JUST Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 5, 2002

Á

1110

The Chair (Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.))

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Breitkreuz

Á

1115

Á

1120

Mr. Breitkreuz

Á

1125

The Chair

Mr. Breitkreuz

Á

1130

Á

1135

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney (Erie--Lincoln, Lib.)

Mr. Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance)

Á

1140

The Chair

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier--Montcalm, BQ)

Á

1145

The Chair

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick

The Chair

Mr. Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance)

Á

1150

The Chair

Mr. Cadman

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. Lee

Á

1155

Â

1200

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Breitkreuz

The Chair

Â

1205

Mr. Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Lee

The Chair

Mr. Breitkreuz

The Chair

Â

1210

Mr. Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Lee

Mr. Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Breitkreuz

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

---

NUMBER 060

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 5, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1110)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): I'd like to call to order the 60th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

    Today we will be considering a motion presented last week by Mr. Toews: that the committee or a subcommittee study and hear witnesses with regard to the total cost and economic impact of the Firearms Act.

    For the edification of the members of the committee, we've been asked why the subject of the motion wasn't placed on the notice of this meeting. The reason is that it is not determined that this is the subject of business until the motion is in fact put. As members will recall, there have been many occasions when members of the committee have given notice of a motion, but it has not necessarily meant that the motion has been considered at the first occasion following that. Therefore, we don't always know whether this would have been the day.

    Given that we have no other business in particular to deal with today, I'm pleased that both Mr. Breitkreuz and Mr. Toews are here. Without further ado, unless someone wants to question that--and I don't see any inquiring minds out there--I would turn then to Mr. Toews, who is the mover of the motion. I understand he wants to give Mr. Breitkreuz an opportunity to speak to this.

    Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's in fact what I intend to do. Mr. Breitkreuz is the person who put the questions and it was his concerns that prompted me to put forward the motion. He will be speaking to the substance of his motion at this time.

    The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton--Melville, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I would like to address the motion that is before the committee, and that motion reads:

That the Committee or a Sub-Committee study and hear witnesses with respect to the total cost and economic impact of the Firearms Act.

    To give you a little background as to how this came to be, I submitted a question quite some time ago, and on January 29 I received a response from the government, but it wasn't in answer to my question. So that's why I'm here before the committee today, to outline what I feel are the main concerns that need to be addressed.

    I would like to spend the next 20 minutes or so just going through the various aspects of this question. Hopefully, at the end of this the committee will decide to call witnesses. In fact, there are already witnesses from across the country who have indicated quite an interest in addressing this topic.

    As I said, I got a response from the government; that response is printed in the January 20, 2002, edition of Hansard. The government really hasn't answered my question, and it doesn't appear as if they know the answer, because I've been delving into this for quite some time. That's why I think it's incumbent upon the committee to really get to the bottom of this. Since 1995, the committee hasn't heard any witnesses or had any evidence before it on the Firearms Act, and that's quite some time.

    The argument could be made that it's not fully implemented. I feel this is all the more reason why we must study it in order to know what's going on, and if any remedies are needed and problems develop in regard to the Firearms Act and what it's creating, it's not too late to in fact go into that. I feel it's incumbent upon this committee to push for that.

    Some people have said this is just political. It's not. We need to examine all the spending by government. It is the role of the opposition to do that; it is the role of this committee to examine all of the things that go on in legislation that's been passed. So I believe a cost-benefit analysis by the Treasury Board has not taken place and should be done.

    The current costs were the ones that were outlined in the response I got from the government. It was initially going to cost $85 million over five years, and now it's over $600 million over that cost. We want to know how much it will cost to fully implement this. Only 1.4 million guns have been registered so far, according to the information we have from the justice department. Their estimates were that there were 7 million guns. So if we've spent that much and we have only that fraction of guns registered, I think it's important that we find out what's going to happen and what the projections are.

    In a 1974 study by Statistics Canada, it indicated there were at least twice that many guns. If that is in fact the case, the costs on this thing could increase dramatically. That's part of the reason for asking this question.

    So with the chair's permission, I'd like to go through the response I received. I believe the committee should investigate this further and support my motion. I believe it's in the government's best interests that they deal with this.

    If we go to the response in Hansard and to the question I've put on the Order Paper, the government responded that the costs were $487 million, and $139 million more were estimated to be spent this year. You can read that response; it's in the handout I have given to you.

    We specifically asked for the projected cost to fully implement and operate the program and enforce the legislation. The government has only given us the current cost of the program and that wasn't even correct. According to Treasury Board officials appearing before the Standing Committee on Finance on November 21, 2001, the current cost of the Canadian firearms program was reported to be $689 million. The Treasury Board officials did not answer the question that was asked at the Senate committee by Senator Stratton. In reply to Mr. Neville, who said, “You said it was $600 million more than originally forecasted”, Senator Stratton said, “How can it be that wrong from the original? Where will this end? Do you have any forecast? I am sure you do not.” That question was never answered.

    So the public safety benefits that were cited in part (a) of the government's response could have been far more easily met had they just improved the administration of the old FAC program, and this would have cost only a few million dollars, not the $689 million that has already been spent.

