[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, February 4, 1997
.1532 
[English]
The Chairman: We're ready now to resume our hearings on the proposed regulations under the Firearms Act.
I want to welcome this afternoon our witnesses from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. We have with us Chief Brian Ford from the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service;Mr. N.G. Beauchesne, legal adviser to the law amendments committee; and Mr. Bryan McConnell, the executive director of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.
Welcome, gentlemen. It's a pleasure to have you once again in this room. We look forward to your presentation. We're hopeful that after the presentation you'll allow us some time to ask some questions.
Chief Ford, are you making the presentation?
Chief Brian Ford (Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service; Chair, Law Amendments Committee, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police): Yes, I've been elected.
The Chairman: Picked the short straw, eh?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Chief Ford: Not in the true democratic sense, Mr. Chair, but nonetheless it's a pleasure for me again to appear on behalf of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. I am here as the chair of the law amendments committee and also as chief of the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service. I speak both as the chair of the law amendments committee and as a chief of police in a local municipality.
I'm joined here today by Rusty Beauchesne, a police legal adviser to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Service and a member of the law amendments committee.
I'm also pleased to introduce Mr. Bryan McConnell, who is the new executive director of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. Mr. McConnell is a former assistant commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, was commander of the A division here in the national capital, and has now assumed duties as the executive director of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police here in Ottawa.
The CACP appears again before you to firmly support proposed regulations to the Firearms Act as introduced in the House by the Minister of Justice. For a long time the CACP has been advocating gun control measures; in fact I have some copies of resolutions here that date back to 1973. More recently, in its annual conference in Montreal in 1994, the CACP passed another resolution specifically calling for the mandatory registration of all firearms.
.1535
Our goal today is not to revisit the whole purpose of the gun control legislation, which we have expounded before you on many occasions in the last five years or so, but to look at the goal of these regulations.
While we agree with the Minister of Justice that the goal of the new regulations is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and to keep Canada safe, we firmly believe that the mere requirements regarding safe storage, handling, and transportation will also increase the safety of many law-abiding citizens who are killed or severely injured each year as a result of accidental discharges.
A variety of statistics seem to indicate that rifles and shotguns are used at least as much as if not more than handguns in the commission of violent crime. Therefore any measures that make their use or theft more difficult is bound to have some effect in the prevention of such crimes or accidents in the future.
The registration system, on the other hand, can't - and I emphasize can't - but help police efforts in trying to track down stolen guns. Presently this proves to be a very intensive and expensive procedure that often leads to a dead end, because the gun is almost impossible to trace, since there's no registration linking an individual back to that gun. Hopefully in a few years police officers will have some basic tools to at least use as a starting point in their investigations, if there's a registration system.
Another benefit to police officers in the near future will be the ability to access valuable information about firearms registered to an individual at a specific address prior to their arriving at the premise, and more so in cases of domestic disputes.
The changes in relation to the requirement that one be the holder of a firearms licence prior to purchasing ammunition should also make it more difficult for people who are in possession of stolen guns or for young persons or other family members to obtain ammunition, either for illegal activity or simply for adventurous purposes.
Quite frankly, if that had been in effect, Nicholas Battersby, a brilliant young engineer from England who was working here in Canada, would probably be alive today, because people were able to buy ammunition for a gun they had stolen. That's just one graphic example that happened here in Ottawa-Carleton.
As the honourable Mr. Michel Bellehumeur stated in the House on November 27, 1996, when the proposed regulations were tabled, the bill and the regulations will not prevent all tragedies. There will always be negligence regarding the use of firearms. However, the CACP agrees withMr. Bellehumeur's conclusion. The purpose of the regulations and the legislation is to at least try to reduce the number of unfortunate incidents that occur across our country.
Furthermore, anything, no matter how big or small, that can be of assistance to police officers in their efforts to solve crimes and that can afford another layer of protection to those men and women who put their lives on the line every day is not only supported by the CACP but also very welcome by the rank-and-file officers.
The last point I wish to raise is police cost. Believe me, police costs are very much present in our minds when we're talking about local-level policing. The Minister of Justice has repeatedly assured the police community that the firearms program will not be downloaded to individual police services.
It is a well-known fact that police services across the country are facing serious financial cutbacks. For that reason we are reluctant to jump into any new program that is not self-funded. The CACP is very encouraged by what we have seen so far but will continue to guard against any local cost increases arising from the firearms program.
