Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 15 - Evidence for March 15, 2012
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 15, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act, met this day at 10:30 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator John D. Wallace (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, and welcome Senate colleagues, invited guests and members of the general public who are viewing today's proceeding on the CPAC television network. I am John Wallace, senator from New Brunswick, and I am chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
Colleagues, today we continue our consideration of Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act. This bill was introduced in the House of Commons by the Minister of Public Safety on October 25, 2011.
The summary of the bill states that it amends the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act to remove the requirement to register firearms that are neither prohibited nor restricted, which includes non-registered long guns. The bill also provides for the destruction of existing records held in the Canadian Firearms Registry under the control of firearms officers, which relate to the registration of such firearms.
As part of our legislative process, the Senate refers the study of most bills to various committees in order to allow for more detailed and thorough examination. Senate committees often invite individuals, experts, stakeholder groups, public servants and ministers of the Crown to appear before them in order to receive information relevant to the bill that is under consideration. Bill C-19 was referred to this committee by the Senate on March 8, 2012, for further examination and study.
This committee intends to hold public hearings on Bill C-19 over the next few weeks, and these hearings will be open to the public and also available live via webcast on the parl.gc.ca website. Additional information on the schedule of witnesses can be found on the parl.gc.ca website under "Senate Committees."
Before introducing our guest in just a moment, I would like to take this opportunity to have each of our committee members introduce themselves, if they would, and I will begin with Deputy Chair Fraser.
Senator Fraser: My name is Joan Fraser, and I am a senator from Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Good morning. I am Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette, from Bedford in the Eastern Townships.
Senator Chaput: Good morning. I am Senator Maria Chaput, from Manitoba.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: Mobina Jaffer, British Columbia.
Senator Lang: Senator Dan Lang, Yukon.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Good morning. I am Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais, from Quebec.
Senator Boisvenu: Hello. I am Senator Pierre-Hughes Boisvenu, from Quebec.
[English]
Senator White: Vern White, Ontario.
Senator Runciman: Bob Runciman, Ontario Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.
The Chair: Thank you, honourable senators.
This is our second meeting on Bill C-19, and today I am very pleased to welcome back before us once again someone who is no stranger at this table, the Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Ms. Sue O'Sullivan. Welcome, and I believe you have an opening statement.
[Translation]
Sue O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime: Good morning, members of the committee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today about Bill C-19, on abolishing the long-gun registry.
[English]
Bill C-19 has been hotly debated in the media, among Canadians and in Parliament for months.
By inviting me here today, you are taking an active role in engaging victims of crime on this important issue, and I thank you for that. From my perspective as Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, the question facing us today is whether or not the gun registry is a useful tool to help reduce victimization. My answer to that question is yes. The long-gun registry is an important tool in reducing victimization, and as such I do not support the proposed legislation to abolish it.
The office was created to be a voice for victims, and my commitment as federal ombudsman is to carry out the mandate of the office and ensure that, where possible, I can amplify the voice of victims and victim-serving organizations across the country. As part of this commitment, I have discussed the matter of the long-gun registry with numerous victims groups and individuals. Many of those we heard from have spoken from the heart about the devastating impact that gun violence can have.
In the end, while there was no consensus, the clear majority of those I spoke with were in favour of maintaining the long-gun registry. However, aside from general opinion, we must ask if the registry can be useful in reducing victimization and, if so, has it demonstrated effectiveness. At its core, the gun registry is a tool that helps law enforcement link a long gun to a particular individual, information that can be invaluable for both the prevention and investigation of a crime.
To illustrate this point, take the example of a woman who finds herself in an abusive situation with her partner who contacted police because she fears for her safety and her life. In these situations, police can use the registry as a first step in identifying whether there may be long guns in the home that could be used. In cases where the risk is deemed high, law enforcement can then seize and remove these, thereby reducing further chances of victimization. Without the registry, police have no way of linking the ownership of a long gun to a particular individual, which may leave the woman in greater danger.
In terms of investigation, without any requirement to register a new long gun or to register a transfer of ownership of an existing one, there is no longer a direct way for police to trace them back to any single individual.
As importantly, Bill C-19 does not include the provision to reinstate the requirement for business to keep records of sales. These factors have a very significant impact on the process of investigating long gun crimes. Without the ability to quickly and effectively trace the ownership to an individual, police are denied an important lead. Furthermore, because transfers of ownership of long guns will no longer require a registration certificate, anyone can obtain multiple weapons for the explicit purpose of supplying them to persons who are no longer permitted to purchase or obtain a long gun for themselves. In terms of reducing victimization, this is a glaring oversight.
It can be argued, however, that these points are theoretical examples. We need some proof that the registry is effective. While it is difficult to establish a causal relationship between complex factors, we know that long guns are the most common type of firearm used in spousal homicide. From 1991 to 2002, 71 per cent of spousal homicides involved rifles and shotguns. While homicide with a long gun continues to represent the largest proportion of firearm-related spousal homicides, more recent statistics show that the share of firearm-related spousal homicides involving a long gun has dropped significantly to 50 per cent.
Further significant decline can also be seen in the overall number of homicides with long guns since the introduction of stricter gun control regulations in 1991 and the introduction of the registry legislation in 1995.
As of 2010, the number of homicides involving long guns since the introduction of the Firearms Act has dropped by 41 per cent. Beyond the statistics and the numbers, there are other reasons for maintaining the long gun registry: the impact on victims of crime. As many of you know, victims advocate Priscilla de Villiers lost her daughter to gun violence in 1991. She has been vocal in public about her support for maintaining the registry. If I may quote Ms. de Villiers, she said:
The burden placed on gun owners is very limited compared with the burden that we, the victims, face if in fact weapons are used and fall into the wrong hands.
The devastation and trauma suffered as a result of losing a loved one to violent crime is overwhelming. Victims who are forced to endure this burden can suffer on a variety of levels, including emotionally, mentally, physically and financially. While the process of coping with tragedy is different for every victim, the majority of victims I have spoken with do not want what has happened to them or to their families to happen to anyone else. The long gun registry is one tool that can assist law enforcement in preventing further victimization. The registry has demonstrated effectiveness through the decline in long gun-related homicides involving a long gun that is used as a valuable tool for law enforcement.
In conclusion, Canada must do all that it can to prevent further tragedies from happening, including using the tools we have to help keep communities safe, like the long gun registry. In light of the views of many victims and victim serving agencies throughout Canada, and from our own information and research as Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, I do not support the passage and coming into force of Bill C-19.
Thank you. I am very happy to answer any questions you have.
The Chair: We will now turn to questions. I will begin with our Deputy Chair, Senator Fraser.
Senator Fraser: Good morning, Ms. O'Sullivan; welcome back. It is always good to hear from you. If memory serves, you were a police officer in a previous life.
Ms. O'Sullivan: Yes, I was.
Senator Fraser: I am assuming that what you say here this morning is based on that experience as well as on your experience now as Ombudsman for Victims.
Ms. O'Sullivan: I am here as the voice of ombudsman. I do have behind me 30 years of policing experience, but the information I am presenting here today is as ombudsman.
Senator Fraser: I appreciate that, but you would not willingly have included something that your previous experience taught you.
Ms. O'Sullivan: No, of course; absolutely.
Senator Fraser: Did you have occasion to use the gun registry? I will not go on and on with this angle, but just one question about this.
Ms. O'Sullivan: Yes, I did.
Senator Fraser: Thank you very much. Concerning the business of asking people to keep records, if my recollection is accurate, before the gun registry was established, there was a system whereby gun merchants had to keep records of who they sold specific guns to.
Ms. O'Sullivan: That requirement came, I believe, in 1977.
Senator Fraser: We would be going back to the status quo anti-35 years and more ago.
Ms. O'Sullivan: No. My understanding of the legislation before us is that they would no longer be required to keep those records.
Senator Fraser: Exactly, so we would be going back to the way it was before 1977.
Ms. O'Sullivan: That is right.
Senator Fraser: I see. As you know better than most of us, there are a number of guns that do not fall into the category of "prohibited" or "restricted", because those two categories will continue to be registered, but that are quite controversial. That is the classic example, which I mentioned yesterday. I will mention it again today, namely, the gun that was used in the École Polytechnique shooting. There are also sharpshooter guns, apparently — some that can penetrate an armoured vehicle two kilometres away. However, they are neither restricted nor prohibited. As the law now stands, they do have to be registered, but in future they will not have to be registered.
Ms. O'Sullivan: That is my understanding.
Senator Fraser: Would it be your recommendation that the RCMP revise classification so that guns of that nature should be registered?
Ms. O'Sullivan: I will revert to the position of our office, which is that we are not supporting this legislation. We think all guns should continue to be registered.
Senator Fraser: As a fall-back position, what if we do not get that?
Ms. O'Sullivan: Again, I want to be clear: Our position is that the registry remains and the data remain. I would encourage this committee to look at any amendments that may have been put forth by other agencies such as the Canadian Association of the Chiefs of Police or the gun coalition. Our position is to retain the registry, yes.
Senator Lang: I want to welcome our guest here today. You definitely have taken a position — there is no two ways about that.
I would like to explore a bit of what you have just stated here about speaking to victims' groups across the country. There seems to be a lot of misinformation or misunderstanding exactly what will stay in place and what is being done as far as the legislation is concerned. As you know, the licensing requirement will stay in place, which makes it an obligation on behalf of a long gun owner to take a course and also have a police check and a renewable licence. Every five years, you have to renew, and you go through that check again when you do renew your licence.
When you are speaking with these victims' groups — and that is a concern of all of us — are you clearly explaining what the legislation does versus what is staying in place? There is a lot of misinformation out there about just exactly what this bill does. Do you clearly explain those provisions for licensing that are staying in place, for example, that the police check is staying in place? Do you explain all those stipulations at the outset to ensure that that individual who is applying for a long gun licence meets those obligations? Are you clearly outlining that to them when you explain this?
Ms. O'Sullivan: I can share with you that even as recently this week I was speaking with a victim, who, I want to assure you, quite clearly understands the implication of Bill C-19 and the difference between "licensing" and "registration." They are concerned that not only is this legislation for long guns not going to have registration anymore, but the fact that you are eliminating even the requirement for gun dealers to record the weapon.
In actual fact, I can tell you that the people I am speaking with are quite clear and understand what is being eliminated here and have expressed serious concerns, in particular, about losing the ability to even have those records for the purposes of investigation and prevention. At the end of the day, I feel comfortable to say that the victims' and the victim service agencies that I have talked to do understand this legislation and continue to express their concerns, particularly with those two issues, namely, lack of registration and the voluntariness of a person who is selling a weapon to another person. They may check to see if the seller has a valid licence, but it is not mandatory to do so. Serious concerns have been expressed about that.