    So I'd like to go onto part (b) of the response. In this we are dealing with the projected impact of this program on the economy. By and large, none of these different issues were properly addressed.

Á  (1115)  

    In the response to part (b) of my question, if this had really been the answer to the questions on economic impact, why did the Department of Justice declare the entire 115-page report on the economic impact of the gun registry a cabinet secret? That, I think, is something that has to be answered.

    In the access to information response I received, it says:

We have identified one record responding to your request (115 pages). This document has been deemed a Cabinet Confidence and has been excluded entirely, pursuant to s. 69(1)(a) of the Act.

    We need to know what those costs are. This committee needs to investigate that, and that has not been done. I have tried to find out what those costs are. So I need the committee's help in going into that.

    The government response as contained in Hansard (1) indicates that:

While certain members of the recreational firearms community suggest that active firearms owners are leaving the shooting sports as a consequence of the individual licensing and firearms registration requirements included in the Firearms Act, there is no indication that this is true. There are some indications that individuals who owned firearms but no longer use them have chosen to dispose of their unused firearms rather than apply for a licence and register firearms they no longer want....

    Mr. Chair, the justice department's own surveys show that the number of gun owners in Canada has dropped from 3.3 million to 2.46 million since 1994. As of December 3, 2001, the Department of Justice reports that only 1.762 million firearms owners held valid firearms licences. The department has no evidence whatsoever that more than a million firearms owners have chosen to dispose of their unused firearms. The police department has not received millions of firearms, as would be happening if this statement had any validity. In fact, the RCMP reports that only 58,000 firearms have been surrendered to police since January 1995.

    If you go back to my original question, (2), I was asking about the number of hunters. The government said that “Nothing in the Firearms Act precludes Canadians or non-residents from hunting in Canada.” I feel that since the government started introducing gun control laws targeting law-abiding firearms owners in 1979, the number of hunters in Canada has been in a steady decline. While some of this drop may be due to cultural attitudes toward hunting and shooting sports, much of the decline can be attributed to government red tape.

    I would like to refer to statistics I received from the Canadian Wildlife Service. The number of migratory game bird hunting permits issued was 380,000. It was as high as 524,000 in 1978, and it dropped to 191,000 in 2000. That is a very serious drop in the number of hunters in Canada.

    I would also like to refer to an article in the Ottawa Citizen of Monday, October 2, 2000. I would like to quote from that:

The main reason why hunting is dying in this country is bureaucracy. Hunters are struggling under mounting piles of regulations, the federal licensing and registration system being just the latest. More and more hunters are chucking the whole mess and walking away.

    That needs to be investigated as one of the key things causing a decline in the number of hunters in Canada. That of course would have a severe impact on the economy.

    The government has failed to provide evidence of another significant drop in the number of hunters since the January 1, 2000, deadline for obtaining a firearms licence. In Quebec's Labelle County alone there was a 50% drop in the number of deer licences sold and triple the number of deer killed in car accidents between 2000 and 2001.

    So this is having an equally dramatic impact on tourism and outfitting operations, and we have to hear from them directly.

Á  (1120)  

    Just as an aside to that, this is not only going to have an impact on the economy, it's going to have a severe impact on the environment. That's not the mandate of this committee, but that is something that also needs to be addressed.

    When we get to parts (3) to (5), the government has grouped those three together. They include the number of visitors to Canada, tourism and outfitting operations, and wildlife populations, the impact that is having on these. The government says it's not within its purview to deal with these issues.

    The reason we asked the government these questions is because the Department of Industry, the Department of the Environment, and the Department of Finance have all responded negatively to our access to information requests. When we look at what these departments cumulatively say--and I'd like to cite from a January 31, 2001, access to information response--they have said no records were found to show how migratory bird hunting and bird populations were affected by the new firearms licensing and legislation regime. That needs to be done, Mr. Chair.

    Also, Industry Canada responded, saying they have no records that document how the tourism industry will be affected by the new requirements for visitors bringing firearms into Canada. That is a major oversight. We need to have this committee look at how that is affecting the tourism industry. That could be, and I believe it is, having a tremendously negative effect in that area, costing our economy a lot of money.

    The Department of Finance responded that “no records exist in the Department of Finance Canada concerning this request.”

    Again, these are all areas that need to be addressed.

    In part (6), regarding aboriginal people, communities, business, and employment, the government responded by saying that “Nothing... precludes aboriginal Canadians from participating in their traditional lifestyles.” Well, if the government's response is true, why then have the Saskatchewan Federation of Indian Nations and the Territory of Nunavut launched a constitutional challenge to the Firearms Act? It would be very prudent for us to hear directly from these challengers to find out how the Firearms Act is affecting their participation in their traditional lifestyles and how it's affecting aboriginal employment in guiding and outfitting businesses.

    Part (7) dealt with international trade. The government responded that:

The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade presently controls the export and import of firearms and ammunition.

    My response to that is that the government has to do their homework. They haven't done their homework. We have been in communication with the Canadian Defence Industries Association, and some of their members are predicting millions of dollars of lost business as a direct consequence of complying with section 53 of the Firearms Act, which states:

No business shall import a prohibited firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition that is to be shipped in transit through Canada and exported.

