JURI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 20, 1997

• 1109

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.)): We're back. This is the justice committee. We're reviewing right now the Firearms Act draft regulations, pursuant to Standing Order 32(5) and subsection 118(1) of the Firearms Act.

Today we have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We have John L'Abbé, assistant commissioner and director of information and identification services; J.A.J. Mike Buisson, who is the registrar of the Canadian Firearms Registry, information and identification services; and Murray Smith, who is the chief scientist with respect to firearms in the Central Forensic Laboratory.

Welcome. I know you had some notes, but they've not been translated, so there will be no brief for members. But start talking and we'll be happy to ask you lots of questions, I'm sure.

Assistant Commissioner John L'Abbé (Director, Information and Identification Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Madam Chair, thank you very much.

Ladies and gentlemen, mesdames et messieurs du comité, first of all, may I thank you for the opportunity to come here today to speak to these regulations.

• 1110

The RCMP has always been a supporter of the Firearms Act, firearms registration, and improved firearms control. In fact the RCMP has maintained a firearms registry since the 1930s, and it's a responsibility we shoulder with pride.

Under the Firearms Act, the RCMP has acquired a number of new responsibilities that will be directly affected by the development of these regulations.

First and foremost, the RCMP will administer Canada's firearm registration system through the appointment of the registrar of firearms. The current registrar, Superintendent Mike Buisson, is here with me today.

As a little bit of additional information, the registry will employ approximately 180 persons at its peak, that is, during the act's implementation phase. After the implementation period, a permanent staff of approximately 90 employees will be responsible for not only maintaining the registry and the registration system, but also issuing import and export permits and international and interprovincial firearms carriers' licences.

Now having the responsibility, the RCMP has significant interest in regulations dealing with the registration of firearms, the issuance of registration certificates, and import and export permits. The force has been consulted in the development of these regulations.

To address the delayed start to border controls, we expect to use the Customs Tariff Act as a short-term administrative solution.

[Translation]

The Department of Justice has also asked the RCMP to administer the Firearms Act in those provinces that have indicated that they intend to opt out of the system.

For that reason, we have a particular interest in all the regulations that have been tabled, including those that deal with shooting ranges, firearms displays and public agents.

[English]

The issue I'd most like to address today is that of verification of firearms and firearm registration certificates. A verification process, as outlined in the conditions of transfer regulations your committee is reviewing, is, in the RCMP's opinion, absolutely imperative to the effective operation of any firearms registration system.

The potential for errors on application for members of the public, who may not be well versed in firearms classification, is extremely high. If the police services of this country cannot count on the veracity of information entered onto the Canadian firearms registration system, they may not use it to its full potential. If this occurs, the system cannot meet its objective of maintaining and increasing public safety.

It is with this in mind that the RCMP will work with chief firearms officers across Canada to develop administrative means to ensure that the current standard of restricted and prohibited firearm registration will continue from the date of the act's implementation through to the commencement of universal verification on transfer in the year 2003.

This verification process is bound to be a slow one. Many firearms owners will wait decades to transfer their firearms. In the long run, then, a five-year delay in that process will most likely not be critical. What is critical is the government's support of administrative solutions that the registrar and provincial chief firearms officers will develop to address the technical issues that will arise in the interim period.

In conclusion, we believe law enforcement agencies across Canada can agree that an improved system of firearms control will increase public safety. Ladies and gentlemen, we're looking forward to doing our part.

Once again, I thank the committee for its time.

[Translation]

Superintendent Buisson, Registrar, Canadian Firearms Registry, and Mr. Murray Smith, Chief Scientist, Firearms, Central Forensic Laboratory, and myself will all be pleased to answer your questions now.

[English]

I will be most pleased to answer any questions the committee may have.

• 1115

The Chair: Thank you.

A/Commr John L'Abbé: Madam Chair, before I leave, you have probably noticed there's a demonstration board with various firearms affixed to it. The reason for this is to be able to show the members of the committee how firearms are identified. You can probably wander around and take a look at these things. You can see where the makes and the models, the serial numbers, are located. We left a series of pictures with the clerk which highlight some of these items, some of the difficulties we know about with identifying firearms.

In my short brief here I spoke about potential for errors on applications. Since 1930 we've learned that even people who have a lot of knowledge still make mistakes, so we have to have some way of doing this in a realistic sense. What we do not want to happen is we do not want to impose a burden on police organizations. We certainly don't want to make this thing an onerous task. There are long guns across Canada now that have been held in families for many years and we don't want to make this what I would call a real challenge to them.

Basically 99.9% of our citizens in Canada are honest, hard-working, law-abiding citizens. They really are. They don't want to defy any law. They are really concerned about security—their security and the security of their friends and neighbours in their communities.

From having been a police officer for almost 32 years now and having done municipal work, provincial work, federal work, being involved in a team that was involved in investigating offences within the parliamentary process, members of Parliament, with our special federal inquiries unit, and all of those things, I have learned over the years that we are not voted number one in the world for nothing. And it's not the land mass called Canada that makes it a beautiful country. It's all of us.

