Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 16 - Evidence, October 29, 2003
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 29, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met this day at 3:38 p.m. to examine and report on regulations made pursuant to an act respecting firearms and other weapons, Statutes of Canada, 1995, Chapter 39, as contemplated by section 118(3) of that act.
Senator George J. Furey (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: I see a quorum. At a previous meeting to discuss the future agenda of the committee, a number of senators expressed interest in studying regulations made pursuant to the Firearms Act. As chairman, I therefore brought forward a motion in the chamber to that effect. I am happy to report that last evening we received a new order of reference authorizing the study of the firearms regulations.
Before I introduce our witnesses, I would like to thank them all for agreeing to be on standby while we waited to see whether the order of reference would be granted. When the clerk contacted them, they were all gracious enough to agree to maintain openings in their busy schedules to assist the committee on short notice. I speak for all members of the committee when I say that your efforts to accommodate are very much appreciated.
I would now like to welcome our first panel. We will hear from the Solicitor General of Canada, the Honourable Wayne Easter. He has with him his officials from the Canadian Firearms Centre, William Baker, Commissioner, and Kathleen Roussel, Senior Counsel, Head Legal Services. I understand we have the minister for approximately one hour.
The Honourable Wayne Easter, P.C., M.P., Solicitor General of Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have to depart at the end of an hour, but the officials are willing to stay another hour if necessary.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. I understand as well that you have a brief presentation, which will be followed by some questions.
Mr. Easter: I do want to thank committee members for the opportunity to come before you today to discuss the proposed changes to the Firearms Act regulations, which I tabled earlier this year on June 13.
Mr. Chair, you have introduced the people with me: William Baker, the Commissioner of the Canadian Firearms Centre, and Kathleen Roussel, Senior Counsel to the Canadian Firearms Centre.
Members of the committee will be aware that the Firearms Act requires the tabling of proposed regulations. The act also states that the Governor in Council may make the regulations following 30 days after tabling. While we reached 30 sitting days on Monday of this week, I want to assure the committee that the proposed regulations will not be finalized until next month, after we have considered your input. I also want to be able to consider fully the input of the public, including firearms users, businesses, and groups with an interest in public health and safety.
The Canadian Firearms Centre has been consulting individuals and groups from across the country over the past several months, seeking their feedback on the proposed regulations and on the delivery of the firearms program.
I want to emphasize that we are taking the points raised in the consultations very seriously. I know full well that this program has cost a lot of controversy. There were a lot of bad experiences with it in the beginning and there are strong opinions on both sides of the argument. We want to hear all of those arguments. I sincerely want this program to work for all: Both those strongly in favour of gun control and those opposed to gun control, interested legitimate gun owners, hunters, gun shops, et cetera. We are taking these discussions very seriously.
Two of the groups that were involved in the consultations are, I understand, to appear as witnesses here today. There were, of course, many others who have been consulted — a wide range of people with a variety of interests and experiences with the firearms program. We are considering very carefully the comments and the recommendations that have been made.
Based on what I have heard to date, there appear to be some core messages coming out of the consultation process. People want simple processes and easy-to-access services. Everyone fundamentally supports the licensing side, safety training and safe storage of firearms, regardless of their specific interests.
Some people have raised concerns and questions regarding the registration of firearms. At the same time, others have underscored the importance of registration to public safety efforts.
People want fees to be affordable for individuals and businesses, recognizing that there is a general public safety benefit from the firearms program as well as benefits to individuals through services. Information in the system must be as accurate and complete as possible, for public safety and service delivery reasons.
There are 15 proposed regulations in the package before the committee. Fourteen of these are amendments to existing regulations; one regulation is new. The main purpose of the amendments is to streamline processes and administration to save costs and improve services. The regulations also help Canada meet its international commitments. We need to put these proposed regulations in context. They have been a long time coming.
Many of the amendments to the regulations put into effect changes contained in Bill C-10A. That legislation took more than two years to be passed. You are well aware of that.
With the legislation now in place, we can proceed with regulations to help us achieve the improvements and efficiencies that we need. I want to underscore how important this is: Without the changes to the regulations, which will allow us to adjust our information systems, we stand to increase program costs by $1 million dollars or more each month next fiscal year. This is in addition to not realizing the streamlining and efficiencies that the new regulations will bring.
I do not think I need to tell any of you that we do not want to add any more burden of cost to this program. In fact, we have been striving fairly strenuously to achieve cost savings and I think we have done a reasonable job.
The proposed regulations also have to be seen in the context of the Gun Control Program Action Plan that the Minister of Justice and I announced last February. The regulations are one part — an important part of the overall initiative to improve services and the operation of the firearms program. I would like to point out that since the announcement of the action plan, the Canadian Firearms Centre has been established as an independent department in my portfolio. We have a new Commissioner of Firearms, Mr. Baker.
The Canadian Firearms Centre's headquarters have been consolidated in Ottawa. Formerly, they were split between Ottawa and Edmonton. This includes moving the Canadian firearms registry from the RCMP to the centre. Important improvements in services to Canadians have already been achieved by this new, restructured organization.
There has been significant improvement in call centre, the 1-800 services. Service standards for licensing and registration are in place and, indeed, are being met. New Internet services for individuals and businesses have been introduced. Very importantly, the Canadian Firearms Centre is continuing to help people comply with the law by getting their firearms licensed and registering their firearms.
More than one million firearms have been registered since January 2003. I understand that we are receiving more than 1,000 licence applications each week. I think it is well known that when we reached the deadline, we continued to take registrations. In fact, the first two days after the June 30 deadline were among the heaviest we have ever had.
Canadians are meeting their obligations and, in doing so, they are contributing to the safety of their communities. That is very encouraging.
The successes of the program are real. For example, I was just going over a recent e-mail sent to the Canadian Firearms Centre from a person who had two firearms stolen from his home 20 years ago. Recently, someone tried to register these firearms. The RCMP were notified that the firearms had been stolen. The firearms were retrieved and returned to their rightful owner by a member of the local RCMP detachment. The owner then used the Canadian Firearms Centre on-line service to register his guns and thanked the centre for the quick and efficient service it had provided.
With simple successes like this — and this is no way an isolated case — I think we are on the right track with the firearms program.
Mr. Chair, the proposed regulations, as I indicated through my remarks, are an important part of our moving forward and creating the kinds of efficiencies within the system that we need. We are interested in hearing your views on these regulations and we are happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.
Senator Beaudoin: I have two questions. The first one concerns the shift of the ministers involved — that is, the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General. The second one concerns the question of rights.
I understand that you will be in charge of the application of the act when it is adopted. Is that the case?
Mr. Easter: Yes, it is. It was decided, I believe in February, that the Canadian Firearms Centre would be transferred from the Department of Justice to the Department of the Solicitor General. It is operating as a separate agency under the Department of the Solicitor General with, as I indicated, Bill Baker as Commissioner.
There are good reasons for doing that. The Department of Justice is really not so much an operational department as is the Department of the Solicitor General. We have the policing aspect as well within our portfolio. At the time of the change, I think there was a recognition that there needed to be an improvement in the management of the program. The Minister of Justice and I announced an action plan, of which we are on target to follow. We are making major progress in that action plan as well.
The Minister of Justice also undertook to do a review; it was called the Hession report. To a great extent, those recommendations have also been followed. I think we are on target to accomplish what we set out to do by way of the transfer and the implementation of the Hession report and the action plan.
Senator Beaudoin: My second question — and I have the French version here — is the last item, the rights.
[Translation]
Regulations amending the firearms fees regulations.
[English]
In English, I think the term is ``firearms fees regulation.'' I always have a little problem, legally speaking, with this. The regulations must comply with the statute that we are adopting in the Parliament of Canada. The money question is fundamental, of course.
I know we must delegate powers to the Governor in Council. I understand easily that the fee system is one of those powers, but we must be pretty strict about this. Is the power the one obtains by delegation precise enough in the act so that one may have a certain latitude to impose $50 or $70? This is important in the field of firearms because there was a lot criticism in the past year on the question of the money involved. I want to be quite sure that the rules that we have before us are really under the act and are not left to too much latitude.
In other words, how good is your system of fees in respect to firearms? I ask the question because there were some critics.
Mr. Easter: I will ask Kathleen Roussel to take the technical aspect of the question. We admit that questions have been raised on the fees charged and the monies spent, and rightly so. A great effort was made in the tabling of the estimates this year to be sure that we will come in within the stated program costs for this year. We are on target to do that for the general costs of the program. We will meet our estimates for the program costs. I will turn to Ms. Roussel in turns of the parameters of the fees.
Ms. Kathleen Roussel, Senior Counsel, Head Legal Services, Canadian Firearms Centre: Section 117 of the Firearms Act is the authority for the Governor in Council to make various types of regulations. That includes the authority to prescribe fees to be paid for licences, registrations, certificates, authorizations, approvals of transfers, importations of firearms, and confirmations by customs officers. The Governor in Council may make regulations in those areas prescribing fees.
You will notice that we have been very careful not to exceed the authority. There is no authority to make fees for anything at all; there is only authority for only those items that are listed. For example, for gun show approval, there is no authority to prescribe fees and, in the fees table, there are no fees for that. We certainly would not recommend that fees be prescribed for something where there is no authority. The scope is limited by the regulation-making authority.
Senator Beaudoin: Does that affect every gun? The criticism was on the money question. People say that it is too expensive.
Ms. Roussel: There are two issues there. You asked about fees for every firearm. We have authority to prescribe fees for registration certificates. There is one certificate per firearm so the fee would normally apply for each firearm.
The second issue relates to what is an appropriate quantum for the fee. That is for the Governor in Council to determine based on advice received. Mr. Baker may want to jump in here because we have been consulting on that question.
Mr. William V. Baker, Commissioner, Canadian Firearms Centre: There are two dimensions here. There are questions about what we are spending on the program, which has been the subject of intense debate for over a year now.
