EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, April 25, 1995

.1530

[English]

The Chair: I'd like to call the meeting to order. We will continue our examination of Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons.

We have with us this afternoon senior officers from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who have a very important role with respect to this bill. They will not only be responsible for the registration system, but they also have one of the best forensic laboratories in Canada on crime detection. They're responsible for the enforcement in eight of the ten provinces and the two territories. We will probably have a lot of questions to ask, so we will start now.

Deputy Commissioner, I understand you have an opening statement. We'll be pleased to hear the opening statement and then we'll proceed with the questioning in the usual way. You may also want to introduce your fellow officers.

Deputy Commissioner R.A. Bergman (National Police Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have with me today Assistant Commissioner John L'Abbé, director, information and identification services; Inspector Mike Buisson, officer in charge of special registries and officer in charge of the firearms registration and administration section; Superintendent George Kaine, the acting director of federal services on the operational side; and Mr. Murray Smith, chief scientist for firearms within the RCMP laboratories.

[Translation]

I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss Bill C-68 and how it will affect the role and responsibilities of the RCMP.

[English]

As you are aware, Bill C-68 reflects a more determined approach for the enforcement of offences involving firearms in Canada. The act also introduces a number of administrative changes, particularly in the registration and licensing process. I can assure you that the RCMP is fully supportive of this federal government initiative, since it's consistent with our strategic goals and priorities, which emphasize safe homes and safe communities.

We believe that the act will encourage a higher level of responsibility and accountability with respect to the ownership and usage of firearms in Canada. In addition to increased enforcement responsibilities related to the possession and anti-smuggling provisions, which will be shared by all police departments across Canada, the RCMP's role will also include the daily operations of the Canadian firearms registry.

[Translation]

Several years will be necessary for the ensuing licensing system to be fully operational, but we believe that in the end, it will enable police agencies to identify and trace back, with more accuracy, arms that have been lost, illegally introduced or used during the commission of criminal acts.

[English]

In addition, for the first time police officers across Canada will have direct and timely access to firearms ownership information prior to their arrival at the scene of an offence or a complaint. This type of information is critical to officer safety, especially in the case of domestic disputes, where the potential for the involvement of firearms is increasing.

I would point out that at a time when police resources are severely limited and subject to the same fiscal restraints that face all public organizations, it is impractical for police officers to operate under the assumption that they will face firearms at every domestic complaint. Officer safety therefore depends on the availability of accurate information so that a response can be tailored or measured to meet the potential for firearms involvement.

I would now like to discuss the implications of Bill C-68 as they relate to the firearms registration process.

The RCMP has been responsible for the registration of restricted weapons since 1934. This service is presently financed by the federal government and is provided at no cost for the applicants.

.1535

To satisfy the requirements set out in the current Criminal Code, we now process over 30 forms dealing with the handling of firearms. In an effort to streamline this process, the RCMP, along with its federal, provincial, and municipal partners, has embarked upon a redesign of the present restricted firearms registration system through the application of new technologies. Included in this redesign is the development of a computerized direct entry system for the registration of restricted weapons.

Over the next several months and in cooperation with the Department of Justice, the RCMP will be undertaking the installation of direct entry pilot systems at our Lower Sackville detachment in Nova Scotia and at Calgary police services in Alberta. A pilot for the Ottawa-Carleton regional police headquarters is currently being tested.

We expect the direct entry system to provide a more cost-effective, accurate, and timely service to all users. At present our users include firearms owners, police agencies, the chief provincial firearms officers, and the firearms business community. At the conclusion of the pilot studies it will be our intention to introduce the direct entry system to all registrars across Canada.

We recognize that the implementation of a universal firearms registration system across Canada will pose some challenges to the police community during the introductory years. We are therefore working closely with the Department of Justice through the firearms control task group in order to design a computer-based system that will minimize the day-to-day human resource demands and still include police indices screening and background checks where necessary.

To this end, the mail-in licensing and registration system for non-restricted weapons has been proposed. This process would apply to those citizens now in possession of rifles and shotguns who wish to register their weapons and have no intention of acquiring firearms in the near future. Citizens interested in licensing with acquisition rights will be required to apply through a firearms officer, as is presently required for firearms acquisition certificates.

In order to provide firearms owners with as much information as possible and simplify the system, the firearms control task group is contemplating the provision of assistance through a 1-800 help line, detailed information packages, and an interim service bureau. I can assure members of this committee that the RCMP will continue to work closely with the Department of Justice and all other agencies involved in order to develop a cost-effective and efficient firearms registration system to serve the Canadian public.

I or my colleagues will be pleased to answer any questions that committee members may wish to pose. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We will start the questioning.

When we asked through the clerk that the RCMP attend with respect to this bill, we were hoping we could ask questions not only with respect to the new registration system but also to the present registration system, as well as the use of firearms information in detection and in your forensic scientific work in solving crimes, and also questions on your difficulties or not in enforcing firearms registration in the country. I presume that's all right; you have people here...?

D/Commr Bergman: Certainly, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Madam Venne, you have 10 minutes.

Mrs. Venne (Saint-Hubert): Mr. Chairman, I wish to share the time allotted to me with my two colleagues seated on my left. Good afternoon.

I have a question concerning the present firearms acquisition certificate which one is supposed to have even it is simply for borrowing a firearm. I would like to give you an example. Please tell me if I'm wrong.

Let us say that I go moose hunting with my husband. I'm the one with the firearm. The two of us are together in the lookout. I decide to leave the lookout and I hand him my gun in case a moose comes along while I'm on my way back to camp. My husband doesn't have a firearms acquisition certificate, but I have just loaned him my gun. This is something I shouldn't be doing, I suppose?

.1540

[English]

The Chair: By the way, since you have a lot of people with you, Deputy Commissioner, just refer the question to whomever you think is best capable of answering.

D/Commr Bergman: Since Inspector Buisson is in charge of the registration system, I'll ask Inspector Buisson to answer that question.

[Translation]

Inspector M. Buisson (Officer in Charge of Special Registries Branch): That comes under the definition of ``immediate supervision''. As long as the person is under immediate supervision, you may loan him or her a firearm.

Mrs. Venne: You put under ``immediate supervision'' the fact that I'm going back to the camp, a kilometre away, and I'm lending him my gun?

Insp Buisson: No, I really mean immediate supervision, Madam.

Mrs. Venne: We have to be side by side.

Insp Buisson: Yes.

Mrs. Venne: I have just said that I'm handing him my gun, and that I'm no longer there, that I'm on my way back to camp. If the other person doesn't have a firearms acquisition certificate, then I don't have the right to do that, is that correct?

Insp Buisson: That is correct.

Mrs. Venne: All of this points to the fact that the system is very inefficient. If I go hunting, and if my husband comes along with me, he may have no intention whatsoever of participating, but if a situation such as the one I described arises, I'm not going to ask him to produce a firearms acquisition certificate!

The example I just gave you came from the Department of Justice of the Northwest Territories. The people there tell me that the native people often do things that way. They leave the firearm with the woman in case the bear comes by, etc. These are things we're not used to, but it's a common occurrence up there.

All of this to say that the system in its present form is not efficient. It is unthinkable to require that everyone has this famous firearms acquisition certificate just in case someone decides to lend them a firearm.

Do you believe that the new system requiring the registration of persons and of firearms will be more efficient or more practical?

[English]

D/Commr Bergman: Madam Venne, the new system, of course, will require a licence. Of course part of the process leading towards the acquisition of a licence is a firearms training course, which I think is very positive - and in fact it exists with the FAC system. A person using a weapon will have to possess a licence. I presume the provisions of the FAC, the way they exist now under immediate supervision, would apply. But certainly you wouldn't be able to leave the individual with a weapon, an individual who possesses no licence.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: But at the present time, that isn't common practice anyway. If I lend my gun to someone and that someone doesn't have a firearms acquisition certificate, then nothing is changed. That's what I wanted to say. But you are saying that it will be as efficient as the present system. I'm saying that the present system isn't very efficient at all.

You also talked about firearms safety courses. I don't remember the exact clause in the bill, but if I'm not mistaken those persons who have already taken such courses will not be required to take a new course. I obviously have the case of Quebec in mind: in our province, all holders of hunting licenses have already had to take a course. I took one and all of those who have their license did so as well. Are you telling us that we will have to take another course or is the course we've already taken sufficient to get a license under the new system?

[English]

D/Commr Bergman: In the case of the province of Quebec and I believe the province of Manitoba, I understand that the present course will meet the requirements of the new licence. At this time, I'm not aware of whether or not the present courses in the other provinces meet those requirements. But I am aware that this has been announced in terms of Quebec and Manitoba.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: It is the province that administers it. It is therefore the province that will decide if its courses are applicable, if they are good or if people will have to follow other courses or not. It is the province that will be deciding. Is that what you mean?

[English]

D/Commr Bergman: It will be a discussion between the province and the Department of Justice.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: The province won't be deciding alone if the courses it offers are good or not?

[English]

D/Commr Bergman: The funding for the courses comes from the federal government, from the Department of Justice, so I believe they will retain some say in that decision.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: None of this is very clear, but so be it.

.1545

I would perhaps ask for clarifications from the Quebec Justice Department, because in my view it is the Department of Justice of Quebec that will decide whether or not the courses are good.

I will obtain clarifications elsewhere. Thank you.

[English]

D/Commr Bergman: We can certainly follow up and provide more accurate information from our end, if you wish.