    On March 7, 2001, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade responded to our access to information request, saying they could find no records to show how the implementation of the Firearms Act will affect imports and exports. That has to be done, and that's why I'm requesting that this committee look into this.

     If we deal with (8) and (9), which the government has grouped together, I wanted to know the economic impact that Olympic and international shooting competitions would experience as a result of Bill C-68.

    The government says “Nothing in the Firearms Act precludes Canadians or non-residents from participating in shooting sports in Canada.” Well, we have received many complaints from American hunters and American shooting organizations concerning the red tape, delays, and fees they encounter at the border when entering Canada for their annual hunting trips.

    I would like to quote a letter from the publisher of the Grouse Point Almanac of Fairfax, Vermont. He said:

Dear Minister McLellan:

I am writing to voice my strenuous opposition to the new procedure that will require law abiding sportsmen from the US to pay a $50 annual fee along with your Firearms Acquisition Certificate upon entering Canada.This measure is punitive to the legitimate gun owner and will ultimately be harmful to the Canadian outfitters' industry and ironically will result in substantial revenue losses to the Canadian government. ...

I am Publisher of a magazine that appeals to upland bird hunters, primarily here in the US. We also have a number of Canadian outfitters that advertise in our magazine. I think I can speak for all of them in saying that this law is ineffective and, like many we have here in the US, will punish law abiding citizens, do nothing to curb gun-related violence, will be detrimental to the Canadian outfitters' industry and ultimately deprive the Canadian government of significant tax revenue.

    Now, that indicates clearly that there is going to be an economic cost. He concludes by saying “Repeal this law before the damage is done!”

    I am asking that the committee check to see what the economic impact of this legislation is having in this area.

    Going to number (10), the firearms and ammunition manufacturing sales and service sector, the government says:

The Firearms Act provides for the licensing of firearms businesses. Nothing in the Act precludes a business from operating within the terms of its licence.

    However, I have documents available on the Department of Justice's own website that show the number of firearms business permits issued dropped from a high of 16,000 in 1979 to just under 5,000 in 1998. Government red tape has driven hundreds of thousands of hunters away from their sport, and consequently there has been a corresponding drop in the number of firearms-related businesses.

Á  (1125)  

    The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Breitkreuz. I know you're eager to get a lot of the information forward, but could I ask you to slow down a bit for the translators? Particularly when you're reading, they have a hard time keeping up.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Okay, yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is also available in the other official language.

    Going now to numbers (11) and (12), these deal with sporting goods sales and manufacturing, and recreational vehicle sales and manufacturing.

    The government responded by saying that “The Firearms Act does not regulate the sales of such materials in any manner.”

    When I read this response, I couldn't believe it, because really, this is a ridiculous response. The number of resident and non-resident hunters are in dramatic decline due largely to onerous gun control laws. This fact can no doubt be having an equally dramatic impact on sporting goods and recreational vehicle sales and manufacturing.

    The Canadian Sporting Goods Association completed a survey in 1997 that revealed that for men, hunting was the second most important sporting activity, and we would be well advised to hear the testimony from these organizations. Mr. Chair, it's the second most important sporting activity for men.

    Going now to number (13), what impact does this legislation have on gun shows, the government responded by saying:

The Firearms Act gun show regulations are not yet in force. The changing demographics of firearms ownership may be reflected in the participation rate at gun shows. However, it should be noted that these changes may just reflect the result of other recreational opportunities being available to all Canadians...

    Gun shows have been directly affected since the Firearms Act came into effect on December 1, 1998. All firearms sales and transfers have to be approved before a sale can be completed. Mr. Chair, that's one of the main activities at a gun show. Government-appointed firearms officers have to attend these shows to speed up the transfer process, and many times without success.

    The only way to assess the economic importance of hundreds of gun shows to local economies and the economic impact of the Firearms Act is to hear directly from the organizers and participants of these events. That's important, and that's what I'm asking this committee to do.

    Now, going on to number (14), the economic impact on gun clubs and shooting ranges, the government responded that “The changing demographics of firearm ownership may be reflected in the participation at gun clubs and shooting ranges.” The rest of that can be read in Hansard.

    My response to that is that many gun clubs and shooting ranges have been driven out of business or have to pay for expensive renovations to their range facilities as a direct consequence of the Firearms Act, and this despite the fact that the government has been unable to produce a shred of evidence that any of these ranges represented any danger to public safety.

    Number (15), firearms collectors and museums, what is the impact on these? The government responds that:

...Canadians can continue to maintain their firearms collections and that new entrants may begin firearms collecting. Museums may be licensed to maintain firearms in their collection.

    Now, you have to know, Mr. Chair, that museums have been complaining about the Firearms Act since day one, and I would like to give you an example.

    The Alex Robertson Museum in Alonsa, Manitoba, complained to their MP that the fees alone represented 5% of their annual budget. On December 10, 1998, Roy Bailey, the MP for Souris--Moose Mountain, reported:

I was talking with two brothers who own a gun museum. They told me that it takes a minimum of a half-hour to register each gun. They have approximately 400 guns, so at that rate it will take them two months, working eight-hour days, to register their guns. And that's if everything goes smoothly. One of the brothers told me it took 20 hours to register just one of their rifles. This illustrates just how ridiculous the law is. This is really forced labour, because if they don't spend that time registering their guns, the government will consider them criminals.