Senator Beaudoin: That is right.
Mr. Baker: At last year's Public Accounts Committee meeting, following the Auditor General's report, there was an elaborate discussion around the costs historically and where we are going. As the minister said, a budget has been established for this year. We are making every effort and I am confident we will deliver the program within the budget for this year. That has not always been the case.
We are generally trying to bring our costs down. Getting these regulations made will trigger our ability to implement a new technology solution. That is one of the reasons why the costs have been so high. Once we can get that solution in place, we can begin to achieve some longer-term costs savings for the program and bring it down to a more reasonable level.
Senator Beaudoin: It is a delegated power and you can intervene by way of regulations. That is all right; I do not have any problem with that. The problem is the latitude that is given the Governor in Council.
For example, if you decide to ask for $100 or $150, I am not certain that falls within the power that is delegated. My question is whether that latitude is reasonable or whether you may do whatever you want?
Mr. Baker: One of our objectives in consulting the public on the regulations — which we are doing as we speak — is to get public input on the fees. A schedule of fees is submitted within the regulations for consideration. This subject comes up at virtually every meeting we have with Canadians. We ask for their perceptions as to the fairness of the fees. I might just observe that, generally speaking, fees are not increasing compared to what they were.
Senator Beaudoin: They are to a certain extent. Perhaps $50 to $70 is not much but it is an increase.
Mr. Baker: I should point out that in the fee regulations, many of the fees — particularly for businesses — now cover three years, as opposed to one year. Generally, the feedback in regard to fees has been more focused on the principle of whether a fee should be charged, as opposed to the quantum.
Senator Beaudoin: Yes, but I am worried about both. First, you should be amenable and this principle can only be in the act, not in the regulations. Second is the amount — the latitude. Of course, in the law we cannot do everything exactly like that. We leave that to the delegated power, but there are some limits.
Your answer is that every authority to do this is in the act. On the amount, of course, there is a certain discretion.
Senator Baker: I have some specific questions of Ms. Roussel. However, I would first like to congratulate the minister for the exceptional job he has been doing since he assumed the portfolio. I also congratulate the government on appointing Mr. William Baker to be the commissioner. I know him from his previous positions with the federal public service; he did an exceptionally fine job in those positions.
Most senators are concerned with this legislation and the regulations and with the fairness to individuals. Minister, you say that there are 1,000 new gun registrations every week. That shows that people are beginning to register a thousand a week. You would need a thousand more weeks, then, to make up for the over 1 million long rifles that are missing. If you compare the report that we had before this committee last year, from the independent outside authority that said there were 7.7 million long rifles in existence in Canada, and, as I understand it, there are some 6.7 million registered today, Mr. Baker. I think I am accurate in that figure. Therefore, it would take another 1,000 weeks to register these guns.
This committee is looking specifically at the impact that this has in the community. My question for Ms. Roussel is this: In changing the regulations, have you looked at the problems that exist where a police officer finds a gun in someone's home that is not properly stored? When you look at the case law today, you will notice that over the last two years the greatest number of cases that have been brought to the courts have been concerning storage — and I notice that the witness is nodding — and whether or not you have the guns registered, which are two separate questions.
The authority to lay the charge and to ascertain the penalty is found under the Criminal Code. You are aware that is found under sections 86(1) and 85(2). Whether it is indictable or summary falls under section 86(3). Have you recognized any problems that have arisen in that, under storage, there are two separate charges under the Criminal Code? One is under your regulations that you are now changing; the other one is a separate charge that has been defined by the Supreme Court of Canada as to what a reasonable person would consider to be safe storage in all the circumstances. That was R. v. Finlay.
Mr. Easter: I wish to put on the record, Senator Baker, that we are talking about one thousand licences a week. On registration, what I think I said was 1,000 licenses a week. I want to be clear on that. Registrations vary widely, between 5 and 10,000 a week. I want to be clear on that.
Senator Baker: We would need 500 more weeks, instead of a thousand weeks.
I wonder if you would address that question. It is either the Supreme Court of Canada rules as far as safe storage is concerned, or it is your regulations. Which one is it?
Ms. Roussel: They are essentially two separate offences. You may not like my answer, but I will explain why there are two separate offences. There is the offence of not complying with the regulation, which is black letter law in the sense of are you storing it in a cabinet or not.
The other offence is what I will call the ``pure code offence.'' There are circumstances in which you could commit that offence while still having complied with the regulations, in the sense that you may have stored a firearm within the parameters set by the regulations, but it was not safe in all the circumstances for a reasonable person to do so.
Senator Baker: Yes.
Ms. Roussel: That is why they are two separate offences.
Senator Baker: You still have not answered my question. Under your definition, you could meet the regulations, yet be guilty under the other section, or you could not meet the regulations but be guilty under the other section, or vice versa.
I have asked you this: As you have seen it across the country, how have the courts interpreted your regulations? Have they gone with the Supreme Court of Canada in section 86(1), or have they gone with your regulations in section 86(2), in effect, nullifying their effect?
Ms. Roussel: The general trend has been that charges are laid under 86(1) rather than section 86(2), which seems to be the general trend.
Senator Baker: In other words, they are ignoring your regulations on storage.
Ms. Roussel: I do not know if they are ignoring the regulations on storage, but the issue at trial tends not to be, ``Did you store according to the regulations?'' but, rather, ``Did you store in a manner that was reasonable?''
Senator Baker: Let me read from you from an Ontario judgment, R. v. Gorr, 2003. The judge says this on appeal:
Because s. 86(1) of the Code makes careless storage an offence, while s. 86(2) makes contravening the above Regulation a separate offence (although with the same penalty), I am inclined to believe that careless storage has its own definition, and is not determined by simply following the checklist of requirements set out in the Regulation. Therefore I am of the view that the offence of careless storage may not be committed although the Regulations are not complied with, and, conversely I can imagine the situation in which someone complying with the Regulations could be guilty of careless storage. As a result, careless storage remains as defined in prior case law. R v. Finlay, Supreme Court of Canada ....
The appeal judge then concludes:
Mr. Gorr stored a number of firearms negligently. I cannot say that I have reached a marked departure from the norm. Therefore, Mr. Gorr is therefore entitled to acquittal on that count as well.
His reference to ``a marked departure from a norm'' is in the Supreme Court judgment.
I have checked a few other cases and I have concluded that if the charge is under your regulations, a smart lawyer will find a convenient way of getting out from under it. Have you thought about just striking your regulation on storage altogether, given that the courts are ignoring it?
Ms. Roussel: I am not sure I am prepared to concede that the courts are ignoring it. It always depends on under what subsection the charge is laid. I do not think a court can ignore the regulations if the charge is laid under section 86(2).
The Chairman: May I add a supplementary question, Senator Baker?
Senator Baker: Sure.
The Chairman: To follow on Senator Baker's points, if the regulations are tighter than the Criminal Code, would they not be considered to be ultra vires? Would not a person who is charged be able to do exactly what Senator Baker is saying he or she could do?
Ms. Roussel: I suppose it could always be argued. I am not aware of that. I know there have been some acquittals. I have not examined the question, so I am not sure.
Senator Baker: Let me ask you this question: What is to protect? What is happening today in the real world with the RCMP and police forces going into someone's home, probably without a warrant, on some other issue? Of course, when these regulations were passed, you will notice that you can go in without a warrant under certain conditions under these regulations.
What is happening? We have one million people, perhaps, without guns registered. Are they all being picked on by the RCMP at this point and charged with the offence, to your knowledge?
Mr. Easter: The answer, Senator Baker, is no, they are not being picked on. You have seen some people going across the country with affidavits, saying that they did not have their guns registered, and even they have not been arrested because the intent of this legislation is not to make criminals out of legitimate gun owners. We have made that very clear. The intent of the legislation and of the program is basically for public safety. That is the direction in which we are trying to move.
Certainly, there have been charges against with people who have been using unregistered guns in a break and enter or an assault or some such thing, but in the general sense, it is as I have stated. Given what the minister has just said, I would presume that the RCMP officers are using discretion in certain circumstances under section 117.08 of the Criminal Code. Is that right, Ms. Roussel?
An officer, under the Criminal Code, knows it is an offence not to have a gun registered, then goes in and makes a discretionary judgment whether or not he will lay charges when the law clearly states that you do not lay charges if certain other things exist. For example, if there is a reason within the code somewhere else that the gun need not be registered, or for some reason. Certainly there is no discretion there for an officer of the law not to lay a charge under section 117 of the code. Am I not correct, Ms. Roussel?
Ms. Roussel: I am not sure, Senator Baker, I am in a position to answer for the RCMP and I think that is what you are asking me to do.
Senator Baker: You have on another occasion. You appeared before the Justice Committee of the House of Commons. Do you want me to read your statement when you made reference to discretion?
Ms. Roussel: I may very well have said that they do use discretion, but what you are asking me now is whether or not it is appropriate for them to do so, and I do not even in fact provide advice to the RCMP so it might be a bit unfair.
Senator Baker: Here are your words:
A peace officer may ask a person. The only issue is under section 117.03 of the Criminal Code. A peace officer may ask a person to produce their licence or certificate, as the case may be. Where the individual is unable to do so, the police have discretion, ...
I can continue on.
Ms. Roussel: I can tell you what the context of that was because the question, if I remember correctly — and I do not have the transcript — was with respect to what would happen in the event that someone could not produce their licence. It was a question from Mr. Breitkreuz and the issue was with respect to producing a licence or certificate when asked to do so —
Senator Baker: That is what we are talking about.
Ms. Roussel: — as opposed to not having a registered firearm. Those are different things.
Senator Baker: Then you have a licence that is produced if you have a registered firearm.
Ms. Roussel: The question in the context was he was exploring what happens when you do not have your documents with you, or whether you could produce a photocopy of a document. The issue was not with respect to whether charges ought to be laid where someone is not licensed and in possession of firearms or has not registered.