[Translation]

Insp Buisson: I have just been advised that all courses given and approved by the solicitor general of the respective provinces in 1993 and 1995 will be approved under the new system. However all courses given after the February 14, 1995 announcement will be required in accordance with the new system. Courses given prior to that, in 1993 and 1995, and that were approved by the provinces will be recognized under the new system.

Mrs. Venne: The courses given before 1993 and 1995 will be recognized?

Insp Buisson: Those given between 1993 and 1995.

Mrs. Venne: Between 1993 and 1995. Since 1993, the courses are recognized. If it goes back to before 1993, will there will a requirement to take a new course?

Insp Buisson: I'm not certain of the answer to that question. I will have to check into it.

Mrs. Venne: No.

Insp Buisson: That doesn't really come under our...

Mrs. Venne: Very well. This is why I was saying that it's the province that decides.

Insp Buisson: Yes, it comes under provincial jurisdiction.

Mrs. Venne: Fine. Thank you.

Insp Buisson: For the time being, it is under provincial jurisdiction.

Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: There are three minutes left.

Mr. Langlois: Thank you. I wanted to ask if Bill C-17 now appears to you to be inefficient because it is incomplete or inefficient because it isn't applied nation-wide?

[English]

D/Commr Bergman: Perhaps I could respond to that by saying that the FAC system came into place several years ago.

It was an improvement, but in fact I think most police officers found it to be somewhat ineffective in terms of a licence type of system. It certainly allowed individuals to purchase a weapon, but after the purchase was made there was really no responsibility on the part of the firearms owner to carry that particular certificate with him or her. In fact, individuals could dispose of that particular certificate, and the record-keeping was difficult for police officers to tap into. Consequently, we feel that the licence system will be more efficient.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Fine.

The Chairman: Have you finished with your questions?

Mr. de Savoye (Portneuf): How much time is left, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Less than a minute.

Mr. de Savoye: In that case, we'll come back on a second round.

[English]

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Thank you for your presentation. I requested through the Solicitor General information from the RCMP forensic laboratories. Are you aware of that?

D/Commr Bergman: Yes, I am, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: Did that information come through your office to the Solicitor General?

D/Commr Bergman: It was passed on to the Solicitor General very recently and I understand it was being returned to you as of today.

One of the problems was in fact with respect to the laboratory information. That was fairly easily achievable. The information required from the firearms registration system was very difficult to achieve, to find and trace based on the present system. Consequently, that information is still being worked on.

Mr. Ramsay: When did you get the request from the Solicitor General for this information?

D/Commr Bergman: I don't have the exact date. It was probably about a month ago.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.

Is it possible to create a registration system that can identify one firearm out of the 6 million to 20 million rifles and shotguns reported to be in Canada?

D/Commr Bergman: Certainly, if there are enough unique identifiers on each firearm, that's theoretically possible.

Mr. Ramsay: I understand that within that information I should have had today, and I don't have, within your standard collection.... Would you just describe to the committee what the standard collection is within your forensic laboratories? How many laboratories do you have? How many standard collections are there, and what's the total of rifles and shotguns in the standard collections?

D/Commr Bergman: There are six forensic laboratories across Canada. Each forensic laboratory contains a firearms analysis section. Each section maintains a standard collection of weapons, both rifles and handguns, which are used in casework to compare against bullets and cartridge cases that are involved in criminal offences.

.1550

Mr. Ramsay: They're one of a kind?

D/Commr Bergman: If they have a serial number on them and they were fully identified, they are one of a kind. The great majority of those are. There are about 20,000 weapons involved in that collection. On the rifle side, somewhere in the area of 10% to 15% do not have serial numbers.

Mr. Ramsay: Can you register a firearm without a serial number?

D/Commr Bergman: Yes, you can. You still have, of course, the description of the weapon in terms of the make and the model, the individual's address, and the overall dimensions of the weapon. These are all factors that can be used to register a weapon. But of course a more unique system involves the complete serial number.

Mr. Ramsay: I'm talking about the identification features that you require.

D/Commr Bergman: Yes.

Mr. Ramsay: What are they?

D/Commr Bergman: The serial number is one of those components, along with the make and model, the barrel length, the calibre, the capacity - all those make up the description of the firearm.

Mr. Ramsay: Okay. Then it is not necessary to have a serial number on a firearm in order to register it in a system that can positively identify it from the other 6 million to 20 million in the country?

D/Commr Bergman: In terms of absolute unique identity, we would wish to have a serial number.

Mr. Ramsay: Is it possible to do that? That's my question to you.

D/Commr Bergman: It's a good question. If you include the person's name, which is part of the record....

Mr. Ramsay: No, I'm talking about the identification of the firearm itself, not the owner of the firearm. If a firearm is brought into the system after it's established, can you trace it simply by the identifying features, by feeding the identifying features off that firearm into the system?

D/Commr Bergman: I think without the serial number you would not be able to say there is not a duplicate somewhere in the world.

Mr. Ramsay: That's what I'm getting at. So how many firearms in your standard collection are there without serial numbers?

D/Commr Bergman: I would ask Mr. Smith to respond to that.

Mr. M. Smith (Chief Scientist, Firearms, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): The number of long arms, I presume, is what you're interested in.

Mr. Ramsay: Shotguns and rifles.

Mr. Smith: The number of shotguns and rifles that do not bear an original manufacturer's serial number varies, depending on which lab you're referring to. It varies between 10% and 20%.

Mr. Ramsay: So 10% to 20% of your standard collection does not have serial numbers.

Mr. Smith: That's correct. However, a note on that for interpretation purposes should be that the firearms collections in our forensic laboratories are put together for reasons different from those of most other people who collect firearms. We generally keep only one of each kind of firearm. Thus the collections we keep do not represent the relative popularity or frequency of ownership of firearms in the general public.

While our collections might have a range of 10% to 20% of long arms without serial numbers, the exact numbers for those shotguns and rifles in private hands in Canada cannot be derived necessarily from that. It's an unknown number.

Mr. Ramsay: From your knowledge and your experience, can you give the committee an estimation of how many rifles and shotguns there are in Canada that do not have a serial number?

Mr. Smith: I cannot give any such number.

Mr. Ramsay: Except that there's from 15% to 20% of your standard collection without serial numbers.

Mr. Smith: That's correct.

Mr. Ramsay: You're aware that the Cooey .22's never were made with serial numbers?

Mr. Smith: Some were made with serial numbers and some were not. It depends on when they were manufactured.

Mr. Ramsay: Prior to 1968, did they have serial numbers?

Mr. Smith: Typically they did not.

Mr. Ramsay: I understand as well that in the standard collection a certain percentage are unidentifiable.

Mr. Smith: Yes, a very small percentage, but nonetheless they do exist.

Mr. Ramsay: Is this registration system to be an identification system where you will be relying on the system to identify a single firearm out of all of the rest in Canada? Is that what this system is designed to do?

Mr. Smith: To the best of my knowledge, one of the purposes of the firearms registration system is to do that, to be able to identify firearms uniquely in a database. However, whether that's achievable in practice, only time will tell.

.1555

Mr. Ramsay: Can you not tell the committee whether or not you will be able to establish.... It seems to me if you have firearms without serial numbers.... I understand also there are handguns and rifles and shotguns with the same serial numbers. Is this true?

Mr. Smith: You are referring to duplication of serial numbers between different makes and models of firearms, I presume.

Mr. Ramsay: Yes, with the same serial number.

Mr. Smith: Yes, it is possible, for example, for a Remington shotgun to have the same serial number as a Winchester shotgun, but when you take all of the descriptors of the firearm into account, the fact that you have a Winchester shotgun with a certain number and a Remington shotgun with the same number still allows you to distinguish the firearms. The make, the model, the manufacturer, and all those other particulars are unique in combination. But there still is a small residual percentage of firearms for which a make or a model cannot be established.

Mr. Ramsay: So if I understand you correctly, you're saying the system will not be able to positively identify a specific firearm out of the total firearms in Canada.

Mr. Smith: That again depends on the specific firearm.

Mr. Ramsay: It's not like the fingerprint identification system, is it? It won't be as accurate.

Mr. Smith: Firearms are not like fingerprints, no; it's a different kind of -

Mr. Ramsay: So it will not be as accurate?

Mr. Smith: The vast majority of firearms will have a unique combination of make, model, serial number, and other registration particulars. But there will be a certain number - the exact amount is unknown but it's perhaps 1% or smaller - for which you will not have the make and the model and the serial number. You may only have two of the three or one of the three. In those cases it is possible there might be a duplicate entry in the registry.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry for interrupting, but we're limited for time here and I have sought this information prior to the committee hearings but I didn't get the information. I would have been able to formulate questions upon that information, and now I have to seek that information before I can formulate my questions. I object to that; I don't think it's right and I don't think it's fair. Therefore, at the end of this meeting I'll be making a motion that these witnesses return after I have that information so I can ask these questions in a fair and straightforward way.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot formulate questions without first obtaining the information, and that's why this letter went through to the Solicitor General well over a month ago seeking that. Now, to be fair to the members here, we did not know the debate was going to be cut off and we'd be moving into the committee hearings as quickly as we have. I phoned the Solicitor General's office today; he received the information and he will have it to me by Thursday...because of a foul-up in a cover letter and so on.

I apologize if I seem to be cutting the answers off. Do I have any time left?

The Chair: No, you have no time left. Let me say that any member has a right to propose at any stage of the hearings that we call witnesses back, including the minister. That's open to the initiative of any member. On the other hand, I thought the questions you were putting were a logical follow-up on some of the information we got yesterday from the National Firearms Association, at least their allegations.