Senator Lang: To clarify, if you sell your long gun rifle to another individual, they have to have a licence. It is your obligation as the seller to satisfy yourself that they do have a legitimate licence. There are certain responsibilities tied to that, if it is found out down the road that that is not the case. That was given in evidence yesterday and was clearly stated. That is for the record. This is the problem with this legislation. I do not say this unkindly, but in so many cases a half truth becomes a truth because only part of the information is given so that one does not fully understand the implications of what we are dealing with.
I want to just go further on this. When you are speaking to your victims' groups, have you clearly outlined the fact that the registry that we speak of, which would be eliminated with the advent of the passage of this bill, is poorly done as far as a registry is concerned? In fact, the flaws in it are so bad that the law enforcement agencies — and you can talk about the police chiefs, but let us get to the front line officers — and a great number of officers do not believe in the registry because they do not believe the information that they are getting has been registered properly. Therefore, what you have is a registry — that is, a computer full of names and numbers that are not necessarily true. Why would we have a registry that is so badly flawed?
Ms. O'Sullivan: I have heard many different opinions on the status of the registry. I defer to the expertise of the Canadian Association of the Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association. I believe their positions are quite clear on this. I have to rely on the information from the two national associations.
When I have dialogue with the victims and the victim-serving agencies, they have informed themselves. As a matter of fact, many people have been working for many years on the issues around this piece of legislation. My job is to amplify their voice at this table. I can tell you that the victims and the victim-serving agencies, I feel comfortable, have looked extensively at this legislation and are very clear on their positions in terms of the issues and concerns they have with abolishing the gun registry.
Senator Lang: To conclude very quickly, I think it is really important that we recognize that the licensing requirements are still there because that is the important aspect from the beginning of someone owning a long gun rifle, or is it they have to go through that procedure and that police check to ensure there is not a background in there that says they should not have a rifle. From the outset, it is very important for people to realize that is staying in place.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: If I may, I would like to read you a letter from a mother who lost her daughter at the École Polytechnique, and then I would like it if you could tell me if it reflects the general feeling of the people you represent.
In talking about her daughter, Anne-Marie Edward, and her suffering following the loss of her daughter, she tells us that the suffering that results from this kind of loss is beyond anything a person can imagine. She says that she could tell you that, with Bill C-19, the loss of her faith in the government's willingness to protect our communities could be as immeasurable as the suffering and pain she has felt since she lost her daughter.
Is that the general feeling that you are finding with the people you are dealing with?
[English]
Ms. O'Sullivan: For victims I have spoken to who have lost their loved ones to gun violence, I always incorporate this in my testimony because I hear from every victim I talk to that they want to see the change happen as a result of their loss, and very much this registry was created to address making it safer and providing another tool for police and investigators.
The best way I can put this, if you asked me questions as a former police officer, when you are responding to a call, you want to have the best training and information possible in order to address the situation you are going to be approaching. To have the information the gun registry can provide to you is the best information possible to be able to respond to that, whatever instance or call you are facing.
The comments that mother has made are very reflective, and I included a quote from Ms. De Villiers which highlights the fact that comparing the loss of a loved one due to gun violence to having to register a weapon, really there is no comparison.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Earlier, there was discussion of a third party purchasing guns, someone who has a licence to possess several guns and who would sell them to people who apparently would not have a licence.
Do you think this much-touted licence is generally issued the same way across Canada? Do all the provinces administer gun licences the same way? Who checks the content of the information from the person who obtains a firearm? Under what conditions can a person possess a firearm? And how long is the licence valid for? Is it for the rest of the person's life, regardless of the vagaries of that person's life, including marital and mental health problems? Are there ways of revoking that person's licence?
[English]
Ms. O'Sullivan: You are asking me a question that is really in the purview of a better witness than me in terms of the expertise at a national level in terms of provincial and territorial responsibilities. I can speak to what victims are looking for in terms of the preventive side so that if in fact there is someone who does have some issues either with mental health or violent behaviour or who has been threatening, this tool of the gun registry will allow people to take more preventative action. If I look at some of the data between 2008 and 2011, over 4,600 firearms were seized as a preventative measure proactively because of public safety. That tool certainly would assist you in some of those preventative matters.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I was the owner of a firm of psychologists when the incident happened at Concordia. Mr. Fabrikant had a gun, perhaps several, I do not know, but his wife and the university could have taken his guns away. Everyone knew that having a registry would not have prevented this tragedy, but the question remains as to what the better system is.
In your opinion, what recourse would a woman in a difficult spousal situation have to ensure that her spouse could no longer have a gun? How could someone intervene in that kind of situation? Is it simply a matter of calling 911 to ask that someone come and get the husband's gun when the wife has already been terrorized at home? What will the procedure be from now on? It seems that the safety mechanism for women who are victims of violence is practically non-existent since we could not even know where the gun came from.
[English]
Ms. O'Sullivan: It would be difficult to answer a question based on, in many cases, unique situations, but our position has been fairly open that this is a tool in a tool box that will help and we feel will continue to help reduce victimization, particularly when looking at the data around gun death and particularly in spousal homicides and looking at the decrease since we started in Canada to put in place some fairly restrictive legislation around gun ownership.
Obviously our position is we need to keep everything we can in this country that will help reduce victimization and will help keep women from danger. We need to have every tool in the toolbox we can to ensure that we can reduce the harm or the danger to women or people who are in these kinds of situations.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I do not think you understood my question. What recourse will the threatened spouse have once Bill C-19 is adopted?
Yesterday, we were told that it was not the weapons that were dangerous, but just the individuals. What will a woman do when she goes to bed at night to make sure that her spouse does not pick up a gun?
It is more difficult to kill someone with a gun than with a knife. It is quicker and makes less of a mess. It is cynical to talk that way, but it remains that using a knife to attack someone is more complicated than picking up a gun and being further away to kill a person. So, what recourse does this woman have?
[English]
Ms. O'Sullivan: When you are looking at violence in society and in communities, if you want healthy and safe communities, it is a multi-faceted answer obviously. It will be everything from prevention to early intervention to enforcement to education to all of that. It will require a lot of different resources in the community to come together if you want healthy and safe communities. If there is a woman right now who is in a situation, they need to contact their police service and develop safety planning. They need to be working together. Those are the kind of things.
To answer your question specifically, if there is any woman who is in danger right now, we would tell them to reach out to their police service or to start to look at safety planning and what could be put in place. Every situation is unique, every set of facts and circumstances when you have someone who is potentially in a dangerous situation, so you need to get the best information and supports in place to ensure your safety.
When you say without Bill C-19, that is one less tool in the toolbox. Prevention and investigation are the two issues if we do not have Bill C-19. If a tragedy happens, how will the police trace back who owned that gun because there are no records? What about in terms of having to do the investigation? If someone has a prohibition order and if they know that this person has nine registered to them, at least they know they are looking for nine weapons, potentially, plus one, always looking for more; but at least they will have some information. I will revert back to say that you want the best information possible when trying to protect people and keep your community safe, and the gun registry provides a tool to do that.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Good morning, Ms. O'Sullivan. I obviously have a lot of respect for the work you are doing.
The statistics have long shown that the numbers do not clearly indicate that the number of victims would have increased or decreased because of the registry. For example, we are speculating on suicides, awareness campaigns, and all of that. You know, it is not all police officers who find the registry is effective. When they receive a complaint of spousal violence and arrive on the premises, there are a number of ways of determining if there are weapons present. Clearly, far too many police officers have been killed since the registry was created, unfortunately. There have been some in Laval, in Montreal, in Mayerthorpe. This is not necessarily the best protection for police officers in carrying out their duties.
I fully understand the approach of the victims you represent. However, do you sincerely believe that the people who have killed with a gun, registered or not, could not have obtained another? I would like to hear what you have to say about that.
[English]
Ms. O'Sullivan: Yes, if people are determined. However, with the registry, if Bill C-19 comes into effect — where you say that a person is selling their gun to another person — my understanding is it is voluntary as to whether or not they check if this person is licensed, that they must be satisfied, and whether or not they check. You will increase that opportunity for people who want weapons, potentially for the wrong reasons, to be able to access them. With the registry, at least those formal processes are in place to verify that. That would be one thing.
I realize you have a past background as well. We both know you can get guns illegally, but at some point most guns that come in start as legal weapons. You are now going to take away the fact that you will not keep records when a legitimate person buys a weapon, and then sells it to someone who you think is licensed; the licence is proper, or maybe you have not checked, or maybe you felt you were satisfied, but in fact that person does not. I know examples have been presented to this committee on that, but at the end of the day we are looking at a tool in the toolbox to do everything we can to minimize the opportunity for people to obtain weapons. I think not having that registry will increase the opportunity.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you again for appearing in front of us. It seems like you were here a few days ago.
Having just dealt with Bill C-10, for which the mantra was safe streets and safe communities, to have to deal with Bill C-19 is such a contradiction. In Bill C-10, we talked about safe streets and communities. Now people like me are concerned whether the streets will be safe, certainly where I come from in Vancouver. In Bill C-10 we heard from many victims about the pain they had and we will still be creating the same victims here.
You have continuously talked about one more tool in the toolbox. We had lots of police come for Bill C-10, who continuously said, "Yes, we need this tool in Bill C-10." You spoke about it, because it helps to keep our cities and streets safe. The police access this 16,000 times a day.
How will we replace it? What are the victims going to be able to find? One tool is being taken away from the toolbox. That is the challenge.
I know that your department has done some research on this. Can you tell us what you have found in your research?
Ms. O'Sullivan: We looked at the homicide data particularly, as many witnesses before you have. You commented, Senator Fraser, on the fact that in 1977 — if you go back that far — there was a requirement to keep records for people selling weapons, then the introduction in 1991 and the change in legislation there, and then in 1995 for the registry. We know that the number one weapon used in spousal homicides is long gun rifles. We look at the decline in terms of the number. For example, the changes in 2010: The number of homicides involving long guns since 1991 is 65 per cent. As of 2010, the number of homicides involving long guns since the Firearms Act came in effect in 1995 is 41 per cent. That is a significant amount.
I certainly respect the comments of Senator Dagenais, both of us having been in policing, that at the end of the day — and I have heard this comment many times — you will always enter every call you have with a certain mindset. However, you want to go to every call with the best information possible upon which to make decisions and determine your actions. The registry provides you with that extra information that can make a difference, both in terms of prevention and investigations afterward. As a police service, how will you investigate a weapon or a long gun used in a homicide? Without a registry or data to be able to trace back where that gun came from, you will have some significant challenges in terms of investigation. I would argue if people want to raise cost, there is significantly higher cost in the investigation.
Senator Jaffer: The police I work with in Vancouver always tell me one of the calls they most fear is to go into the house, because they do not know what they will face. Sometimes the most dangerous situations are going into a home where there is spousal abuse or the situation is tense. As a police officer, you can certainly relate to this. Once again the concern is that tool will be taken away from the police officer and victims will be —
Ms. O'Sullivan: That is exactly what victims are concerned about, yes.
