Bill C-19 does not refer to the Export and Import Permits Act, and consequently, in principle, regulations and procedures for Canadian firearms exports should be unaltered. Firearms, including non-restricted firearms, are included in items 2-1 and 2-2 of the group 2 military goods within the export control list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Very quickly, Mr. Epps.

[Kenneth Epps]

There have been questions raised about the imports of firearms, and Minister Toews has assured Canadians that Bill C-19 will not change the way border officials track guns. But I think there's an important question about exports, and that is this. Will Bill C-19 result in authorization exemptions for exports of non-restricted firearms from Canada, particularly to the U.S.? I raise that question because I don't literally know the answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much. We'll try to literally find you that answer.

Madam Stoddart, we'll move to you, and then to Ms. Thom.

Just before you begin, Ms. Thom, are we coming through loud and clear in British Columbia?

[Linda Thom, As an Individual]

Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for arranging this for me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I just wanted to be certain that our feed was fine there.

We're going to go to Ms. Stoddart, and then we'll come back to you, and then Mr. Gayder.

Welcome here.

[Jennifer Stoddart, Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you for inviting me here to discuss this legislation. I'm accompanied by our general counsel, Patricia Kosseim, should there be any technical legal questions on my remarks.

As Privacy Commissioner of Canada, it's my role, as you know, to comment on the privacy implications of the bill as they relate, in this case, to the retention, accuracy, and disposal of personal information. I'd also be pleased to answer your questions from the perspective of my mandate as Privacy Commissioner.

I'd like to start by giving you a brief overview of the involvement of my office with the firearms registry program.

As many of you will know, my predecessors took interest in the Canadian firearms program because it involved the collection and use of significant amounts of sensitive personal information. My office looked at the firearms program in detail when it was first introduced and for about five years afterwards. For example, in 2001 we issued a document called a “Review of the Personal Information Handling Practices of the Canadian Firearms Program”. We also received over the years a number of complaints relating to this registry. More recently, in 2009 we carried out investigations concerning a survey of firearms licensees, where we concluded that the information disclosed by the RCMP to the survey research company was in fact properly safeguarded.

My office has reviewed Bill C-19, and I'll now present some specific observations related to the personal information implications for Canadians whose personal information is collected under the Firearms Act.

I will talk now about clause 29 and the legitimate power to dispose of personal information.

Federal institutions collect personal information as part of their programs and activities, generally in order to help make decisions about individuals to whom such information pertains. The Privacy Act contains a number of guidelines on the protection of personal information. Some of these guidelines, called fair information practices, are clearly and directly related to today's discussion.

One of these practices is retention. It's important to retain personal information as long as necessary to fulfill the purpose for which it was gathered. Just as important for the protection of personal information is the need to ensure the accuracy of such information. The retention of information means that individuals can apply for a disclosure of information and challenge the accuracy of the information if there are grounds for doing so. This is fundamental in the making of decisions about individuals.

I note that clause 29 of the bill establishes the obligation to dispose of all records pertaining to firearms that are not prohibited or restricted now found in the firearms registry. This requirement would also apply to related records held by chief firearms officers in the provinces and territories.

Clause 29 says that relevant information must be disposed of “as soon as feasible.” This seems to be consistent with one of the foundations for the protection of personal information whereby any personal information that is not used for the reason for which it was gathered must be destroyed.

This provision removes the destruction of records from the application of the Privacy Act and any relevant regulations. These regulations require that personal information should be retained for at least two years after its use by a government institution for administrative purposes. In other words, information must be kept for at least two years unless the person concerned agrees that it may be destroyed.

I acknowledge the government's authority to enact an exemption to these retention provisions under the Privacy Act. However, if clause 29 of the present bill considers “as soon as feasible” to be much shorter than the two-year requirement under the present Privacy Act regulations, there may be some situations where certain information that might still be relevant--for example, in a possible court action--is destroyed.

I'd like to talk about some challenges in personal information disposal. I would simply like to underscore that whatever schedule the government decides to follow in the destruction of personal information, it should allow enough time for properly and securely disposing of personal information in the main, secondary, and related registry databases.

In 2010 my office published an audit titled “Personal Information Disposal Practices in Selected Federal Institutions”. The report found that the selected departments did do a good job overall when it came to disposing of personal information. However, my office also uncovered inadequate control mechanisms and inconsistent practices. My office made recommendations, and improvement measures have been implemented. Disposing of data is indeed a complex process.

