JUST 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]

Wednesday, November 7, 2001

• 1934

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): Good evening, tout le monde. Welcome to the 47th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

This evening we will be considering Bill C-15B, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act. Let me restate that for the record: Bill C-15B, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act.

Our witnesses tonight are: representing the Canadian Police Association, David Griffin; representing the Criminal Lawyers' Association, Heather Perkins-McVey; and representing the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Bruce Brown and Gord Schumacher.

• 1935

I'm sure everyone has been here before, some very recently, and so you'd be aware of the fact that each group is allowed up to ten minutes for opening statements. Then we'll go to the committee for an exchange of views.

I will start with the Canadian Police Association, as it's first on my list. Mr. Griffin.

Mr. David Griffin (Executive Officer, Canadian Police Association): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

As the national spokesperson for its 30,000 members, the Canadian Police Association is happy to appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

CPA's 13 member associations include police personnel from 275 police forces in small towns and villages across Canada, as well as from large municipal police forces.

Our board of directors is comprised of one elected president, one vice-president representing each province, and vice-presidents representing respectively the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Police Associations, the RCMP Association, and the First Nations Police Association.

The Canadian Police Association is committed to preserving the well-being of Canadian police personnel by providing a safe and fair work environment, promoting the highest professional standards within police forces, and protecting police personnel and the population by supporting the progressive reform of justice.

We are proud of the relationship we have with members of all political parties. As you do, our members want to make a difference in their communities. As the national spokesperson for police personnel, we offer a unique perspective on the progressive reform of justice.

[English]

Over the past six years, the CPA has supported the federal government's gun control program. The support has been subject to several re-evaluations, most recently at our national assembly in March of this year. While our members have been somewhat divided on the merits of registering long-barrelled sporting guns, the delegates in attendance at our executive board meeting in March of this year affirmed their support of effective gun control and firearms licensing and voted to retain support for the registration of all firearms.

Concerning the issue of firearms registration, a number of benefits were recognized in these deliberations. First, registration reduces the number of casually owned firearms in the community by encouraging the turn-in of unused firearms.

Second, registration increases accountability of firearms owners by linking the firearm to the owner. This encourages owners to abide by safe storage laws and compels them to report firearm thefts where storage may have been a contributing factor.

Third, safe storage of firearms reduces firearms on the black market from break-ins, reduces unauthorized use of firearms, reduces heat-of-the-moment use of firearms, and reduces accidental discharge.

Fourth, registration provides valuable ownership information to law enforcement and to the enforcement of firearm prohibition orders.

Fifth, registration can provide valuable information to a police officer approaching locations and persons where firearms may be a factor. The officer, in assessing threat and risk, can weigh this information.

Sixth, registration facilitates proof of possession of stolen and smuggled firearms.

Seventh, registration provides better information to assist in the investigation of thefts and other firearms occurrences.

Eighth, recovered firearms can be tracked to the registered owner using firearms registration information.

Ninth, registration is critical to enforcing licensing. Without registration, there is nothing to prevent a licensed gun owner from selling an unregistered weapon to an unlicensed individual.

And tenth, illegal guns start off as legal guns. Registration helps to prevent the transition from legal to illegal ownership and helps to identify where the transition to illegal ownership occurs.

• 1940

We have been encouraged by the steps that have been proposed by CFC leadership and adopted by the Minister of Justice to streamline the registration process and achieve greater compliance by law-abiding Canadians, ease of application, simplified forms and electronic processing capacity, quicker processing, greater cost effectiveness using current and evolving technologies, compliance with the legislative timeframes established in Bill C-68, and, most importantly, to focus attention and resources on ensuring continuous eligibility for those individuals who present a risk to public safety. We are, therefore, generally supportive of the proposals contained within Bill C-15B.

In order to achieve the stated public safety objectives of the legislation in a manner that ensures a high level of compliance, the Canadian Police Association has advocated that first additional steps should be taken by government to facilitate voluntary compliance of those otherwise law-abiding gun owners who have yet to apply for a firearms licence.