Maybe this sounds a little like a political speech. I don't intend it to be that. I really believe that.

When we're looking at developing systems, I know my team, clearly, and the team we've been working with from Justice have sometimes tried to take both ends of the spectrum and come up with something reasonable. But it has to be workable. It has to be reasonable and it has to be workable.

Based on that premise, I'm willing to answer any questions you may have.

The Chair: Thank you. Would it be of assistance if we took a couple of minutes for people to take a look at these before you start?

A/Commr John L'Abbé: Please. Absolutely.

The Chair: Why don't we do that, then.

A/Commr John L'Abbé: And Murray Smith can be up there and he'll be able to explain what is up there and why it's up there.

The Chair: We'll rise for five minutes while we do that.

• 1118

• 1136

The Chair: All right, we're back. That was a little bit longer than five minutes, but I understand it was helpful to everyone except Mrs. Finestone, who of course knows everything there is to know about guns.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): I just wanted you to know that I felt...

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]...the landmines law, I think we should get rid of them.

The Chair: Oh, I think those are fighting words in this room.

All right, start, Mr. Ramsay. Take 10 minutes.

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank our witnesses for coming and I want to thank you, sir. I think you have, in a very candid way, outlined some of the challenges and the difficulties that we'll be facing as a country when we implement this registration system.

You have pointed out that the likelihood of unverified information going into the system is extremely high, and of course I can understand that. People who have not obtained an FAC have firearms they do not intend to trade or sell but simply use or keep. They will fill out a form putting, to the best of their knowledge, information on this form or a form similar to this, and it will go in and a registration certificate will be issued based upon that information. That information will then go into the system. Am I correct?

A/Commr John L'Abbé: Yes.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Okay. My problem with that—and you recognized it in your presentation, which I appreciate—is that if there has been an honest mistake in the serial number, a three instead of an eight, or a seven instead of a four, or whatever, that firearm information going into the system cannot identify that firearm if all the other nine identifying features are the same—like the Lee-Enfields. There are thousands of Lee-Enfields out there, and the only thing different about them is their serial numbers. There's the Cooey .22 and all sorts of firearms that fall under that category.

If I register my firearm and I fall into that category where I've made an honest mistake in registering a single figure in the serial number, then that card will not, in my mind, register the firearm. Do you share that opinion?

A/Commr John L'Abbé: The firearm will be registered, and if it's an honest mistake—nobody is perfect in this world—it's something that we have to try to mitigate. I think in the planning of the system, and I'm not 100% familiar with the full planning of the details of the system, apparently transposition errors in certain series of numbers will be cross-referenced.

The beauty of having a registration, even in your example, Mr. Ramsay, where there was one number superimposed or transposed or whatever and your home was broken into and the firearm was stolen, is that we have at least a starting point. In other words, you were in the RCMP; you've done a lot of investigations, so you know what I'm talking about. When we're looking at evidence, we don't only look at one or two or three parts of a thing, we try to look at the whole thing. If it's a transposition error and an honest mistake, everybody recognizes that, even in today's system. In today's registration system, there are honest mistakes being made. When those come to our attention, we change them. I can tell you right now that our national database for firearms is not 100%, completely, to-the-iota accurate. I don't know of anybody in Canada today who runs a system with that capability.

• 1140

So I share your views. We're concerned about verification. I mentioned in my short, little speech here that we have to have verification. I mentioned that we would like the committee to consider the verification of restricted firearms today that are detailed. I would like that to continue so that we're not putting a larger burden on the gun owners. They have to do that today. They have certificates with serial numbers, and we would like to be able to continue that for the handguns, the prohibited weapons. Those are the things we're really concerned about.

I believe the other good people, the 99.9% of the good people in Canada today, will do a good job on this. They're going to look at the numbers, and we're going to try to help them. I don't know of one police officer anywhere in Canada who, when a citizen asks for help, will not help that citizen. We're hoping to get gun clubs, people who know things about guns, store owners, so that when people who are not what I would call experts or fully conversant go in there, there will be assistance.

So to answer your question, yes, in one way you're right, the gun will not be correctly registered, but it will not be completely accurate. I say that because even when you look at the registration of vehicles today, it happens that serial numbers are not put down properly. Many times, those are corrected when somebody catches it at re-registration, when you apply for licence again, or whenever. Many times, it's not caught, but it's an honest error.

I suppose my greatest concern may be people who would use the system to do things incorrectly on purpose.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I'd like to be very specific, and perhaps very technical. If I send in a mistaken serial number to register my firearm, if I receive a certificate to register that firearm based upon that information, and if the information on the certificate does not match the information on the firearm, in my opinion that means that firearm technically is not registered.

Let's say my firearm is stolen from my home in Camrose and shows up at the scene of a crime in Montreal. If you run that serial number and all other identifying features of the firearm through your system, you're not going to be able to trace it back to me because I have made a mistake in registering the proper identifying features—in this case, the serial number—in that system. You're not going to be able to trace that firearm back to me through the registration system. Am I accurate in saying that?

A/Commr John L'Abbé: I don't think you're completely accurate. Mike Buisson, who has been working on that system in a lot more detail, will answer that.

