Sure.
It's good to hear that Statistics Canada recognizes that this is a problem because, of course, it's impossible to make good policy without good data.
Once again, police services seize firearms for a wide variety of reasons. They are all perfectly legitimate. They could collect a firearm at a crime scene or they could have a noise complaint, go in and investigate it. I gave an example of an elderly gun collector who might be losing his faculties and shouldn't possess those firearms anymore. They seize them and take them back to the detachment. Those are both absolutely valid exercises of the seizure powers given at different places within the Criminal Code.
When it comes to making policy, those guns are not the same. One firearm may never have been involved in a violent confrontation; the other might have been, but they are all lumped in together.
I think what is really important is that, number one, Statistics Canada needs to take the lead on this. We have really anecdotal evidence coming from individual police services. I'll give you an example. I did a murder trial by firearm, in which the Crown at one point in the proceedings actually pulled statistics from the Ottawa Police Service about the seizure of crime guns and the proliferation of crime guns in Ottawa. These are statistics that are being collected locally by police services. They do not use consistent definitions from service to service. For example, when I inquired into the definition of a crime gun, I got an answer from the Toronto Police Service that was different from that of the Ottawa Police Service.
We need consistent definitions. Of course, there's no entity better positioned to do that than Statistics Canada.