In the interest of brevity, I will end my comments at this point and will be willing to answer and clarify any questions you may have. As well, Bryan McConnell and Rusty Beauchesne will respond to questions, whatever you choose.
I wish again to thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak to you today.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Chief Ford.
We'll now begin the questions with Mr. de Savoye.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye (Portneuf): Messrs. Ford, Beauchesne and McConnell, it is both interesting and refreshing to hear comments that indicate our law enforcement officers in the field believe that this legislation will have positive effects in reducing firearms-related violence and assisting their efforts to keep the peace.
.1540
I also want to thank you, Mr. Ford, for quoting Mr. Bellehumeur. I will mention to him that you quoted what he said in the House.
Having said that, I noticed that your brief raises concern about the possible costs transferred to police forces. I would like to hear your comments on the scope of the costs that you anticipate having to shoulder in order to implement this legislation and its regulations. How much do you expect to receive to implement this legislation?
[English]
Mr. N.G. Beauchesne (Legal Adviser to the Law Amendments Committee, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police): About the costs associated with this, we have been meeting with justice officials in the last little while and have received some assurances from those officials that the Minister of Justice plans on making sure that this is self-funded, as we mentioned in our proposal. We therefore don't anticipate any direct cost to the police officers that is not substantiated or reimbursed down the road to the police services by the ministry of justice.
At the present time we have working on the firearms aspect individual low-ranking police officers and very high-ranking police officers from across Canada who are attached to the Ministry of Justice in various departments. We are making sure that the police concerns about cost are always foremost in the ministry as they develop these procedures.
We have received some assurances. As we mentioned in the paper, we guard very seriously those assurances that there will be no substantial cost or any direct cost associated to the police services for administering this program.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: You indicated a few moments ago that you hoped that all expenditures to be incurred by police services would be reimbursed - that's the very word you used - by the Department of Justice.
What is your educated guess of the order of magnitude of reimbursements that could flow to a police department such as Ottawa-Carleton's?
[English]
Chief Ford: It would depend. We spend about $150,000 annually on firearms registration programs as they exist now. About $50,000 of that cost is recouped through the firearms acquisition program. The other $100,000 is not recovered.
There is no form of cost recovery for registering restricted weapons or issuing permits or for any other aspect of firearms registration as it relates to restricted weapons, at this time.
To ascertain the impact of the regulations and the cost would be difficult. For a police service the size of mine, which serves a population of about 735,000 people in Ottawa-Carleton, it would be difficult to determine. Certainly the costs would be in the neighbourhood of double what they are now, given the number of people I have. They would probably be in the neighbourhood of $300,000.
However, the cost-recovery programs associated with the new bill will eventually help us recover those costs. The infrastructure partially in place vis-à-vis from a technological point of view - the computer systems and the streamlining of the process for registration through that system - will reduce the amount of actual human resources required to process applications and registrations. That will also bring the cost down.
.1545
I think that the cost recovery we've been talking about - and the minister has talked to us about it through his representative in the Department of Justice - is feasible. Certainly I will be keeping an eye on it. But from a non-recovered point of view, I do expend in the neighbourhood of about $100,000 at present. I don't anticipate spending any more.
Mr. de Savoye: So if I understand you well, you're spending approximately $150,000 at present, out of which $50,000 is self-generated. You expect your workload to double. If it wasn't for computer-based systems, that would translate into $300,000. However, with computer-based systems, you expect the load to be lower, hence your expenses to be - you didn't mention it - somehow lower than $300,000.
In Hull you don't expect to spend any more than the $100,000 you're already spending. So the Ministry of Justice would have to reimburse you - to use your expression - around $200,000 or a little less, depending on how efficient the computer-based system is.
Chief Ford: That would depend on what we can recover through the registration programs, in terms of fees that are charged for registration and various other licences that are issued.
Even at the present time and with the present regulations, I think we can recover costs through that means, as well as some reimbursement through the federal system.
However, having said that I spend $100,000 out of my budget, I can tell you that from my perspective it's money well spent. It's money for the safety of the community. I have an obligation to provide an adequate police service, to provide safety and security for the residents of Ottawa-Carleton. That is one part of the program.
My budget for the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services is about $100 million. For me to spend $100,000 in terms of firearms, and dealing with firearm legislation at this present time, is money well spent. It provides a measure of safety. If we can increase that measure of safety, then it is money well spent.