Senator Runciman: Thank you for being here. Even police officers have differing opinions on this. I have two daughters and one supports the registry and the other thinks it is a total waste of money.
I certainly appreciate the views of victims' organizations in wanting to see something done as a result of their tragic loss. I think the key is seeing something done that is effective. Back in my early days, I think the position of people who opposed this initiative from the outset was looking at it as not effective, and certainly not as effective in terms of utilizing those resources. They ended up being I think over $2 billion, versus the original estimate of $2 million. If they had been put into front-line policing, as an example, they could have had a direct and very tangible benefit in terms of public safety.
There has been some exaggeration on both sides of this issue, I am sure, but I know we have heard a number of times about the access to the registry 14,000, 15,000 times a day. You would have to confirm that the bulk of that access would be incidental access. It is access to CPIC and not a direct request in terms of gleaning information from the registry. I think that is an exaggeration of the important role that the registry might play. Would you comment on that?
Ms. O'Sullivan: That is data provided by the police community, so that is their data. At the end of the day, you are running a person; I want to know if there are prohibitions on them or if they are being prohibited from having weapons. I think that is an important piece because it tells you something about the actions you may or may not take or you may put in place.
As far as the data, I confirm that is up to where that data originated from, which is the policing community. That would not be my purview to answer that. That is their data and they should speak to its validity and issues around that.
Senator Runciman: You used it in your submission to the house committee.
When you cite statistics, I think there should be some recognition of the statistics and facts available through Statistics Canada with respect to this issue. It shows that the sharpest drop in spousal homicides involving long guns occurred in the 1990 to 1995 period. That is prior to the introduction of the gun registry. Likewise, the overall number of homicides with long guns declined from 131 in 1989 to 66 in 1994. That is more than 50 per cent in the five years prior to the registry's introduction.
My point is that you are citing the more than 50 per cent prior to the introduction. It goes right back to the basic issue that I raised with you: the effectiveness of this. As a supporter of Bill C-19 and as someone who has always been critical of the effects of the registry, I think those statistics raise serious questions about the position you have put forward.
Ms. O'Sullivan: In actual fact, 1977 is when the Firearms Acquisition Certificate came in. If you are looking at the timeline around firearms legislation, it was in 1977 that the FAC and a lot more requirements came into play. We are probably using the same data, in terms of looking at it since 1991, so I would see 1977 as regulations coming in around the Firearms Acquisition Certificate. In 1991, there were the Criminal Code amendments on the regulatory powers, and then the registry was 1995. We might be saying the same thing, that we have seen a steady decline since this country started to implement more restrictions around firearm legislation.
Senator Runciman: That supports the position I am putting forward. The issue is that the legislation and the initiatives that were brought into effect prior to the registry were having that impact. You have suggested that the impact is because of the registry, but I am saying those impacts were already occurring prior to the implementation of the registry.
Senator Baker: I find the statistics around long guns to be very confusing, and one is not able to rely on them at all. That is my experience. It is unfortunate that the minister did not have officials with him when he came before the committee because some of these questions that we are now addressing could have probably been answered with some expertise from the Department of Justice or the Office of the Attorney General. The reason I say long guns is because you can have a 12 gauge as a long gun, but if you do not have a plug in your magazine or if you are able to load more than three, it becomes a restricted weapon. It is just like a semi-automatic versus a totally automatic. You have a .22. Yes, it is a long gun, but it is a restricted weapon, depending on how many bullets you can put in the chamber and in what speed and succession you can do it.
I am interested in one answer you gave. When police are investigating who owns an automobile, they trace back one of two ways. They trace the serial number through Revenue Canada, in their sales, and there is an exchange program between Revenue Canada and the police. They can get information right away.
When you sell a car, you write down the serial number of the car. When someone sells a gun, the practice now, without this bill, is that the person must first see an acquisition certificate, the one with the picture on it. Senator Lang has one there. Yes, I have one; that is true. I did not want to diminish the impact of my question.
That has to be checked out first before you buy the gun. Then the gun is taken down from the shelf. What is the first thing that the person selling the gun does? He writes down the serial number. What for? He is required to under the Income Tax Act. He has to charge taxes on that. That goes in at the end of the week and the end of the month into the tax department, with his sales. He cannot just say, "Revenue Canada, I sold one gun on such-and-such a date."
Listening to your testimony, what you said was that you have gleaned from your information, from people you have spoken to, that there is no longer a requirement to submit the serial number of a gun when someone sells the gun. How can you make that statement, unless there has been a change in the Income Tax Act?
Ms. O'Sullivan: We are talking about Bill C-19. Bill C-19 says that if you own a weapon legally and are selling that weapon to another person, that you —
Senator Baker: You are a gun dealer. You are Walmart.
Ms. O'Sullivan: Okay. There is no requirement for you to keep a record, as there was since 1977 and then it was incorporated. They eliminated that in 1995, with the registry, because the registry would do that.
Senator Baker: They do not have to keep it for the registry, but they have to keep it for every other purpose.
Ms. O'Sullivan: It is availability to the police in terms of investigative purposes. You are then relying on them —
Senator Baker: Through Revenue Canada.
Ms. O'Sullivan: You still have to have the ability to get that data. Usually, it is in one of two ways, either by consent or by checking. When you are investigating a criminal act, you would be able to go back to people who sell guns and ask, if that still was allowed, to be able to check those records and at least have something to search in terms of your investigation.
Senator Baker: The serial number.
Ms. O'Sullivan: That is not something you could ask the policing communities in terms of dealing with Revenue Canada, but normally, right now, if you want to run a serial number, you can run it and find out who that gun is registered to and all that information. Why would you want to take that away?
Senator Baker: I am not saying that. I am just trying to get it straight. You said that there would be no record kept of the sale of that gun to that individual, and I am wondering how that is possible.
Ms. O'Sullivan: I cannot speak on behalf of all people who sell guns, as to whether or not they submit information to Revenue Canada and document officially.
Senator Baker: Or keep a record of a serial number.
Ms. O'Sullivan: I am sure you have had witnesses speak on behalf of gun owners. I cannot tell you what their compliance is.
Senator Baker: Unfortunately we did not have the department here.
Ms. O'Sullivan: From a victim's point of view, in terms of the ability to search for who owns the weapon, whether there are any prohibitions, and how many weapons they own, why would you not want to have that information in terms of a police investigation?
Senator Fraser: I have my doubts, but I do not know about whether Revenue Canada would, in fact, keep computer records of every single registration — every single serial number of every gun sold — for any length of time.
An Hon. Senator: GST.
Senator Fraser: They might keep samples of them, but I doubt there would be a whole lot. However, I do not know, and I doubt that anyone around this table knows. Could I ask you to write to Revenue Canada and inquire about that, in the hopes that they would get back to us quite quickly?
The Chair: We can certainly do that. This does not perhaps answer your question directly, but a number of us would know that the income tax department does require records to be kept for a minimum of seven years. Certainly, that applies to stores and individuals and businesses. How does that relate to how long they retain their records? I think that is the question you have.
Senator Fraser: At what level of detail and for how long? It is one thing to say that a given store's general income tax returns or GST or whatever should be retained, but to what level of detail are those records kept, and what is required for the police to have access to those records if they are kept?
The Chair: I would be pleased to do that, senator.
Senator Lang: That was my point, Mr. Chair, that the store has to keep records for a period of time. It is not strictly Revenue Canada.
The Chair: I think we have covered that. Senator Baker, you are fine with your question?
Senator Baker: That is fine, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the permission to go on asking that question.
The Chair: I would never refuse you, or hardly ever.
Senator Baker: You were waiting for the question.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I would like to continue along the same lines as my colleague Senator Runciman. The long-gun registry debate is a very emotional one because it refers to very tragic periods in history. I want to try to be as objective as possible. You know that the long-gun registry was started in 1992 and 1993. It took a long time to implement, but it was done in 2003. In 2001, it was the possession licences, in 2003, mandatory registration. Implementing this bill has taken a very long time, which is no doubt the reason why it has cost billions of dollars. You are a career police officer, I believe.
[English]
Ms. O'Sullivan: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: It is obvious that you have worked with the statistics for a number of years because police officers work with them a lot to prove their effectiveness. You said earlier that, since the long-gun registry, in 1995, there has been a decrease in criminal activity. As a police officer, if you wanted to prove that a prevention tool is effective, you would have to analyze the period when the tool was put in place compared with a period when it was not being used.
So, we are comparing the data based on this: with this tool, has the decrease been quicker than before it existed?
According to the statistics — a report done by Kathryn Wilkins from Statistics Canada — on gun-related deaths, so suicides and homicides, for the period from 1979 to 1994, therefore before a measurement of the registry was in place, the rate of suicides and homicides went from six per 100,000 inhabitants to four per 100,000 inhabitants. So it decreased by two per 100,000 inhabitants. The registry was put in place in 1995, and until 2004, the rate had decreased by 1.4.
So, as an analyst, can I say that before we had the registry, there was a stronger decrease in deaths? The rate decreased by two per 100,000 inhabitants, and once we put the registry in place, it dropped by 1.4. How do you explain that?
[English]
Ms. O'Sullivan: The data from the homicide survey, is that homicide survey all homicides or homicides by long gun?
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: All homicides with a gun, including suicides. All gun-related deaths in Canada. If we look at the number of deaths, in 1979, there were six deaths per 100,000 inhabitants. In 1995, the rate was four deaths. So, it dropped by two per 100,000 inhabitants. The registry came into use in 1995, and in 2004, the rate went from four to 3.6. It dropped only by 1.4 during that period. What I can say, as an analyst, is that things were more effective before than after, in terms of gun-related deaths.
[English]
Ms. O'Sullivan: The data you are looking at looks at all firearms, and the data I used today in front of this committee is specific to long gun only. There is a difference in the data in terms of comparisons. The other message is I use two dates, 1991 and 1995. I think Senator Runciman took the data even further back, so when you look at the history of regulation around firearms in this country, it actually does date back to 1977. I talked about, in my opening comments here, the fact that when you look at long gun there has been a decrease in the number of homicides. Obviously, you have data on homicide and firearms in general in terms of decrease.
Then you would also use comparators. When you are looking at trend information, you also want to look, as you have done in your case, at least a 10-year period in terms of looking at trends. When you look at the data, again mine is specific to long gun; that is specific to all firearms. There is some variability there. At the end of the day here, in terms of what we are looking at with Bill C-19, right now we have information that will help, we feel, reduce because it will allow us to do more with prohibition orders, more with preventative measures, more with assisting police in investigations following a tragedy and the use of a long gun. We are saying we need to keep that tool; we need to keep that ability to help in reductions.