Go ahead, Superintendent.

Superintendent J.A.J. (Mike) Buisson (Registrar, Canadian Firearms Registry, Information and Identification Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Mr. Ramsay, an occurrence such as the one you just mentioned does occur on a fairly frequent basis in Canada. Firearms are either not registered in our registry or are registered in the registry and, for some reason or other, the serial numbers are not correctly committed to the application, as you suggested.

We do have some hope. We have investigative leads that can assist us, as Mr. L'Abbé mentioned, but we also have an in-house tracing mechanism and a correspondence section that works at tracing firearms. We trace them from within, and we trace them from outside.

Let me give you an example of .22-calibre revolver. Somebody in New Brunswick once came to us and said a crime, a murder, had been committed with a .22 revolver. We believed it was either a rifle or a revolver. Some witnesses saw a short firearm, so it was likely to be a pistol or a revolver.

• 1145

We did what we refer to in-house as an administrative search, an off-line search, which showed one registrant surfacing in a 50-mile radius. Subsequently, as a result of this investigative lead, that one registrant was charged and convicted for murder. That's an example of the type of in-house tracing that we can do.

If the serial numbers are not correct or are found to be incorrect, you are right, Mr. Ramsay, in saying that the police officer in an office in Toronto, Ontario, who queries the CPIC system, the Canadian Police Information Centre system, will obviously not get a hit. It will not show as lost or stolen or as belonging to anyone.

The next step for these police officers is to come to us at the Canadian Firearms Registry, formerly known as FRAS, the Firearms Registration Administration Section, where we initiate an in-house search for these firearms.

This year we have looked at 656 requests. These were firearms that were brought to our attention by police officers across this country. We traced a total of 314 in-house. That means that we able to identify 314 out of those 656 in-house. In the remaining cases we had to go outside of Canada, either to Europe or to other countries in the world, to seek assistance in identifying the firearms, or we had to seek the support of the alcohol, tobacco and firearms people in the United States.

So we do have all sorts of avenues that are at our disposition to trace firearms, sir.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: How's my time, Madam Chair? I have one final question.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Thank you.

All right, I understand that, and I understand the methods that you have now outside of the present handgun registration system and the prohibited weapons system, but what I'm asking about is the value of this registration system if it cannot identify an unverified firearm because of a mistake that has gone into the system.

I asked this question yesterday, and I'll ask it to you. If a firearm is found at the scene of a crime—or simply found—and you run it through this new system and it comes up negative, would you not then assume that it is not registered? Would you assume that it is registered?

Supt Mike Buisson: We assume that it is registered, Mr. Ramsay, and we keep searching until we have eliminated all the avenues that I just explained to you. I won't go through the details again. We keep searching until we can say that it is not registered, and once we can say that, we start going outside of the country and go to dealers and businesses.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Okay. Finally, then, are you saying that a registration card issued to a gun owner on which the serial number doesn't match the serial number on the firearm is a valid registration card and that the firearm is in fact registered? Is that what you're saying?

A/Commr John L'Abbé: Maybe I can answer that. This card that you're talking about would be a non-verified card—

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Would it register the firearm?

A/Commr John L'Abbé: Pardon me?

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Would it legally register the firearm according the statute?

A/Commr John L'Abbé: Providing that the person had no mens rea not to put the proper serial number down, if it's an honest mistake—

Mr. Jack Ramsay: No, that's not the question. It's not whether or not he is guilty of that particular section of the legislation. The question is whether or not legally in a court of law that firearm would be registered.

A/Commr John L'Abbé: I don't know if I can answer that question. I think we'd have to leave that up to the court of law.

But what if I turn the question back to you, Mr. Ramsay? Today you register your vehicle because you want to conform to the provincial regulation to register a vehicle, and you make a mistake. Do you believe that your vehicle is registered?

Mr. Jack Ramsay: But that's not the question. The question is whether it is legally registered according to the legislation.

A/Commr John L'Abbé: I suppose I can't really answer that.

The Chair: I think he's saying that can't really answer it, but I would suggest that the answer is in the absence—

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Don't suggest the answer unless you want to take the—

The Chair: I'll do what I want. I'm chairing the committee.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: If you want to be the witness, let's go.

The Chair: I'm telling you, sir, that in the absence of mens rea it is registered for the purposes of the law. That was his answer.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: But how can it be registered if it's not matching the serial number on the gun? It has nothing at all to do with intent.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Bellehumeur, do you have some questions? You have ten minutes.

• 1150

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): I, too, want to thank the witnesses for the clarifications they have provided with respect to these regulations.

According to your information, what percentage of firearms used to commit crimes were smuggled into Canada or simply were not declared?

We know, for example, that weapons in the possession of criminal biker gangs are not legal here. We are aware that weapons are traded and sold; we know all that.

Do you have any statistics indicating what percentage of firearms used in Canada to commit crimes would have been registered under similar legislation?

A/Commr John L'Abbé: I don't believe the Department of Justice has looked at data in that area. I have no statistics on that with me today, but I think it's faire to say most bikers do not register the firearms they purchase.