Senator Baker: Therefore, are you saying that the police have been using discretion when it comes to this matter?
Ms. Roussel: I was explaining what section 117.03 addressed. Let us presume, for example, that Minister Easter is out hunting and cannot produce his certificate, under section 117.03 the police have the discretion to seize and hold the firearms he can produce up to 14 days.
Senator Baker: They have to seize the firearm.
Ms. Roussel: No, they do not have to.
Senator Baker: Is that because the word ``may'' is used and not ``shall''?
Ms. Roussel: You have to look at the whole context of the section, but if they were able to determine otherwise that the person is in fact the holder of a licence or certificate, they certainly would not have to seize the firearm. For example, by looking on the Canadian Firearms Registry On-line, CFRO, whether Minister Easter does in fact hold a certificate. That was the entire context of the discussion in the House committee.
Senator Sparrow: Has the minister advised the RCMP to use their discretion, either the present minister, Minister Easter, or the previous minister? This has come up before. What allows the RCMP to make that discretion?
Mr. Easter: No, I have not. It is a question that has been raised a number of times. However, I have certainly said publicly a number of times that it is not our intent under this legislation to make criminals out of legitimate gun owners. Our whole intent is to encourage people to licence, to register, to practise good, safe storage, et cetera, and in that way help get illegal guns off the street and provide for a safer society. That is our intent.
The RCMP and other police forces certainly use their discretion in many of the endeavours that they do and that they follow in terms of policing. It is a natural occurrence to them.
Senator Sparrow: Are not the police supposed to work within the letter of the law? Do we allow the police, then, to make discretions on any other aspect, such as murder, breaking and entering or whatever?
Mr. Easter: There are, I am certain, probably cases out there where RCMP might, say, seize a gun or police forces might seize a gun and say, ``Get this registered and we will return it to you.'' I think that is using reasonable police discretion.
I hope that you are not suggesting that given the controversy around this piece of legislation as we try to implement it and carry out its intent by way of legislation, that we start entering homes for the purpose of finding unregistered guns and arresting those people and giving them a criminal record. That was not our intent. Our intent was to use the legislation for safe streets.
Senator Sparrow: Is your intent to take away the confusion that is in the hunting and the farming community as to whether they are breaking the law or not, or whether their non-registration will be penalized? That is the question that is continually asked: What am I supposed to do?
Mr. Easter: I made statements immediately following the deadline. I indicated that we would not extend the deadline of June 30 for registration. At the same time, I made statements publicly about the purpose of the program and that people could continue to come forward and register without penalty, because the objective here is to have people registered. That is the way we need to move. Let us focus on what the objective really is — namely, to get people to register their guns, be licensed and implement safe storage practices.
Senator Sparrow: It is not necessary, then, for the police to enforce it and any of those provisions?
Mr. Easter: The police, as I indicated, Senator Sparrow, will certainly use their discretion. They are the individuals who are on the ground in the instance of whatever event is occurring. That is why we have police discretion. To a great extent, I think the track record for police forces in this country is that they have used their discretion very wisely and I believe they are in this case as well.
Senator Andreychuk: My supplementary question is a bit like Senator Sparrow's, and I assure you we have not attended the same meetings or discussed this together, but we do come from the same province.
If the aim of the legislation and the regulations is gun safety and proper use, and not to make criminals out of legitimate gun owners, I think we are putting the wrong emphasis if we are looking at the discretion the RCMP may use, or the courts have to use, as Senator Baker said. Surely, a good law is one that people understand and know what is expected of them. The dilemma here is that I have trouble explaining it to people; lawyers are having trouble explaining how to follow the regulations. We cannot give them that assurance. We end up referring to cases following the Criminal Code.
Would it not be better, in the interests of safety, if this is what we are after, to have one set of rules that people understand and follow and the case law will follow? We are putting the police in an impossible position, the courts in a difficult position, and, more importantly, citizens are in a tough position. If you tell people to follow the regulations of how you store and they will be okay. They will understand; they will follow the steps in the regulations. Whether they think they should or not is a different thing.
However, if you tell people that even if they do all those things they may still not be off the hook, they are ask what they should do. The response appears to be ``Well, I do not know, whatever a reasonable person would do in the circumstances, you should be okay.'' I do not think the rest of the criminal law follows that way.
Therefore, what benefit is it to society, to government, to the centre to have to implement regulations when it appears that the safety and security comes from what they have known under the Criminal Code?
Mr. Easter: It is fairly clear what the set of rules is out there. There has been a significant amount of publicity around this particular piece of proposed legislation and that is that people are required to be licensed. People are required to register all their guns. There are regulations surrounding the safe storage as well. That is the intent. Those are the rules as laid out.
Senator Andreychuk: My point was not on the full bill. You have laid out what the full bill is. If that is what you want the bill to do, we are talking about the specific regulations on storage and the specific Criminal Code elements, which confuses people. Leave the rest of the legislation; we are talking about this particular problem, which is red- flagged here.
One alternative is to get rid of the regulations and stick with the Criminal Code. Another is to give at least a directive to the police, which solicitors general have done in the past on assault cases. Police have had all kinds of discretions. I believe it was the Manitoba Attorney General who put in a directive of how and when to charge, to clearly define what the public policy was and what the expectations were.
This is not something that the general public has to know; this is something that gun owners need to know. They are well aware of the inconsistencies. You have to give them a clear signal.
Mr. Easter: Some of the area that you are into, certainly, senator, falls under the purview of the Minister of Justice. I will ask Ms. Roussel to come in on that point.
Ms. Roussel: Senator Baker tried to get this out of me earlier but I will say it now that you are asking me. Not that I am playing favourites, it just worked out that way.
I do not think that there is necessarily a problem with clarity of the regulation. We found in consultation that the regulations were well accepted. There is certainly an issue with the fact that you have a double offence. The same behaviour may be punishable in one place and not another. I know that is what Senator Baker tried to get me to say earlier.
Oddly enough, I do not know of any case where the constitutionality of that offence provision was ever in dispute or at least seriously threatened. I can see that it does make things more difficult when you are not sure what you have to comply with. Certainly, I will be more than happy to raise that within the Department of Justice and see whether there would be any interest when there is a vehicle for it in revisiting the offence provisions.
In terms of clarity, it would be easier to have an offence that simply criminalized not following the regulation, because the regulation is clear. I suspect that we would have to analyse what behaviour we are leaving out and whether that is sufficient. I will bring that back to my minister.
Senator Andreychuk: You can have someone in the Aboriginal community in the North, someone in Saskatchewan, someone who traps or hunts, and someone who does recreational hunting — I do not think the regulations can contemplate all those situations. However, if you have a Criminal Code offence that talks about storing safely, then I think people will do at the moment what they think is appropriate. A court may later find that they could have done more, but it is easy to explain. I have been there and said, ``What you did does not fit what occurs in Rosetown, Saskatchewan.'' However, when you have a regulation where everything is there, if you follow that you are off the hook but then, just a minute, you are not off the hook. It is not the clarity of the regulation; it is the dilemma of where the comfort factor is for someone who is doing the best they can? Is it here or is it there? That is a critical justice issue. We should not have a law that leaves that matter with the citizens to make those choices.
Mr. Baker: In the national consultations we have been doing with different groups, the whole issue of sanctions has been raised in many contexts. As Ms. Roussel mentioned, this falls under the purview of the justice minister. It is something we will certainly communicate for their consideration at the right moment.
However, from the point of view of administering the gun control program in Canada, given the newness of some elements of the program, our emphasis is on trying to get people to come forward and do the right thing up front as opposed to rear-end sanctions. We appreciate that this has been unclear. We appreciate that many gun owners have been awaiting the outcome of litigation, decisions from government and so forth.
Our emphasis is ensuring that they understand clearly what is required of them vis-à-vis licensing, regulation or safe storage, working with organizations to get the messaging out. We have improved the level of communication we are giving to gun owners across the country and we are working at that level. However, your point is taken on sanctions.
Senator Stratton: Thank you, minister, for appearing here this evening. I know we asked you here without much notice and I appreciate the fact that you chose to allow us to question you on the regulations.
I imagine that there have been many submissions made in respect of the regulations and that you have dealt with them. My question is how are you dealing with the recommendations put forward by various groups and which have not been incorporated? Do you go through a process of responding and if so, how?
Mr. Easter: Mr. Baker has been involved in the consultations fairly extensively. I will let him outline the process that we follow for the consultations and how we will eventually come to decisions on those consultations.
Mr. Baker: We are working on three tracks. There were consultations in Parliament as the regulations were tabled. We were in the House committee last week. We made the regulations available on the Firearms Centre Web site and Canadians who have a general interest were invited to respond. We received some 300 responses; less than half of those were related specifically to the regulations. That is the nature of this.
We then held targeted consultations with key groups across the country: Firearms users, representatives, public safety advocates, et cetera, to get their input.
We are nearing the end of that process. We are here today. We are meeting with police representatives tomorrow in Ottawa. We will use November to distil the input we received on the draft regulations. I might add, senator, that we have received excellent commentary across the country. We will analyse the many useful suggestions and put those forth to the minister for his consideration.
Senator Stratton: How will you deal with those that you have not accepted?
Mr. Baker: I have advised people in the consultation sessions that when they see the final form of the regulation — which will be through due process — if something they had raised was not reflected in the final version, we would be willing to explain to them how it was that we ended up where we are, recognizing that it is ultimately the determination of the Governor in Council.
Senator Stratton: I wish to take an example of the gun show regulations. A gun show can be for display only or for the sale and purchase of firearms. I can understand that if you want to buy a gun at a gun show, you need a licence and acquisition and all of that. Can you explain the process that you would go through at a gun show? I want to understand the complexity of such a thing. It is important for us to have an understanding of what it would take for a group to put on a gun show, and secondly, for an individual to purchase a firearm at that show.