Let me conclude by underlining that appropriate safeguards and secure disposal are paramount in ensuring that information no longer required for government use is not misused or exposed to potential data breaches.

Thank you very much once again for your attention, Honourable Chairman. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Commissioner Stoddart.

We'll now move to sunny British Columbia and comments from Ms. Thom.

We've already introduced you and talked a little bit about your bio, so you have seven minutes, please.

[Linda Thom]

Thank you very much.

You will have, Mr. Chair, more extensive notes, which I e-mailed to the clerk. I have shortened them to speaking notes that I have here with me.

Again, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear. I would also say thank you very much for arranging this in British Columbia for me.

My name, as you know, is Linda Thom. I'm a wife, mother, grandmother, and real estate agent, and usually I live and work in Ottawa. I’m also a ski instructor, a graduate of Carleton University and the Cordon Bleu cooking school in Paris, and so forth.

I’ve also had the great good fortune to represent Canada in two international shooting careers, during which I won five gold, three silver, and two bronze medals for this wonderful country. The best known of these, of course, is the Olympic gold medal that I won in Los Angeles in 1984.

I’ve been honoured by my sport, by the media, by other sportsmen and -women, and by Parliament, and I've been honoured by my country. I'm privileged to say, as you've already mentioned, that I'm a member of the Order of Canada.

Nevertheless, I’m accorded fewer legal rights than a criminal. Measures enacted by Bill C-68 allow police to enter my home at any time without a search warrant because I own registered firearms, yet the same police must have a search warrant to enter the home of a criminal. I’m not arguing that criminals should not have this right—they should. I’m arguing that this right should be restored to me and all Canadian firearms owners.

I got my driver’s licence when I was 16, like most people, and that same year I joined a shooting club and bought my first rifle. That was 51 years ago. Since then, on civilian ranges in Canada, I can recall only one injury involving a firearm. Over the same time, tens of thousands of Canadians have been killed and hundreds of thousands injured in traffic accidents.

I’ve been a ski instructor since 1998. In the last 13 years in Canada, many skiers have suffered broken bones and other injuries, and a few, very sadly, have been killed while downhill skiing.

All of the shooting sports, including hunting, are among the safest in Canada. You just have to look at our insurance rates: they are as low as you can get.

As MPs, I'm sure you maintain databases, and I'm sure you're aware that they are incomplete despite the best efforts of your staff. I'm sure you're aware, too, of how time-consuming it is to keep them even reasonably up to date.

The long-gun registry today may contain as little as half of the rifles and shotguns legally owned in Canada, and it of course has none of the illegally owned ones.

When I served on a previous federal firearms advisory committee in the 1980s, we were emphatically told by former Ottawa chief of police, Tom Flanagan, that policemen and -women should never rely on the registry information as to whether or not there were guns at a property. To do so would be downright dangerous and against his advice.

Although the LGR was created to prevent crime with firearms, it has failed miserably, because it can’t predict anti-social or insane behaviour. Prevention of violent incidents involves going to the root of the problem, as social scientists have been telling us: stopping bullying in schools and the workplace, alleviating mental and physical abuse at home, creating jobs, and creating self-esteem.

Let’s be honest: the long-gun registry is ineffective as a preventive tool. It is woefully incomplete and, if relied upon, can put peace officers at serious risk. In truth, the registry's only use is after a crime has been committed, and it is rarely helpful then. Very few guns used in crime have been in the registry.

Why on earth, then, are we throwing good money after bad to keep the long-run registry going? It is not just a waste of money. It is a misuse of resources sorely needed elsewhere.

Canada will continue to have important safeguards in place: the licence to possess or acquire a firearm, which requires a mandatory waiting period; required courses; written and practical tests; gun dealers’ records; the safe storage and transportation requirements; restricted and prohibited gun registries, which will still exist; gun club safety courses, requirements, and supervision; hunting licences and game tags; hunter safety courses; and of course, the Criminal Code, plus enforcement of all of the above by game wardens, police, and border guards.

By abolishing the long-gun registry Parliament will free up money and other resources, such as human resources, that would be much better utilized by hiring or transferring more policemen and policewomen to active police work and bolstering anti-smuggling squads. You have already heard in other presentations that 70% to 90% of illegal firearms are smuggled in from the United States, and the seized firearms are available in 24 to 48 hours, depending on whether you want them to be traced or not traced in any major city in Canada. By abolishing the registry you will also free millions of responsible and law-abiding Canadians from being treated worse than criminals under the law.

Thank you.