I know many witnesses before you have talked about how you quantify prevention. How do you talk about what it would have been? This is not long gun specific but rather is firearm data, the same as some of what you have looked at, but between 2008 and 2011, for public safety, over 4,600 firearms were seized. Who knows what that prevented. You are absolutely right; sometimes when you look at data it is hard to quantify some preventative issues.
A lot of the information about being able to seize that, if someone threatens someone, if you query and know they have firearms, that will up your concern and response. How do you quantify some of that? I know many more people have testified in front of you in terms of expertise from StatsCan and whatever, but at the end of the day, we have seen a reduction since Canada started to implement restrictive measures around firearms. We have seen a reduction in homicides. I have given the data — I will not go over it — in terms of long gun specifically.
At the end of the day, why would you get rid of an ability to query who has guns, where they have been, who owns them and tracking them?
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: According to the statistics on criminal activity with handguns, in 1995, there were 95 homicides. There were 112 in 2004, and the number is growing. Is the real challenge of police officers better control of handguns and illegal weapons, not hunting weapons?
[English]
Ms. O'Sullivan: All guns.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: My question deals with another aspect in Bill C-19, not necessarily the registry. It is about abolishing the obligation of the seller to obtain validation of the buyer's licence before the sale. As you know, the seller was previously under that obligation. Now, Bill C-19 no longer requires the seller to obtain validation of the buyer's licence before selling the gun. What do you think?
[English]
Ms. O'Sullivan: I think that will increase the opportunities for people who should not have guns, people who do not have licences or valid licences or have prohibitions to access them. I think that will increase the danger to people, particularly in domestic situations, or increase the danger potentially to people because there will not be those same safeguards in place.
Senator White: I want to thank you very much for being here, first, and I do understand your comments. In particular, I appreciate your comments in relation to the firearms acquisition certificate process, more recently over the past decade, plus possession and possession in acquisition licensing process.
I want to make sure you understand that the process and requirements on the individual around their ability to actually have the authority to have a firearm regardless would not change, that in fact the possession and acquisition licensing, the requirements, and we know they are strict requirements in Canada, more strict than probably anywhere else in the world when it comes to an open process, would not change. The same requirements, the background checks, the release of information regarding former spouses and girlfriends, and I think someone said a number of things yesterday, Senator Baker, would not change. Those are requirements on the individual.
Not to suggest you would agree or disagree, but the important factor when it comes to the safety of Canadians is that we understand the individual and we understand what threat or risk they might present and that in fact those requirements would still be in place, not whether or not you have a 410 Mossberg or a 410 Remington but in fact the individual. You understand that would still be involved?
Ms. O'Sullivan: The licensing piece, yes, I do.
Senator White: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: It has been said many times that you were a police officer. I just want to come back to family crimes because there was some discussion about it earlier. Would you agree that, when we look at the profile of murderers before they commit their crime, they did not exhibit obvious character traits that would have made it possible to deny them a licence for a long gun?
[English]
Ms. O'Sullivan: If I understand your question, Senator Dagenais, you are asking me if there are people who have received firearm licences who have no previous history or documented history of having been involved in any criminal activity or any other issues?
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Exactly. Often in situations of spousal violence, the person who obtained a licence to acquire a long gun did not exhibit any character traits that would make it possible to deny that person a licence. You know as well as I do, in family tragedies, everything is going well and, then, six months later, things are not going so well anymore. But the person could have been a hunter and would be fully permitted to obtain a licence to acquire a long gun. Six months later, because of a deteriorating family situation, the violence is available and, so, he will commit the crime. Before that, we could not have predicted it and anyone could have had a licence because he did not exhibit any obvious character traits. I would like to know what you think.
[English]
Ms. O'Sullivan: Oh, are there people who commit homicide who have no indicators? That is the whole nature of domestic violence, the hidden crime. At the very least, if we had the registry, if there are threats made or some behaviour that does come up, then we know they have weapons. Emergency protection orders can be put in place. That information would be available to assist in and hopefully reduce the potential for danger for that person.
Second, when there is an incident, it affects the ability of police to investigate that. Those are two issues we have to keep in mind when looking at these. Are there people who get licences who have no previous indicators? I will go through, as Senator White has indicated, an extensive process, yes.
The Chair: Colleagues, our next panel is scheduled for 11:30 and one of the members of that panel will be by video conference. It will take us a couple of moments to set up for that, so we will have to end our time with Ms. O'Sullivan. As always, thank you very much. It is always helpful.
Colleagues, we will now continue with our consideration of Bill C-19, which, as you know, is An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act. As I said earlier, as you are well aware, the effect of the bill would be to amend both the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act to remove the requirement to register firearms that are neither prohibited nor restricted, which would include non-registered long guns. The bill also provides for the destruction of existing records held in the Canadian Firearms Registry that would be under the control of firearms officers and that relate to the registration of such firearms.
Colleagues, for our second panel today, I am pleased to welcome Mr. Solomon Friedman. Mr. Friedman is a criminal defence lawyer practising with the Ottawa law firm Edelson Clifford D'Angelo Barristers LLP. Aside from his comprehensive criminal law practice, Mr. Friedman focuses on firearms law. Welcome, Mr. Friedman.
We are also pleased to have Ms. Wendy Cukier joining us by video conference. She is President of the Coalition for Gun Control and a professor of Information Technology Management at Ryerson University.
Welcome, professor; we are very pleased to have you with us today as well.
Solomon Friedman, Lawyer, as an individual: Good morning, honourable senators. My name is Solomon Friedman. I am a criminal defence lawyer in private practice in Ottawa. In the course of my practice, I regularly represent gun owners in all levels of court in Ontario. It is fair to say that I have a prime vantage point to observe the effect and ineffectiveness of both the gun registry and the broader gun control scheme.
I will begin today by venturing somewhat farther afield than simply addressing the long-gun registry and Bill C-19. By doing so, I hope to explain to you why the gun registry, in particular, has so rankled law-abiding gun owners and ordinary Canadians equally.
Why have MPs been inundated with correspondence from their constituents on this bill? Why was the issue of the long-gun registry one upon which the current government campaigned, front and centre, and, in part, responsible for propelling them to majority status? It is essential that you understand why the issue of finally abolishing the gun registry has galvanized the Canadian public, both gun owners and non-gun owners alike. This question is particularly compounded when one examines the gun registry in light of the history of Canada's criminal gun control scheme.
Throughout the 1990s, countless firearms were arbitrarily reclassified as prohibited and, in some cases, confiscated from law-abiding citizens. In almost every case, they were classified based not on function but on aesthetic appearance alone. If they were deemed to look scary or were made from black plastic instead of wood, they were declared prohibited. Mere possession of these firearms became a criminal offense, punished, in some cases, by a mandatory three-year sentence of imprisonment. This seemed illogical and unnecessary, yet it was passed into law. "All in the name of public safety. . .", Canadians were told.
When section 102 of the Firearms Act was enacted, granting firearms officers the right to inspect the homes of law- abiding gun owners without warrant or suspicion of an offense, many questioned this seeming violation of privacy and fundamental rights. However, Parliament passed it into law. "If it saves one life. . .", Canadians were told.
Instead of legislating meaningful crime-control measures, Parliament engaged in crime-control theatre. In so doing, they sacrificed true public safety for the appearance of public safety. In the wake of tragedy and public outcry, Parliament retreated to the refuge of lazy legislators. Instead of addressing the core causes of crime — poverty, mental illness, and addiction — Parliament saddled law-abiding gun owners with the Firearms Act, a set of convoluted and complex provisions carrying criminal law penalties. Gun control in Canada has been nothing more than a public policy pacifier, a distraction from actual crime prevention and public safety.
Unfortunately, the proponents of the Canadian gun control scheme couch their arguments in platitudes and emotional hysterics, not in facts or empirical evidence. They turn to isolated incidents and extreme anecdotes as support for their views.
You should find it telling that supporters of the gun registry rarely mention the findings of Auditor General Sheila Fraser regarding the state of gun control in Canada. In 2006, she wrote that there was no demonstration of how this legislation "helps minimize risks to public safety with evidence-based outcomes, such as reduced deaths, injuries, and threats from firearms."
Nor has mention been made of the recent peer-reviewed study out of McMaster University, published in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, which conclusively demonstrated that "Canadian firearms legislation has had no significant, beneficial association in regard to firearm homicide and spousal homicide by firearm."
They say that when all you have is a hammer, everything looks likes a nail. For the past 40 years, the only tool Parliament has used to regulate law-abiding citizens and their use of firearms is the sledgehammer of the criminal law power. In passing those unnecessary and harsh provisions, members of your chamber, the reputed home of "sober second thought," succumbed to an appeal to emotion, abandoned common sense, and, ultimately, failed Canadians.
You see, the long-gun registry is hardly the most offensive or illogical provision of the Firearms Act. It is simply the straw that broke the camel's back, the tipping point. Canadians finally stood up to the criminalization of law-abiding gun owners and the use of the criminal law to regulate the innocent activities of ordinary citizens. I would therefore urge you to pass Bill C-19 swiftly and without amendment, not as a final measure but as the first step to restoring the faith of law-abiding citizens in the good sense and good judgment of their honourable parliamentarians.
The Chair: Thank you for that, Mr. Friedman.
Wendy Cukier, President, Coalition for Gun Control: Thank you very much. I appreciate the committee's invitation and the fact that you have accommodated my schedule via video conference.
I, of course, have a rather different perspective on this issue, and we are appealing to the Senate to exercise its "sober second thought" and to rely on the evidence.
The Coalition for Gun Control is a non-profit organization founded more than 20 years ago. Its position on firearms and the firearms legislation is supported by the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Public Health Association, the Canadian Association for Emergency Physicians, the Canadian Criminal Justice Association, and, indeed, most of the public safety organizations in this country, which, I think, pride themselves on evidence-based policy development.
Our brief has been submitted, and it includes a complete list.
These groups regard Canada's Firearms Act, as it is currently written, as an important piece of our national strategy to prevent gun death and injury and to support law enforcement. Contrary to the previous speaker's claims, there is a fairly large body of empirical research and refereed journal publications that reinforce its value. Some of this has been recognized internationally. Canada has, in fact, been lauded for its firearms legislation by, for example, the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights from the United Nations.
I am sorry that you probably will not have time to hear from all public safety experts, but we can certainly ensure that you are in receipt of their briefs. They maintain that some of the provisions in Bill C-19 will put Canadian lives at risk by changing the rules related to non-restricted firearms. Many powerful, semi-automatic firearms are currently classified as non-restricted firearms, including the Ruger Mini-14, which was used at Polytéchnique, as well as a series of sniper rifles, including some .50 calibre variants.