In recent seizures, the weapon caches we located did not only include revolvers and pistols, but rifles and shotguns as well. We don't know whether those weapons were bought legally at Canadian Tire or Sears. We have no way of ascertaining that. Most weapons of that calibre, such as shotguns and rifles, are manufactured outside of Canada. As a general rule, we could use the Customs Act to try and confirm their origin. However, the system that we support would allow police officers to determine whether the weapon has been registered or not.

I realize I may not be giving you a direct answer to your question. Unfortunately, I don't have any statistics, but I do know, particularly through our contact with the ATF, that a lot of work has been done in that area.

For example, six or seven months ago, we got together with our American colleagues, who gave us details regarding weapons purchased in the United States by Canadians. I had asked Mr. Buisson to check on weapons purchased by Canadians that were not registered. When we did an inquiry through CPIC, we discovered that they were crooks and drug traffickers. Approximately two months later, armed with the information we had passed on, local police issued search warrants and located some of these weapons. It does give us some leads. Registration is not the only tool available to us; we also have verification systems, as Mr. Buisson was saying.

While I do not have any statistics, I do think it would be useful for the Committee to look at the information contained in the report entitled The Illegal Movement of Firearms in Canada, published by the Firearms Smuggling Working Group in April 1995.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Does it provide any percentages?

A/Commr John L'Abbé: I don't know.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Everything is included in there?

A/Commr John L'Abbé: Yes, it does contain percentages and statistics.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: It might be worthwhile for me to have a look at it, particularly since I did not sit on the Committee that reviewed the Firearms Act. Has that report been tabled?

[English]

The Chair: It might have been.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I will try to find out.

The Bloc Québécois supports the Firearms Registration Act, but we realize that this legislation is not all there is. I am seeking some way of improving the regulations. Even though we may have the legislation and regulations we want, we both agree that there are firearms out there that will be used to commit crimes. It is impossible to have a complete record of them because of the ongoing weapons trade.

My last question relates to registration per se at the administrative level. I believe this will prove to be extremely difficult, just as it probably was when we began registering automobiles and the like.

• 1155

Do you not think recording information with respect to the possession of weapons on a person's driver's licence would be a way for provinces who have decided to enforce this legislation to simplify the tracking of weapons or increase the benefits of registration?

A/Commr John L'Abbé: That's a very good question, but we have to be careful not to mix apples and oranges. Vehicle registration and licensing come under provincial jurisdiction, whereas Bill C-68 is a federal responsibility.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: In Quebec, the provincial counterpart will be enforcing it.

A/Commr John L'Abbé: It would be difficult to include all this information on one document. A driver's licence is not necessarily the equivalent of a firearms possession licence. I think it would probably just complicate things even more.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I see.

A/Commr John L'Abbé: It might be a good idea, except that this information is used quite differently. It's important to remember that the information to be collected under firearms legislation should not be disclosed to everyone. The same goes for the regulations governing CPIC. We will have access to that information, but one requirement will be "consistent use" in the context of investigations, to ensure that weapons do not fall into the hands of people who should not have them.

As police officers and citizens, are we not yet convinced that there is enough murder and loss of life in Canada as it is now? When you travel the world, you realize that there are weapons everywhere, except in Canada. It seems to me we have a duty to try and ensure our own safety with a reasonable system. That's what we are trying to do. I guess I am preaching now, and I apologize for that. I don't want to preach; I just want to argue my case.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Except on Sunday.

A/Commr John L'Abbé: Except on Sunday. That's right: just call me "Father".

Hon. Members: Ah, ah!

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bellehumeur.

A/Commr John L'Abbé: Mr. Ramsay, in French that's “vicaire”.

[Translation]

I hope that answers your question.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. MacKay, 10 minutes.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Like my colleagues I want to thank you, as officers and gentlemen, for being here and enlightening us. This is going to be a contentious issue, as you know.

I want to pick up somewhat where Mr. Bellehumeur left off. The premise I'm working from is that this legislation and the registration in particular is more about registration per se than gun control. There has been previous legislation that was more about safety than the registration itself.

The registration is going to affect Canadians who are presently engaged in the illegal use of guns. There are legal gun clubs, target shooting, hunters and people presently doing things that are legal activities. They're right that whether you agree with that or not, it's their choice. This will now put a bureaucratic system and a registration process in place, and if they should choose not to comply, something that was previously legal will become illegal and chargeable under the Criminal Code.

Mr. Bellehumeur made suggestions, which I think are quite proper and of no fault to the police. I agree with your opening remarks that 99.9% of Canadians are law-abiding citizens. My grandfather used to say that crime is like rust, there's always going to be a certain element of it. It doesn't make your shovel inoperable, but it's always going to be there and it's ugly. There's certainly an effort on the part of police to combat crime, but there will always be an element of it there.

• 1200

On the use of guns juxtaposed against this legislation, I don't see a great effect. You've said yourself, Assistant Commissioner, there isn't going to be a rush of bikers or illegal importers of guns to your offices to register their weapons. This legislation isn't going to address the illegal guns that are out there, whether they are guns that were altered to become restrictive weapons or guns that were brought into the country and are restricted by definition, because those guns are not going to be registered. They are the guns that will be used, unfortunately, to perpetrate crime.