Á  (1130)  

    This is not an isolated example, but I cite this as one of the key problems. The economic impact of this on museums is substantial.

    On number (16), movie and television production, the government responded by saying:

The Firearms Act provides a framework to regulate movie supply companies. Nothing in the Firearms Act prevents licensed production supply houses from providing materials to productions.

    While Bill C-68 was being debated in 1995, movie production companies complained that the provisions in this bill would negatively affect them. We need to hear from this industry, to see what the economic impact is going to be. We know they are severely impacted by this.

    On number (17), heritage and historical re-enactments, again the government said that “Nothing in the Firearms Act precludes Canadians or non-residents from participating in historical re-enactments.”

    On Thursday, September 21, 1995, Mr. Richard Feltoe, representing the British North America Living History Association, appeared before the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs during their hearings on Bill C-68. He requested specific amendments to ensure the Firearms Act would not negatively affect historical re-enactments. The Senate passed Bill C-68 without any of these amendments, and it's now time to find out what that economic impact has been.

    Finally, number (18) asked for the economic impact on employment in all impacted industries and activities. The government brushed this off by saying that:

Nothing in the Firearms Act precludes Canadians from participating in activities in which they participated in before the coming into force of the Firearms Act. While the forces of demographic change and the free choice of other recreational activities may have resulted in a decline in active participation in hunting and shooting sports, there is nothing to indicate that any decrease was the direct result of the introduction, passage, coming into force or implementation of the Firearms Act.

    My response to that is that just from the information provided above, it is clear that the implementation of the Firearms Act will have a significant negative impact on the economy--on specific industries and on certain types of business.

    In just 20 years, more than 11,000 firearms businesses have closed, and of course employment in these impacted industries has been affected. These layoffs have a negative impact on other businesses and the communities in which they operate. Unfortunately, the government has chosen to declare the 115-page study on the economic impact of the Firearms Act a state secret and has chosen not to study the issue.

    I appreciate your patience, Mr. Chair. I think I have clearly indicated that there is a need to study the economic impact of this. It is incumbent upon the government to clearly indicate to us what that economic impact is. I have a list of witnesses from across Canada who would like to appear, to relate the economic impact this is having, and it's generally negative. All of this contributes to economic woes in this country. We have too much to lose by not taking a close look at this.

    If you like, I have that list of witnesses here, but first of all, I guess this committee has to decide where they're going to go with this.

    I appreciate the time you've taken to allow me to present this case. I think it's a very important study that needs to be made, so I await any questions you may have.

Á  (1135)  

    The Chair: I see Mr. Maloney. I'll be taking a list.

    John.

    Mr. John Maloney (Erie--Lincoln, Lib.): I just have a comment, Mr. Chair. I think we have to look at what we have on our platter and discuss priorities. We have the health provisions, conditional sentencing, blood content levels, and Bill C-284, responsibility of directors. We have a tremendous amount on our platter already. If we undertake a study of the magnitude Mr. Breitkreuz is suggesting, where will these be, and which ones are more important to all Canadians?

    In a few weeks, the Minister of Justice will be appearing before this committee on main estimates. Certainly, Mr. Breitkreuz, these are questions that could be posed to the minister. When you say the cost was supposed to be $85 million and we're over $600 million, certainly this is an area we should be looking at or there should be answers for. I think there probably are answers for it, but it's a balancing of priorities. I certainly couldn't support this motion in light of that.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I believe three issues have been raised. This committee is pretty busy. In my motion I made it clear that a subcommittee could be struck to study this--it would not have to be the whole committee--and that subcommittee could hear the witnesses. I think this is too important an issue for it not to be a priority, and a subcommittee could be struck. That's very clear in my motion.

    The indication is also that this is not really of importance to Canadians. It is of importance, and I think if you go out onto the highways and byways of this country you will find a lot of interest in this. People are asking, what are we getting as a result of the hundreds of millions being spent on this?

    Lastly, the point was made that, well, the minister is going to be appearing before the committee and you can ask the minister these questions. Mr. Chair, we have asked the minister these questions time after time and we don't get a response. Either the minister doesn't want to reveal that to us or doesn't know the answer, so we need more than just the minister appearing before the committee and brushing this off. This is a key thing, one this committee should be dealing with.

    The Chair: Mr. Fitzpatrick.

    Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): just have a comment on that as well. I would be of the view that a lot of the business we have been dealing with and that we're proposing to look at would, for my province of Saskatchewan, generally be low priority items, compared to a lot of other things that would be high priority or that, on the contrary, are having a negative impact on my province. People of Saskatchewan don't have the virtue of living in a big centre like Toronto, where the economy is doing very well and everything seems to be going along fine. We have a lot of problems in Saskatchewan, and the sport hunting and fishing industry is important in that province. It may not be important to somebody in a large urban centre, but it's important where I come from. To me this is a very important issue. I'd like to see something from Saskatchewan or the prairie region made a priority in one of these committees one of these days in this House.