While it is true that the characteristics of firearms vary in terms of their lethality, I think sometimes the rhetoric around so-called "duck guns" conceals the fact that most Canadians killed with guns, in any given year, are actually killed with unrestricted rifles and shotguns, particularly in domestic violence, suicide and unintentional injuries.
Most police officers who have been killed in Canada in recent years have been killed with non-restricted firearms, such as those which will be affected by this legislation.
In major cities as well as in smaller communities, non-restricted firearms also account for substantial proportion of the firearms recovered in crime. In Toronto and Montreal it is about third, but in communities like York Region there are two rifles and shotguns recovered for every handgun.
The provisions in Bill C-19 which change the rules around licensing are of particular concern. This is quite complex legislation which, on the surface, was intended to eliminate the registration of rifles and shotguns, but in practice will go much further. Bill C-19 removes the requirement that licences be verified when someone purchases a long gun. This will actually undermine the licensing provisions in the legislation. The Supreme Court said very clearly that the registration and licensing provisions go hand in hand, so the removal of registration undermines licensing in general. However, this provision in particular will have a harmful effect on the safety of Canadians.
Bill C-19 also removes the requirement that businesses keep a record of sales. This was a provision introduced in 1977 with the Firearms Acquisition Certificate process, where dealers in firearms were essentially required to keep a ledger of firearms sales. While it was not as efficient as the computerized and centralized registration system, it did allow some tracking and tracing of firearms. With Bill C-68 these provisions were eliminated because the registration of firearms was seen to supplant the need for records being kept in gun dealers. However, by not reinstating these provisions, in effect Bill C-19 does not roll back the clock to 1995, but to 1976. I do not think that was an intended consequence, but it is a consequence of what will happen if you pass this legislation.
Police say information is the lifeblood of policing. One of the most concerning provisions in this legislation is the requirement that the data on 7.1 million long guns — which has been collected at considerable expense to federal and provincial authorities, as well as the Canadian public — will be destroyed in spite of the fact that a number of our international obligations require maintenance of these records. This information has provided a valuable tool in helping to prosecute criminals and in fact, approximately more than 3,000 affidavits have been filed every year based on this data. While some will say the registry data is not up to date and will not be complete as registration is being eliminated, the fact is that our current fingerprint and DNA databases are also not complete. Yet, they provide useful investigative tools.
There have been many documented cases, and certainly in their testimony in the past the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has relayed many of these instances, and they are documented in our briefs. One of the instances, of course, was the murder of four police officers in Mayerthorpe, Alberta, where the fact that the long gun was left on the scene was part of the evidentiary trail that allowed for the conviction of the accessories to that offence.
Bill C-19 will remove the ability to raise flags in suspicious situations. In the past, staff at the registry has documented a number of occasions when, during the process of purchasing a firearm, flags were raised and individuals were identified who, for example, were prohibited from owning firearms. It will also destroy a tool that is used by the police on a daily basis, and it will undermine the government's own stated commitments to crime prevention and particularly to suicide prevention.
The link between licensing firearm owners and registration of firearms is not well understood, but essentially the registration process ensures that licensed firearm owners will be accountable for their firearms, and reduces the risk that legal guns will be diverted to illegal sources. While no law can prevent every tragedy, the data on firearms death and injury in Canada is quite compelling. We have seen significant declines in the number and rate of women murdered with firearms since this legislation was introduced. In total, the number of Canadians killed with guns in homicides, suicides and unintentional injury has fallen from over 1,100 to under 800 per year. There is a difference of almost 400 deaths per year, even though the population has increased. While no piece of legislation is a panacea, there are many public safety groups across this country that have maintained, based on evidence, that the registry has improved the quality of life, the safety of Canadians, and assisted the police in doing their job. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Cukier.
We will proceed to questions. Before we do, I want to say something. I sense that, creeping into our discussions here, when some of our committee members are asking questions or making comments, there are other comments coming from other senators around the table. I would ask you not to do that please. Everyone will have their opportunity, but the floor belongs to the senator asking the question at that moment.
Senator Fraser: I have a question for each of you, and I will start with Mr. Friedman. You said that you regularly represent gun owners before all levels of court in Ontario. I was wondering what kind of cases those were. Are these people who did not put a padlock on their gun cupboard or are they people who have guns that they are not allowed to have? Where do the bulk of these cases lie?
Mr. Friedman: When I talk about representing gun owners, I mean representing otherwise law-abiding citizens who, for one reason or another, find themselves charged with a criminal offence, pursuant to the Firearms Act or the Criminal Code. In the great tradition of the British barristers, I take all comers when it comes to my criminal clients. However, this area I talk about focuses on sportsmen, target shooters, or hunters who, for example, are charged with criminal violations of the Long-gun Registry Act. They are charged with safe storage violations, or find themselves the subject of a public safety warrant because of a complaint from a co-worker or a neighbour, and have to defend themselves in the criminal justice system at great personal and financial expense.
Senator Fraser: What kind of complaint would a co-worker be laying?
Mr. Friedman: Under section 117.04 and 117.05 of the Criminal Code, anyone can make a report to the police. The RCMP has a hotline to make what is called a public safety complaint. That means they say, "I got into an argument with my neighbour and he displayed some angry behaviour," or a co-worker can say, "My co-worker was talking about guns and it made me nervous." This is true, believe or not; I see it and have a hearing scheduled next week in this very matter. A warrant is often executed at a person's home and their firearms are removed. The police will usually bring an application to have those guns forfeited to the Crown and have the licence removed from the individual.
Most tellingly about this whole process, is that the obligation under our law is on that individual who has had his firearm seized to prove to a court that he is not a threat to public safety.
Senator Fraser: This is not a gun registry offence.
Mr. Friedman: This is a Firearms Act offence. When I talk about registry offences that is, for example, where a firearm is determined not to have been registered. Despite the amnesty, the police in this jurisdiction and many others continue to lay criminal charges. You are faced with the full force of a criminal sanction for not registering your non- restricted long-gun with the gun registry. I defend individuals who are charged with those offences.
Senator Fraser: I know the chair will be eager for us to get on, so I will turn to Ms. Cukier.
Ms. Cukier, thank you very much for appearing. I realize you barely had time to scratch the surface of your brief, but you did a very good job of scratching. Could you expand a little on what you think the implications of Bill C-19 are for the illegal trafficking of guns both domestically and internationally?
Ms. Cukier: The principles of firearms legislation — and this is something I have published with a number of internationally recognized scholars — is basically risk reduction. By licensing gun owners and by registering guns, the intent is to reduce the risk that legal owners will misuse their firearms and to try to keep legal guns in the hands of legal owners. The provisions in this proposed legislation that eliminate the registration of firearms mean that if you are a licensed gun owner, you can buy as many unrestricted firearms as you want, and there will be no record at all — no record in the store and no registration system. Therefore, if you choose, for example as the accessories chose in the murders of the RCMP officers in Alberta, to give your firearms to someone who does not have a licence or is prohibited from owning firearms, there is no way to trace those firearms back to you.
One of the reasons that the legislation was initially introduced in such a form was to prevent the diversion of legal guns to illegal markets. While the problem of smuggled handguns is a much bigger problem than the problem of illegally traded rifles and shotguns, there is little doubt that eliminating the record of who owns what guns and destroying the records on who currently owns the 7.1 million registered firearms will eliminate one of the measures in place to reduce the chances that legal guns will end up in illegal markets.
Senator Fraser: How does Bill C-19, in your view, square with the various international treaties and protocols and other such instruments that Canada is a party to, or has signed if not ratified?
Ms. Cukier: The 2001 Programme of Action requires measures to ensure accurate records are kept for as long as possible on the manufacture, holding and transfer of firearms. The Firearms Protocol under the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime also requires the maintenance for not less than 10 years of information related to firearms and, where feasible, parts and ammunition. The Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking of Firearms, Explosives, and Other related Materials also requires maintenance for a reasonable time of information necessary to trace and identify illegally trafficked firearms. The UN international tracing instrument also requires that data be kept on firearm ownership.
In the opinion of most of the international NGOs engaged in these processes, except perhaps the National Rifle Association, there is a view that eliminating the registration of firearms, particularly the elimination of any tracking at the point-of-sale, will basically undermine our international commitments to fight illegal trade in firearms.
The Chair: I might say at this point, for both Mr. Friedman and Ms. Cukier, if a question is directed to one or the other, and it is not that I am encouraging you to necessarily feel you have to rebut every statement made by the other witness, if there is something extremely important you wish to say, let me know, and I will give you that opportunity.
Senator Lang: I want to assure Ms. Cukier that there is no intention on anyone's part around this table to take safety away from Canadians. That is not the intent at all. The question is whether the registry is effective and whether it works. Many Canadians, especially those who own long guns, say that it does not work and is a waste of taxpayers' money; and they would sooner see that money spent elsewhere.
If you could clarify for the record with respect to the organization that you represent, and maybe yourself: What is your position from the point of view of Canadians outside the police and military owning firearms? Are you supportive of that?
Ms. Cukier: Yes. Our position is very clear. We support the ownership of firearms for legitimate purposes. We want is all guns to be registered and all gun owners to be licensed. We support safe storage and the prohibition of specific firearms that would be classified as military assault weapons. Contrary to what the other witness said, the alcohol, tobacco and firearms administration in the United States defined a whole series of criteria, as did the RCMP, about what constitutes a military weapon as opposed to a firearm designed for civilian use.
Senator Lang: I would like to pursue another question with the witness on the registry itself. I would like to point out that Sheila Fraser, former Auditor General, was quoted earlier by the other witness in his statements. I think it is important to read out. In 2006, she stated that there is no demonstration how this legislation helps minimize risks to public safety with evidence-based outcomes, such as reduced deaths, injuries and threats from firearms.
If you refer further to the former Auditor General Sheila Fraser, in 2002 she did a thorough investigation of the registry and pointed out that 90 per cent of the registration certificates had flaws in them — there were errors. That was by the former Auditor General, not by anyone else. The difficulty I have is: Why would we support a registry that has all these errors and flaws in it and continue to spend money on it knowing that the information is incorrect, or that a good part of it is incorrect?
Ms. Cukier: I would like to respond to that. It is really interesting because many opponents of the legislation like to quote Sheila Fraser. I would refer you to her testimony before the committee of the house on this legislation. It was quite interesting because one day you had the head of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation quoting her, and the next day you had her saying very clearly what she did say and did not say. What she said, actually, was not that the firearms registry was ineffective, but that no study had been done by her department on value for money or effectiveness. It is important not to take her comments out of context. I would refer you back to her very testimony before the House of Commons committee on an earlier version of this legislation. That is one point that is very important.
The second point is on the costs. Various people have commented on the costs of the registry and that the money that was spent setting up the licensing and registration system exceeded the targets, and so on.
It is important to remember that most of that money was not spent on registering firearms; it was spent on licensing gun owners. The costs going forward of the registration of rifles and shotguns, according to the RCMP, are between $2 million and $4 million a year, because most of the rifles and shotguns have been registered. It is a one-time-only process. We have the data.