I'm getting into a bit of diatribe here, but I would just ask you if you could comment on those remarks. My basic premise is we're making law-abiding citizens potential criminals, and the registering of these weapons is not going to combat in a direct way those who don't register their weapons by choice because they're going to engage in illegal activities.

A/Commr John L'Abbé: There's a lot of good material there. On your comments, Mr. MacKay, again I stated that most Canadians are law-abiding. But it happens that as police officers we get called to domestic disputes. Mr. Ramsay, who did that for many years when he was an officer, will probably support me. It's probably one of the most dangerous situations you fall into.

We have pushed for this legislation as a law enforcement community. As you know, the CACP and the RCMP support it and we're hoping that the system—because the system isn't operating and it takes time to get going—will allow police officers to at least have some idea of what they're dealing with in the way of firearms when they go to a domestic dispute.

I know our training and all training in North America says you should always take for granted that there's a firearm there or an offensive weapon of some type, a knife or whatever, so we're trained to react to that. But imagine the circumstances where you go in there and there's been an altercation or whatever, and for the safety of the people you happen to see a firearm and say maybe it would be wise to take it out of harm's way right at the moment. Our old Criminal Code had that capability and this new act allows us some leeway in those areas. Imagine if I can go there as a police officer and say, hey, there's not only a rifle up on the wall, there are two shotguns, a .22 and maybe a handgun somewhere in the house.

Now, the handguns we can deal with today. It's the long guns really—we have nothing yet there. If we can take those out of harm's way, perhaps—and I only say perhaps—we can help somebody. Perhaps we can prevent serious harm from being effected on somebody. That's just one thing.

I'm sure you've probably all heard this and you're probably saying it's not the end-all. Unless things are registered in some way, shape or form it goes back to Mr. Ramsay's comment about accuracy, and accuracy to me is very important. We can't be 100% accurate, but let's do the very best we can with the Canadian public.

If it's not registered we can at least start taking logical action. I have pulled over vehicles and opened the trunks and there have been firearms in the trunks, and I didn't know if they belonged to those people or not. When we asked them if they were their guns, even if they were thieves they would say they belonged to them. How did I know whether they were their guns or not? I didn't. Hopefully this system, even with errors, will help us a little bit.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So I guess there's a premise of participation. There's a premise that the majority of Canadians are going to comply. You, as an officer, would certainly know that daily in Canada law-abiding citizens, innocent bystanders who are in court as witnesses, get up, put their hands on Bibles and lie.

If the premise is one of participation and accuracy and this is really aimed at safety and will really save lives in domestic situations or otherwise, I would support it wholeheartedly. But I'm just not quite there yet.

• 1205

Would the money that's going to go into this—to take the human element out of it...? I'm asking you this on behalf of your organization. If this is really going to cost $85 million, not $400 million, would the money not better be spent in the areas of DNA identification, improving the CPIC system, and improving Child Find? Officers are going to be tied up with what I would suggest are bureaucratic duties, as opposed to being on the street fighting crime. Looking at it from that perspective, do you feel the money is better spent on registering firearms?

A/Commr John L'Abbé: As a private citizen and as a member of the RCMP, I would hope that we maximize every dollar we spend. I don't think the RCMP or I as an individual would have ever supported this thing if we felt it was a tremendous waste of money.

I want to tell you honestly that I think if it's done right and within reason, it will save lives.

You want to take the human element out of it? We deal with human beings every day. We don't deal with things or tables, but human beings. I don't know how you can escape the human element. What is a life worth?

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm not suggesting we take the human element out of it.

A/Commr John L'Abbé: I respect that, Mr. MacKay, but I just want to say that this is what I've used to base my decisions on. That might be right or wrong, I don't know, but I consider that.

Mr. Peter MacKay: With respect to your officers on the street, you have expressed that there is overwhelming support within the police community.

First, I'd like to know the basis for that premise. Second, is it not going to result in an increase in their workload? Has that been factored in as a cost?

Consider what the officers are now going to be required to do, the training that will go into that, and what lengths they are going to go to in enforcing this. Are we going to see an increase in warrant applications? Are we going to see resources allotted for an increase in justices of the peace to allow for this avalanche of warrants that I foresee happening?

A/Commr John L'Abbé: First of all, on the police support, I mentioned earlier that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the senior management of the organization have been involved in developing and tabling the act in terms of the previous and current regulations. They are most aware of the costs involved.

I think that from day one, nobody who was looking at this wanted to put more work on the police officer. You know that police work today is managing information for the safety of the public and themselves.

When we were looking at that...in some circumstances, yes, it may cause some police officers to do more work. In other areas where we're using civilian members—we're trying to use civilian members in the opting-out provinces out west: Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Northwest Territories—we will try to use them as much as possible so we don't put the burden on that field officer out there.

Technology can help us. I think the Department of Justice and our partners in this thing are looking at technology to help us take these burdens away. There's a very positive aspect to this. Don't forget that. I think it's something that will be useful. Only time will tell 100%.