I'm not looking to double that expenditure by any stretch of the imagination. If I can keep it under control and reduce it, I would be pleased. But I don't know, I haven't heard chiefs of police across the country say they're actually looking for a reduction in what they're actually spending now.
I don't think my situation is any different from any other police chief's situation around the country. I think what I do not want to see is an increase in my cost. I think that can be accomplished through the various means of charges and fees.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. de Savoye.
[English]
Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I wish to thank our witnesses.
There are two areas I'd like to examine. In the first ten minutes we'll start with the first, and see how far we can get.
We have had organizations - about nine or ten of them - appear before the committee, both the standing committee and the subcommittee, when we were examining the main bill. These organizations have indicated that they have an exemplary record with regard to public safety and personal safety. They indicate that the regulations as contemplated, together with the bill, will have a very powerful negative impact on their organizations.
Some of them, such as the re-enactment organizations, have testified before the committee that the bill will, of course, cause them to become extinct. For example, in Fort Erie there are 150 participating in the re-enactment in 1995. There were 15 last year.
Mr. Feltoe appeared before the committee, and related that directly to the concerns about the existing, as well as the forthcoming, gun control requirements. So he was present here asking for an exemption from some of those regulations, particularly the fee schedule that will discourage the non-residents from coming across the border and participating, as well as the Canadian participants going into the United States to participate in some of the re-enactments over there.
.1550
Would you be willing to consider reasonable amendments to the regulations that would allow relief to these organizations?
Chief Ford: It's a difficult question to answer, because I have not been privy to the concerns of such groups.
I certainly haven't seen anything that would indicate that on an individual basis, for those people engaged in hobbies such as historical hobbies, the regulations would be prohibitively costly to engage in hobbies, unlike for people engaged in historical vehicles. They still must license and insure those vehicles.
I guess from that perspective, it would be difficult for me to support that kind of amendment. As Rusty points out to me, the weapons that are used are still subject to theft, and they still can be used for lethal purposes.
So I think that I would have difficulty supporting that kind of amendment. I've not seen anything that, in my view, would be prohibitively costly. And I can't explain why the numbers would fall off the way they do. I guess it would be unwise for me to venture down that road without any more information.
Mr. Ramsay: Well, it seems puzzling to me that you would be here supporting the bill without at least a cursory understanding of the impact it's going to have across the broad range of Canadian people using firearms.
We have had organizations here that were opponents of the bill as well, who do not understand the jeopardy in which some firearm owners who use their firearms in a legitimate and safe manner are going to be placed as a result of this bill.
It seems to me that you're reflecting the same lack of understanding of the impact of the bill in these areas. With the greatest respect, I have difficulty understanding how you can support a bill until you know what the overall ramifications are going to be.
If we look just in the area of the hunting groups, the organizations that appeared before us, or at least were represented before us yesterday by two gentlemen from Quebec who represent the hunting, the lodges, the outfitters and so on, they are talking about millions of dollars worth of industry: 680 outfitters and organizers. They're telling us that this bill could place them in jeopardy.
They are a very well-disciplined group. According to their testimony, there has been no threat to public safety or individual safety. Yet, at the same time, this will have enormous economic ramifications for their organizations. It could put them out of business, and put hundreds, if not thousands, of people out of work.
It's strange to me that people will come before this committee, and not understand those ramifications. That information has been available - it should have been available - through the research the Department of Justice did at the time the bill was being contemplated. Certainly the testimony of the witnesses who appeared on Bill C-68 is there for all to see.
The Chairman: Excuse me. I don't think it's totally unreasonable for our witnesses not to have an understanding of outfitters, restoration firearms and antique firearms - maybe firearms themselves, but not the restorations, Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Ramsay: Yes. The point I'm making is there are parts of this bill I support - I support the four-year minimum and there are other aspects of the bill that I support - but I cannot support others, because I've looked into the consequences. I've heard the testimony on the consequences of the bill, and with the greatest respect to our witnesses - all the witnesses who appeared before our committee who either oppose or support the bill - surely we ought to expect from them an understanding of the ramifications of the bill itself, all of it.
The Chairman: But I don't think the -
Mr. Ramsay: And that's what I'm asking here today. If they don't, that's fine with me, but I am puzzled that people will support a bill and not really know what the bill is going to do to other people.
.1555
The Chairman: Speaking personally, if they did tell me their opinion on outfitters, restorations and that sort of thing, frankly I don't think it would hold much weight with me, because that's not their expertise. But if they told me about the police aspects, then I would listen.