Á  (1140)  

    The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier--Montcalm, BQ): I want to make a comment, mostly. I think it would be important for us to know the real cost of implementing the Firearms Act. You know full well that the Bloc Québécois supported the firearms registration act because according to it, in a free and democratic country such as ours we needed a law to allow us to monitor things better. However, if the previous law had been better applied—we always come back to the same thing—we might have had better results with the Firearms Act.

    The agreement you obtained from the Bloc Québécois as well as from many citizens of Quebec and Canada was based on certain facts; among others, it was said that firearms registration would be self-financing after the first five years. People talked about tens of... If memory serves, it seems to me that the figure that was quoted was about twelve million dollars per year during the first five years. But even with the figures provided by the Department of Justice, the cost overruns are huge. Treasury Board figures indicate that we are getting dangerously close to a billion dollars to register firearms.

    If you had told me five years ago, when this bill was passed, that the federal government had a billion dollars to devote to the safety of Canadians, the priority of the Bloc Québécois and of Quebec might not have been to invest that kind of money on firearms. We would have put that billion dollars elsewhere, while improving the act which existed at that time.

    Insofar as costs are concerned, I think that somewhere someone has put his foot in it. I would also, as a manager, like to know the exact cost of this law. Is Treasury Board right, or is it the Department of Justice? Someone is lying somewhere. Which of the two is it? Perhaps it is neither one nor the other. The accurate figure may be completely different. I would like to know that as well.

    When I see that a document as innocuous as a report on the economic impact of firearms registration has been made subject to departmental secrecy, I have a problem. I represent the people of Berthier--Montcalm here, and I must be accountable to them. I imagine that the government also must be accountable. When we hide information as seemingly innocuous as that... The economic impact of measures is not a State secret. What is the economic impact of firearms registration? I am sure that if you want to do your work properly, you too will want to know this. And now it is a secret. What have they got to hide? I think that we have to ask ourselves some questions. Where is the truth in all of this?

    This morning it is being proposed that the committee or a subcommittee throw light on this matter. No one here is against motherhood; everyone must support this. It seems that we have a lot of work before us: conditional sentences, alcoholism, a private member's bill. We've dealt with heavy workloads before.

    Since 1993, we have done quite a bit of work here. If we can't do this within the standing committee, let's strike a subcommittee. I support this without reservation. We will have an accurate picture of this important file, all the more so since I know people who are still obstinately not registering their firearms, for all kinds of reasons. I am sure that you also know some in your own ridings.

    The study we will carry out might provide us with arguments to convince them to register their firearms. Perhaps we would also have arguments at our disposal to say to them that they are right not to register them, because this is like a bottomless pit, and we may find that this law will never be enforceable. I want to know where the truth lies, even though in the beginning the Bloc Québécois supported the government in this regard.

    Today, it is time to begin to look at how this act has been enforced, in order to see whether it is possible to enforce it. We have to do this, because even today there are many people who have not registered their firearms and who will not do so. So we are going to have problems tomorrow morning in our respective ridings, because we are all going to know honest citizens who will be treated as criminals. And each one of us is going to have this problem on his or her back. I think that the time has come to get some answers to our questions, and for this reason I support the motion that has been introduced,without reservation.

Á  (1145)  

[English]

    The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Bellehumeur.

    Mr. Fitzpatrick.

    Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: I have one further comment, an observation.

    I've practised law for 25 years and I've been on the output end of this legislative record of government. I think a mistake a lot of us are making in this place is that we're really quick to pass laws and put them into place, as opposed to business, which initiates policies and so on. They monitor and evaluate those programs constantly to see if they're working, achieving their purpose, and continuously improving the product to get the thing to do what it's supposed to be doing.

    I find too often here that we're just the front end. We push a button and pass some laws. It makes us all feel good, or it makes the people on the other side of the House feel good, but we're very weak on evaluating and monitoring this legislation and its effects, its results, its purposes, unintended consequences, and so on. In a lot of cases, I think some of this public policy becomes a disaster in time, and people have even forgotten what its original purpose was.

    So I think a worthwhile function is to really evaluate something that we've embarked on here and see whether it's achieving what people thought it might do and so on, rather than just assuming it's doing that.

    The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd just like to respond to what the Bloc has said here.

    The original projection was for a $2 million deficit on this. It's obvious now that the deficit is hundreds of times that. In fact, in collecting only $44 million in fees and now refunding those, the deficit is going to be much larger. But if the priorities of this committee are to deal with all the issues that have just been listed, I think reviewing this act and making some key amendments to it could in fact release resources to make some of the other programs the government is embarking on much more effective. If those resources were focused, as my Bloc colleague has said, on certain key parts of the act, such as licensing and doing background checks and putting more police on the street to enforce the laws that would be effective in controlling crime involving guns, I think that would be a much better way for the committee to go.

    What could happen as a result of examining the economic impact and where we're spending this money is that maybe the committee would recommend some key amendments that could be made and would make a lot of the other things this committee is embarking on much more effective. I would suggest that this can be tied in to what the committee is doing in other areas and make it much more effective.