Second, consequences of simple non-compliance with the administrative requirements of the program, such as failing to notify CFC of a change of address, should be treated in a remedial, regulatory manner and not normally be subject to criminal sanctions and/or licence revocation.

Third, Parliament should adopt a statement of principle in the amending legislation reaffirming the principle that the gun control program is not established to facilitate the confiscation of legally owned firearms from law-abiding Canadians.

Registration should be waived to facilitate optimum compliance in the most cost-effective manner possible.

We submit that the Government of Canada must place greater emphasis and priority on strengthening the security and enforcement at our nation's borders to significantly reduce the illegal entry of firearms and other contraband into Canada. The Government of Canada and its provincial and territorial counterparts must adopt a tougher stance in addressing the sentencing of persons convicted of any crimes involving firearms, including zero tolerance and adherence to the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of existing legislation, and expansion of the application and terms of the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions.

We believe the value of the firearms registration system will be gradual and will increase over time. We do not consider this program to be a panacea that will address all the needs of law enforcement. We do, however, consider the registration of firearms to be a valuable tool to front-line police officers.

Turning briefly to the cruelty to animals amendments contained in Bill C-15B, our association has not adopted any formal position with respect to this aspect of the legislation. In general, it would be difficult not to support the underlying principles of this bill. We have adopted successive resolutions, copies of which have been distributed to the committee, calling for the creation of a new offence for injuring or endangering police animals.

As you know, police traditionally use trained dogs and horses for patrol and enforcement purposes, and the results are extremely effective. Often a police dog may be used to search a building or tackle an armed suspect, reducing the risk to members of the public and police officers.

Unfortunately, in several situations the animals have been wounded or killed by the assailants in their attempts to avoid apprehension. We consider this to be both an assault on the animal and also on the police service in an attempt to resist arrest, and we submit that this should be afforded similar status. We would welcome your assistance in this regard.

That concludes my comments. Thank you again for the opportunity. I would welcome any questions at the appropriate time.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Griffin.

Now I turn to Heather Perkins-McVey of the Criminal Lawyers' Association.

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey (Representative, Criminal Lawyers' Association): I think people are aware that the Criminal Lawyers' Association is an association of criminal lawyers across the province of Ontario. I am a member of that association. I am not on their executive but was asked to attend, as the executive was unable to attend in Ottawa for these purposes.

To speak directly to the firearms legislation, the association has not adopted a formal submission. They have viewed these amendments as being generally administrative in nature and as such, given previous positions taken by the association, are not concerned—subject to these provisos.

• 1945

It is the view of the Criminal Lawyers' Association that there should be clarity in ensuring that all of the regulations ensure due process and administrative procedures that allow for appeals and appropriate disclosure to individuals who may be dealing with this legislation.

We support the attempts that have been made to clarify the previous sections of the code that were unclear. And we also support provisions such as electronic registration and disclosure.

There are some concerns about definition as it pertains to subsection 84(3) and whether or not the use of the double negative does mean lack of clarity in the legislation, and that is something that of course we would not support.

Furthermore, the other caveats are the fact that as much of this legislation is dependent upon regulations that have yet to be drafted and yet to be enacted, persons are still unsure of exactly what further regulations they'll be required to abide by.

That being said, we hope those further regulations will be drafted in such a way and with such clarity that those persons will clearly know what regulations they must adhere to.

As it pertains to the cruelty to animals section, the association has taken a greater look at this section and does have some concerns, particularly as it pertains to the definition set out in proposed section 182.1.

I'm sure this committee has already heard from countless other individuals of the concerns raised by the breadth of the definition of “animal”.

I should state at the outset that the association does not support, in any way, cruelty to animals and does support taking this section out of the property section of the Criminal Code and giving it its own section, part V.1. It is felt that animals should be dealt with in a separate section. Indeed, they should not be treated as property, nor should they be treated, strictly speaking, in the same way as human beings are in the Criminal Code.