Certainly, there are inaccuracies in the database, but as many of the police have said, it is better to have the information that we have than no information. Again, I will refer you to other kinds of public safety tools, like the DNA data bank or AFIS, which is used to access fingerprints.
Not all of the fingerprints of all Canadians are in the AFIS database. Not all of the DNA of all Canadians is in the DNA data bank. However, the fact that there is partial information in those databases is actually an invaluable tool to police. While some have argued that they would like to have more data, the fact is that even the incomplete data that they have is viewed as a useful tool.
Our essential argument, which has been reinforced by the majority of police organizations in this country, is that the data in the registry is not only valuable but worth the continued investment to maintain.
The Chair: Mr. Friedman, is there anything you would like to add?
Mr. Friedman: I wanted to respond briefly to the other witness's comment about the inaccurate data being better than no data at all. I recall a comment made by a member of the Coalition for Gun Control that was expressed in the House of Commons committee and perhaps in the Senate committee as well. The quote was something to the effect that "the gun registry has never killed anyone; getting rid of it might."
Those who are familiar with the cases, for example, of Laval police officer Daniel Tessier or police officer Valérie Gignac, know that in both cases blame for the tragic deaths of those two officers was laid on a reliance on gun registry data that was inaccurate and misused by the police. I think that when an officer is provided with a false sense of security because a gun registry check on a residence comes up clean, what we are actually doing is not only not making Canadians safe but actually putting the lives of police officers at risk.
Senator Lang: I have a question of the witness because of his background.
The Chair: Is it on the same point he just spoke to?
Senator Lang: It is about what a courtroom will take as testimony.
The Chair: I think we will have to move along, senator.
Senator Baker: I will ask the question.
The Chair: If you have a question, get the question out. Perhaps we can get more information from the witnesses.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: For the sake of the argument, I will speak English, because I do not know how the translation is working with Ms. Cukier.
I have a question about the study that was done by many academics. Are you aware of other studies that say the contrary to what you are arguing in your brief? I understand that university people usually have Ph.D.s, that they have rigorous ways of conducting a study. Of course, we are here being told there are no studies that can make a direct relationship between the registry and the diminution of murder. In your career and in your research, are there studies that are contrary to the one you are referring to?
Ms. Cukier: Social science is not exact, so very often on complex policies you will have different views. When we look at the research that has been done, specifically in Canada, on the impact of the firearms legislation that is published in reputable peer-reviewed journals, it is quite clear that the majority of the articles that have been published, particularly in the public health realm, would reinforce the effectiveness of the legislation. At the same time, there are people like Gary Mauser, a marketing professor emeritus from Simon Fraser University, who has published much research that would suggest that more guns would make us safer, that arming people for self-protection would reduce crime, and so on. There is research to that effect published as well.
I would be misleading you to say that all research supports my view, but I would say that there is a sufficient basis in empirical research to support my position. I think it is also reflected in the calibre and the number of public safety organizations with no vested interest who support the legislation that is currently in place.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: With the emeritus professor from B.C., who is usually financing the studies? I know NRA has financed some of his studies. Where do you get your data? Are they data that you collect locally at Statistics Canada or other banks of information? I need to know where the data are coming from.
Ms. Cukier: With respect to Mr. Mauser's research, we know that some of the original research on arming for self- protection was partially funded by the National Rifle Association, and that is well documented in the constitutional challenge to the legislation and the interrogatories.
The data that I base my research on comes from several sources. Some of it is Statistics Canada data. As I said, you can look at overall trends; you can ask questions like: If the murders of women with firearms has declined dramatically and murders of women without firearms have not declined as rapidly, is there a factor that could account for that? If suicides with firearms have plummeted and suicides without firearms have not, can we reasonably infer that firearms legislation played a role? Those are some of the kinds of research designs you can do.
In terms of the tracing and studies we have done on the illicit trafficking of firearms, that data comes from local police agencies. We have been given access to the records of firearms recovered in crime and the traces that have been done on those. That is the basis on which we argue about the sources of illegal guns, the kinds of guns that are being recovered in crime. I hope that answers your question.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Did you interview people who are directly involved with the question, victims, police people and so on, or did you just do an empirical study?
Ms. Cukier: I have been involved in both kinds of research. In fact, I have been for a number of years an associate member of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and working directly with them on some of these issues. Certainly, I have spoken to many police chiefs, as well as rank-and-file police officers. Of course, most of the large victims organizations in the country are part of the Coalition for Gun Control. I have also spoken with many victims.
Senator Runciman: Mr. Friedman, there is not much emphasis I think with respect to Sheila Fraser's assessment with respect to the accuracy of data. I am wondering from your perspective as a lawyer how important this issue of accuracy of data is. Have you had any experience in terms of legal woes that this inaccuracy has caused people, particularly clients or others that you are aware of?
Mr. Friedman: The issue of accuracy of data is at the forefront of many of the cases I am involved with regarding law-abiding gun owners. For example, I have defended individuals who were the subject of search warrants, which is an intrusion into your private home, based on registry data that was five or more years out of date.
In other words, an individual firearm was being sought, and the registry data was that that firearm had indeed been registered with this individual. That data was taken by a police officer, on good faith I am sure, to a justice of the peace, a warrant was issued and because it was a firearms warrant, it was considered a high-risk warrant and a SWAT team tactical entry was used, a no-knock warrant was executed and this individual was left to pick up the shambles based on inaccurate data. It cost him a significant amount of legal fees.
This is business, by the way, that, strangely, I am trying to eliminate from my practice. I would like to have fewer of these clients and preferably none at all.
Inaccurate data and misuse and misreading of gun registry and other Canadian firearms centre data is often at the core of numerous failed prosecutions.
Senator Runciman: I share your perspective on this. I think the description you use of crime control theatre really sums it up in not dealing in a meaningful way with crime control measures.
I have read columns recently with observations by a number of commentators about the negative impact this legislation has had with respect to attitudes of everyday Canadians, the criminalization of law-abiding citizens and their attitudes toward police and police officers. Have you witnessed any of that?
Mr. Friedman: Absolutely. I think an important perspective that one can draw from this is to realize this has really created a deep wedge between law enforcement and a group of Canadians who should otherwise be the staunchest allies of law enforcement and are completely responsible and law-abiding citizens, and that is gun owners.
Put yourself in the shoes of, let us say, a 65-year-old gun owner. You own certain firearms. You receive them in a certain way. They were absolutely legal. Parliament, seemingly at the snap of a finger, creates criminal offence after criminal offence. What was otherwise previously completely legal conduct is no longer just regulated conduct but is regulated with the full force of the criminal law. If there is one take-away point from my presentation, it is that criminal law is a sledgehammer; it is not a scalpel of public policy.
When we talk about crime control and prevention, we talk about, for example, the flow of illegal handguns into Canada and issues with border security and front-line police officers. What has been the primary focus of the Firearms Act in Canada? If you thumb through it — and I have an annotated copy on my desk at the office, about this thick — it never once deals with the criminal misuse of firearms. That is, there is no mention there of committing an offence with a firearm or using a firearm for a criminal purpose. It is targeted exclusively at law-abiding citizens, people who follow the law in any event.
It has been more than just a distraction; it has been a severe misuse and misfocus, which has unfortunately created a deep wedge between gun owners and law enforcement.
Ms. Cukier: May I respond?
The Chair: Yes.
Ms. Cukier: If you look at Sheila Fraser's testimony regarding the accuracy of the firearms data, which is in the Hansard from 2006, she is referring specifically to data brought over from the restricted weapons system into the firearms registry. Her concern is that the data on restricted handguns is not fully accurate because those guns were not being re-registered; a lot of the data was being imported. I have not heard anyone suggesting that we get rid of the registration for restricted weapons. I think that is important.
A third of gun owners actually support the legislation, according to polling. It is important to recognize there are differences of opinion even within that constituency. Moreover, 60 per cent of people living with gun owners support the registry. The idea that this is something that is unanimously opposed to in homes where there are firearms I think ignores the fact that women vote, too.
As far as attitudes to the police are concerned, the fact that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association continue to support the law would suggest that they see the value outweighing the costs.
The Chair: Senator Runciman, you have one further brief question.
Senator Runciman: I could say more about this policing issue, but I will not.
The witness referenced in his written and oral statement a peer-reviewed study out of McMaster University, which indicates the legislation has no significant beneficial association with regard to firearm homicide and spousal homicide by firearm. Could you elaborate on that and how it relates to the bill we are considering today?
Mr. Friedman: I will elaborate with the proviso that I am not a statistician; I am a criminal defence lawyer.
I have provided a copy of that study with my material to the clerk of the committee. That is a study done by Dr. Caillin Langmann, an expert witness at the House of Commons committee, and he is an emergency medicine physician. He compiled data, as I understand, from Statistics Canada and other sources by observing, among other things, the drop in homicide and general crime in Canada beginning in 1974, before anything, before the Firearms Acquisition Certificate process or any of the modern, let us say, gun-control measures. He instead was able to correlate the drops in firearms homicide and spousal homicide by firearm to other social factors, whether it was number of police officers per capita or, for example, the aging per capita in the population. He was actually able to find no statistical correlation between firearms legislation and the harm it sought to prevent. I have provided that study for your review.
Senator Jaffer: I would like a clarification from you, Mr. Friedman. You said there was no mention — I may get your wording wrong, and you can correct me — of criminal negligence in the Firearms Act. Is that correct? Did I hear you correctly?
Mr. Friedman: What I said was that the Firearms Act does not address the criminal misuse of firearms. It addresses administrative issues, such as safe storage and transportation regulations. It does not address the use of firearms in the commission of otherwise criminal offences.
Senator Jaffer: These are mentioned in the Criminal Code, though, right?
Mr. Friedman: Certainly.
Senator Jaffer: They are mentioned in another place.
Mr. Friedman: They are. In fact, we have had provisions in the Criminal Code added one over another, whether it was the use of a firearm in the commission of an offence or the pointing of a firearm. The Firearms Act is the corpus of law that binds law-abiding gun owners, and it is not directed at criminal use.
Senator Jaffer: As a defence lawyer, you know that the Criminal Code covers most criminal negligence offences, right?
Mr. Friedman: The Criminal Code certainly covers the majority of what we would call true crimes.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you. I have a question of Ms. Cukier, if I may. I want to refer you to the licensing provisions. I would like you to clarify something.
If you could look at page 5, section 23 of the bill we are looking at, Bill C-19. Section 23 states that a person may transfer a firearm, but to transfer the firearm, you need a licence authorizing the transfer, and the transferee has no reason to believe that the transferor is not authorized to acquire and possess that kind of firearm.
When I heard you speak, you had concern about when firearms are transferred. Could you please elaborate?