I hope we pursue this still further, because the National Firearms Association yesterday said that for a good number of guns, even in applying serial numbers to them some companies will start on the same model after a certain point and use the same numbers again. I don't know if that's true or false.

They also said that because of the use of plastic now in the manufacture of some new firearms it was hard to apply serial numbers or to have them last on the guns. The witness from the association also said he had guns for which he himself couldn't find who was the manufacturer or what the model was because they came from Europe, and so on and so on.

So many of us want to know to what extent this is true. Is it only 1% or less? Is it a greater percentage? Is there some way you can force application of serial numbers on weapons that don't have them?

.1600

These are all questions we'd like to know in order to assess whether we can have an effective registration system. Of course, you've been administering, as you say, the registration of handguns since 1934 so you've had some experience with them. We'd like to know whether those allegations are true with respect to those as well.

I presume the members will be asking questions on it. The first questioner I have from the Liberal Party is Ms Cohen, for 10 minutes.

Ms Cohen (Windsor - St. Clair): Thank you for appearing. I will start with the first question, which is in a way personal to me, although I hope it conveys a message and provides an answer that so-called law-abiding gun owners, people like me who have guns, can be comfortable with.

I own a shotgun and a rifle, which are safely stored in accordance with the law at the present time but are unregistered because I've owned them since I was about 18 years old, which was just before the last amendment.

I was looking at the English version, page 6, of your brief. Can you assist me? You've talked here in terms of what you envision. What will Shaughnessy Cohen have to do to register her rifle and her shotgun in order to comply with the law when this new system you envision is put in place, assuming for the moment I don't care to acquire any more firearms?

D/Commr Bergman: In your particular case, you would simply visit the local post office or a government office and obtain an application form, include your name and address and some other particulars. The information would also include the types of weapons you own, not the serial number at this particular stage.

That information would then be mailed off to a central bureau and it would be reviewed by a team of individuals, some of whom would have some expertise in firearms. They would screen your background, they would check the details, the information on the application. They may well do a CPIC check, and if everything seems to fit - there are no discrepancies in the information - then you would receive back in the mail a licence to possess those types of weapons. Ultimately, down the road, I understand in two years, the registration process itself, in terms of the serial numbers and description of the weapons, would follow that process.

Ms Cohen: So other than to go somewhere and get the form and send it in, I'm done. I'm out of there. If there is nothing wrong in my check, I can have my firearms and I can have my permit.

D/Commr Bergman: Yes, that's right.

Ms Cohen: End of discussion?

D/Commr Bergman: Yes, madam.

Ms Cohen: One of the things I hear a lot about and as a former prosecutor and as a criminal lawyer I know something about is the so-called security violations that could happen, where you've got stores or people with access to terminals registering information about persons who are acquiring firearms. The reason I know a little bit about this and about similar situations is that as a lawyer I always knew it was possible, for instance, to find out who was driving a particular car at the scene of an incident or that you could contact a friendly police officer, especially in the old days, and you could find out information about people that really you didn't have a right to have.

Now, we have been told by people who like to fire this spectre - I call them the conspiracy theorists - that there were about 150 security violations of the CPIC system last year, which I understand is as secure as any system should be in Canada. Can you assist us and tell us what kinds of violations there were, how that fits with other secure systems? What kind of security will there be in this new system?

D/Commr Bergman: The new registry itself will not be a part of CPIC itself. There will be a firewall between the CPIC system and the new registration system that will allow access by police officers and registrars to the system.

.1605

CPIC itself runs over a network with approximately 10,000 terminals across Canada, and we conduct somewhere in the area of 110 million transactions a year through that particular network. So it's very busy.

Yes, there are breaches of security, but to this point, after 22 or 23 years of operation, they have all been human breaches - in other words, a member of a police force who has authorized access to CPIC has disclosed information to someone to whom he should not have given that information.

Many of those complaints you refer to have been investigated and found to be unfounded. In those cases where a complaint is founded, we pursue charges under breach of trust and internal proceedings under the RCMP.

Ms Cohen: What would you be looking for as an RCMP discipline officer for an officer who breached that kind of trust under your command? Let's say he went through the system and he discovered that at Shaughnessy Cohen's house there was a rifle and a shotgun and he gave that to his brother-in-law - this is the example we always get from the conspiracy theorists - and his brother-in-law broke into my house and took my two firearms. What would you be looking for, for that officer, if you caught him?

D/Commr Bergman: That officer, in my mind, has breached his integrity, which is the same as theft. I would be seeking his discharge from the RCMP and pursuing charges under the Criminal Code.

Ms Cohen: Then let's get the numbers straight. You have 110 million inquiries to CPIC a year?

D/Commr Bergman: Yes.

Ms Cohen: How many security breaches last year?

D/Commr Bergman: I don't know the exact number, madam, but when you say 100 - it could well be that we've had 100 occasions or 100 suggestions. In the great majority of cases those are unfounded; in other words, it did not occur. You will recall that about two or three months ago there was a complaint from Delta, B.C., where a member of a police force did actually release information. That is being pursued in the criminal courts at this time.

Ms Cohen: Can you just give us two minutes on what in your mind is the relationship of a national firearms registry to the problem we have of smuggling at the borders - from the RCMP perspective.

D/Commr Bergman: Certainly I think the provisions involving strengthening the Criminal Code will have an effect in terms of deterrence itself, but right now, certainly in the area of long guns, we simply have no idea how many long guns are in Canada or how they got here. We have no place to start looking for long arms.

If there were a system in place that would provide us with basic data from the border through to the wholesaler through to the dealer to the owner, and transfers between individuals, we would then at least be able to start tracking down how a weapon came into the country or how the weapon was stolen, or perhaps lost, or perhaps filtered out of a legal system coming into the country. We simply have no way of pursuing that kind of information right now. There are no leads.

In fact, I believe today you heard Mr. Ramsay suggest there are between 6 million and 25 million long guns in the country. We simply don't know. Any system that will provide us with information on the existence of weapons coming into the country and to whom those weapons were passed on will provide us with information as to where we can start trying to deal with the smuggling problem. So I believe the legislation is supportive of police agencies in terms of investigating smuggling action into Canada.

The Chair: Before I go to Mr. Langlois, I want to ask a supplementary question. Yesterday it was suggested to us that hackers could access the system. For example, if I had 35 firearms registered to my name and I was licensed, they could access the system, find out I had them in my home. Therefore I might be a target for a theft by criminal elements or by terrorist elements, and they'd be able to take guns from those who are registered on the system having a larger number of guns but having them legally.

To what extent is that allegation correct, that hackers could really get into the system? I'm not talking about breakdowns in your own staff, where somebody does something improper, but simply intervening into the system.

.1610

D/Commr Bergman: Since the CPIC system came into effect in the early 1970s, we have never yet had one instance of confirmed electronic interference with the system. That's not to say it's impossible, because nothing is impossible.

The Chair: But you've never had one?

D/Commr Bergman: We've never had one to this point.

The Chair: Okay, that's my question.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: The question my colleague from the Reform Party asked earlier was if it possible to establish a reliable arms registration system.

As far as I am concerned, I am more interested in the following question. What would be the benefits of a reliable registration system and what perverse effects should we guard against?

I understood you said, a few minutes ago, that the lack of a firearms registration system did not render impossible for you to investigate thefts, smuggling and other criminal acts related to firearms.

Various groups who are proponents of firearms registration always make two main assumptions. One is that is would allow to reduce the number of accidents and crimes and the other is that it will allow to solve crimes.

On the other hand, hunters, farmers and aboriginals are worried they will be targetted without much benefit for public security. Their main argument is that criminals will not register their firearms. But other groups in the public are of the view that the registry system will result in a reduction of use of firearms in domestic violence or by insane people, like the one in this horrific shooting spree at l'École polytechnique in Montreal.

You people are out in the field. You are practical people and you don't much go into theoretical musings. What facts or figures, if you have any, can you provide to this Committee to help us weigh the various arguments groups are putting forward to shape our view?

[English]

D/Commr Bergman: My points would fall within the area of bringing a degree of responsibility and accountability to the ownership of long guns in this country, which now does not exist. I'm not saying that most owners of firearms are not responsible. I'm suggesting it would simply bring into the law and into society generally a stronger responsibility and a higher feeling of accountability for the ownership of weapons.

It would also certainly allow police officers who are responding to complaints on a routine basis to have direct access to the information as to whether or not they're answering a complaint where firearms exist. I can refer to an instance in Edmonton about two or three months ago when I was there.

The Edmonton police now have a system in place where they actually record the old FAC permits on their computer system connected to their cars. In this particular case, a domestic call was received and a car was dispatched to the scene. There was an indication that there might be some violence and they thought there might be firearms involved. They weren't sure. They checked their computer in the police car. That clearly showed the individuals at that home did own firearms - long guns - and there had been previous complaints.

When the two officers approached the house, the door was partly open. They stood to the side and pushed the door further open with the baton and an individual fired two shotgun blasts through the door.

I think some people would probably suggest to us that as police officers we should approach every complaint exactly the same way. I suggested in my opening comments that this is not always possible. Resources are very limited across the country. Many police departments, including the RCMP, have single police car patrols. Asking for back-up is very difficult in the middle of the night. Information systems are the lifeblood of police organizations. It would be of great assistance to the police departments.

.1615

It would also force a certain amount of accountability on owners who lose a weapon to report the loss of that weapon, for instance. Right now weapons are lost or stolen and they may not be reported. There are several thousand long guns stolen every year in this country. We generally record the serial numbers of approximately 3,000 a year that are stolen. But many, many are not reported and they ultimately may well become involved in crime.