Mr. Ramsay: Well, of course -
The Chairman: Go ahead, sir. You know, it's quite -
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, you and I can get into these discussions, and we can carry on all over the place, but we only have a certain amount of time with our witnesses.
You know, I don't wish to be unfair, but if I'm supporting a bill, I better know what I'm supporting. If the bill you're supporting is going to put law-abiding people out of business, then I think that if you don't know about it, you should know. If you come here unaware of it, I hope you'll be aware of it when you leave.
Surely we must look at the whole of the bill, and the consequences of the whole of the bill, rather than just our own perhaps vested interest in the bill. I think that's fair.
Chief Ford: Mr. Chair, I come from the perspective of a police organization that represents police services across the country. We have looked at this bill as it reflects on our ability to do our job, and for the members of those police organizations across Canada to do their job.
We've looked at the public safety issue, which is our mandate as police both in the prevention of crime and also in the apprehension of criminals, those people who do commit the crime. We've looked at this bill from our perspective, and also from the enforcement and regulatory aspect.
We looked at all those aspects of the bill that affect us, what we do. And our job is public safety. Having kept in mind that part of it and those parts that are in our domain, we feel this is a good bill, and we feel that we should support it for that reason.
Unfortunately, I am not privy to the number of people and groups that have come before the committee and have spoken on behalf of their own constituents or concerns, but I am here representing policing in Canada. From that perspective, we continue, and will continue, to support this bill, because we feel that from a public safety perspective it is a good bill. It is a bill that is necessary to make our country and our streets, the streets our people police on a daily basis, safer and better places to be. That's why we're here. That's why we support the bill.
Mr. Ramsay: Well, let me ask you this: from your experience as police officers - all three members here - could you say how much of a threat the use of firearms by museums and re-enactment groups has posed to public safety in the past?
Or are we proceeding on apprehensions of what may happen in the future? Are they not well regulated? The armoured vehicles, the Brink's and Loomis people, were here, and they were very concerned about certain aspects of the regulations, and the economic impact it will have upon their profit margin.
Have they posed a threat? Does the use of their firearms create a threat to public safety and individual safety, which is the cornerstone of the bill? That's what it's supposed to be all about, to enhance public safety.
You know, I could go down the list. We had the firearms groups here who deal with our international and world cup teams. They are very disciplined. In fact, let me read his comments. He says ``We have an immaculate safety record.''
So these are organizations whose witnesses have testified that they have not created a challenge to pubic safety. From a police point of view, are they accurate? Have they been testifying accurately to us? Do you have any problems coming out of those groups that use firearms in this very well regulated way?
Chief Ford: I haven't researched my files, but I think that if I went back and researched my files I could find incidents where there was carelessness on the part of any one of those groups you mentioned: armoured cars and gun clubs. I think I could probably find times when things were done in inappropriate manners in those.
.1600
That's not to say that there aren't legitimate groups within Canadian society who undertake to teach safety and gun safety, which I applaud. We've worked closely with the armoured car industry here and with my own police service in Ottawa-Carleton. We provide training for their people. I haven't seen anything in the regulations or the bill that would be of any great concern for that industry. There isn't anything that I can see personally that would cause alarm there.
As a matter of doing business we register our vehicles, we license people to drive those vehicles, and we require that people receive training and pass tests before they can obtain a licence to drive those vehicles. The measure per test is raised as the vehicle they're driving goes up from a passenger car to a commercial vehicle where they're entrusted with the care of passengers to a truck that drives down the highway from a transport perspective. There are insurances and safeguards that take place on a regular basis for those.
I don't see anything different with that as a requirement of business or a requirement of having something that is lethal being an appropriate part of regulations to ensure that the safety of our citizens is paramount.
Mr. Beauchesne: I could just add to that in relation to those organizations Mr. Ramsay has just mentioned. Perhaps I can get back to one of the prime reasons that the police community is supporting the proposed regulations, which is in order to assist us in tracking down stolen and lost firearms. Any one of those organizations you've mentioned is well subject to attempted thefts and loss of firearms by the members who work or are engaged in those occupations or activities. Therefore the registration system by itself, even for a museum or any of those organizations, will assist the police in finding those firearms down the road.