Ms. Cukier: Yes. The Firearms Act, as it is currently written, includes a provision that the validity of the licence be verified. Rather than just requiring someone to present their document, it requires that the licence be verified. That is one of the provisions that is missing.
In the process of purchasing every firearm, there was previously a requirement that the purchase be recorded and also that the registrar be informed, as well as the validity of the licence be confirmed. That is no longer the case.
Senator Jaffer: I understand that people who sell guns do not need to keep sales records. Can you elaborate on that?
Ms. Cukier: This is one of the changes that was made that may have unintended consequences. As I explained, when the 1977 legislation was introduced, individuals were required to have a firearms acquisition certificate if they wanted to purchase firearms, and when they purchased firearms they were not registered centrally but a record was kept in the store of the FAC number, the name of the person and the guns they had purchased. When registration was introduced in 1995, there was no longer a requirement for that because firearms were being registered centrally.
This bill would eliminate the registration of firearms but not introduce any mechanism to track the sale of firearms at the dealer level, and that completely undermines commitments Canada has made to fight the illicit trade in firearms. There will be no record of firearm sales anywhere. We will have fewer records on firearm sales than they have in the United States of America where guns can at least be traced to the first point of sale.
Mr. Friedman: As a defence lawyer I have noted, as I think those involved in policing will have, that there are many ways to obtain illegal guns. We have yet to see any effort to counterfeit possession and acquisition licences. It is supposition to conjure up a scenario where someone will use a false or an expired licence when in the transfer of firearms gun owners generally are tending, under the present scheme and will continue under the future scheme, to act responsibly and not transfer firearms or engage in firearms trafficking or in straw man purchasing at point of sale. There has been no evidence of that happening in the past and I do not know why we would assume that it will happen in the future.
Senator Jaffer: That was not my question.
I want to bring to the attention of the chair and the committee that we have here with us Meaghan Hennegan and Kathelene Dixon, who were victims of the Dawson College shooting, and Louise de Souza, Heidi Rathgen and Jeff Larivee who were victims of the Polytechnique shootings. They have joined us today to hear our deliberations.
The Chair: Thank you for bringing that to our attention. They are certainly most welcome here.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Ms. Cukier. If you want to get a hunting weapon in Quebec, you have to report to a police station, you have to apply for a firearms acquisition licence, you have to show that you took a course on handling firearms. Then, obviously, the police will have to investigate. If you do not have a criminal record, you will be issued a firearms licence, and it is the Sûreté du Québec that controls the licences. There is a licensing division just for that. If you later commit a crime or if you are found guilty or simply accused of a spousal violence offence, obviously, when you appear before the court, you will be prohibited from possessing a firearm, even if you have not yet been convicted.
Were you aware of that? It was in place before the registry and still exists. So, were you aware of this way of doing things? And I am speaking about Quebec; I do not know about the other provinces.
[English]
Ms. Cukier: I am well aware of the situation in Quebec. As you know, senator, the last time we met you were giving me a prize on behalf of the Quebec police associations for my work on gun control.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Indeed, it was me who gave it to you.
[English]
Ms. Cukier: Although there may be a problem with the translation, the firearms acquisition certificates no longer exist. Those were eliminated in 1995 with the introduction of the licensing system. Yes, Quebec does have a higher standard, but there was no longer a requirement that gun owners go to the police station in order to obtain their firearms licence. As you know, the licences were introduced in 1995 and implemented starting in 1998.
The problem, of which the police in Quebec are acutely aware and why they have been particularly supportive of stronger controls on firearms is that if you license firearms owners but you do not track the firearms that they own, you have no way of enforcing the licensing. One of the strongest advocates for both the licensing and registration provisions was the police in Quebec, both chiefs and rank and file officers, because of the repeated cases of gaps in the system.
I am sure you remember your former colleagues who were the first responders at l'École Polytechnique where a man with a firearms acquisition certificate acquired a Ruger Mini-14 and shot 27 people, killing 14 young women. One of the big issues that emerged from that was the need for better screening, which has been introduced with the licensing provisions. The second issue was related to the tracking of the firearms themselves. In fact, your colleagues who were first responders at Dawson College will tell us that the fact that they were able to run the killer's licence plate alerted them to information about his identity and important information about his gun ownership. The first responders at that incident would argue that the registry allowed them to respond more effectively than had they not had real-time access to information about the gun owner and his guns.
Senator Baker: I have a question for Mr. Friedman about the meaning of some words.
Mr. Friedman, are you the same Solomon Friedman who won a case recently on care and control before the Superior Court of Ontario?
Mr. Friedman: I was co-counsel on an appeal. I am not sure if that is what you are referring to.
Senator Baker: That is what I am referring to; on the meaning in law of the words "care and control." That is a wonderful case. Congratulations on that.
We are talking about gun control here, and I want to ask you about a section of the bill that has been much referenced during these hearings. Clause 11 says that section 23 of the act will be replaced by the following:
(b) the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee is not authorized to acquire and possess that kind of firearm.
In your remarks you referred to sober second thought here in the Senate. One thing we do very well here is to ask for the explanation, the meaning, the intent behind certain words. Senator Fraser asked the minister bluntly what this means, what the intent is, what the onus is, and the minister set a very high standard for the onus of "no reason to believe." He went into detail about ensuring that the person was a legitimate holder of a licence.
Will a judge just look at this section and say, "What does this mean?" and then just offer a reason, or will the court go back most likely to what the minister's intent was before the Senate committee, and apply that to the standard to be used?
Could you clarify that for the committee and the general public?
Mr. Friedman: There are two aspects to the response to that. The first is a general interpretation in legal and constitutional matters. For example, when you have a Hansard record or a committee testimony record wherein a minister or government official attempts to clarify the intent of legislation, that clarification is not binding on the courts. It is informative, it is interesting, and it can add to the debate. However, as we saw in the interpretation of the section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, certain statements were simply dismissed by courts.
It will be the court's interpretation of Parliament's intent based on the plain meaning, context, and a host of other interpretive factors that will govern. Therefore, the minister's testimony before this committee would not be a deciding factor; it would be interesting and informative to a court, but not a deciding factor.
Senator Baker: How much weight would be given to the minister's interpretation?
Mr. Friedman: This is a general legal question, but it would depend on the other factors introduced in terms of interpreting this phrase. For example, courts would look at its position in the legislation as a whole. Courts would look at what exactly it is trying to modify and what other similar provisions might be. Perhaps I can be of some assistance in that regard, and that is a second part of the response.
I think this provision mirrors the existing criminal prohibition, already in the Criminal Code — and in the Criminal Code since the introduction of the FAC, and then the licensing system — which is the prohibition on illegal trafficking of firearms. That is to say that it is, has been and will continue to be a criminal offence to transfer, or even offer to transfer, a firearm to someone who is not permitted to possess it.
I do not mean to be giving a lecture here, but the governing standard in criminal law — always — for a criminal offence is what is known as mens rea, criminal intent; you have to actively, subjectively intend to have committed that offence. We do not take away people's liberty lightly. A court needs to be satisfied beyond a doubt that an individual intended whatever the criminal offence in question is.
I would be arguing this as defence counsel, but let me attempt to lay out the standard here. You have an individual who has transferred a firearm. How did that individual satisfy that requirement? What is "no reason to believe"? I assume it is quite possible that courts would impute some sort of due diligence into that: Did you look for a licence? Had you known in the past that this individual was licensed?
However, because no process here is laid out, the onus would be on the Crown to prove that the individual knew, for whatever reason, that the transferee was not authorized to acquire the firearm. The onus would be on the Crown and I think the due diligence standard would likely satisfy that.
Senator Baker: And would he go to the minister's words before this committee to support his proposition?
Mr. Friedman: I cannot speak directly to the minister's words because I do not know exactly what he said to the committee.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Mr. Friedman, my question is for you. I think you are quite familiar with the registry and its history. I remember, in 1992 or 1993, when there was a debate to determine what type of registry we wanted to have, we decided on self-registration. Hunters had to register themselves.
Does this self-registration condition that we had at the beginning mean that now the data is completely inaccurate? We are talking about a 90 per cent error rate.
I have a friend in Quebec who, to test what could be entered as data, registered a joystick as a weapon. Today, how much would it cost us to have a truly effective registry and to keep it effective? We could not maintain self-registration in the long term because, in 10 years, we would find ourselves with the same type of registry, full of inappropriate, even dangerous, information, as you said earlier.
So the choice would be to have a registry similar to the registry for driver's licences where the government contacts the individual every year — with the firearm registry, it would be the hunter—to find out if the individual has moved or still has firearms. Much stricter control would be involved.
In your experience, how much would that control cost us?
[English]
Mr. Friedman: Thank you, senator. I am obviously not qualified to speak from a financial administration side as to what the cost would be in dollars to the government to impose some sort of another type of registration system. However, I think the cost of any type of registration system, via self-verification and others, has been immense in that it has been implemented as a portion of the criminal law; that is to say it has been attached with criminal law penalties and criminal law consequences.
We have all heard stories of staple guns and blow-driers being registered. No one would advocate that type of mischief, but it points to the fact that the data will always be inherently inaccurate and that it will be difficult to verify. Having worked on the ground with individuals charged or under investigation for Firearms Act issues, my view is that those implementations of firearms registration were done in an "ivory tower" manner, which is to say they did not accurately address the manner in which ordinary Canadians use their firearms.
As an example, we talk about registry data being useful in informing the police as to whether or not there are firearms in a residence. That similar supposition absolutely ignores the reality of the registry legislation. When you have a non-restricted firearm, you are allowed to loan it indefinitely to any licensed individual. Also, that can be done without a licence check, if we talk about what proposed section 23 will do. That was the law and it will continue to be. You do not need to inform the government of that and you do not need to make a call to the registry. If the other individual is licensed and you are satisfied that he is, you can store that firearm on his property without ever informing anyone.
When that point was raised, gun control advocates will often say "Why don't you need to inform the police every time, for example, you move a firearm?" Guns are used tens of thousands of times a day, probably more times than these supposed registry checks. Firearms are used, and they are moved from home to home, in urban and rural settings. It simply ignores the frequency of innocent use of firearms in Canada.
When we start looking at cost, that is why costs spiralled out of control: No one asked how guns are used by law- abiding Canadians and how much it will cost to put together a registry.
Senator Fraser: I have a supplementary to that, but I will hold for a second round, if we have one.
The Chair: We will have a spot for you.
Senator White: Thank you for coming today, Mr. Friedman, and Ms. Cukier, as well.
Some would argue that training, education and licensing are key to safe firearms use. The bill proposed would leave the requirements regarding each of these areas intact.
Do you have an opinion, legal or otherwise, Mr. Friedman, regarding these requirement areas remaining in future firearms legislations, should the bill be successful?