Mr. Baker: I can provide a general response and I may ask counsel to help with some of the technical elements.
Under the new regulations coming in on gun shows, the organizer or sponsor of gun show would have to advise the Chief Firearms Officer of the jurisdiction. There are some information requirements associated with that to obtain approval to hold a gun show. Naturally, the Chief Firearms Officer would be considering a variety of things in terms of the location — for example, you would not want a gun show in a schoolyard.
In terms of the actual transaction, anyone selling or purchasing a firearm would, of course, need to have a valid licence suitable for that type of firearm, and then a transfer would take place between the seller and the purchaser, which would involve our centre in Miramichi. A normal, uncomplicated transfer can usually be done in real-time. Those transactions can take place the same day. They check the existing registry to ensure that the information is complete.
There are times where there is a complication relating to the firearm or the person choosing to purchase, and it could be referred to the Registrar of Firearms or the Chief Firearms Officer for secondary review, and that process could take a bit longer. Most of the time, though, people can walk away with their firearm.
Senator Stratton: You make the putting on of a gun show sound very simple. A group comes forward. They want to put on a gun show and sell or buy guns at such a show. What is the process? You said you have to go through certain steps. Is it very complicated or is it fairly simple? The idea here is to keep the red tape down to a minimum. How difficult is it to put on a show?
Obviously there have been complaints about having to this at all if it is a legitimate organization that is putting on a show. The sale or purchase would be the fact of what is taking place. You have chosen as well to have the gun show people themselves go through hoops. Can you describe that in more detail?
Mr. Baker: Perhaps to ensure you get a more complete response, I will ask counsel to respond.
Ms. Roussel: I will not talk about the gun show regulations as they were originally drafted; I will talk about what is before you. I should just preface that by saying that in consultations, we have had quite a few submissions about the gun show regulations. I suspect we will be looking at them closely with Minister Easter.
The draft regulations require that someone wanting to sponsor a gun show would submit an application for approval to the Chief Firearms Officer of the jurisdiction. In that application, they would provide the obvious things such as a description of the organization and who we would contact. They would be asked seven days before the show is to be held for a list of exhibitors and a floor plan. They also have a duty, once the show is approved, to advise the police of the time and place of the show.
Exhibitors tend to change, as some of you probably know from attending these shows. Sometimes people turn up on the day of the show and fill an empty spot. The sponsor would be able to provide that information as it arose to the Chief Firearms Officer, or as soon as possible, which may include the day after the show in some cases. The approval process itself has two steps. The first step is filling out a generic application, and the second is providing information within seven days of the show with respect to the exhibitors and the floor plan.
Senator Stratton: It is not a very complicated process. How long would it take? Do you have any idea?
Ms. Roussel: I am not sure I can tell you. Obviously, most people will either do it in writing or on the Internet, but because these have never been implemented, I would be guessing. We are talking about a one-page form for the initial part, and then the list of exhibitors.
Senator Stratton: I have one final, simple question. I moved. It was an interesting scenario. I own guns and I was taking them with me. I contacted Miramichi to let them know that I was moving. They asked for my old and new addresses. I gave them that information and realized that was all they wanted to know. It could have been Tom, Dick or Harry on that phone saying, ``Terry Stratton is moving from here to here,'' and I did not move at all.
How do you verify that I moved? When I spoke to them on the phone, I asked if they needed any other information or if I needed to do anything else. They told me that was it. It could have been Tom, Dick or Harry and not Terry Stratton.
Mr. Baker: It is an unusual case. One would normally have to provide a licence number and so on.
Senator Stratton: They did not ask for it. I am giving you that for information, because I was amazed. I repeated the question, twice. I said, ``Do you need anything else?'' No, that was it.
Senator Comeau: One of the issues I raised, minister, on a number of occasions, was the application form itself. I found it to be highly obtrusive and loaded with the kinds of questions I find abusive of Canadians. It asked a number of questions like, ``Did you fail in a career move? Have you sought psychiatric counselling?'' ``Is it true that you stopped beating your spouse?'' I do not think that you have the right to ask those questions. I am not sure if, in Canadian society today, a government has the right to ask such questions, no matter what reason.
However, if you think you have the right, so be it. However, I have asked on a number of occasions to have it toned down, or to at least review this application form. Who knows what has happened to all these application forms that are sitting somewhere with all those loaded questions and if the people who are looking after these files are bonded in some way so that these files do not reach the wrong lands.
Have you given consideration to revamping that form and making it less intrusive?
Mr. Baker: It has not come up as much recently, but I am familiar with the history.
Senator Comeau: They have given up.
Mr. Baker: This is an issue that the former privacy commissioner raised at one point. I know the Minister of Justice responded, emphasizing that the type of information being requested was, in his determination as minister, essential in order to make a proper decision on the part of the Chief Firearms Officer.
It is a question of balancing the public interest in respect to privacy with the broader public interest to ensure that our Chief Firearms Officers have that relevant information to allow them to make a proper decision.
Senator Comeau: Let me give you an example of what could happen with the kinds of questions asked on the form. If someone has psychiatric problems, we want them to be able to seek help. It is a medical problem; we all recognize that. However, if it gets out that one is seeking psychiatric help, obviously it can potentially damage his or her reputation in the community and in career moves and so on. If people have to tell the government that they are seeking psychiatric help, a great number will not seek the kind of help they need until the stigma is removed from society. By having people having to put it in writing and sign their name, we are discouraging them from seeking the kind of help they might need. We should not be doing this.
It appears that you have given up on addressing the issue of the forms. If you are weighing there responses and deciding not to look at it any more because you have had only 10 requests to re-evaluate it, but if you receive 1,000 requests, then you will look at it again, I am disappointed. This is a serious issue and you should not weigh its importance on the number times it is raised. You should use your common sense. If something does not pass the smell test, work on it. I do not care what the Justice Minister thinks he needs in order to be able to prepare the forms. Do what is right; give it the smell test.
Mr. Baker: The point is taken, senator. There is a question with respect to whether someone has recently gone through a marital breakdown and of a relationship. We ask for that information going back two years.
I have heard representations on that. We know from the work of experts in the field that that two-year period is a very critical period with respect to the emotional stability of people undergoing that difficult period. In the opinion of the former Justice Minister and in consultations with Chief Firearms Officers who legislatively have to make those decisions and be accountable for issuing someone a firearms licence, they consider that useful information in allowing them to assess risk.
I should point out, sir, that at no point in checking a box does that automatically mean you will not get a firearms licence. That means that is a signal to the Chief Firearms Officer to have a look and perhaps do some follow-up inquiries.
Senator Comeau: Is there any way that the investigating people could go to the neighbourhood and speak to neighbours? Could they say that they have received a firearms application and ask whether that person has indicated that he has had a significant meltdown with his significant other and that there has been a break-up of a relationship in the past two years?
Are these the kinds of questions you would be asking neighbours, possibly the employer, in the follow-up investigation?
Mr. Baker: I am aware that there could be follow-up with the former spouse, which does happen on occasion. Perhaps Ms. Roussel would know if there is other follow-up.
Ms. Roussel: There is authority for follow-up generally, based on an application. A firearms officer reviewing an application has authority to speak to anyone who may be relevant to the inquiry. Having said that, when a government official, whether a firearms officer or anyone else, collects personal information, they do not have authority to disclose that. It would not be permissible, in my view, for a firearms officer to ask a neighbour if someone next door has psychiatric issues. That would not be permissible. It would be permissible to ask a neighbour for his or her opinion on the applicant.
Senator Comeau: You are saying that it is how the questions are worded. It comes back to my reference to the question, ``Is it true that you have stopped beating your spouse? Yes or no?'' I am convinced that this is highly, highly intrusive, if not illegal.
Senator Sparrow: The aspect of discretion by the police is worrisome. Furthermore, the Attorneys General of five of the provinces indicate that they will not prosecute.
What message is that to the people, let us say, of Saskatchewan when they say that they will not prosecute and that the police have discretion and that there is no problem? There is a problem because our people do not know what we are talking about. It arises continually that the Attorney General in Saskatchewan is not going to enforce the law at the discretion of the RCMP. We have not got much left.
The Chairman: Before the witness responds, Senator Gustafson wants to say something.
Senator Gustafson: I wanted to compliment the minister before he left. I was pleased to see that we have a minister with some common sense. I sat in the House with him. I do not think this would have happened if he had been minister, quite frankly, so I compliment you.
My concern is criminal record. We are senators and we are taking a second serious look at this situation. I predict that down the road, eight or ten years, there will be many problems with people that have criminal records.
We all know about the difficulties of clearing a record of a marijuana charge that someone did as a kid 20 years ago. A criminal record with a gun is pretty serious stuff. It is bound to happen. There must be some people who now have criminal records now because of this legislation.
The Chairman: Perhaps we can have a quick response to both questions.
Mr. Easter: Thank you for the compliment.
The aspect of discretion, Senator Sparrow, is a long-standing principle. We have said and the Minister of Justice has said that in those cases where the province is not willing to prosecute then we can.
However, think you will find that in nearly every instance where there are other factors involved — such as a break and enter — the provinces are in fact willing to prosecute. That, in fact, is happening.
We have tried to be pretty clear that the entire intent of the legislation is to get the guns registered and have the system work as it was intended to do. We have been trying consistently to do that.
The issue of a criminal record is a serious matter. I know that MPs and senators deal with those issues. We deal with them in my department all the time trying to get a pardon for someone who maybe have been caught for impaired driving 20 years ago and did not get a pardon. The record has not been written off and that person now runs into trouble getting across the U.S. border.
The way to prevent getting a criminal record under this legislation is register your gun. It is as simple as that. We have been doing our best to try to work with the community, because we know the opposition that was out there. The purpose of the consultations is to recognize some of the problems that are out there and try to make the system work for everyone. That is what we want to do. We want to put the past behind us and move ahead. That is what we really want to do.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do not know whether anyone wanted to add anything else. The officials are willing to stay, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman: I want to take a minute to thank you and your officials for being so accommodating to us on such short notice. Thank you very much.