Mr. de Savoye: Could I interrupt you on this? Could you be more specific on the numbers?

D/Commr Bergman: At this particular moment, I think the numbers indicate there are approximately 3,000 weapons a year entered into the CPIC system as lost weapons. They contain serial numbers. We have no way of determining whether or not that constitutes the majority of lost weapons. In other words, there could be weapons routinely lost across the country falling into the hands of criminals, and we have no way of finding out whether that's the case or not because there's no obligation on the owner to report the loss of a weapon.

Mr. de Savoye: Of those 3,000, to your knowledge, how many have been used to commit a crime?

D/Commr Bergman: Could I refer to my colleague?

Assistant Commissioner John A.J. L'Abbé (Director, Information and Identification Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): What was the question?

D/Commr Bergman: Of the firearms within the existing CPIC system reported as lost or stolen, how many of those are reported as being involved in crimes?

A/Commr L'Abbé: I don't have those figures right in front of me, but just for your information, the number of firearms reported lost or stolen or missing and recorded in the Canadian Police Information Centre are, right now: rifles, 21,187; shotguns, 12,925; others, 1,450; and restricted weapons, 30,364 - for a total of 65,926.

Mr. de Savoye: That was over a period of -

A/Commr L'Abbé: Those are the ones that are still in the CPIC system - that is, since CPIC started in 1974.

Mr. de Savoye: Do you have the figures for last year?

A/Commr L'Abbé: We'll sure try to dig those out for you.

The Chair: Maybe I'll move to another questioner, but if you have the answers to Mr. de Savoye's questions, I would like to have them on the record.

Mr. Bodnar.

Mr. Bodnar (Saskatoon - Dundurn): Yesterday we heard from a representative of the Northwest Territories, an area your force polices. He expressed concerns that it's impossible to enforce the present laws, that laws have little relevance to them, and the proposed Bill C-68 would be next to impossible - I'm just paraphrasing what he said - to enforce in the north because of difficulties of registration, difficulties with their culture and also difficulties with the way they live, where guns are passed from one family member to another family member, where guns are even stored, or not stored now but kept loaded in a house because of predators.

Has this been a problem for you in the territories? And do you feel that Bill C-68 as it exists now can be in fact implemented in the territories?

D/Commr Bergman: I would have to respond to that from my own experience. I actually returned from Manitoba about a year ago, where I was commanding officer of the RCMP in that province. We do still have 17 or 18 very isolated detachments in northern Manitoba.

The Chair: Churchill.

D/Commr Bergman: There is Churchill, Shamattawa, and Puckinewagan. I knew the chiefs and councils very well.

In many of those communities, as a result of their own concern among the communities, they asked us to help them put together a system whereby they could store all their long guns in a central storage repository, generally speaking in the band offices. They were worried about the usage of firearms and violence during the evenings. They took it upon themselves, in fact, to tighten up the usage of firearms in their own communities.

I understand the minister has indicated that there is some flexibility in terms of his intentions as to the application of the law in terms of recognizing cultural differences. Personally, I believe it is possible to do so. I believe many communities may find it difficult at first, but ultimately they will find it will produce a more accountable and responsible system.

.1620

Mr. Bodnar: I like the proposal for a central repository for voluntary storage. In fact, I wish that was being made for cities, because individuals such as me do not appreciate being required to store my gun at my own house. I'd rather store it and have you take care of it or some other authority, where I pay a storage fee and let them keep it until I do require it for some purpose.

With respect to security, we have heard about certain breaches of security in CPIC, and those are the few that we hear about. It's my understanding that with respect to breaches of security and if you want information on CPIC, it's not a question of the system that's set up, it is a question of who you know in the police force to get information.

Certain collection agencies in this country and certain private investigators, who may in fact be former police officers, have access, if they know the right people in police departments, to get this information and have it available when they are investigating individuals either in the agencies or in private investigator firms.

D/Commr Bergman: If they are prepared to involve themselves in a breach of trust action and there is someone, a police officer or another member of an organization, who has clearance for CPIC and that person is prepared to breach trust, to breach the Criminal Code, then that is possible. But it's certainly not routine, in my estimation.

Mr. Bodnar: Is there any way a system can be set up with firearms to protect against this?

D/Commr Bergman: I don't know of any system where ultimately the responsibility for security does not boil down to the trust of an individual. I don't know of any computer system or any information system that is absolutely perfect and protected against human frailties. So I think we have to trust people, and if they are not honest then we follow up with criminal charges.

The Chair: Before I go to the Reform Party, I have a supplementary question on whatMr. Bodnar asked.

Last night one of the representatives of the Northwest Territories told the story of how an isolated community where he came from suddenly discovered that a polar bear was taking off with his elderly father. The bear had come into the town, as they do in many of those communities in the spring, and was dragging his father. When they saw this happening, the son ran to the porch of the small house they had and grabbed the rifle, which was there and always loaded, and went out and shot the polar bear and saved his father.

He pointed out that this is regular. In other words, they do not follow the safe storage rules. They never do, because if they did, in cases like this they could not defend themselves against polar bears and other bears. He told us stories of wolves coming to kill their dogs while they're on the land hunting and even in the town. He said the wolves are very big in that area.

What he in fact was telling us was that because of the conditions where they live, they cannot respect the laws of safe storage. He said they cannot because of their language. Very often in these remote communities they do not understand English or French to fill out the forms, which are in triplicate. They can't get photographs in those towns, passport photographs to put on the forms, etc.

Now, I am pleased to learn that in northern Manitoba you are able to get them to do what they did, but from what I heard last night, in some of those remote northern communities.... And I am a former Minister for Indian and Northern Affairs and have visited many of those communities. They are very isolated, small, and they live by hunting for sustenance, not for sport.

I'd like some assessment, because the RCMP are the chief law enforcement in those territories. Was there exaggeration here last night? Is there a blind eye shown by the members of the force to these kinds of things? What is the real situation there?

.1625

D/Commr Bergman: Mr. Chairman, I think in certain areas in the Northwest Territories, and probably in some areas in the northern part of the provinces, that may well be the case. I would probably expect that members of our organization are very sensitive to those kinds of situations. It would be my contention that if a registration system is adopted by Parliament, members of the force would be expected to help these people register their weapons. In other words, we have interpreters. We have people who can assist people in small communities across Canada to register the weapons.

In terms of their storage and their usage, I think that would have to be based upon the danger facing that community and each individual, and the public safety issue itself. So I would think members would display a certain amount of flexibility, as long as that was realistic. In fact, we do that in police work on a daily basis across the country.

So that would be my response.

Mr. Thompson (Wild Rose): Welcome, gentlemen.

In Wild Rose, a rural riding, the RCMP detachment that's in my town covers maybe 3,000 to 4,000 square kilometres. When I was mayor of the town and when I was on the police commission, they ranged over the years from seven officers to maybe ten and then back down to five officers. It was always in relation to how crime was going. If crime was low, it seemed the police force was reduced to some degree. If there was an increase in crime, it went back up.

One thing we've learned - all the police officers and I and all the commission would agree on this - is that if police were available, they were the best crime fighters they knew of. Would you agree with that?

D/Commr Bergman: Not always, sir. In fact, there was a time when police forces operated strictly in terms of human resourcing by way of resources. If crime rates went up or if file statistics went up, then that individual in charge of the detachment would seek more resources. Of course, in some cases the rank of a position might even go up. In fact, as the detachment grew, the individual might even be promoted.

I think our more modern approach to that is that police work is supposed to solve problems and reduce statistics rather than simply grow in terms of.... Detachments should not continue to grow.

Mr. Thompson: Yes, my point is, though, if you have more police available to police an area, that's a better crime fighter than if you have fewer police. That's common sense, isn't it?

D/Commr Bergman: It depends upon how they're policing. If they're resolving problems, statistics should not always go up. If they're responding to calls and not resolving problems, statistics will go up. I'm suggesting that there are some detachments where the method of policing is such that they resolve problems and in fact statistics go down and the detachment size may go down. So I'm not saying that pouring more resources into a detachment is always the best way to reduce crime.

Mr. Thompson: But being under-resourced is certainly not favourable?

D/Commr Bergman: No, it's not, sir.

Mr. Thompson: Okay, that's my point. If it's obvious that more resources would be helpful, that would be one of your aims.

How can we justify, under the present situation, when we know there are cutbacks and there are fewer men available, using the resources and going to a major registration program of this nature? You indicated just a moment ago you would have to supply personnel to do all these things. Is that justifiable in terms of what you think registration will do?

D/Commr Bergman: In small communities like I was referring to up north, I think that would be automatic. Our people would do that automatically. In larger areas, certainly it will pose a challenge. It's my personal opinion, but I think when the average police officer across Canada weighs the benefits of registration - the safety to the public, the safety to police officers - against no registration, most police officers would say they're prepared to adapt to the new legislation. We have adapted to legislation for the past 122 years, and I believe we can continue to adapt, sir.

Mr. Thompson: For the last four months or so I have been doing just that. I have been riding with police and doing the ride-alongs. I've been talking to mostly RCMP, because that's about all we have in our riding. There are no private police that I know of. Out of the foot soldiers, so to speak, I have yet to find one who supports this legislation. All of them I've talked to, and I've talked to several in Wild Rose, object most violently to this thing.

.1630

Have you conferred with the foot soldiers, so to speak? Have they had input? Are you getting any kind of message like I'm getting?