    I'll just cite one example in conclusion. Hundreds of millions are being spent on this; it's almost $700 million now. Only approximately $250,000 was allocated to fighting terrorism, so we have virtually three times as much being spent on enforcing the Firearms Act and a registration system that I don't think is going to produce nearly the results that combating terrorism would have. I think that puts it in perspective as to what our priorities should be and where we should be heading in this regard.

    The Chair: Mr. Sorenson.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

    I spent this last week in my riding, and I had seven town hall meetings. As a new member of Parliament, I was not in former parliaments that brought in Bill C-68 on the gun law, but let me just say that when we did town hall meetings, what we were talking about was Bill C-5, Bill C-15, and all the other bills that have basically come through this place, and we were giving an update to the constituents as to where the bills were at. By the second town hall meeting it became very evident that Bill C-68 was still the issue many in my riding wanted to talk about.

    I received a letter from W. Douglas Fawcett, who wrote out his concerns about security and also his concerns for where the government was going. The question that kept coming concerned the fact that in days gone by, when the old Reform Party was active, you guys came out here and said this thing was going to cost $85 million, and you were arguing against it, saying that's $85 million that could be better spent for health care. How come it's now up over $600 million? What is the opposition doing? Watching the government run away with a program that isn't working?

    One of the things I appreciate about what Mr. Breitkreuz said is that as the official opposition, we have certain responsibilities. Our responsibilities are to hold the government in check, to make sure they're accountable. I applaud Mr. Breitkreuz in that everything he has tried to do is to hold the government to account.

    But when you have answers to questions and we ask the questions and aren't receiving the answers, where do we go? What he's done is he's come to committee and said, listen, can the committee deal with this? If the committee can't deal with it, can a subcommittee be struck to deal with this, because we have to find answers?

    I again say, when I receive four-page letters about concerns as to where our government is going in security and personal security and all those types of things, I have to be able to give answers. My only answer is, we can't get them from this government. I would appeal to all members of this committee to allow us the opportunity to do our job as the official opposition and to allow this motion to go through.

Á  (1150)  

    The Chair: Mr. Cadman.

    Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    As you know, I come from an urban riding, and generally there is support for gun control in the urban ridings. But that's the operative phrase, “gun control”. The more my constituents see the costs rising with this firearms registry, the less support there is for the actual firearms registry. Gun control they support, not the registry.

    We just had the figures released for the number of crimes committed with firearms. What they're saying is that the crimes are still increasing, but the crimes are with handguns, which have been registered since 1934. That's what the majority of the crimes are being committed with--at least according to the statistics I'm getting locally. So again, people see that and they say, well, what good is this registry doing? We're still seeing crime going up, crimes whose commission requires the use of firearms.

    I'm not a hunter myself. I'm not a gun collector or a hunter, but I have hunters on either side of me, and sometimes they share their game with me, which is nice.

    The Chair: This side or back in Surrey?

    Mr. Chuck Cadman: Back in Surrey.

    These are responsible people, and I get complaints from them all the time about the problems they're having. I have a very close friend who is a hunter and a gun collector. He has 16 firearms, 16 weapons. At last count, given all the screw-ups with trying to register, he had 57 different registration certificates for 16 guns. Some of them were erroneous. Some of them were scratched off the system. He showed me three separate registration certificates for one particular firearm. The serial numbers were the same, but they were taking numbers off different parts of the gun. They were taking numbers off the barrels and off the stocks, so he had three different certificates for one individual weapon. He showed me three others where he had two, and these were current.

    These are on the system. What does this make this guy look like when it comes up on the system? He's got 16 weapons he's trying to register, and the computer shows that he has 57. This is nuts. We have to get to the bottom of this. How much is it costing us to do all this in the first place, the cost for the individual firearm owner, the time he's been spending trying to comply, and what it's costing the system to correct the errors? It's just one error after another.

    This is only one guy I'm talking about. I have on average one person a week coming into my urban constituency office complaining like hell about what's going on with this firearms registry.

    So I'd support this motion. We have to get to the bottom of this.

    The Chair: I thank you. I thank you all, and I thank Mr. Toews and his assistants for bringing this forward for the committee's consideration, and Mr. Breitkreuz for a well-researched, well-presented argument.

    Now I'm going to put the question.

    Mr. Lee, sorry.

    Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough--Rouge River, Lib.): I thought it might be useful, for the record, to have some comments on the motion from this side.

    I was around when Bill C-68 went through and throughout all of the elements of it, from the very beginning to the very end, including the regulations and even precursors to Bill C-68, and what I would not be interested in doing is refighting the battle. Maybe my colleagues here don't feel that way, but I'm tired. I regard the battle as over.

    There is substantial support for the firearms control legislation across the country. It is not consistent right across the whole country, and I accept that there are significant areas of the country where there is a lot of concern about the implementation of it, but Parliament has decided that there will be comprehensive firearms control, including all of those long guns. As difficult as the exercise was, and perhaps is in some places or some circumstances--that is ongoing--I'm not interested in refighting the battle over comprehensive firearms control.

