Public Safety Committee on June 19th, 2012

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

Okay, that's on the record, fine. That's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madam Hoeppner, continue and be careful.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Minister, I think what we're saying though is that there is a big difference between RadioShack deciding not to keep records of computer sales, and they do not then have their licence pulled, and they are not able to sell computers anymore because the federal government has regulated that. That is the difference, and that is what the NDP, who are very intelligent people, don't seem to understand. What these regulations are changing is the requirement, or the ability, for the federal government to force store owners to keep records at the peril of losing their licences. They are certainly free to keep records.

Is that correct, Mr. Minister? They can keep records if they—

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

That's correct. They can keep records as they see fit.

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

Minister, when it came to our attention that CFOs, particularly in Ontario.... And it looks like the provincial Liberal government is certainly wanting to recreate a backdoor registry. When it came to your attention that the CFO there was trying to do this, what was your reaction? I know you mentioned the letter that you wrote. Can you tell us as well what the reaction of the Commissioner of the RCMP was and what those steps were, and I guess, why they brought us to the point that we're at right now?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I think the commissioner understood very clearly the intention of the legislation, and it's not the commissioner's role to determine policy. That's the role that we as parliamentarians have, and we bring various points of view to Parliament in order to pass that legislation.

Some of the CFOs are under more direct provincial control. Some are under federal control, such as in Manitoba where I said we wouldn't enforce the Firearms Act on the registry, and they then had to appoint a federal CFO as opposed to a provincial one.

What was quite astounding was that in the clear face of the spirit of the legislation, CFOs essentially said they were not going to respect that. They were going to demand the same information through a different vehicle, by attaching conditions to a licence, jeopardizing people's livelihood. It was quite astounding that a government regulator in the face of the legislation would say this is not what they were going to do. They were going to accomplish the same end through a different means. That's disrespectful of Parliament.

I think the commissioner saw that very clearly, and he issued a letter to all serving CFOs across Canada telling them they didn't have the authority to make the keeping of anything resembling the long-gun registry a condition of a gun shop's business licence.

As I indicated earlier to the NDP member, a general power to attach conditions to a licence cannot grant authority to specifically fly in the face of a specific legislative provision. I think that's what is very troubling about this particular case.

Even though I believe the regulation is redundant, I think it does give, not only additional clarity to the intent of the law, but the right for business shop owners to stand up when a CFO comes into their shop and say, “Look, I have this regulation here. This is what it says, and what you're telling me is directly contradicting this regulation.” It provides that business owner with a measure of protection.

As I've said, if the business wants to keep that information for its own purpose, whether it's a warranty purpose or tax purposes or whatever purposes, that's their business. If a province wants to regulate that business, they can bring forward legislation or appropriate regulations to require the keeping of that information. That's the business of the province. But they can't go on the back of the Firearms Act, which clearly prohibits the collecting of that information. It cannot be used.

The federal Firearms Act is criminal legislation. This gets back to the point here. In fact, it's a criminal statute. If a province wants to regulate it as property and civil rights, they can do that under section 92 of the Constitution Act and deal with it in that way.

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

I have a very quick follow-up. Were some CFOs in other jurisdictions complying with the spirit and letter of C-19? How has it been across the country?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

It's scattered. I think it's mixed. For example, in Manitoba I've heard that CFOs have been going to business shop owners and demanding certain types of information that would appear to be inconsistent the law.

In New Brunswick, they made it very clear that they're not to collect that information. I believe Alberta is the same.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

We'll now move to Mr. Scarpaleggia, please, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair. Thank God there's middle ground between socialist and conservative.

You answered one of the questions I was going to ask, which is that a province could require that these records be kept and that they be available to the police.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Well, it would have to be pursuant to some type of lawful production order. In a regulatory statute, you could have some kind of a production order in the same way that workplace safety and health officers would have access to certain types of information. But there would have to be lawful access authority in that type of a provincial statute.

I would think that if the material were in a private dwelling, a provincial lawful access provision wouldn't be sufficient. It would have to still be some type of a warrant to allow access into a dwelling.

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

It seems to me that at one point there was some controversy surrounding health and safety legislation—was that it?—whereby.... Correct me if I'm wrong, because you know how it is in this place, in that we tend to focus on our portfolios, more or less. But there was some controversy around provisions of product safety legislation that gave the state, really, the power—in the extreme case—to access someone's home without a warrant, I think, to take something off a shelf that might be a dangerous product.

If I'm not mistaken, the government didn't really back down on that. Did it?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I can't remember the specific case, but there has been a lot of discussion by the Supreme Court on that issue. It goes back to the definition in the charter's section 8: to be safe “against unreasonable search and seizure”.

So what is “unreasonable”? If it's a regulatory scheme as opposed to a criminal scheme, then different access rules apply.

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

So I guess even if it is regulatory under the harmful products act, just the fact that somebody can come into my home, if I'm running a business in my home, on the basis of a suspicion that the product I'm selling is not safe...that's a fairly serious infringement. Now, maybe it's reasonably justified, but here's what I'm trying to get at. Yes, I understand that gun-shop owners don't want to feel intimidated. I understand that, but we're not dealing with an innocuous product here; this is a.... I understand that 99% of gun owners, long-gun owners, are law-abiding citizens. I know many myself, and I've said in the House that they're the pillars of the community.