For example, in speaking to our own firearms registrar in Toronto today, I found out that presently in our vaults there are 2,000 long rifles that were seized last year that we cannot find owners for. Most of those have been involved in crimes of some sort or other. They may well have come from any of the organizations you've mentioned that were subject to a break and enter and theft in the past year or so. Had we had registration available to us in the past, hopefully we would be finding owners and perhaps offenders as a result of being able to attach a firearm to a particular individual.
The Chairman: Ms Whelan.
Ms Whelan (Essex - Windsor): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of questions.
The first question I would like to follow up on is an issue Mr. Ramsay raised. It has to do with historic re-enactors.
Just so that we all understand what we're talking about, the presentation that came before us last week was with regard to pre-1898 firearms or what would be technically classified as antique. As a replica or an antique, it's not subject to any of the regulations, but a reproduction is. It doesn't make a lot of sense if you compare the two, because people do use those antiques in historical re-enactment.
There was a show on The Discovery Channel last Wednesday night. Obviously The Discovery Channel, which promotes things for children, decided that it was safe to show and safe to encourage and safe to watch. I think there was an oversight or perhaps a bit of aggression on the part of some of those who drafted the original legislation to include reproductions. We're not talking about the type of firearms you are talking about that we use in the commission of a crime today. Black powder musket guns haven't been used in crime since 1909.
I think we have to be reasonable about what we're talking about; in the regulations you're talking about, what we want to do is make sure that society is safe. The safety course you're required to take for firearms that you would use today for hunting or target shooting are irrelevant in a lot of ways to black powder musket guns because of the safety requirements they have to teach among their own group, which they do. They asked for their own course and everything a long time ago and they do that anyhow. Safety is a large concern.
.1605
So I just wanted to clarify what we're talking about when we talk about historical re-enactors, what they do and what their purpose is. I know you're not an expert in those areas, nor do I believe that by supporting the regulations you're saying those things shouldn't take place or shouldn't exist. Maybe you want to speak to that; I don't know.
I'm a bit concerned, though, with the domestic notification provision. I'm not sure if it goes far enough in the regulations. The requirement is to notify a former spouse or common-law spouse for up to two years. Having dealt with a lot of domestic disputes, you would see more than we would whether you'll see past relationships for much longer than that. There may be support or alimony being paid, and maybe there are other situations that should go further than what's in the proposed regulations.
Chief Ford: The black powder one I'll stay away from. In fairness, the committee has heard the evidence from the historical society, which I haven't heard. I sincerely lack understanding with respect to that part of it. I know the muzzle velocity criterion that determines a firearm; there's a determination based on muzzle velocity, whatever the case may be.
With respect to the spousal...if I understand your question, it is whether two years is enough. Probably it is enough in the vast majority of cases. It provides something we don't have now in terms of checking back to make sure everything is okay, that there's no history of violence, even if that violence was unreported violence. There are many instances where that could be the case, where people have separated or divorced and there is unreported violence. So I think it's good that we do that kind of check. It's good that it's in there. Two years will probably capture the vast majority of them.
Ms Whelan: My final question has to do with the ability to enforce. I personally believe that safe storage is important. I don't have a problem with registration per se. We register our vehicles and everything, and I think if we were honest, we would just admit that we're updating the 1977 system to meet 1997 requirements of registration.
But I'm a bit concerned about the ability to enforce. I wonder if from your prospective, having reviewed the regulations, there's anything you see as unenforceable. I say that with regard to Bill C-17.
This is a case that will hit close to home. Concerning Constable Baylis, who was killed with a stolen firearm, it has come to my attention that there were some questions on whether that firearm was stored properly. We do know that the owner was determined. Under Bill C-17 there was a provision to charge that owner with an offence, and that wasn't done.
So when I say the ability to enforce, is there something in here that will leave that question hanging there again? I don't want to see laws that we're not going to enforce, nor do I want to see things that ethically or morally we don't believe we should enforce, just for the sake of having them in print. I'd like to ensure that what we have here can be enforced both through the media and by yourselves.
Chief Ford: I don't recall anything that would not be enforceable.
To the safe storage point, in the Baylis case - and there was one here, the Nicholas Battersby case, in which a stolen firearm was used - the difficulty would be the burden of proof, to prove in a court of law that the actual crime had taken place, in other words unsafe storage. That may be the reason why people don't venture down that avenue and it comes to light afterwards through the investigation.
.1610
On the other hand, in my own experience as a detective - and I'd like to think it was not that long ago - I personally have gone into houses and found loaded shotguns lying under couches or very loosely within residences. I know other officers more recently have experienced that as well. So I see that as a very enforceable part of the regulations.