If Mr. Roussel and Mr. Baker could wait for a moment, I think Senator Baker has a short question.
Senator Baker: I understand, and you can verify it if this is correct or not — I have already verified it — that you are getting 1,500 calls a day. These are accesses to the information on who owns guns. There are 1,500 calls a day across Canada. That is one call every 40 seconds.
Are you contemplating looking at why there are 1,500 accesses to this information a day? Have you analyzed, Ms. Roussel, the recent case law looking at different cases?
No matter what it is, it appears as if the police do a check into your system whenever they have to visit a home — that probably accounts for the 1,500 accesses a day. In many cases now, when police are called out — they may be delivering a summons to appear, it may be a domestic situation, it may any number of things that are happening — they follow a procedure whereby if you are a registered gun owner, you are treated differently than if you are not. That is the reason there are 1,500 accesses a day to your system.
Have you analyzed that? Do you have anything to tell the committee as far as that is concerned?
Mr. Baker: My understanding is that certainly the access is largely by police for the reasons you have set out. In respect of the assertion that a registered gun owner would be treated differently from someone who is not in the system, my understanding is police — on any domestic call, or any call, period — exercise prudence, because they have to take the necessary precautions at all times.
The registry can provide them with some additional information in their pursuit of a domestic call or whatever. We are aware of cases where the information the registry provided did prompt the police to do further work and identify additional firearms on the premises that they did not initially see in their first scan of the place.
As to your other question as to the extent that we analyze the 1,500 accesses a day — and I should point out that is an average, of course, it goes up and down — we do not perhaps as much as we could and should. This is something we want to turn our attention to when we get some of the bigger operational requirements behind us.
Senator Baker: In your case that you brought up, Mr. Baker, the question becomes, was there a warrant to search the home for the gun? Ms. Roussel, do you notice that in much of the case law? You need a warrant if you are going to bring a charge for non-registration of guns — if the police entered a home and picked up a gun — is not that correct, Ms. Roussel?
Ms. Roussel: I guess it depends on the circumstances. If the police go somewhere looking for someone committing an offence of possession of an unregistered firearm, I would certainly agree that they need a warrant, presuming there is no immediate danger.
Senator Baker: Mr. Baker said where they go for some other reason and then discover there is, in fact, an unregistered gun.
Ms. Roussel: The reality is that they may enter a home for any number of reasons. For example, under exigent circumstances, they could enter a home legitimately for some purpose other than firearms and then find there are firearms. You have to appreciate that I do not provide advice to the police, so I am not in a position to analyze what happens in the field.
Senator Baker: You should, though, be looking at why there are 1,500 accesses a day to your computer files. Certainly, once every 40 seconds — I think that you should perhaps look at that and probably ask the police forces what their protocol is for use of this information.
On that same note, a senator just walked through the door and he wants to ask one question. Is it true you have a group of regulations concerning the Aboriginal peoples? They are not in this package of 15 that you are now presenting, but do you have a group of regulations that are under consideration for the Aboriginal peoples?
Ms. Roussel: There are regulations called the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada Adaptation Regulations. They are not in the group of 15. At this point, there are no amendments suggested to them.
I should say — and I know that a number of honourable senators know — that there is ongoing litigation with a number of Aboriginal groups. Certainly, from the standpoint of those regulations, it is much more prudent to see what happens with the litigation and then, if need be, go into the regulations or amend anything that may or may not need to be amended as a result of the litigation. This is not a particularly easy time to make amendments, without knowing how the courts will look at the more fundamental issue of treaty rights and how the Firearms Act impacts them in general.
Senator Stratton: There is an internal Justice report on the firearms program, citing that there are major weaknesses in the ability of the registry to provide crucial information to firearms officers and police. For example, there is unreliable information in the massive database that is supposed to tip police; and the RCMP concern about privacy rights is delaying or preventing access by firearms officials to the information they need to judge whether a person should be issued gun licences. Do you want to comment on that report?
Mr. Baker: In respect of the data weaknesses in the registration system, I believe that refers to the fact that nearly 6.7 million firearms have been registered into the system and many of those arrived in a very short period of time. The effort to get them registered and issue registration certificates meant that there were limitations on the amount of review that could be undertaken with respect to the information that was submitted. We acknowledge that some of the registration information is incomplete or inaccurate.
It is certainly our intention, as the opportunity presents itself, to improve the quality of that information. At the end of the day, registering a firearm is only good to the extent that the information can allow you to associate it with the actual firearm.
The other item refers to access of our chief firearms officers to information in the CPIC database. They do have access, and we work through the RCMP to ensure that our officers are able to have the information necessary to do their job.
Senator Stratton: What is CPIC?
Mr. Baker: Canadian Police Information Centre. This is the database.
Senator Watt: I have a couple of short questions. First, I was involved with trying to arrive with adaptation programs in the early years. We had developed what we consider a reasonable solution to get us out of the bind — that is, the North and the south, in regards to the application program you just mentioned.
It has been a long time, but if my memory is correct, three or four items were left hanging. We could not agree; we were in the midst of trying to come up with a solution, but that never happened. Is there still an opportunity — aside from the court — to arrive at a solution politically, through the negotiations? Is that still possible?
Mr. Baker: Again, the litigation is proceeding, and we will take our instruction from the courts when and if the time comes.
Senator Watt: I do not think the Innu are in the litigation. I think the litigation you mentioned is the First Nations.
Ms. Roussel: Yes.
Senator Watt: I do not think we have gone to the courts. Oh yes, we have — we have one.
Mr. Baker: We have a few initiatives underway with different Aboriginal groups to try to find a way to make the administration of the program more suitable for their particular needs. For instance, we have hired a First Nations firearms officer to work in the west and the territories to help in that regard. We are certainly open, and we are working with the AFN and other groups right now, to come up with administrative solutions that respect the exigencies of the law, while being more sensitive to the particular needs of First Nations and Aboriginal communities.
Senator Watt: Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is any way to enter into negotiations because the litigation is on. I just remembered now that Nunavut won the first round, if I remember correctly.
The other question is, what about those people who have not received their permits yet?
Mr. Baker: Do you mean First Nations people?
Senator Watt: Yes. In the Arctic, there are many people who have not received their permit. They applied the first day and they have still not received them. The permits got lost. What do we do with those people? Are they criminals now?
Mr. Baker: There could be a number of variations on what you have just said. If it is a case where they have taken the steps to comply with the law but for whatever reason they have yet to receive their permit or there has been some complication, I would encourage them to contact the Firearms Centre through the 1-800 number. You do not have to wait an hour any longer.
Senator Watt: They do not answer.
Mr. Baker: If it is an administrative problem, we will have to deal with each of those on a one-off basis. If someone has not got a permit because they have chosen not to get licensed or to register their firearm, as the minister said, anyone can come forward and we will help them in any way we can.
Senator Watt: Some are worried now as to why they did not get their permits. Perhaps the permit got lost. Some of them have even paid three times in an effort to comply with the law, and they are still waiting.
Mr. Baker: We would deal with each of those one-off. If anyone paid more than once, we would refund that money without question.
The Chairman: I wish to thank you, Ms. Roussel and Mr. Baker, for your time during our deliberations. You have been helpful to us. We very much appreciate it.
I should now like to introduce Ms. Wendy Cukier from the Coalition for Gun Control.
Ms. Wendy Cukier, President, Coalition for Gun Control: I appreciate your making time to hear from some witnesses. I would appreciate if copies of my brief could be quickly circulated because there are some exhibits to which I wish to refer.
I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear before you again. I know that your legislative agenda is very packed. There are only a few of the regulations that I wanted to address specifically, but in light of some of the discussion that arose with the previous witnesses I will take the liberty of flagging a few other issues.
Since we last met, there has been significant progress in addressing many of the cost and management issues that were raised by the Auditor General's report, and Bill C-10A, which, of course, has been passed, and the measures designed to streamline processes and cut costs were delayed for quite some time. We are quite anxious for the regulations to be implemented to reduce the financial burden of the program. At the same time, we are obviously concerned that we get it right.
I should mention that for those of you whom I have not previously met, the Coalition for Gun Control is an alliance of 300 organizations. My comments today reflect the concerns of groups that include the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Federation of University Women, the Canadian Public Health Association, the Canadian Criminal Justice Association, the Church Council on Justice and Corrections, the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, the Alberta Centre for Injury Prevention, the Centre de prévention du suicide du Québec, and Physicians for Global Survival. These groups are among a number of coalition supporters who have participated in the consultations and have provided specific feedback on the regulations, along with a number of experts in injury prevention, in domestic violence and in suicide prevention, as well as crime prevention.
It is important to underscore — particularly in light of some of the earlier comments — that representatives from remote communities, physicians, police, suicide prevention experts, underscored the importance of this legislation for safety in their communities. The terrible irony, of course, is that while the places that have higher rates of firearms ownership have higher rates of opposition to the legislation, they also, regrettably, have higher rates of firearms death.
The issues that I want to specifically address include verification, the forms and screening processes. It is important to revisit some of the principles that underlie the screening processes. I also think it is important to flag the import- export controls and marketing. Then I would like to make some final comments.
In terms of the verification issue, there is a proposed amendment in the regulations that suggests that firearms will no longer have to be verified necessarily on transfer between individuals if the existing registration certificate indicates that the information has already been verified — that makes sense — or, in the case of transfer between individuals, the information contained in the firearms registry is complete and accurate. With respect, we suggest that there is really no way to confirm that the information in the firearms registry is accurate without verification.