D/Commr Bergman: I've personally spoken to officers across the country. Being the commanding officer of Manitoba for several years, I was aware, generally speaking, of the attitude among police officers.

The reaction I was getting from my own officers at the time was that they were concerned about the firearms they had to face from time to time. In fact, in my time in Manitoba there were several shootings where members of the RCMP had to shoot citizens. The involvement of firearms in domestic occurrences and on reserves was a concern. It was a general feeling that most members of the force working in Manitoba at that time would have liked to have had that information on their terminal in their police car.

Mr. Thompson: Just to throw some numbers at you, I want to see how all five of you feel about this. If we took $85 million - that's the magic number being thrown around - and divided it over five years, that's $17 million. Based on $100,000 per person, per officer, you could increase your force in five years by 175 people per year. That's good, common arithmetic. It's normal. Add it up, it works.

All the officers tell me that based on the fact that you could have $85 million and add more to the police force in personnel, they would pick the personnel any time over a registration system. How do you fellows feel about that? If you had the option, would you rather have 170 new men, or do you want to go into -

A voice: And women.

Mr. Thompson: And women. Okay, I'll say it my way - if you were to hire 170 new men. How would you weigh that?

D/Commr Bergman: I think I would look at the long-term expectations of the benefits of the legislation as opposed to the short-term supposed benefits by increasing the person power.

I think in the long-run there will be a definite benefit to police officers across Canada and to society generally if we introduce this legislation. I would simply say that I would support the legislation.

Ms Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): Right now I just have one question. Earlier we had discussion about how many long arms there are without serial numbers. Are you, with the justice department or some other group of people, working on another system of identification, or some other systems of identification? Could you explain them to us? I'm referring to 20% of the long arms that don't have serial numbers on them. What are you going to do about it?

D/Commr Bergman: Certainly there are discussions going on within the firearms control task group right now with respect to the possibility of resolving the issue of the serial numbers not occurring on firearms. That would perhaps involve the same solution we now use with handguns. That would be the stamping of unique serial numbers onto weapons.

I can't say exactly how much labour would be involved. Obviously police departments could not handle it, so it would have to be done by gunsmiths, by experts, by firearms officers in the various provinces. I would expect that the applicant would have to pay for that. I'm not able to suggest if that would be realistic, but that would be a solution to the long gun problem, which we now apply to handguns in Canada.

Ms Phinney: So who's doing it for the handguns?

D/Commr Bergman: It's being done now by firearms registrars. It's being done by gunsmiths as well, I believe. Inspector Buisson, can you answer that?

Insp Buisson: Yes. At the present time serial numbers are being assigned to firearms by the chief provincial firearms officers. Blocks of serial numbers have been given to each individual chief provincial and territorial firearms officer, and they in turn supply the serial numbers for firearms that require registration and for which there are no serial numbers.

We're trying to be as helpful as we can in trying to locate the serial number in an area of the firearm where it will not deface and lower the value of that firearm. I understand that some of these firearms are quite valuable.

.1635

There is a system in place right now through which serial numbers are given out to chief provincial firearms officers, who do assist us with the registration of restricted weapons at this time.

Ms Phinney: Do you have a task force or a group of people working to come up with a solution for this within the next couple of years, so that all long guns could be registered?

D/Commr Bergman: Inspector Buisson is working with the firearms control task group, and that issue is one that's being discussed. Certainly the final arrangements for that process have not been decided upon, but that is one of the solutions, and we certainly hope to have a solution before the system is introduced.

[Translation]

Insp. Buisson: Mr. Chairman, Mr. de Savoye asked how many thefts of firearms have been reported last year. From the first of January to December 31, 1994, there has been a grand total of 5,130. I can even give you a breakdown be category: restricted firearms, 2,427; rifles, 1,708; guns 891 and others 104. The total is 5,130.

Mr. de Savoye: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. de Savoye, you have five minutes left.

[English]

Mr. de Savoye: I appreciate those last numbers. I understand you don't have all numbers at hand; however, it is of importance to this committee in order to weigh how Bill C-68 will deliver on crime prevention to have all pertinent facts available. If you have any further numbers you feel could be of help to us, I am sure the clerk will be pleased to receive those numbers and to make them available to all the members of this committee.

In my preamble on my first question I had a question mark on adverse effects of Bill C-68, if any. One of my main concerns is that honest citizens will be requested to comply with what is after all an administrative measure, and if they do not they will be considered as having committed a crime. I am afraid that in inventing a new crime we will also be inventing new criminals, as if we didn't have enough at this time. Could you give me your point of view on this question, please?

D/Commr Bergman: I certainly understand the concerns. I understand the Minister of Justice has agreed to some flexibility in that regard, that he is prepared to proceed by way of a non-criminal resolution if it involves certainly a long gun, if that long gun has not been involved in a crime, and if an individual fails to register the firearm in good faith as opposed to civil disobedience or any other particular reason. That's what I understand the minister has said publicly. I have not discussed that with the firearms control task group.

The Chair: Yesterday before the committee - and unfortunately, Mr. de Savoye, you weren't here yesterday - he asked the committee to come up with a system that would not criminalize first offenders on non-registration. He threw the challenge to us and said he appreciated the problem that Mr. de Savoye has just raised, and said he would be willing to have our recommendations on that and the possible amendment. So we'll be looking for different ways of doing it.

I know sometimes when the police catch you without your driver's licence or your registration they give you a 48-hour warning to come back with it, and if you don't come back with it then you get a solid fine. But you don't get it at first. There are probably several ways of dealing with this.

Mr. de Savoye: You understand that even if I wasn't there yesterday I was aware of what was going on in this committee, and that is exactly why I was expecting not your comments on our justice minister's statements but your point of view as professionals in this business. What do you think can be done? What would you suggest this committee look for? I'm looking for your wisdom.

.1640

D/Commr Bergman: As a police officer, I think there will be occasions when it would be very valuable for a police officer to be able to pursue the criminal route. There are times when police officers are going to be confronted by people with firearms that are unregistered, and they may well require the Criminal Code to allow them to make an arrest. There may well be a benefit to that, a public safety benefit.

On other occasions discretion may well be applied, depending upon the peace officer's knowledge of the citizens of a community or a rural area, where peace officers tend to know the people very well. I would hope in a case like that the policeman would talk to the individuals and provide them some advice in terms of registering the weapon.

Mr. de Savoye: Have you any guidelines on when it's one case and when it's the other?

D/Commr Bergman: I think it's very hard to lay out concrete guidelines in a case like that. It is usually a discretionary issue, as so many issues are in the world of policing. It's a judgment call based on a person's knowledge of the community. I really do not have black and white rules and regulations I could put down.

As you know, I think most police departments are concentrating their efforts nowadays on community policing. They are trying to encourage their officers to work closely with the community, to understand the citizens, to be aware of each family in their area. So I would expect individuals to make those kinds of decisions correctly, but there will be times when it will be very valuable to be able to arrest and detain an individual with a firearm that is unregistered.

So I believe it's a discretionary issue. I really have no problems with the conditions the minister suggested to the committee yesterday.

Mr. de Savoye: I appreciate your statement.

Mr. St. Denis (Algoma): Thank you, gentlemen, for being here today.

By way of a brief preamble, I represent a rural riding in northern Ontario, so you can imagine that there is a tremendous amount of interest in this subject among many of my constituents. The message I have been trying to convey to my colleagues, and I believe with some success, is that we have to have respect for the legal gun-owning community. Hopefully, the urban and rural Canadians can see that if we do a good job with it, we can put the issue of gun control to rest for a long time, perhaps forever.

I would like to pursue a couple of short questions. I would like to go back to the security of the information system.

I've done some reading on the current firearms registration system, the restricted gun system. My conclusion is that it is somewhat antiquated and in fact a hacker couldn't get into it now because it is like a fortress; it's separate. The Internet is a long way from where the information system is.

My concern, though, is with the new system, where folks who own restricted firearms, along with long-gun owners, will enter new information into a new system. This new system will in fact be state of the art, we're told, and that is where the intrusions can perhaps occur. So our past experiences have no relevance to the future.

I think it's important to ensure our gun-owning constituents that a new system, a modern system, will be as secure as you've been able to maintain the old antiquated system. So I wonder if you could just elaborate on whether the new system can achieve the kinds of security you've been able to achieve in the past, leaving professional misconduct issues aside, just technical access issues.

D/Commr Bergman: Perhaps I could ask Mr. L'Abbé to respond to that.

A/Commr L'Abbé: First of all, you are absolutely correct in saying that the old system was not the best in the world and it is like a fortress. In order to solve those problems over the last couple of years, what we've done is create a new restricted weapons registration system, which will be a relation database.

Again, this is very secure, but it's almost like the vehicle in the driver's licence information that's passed down to CPIC so that the police officers can have access to it. The restricted weapons system that we have today, which will be this new RWRS, will be more effective, more efficient, but it will not be linked to people like dealers. So they will not be able to actually get a hacker to go into that system.

.1645

We, in cooperation with the firearms control task force, are looking at the best possible way to maximize the resources being expended out of the public purse for the new system. But of primary importance - and I must repeat, it's very important - is that the CPIC system will not be available to every John Doe. Again, we are going to maintain that system. The new CPIC system, which will be rewritten - because as our deputy mentioned, that system is actually 23 years old - will have one of the most critical elements that will assist police officers in doing their job.

We're going to have what's called an indexing system on that particular CPIC. So the police forces across Canada will put in the name, date of birth and some of the very simple biographical data of the people they are involved with in their communities.