As for individual officers, I can talk to five officers and get five different opinions.

I'm a shooter. I have handguns that I use for combat shooting. I'm also a hunter. I have a shotgun. I have two rifles. It doesn't upset me that I'm going to have to pay to....

I have them locked up. I secure them like I'm supposed to. Why? Because I think it's wise. It's so that people can't get hold of these things and hurt themselves.

Mr. Peter MacKay: The fact that you are now required by law to lock them and keep the ammunition separate has nothing to do with this particular registration. Keeping them secure doesn't come out of these regulations.

• 1210

A/Commr John L'Abbé: That means my shotgun and my rifles will have to be registered. As an individual, I'm just telling you that, honestly, I'm not really that upset about it.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Just a final point on the gathering of information. A suggestion was made by Mr. Bellehumeur with respect to inclusion of this information on a person's driving licence, for example. I understand that the information itself is secure. It's going to be kept in a central computer.

Is this going to be cross-referenced with CPIC? If you run a person on the Canadian police information computer, is it going to come up “Criminal record, gun owner, following weapons registered in this person's name”? Is that included, and how far could this potentially go? Social insurance numbers were originally used for one purpose. They've become a broad, sweeping identification piece. Is this something that we might anticipate some day is going to appear on your social insurance number, that you're also a gun owner?

A/Commr John L'Abbé: We're not planning that. I can't comment on the future.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Sure. And that would be a government decision.

A/Commr John L'Abbé: Today this is a dedicated search. In other words, if the police officer has cause to check that in order to see if you have any firearms, he'll ask for a dedicated query on John L'Abbé, let's say. Has John L'Abbé got firearms? It will be a dedicated query.

In areas probably where you have criminals who use firearms and you want to know, it just might be an automatic query, such as on the ACIS system or whatever. That's the automated criminal intelligence system. But that's very restricted. It's not going to be just a regular occurrence. If you're stopped for a motor vehicle infraction and they check CPIC, why would they check to see if you've got a gun, unless the police officer has some reasonable and probable grounds to believe that you have a gun?

Mr. Peter MacKay: But it is going to be available on CPIC?

A/Commr John L'Abbé: Yes, it is.

Mr. Peter MacKay: That's the incentive.

A/Commr John L'Abbé: CPIC is the tool that will be used by law enforcement to access this information.

The Chair: Mr. DeVillers is next.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): I don't have a particular question. It's more a point of order.

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: I didn't want to interrupt Mr. MacKay in his questioning for a couple of reasons. One, I'm a nice guy, and second, I knew the witnesses would give more than adequate answers.

All questions but his last dealt with the legislation and not with the regulations that we're here to examine. I know we discussed yesterday that briefings will be made available and I know the chair is trying to allow as much latitude as possible, but I think we should be dealing more with the regulations when witnesses come before us to discuss the regulations.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I didn't realize there was a gag order at the committee level, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Calm down. Calm down.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: My point isn't suggesting a gag order. We're here to discuss regulations.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I thought this was an open discussion with witnesses that can inform us about this legislation.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: That's why I didn't interrupt you.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay. Well, what is your point, then?

Mr. Paul DeVillers: My point is we should talk about the regulations and not the legislation. Unless the government falls in the next four years and the Tories and the Reform Party are elected, we're going to have this legislation. That decision's been taken, so let's deal with the regulations.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Is there harm in this discussion?

Mr. Paul DeVillers: There's no harm at all. That's what I said. I knew the witnesses would answer more than adequately, but to advance the work of the committee we should be dealing with the work at hand.

The Chair: Mr. Lee, I'm going to let you comment, but let me just say this.

I think that's a helpful suggestion, because we should be getting to the regulations. If Mr. MacKay wants to spend his time on general policy things, it's his ten minutes. He can do what he wants, but it doesn't forward what we are here to do, which is the regulations. I think Mr. DeVillers is just trying to be helpful in a way.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Just to keep us on topic here, or try to get us back, I want to ask about these firearms here just as an example. We're just about to adopt a fairly comprehensive set of regulations. Could you tell us how, after these regulations are put in place, your...? One of you brought in these firearms. One of you has possession. You didn't turn the firearms over to anybody, but you have them hanging here on a board.

The Chair: Could I interrupt you for a minute—

Mr. Derek Lee: Sure.

The Chair: —to let colleagues know that the bells are ringing. But it's a quorum call, so we're not being called for a vote.

Mr. Derek Lee: Could you describe for me how your possession and display and registration of these guns will comply with the existing set of regulations that we are looking at now? I assume you're an agency under the regulations. Are you in compliance now? Probably not.

• 1215

Mr. Murray Smith (Chief Scientist, Firearms, Central Forensic Laboratory, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Oh, yes.

Mr. Derek Lee: How would you be in compliance? No, you couldn't be in compliance now, because the regulations don't exist yet. If they were, how would you be in compliance?

Mr. Murray Smith: The regulations call for public agencies to record their firearms with the registrar. These particular firearms comprise a portion of the RCMP Central Forensic Laboratory reference collection. They are in fact currently recorded with the registrar, and that policy has been in place for at least 10 years. So we don't really have to change our way of operating to be in compliance in that respect.