In the past, when the RCMP ran the restricted weapons registration system, every single firearm that had been registered in recent history had been inspected physically and the information that was contained on the registration certificate had been checked against the firearm itself. Because of the need to register a high volume of firearms — six million — it was agreed that people could self-report the information. Individual gun owners could look at their firearms and, to the best of their ability, complete the registration form. However, it was understood that when those firearms were sold or transferred, that information would be verified, not necessarily by the police but by a licensed verifier. In respect of one of the questions that was raised about the accuracy of the database, that measure was put in place to ensure that the registration information would be accurate over time.
One of the key issues, when you look at information systems, is the integrity of the data. That was the arrangement. We have a concern that the proposed regulations make that optional, essentially, when it is a transfer between individuals.
I think we can say with a high level of confidence that the police are extremely concerned that this will undermine the integrity of the information in the registry. It is a significant and important change that should be made before these regulations are finalized.
Another issue that I want to raise relates to the forms and the screening processes. The regulations do not actually specify the forms; they simply identify some of the screening that will be conducted both for initial applications and for renewals. I was quite surprised to hear some of the comments with respect to concerns about the screening on the forms. Certainly, some of you around the table will remember that in 1991, when Bill C-17 was passed, one of the things that it did to improve public safety was to dramatically increase the screening required for the firearms acquisition certificate.
Those of you who are interested in this matter of screening might do well to have a look at what that application form looked like. It was eight pages long and it asked many, many more detailed questions than we see on the current licence application.
That form was developed after detailed consultation with suicide prevention experts, domestic violence experts, and those who understand how to identify risk factors. Much attention was paid to the formulating of the question and also the process whereby references would review the questions and sign on them. While it has been suggested that some of those questions may appear to be obtrusive, the risks of firearm violence are also intrusive. The changes to the law introduced in 1991 were the start of the effort to strengthen the screening process.
If you compared the forms for the firearms acquisition certificate, which were released in 1993, with the form that is currently in place, for either the licence application or the renewal, you would see that the current form is significantly simpler and significantly streamlined from what was put in place by Kim Campbell.
I had not intended to address the storage requirements but I think it is important to flag that the safe storage regulations were introduced following Bill C-17, which passed in 1991. The safe storage regulations were introduced in 1993. They were intended to respond specifically to concerns about public safety and concerns that were raised, especially by police, who said that the existing provisions were not precise enough to allow them to actually be enforced. It was a demand from the police to improve the storage requirements.
The evidence of recent years is that there are some areas where the licensing process could be strengthened. One of the concerns raised when the law was initially crafted was that a licensed gun owner could live in the same residence as someone who was prohibited from owning firearms or a considered a risk for a variety of reasons. In Quebec, the Boucher case underscored this because he was prohibited from owning firearms but his partner had access to them.
It is important to remember that the power that the firearms officer has was made a reverse onus. The firearms officer has the power to refuse a firearms licence in any case where, in his or her opinion, there is a risk to the individual or to another person. That is critically important. That was done with a great deal of thought in 1991. We would see it as a terrible retreat.
There is strong evidence to suggest that the approach that has been taken is working.
The import/export controls in marking, as written in the regulations, we would strongly support. We would be concerned about any changes being made to these regulations without very careful thought because these regulations bring us in line with our international obligations under both the Organization of American States' The Inter- American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Related Materials, as well as the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.
From the international perspective, one of the things that is also worth underscoring — particularly given that some of you have an interest in human rights — is that recently the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights has said that countries that fail to protect their citizens from firearms violence may be failing under their obligations under international human rights law.
I want to conclude with just a couple of points that I hope will address some of the issues raised around the table before I began.
There is no question that good public policy should not be driven by polls, but I think a lot has been made of the fact that 50 per cent of firearms owners say that they object to the law. We must remember that, in spite of that, 90 per cent have obtained licences and 80 per cent of their guns are registered. It is also worth noting, particularly given the current audience, that, while only 50 per cent of gun owners support the law, 77 per cent of people who live with gun owners support the law. It is important that we not forget their interests when we are looking at these issues.
I also want to close by saying that it is premature to evaluate the impact of either Kim Campbell's legislation or the legislation that was passed in 1995. However, if you look at the data that has been brought forward by the experts in crime prevention and suicide prevention, there is a strong indication that we are in fact proceeding along the right path.
I should like to draw your attention to some of the graphs that I have included in appendix one. You will see that while handgun murders in Canada have remained relatively constant largely because handgun murders are fuelled by the illegal import of handguns from the United States — which is why we are concerned about the illicit trade internationally — murders from rifles and shotguns have plummeted. While there are many factors that affect homicide, the difference with what is happening with murders involving long guns versus stabbing, shootings with handguns, strangulation, et cetera, does suggest that the law is having an impact.
Even in a city like Toronto — where we hear a lot about the epidemic of gun violence — the data shows that handgun murders in Toronto are flat.
I should like to turn your attention to the graphs illustrating the rate of firearms deaths in Canada. The first time I appeared before the Senate was in 1991. In that year, 1,444 Canadians were killed with guns. In the last year for which we have data, it is it under 1,000. That is significant. It is not just due to the firearms legislation; but it is certainly true that the firearms legislation has been a factor.
Firearms robberies in Canada have fallen significantly. The latest Statistics Canada report indicates that while firearms robberies have dropped drastically, other robberies have not.
There are a number of people around the table who have been discussing this issue for as long as I have — which is coming up to 13 years. It is important to underscore that people come and go and people forget what has been said and what has been argued in the past, but the evidence is pretty clear that we are on the right path. I am concerned that there is too much emphasis on cost cutting or on accommodating concerns of the opponents of the legislation, which are not justified — I am not talking about concerns that can be accommodated without jeopardizing public safety. At the end of the day, the priority must be on public safety. I think it is very clear that we are making progress.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. Cukier. Before we go to questions, I will ask Mr. Butts to join us at the table. He has a brief presentation. Following his presentation, we will move to questions to both Ms. Cukier and Mr. Butts.
Mr. Wally Butts, National Vice-President, Communications, National Firearms Association: Mr. Chairman, the National Firearms Association is pleased to be here. We have been here before. I have basically two presentations here: My opening remarks and I have provided a copy of the Bill C-10A regulations and the users group and firearms representations for comparison.
We had hope in our hearts, but we have been forced into a sad realization, that members of Parliament and senators are still almost powerless against the power of the Prime Minister. We are now appearing once again before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Nevertheless, we thank you for the opportunity again to appear before you with good advice and suggestions. You may remember that we were here last November, when Bill C-10A was before this committee.
Repeatedly, the National Firearms Association has tried to bring forward, well-thought-out suggestions and recommendations, which, if implemented, could make our community safer from violent criminals with firearms and other weapons.
Repeatedly, the Minister of Justice and his bureaucrats have ignored that advice and hand-fistedly pushed forward their agenda. This is a result of, from what members of Parliament and others are telling us, pressure from the Prime Minister's Office.
Right now, the committee is studying the proposed regulations for Bill C-10A. These changes are supposed to streamline the administration of the federal Firearms Act. As usual, the bureaucrats' actions have missed the target completely. The problem is gross overspending on a relatively simple program. The cause is extremely bad systems design.
The government has talked about streamlining the licence process, but when you look at what they have done, there is no one thing that accomplishes any part of that objective. They explicitly say that getting a licence renewal is done in the same way as getting the original licence — that is bad design.
Right now, a growing number of Canadians, starting with top opinion-makers in the media, are looking more and more critically at the government. Here are a few examples for you to consider. Here is a quote from an op-ed piece by Barbara Yaffe in the Montreal Gazette, on October 23, 2003:
The Chrétien government was determined to establish a gun registry, budgeted in the mid-1990s at $2 million. With overruns, the final tally in 2005 will be $1 billion.
On the same date, Diane Francis wrote in the National Post:
Ottawa is where the Prime Minister can direct shockingly disproportionate amounts of cash to his backwater riding and where he can spend $100-million buying planes from his favourite corporate welfare bum, Bombardier Inc., without following bidding procedures and the advice of civil servants.
It's where hapless ministers like Allan Rock can keep their jobs even though they accept gifts from corporations that snack off taxpayers and where the minister or deputy minister responsible for hiring and/or supervising the likes of George Radwanski and countless others never lose their jobs.
Clearly, laws must require governments to behave like corporations now must. Here are a few suggestions:
1. The public should be able to sue politicians and civil servants. A few obvious cases could involve suing the ministers and deputies behind the gun registry madness.
An editorial in Vancouver's The Province on October 23, 2003, said:
The last few years have been marked by appalling extravagances and reckless spending by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's Liberal government.
For starters, the missing millions from Human Resources Development Canada, the billion dollars of public funds wasted on a useless federal gun registry, the abuse of $40 million from the sponsorship program, including $1.6 million to a marketing firm for reports that were either non existent or incomplete, and the millions of dollars in contracts, fake and inflated invoices currently under RCMP investigation.
Senator Willie Adams said in the senate on September 17, 2003 that, ``Parliamentarians sometimes pass laws that make no sense to people living in the North.''
Finally, speaking to the House of Commons Justice Committee on proposed regulations on Bill C-10A, Member of Parliament Mr. Garry Breitkreuz said:
We know by just looking at the experience of the last couple of years, that the bureaucrats that have been running the system have not been doing a stellar job of that. We trusted them back in 1995 and we really have a huge mess and these regulations don't really improve on that.
What can be done here? The solution lies in your lands. To the Liberal members of the Senate, we fully understand that many of you are worried and concerned over where the Liberal Party has been headed and how. In letters we have received from Liberal Members of Parliament, we are hearing from you that the current state of democracy within your party is worrying you.
Today we respectfully submit that it is up to each one of you, especially on the government side, to determine your destiny as a senator. Are you there to bow down to the Prime Minister's will or are you there to represent Canada?
As senators, I am sure you have often felt like your voices are not heard, even around the caucus table. We understand that. In the other place, where a member of Parliament was made to cry just because she asked a question at the caucus table — frankly, we believe no one expects that in a parliamentary democracy. It does not sound like something any real leader would do, does it?