Let's say that I, the firearms officer somewhere, using the new system that will be built with the cooperation of all of us, will actually make a check of the index. If my name, John L'Abbé, comes up as being investigated by a police department somewhere for a violent occurrence - family violence or whatever it is - then they will actually be able to go to that particular department and ask what's going on with this individual before a licence is ever given out.

This is all to say that the new system that will be built - and it's not built yet, so I can't tell you what it's going to look like, but I'm going to insist that it does not have a direct link to the CPIC system to prevent hackers from getting in there. There will be an actual firewall built there.

I will just give you a little more information on the CPIC system. You're asking how will we determine people who violate that and what would be done about it.

We have a very aggressive audit process for CPIC, where our CPIC field officers go to the various police departments and actually at random pull files to see if information is put in correctly and how things are handled. So we have that responsibility and we do a lot of that. That's how we have that security of the CPIC system. We just don't let it flounder. We have very tight control of it and it's controlled by the CPIC advisory committee. It's very useful; it's pretty tight.

Mr. St. Denis: So my constituents or anybody's constituents shouldn't worry that over the airwaves between some dispatcher and the police car there's going to be the broadcast that at 123 Madison Street there are these kinds of firearms and that somebody with a scanner in their house could pick it up. They need not worry about that?

D/Commr Bergman: You've introduced a new variable into the conversation. As you know, across Canada we have communication systems in every province, some of which are much more modern than others. If that information flows through the airwaves and is not encrypted, then that can be picked up with scanners. In fact, we have problems across the country right now with scanners picking up police communications.

Almost every province is now moving toward digital communication systems, which will allow us to use discrete channels and therefore that kind of information will not slip into scanners, or the information goes out by way of RF into a computer in the police car and you really can't pick it up.

Mr. St. Denis: So you're looking at solutions to that problem?

D/Commr Bergman: Yes, we are, sir.

Mr. St. Denis: That's helpful.

Can I have another couple of questions?

The Chair: No.

Mr. St. Denis: I have a lot more questions.

The Chair: Yes, I know, but maybe if there's time you can come back on. I have to go now to Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: I see that you have embraced the mail-in system for registering rifles and shotguns. I visited four of your forensic laboratories and I talked to your scientists, those who attend court on a regular basis. I asked them about this mail-in system and what kind of a registration system it would create. They said it would create a mess.

.1650

Now, I also talked to an NCO in charge of an RCMP detachment in my constituency and I asked him about this very same system: what about simply picking up a card and filling in the make, model, and serial number, as the justice minister suggested? He told me you cannot register what you don't inspect. I asked him to explain that. He said to me that even individuals who are trained in firearm identification make mistakes; we transfer the wrong information from the handgun that has come in. That's what's created a problem within the handgun registration system. That has been identified, of course, by Terence Wade. He has indicated that 30% of the material within the system is non-usable.

I have to ask you this. If you are going to use that kind of system, where individual owners of firearms are to fill in the make, model, and serial number and the other identifying features that may be on that card, what I am being told by your people is they may not know a serial number from a model number and they may not accurately record the serial numbers. Therefore, what the NCO said comes back to me now - you cannot register what you do not inspect.

You're going to get all of this information in on these cards, but it's not going to be validated. Is it going to be reliable? That's the question. I'm sorry, but I cannot accept that this kind of system is going to produce a registration system that is going to be a useful and credible tool in the hands of law enforcement agencies.

The Chair: That's a good four-minute question, a very good question.

D/Commr Bergman: I'll move to that answer, but I'll start off by suggesting that the figure of 30% is not totally correct, in that I think in the study there was an indication that 25% or 30% of the forms that were arriving contained some error. Now, that error could be a postal code; it could be almost anything. The great majority of those errors are caught in the screening system prior to going in. They're sent back, they're corrected, and then they're put into the database. So 30% does not reflect the error rate within the existing restricted weapons registration system.

Mr. Ramsay: What is your error rate?

Insp Buisson: Of the forms that are being completed by the local registrars and forwarded to FRAS, 22% contain errors to such an extent that they have to be sent back to the contributors. This accounts for some of the delay that is sometimes experienced by some of the firearms owners, who are complaining that their applications are not being promptly processed. So 22% of those that are being forwarded to us contain some errors, either in the fields pertaining to the individual applicant or in the fields pertaining to the firearm. An additional 27% of the forms contain extremely low-consequential errors that are dealt with via phone calls or faxed to the local registrar or the individual owners themselves.

We're trying to be as precise as possible. This information is not entered on the restricted weapons registration system without having been verified and accurately completed. If we don't get our information we don't put it on the system.

Mr. Ramsay: Do you do that with a card system?

The Chair: Mr. Ramsay raised a very important question about the efficacy of the mail-in card system, and that was the key of his question. It would be great if we could have your response to that question. He says RCMP officers are telling him this in the field at forensic laboratories.

D/Commr Bergman: I think, Mr. Chairman, many of the people the honourable members are talking to probably have not read the legislation and all the associated information that's going along with it. Much of it has not been available until very recently.

I was concerned about this issue myself. There are two ways of doing this. There is a mail-in system and there is a system where individuals bring every weapon into a police department, or perhaps, in the middle, you create a task force to go out and examine weapons.

I'm not comfortable, and I suggest most police departments are not comfortable, with individual citizens bringing to police departments 6 million, 7 million, or 8 million weapons across the country. I am not sure that would be safe. My expectation is that there would be accidents by people carrying weapons into police departments on a routine basis for the next several years.

.1655

The only other option is to create some form of small task force that is prepared to provide assistance to people throughout the various provinces, perhaps through summer employment, or have individuals use the mail-in process and the system design will involve primary, secondary, and tertiary screening. In other words, the system will be computer-based, and when the forms come in there will be a database on there that will compare data from manufacturers, model numbers, certain kinds of production numbers, and the system itself will be able to recognize that a certain serial number is not consistent with the model number, is not consistent with the manufacturer. There are checks-and-balance systems where that can occur.

Our feeling is that if the system is designed well and accurately, the great majority of these errors can be picked up in the first-, second- or third-stage screening. There will be officers involved in these service bureaus to examine the issue on the application and provide advice. There will be across the country CD-ROMs containing the video images of some 30,000 weapons, showing the location of the serial number, the production number if there is one, describing the entire firearm, and providing information on where to find numbers.

Now, I don't know of any perfect solution to this issue, Mr. Chairman. It's either mail-in or inspect every weapon or it's some sort of task force approach. I don't think the issue has been totally resolved, although I understand the Department of Justice is looking very closely at the possibility of built-in checks and balances in the computer system at the service bureaus.

That's about the best I can say, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Wappel (Scarborough West): I'm interested in the registration system and how it works. First of all, does every firearm ever manufactured have a model identification on it and serial number?

D/Commr Bergman: The answer to that would be no.

Mr. Wappel: When did that become the norm?

D/Commr Bergman: Could I ask Mr. Smith to answer that question?

Mr. Smith: Whether a firearm is marked with a make or a model or a serial number depends on the choice the manufacturer makes at the time the firearm is made. The vast majority of the firearms for which we cannot identify a make or model are firearms from many years ago, but there still is the possibility someone could make one today without markings on it, although that's very unlikely.

Mr. Wappel: Give me a firearm name that doesn't have a make or model on it or a serial number. Would a German Luger from the Second World War be identified like that?

Mr. Smith: The Luger is a good example. It illustrates a handgun that was made in wartime production, where makes and models were not put on the weapon; in fact, code markings were put on the weapon with the express purpose of disguising production levels so no one would know how many they had made. This is one of the wartime exigencies that happened then and could happen again.

Mr. Wappel: How would you identify such a firearm on a mail-in system, then?

Mr. Smith: In the case of the Lugers, the code numbers themselves in many cases can be associated with a particular manufacturer, and then we'll use that particular manufacturer to describe the firearm. In the case where the code number was never deciphered and the records were lost during the war, the code number itself serves as a unique identifier for the firearm. In effect, it becomes the model or make designation itself.

Mr. Wappel: I go into the post office and I pick up the form. Let us assume for the moment that it is completely accurately filled out, right down to the correct postal code. I send it in. Could I ask, please, how is that inputted into the new firearms registry? Is my name used?

D/Commr Bergman: Yes, your name would be used.

Mr. Wappel: Would the name be on the same registry as all of the other identifying material?

D/Commr Bergman: The registry would include your name and your address and probably your postal code, and it certainly would include the description of the firearm - make, model, serial number, calibre.

.1700

Mr. Wappel: Would all of that be on the same database?

D/Commr Bergman: It would be in the Canadian firearms registry.

Mr. Wappel: I was under the impression, although I wasn't here so I stand to be corrected by the record, that our justice minister said names of the gun owners would not be kept on the same database but that there would be cross-reference numbers. Which is it?

D/Commr Bergman: I can't speak to the exact link, but my understanding is that it would be on this same database but certainly the name would only be retrievable through the CPIC side of the system. The average individual, even a dealer, certainly would not be able to retrieve your name from that system unless he had a card and a PIN number.

If you were transferring a firearm from one person to another -

Mr. Wappel: Say I've done this registration and everything is in the firearms registry. Then suppose the police get a call about a domestic violence at my home address. How do they retrieve the information on the firearm registry as they are heading to my house?

D/Commr Bergman: They do it by way of your address. They punch the address of your residence into a computer. That goes to CPIC.

Mr. Wappel: Where, in a car?

D/Commr Bergman: It could be in a car or in the dispatch through the CPIC terminal. It would then go through CPIC and into the firearms registry. We do it right now, in fact, for restricted weapons.