On the other hand, we're not dealing with an innocuous product. It's something that could be misused. My understanding was that the green book was a way of encouraging or even requiring a gun-shop owner to check if the purchaser of the gun has a valid licence, because I think they have to enter that information. Now, the law requires that someone be sure that the buyer has a licence before they can sell them a gun. But what you're doing, it seems to me, is that you're making it more likely that somebody won't check if there's a licence.

I'll give you an example. In the United States, you cannot sell a gun to somebody who is not lawfully entitled to own one, so you would think that a seller would verify that the person has a licence before selling to them. But an investigative reporter did a story wherein he posed as someone who wanted to buy a gun over the phone or on the Internet and sort of hinted to the seller that he didn't have a licence. What he said to the seller was, “Look, I'm just telling you, you wouldn't want to necessarily sell me a gun if you knew...”. The seller went ahead and sold anyway.

So I'm just a little concerned that there are some retailers.... And I'm not impugning all retailers, but we know there are retailers who sell to underage kids. Some retailers might say that they're not really going to check whether that person has a licence or not, and by getting rid of the green book you're essentially making it easier for them to get away with that. I think that's a concern. That's a valid concern. That has to be weighed against the desire to not have retailers feel intimidated by the state.

I think that's a valid concern and I'd like your comment on that.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Well, I think what we did was balance the concern about what should be registered and what should not be registered by the difference between a handgun and a shotgun or a rifle. We've also looked at what the power of the federal state is in terms of interfering in this particular business, and basically we've decided that this is more appropriately a matter of property and civil rights in the province, rather than a matter of criminal law.

So as I say, if the province wishes to regulate that—and they could recreate that ledger exactly as you've indicated—they can do that. But it's essentially a regulation of property and civil rights.

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

Here's my next point, which is related. We heard from many front-line police officers who came to this committee. We know there are some who are adamantly opposed to the registry. We know their associations didn't agree with them, but we met some who were adamantly opposed to the registry. I didn't hear any of them say they were adamantly opposed to a green binder. So I don't know that there's really pressure out there, from even those who oppose the registry, for getting rid of the green binder.

We also know that the green binder helps the state. It helps police officers across this country locate and identify a criminal—not a law-abiding citizen who's never done anything wrong and just wants to own a shotgun, but somebody who's suspected of committing a crime, such as Marc Lépine. It allows them to find out who bought that gun.

I don't know why we're not supporting our police officers at this very minimal, almost innocuous level. I just don't understand why we're washing our hands of it and saying, well, this is really a matter for civil and property law.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

That's time, Mr. Scarpaleggia.

Very quickly, please.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Let me just answer that.

If we make that a requirement, then it's a requirement under criminal legislation.

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

So be it.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

But that's the difference; then it is a criminal offence not to do that. That's why it's more appropriate in the context of property and civil rights.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Minister.

We'll now move back to the opposition, to Madame Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I find that last comment interesting, because now I feel like you're shifting your interest in the sense that all through Bill C-19 it was about the hunters, the good law-abiding hunters, about the sportsmen, about the collectors. Now I feel that where you're going is that you're now the protector of the gun shops, which, we can agree, is a totally different situation, because if the onus to keep the ledger.... It's not an infraction on the person who buys; it's an infraction on the gun-shop owner, who is not asking or keeping.

Where I have a hard time following your government's position on this is that even those who were your advisers—and am I mistaken when I say—like Mr. Bernardo, who was super happy the day you filed those regulations? He has said throughout, through all the meetings he went through all the years, through all shape and form of the different types of bills you presented.... He said, “That green book has been the status quo for at least 30 years.”

I mean, it's a long time that the green book has been there. It's still there now, to this day. Even with the registration, merchants still have to do that. They have to maintain that book.

And even in front of the Senate standing committee:

Remember that all businesses are required to keep records mandated by the chief firearms office of the province that they live in. To remove the record from this registry does not remove their obligation to keep business records. Business records are mandated by the chief firearms office in the issuance of a business permit.

As well, “The RCMP only runs part of the program.” And I could go on and on.

Gun-shop owners have been highlighting the importance of the ledger. Brad Thomas, owner of Lake Huron Rod and Gun, talked to the Owen Sound Sun Times:

“You talk to any gun store, they are happy with the ledger,” said Thomas. “I don’t want this ledger to go away and I don’t know too many businesses that would.”

In a sense, as my colleague previous was just saying, it's kind of a protection on the gun-shop owner. If there's something happening with some long gun, some non-restricted gun, wouldn't you prefer to be on the safe side? And that we had, because all your....

Despite all your arguments for abolishing the gun registry—you said it would not have protected a single life, since someone with a gun would have committed murder anyway—this registry has still had a positive impact. We have seen evidence of that here in the committee. We have learned that, in an investigative context—after the fact—the registry has been useful.

The registry no longer exists, but at least, certain information on guns sold is kept, even if those are non-restricted guns.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Minister.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

First of all, if businesses want to keep the record, they can. There's no question about that. They can. And if you say the majority of businesses will continue to keep that because they think it's a good practice, they can.

But what we also know is that your party has committed to bringing back the long-gun registry. You have committed to bringing back the long-gun registry.