There will be some instances, as there always are in any criminal court of law, where the burden of proof has to be there. The innocence of a party is paramount. We are not guilty until proven so, and we're innocent until that time. The rule of law must be adhered to. From time to time, in consultation with crown attorneys, the decision is made not to lay a charge for a variety of reasons, whatever those reasons may be, but I still think the law is an enforceable law.
Ms Whelan: I have one final question, Mr. Chair.
This has to do with Canadians who find themselves with firearms they don't want. What can they do?
Chief Ford: Turn them in to the police. We'll destroy them.
Ms Whelan: With no questions asked? I get asked this question a lot by my office. I know that locally they don't get that response.
Chief Ford: Basically what we require - and we've given a number of amnesties - is the name and address of the individual turning the firearm in. The firearm will be checked for whether or not it was used in a crime, obviously. Other than that, the gun is destroyed.
Mr. Bryan McConnell (Executive Director, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police): I want to make one qualification to that. Phone the police; don't bring it to the police.
Chief Ford: That's a good point. We'll pick it up.
Ms Whelan: If you were to come and pick it up and discover that the firearm is not stored properly, would that person be charged, even if they're trying to get rid of it?
Chief Ford: One of the things in common law in Canadian law enforcement is the discretion an individual officer has in a given circumstance. If I were proffered a weapon to be turned over -
The last time we did it we received in the neighbourhood of 600 weapons in Ottawa-Carleton. It was to our benefit to not have those on the street and to have them destroyed. Discretion was used on a number of occasions. It's part of what police are allowed to have. We use that discretion to the advantage of public safety - not to the advantage of the individual officer, but to the advantage of public safety. The advantage to public safety in that case would be having a firearm removed from the street and destroyed.
Mr. McConnell: If the peace officer didn't use his or her discretion properly, the crown counsel or the judge would.
Ms Whelan: Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms Whelan.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye, do you have other questions?
Mr. de Savoye: I do not have any other question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Maloney.
Mr. Maloney (Erie): We've heard from a number of gun organizations on the area of replacement permits to carry, which were previously issued for a year or up to three years.
Authorizations to transport are considerably more restrictive, specifying the period for which the authorization to transport is issued, the places between which the firearm that applies may be transported, the reasons for which the firearms may be transported between the specified places, and that you must transport by the most direct route.
Do you have a problem with licensed owners of prohibited or restricted weapons now? Is it a problem we're concerned with?
Are these regulations realistic and workable, and are they necessary and enforceable?
Chief Ford: I'll deal with the regulations as they are now in terms of restricted weapons. If you're a member of a gun club or if you're in security, or for your protection.... Rarely is one ever given for protection of an individual. I can't recall when we've done it here in Ottawa-Carleton. There may have been one or two occasions across the country when it was done.
The carrying permits, as they're called, that are issued for people who are members of a gun club are very restrictive as it is. It's from the point of the gun club to the home; in most cases it's somebody's residence. They take it to the gun club and they take it back, which means they can't carry it all over the place.
They're very enforceable and they're necessary to restrict people from leaving guns in their trunks all week long or from going to work at the office with the gun and then going to the gun club after. When one considers the 70% rise in vehicle thefts in the past couple of years, it's a reasonable aspect of the regulation.
.1615
Yes, it's enforceable, but as in many laws, it's one that would be enforced where somebody had breached the law and it came to the attention of police.
I don't know if that answers your question.
Mr. Maloney: How would you interpret the phrase ``transported by the most direct route''?
Chief Ford: Well, if I'm going from my home to a shooting range, if the range is in Ottawa-Carlton, it means I don't go through Hull or Montreal or something like that. A reasonable approach has to be taken and is taken. It doesn't mean you have to follow a certain street pattern or anything like that. It's just that it's reasonable.
Mr. Maloney: Okay.
On the issue of spousal information, someone suggested we should go beyond spouses perhaps to other members of the family and children. How far do we go? Do you feel the spouse is sufficient?
Chief Ford: In a situation like that the spouse would certainly give indication if there were any child sex abuse or child abuse with respect to the individual.
Our experience is that in cases of child abuse, if I may use that as an example, because I think that's where you're coming from, if the person receiving a permit were threatening or abusing a child in the family.... Those come from adults.