However, the concern that is raised is with the definition of “animal” to include:

a vertebrate, other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain.

It is overly broad, and indeed it is subject to perhaps expert opinion as to the capacity to feel pain.

While there should clearly be protection of animals, we also recognize that having a definition that's overly broad means that if you're a butcher, if you're a veterinarian, or somebody who is branding a cow, for example, there could be some concerns raised on whether or not they would come under the justification section or the excuse section.

We recognize that this is the type of offence that must be committed wilfully or recklessly. Wilfully is easy. Recklessly is not as clear.

We appreciate that the definition of “negligence” and “reckless” is similar to that which has been adopted in other sections of the Criminal Code, but I can indicate, as a criminal lawyer, that the definition of “criminal negligence” is far from clear. It is the one section of the Criminal Code that always causes angst because it is based on a subjective/objective standard that always causes confusion.

Generally speaking, the concerns that are raised are regarding the definition and the breadth of that definition and whether or not it would also place in jeopardy persons who are involved in vermin control. There's no objection to the prescribing or the concerns about the fighting or baiting of animals. Those are consistent with the current provisions of the code.

• 1950

We generally support that it should be a mens rea offence and therefore one that must be conducted in a wilful manner.

We also believe there is not a concern. In fact, section 429 of the Criminal Code, the colour of rights section, would no longer apply, given that it is taken out of the property section of the Criminal Code, because subsection 8(3) of the Criminal Code does preserve common law defences of excuse and justification.

It is our position that this would remain even though the new legislation in part V.1, as drafted, does not in all occasions indicate the additional word of without “justification” and only indicates “without lawful excuse”. We believe that's a matter of interpretation and that section 8 of the Criminal Code would cover that existing common law defence.

We have no objection to the sections of the Criminal Code that prohibit an individual from owning an animal, nor do we have any objection to the fact that it be made a hybrid offence, because clearly to do so does allow the court and the crown to use their discretion to treat the most serious offences in serious ways and the least serious offences appropriately.

We clearly support giving the courts and the prosecution the discretion to make those decisions. We also support the use of increased penalties to reflect those more serious offences.

One area of concern is whether or not it is appropriate to prohibit an accused from residing in the same premises as an animal, as it may preclude other persons in the home and it may have a negative impact that is not intended. It's one thing to prevent that individual from owning an animal, but it's difficult to prevent others who may be in the same premises, or to prevent an individual from being in the same residence as someone else who owns an animal.

The restitution section is supported by the Criminal Lawyers' Association. Clearly, proposed subsection 182(4) does appropriately allow the court to order, by application of the Attorney General, on its own motion, to pay those reasonable costs. The only issue is, who is to determine those reasonable costs, should it be subject to a form of taxation, and how are those reasonable costs to be assessed?

I believe those are our comments regarding the cruelty to animals section of Bill C-15B.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Now I turn to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and Mr. Schumacher.

Mr. Gord Schumacher (Amendments Committee, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police): On behalf of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of this committee for allowing us to come before you. We realize the important role you play and we are very pleased that you are allowing us to take part in that.

As you are well aware, Bill C-15B consists primarily of legislative amendments in two areas, the cruelty to animals area and the Firearms Act. I don't intend to spend time dealing with cruelty to animals, though I will make the general statement that the CACP is in support of the intention of the proposed amendments, which of course include the increased penalties and the changing of offences from summary conviction to hybrid.

Dealing now with the firearms amendments, I intend to make a few opening remarks, and I will then turn it over to my colleague, Mr. Brown, to continue with the CACP position.

First, we are of the opinion that the Firearms Act is a tremendously important step towards the ultimate goal of making our communities as safe as we can. Let us not forget the most important reason that this legislation exists, and that is to make our communities a safer place to grow up in.