Mr. Derek Lee: You're telling me you don't have to do anything after the new regulations come into existence?

Mr. Murray Smith: No, not for those firearms. We're already in compliance. As a matter of internal policy we have a practice which is very, very similar to what the regulations call for.

Mr. Derek Lee: And that's true for the long guns.

Mr. Murray Smith: Yes, that's correct.

Mr. Derek Lee: Would that be the case for every police department that might have a similar display?

Mr. Murray Smith: I think it varies from one department to the next. Perhaps Superintendent Buisson would be the best one to answer that.

Mr. Derek Lee: If I could just operate on the premise that there's a police department out there which has a public display of firearms like this—it's not uncommon—what would they have to do to comply with the new regulations as we're dealing with them here today?

Supt Mike Buisson: They would have to have somebody who has been appointed as a public agent by the organization or who has peace officer status—one of the two. That means if it was not the peace officer, or if it was someone who was employed by that police department or the municipality or that province, they would have to have been designated under the public agents act regulation. He would have to comply with the storage requirements and the secure requirements, having a trigger lock on the firearm and so on, and he would have to have somebody who has contact and control over the firearms, as we see here today.

Mr. Derek Lee: And what about the registration?

Supt Mike Buisson: The firearms that belong to police departments fall under the current legislation under one category. They are called “recorded”. They are not registered to the police departments.

Under the new legislation they will also be recorded. Registration certificates will not be issued to police departments, including central forensic labs. Where registration certificates may be issued or temporarily brought to the inventory of a police department is for firearms that they would seize in the course of their investigation and that are kept in their custody in their inventories for court purposes. That's a short-term thing. They are to be used for court purposes and they should not be used for display purposes.

Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you.

I have one last question. It has come up before. In the face of these regulations and the implementation dates that are coming down the pipeline, I'm sure there are people out there who have firearms in their household they haven't looked at for 20 or 30 years, a small arm in a box in a basement in a trunk. It belonged to a grandfather or a war veteran or something. We're looking at survivors, children and perhaps widows of individuals. I'm assuming there's no registration. It's simply a firearm that's not in anybody's system. How should they deal with that now? What should they do to comply as these dates come forward?

Supt Mike Buisson: Do you mean under the new legislation, Mr. Lee?

Mr. Derek Lee: The new legislation and new regulations. What should they do?

Supt Mike Buisson: One of the things that will happen, as was stated yesterday in this committee, is the application forms in order for them to comply will be available in public places, as you suggested.

Mr. Derek Lee: What if they don't want to comply? It's like a gun without an owner. Nobody in the family really wants it, but they don't want to throw it away because it belonged to Grandfather, so it's sitting there. Really I guess what they would want to do is get rid of it. What should they do? They don't want to register it. They don't know anything about the firearm or safe storage. They don't know anything. They don't read the newspapers on this stuff.

• 1220

A/Commr John L'Abbé: If I could answer that, it happens every day today. Grandpa dies, somebody opens a trunk, and there's a firearm, but they want nothing to do with it. What they have to do today is turn it into a police department somewhere, to a chief firearms officer, indicating that they don't want this thing that was in Grandpa's trunk.

Really, people are not trying to be crooked or anything. It's just the reality of what we're going through.

Police departments will take those weapons and obviously check to see if they were registered or were involved in any crime or whatever. In all probability, however, it will be destroyed.

Mr. Derek Lee: It's good common sense, but based on the law that we have put in place, as soon as they pick up the firearm in the basement, take it out to the car, and drive to police headquarters, have they not committed an offence? What I'm getting at is this: is our basic citizen, who is not a criminal, who is not now flaunting the law, who is not intending to break the law, who does what you have suggested, going to be treated with respect and be dealt with in a way that doesn't involve being charged?

A/Commr John L'Abbé: I don't know. I've been a police officer for many years. I've charged many people and I've testified in many cases. I know we have lawyers around the table here, past crown attorneys who are probably better versed to talk on it than I, but there is such a thing as intent. In those circumstances, I wouldn't charge anybody with that. We have to be reasonable here.

First of all, there's something here that we have to be careful with. This thing has to be applied with common sense. It's a tremendous act. It gives us the tool to deal with people who want to break the law. If my grandpa dies.... Pardon me, my grandpas are dead. Let's say I die, I have something in a trunk, and somebody such as my little grandchild opens it and says, what have I got here? You have to do something with that stuff.

Mr. Derek Lee: In these regulations, we've made provision for someone in a theatrical performance who happens to turn it over to the actor to take a fake shot. Should we be making provision in the regulations to deal with Joe Public?

A/Commr John L'Abbé: I think there are already provisions in the Criminal Code to dispose of people who find firearms, executors who dispose of firearms like that. I think it's already in the Criminal Code. At least, that's how I've been advised by my colleague.