Mr. Friedman: I do have an opinion about that, and I think it is about focus. I am in the Ottawa courthouse every day and when I take a look at the docket in the remand or bail courts, we often see firearm offences. I can tell you from speaking with my colleagues on the other side of the fence and interacting with police officers as we do often on a daily basis, that the issue of criminal misuse of firearms is an issue of individuals who never would have qualified to get licences in the first place. They are individuals who are already subject to prohibition orders. They are individuals who are committing crimes with illegally-smuggled firearms.
I think it is time for Parliament, in a legislative manner, to turn away from the distraction that saddling law-abiding gun owners with increasingly strict regulations has been over the past 40 years. It is time to focus scarce resources elsewhere. Two billion dollars is a lot of money, and a continued maintenance cost of up to $50 million for the entire firearms program is a lot of money. Those are things that need to be focused towards actual crime prevention and crime control, not, as I said, crime control theatre.
Senator Fraser: Two billion dollars is, of course, gone; we cannot get it back. The RCMP says it will only save $4 million a year if we abolish the long-gun registry.
My question had to do with the frequent references to errors in the gun registry. I am sure there are errors in every human activity, and why not in the gun registry. What proportion of those errors, in your experience, would relate to the fact that a lot of the information in the registry may now be outdated because of the amnesty that the government has had in effect for rising six years now?
Mr. Friedman: I will say two very brief things about that. First, although there is an amnesty in effect, police continue to lay criminal charges and proceed on criminal prosecutions for violations of the long-gun registry. It is not like there is any suspension of the enforcement, at least in this jurisdiction, of the long-gun registry, so I am not sure what effect that has had, if any, on people's registration of firearms.
When we look at errors in the gun registry, of course there will be errors in every government database. The issue with the errors in the gun registry are that the consequences are the most severe imaginable by our law. There is no more severe sanction than the criminal law, and there is no more onerous process than a criminal charge. You can have errors in your motor vehicle registration. The police will not be kicking down your door and executing a search warrant because the numbers on your licence plate do not match the numbers on your driver's licence. That could happen, and has happened, to Canadians because of errors in the gun registry.
Senator Fraser: I think your answer to my specific question was "I do not know."
Mr. Friedman: I think it is very difficult for anyone to determine — certainly for me, without a background in statistics — what effect the amnesty has had, if any, on gun owners. I simply say that it is business as usual when it comes to prosecuting and proceeding on charges for violations of the long-gun registry. Often I have had a situation where we go all the way up to day of trial, where I argue, "By the way, there is an amnesty." This is something I have informed the Crown about previously, and the judge, for example, will say, "Fair enough. Those charges are off the table."
Ms. Cukier: The jurisdiction I think you are operating in was where Senator White was recently the chief of police, and it is quite a different context from what I am familiar with. I know that in Quebec, for example, charges were recently not proceeded with in a drug bust where 20 unregistered rifles and shotguns were found, principally because of the amnesty. There was a case out west where a man who had been charged with giving his son access to an unregistered gun that was then used in the murder of a police officer was not charged because of the amnesty.
It would be interesting for the Senate, and for this committee in particular, to request some specific case evidence of where law-abiding people have been thrown in jail for administrative problems, in contrast to the cases where charges were dropped as a result of the amnesty.
Bear in mind that some of the data going into the system was reasonably well verified because it was the point-of- sale data. The data subject to error is typically the self-reported data, and the intent was that over time that data would be corrected and updated.
I will come back to my original point, which is that the data that is there has been used successfully in thousands of affidavits to support thousands of cases, as well as many instances by the police agencies across the country to remove guns where a threat was present.
Senator Lang: To clarify for the record, at least from where I come from it has been business as usual for the renewal of your licence and also from the point of view of verifying the registry. I speak from experience.
I think it is safe to say that across the country, if we did an exploratory review of this, we would find that although there has been an amnesty, everyone who has a long gun and a licence is required to renew it and to go through the process. I would be surprised if the situation were otherwise.
The other area I want to touch on is that I think Mr. Friedman, and perhaps those who are advocating for the retention of the gun registry, do not realize how invasive is the threat of criminal charges for people who have long guns in their homes and the threat of the police being able to enter your home at any given time on flimsy, if any, substantial evidence. You have no idea how that makes one feel. One can disregard this, but the fact is that is very much out there, and that is why this issue is before us today, in good part.
I have a question for Mr. Friedman. This goes back to the inaccuracy of the registration. We keep going to the registry, and the fact is that there is a great deal of inaccuracy in the registration itself. This goes back to the credibility of the registration. It is one thing to say we have a registry, but it is another to say: Is it valid and does it serve a purpose? If it is inaccurate, I would say it does not serve a purpose.
Mr. Friedman, you touched on this earlier. From the point of view of a police officer going into a courtroom and utilizing the registry as far as evidence, can he or she swear an oath that that is evidence and can be used in a courtroom?
Mr. Friedman: That is an interesting question. I know certainly — and Ms. Cukier is correct in this — that countless affidavits are obtained on the basis of the data registry. I do not know if I find that comforting or disturbing, but the fact of the matter is that police officers all the time swear on the accuracy of the registry data, and justices of the peace issue warrants on that basis.
When you talk about the spectre of criminal charge, I think it is of little comfort that perhaps gun owners are not regularly being "thrown in jail" over these violations. A mere criminal charge is earth-shattering for your average citizen, and the prospect of a criminal record in our society is simply not something that we can take lightly and say, "Do not worry. The police will sort it out on the back end. We will charge you and then drop the charges later."
Absolutely, the inaccuracy of the data of the gun registry has led to numerous criminal charges in error and thwarted perhaps other successful prosecutions.
The Chair: I will come back to you, Ms. Cukier, in just one moment.
Senator Baker: Just a supplementary on this point so that we are clear for the viewing audience and everyone listening to this. What you are saying, Mr. Friedman, is that a warrant is issued by a justice of the peace. In executing the warrant, the police use tactics that are unusual because they believe guns may be present in the dwelling that they are entering. In other words, it is one of the factors taken into account by the police. They use the "TRU team," as it is sometimes called, with no knock.
Mr. Friedman: That is right.
Senator Baker: They batter down the door, throw everyone to the floor and put handcuffs on them. Do they also use these noise grenades in Ontario?
Mr. Friedman: Distraction devices or flashbangs.
Senator Baker: Yes, flash grenade, and the first level comes in with machine guns.
Mr. Friedman: The tactical team will often use assault rifles.
Senator Baker: Yes. That would be normal entry for that particular matter, would not you agree, simply because the matter involves firearms? It is unfortunate that it is done, but I would like to ask you what section of the code. Is it 487.01 that is being used here?
Mr. Friedman: Different sections are used variously.
Senator Baker: Which section in the case you have now?
Mr. Friedman: Often section 117.04, which is an application to search a home on public safety grounds due to the presence or concern of firearms.
I would simply respectfully disagree, Senator Baker, that it is —
Senator Baker: Go ahead. I knew you would.
Mr. Friedman: I disagree that it is acceptable that police, as a matter of routine policy, because it is a firearms related search, use, for example, a dynamic or no-knock entry. The Supreme Court, in a case called Cornell, delineated that when planning the method of entry the police need to look at specific, fact-driven factors that have been identified by the police in planning out whether they will depart from the otherwise normal rule in this country, the constitutional rule of "knock and announce."
The mere presence of firearms, while that may be something that can justify, in certain circumstances, a no-knock warrant, by no means is blanket permission for police to dispense with knock and announce.
Senator Baker: There was an adjudication done by a judge in issuing the warrant by a justice of the peace.
Mr. Friedman: There was not an adjudication.
Senator Baker: You have to do a look at the sworn affidavit behind the warrant, your sworn information to obtain.
Mr. Friedman: Remember that a sworn information to obtain is obtained ex parte, there is no opportunity for anyone to challenge that information or to bring an opposing view.
Senator Baker: That is true. That is the law.
Mr. Friedman: When we talk about an adjudication, it is weighing two sides. This is not an adjudication. I understand, that is the warrant process and it makes a great deal of sense, you do not inform people generally that you are about to execute a search warrant.
Senator Baker: They will disappear.
Mr. Friedman: However, a Justice of the Peace is still obligated, under our law, to take a critical look at both the evidence underlying the warrant and the manner in which the police intend to conduct the search. Whether or not it is my view that they are overly deferential, particularly in firearms cases, is another matter.
The Chair: Ms. Cukier, there was one final comment you wished to make.
Ms. Cukier: Yes. Thank you very much. People have talked a lot about accuracy. It is important to differentiate the circumstances for warranted versus warrantless searches. A number of the comments that were made implied that the mere existence of a firearm entitles the police to a warrantless search. That is not true. The law provides for the inspection of collectors with notice if they have more than 15 firearms. I think it is very important to proceed based on fact.
The other thing that I will observe, and something that the committee may want to consider, is a lot of the issues that have been raised have been with respect to concerns about criminal charges being laid against law-abiding citizens for mere administrative infractions.
One of the recommendations, for example, that the Canadian Police Association forwarded in order to address this was the addition of a non-criminal charge that could be used in cases where people have violated provisions. I do not see anyone around the table considering that as an alternative to eliminating the registration of firearms and destroying the data.
I would suggest that you look carefully at the sanctions that are currently in place and try to get some hard data on these instances that have been raised for you about the police executing warrants with jackboots and breaking down doors, where there was inaccurate information provided as a result of the registry. I think you should ask for some evidence regarding those cases. We would be happy to provide evidence concerning the utility of the act, because I think there is a lot of speculation and misinformation, and there are a lot of hypothetical situations that have been turned into claims of fact. You may want to scratch beneath the surface, if you have some time, on the basis of these arguments, and as well the empirical data, which we are happy to provide. Thank you very much for your time.
The Chair: Thank you for that. Hypothetical examples that are given, sitting here, we have heard that on both sides of the argument. That is what we have to sort through, and base our decision on facts.
Mr. Friedman: Briefly, to conclude. None of the descriptions of the use of the gun registry and the other gun-control tools in the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code that I have alluded to have been hypothetical in any way.
I practice criminal law in Eastern Ontario from Cornwall to Belleville and all places in between. Those are numerous different jurisdictions and a large set of police agencies, including the Ottawa Police Service, the RCMP and the OPP. This is not hypothetical for gun owners. The use of the public safety warrant and registry violations is often used as either a pretext to obtain a warrant that never would have been issued on other grounds or as a simple pretext to search and seize from ordinary Canadians. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you for clarifying that.
Ms. Cukier: Find the evidence.
The Chair: This concludes our time with this panel. Ms. Cukier, thank you so much. We have extended your time beyond what we had planned, but it was very useful.
Mr. Friedman, thank you very much.
We will adjourn until we are back at this table a week from Wednesday.
(The committee adjourned.)