Mr. Wappel: How long would this take?

Insp Buisson: It's a matter of seconds, five or six seconds.

Mr. Wappel: How is that information communicated, by the airwaves?

D/Commr Bergman: No, it's communicated by wire across the country.

Mr. Wappel: How does it get to the cars?

D/Commr Bergman: Well, it eventually goes electronically into the cars. Right now it is communicated back to the car through the airwaves, in most RCMP vehicles.

Mr. Wappel: You've talked about the airwaves and what you are doing about that.

D/Commr Bergman: Ultimately, of course, these communications systems will be digital and the information will be encrypted. That's coming along.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We now go to Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. de Savoye: Earlier, you stated at the end of your presentation that the officer in charge would have to act with proper judgement. You thought that it would probably be a way of doing it.

I would like you to relate to us your own experience in the field and to give us some examples. I am not the kind of expert you are, I'm not in your trade. In what circumstances would it be advisable to take to the criminal court someone who would not have registered a weapon? What percentage of people who do not register their weapons would you take to court? Could your experience in this field enlighten us?

[English]

D/Commr Bergman: It would be pure speculation if I were to suggest a certain percentage of the population will decide not to register their firearms. I really can't say. I do have a general feeling that a great majority of the average law-abiding citizens will take part in the exercise and register their weapons.

In terms of the kinds of people I would consider to be involved, say in a non-criminal issue, perhaps an example would be an old couple living in the countryside, who perhaps have trouble reading, don't listen to the radio very often, whatever. They might not really understand that they have to register weapons. In that particular case it would seem natural that a police officer would use some discretion and explain the existing law to them.

I guess there are many other examples I could come up with, but it would be that kind of a situation, where for some reason unintentionally the individual did not register the weapon, as opposed to someone who says I disagree with this law completely and I'm not going to register the weapon.

Mr. de Savoye: Then in that case you feel he should be criminally prosecuted?

D/Commr Bergman: On that particular case, obviously they're not going to conform to the law, and I feel the Criminal Code should be applied.

Mr. de Savoye: Again, as people who enforce the law, you know criminals a lot more than I do. You probably meet more than I do. I only meet people like you and in places like this.

.1705

In your opinion, when someone drives a car without a driver's licence, of course, he doesn't follow the law. He commits an infraction, but this is not a criminal offence. If the same person would knowingly not register a firearm, in your opinion, is that person more of a danger to society than if he were driving a car without a driving permit? If so, why?

D/Commr Bergman: Let's take the example of an individual whose driving permit runs out and they miss the day when they have to renew their licence. I think some police officers would charge the individual automatically. Others in a small community, or who know the people in the community, might suggest you'd better go over and do that. I certainly can't sit here in front of this committee and suggest that every police officer would lay a charge in that case. There may well be discretion involved. So it would be up to the individual police officer.

Mr. de Savoye: If they did lay a charge, is it a criminal one?

D/Commr Bergman: It's a provincial act, so it would not leave the person with a criminal record, for instance.

Mr. de Savoye: So my question basically is why would this same individual be more of a menace to society? Why would he or she be more of a criminal person because he or she wouldn't register, however knowingly, his or her firearm?

D/Commr Bergman: I am suggesting that there is an intent here. I guess the difference is intent. If one intends to break the law and carries on intentionally and does so, then I think there's some obligation on the part of a police officer to lay charges. If it's done accidentally and if the individual obviously did not have intent and if the action has not caused a problem or injured someone, then I expect the police officer might well say the best way to resolve this problem is to ask this individual to register the firearm right now or renew the licence right now.

Mr. de Savoye: Because of the intent, that person becomes a menace to society.

D/Commr Bergman: The intent would seem to me to indicate the individual has no intention of following the law in the future. In other words, that person is going to continue to contravene the law, which means the law eventually has to respond. But if the individual has no intent and you remind the individual what the law is, then I expect that individual would then follow the law.

Mr. de Savoye: I want to go on a little bit more on this. You mentioned that the officer's discretion and judgment should be what we rely upon to see if it is worth while or not to press charges. Now, officers are men and women who have their qualities and sometimes have other faults, and in certain circumstances perhaps they prefer one individual because they know him or her, especially in small communities, and dislike this other individual. I am not saying it will happen, but could they be tempted to be a little stricter with the people they dislike than with the people they like? If so, what happens then?

D/Commr Bergman: I think you could probably suggest that occurs among police officers now across the country. Police officers do make friends and they do make judgment calls, and if they treat people unfairly or not equally, then they are wrong. It's as simple as that. They are not performing their duties. If they don't provide the same kind of flexibility and openness to all citizens, they are wrong. But that depends upon individual police officers across the country.

Mr. de Savoye: To err is human.

D/Commr Bergman: It is human.

Mr. de Savoye: Basically what you're telling me is we can rely on the officer to have a certain amount of discretion. On the other hand, wouldn't it be better to put directly into the law what are the exceptions to criminal charges?

D/Commr Bergman: If one could define that accurately. I am going to have to think about that, because I think right now I would have a difficult time accurately describing all situations we are going to be faced with. I think that's why we pay peace officers to use their discretion from day to day.

.1710

Mrs. Barnes (London West): Welcome. I appreciate your being here today. You're respected policing officers for our government from sea to sea to sea in Canada, and I wanted to ask you whether, in your opinion, there is any reason this firearms legislation should not be, if enacted, enforced in any province or territory.

D/Commr Bergman: No, I believe it should be enforced equally across the country.

Mrs. Barnes: Thank you. I want to move on to another area, relics and heirlooms, and this is another area where the minister has asked this committee to do some investigation of its own, trying to come to some conclusions.

Essentially, the category of relic as one of the permitted uses under the proposed Firearms Act would disappear, and we'd still have what people would commonly call heirlooms, which would be in the category of prohibited firearms. Right now the estate would be able to sell to a buyer in the same class. The question we have to think about is the potential for a devolution to family members for purposes of mementos or remembrances or souvenirs. I have a number of questions I'd like you to consider in that area.

I don't know where I'm going to come down on this issue. On the one hand I can see the value, and on the other hand I'm told the weapon that killed Todd Baylis was a World War II war trophy stolen from a widow who valued it as a treasured family memento.

First of all, do you have any idea how many of these weapons would be in the country at present?

Insp Buisson: I don't have any statistics on relics and heirlooms, the problem being that most of them were not identified in the registry until the early 1980s, when we started computerizing the cardex system that was in place at the time. A lot of the reason the restricted weapons...and I'm talking only about restricted weapons here; I'm not talking about long guns, because we have no idea of how many there are altogether. On the restricted weapons side, we can't tell because the system at the time did not include the reason the firearm was being registered. These are the demands that were placed upon us by the legal system dating from 60 years ago.

The new system that's currently being developed - RWRS, the restricted weapons registration system - does have a specific field that will identify the reason a specific firearm is being registered or recorded.

Mrs. Barnes: Would you think some firearms are just inherently dangerous, and no matter how treasured it is, it should not be around?

A/Commr L'Abbé: I do believe so. I'll tell you why. I was a firearms instructor for four years before moving up the ladder in the RCMP and have done a lot of police work. There are some firearms that you could truly call only weapons. What I mean by that is they have no purpose except to kill. Some of these things may have come from the Second World War, where they were automatic or semi-automatic firearms, and somebody will say they want to keep this as an heirloom. Well, some of those things are still functional. Some of them are not registered, obviously, because they're probably in a trunk somewhere. If they were stolen, they could still be used.

Being a firearms instructor and being a competitive shooter myself.... These things have no value for a target shooter. They may have a value if you want to collect these things, but that's about it. They're firearms that are capable of propelling many, many projectiles per second and they become very, very dangerous.

Yes, to answer your question, some of these should be prohibited and taken off the market or disabled in some manner so they can never be used to hurt somebody.

Mrs. Barnes: If they were disabled or deactivated, then they would come out of the control of the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code and we wouldn't have a problem. Correct?

A/Commr L'Abbé: I'd have to ask our colleague here, who is the expert in that area, but by being disabled it could never be used for a firearm again. In other words, it could never fire projectiles as was intended in its initial construction.

Mr. Smith: Deactivation is an option under the circumstances you described, where someone wishes to pass an heirloom that is currently in a grandfathered class, a restricted class, to their descendants. Some owners would find that acceptable; others would not.

.1715

Mrs. Barnes: What about the definition if we are going to look at this? How far should we extend the family?

Would an heirloom become more inherently dangerous three generations later, or one generation? I'm thinking most weapons are pretty dangerous tools when they are well maintained. This would be something that supposedly would be in disuse and probably not maintained as would an antique or well-oiled piece of machinery.

Mr. Smith: The age of a firearm does not have a great deal of relevance as to how well it's working, within the last 100 years or so. There are many shooters in Canada actively shooting firearms that are more than 100 years old and the firearms still work the same now as they did back then.

Firearms of more recent manufacture, such as during World War II, to which my colleague was referring, are made with much more modern metallurgy and manufacturing processes. There's no reason to believe they wouldn't be functioning perfectly 100 years from now, assuming they were stored under reasonably good conditions and not abused.

The Chair: Mr. Ramsay or Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I'm afraid you're not a member of the committee.

Mr. Harper: I was this morning.

The Chair: You were this morning but you're not this afternoon.

Mr. Harper: They didn't register me - okay.

The Chair: Our rule is that you can ask questions at the end by unanimous agreement, but I have three members of the committee who are still on the list.