Mr. Murray Smith: I don't have the code in front of me to quote the section, but there is provision in the existing code and in the code as it would be amended by Bill C-68, to protect executors of estates or anyone who comes into possession of a firearm by operational law in order to dispose of it. Likewise, there's an obligation on individuals who find firearms to report them to the authorities. Again, that presumably incorporates the necessary protection for that individual. I just can't quote you the section from memory.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay and I are having a cross-conversation here, and I think we both agree it wouldn't be possession. You wouldn't want to prosecute that, would you?

Mr. Peter MacKay: No. Again, there has to be intent, and as you pointed out—and I am sure Mr. Lee is aware of this—there has always been discretion on the part of the police to be exercised in that situation. What it would come down to is the police officer's interpretation and belief that they were in fact just taking it down to the local police station. I would suspect that the officer would look at all the surrounding circumstances, take a statement, and do a proper investigation. Like 99% of the public, I think 99% of the police officers do exercise good discretion, but you make a valid point. When a person is found in possession of that gun, it's going to be the officer's judgment call as whether or not the person is believed.

Mr. Derek Lee: Until the Supreme Court gets hold of it.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Exactly.

An hon. member: And how smart are they?

The Chair: That's the subject of another report, perhaps.

I want to thank you very much. It's just about 12:30 p.m.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Chair, are we finishing? I have one very brief question.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Specifically, do the regulations address...we'll call them officers from other countries who are travelling in Canada, be they domestic police forces or members of the CIA or MI-5 who are here protecting their VIPs in Canada? Oftentimes, they may be potentially carrying weapons that would not even be registrable in Canada. Is there anything in these regulations that applies to that circumstance?

A/Commr John L'Abbé: Yes, there is.

Supt Mike Buisson: Did you want a full reply on that, sir?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes, please.

• 1225

Supt Mike Buisson: If they are carrying firearms that would not otherwise be authorized to enter Canada, there is a mechanism in place that has been set up with the full concurrence of the Prime Minister's Office, to wit, the members of the foreign police agencies or secret service or whatever can ask the Commissioner of the RCMP for specific permission and give the reasons why they would like to enter Canada with their firearms, at which time some of these members may be accorded special status, supernumerary constable status, while in Canada.

While in Canada, they are allowed to transport their firearms as if they were members of the RCMP. It affords them the current protection under the Criminal Code in the utilization, except that they have to work side by side with members of the RCMP or police forces providing security, they have to be properly identified, and there's a whole set of rules they have to follow. They must follow exactly the same rules as those followed by a Canadian police officer, no more, no less.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Is the RCMP then briefing those individuals, whether they are secret service or...the reference point I'm working from is when the G-7 was in Halifax. There were a number of secret services there, accompanying Chancellor Kohl and President Clinton and so on, and they were all packing. These guys had weapons that I don't think a lot of people have ever seen in this country before.

Supt Mike Buisson: It's a mutual agreement between two countries, Mr. MacKay, and this is accommodated at the request of our own Prime Minister. When we go overseas and provide security for our Prime Minister, we do appreciate the reciprocity that these countries give us by allowing our own RCMP members to protect our own Prime Minister in these countries.

Not all countries are given that kind of permission, but some are. It's not on an ongoing basis. They have to reapply every time. Instructions are also given to customs officers in order to avoid embarrassment for anyone. The RCMP keeps close tabs on what's going on and instructions are given to these folks in these outside agencies in written form.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So they're essentially deputized, and to tie it in specifically into the regulations, they would be exempted.

Supt Mike Buisson: That's correct.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Ramsay, do you have one last question?

Mr. Jack Ramsay: In your brief, Assistant Commissioner L'Abbé, you stated that the verification process is “absolutely imperative to the effective operation of any firearms registration system”. Then later on you commented that “The potential for errors on applications from members of the public who may not be well versed in firearms classification is extremely high”.

I want to thank you for that. I think those are very pertinent observations and it points out the difficulty you will have in maintaining the integrity of your system, because a lot of the information coming in will be unverified and may be unverified for years. That identifies the difficulty you're going to have with the registration system and its integrity.

You refer later on to the fact that police work is, by and large, the management of information. If that information is not accurate or if you can't rely upon its integrity then, of course, what's the point of managing it?

The question I have for you is this. You stated that “many firearms owners will wait decades to transfer their firearms.” What did you mean by that?

A/Commr John L'Abbé: I'll let my colleague Murray Smith explain that, because he said it much better than I.

Murray, you explained about the 18-year-old who bought a firearm.

Mr. Murray Smith: What Mr. L'Abbé was referring to, I believe, was the possibility that an individual who either has a firearm now or acquires one during the transition period and who merely wishes to keep the firearm for his or her own enjoyment and does not wish to transfer it will not be obliged to do so. That person might keep the firearm without submitting it for verification for his whole lifetime.

If you had an individual, for example, who turned 18 in 2002, that individual could conceivably keep that firearm for decades without ever having it verified, subject to what future governments might or might not do.

• 1230

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Okay. You've identified through that statement the longevity of the problem with regard to information in the system that hasn't been verified.

That's all I have.

The Chair: Thanks a lot.

We'll be back here this afternoon at 3.30 p.m.

Thank you very much for your attendance and your assistance.