Mr. Speaker, last July the commissioner of the RCMP accused officials in the Department of Justice with misrepresenting RCMP firearm statistics by overstating the number of firearms involved in violent crimes. He also criticized the Minister of Justice and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police for using these false and misleading statistics during the debate on Bill C-68, the firearms act.
I obtained the RCMP commissioner's letter by using an access to information request. Here are some excerpts. They are rather long:
The RCMP investigated 88,162 actual violent crimes during 1993, where only 73 of these offences, or 0.08% involved the use of firearms.
The RCMP investigated 333 actual homicide offences, including attempts, but only 6 of these offences involved the use of firearms according to the statistics provided to the Firearms Control Task Group.
We determined that our statistics showed that there were 73 firearms involved in a violent crime compared to the Department of Justice findings of 623 firearms involved in a violent crime.
It is of particular concern that the Minister of Justice and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police relied on these statistics while Bill C-68 was being processed in Parliament as evidenced by statements in the report, “Illegal Firearm Use in Canada”.
The incorrect reporting of RCMP statistics could cause the wrong public policy or laws to be developed and cause researchers to draw erroneous conclusions. Considering the data is clearly marked as belonging to the RCMP, we must accept ownership and responsibility for the harm the data may cause. For these reasons, something must be done to remove it from circulation.
I asked the Minister of Justice to explain why the RCMP's analysis of its own firearm and violent crime statistics has never been made public?
The misleading analysis of the RCMP data was introduced six times into the Alberta Court of Appeal by the Department of Justice and interveners supporting the federal government.
Will the minister explain why the RCMP's analysis of its own firearms data was never introduced into the Alberta Court of Appeal? Why was justice department lawyer David Gates removed as a federal government lawyer in the provincial court challenge of Bill C-68? Why was a government lawyer replaced by a lawyer from the private sector midway through this important case? Did Mr. Gates object to the affidavits being filed by his own department?
On September 3, 1997 Tony Dittenhoffer, senior researcher for the Canadian Firearms Centre, sent an e-mail message to CFC's director of policy and programs, Gordon Parry: “It is important that we have full explanation on the public record”.
Can the minister explain why Mr. Dittenhoffer did not make this important information public when he appeared as a witness before the Alberta Court of Appeal? Why is the minister ignoring the advice of her own bureaucrats?
Yesterday the minister received a letter from the Canadian Police Association which said that the misuse of RCMP firearms and violent crime statistics in public, in Parliament and possibly the courts “will result in a justifiable lack of confidence amongst Canadians”.
How does the minister intend to restore the public confidence that has been shattered by the revelations in the RCMP commissioner's letter.
Manitoba Attorney General Vic Toews has said this is an example of the police being used as political tools. This it will breed disrespect for the law.
When the government rams through this 137 page bill and 130 pages of regulations, it has to answer this final question. Is that why the minister and her bureaucrats did this and why—