It is it time for you as senators to start taking on the full role of the nation's representatives who offer sober second thought on what happens in the other place. The Prime Minister's office is trying to ram through the Bill C-10 regulations in time to beat his personal deadlines. You can start right now by demanding that the proposed regulations be fully examined by this committee.
First, you should demand that those regulations be fully explained and justified by the bureaucrats who wrote them. Second, you need to compare the good sense of our presentation with the wafflings of the bureaucrats. We need you to protect and preserve the needs of all Canadians.
I fully understand that you have a busy schedule and that your time is at a premium. So is mine. So is the time of every Canadian. We have a responsibility to enact proper and enforceable legislation.
Over the past years, we have seen very poor legislation being rammed forward, enacted and becoming law. Canada has suffered as a result of this. Today, let us move forward into the future and correct the errors of the past. We all have real work to do and the black hole that is the Canada Firearms Centre is just one area. Let us, together, start that work.
I would like to commend the minister for actually now saying that he wants to fix this mess. We offer, in the copies presented to you, comparisons of the Bill C-10 regulations and the Users Group on Firearms recommendations. I will not take time to go through those as time is limited here but we have looked at the various recommended changes in regulations and commented based on the input from your users group on firearms and with our comments along side. Quite frankly, some of these things are really no improvement whatsoever in our opinion.
Senator Beaudoin: My question is addressed to Ms. Cukier. It is about the international conventions that we have signed as a country. You referred to some of them.
Are you satisfied with the results of this process? In our system, when we sign an international convention or treaty, we are obliged to implement the treaty. If we do not implement it, then it is not the law of the land. We must do that.
Here, of course, we are in the field of the federal authority — criminal law, section 91. Are you satisfied with what we have done or have we done anything in this particular field?
Ms. Cukier: As you know, I am not a lawyer. However, I have been active in the UN processes. My understanding is that the changes in the regulations as written will bring us into compliance with those two international agreements that I mentioned. We can then ratify it. It has been a bit embarrassing to be in international meetings where Canada is considered a leader in the fight against the illicit trade in small arms and yet we have not ratified those two conventions. The regulations as written do address those concerns.
My only concern is sometimes, in responding to a legitimate concern, you make a change that has another effect. The only thing I am flagging for this committee is my comment that, as written, the regulations are good; I would not want to make any changes to them without very careful consideration.
Senator Beaudoin: Ratification is one thing. Implementation is another. The ratification is done by the executive branch of the state. Implementation is done by the Parliament, the legislative branch of the state.
Have we done anything since the signature? Are you saying that what we already have in our legislation and what we already have in the firearms regulations is good enough to implement the treaty?
Ms. Cukier: The changes included here relating to import and export controls and marking are the specific changes required in this part. There were also changes required to the explosives act; I am not sure of the status of those.
I got confirmation at seven o'clock this morning that I was coming here. I did mark ``draft'' on this document. If you are interested in the final version, I will be much more specific and precise. You will have all the details you want. I have not brought my copies of the assessment of Canada's compliance but those are the things that I recall as being outstanding and needing to be addressed.
Senator Beaudoin: We must comply in two areas, the act itself and the regulations under the act.
Ms. Cukier: Yes.
Senator Beaudoin: You say something has been done?
Ms. Cukier: Some things have been done, but it is not complete and that has prevented us from ratifying because we have not had everything in place.
Senator Baker: I want to congratulate both of the presenters, and if I just might refer to, first, the president of the Coalition for Gun Control as professor. She mentioned she was not a lawyer, but she is a professor of justice studies, and she has an M.A., M.B.A., Ph.D., a DU, an LL.D., M.Sc. First, I want to congratulate her on her academic excellence over the years. I ask her the first question.
Five provinces in Canada have opted into this particular program of gun controls. True, according to the commissioner, they represent 75 per cent of the population in Canada. Why do you believe that the other provinces have decided not to opt into the program? That is five provinces.
Ms. Cukier: I would be happy to have a discussion about politics with you off-line. I do not think that it is my place to do an assessment of the history of, for example, the Minister of Justice in Saskatchewan saying on a radio show that he did not really support the law. He had a rifle. Somewhere in this world, he had a shotgun; he was not sure where. From that point — that was in 1994, I believe — the Province of Saskatchewan's position on this legislation was formed, even though the major public safety organizations in that province, in fact, supported law.
You can do the same in Alberta. The Minister of Justice, in 1995, testified before this committee and said that the people of Alberta did not support the law, even though a poll he commissioned showed that almost 70 per cent of Albertans supported licensing and registration. In that province, the major policing, public safety and other organizations supported it.
When the Province of Alberta challenged the law in the Alberta Court of Appeal, the Alberta Council of Women's Shelters intervened, along with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Quebec Public Health Association and other safety groups to defend the law.
I can only say that, in my opinion, the governments that do not support this law are mistaken and are not putting front and foremost the concerns for public safety. In the Province of Alberta, for example, the rate of children killed with guns is as high as the rate of Israel and Northern Ireland combined. Provinces like Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan — I did not bring the statistics — have much higher rates of gun death and injury than provinces like Ontario and Quebec.
I cannot answer why. I can just say that I think they are mistaken. I am very grateful that some of the larger provinces and, indeed, the federal government, have stayed the course.
Senator Baker: Your first answer to my question was that you did not want to get into a matter of politics or the history of politics. However, would you say, then, that these five premiers or five governments in Canada were not following wishes of the majority of people in their provinces?
Ms. Cukier: Look at the Environics poll done December/January of this year. It shows in every province but Saskatchewan — I will give you Saskatchewan — the majority of people support it. Many times they forget women vote, and there is a gender split in attitudes to the firearms legislation.
I said earlier that my view is that good public policy is not necessarily based on figuring out where the wind blows or public opinion. Good public policy is based on facts, and the facts and the experts — whether you are talking police, injury prevention, suicide prevention or whatever — in those provinces, for the most part, support the legislation.
Senator Baker: Would you say, then, that the five provinces that have not opted in are headed by governments who are not following the wishes of their constituents and probably would be defeated if this became an issue in an election campaign?
Ms. Cukier: I would not say that because I do not think there is any evidence that more than a very small percentage of Canadians vote based on gun control as their number one issue.
Senator Baker: I wanted to ask the other witness a question. It concerns a suggestion from the minister's user group on firearms that recommendations have been made concerning the decriminalization or limiting the necessity to register long guns, and whether or not you know for a fact that these suggestions have been made to the legislation by the minister's user group on firearms.
Mr. Butts: The information was obtained through access to information requests because the users group on firearms was not supposed to tell anyone what it recommended. I believe their comment was that if someone is licensed and does have unregistered firearms that because they are licensed to have firearms, they should be allowed to bring these other firearms into the system — in other words, not be prosecuted.
There are some written comments in our submission on that. I cannot recall this off the top of my head without going back through, but the users group made several recommendations, none of which, I believe, were followed by the previous minister and the bureaucrats.
Senator Baker: Is that a yes or a no? Did they make the recommendation?
Mr. Butts: They did make some recommendations that the regulations should not go after people who have unregistered firearms if they have otherwise complied.
Senator Stratton: Mr. Butts, I wanted to go into the presentation by the minister and the senior staff with respect to the issues brought forward by a group such as yours regarding regulations. Their response as to your recommendations with respect to changes in regulations not being made was that you would be given time if you requested to hear the reasons for not accepting your recommendations. Is that your understanding, or are you satisfied with that?
Mr. Butts: We would like to have them respond to us. One of our problems is that the regulations have been written by bureaucrats, most of whom do not have any practical use of firearms and do not own firearms, and they write things that sound good.
For instance, regarding the changes to the gun show regulations requiring an extra level of bureaucracy to run a gun show. There have never been problems with gun shows in Canada. Everyone who buys or sells a firearm at a gun show has to do so under his or her licence — his or her PAL, POL. We feel that that should suffice for a gun show. Adding another level of bureaucracy is just that.
We look at it from the practical day-to-day experience of firearms owners and users, whereas sometimes the bureaucracy looks at this from the perspective of creating more paper trails. What does it serve the public and public safety to know who is at a gun show and especially reporting after the fact if someone comes in at a late date and gets a table? What public good does it serve to report that that person did that, if that person is licensed and sells firearms to a licensed individual?
What happens at gun shows, where the minister said, that you could get a transfer done quickly? If a person comes to a gun slow at eight o'clock on a Sunday morning and tries to get something transferred, he or she has to hang around all day. However, the gun show finishes at noon. However, under the regulations, the Firearms Act, the seller can loan a firearm, provided that you loan the certificate. In reality, people are not actually following the regulations. For expedience, the seller is loaning the gun to the buyer with the registration certificate and the transaction is usually completed on a Monday or a normal business day.
Senator Stratton: How did a gun show run prior to all this registration and how does it run now? From the description that we received from the senior staff, it seemed that they were trying to ensure that those who were actually selling guns were doing it legitimately and that they had a credible reputation to do so.
Would you not think — and I am playing devil's advocate here — that would be a necessary step? If you have registration, would you not want the people who put on the gun show to have a certain level of credibility with the public as well? If not; then why not? How did they do shows before?
Mr. Butts: In the past, an organizer of a gun show would put out a notice the show will be held. People would call up and register for any number of exhibitor tables. The organizer would agree and they would then show up. It is not only guns that are sold at gun shows. There are a lot of military collectable items, knives, swords and so on.
Since Bill C-68 was put into force, you were supposed to have a firearms licence to be able to buy or possess a firearm. Because the actual implementation of that was delayed, in earlier year, the gun shows may have been not well regulated in the sense that there were people who would come to those shows and possibly sell stuff that was not at that point in time registered.