Mr. Maloney: I'm more concerned about where the spouse may be intimidated by the applicant and where the children, adult children specifically, wouldn't necessarily be intimidated by their -
Mr. McConnell: Are you thinking of the Concordia example, where we had the shooting and in fact the spouse was fully aware that the professor was getting weapons? It's possible, but it becomes a question of whether it is really practical to go further.
Mr. Maloney: Okay.
One of the reasons I can support the regulations on the gun bill is I feel it protects our law enforcement officers. You've gone on at considerable length in your brief to underline that.
One of the difficulties I have in the area where I come from, a rural riding with a small urban component, is when I've appeared before ``gun guys'', as I refer to them - gun lobbyists, etc. - on more than one occasion a police officer has gotten up and said ``These gun laws will not help me one little bit''. Of course that blows me out of the water vis-à-vis that argument.
Why would they say that? Is there a problem within the force that some feel it's a good thing and others feel their sport - their shooting or hunting - takes priority? I have difficulty with that.
Chief Ford: I do too. When you consider the number of police officers, there are probably individual officers across the country who don't support the bill, but they are very much a minority.
In some cases it may be lack of understanding of what the regulations and the law proffer. That is a communications issue that we have most recently dealt with Justice on through the law amendments committee, asking that more updated training manuals and training programs be provided for training of officers across Canada on what exactly the legislation will offer policing.
That's the only thing I can think of as to why that would happen. I think it's a lack of understanding of what the law will do.
Mr. Maloney: Thank you, Chief Ford.
The Chairman: Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Ramsay: To follow up on that, I have the same concern as does Mr. Maloney on this. When the bill first was proposed, I was concerned about the bill and I couldn't support the majority of it, and when I heard the chiefs association was supporting it, I asked myself what I was missing.
So I looked again at the bill and I talked to many front-line police officers, and I got the same response as Mr. Maloney did. Not only that; many of our members in western Canada and right here in Ontario did the same thing. When we go from meeting to meeting, always a police officer will come up to us and tell us what they think about the bill. The whole of the Saskatchewan Police Association is against the bill. They don't support the bill.
.1620
So here we have law enforcement members who are completely at opposite ends to the testimony you've provided us. I have some real concerns about that. When we asked them why they are giving us a different story from what their chiefs are telling us, the response I got from the one individual is that we're hearing the story from the ivory tower. I say that with respect because I don't know what that really means from that individual's point of view.
I do know this. I was a police officer for 14 years, and if checking a computer is going to allow a police officer going to a domestic complaint to lower his guard simply because it says there are no firearms in that house, there's a negative check. He lowers his guard and he ends up like Constable Anson and Sergeant Schrader did out in Saskatchewan, where they lowered their guard. They both ended up dead. This is then a liability to the police officer rather than an asset if they're going to rely upon a computer check. If it comes out blank, they think don't have to worry because there are no firearms in this house, but the computer check can't prove that.
You point out on the fourth page of your brief:
- Another benefit to police officers in the near future, will be the ability to access valuable
information about firearms registered to an individual at a specific address, prior to arriving at a
premise and more so in cases of domestic disputes.
I'd like to make one other comment. I get so frustrated when I hear you comparing the registration of rifles and shotguns to the registration of cars and dogs and cats. The difference is that you do not receive a criminal record for failing to register your motor vehicle or your cat or your dog. This has been brought to our attention over and over again. You can receive a maximum penalty of ten years for deliberately neglecting to register your shotgun or your .22; that's what the maximum penalty holds here.
There are many people who don't support that, including police officers. They're the ones working on the front lines who need the support of the people in order to do their job. If they're facing this kind of a situation and the door starts slamming in their face when they need information, that doesn't make sense to me. I'm not a genius in this area but I look for the balance and the common sense and I don't see it.
Chief Ford: Mr. Chair, the police organizations across this country are a reflection of our society, and they should be. That's healthy for our organization. There are going to be people within police organizations throughout Canada who don't necessarily support this bill. I won't say that's not the case. That's truly the case. I've said that. However, the vast majority of police officers in this country do support this. They support it for the reasons that we've already stated.
I don't look at having the ability to receive information vis-à-vis whether the people in the residence you are going to have firearms as a lowering of the guard because the information is not available. It is merely another tool for the officer going into that kind of situation.
.1625
One of the most dangerous situations an officer can go into is a domestic situation. Having the ability to understand even further that there may be firearms will certainly heighten his awareness. He will take different precautions. Not having the knowledge of firearms will not diminish.... There will be a certain awareness that officers will have based on the type of call they go to.