Mr. Thompson: I just want to ask a quick question. A lot of the information I'm receiving from fish and wildlife people, who deal with long guns probably more than anybody, indicates that they are apparently quite opposed to this legislation. Have you talked to them, and what do they have to say?

D/Commr Bergman: I haven't talked to those individuals at all. I haven't received any feedback from that particular group at all.

Mr. Thompson: In terms of smuggling, you must have collected all kinds of guns, handguns, assault weapons, long guns and shotguns from smugglers. Do you actually have a large number of long guns, rifles and shotguns that are smuggled, or is it mostly handguns?

Insp Buisson: It is very difficult to say the exact numbers and the type.

Mr. Thompson: What are the most?

Insp Buisson: Handguns are usually favoured as being worth smuggling, because with most long guns you can just drive by the border. It's mostly a monetary issue as opposed to a concealing issue and being able to use it in a crime, which is the case with restricted weapons.

Easily concealable weapons, those not necessarily used for target shooting but those easily concealable, for example the restricted and handgun category, I assume would more likely be the primary target for smugglers.

Mr. Ramsay: The handgun registration system has been in place for 60 years. How often has a handgun that's used in a homicide or a robbery been traced back to the owner via the registration system?

Insp Buisson: I don't have the exact figures on that, but we do trace handguns back to individuals. Constable Baylis was shot in Toronto with a handgun that was discovered to be stolen. The particular firearm in this case was registered in our registry, and we were able to trace it and give the information to Metro Toronto.

Mr. Ramsay: Although you may not have it here today, could you provide the committee with information about how often a handgun used in a homicide, robbery, or any criminal offence has been traced back to the owner via a handgun registration system?

Insp Buisson: I've made a note of it, sir.

D/Commr Bergman: We will provide the information, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.

The Chair: When you provide information, always do it through the clerk so we all get it.

D/Commr Bergman: We'll do so.

.1720

Mr. Ramsay: The minister has referred to the need for this information when approaching domestic complaints. This would provide a means by which the police could determine whether or not a firearm was in the home.

How often have the police officers on the front lines run a check to determine whether or not a registered handgun is in the possession of the owners of that residence that they're attending on the basis of a domestic complaint?

D/Commr Bergman: Perhaps you'd better quote the statistics here.

Insp Buisson: In the month of March alone, sir, there were 7,918 queries made through the CPIC system to find out whether or not individuals did own firearms that were registered in our registry, and gun queries were 9,081, for a total of about 17,000 CPIC queries.

Mr. Ramsay: How many of those were of this specific type I asked about? It was in response to a domestic complaint and they made an inquiry through CPIC to determine whether a registered handgun was in that home.

Insp Buisson: Unfortunately, sir, these statistics are not available. The CPIC system as such is a system that provides information. But the reasons the queries are being made are not necessarily registered on the system in all instances.

Mr. Ramsay: You don't have that information?

Insp Buisson: I don't have that information. On the tracing I do. I may be able to get this information for you, sir, on whether or not we're successful in a trace, because these are done manually. They are not done on the average query.

The Chair: That's the answer to that question.

There's ten minutes left before the bells ring for a vote. There are three members who haven't had any questioning. I'd like to give that time to be spread between them.

First I will call Mr. MacLellan and then Ms Torsney, followed by myself.

Mr. MacLellan (Cape Breton - The Sydneys): Mr. Chair, I just have one question.

As you know, gentlemen, the collectors of course can sell their prohibited firearms to someone else who has firearms of that same class. There's a concern that I have, and I just want some information on it.

A lot of the collectors are also dealers and they became dealers not because they wanted to open stores but because they travel back and forth to gun shows. It was much easier, as far as the permits were concerned, to get the permits as a dealer for travelling than to go back each time as a collector. That being the case, I think that now, because they're dealers, they are not able to sell those prohibited firearms to somebody else in the same class. Is that a concern?

Insp Buisson: The proposed law does call for dealers not being able to sell to people unless the firearms are registered to themselves as individuals, as opposed to being recorded to their businesses. What we're talking about here is the person who is grandfathered into a class, as long as the restricted weapon is grandfathered to them and they own it themselves, not their company. If they're only recorded, the proposed legislation doesn't call for permission to move. However, as far as we in FRAS are concerned, it is business as usual. We are processing those transactions now until such time as the law is enacted and approved.

Mr. MacLellan: By processing those transactions, you mean processing the sales of one collector to someone who has the same kind?

.1725

Insp Buisson: Yes, we are, sir, because there is nothing in the current law that prevents us from doing -

Mr. MacLellan: No, that's fair. I think to do otherwise would be wrong. But there's just that distinction, where there are two types of dealers, as opposed to one who is a collector and who sells them because he go to gun shows and another who has an established business. I think there is a fine line there.

D/Commr Bergman: Would it be correct to assume, then, that before the passage of the law the individual in that situation can sell those weapons from his business back to himself?

Mr. MacLellan: Yes, that's quite possible.

D/Commr Bergman: If that's what is happening right now, then that's a possibility.

Mr. MacLellan: Yes, I think for the individual that's fine, but some of these people may have incorporated. I don't know. That's good information to have. It helps a lot. Thank you.

Ms Torsney (Burlington): One of the issues I am really concerned about is the whole issue of smuggling. It seems to me that the registration system is going to help a fair bit because it will give you some tools to detain people while you're trying to sort out whether or not they should have those guns.

Certainly we need some cooperation with the Americans on the guns coming across the border. I refer you to The Toronto Star article of January 21, which talks about mail order businesses and people in Canada who are sending these guns through. How are we going to address this? What kinds of talks are you having with your counterparts in the States to address this? Is there any NAFTA support with the Mexicans on some of these North American smuggling rings?

D/Commr Bergman: We deal regularly with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. In fact, we do have a member of that organization actually stationed in our headquarters building here in Ottawa and we deal with them on a routine basis. There is a lot of cross-border cooperation, certainly in terms of the flow of information. We are hoping...in fact, we're talking about rewriting the CPIC system to ensure that we maintain compatibility with the NCIC system in the States, where we do pass information on routinely and some of that information is information on firearms.

As we modernize our systems on the CPIC side to NCIC and as the firearms registration system is imposed at the frontier border crossings and we can move that information to a central storage site, I think we can share information more effectively within the country and across the borders. Certainly they're very cooperative, but the system, for instance, of sharing firearms information with BATF in the States is very slow. Their system is not computerized, and the searches take up to six weeks sometimes to get information out of the American system.

Ms Torsney: So there isn't a NAFTA or a Canada-U.S. task force on this?

Insp Buisson: There are certain avenues being investigated right now regarding being able to come up with specific agreements that would enhance our capabilities to combat smuggling or trafficking of firearms. We are talking about smuggling if we are talking cross-border. These are basically being investigated. However, they are very encouraging, and the U.S. people we've talked to thus far have been most supportive of our efforts.

The Chair: Just to close the meeting, yesterday Mr. Rock gave us this booklet entitled ``Financial Framework for Bill C-68'', in which he tries to cost out the development of the new licensing and registration systems, and he has here a costing of the new registration system added on to the old one, or a replacement of it. I just want to know whether there was close consultation by the minister with you people, since you're going to run the registration system, on developing these costs.

D/Commr Bergman: Yes, there was, Mr. Chairman. Part of those costs, about $4.1 million at this time, have to do with the firearms imaging system that I spoke of, some support for our forensic laboratory staff who will be involved, and a network interface connectivity. But the greater amount of the funding is involved in the building of the computer systems, which ultimately will then fit into our mainframe computer at headquarters.

So there is a joint applications group. We are aware of the budget and we think we can work closely together and provide a system for the funding that has been arranged.

The Chair: Also, on the anticipated revenue side, I just wanted to know whether you worked with the minister on the development of the document.

.1730

D/Commr Bergman: Yes, we did, sir.

The Chair: My other question is this. There's been a lot of concern about the stockpiling of weapons. Since 1934 we've had the registration of handguns and other restricted weapons. I'd like to know what do the police do now when they see an individual acquiring a rather large number of restricted weapons? Is there any point where they may decide to investigate a little closer to determine whether this is some imbalanced person, a possible terrorist, or a potential criminal? In other words, if it begins to look unusual where a person acquires 50, 60, or 100, does this ring a bell with the police? Do they check a little closer?

Yesterday the minister said that registration of long guns would help in keeping an eye on unusual stockpiling of weapons, the detection of potential paramilitary or just unbalanced people who may use the weapons to no good.

D/Commr Bergman: Mr. Chairman, it certainly does ring a bell. In fact, less than two months ago we were involved in an enforcement activity in Kingston involving an individual who was importing various restricted weapons parts, putting them together, selling them and trading in restricted weapons. So certainly we do watch the accumulation of weapons very carefully. That information is then passed on to the enforcement side of the force and we do follow up. It's routine.

The Chair: So the registration of all weapons would help still further in this respect?

D/Commr Bergman: Yes, it would, sir.

Ms Phinney: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to -

The Chair: The bells are ringing.

Ms Phinney: Yes, I know. We have fifteen minutes.

There was a second suggestion that we have this group of gentlemen - are there any ladies here? - back again near the end of the four weeks, because we will have a lot more questions ourselves. And since they're enforcing it, we might have more -

The Chair: We're having a steering committee meeting on Thursday. Mr. Ramsay will be there. We're going to discuss these very matters and then we'll report back to the full committee. There are a number of other witnesses we have to deal with, too.

Ms Phinney: Yes, but I thought they're the experts, so maybe they should....

The Chair: We'll meet again tomorrow. Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.