Now that registration is in place, it is my experience, having attended many of these shows — and the NFA does attend a lot of them with an information table — the guns at these shows are registered. The people selling them have licences, and in the past the firearms centre would actually attend many of these shows. They gave up doing that because of cost. When a person buys a firearms now, if the person is a dealer, they will often get on their cell phone and try to call the centre, but the problems have persisted with getting a transaction done.
If you remember in the beginning when registration process was enacted, it was supposed to be completed in 15 minutes or less. We hear today that it can be done in a day. Well, people do not spend the day at the gun show. In fact, the gun show does not operate for a full day; in most cases, it goes from eight o'clock in the morning till noon.
Again, the way to work around this — that was recommended by people from the CFC — is to loan the person the firearm, with a certificate, and complete the transaction the following business day.
Any new regulations on gun shows really are redundant because the people there are now licensed and the guns are registered. Anyone who would take unregistered or unlicensed guns to a gun show would be foolish because the police are always aware of these shows. They are announced well in advance and they have the right to come in and ask. Furthermore, there are usually undercover people at a lot of these shows as well.
Senator Stratton: The senior staff commented that one would want these regulations to ensure, for example, that someone does not put on a gun show in a schoolyard. I believe that was the evidence given.
Mr. Butts: That was the comment, yes.
Senator Stratton: I think that was a casual comment that perhaps should not have been made. I have never heard of a gun show being put on in a schoolyard even before regulations.
My question to you is: Have there been or were there problems with gun shows in the past that made the bureaucracy realize there had to be controls put on gun shows and thereby regulations were imposed? Has there been a history of gun shows having problems?
Mr. Butts: Absolutely none of which I have been aware. The people who put these on will usually rent a building at a fairground or a community centre or some neutral building. They do these regularly. There is a circuit of gun shows in Ontario, for instance, that repeats its cycle every three months or so. In the West, there are towns that have an annual gun show — specifically in the spring — and that becomes kind of a big event in town where all farmers come in and socialize with one another. To my knowledge there has never been a problem regarding the location or the operation of a gun show.
Senator Comeau: I will ask a general question to Ms. Cukier.
As parliamentarians, we constantly go after ministers to try to improve the lot of Canadians. We are not under a perfect program where we can spend large sums of money. Let us say that it is an excellent program for stopping crime on the street. However, we also face on an ongoing basis, other important requests — be it cleaning raw sewage out of the harbours in Halifax or St. John's or be it more spending on health care. I drive in Nova Scotia on weekends and I see signs in front of hospitals that say, ``No emergency services this weekend; next emergency service is 60 kilometres away.''
A few weeks ago, one of our committees heard witnesses say there are virtually tons of unexploded ordnances off the shores of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. There is mustard gas sitting at the bottom of the ocean where trawlers are dragging these waters and oil exploration is going on. If this mustard gas goes into the environment, God knows when we will be able to clean it up. We are in an imperfect world government says it does not have money for cleaning up these things.
As another example, Senator Watt comes from an area where pollutants that are not from his home industries, but from Europe, South America and the south here, are leaching into the food chain in the north and reaching the mothers who pass health problems on to their children.
There are problems in Africa where Canada is saying we cannot give any more funding. I am talking about the imperfect world, where we have a billion dollars here that we can spend, and we are saying no to all of these things.
On the list of priorities, is the gun registration — at $1 billion and counting and which will be an annual event — money well spent relative to all of these other concerns? Forget raw sewage going into harbours and so on.
Ms. Cukier: It is always difficult to evaluate the costs and benefits of government programs. I started my career at the Ministry of Transportation in Ontario. One of the reasons I realized that we needed action on the gun problem is because I knew in 1989, for example, that between 3,000 and 3,200 people were killed in car crashes each year. I then found out that 1,400 people were killed with guns in Canada. Look at the relative resources we put into keeping our highways safe and trying to get people to comply with seat belt legislation. In New Brunswick, the federal government spent $400 million to widen a stretch of highway called Suicide Alley because 47 people were killed over five years. Over five years, more than 5,000 Canadians were killed with guns.
If you go to the police or to the Canadian Public Health Association, which always tries to assess the costs of prevention versus the benefits of prevention programs, you will hear them say that this is money well-spent.
Senator Comeau: This is your priority and this is where we should be putting the money; is that correct?
Ms. Cukier: Relatively speaking. I did not think we would be revisiting the Auditor General's report, but I have put some notes at the end that address some of those issues.
We are talking about $100 million or so a year. Remember, the old system prior to this cost $30 million a year. Six separate inquests concluded that that system was flawed and recommended licensing and registration.
It was the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in its 1991 report to Kim Campbell that recommended the registration of firearms. I am not sure people remember that. It was Senator Nathan Nurgitz who wrote to Kim Campbell and said that is something she should consider.
The other thing that has not been clearly communicated in much of the talk about the billion-dollar registry is that the bulk of that money has not been spent on the registration of firearms. The bulk of money has been spent on licensing. It is the licencing of gun owners that is labour intensive and requires the screening and so on.
Your question dealt with the billion dollars spent on registration. Remember, that is $1 billion over 10 years on the firearms program. That is an important distinction.
Senator Comeau: I wanted to make my point. It upsets me when priorities are decided like this, when we have other priorities. I was speaking of a perfect world; we are not in a perfect world.
Senator Buchanan: Your last comment, that $1 billion is an expenditure over 10 years and that is what it was to be.
Ms. Cukier: I did not say that is what it was to be.
Senator Buchanan: If it is over 10 years, why is it that we were all told that it would be $2 million over 10 years? It is now $1 billion. It will be much more than that over 10 years, it really will. I have been involved in this business 35 years. I have never seen anything that was going to be $2 million go to a $1 billion, and stay at $1 billion. It will not be $1 billion; it will be more than $1 billion.
Ms. Cukier: I have confidence in the new team. The fact that we now have people who have experience with systems, with transaction processing and so on suggests that this project will get back on track. Again, I do not wish to revisit history. I am an information systems specialist, theoretically, in part of my life. I can only tell you that if you go back to 1995 and look at the assumptions on which those financial projections were based, the Department of Justice had just implemented the new firearms acquisition certificate system and computerized systems in all provinces. They knew what they had spent on that. When they approached this legislation in 1995, the original assumptions were that they were going to build out from the existing FAC system. They did all their calculations based on that.
When some of the provinces said that they would not do it and the federal government had to suddenly build a centralized system, those assumptions about fees changed, as did the assumptions about volume. We were supposed to licence 2 million or so gun owners between 1996 and 2001. Look at what that is per year. Instead, they licensed almost 2 million gun owners in one year.
You can document that stuff. It is not an excuse; it is an explanation. You have to remember the old system cost $30 million a year. When I started, 1,440 Canadians were killed every year and now that is about 1,000. It is not all the gun control law, but it has had an impact and it is a good investment.
Senator Buchanan: I know what you are saying.
However, are you saying that a considerable amount of that $1 billion occurred because provinces said they would not administer the program under their justice systems? If that is what you are saying, that is not true. The provinces that said that — and Nova Scotia is one — after the $1 billion was projected.
Ms. Cukier: I have the presentation by Michel Plouffe, who was the chief systems guy, and it was a presentation in July. They were anticipating a flawless launch in September 1996, based on the assumption that the provinces were going to implement. It was around September 1996 that it became clear that the federal government was going to have to develop a new strategy and build everything centrally.
Senator Buchanan: In Nova Scotia, the Minister of Justice, Michael Baker, announced just last spring that Nova Scotia would neither administer nor prosecute under the act.
Ms. Cukier: That is a different issue. One is prosecution; one is actually administering the licencing system. They are two very different things. A number of provinces announced in 1996 that they would no longer participate in administering the law and they had to centralize.
Senator Buchanan: I would check those figures. I do not think that is correct.
Ms. Cukier: I will send you that information in my follow-up.
Senator Buchanan: I went to public meetings throughout Nova Scotia in 1996.
Senator Baker: You were the premier; you should remember.
Senator Buchanan: I will put it this way: If I had been premier then, I would have done the same thing that the Premier of Nova Scotia and the others are doing. My position is well known.
Of the 1,400 deaths as a result of firearms, how many of those deaths are attributed to the use of so called long guns or hunting guns?
Ms. Cukier: The majority of them. The majority of those deaths are suicides. You can look at the tables in terms of the breakdown. Suicides in 1991 were slightly over 1,000 — probably 1,100. There were probably about 240 or so murders and about 60 or so accidents. Of suicides with firearms, over 80 per cent are with long guns. The only place you see suicides with handguns are in certain professions where they have access to them.
Senator Buchanan: Are you saying that if I had a long gun and I registered I would not shoot myself?
Ms. Cukier: I would not say that at all. I would say the licencing criteria established were designed to try to identify people at risk, either for injuring themselves or others. If you go back to the testimony, you have people such as Isaac Sakinofsky, the head of suicide studies at the University of Toronto, who talked specifically about what needed to be in the licensing process. The centre of suicide prevention, in Quebec, has a big program in rural Quebec aimed at trying to reduce suicide by firearms because it is a major problem.
Senator Buchanan: What do you think about all of this, Mr. Butts?
Mr. Butts: There are ways to address the issues of people wanting to take their own lives. That is often a social issue that comes from desperation. As a matter of interest, in the latest statistics the number of suicides with firearms is down, but the total number of suicides is up. If a person is determined to take his or her own life, it does not matter what method they use. If they qualified for a firearms licence and own firearms, circumstances can change. Even people with terminal illnesses who have owned firearms and hunted, if they choose to take their own life with their firearm is it at that point any different from poisoning themselves, crashing their car into a tree or whatever? The fact is that the suicide rates have remained stable.
Senator Comeau: They are just changing the methods by which they are killing themselves.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I wish to take a moment and thank Ms. Cukier and Mr. Butts for their presentations and for taking time out on such short notice to come here tonight and assist us in our deliberations.
Thank you very much.
The committee continued in camera.