    However, there is an issue. There are in fact quite a few issues. Mr. Breitkreuz has listed a whole truckload of issues, many of which are related to gun control. Tourism perhaps isn't, but in each case there's a connection. And it's quite natural that the justice department wouldn't have a whole lot of information about impacts on deer populations and tourists coming across the border. I'm not even sure who would have all of that information, but these are legitimate questions for those who are very concerned about the implementation of Bill C-68.

    All of us around the table will be concerned about the cost overruns. They are apparently substantial, and maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not so sure there's been a full explanation of all of the cost overruns. It is a public interest issue and there's no way we can really say it is a non-issue. We can't sweep it under the rug, this lovely new rug here today, for example--it could probably cover up a lot of issues.

    So those questions have to be asked and there will certainly have to be answers, and I'm sure there will be.

    I'm not so sure the issue of the cost overruns, while it's one we can all agree is there, is the most important issue the committee has to deal with this spring or this year. On the pure issue of the financial elements of this, I think the estimates procedures are fully adequate at least to raise a number of questions to publicly have the minister answer.

    The procedure itself, as it has evolved, is clearly inadequate to go into the kind of depth Mr. Breitkreuz has urged upon us here, but because I believe there are issues there--I'm not in a position to say that I don't want to hear about this. I don't want to refight Bill C-68, but I am interested as an MP in the financial issues and in the implementation issues.

    I would first like to hear the minister address these, and I'm sure the estimates procedure... We're going to be there in about six weeks, give or take. I'm not sure how long it will take to get into that, but we will have the benefit of that, and I would prefer to see it. I know there are other issues, and I don't have to mention them all, but one is the restructuring of the port police. There are just so many issues that may arguably have a higher priority than this particular one.

Á  (1155)  

    In my view, I'd like to see either the proposal kept alive for a couple of months, until we get through the estimates, see how the other business of the committee is going, or simply have Mr. Breitkreuz or someone else raise it again later in the spring as future business.

    That's my view. I accept it as an issue. I'm not prepared to endorse it as an item of committee business right away now.

  (1200)  

    The Chair: Mr. Sorensen.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Very quickly, because I don't want to speak too long on this, but Mr. Lee has mentioned that he doesn't want to refight Bill C-68. I really don't believe that's what this motion is doing. This motion is not refighting Bill C-68. This motion is giving us the opportunity to hold to account a government that has promised it would be $80 million, and it's been $680 million.

    I was feverishly looking through my briefcase here to find the response one gentleman gave me, because the question just kept coming up in those town hall meetings--the question of what do we do just keeps coming up from the people. Initially we had to send in a registration and then we had to send in money. Now they've sent the money back.

    Am I going to go to jail if I don't comply? Will I be a criminal if I don't comply? I've never had a traffic ticket in my life. Am I going to go to jail when I don't comply? Can I buy ammunition if I don't comply? All these questions are asked. That isn't even what this motion is doing.

    This motion is simply allowing us the opportunity as a committee--or as a subcommittee, if we can strike a subcommittee on this... The motion isn't saying let's derail everything this committee is about to do. This motion is asking is there another avenue we have to get answers, because all the other avenues we've been told to take in the past have run up against brick walls.

    So all I would simply say is give us the opportunity to go back and at least get some answers, because the answers were not given in the document we've been passed today.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz.

  (1205)  

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you. I'm not exactly sure where this is heading, Mr. Chair, and so I would seek your advice on this.

    Could this committee not direct a subcommittee to hold the hearings in such a way that they would address the concerns Mr. Lee has raised? You could strike a subcommittee whose parameters were to strictly deal with the economic impact in all the different areas I listed, and you wouldn't have to go into refighting the whole battle, if that's the concern of the government.

    It's our job as opposition to hold the government to account, and especially in the area of spending, we need to know what's going on. I fear we're going to get the minister before the committee and the same thing will happen as has happened in every other year: they will simply brush this off and give us a number that does not reflect all of the economic impacts this bill is having.

    So I would seek your advice there. Could you not have a subcommittee struck with certain parameters that would limit some of the issues and address some of the concerns the government has raised.?

    The Chair: Clearly, the committee can generally do whatever it wants. The motion that is put would entertain as a possibility the striking of a subcommittee, and if the committee decided to strike a subcommittee, it could give this subcommittee whatever mandate it decided to give. So if the question is whether it's in order, then clearly it is.

    I would hesitate to intervene in this discussion or debate, but I heard a pretty significant signal from Mr. Lee having to do with the fact that, while the subject at hand is of interest to the committee, perhaps the timing is a little bit less urgent, and maybe after estimates I would... I think I heard Mr. Lee suggest something like this. So I would bring to the mover's attention that I would seek counsel.

    Can the committee make a friendly amendment--not that I'm suggesting this, but by way of process--in the absence of the mover? Can it be done in the absence of Mr. Toews? It can. Okay, well, if that's the case... because I bring to your attention the fact that if the committee votes on this today and defeats it, if that were the outcome, then we would not be able to entertain this question again this Parliament, as a matter of process and procedure. I only make the point for the committee's consideration, to make sure that all the information is available.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes.

    The Chair: Mr. McKay is next.

    Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): I also want to comment, much along the same lines as Mr. Lee. Stated from my constituency standpoint, certainly I have very little to do with the gun control legislation. In my constituency there are a few issues arising out of registration, but beyond that, it's virtually a non-issue in my riding.

    I simply do not want to get into the rehashing over Bill C-68. That debate has been held.

    That said, Mr. Breitkreuz does raise a number of issues to which, arguably, he has not received an adequate response. Possibly there are adequate responses, and so I urge Mr. Breitkreuz to consider deferral of this motion pending the appearance of the minister at estimates, and if the answers of the minister are inadequate, you're at liberty to bring back the motion to see whether they should be pursued by way of a subcommittee, or indeed a full committee hearing. So I would think that would be in order.

    The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I appreciate those comments.

    My understanding is that if we bolt this down, I can't bring it up in this Parliament--and I don't expect Parliament to be prorogued, as the news indicates, in the near future.

    I would like to be more positive about this and make the suggestion that we pass the motion today, and then put in place some kind of timeframe and deal with it after the minister appears at committee, and if the minister adequately answers all the different concerns I've raised, it's a done deal. But if we negative this today, then it's done; it could be three or four years before we'll ever come back to it, and that might mean another half a billion dollars spent. If we say yes to this, then we can put in place a subcommittee and an appropriate timeframe.

    The Chair: And who knows, Mr. Breitkreuz, in three or four years some of us may not even be here.

    I think there's possibly an emerging consensus around the idea that we defer--and again, I'm not making the suggestion; I'm just reading the committee. If the committee is interested in hearing the minister in the estimates process, which we've discussed as a committee just last week, and then making a decision as to whether or not the response from the minister at that time is adequate, my sense is that there may be some interest in proceeding. What I'm hearing from the government side is the fact that, as you point out, if we vote on this today and it's defeated, then we won't be able to do that, at least not in the context that you've put it.

    So an option exists, and I think there seems to be some interest in this. Maybe Mr. McKay can help out.

    Mr. John McKay: Can I offer a motion, a motion to table, pending government estimates? I'll move it.

    Mr. Lee, will you second it?

    Mr. Derek Lee: I'll second that.

    The Chair: So I think we have a friendly...

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Chair. I would like to see us pass the motion, and then put in place a timeframe that might address some of the concerns of the government here. I'm afraid that if we table this--

    The Chair: I have to entertain a motion, as put by Mr. McKay, to defer.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Okay.

    The Chair: We'll have a vote on the motion to defer.

    In the interest of trying to accommodate the committee's wishes in as non-partisan a way as I can, I think there is genuine interest in coming back to the question after the minister appears, whereas if the issue is forced today, I think the outcome might be that it would be defeated. If that happens, then even those from the government side who wish to come back to this after the minister appears would not have that opportunity.

    So perhaps, Mr. Breitkreuz, if you would be in agreement, I think we can--

  (1210)  

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Something has just been brought to my attention. If the House prorogues, now or in eight months, can I be assured this will be brought back if we table it now?

    The Chair: If the House prorogues, you can bring it back. You can bring it back to the justice committee. As a member of Parliament, you can get status at this committee.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: All right. If I can have the assurance of the government that they will seriously consider this at a later date, I guess I can go along with that.

    The Chair: I can't speak for a future committee, but I can tell you it would be in order for you to come back to the committee after, if the House prorogues, although...

    Mr. Lee's our procedural expert.

    Mr. Derek Lee: I think, Mr. Chairman, you have reflected my view and that of some of our colleagues here in terms of building a consensus.

    I would suggest also to Mr. Breitkreuz that the way the motion is framed now, the economic impact, the direct and indirect impacts of this, ripple through the whole country, and that is a huge... I know how involved you are in the issue. You could open up 25 separate envelopes of economic impact and chase them for a year.

    This thing is going to come up again. I'm sure the issue will. I would suggest you think about trying to narrow the scope to the economic impacts that really matter, rather than the whole thing, because the whole thing... If I were the researcher working on the committee, or the subcommittee, I could just follow those little chains of ripple effects and end up in Cincinnati, and in Moscow, and in...

    I just make that suggestion, that we try to narrow things so we can do a good job of the elements we choose to study, rather than look at everything.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I appreciate your advice.

    The Chair: I want to make sure I have the consensus I perceive. What I read is that we are going to withdraw the motion today, table it, so it will remain on the record for our committee. So will the comments that have been made by members, including myself.

    It's my understanding of the will of the committee that after we hear from the Minister of Justice on main estimates, we will be in a position to once again consider this particular motion, or one that might be amended slightly to accommodate some of the things we've heard today. Is that a fair reading of the room?

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Agreed.

    The Chair: That being the case, we'll do that with the motion.

    Once again, I had an opportunity to commend members of the committee last week when we were dealing with Mr. Toews' motion with regard to how we handled the first ever referral of a question that was not dealt with in time. I said in the House at that time that I was very proud of our committee in terms of its capacity to do the work of Parliament in a very civil way. Once again, today I think we've been able to do that. And I think in good faith the entire committee and Mr. Breitkreuz would like to hear from the minister and then deal with this after that fact.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I'd like to thank the committee for hearing this issue.

    The Chair: With that, the meeting is adjourned.