I for one take use-of-force training with my officers. I think it's important that whatever they go through I go through, and I support them in all that they do. I'm very often told by my officers and by our use-of-force trainers that when they go to a call, the more information they can process, the better their safety is and their ability to proceed safely. That's what I support.
I don't think it's going to send people to calls and they're going to lower their guard. Their guard is heightened and it can be heightened even more when they go there. They can respond differently than when they get -
Mr. Ramsay: That's easy to say.
The Chairman: Chief Ford.
Chief Ford: That's the perspective from which I support this bill. Those officers working with me and with organizations across the country who support the bill support it from that perspective. The Canadian Police Association has on many occasions supported the bill and the regulations as well, and I talked to Scott Newark today.
Other than that, I can't say any more. My operational experience and the operational experience of my officers supports this information being available.
The Chairman: Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Ramsay: The final thing is this. There are an estimated three million to six million gun owners in the country. I have never been able to understand how registering their firearms is going to cause them to be more rational or create some kind of guard when or if those people become irrational and want to use that firearm against themselves, family members or a member of society. They have access to the firearm. It may be guarded or locked up and secured, but if they go beyond what is rational and decide to use it, the fact that it's registered is not going to have any impact whatsoever on the three million to six million gun owners.
Mr. Beauchesne: I tend to disagree with that, Mr. Ramsay. If an individual has firearms and is lackadaisical in their storage and handling, and then realizes that once these regulations go through, the firearm could well be traced back to him or her should it be used and it was found out that the individual was not storing the firearms properly, I think that will heighten his or her awareness of the need, for himself and his family and others that could come into that household, to safely store those firearms.
Mr. Ramsay: That wasn't the case out in B.C. where the individual went to the police and obtained, through the RCMP, a firearm. With the greatest respect, that doesn't make sense to me.
Mr. McConnell: That was the Vernon case where he obtained an FAC. This should serve to reduce the likelihood of that.
Mr. Ramsay: I'm sorry, but the point I'm making is that when someone gets in that mental state where they're going to kill someone, what difference does it make whether their firearm is registered or not? There are three million to six million gun owners out there. How will it improve public safety in those cases? There's no question that the legislation has been moved along in this country by those kinds of rare incidents.
Mr. McConnell: I suppose each one of those gun owners has an entourage of family. If there's easy access to the weapon, at least under these regulations the access might still be easy for the actual owner of the weapon but not so easy for his or her entourage.
Mr. Ramsay: But that doesn't answer my question.
Chief Ford: If I may, Mr. Chair, from our perspective, as was stated in the House by Mr. Bellehumeur, it won't prevent all tragedies. We are not so naive as to think that will happen. But it will prevent some tragedies and we hope a lot of tragedies. From that perspective, we come here supporting the bill and the regulations to the bill. That's where we come from. We're not so naive as to think there aren't times when this is going to happen. It will happen, but there will be many times that it won't happen because of the regulations.
.1630
Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.
The Chairman: Ms Whelan.
Ms Whelan: I've got one quick question. It has to do with public knowledge, and I'm just not sure what the answer is.
Bill C-17 has been around for over four years now, and yet many Canadians out there aren't aware of the safe storage requirements that exist right now - prior to Bill C-68 and prior to the new regulations.
I'm wondering how we get that message out to ensure those things happen. I know a lot of the different police forces are involved in VIP programs or school-age programs. Perhaps that's one way, because often children inform their parents of things they're doing wrong. We have to get the message out. I can't tell you the number of my constituents who don't realize they're breaking the law right now.
Chief Ford: Definitely there's a real need for a promotional or publicity campaign, and justice department officials have assured us it would take place.
If I may, in support of some comments that have been made with respect to what Mr. Ramsay says, those people who belong to these gun clubs are probably the best ones in terms of gun safety and gun storage safety, but there are a large number of people who don't belong to any one of those gun clubs but have a weapon they use for hunting. Those are the people who aren't following the regulations that are there already. I think there's a need for education. We need from a policing perspective, as well as from a national perspective, to get out and do the education.
Ms Whelan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you, Chief Ford, Mr. Beauchesne, and Mr. McConnell.
Mr. McConnell, all the very best in your new position.
Mr. McConnell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you for coming. We appreciate it very much.
We're going to take a five-minute break, and then we're going in camera for a preliminary discussion on further procedures in the subcommittee.
[Proceedings continue in camera]