Firearm tragedy is not limited to a few people. It affects thousands of people. As unfortunate as it is, a 40-year-old man committing suicide with his deer rifle might not invoke public outrage, but when he slaughters his wife and three children, the devastation is immense. The public takes notice. Not only are those innocent lives lost, but there's also a substantial impact on other family members, friends, neighbours, and others looking in from the outside. It doesn't take long for those affected numbers to grow into the hundreds.

• 1955

There is that old adage that if only life is saved, then the cost and effort can never be too great. Unfortunately, one life probably wouldn't cut it with our firearms legislation. Let me suggest, however, that many thousands of lives being spared from death, injury, or collateral personal devastation should be. This legislation has the ability to do that.

In what way is this legislation useful to police? Mr. Griffin touched on a number of ways, and there were a couple of them that I will repeat because they're important. It prevents potentially dangerous individuals from accessing firearms. Licensing and registration help reduce the risk of dangerous people having guns. Initial application, use of references, and the intercalated database to support information when licence-holders commit violent acts are all pivotal in the prevention of violence.

Reducing gun theft. Without information on who owns guns, safe storage regulations are very difficult to enforce. With registration, owners will be held accountable for their firearms, which will encourage compliance with safe storage regulations.

Improving officer safety. Between 1961 and 1997, 112 police officers were murdered while they were on duty; 107 of them were killed with firearms. Information being provided to police on whether firearms are located in a residence they are responding to will be of obvious and immense benefit.

Providing critical information for police investigations. The firearms most often recovered at crimes are rifles and shotguns. Registration will assist in criminal investigations by allowing firearms to be traced back to their original owner. It will allow police to prove legal ownership of a firearm, assisting in prosecuting guns, gun theft, and illegal possession.

Let's be clear, the CACP does not object to responsible citizens owning firearms. Having said that, firearms are extremely dangerous, and licensing and registration are absolutely linked to the public safety mandate.

At this point, I'll turn the presentation over to Mr. Brown to discuss more specific concerns we have over some of the amendments.

Mr. Bruce Brown (Members Law, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, committee members.

As Mr. Schumacher has said, the CACP supports the proposed amendments, but we do have some concerns, one of which is contained in proposed subsection 19(1). You are aware that the subsection 19(1) amendment now includes authorization to transport prohibited weapons to such places as a shooting range or a club for target practice.

While the CACP does not have difficulty with prohibited handguns being transported for a defined purpose, located within the category of prohibited weapons are also semi-automatic military assault rifles that can be converted to fully automatic weapons.

Military weapons, in our view, do not have a place in a peaceful society. Adding prohibited firearms to the type of firearms that may be transported then moves semi-automatic military assault weapons, which can be converted to fully automatic fire, into the class that may be transported for target shooting.

This has not been permitted since Bill C-17 in 1991, when such weapons were prohibited under subsection 12(3). Further semi-automatic weapons were prohibited by Order in Council Number 12, July 27, 1992, and by Order in Council Number 13 on February 14, 1995, including AK-47 variants, and would also be affected by this amendment.

In essence, therefore, we see subsection 19(1) as a relaxation of the laws related to military assault weapons that were codified back in 1991.

If we go back as far as 1988 and to 1994, the CACP passed resolutions asking the government of the day to ban military assault weapons and other semi-automatic firearms that could be converted to fully automatic. Our resolve on this matter has not faded, and we see this amendment as a step backward in our goal of keeping these weapons, which are specifically designed to kill people, off our streets. The simple fix to this, in our view, would be to leave the unamended section 19 as it is and amend section 18 to include 12(6.1), handguns.

Moving on to electronic submissions, we are in support of means to accommodate electronic submissions provided that the essential screening elements remain in place and a process is in place to ensure that references are continually checked.

• 2000

On the subject of licence renewal, section 64, section 64 deals with the terms of licences, and it's proposed by 64(1.1) that the first firearms licence be extended for up to nine years. While we do understand that this is one way to manage volume, we are concerned that those individuals who, subsequent to their initial application, fall into certain risk categories, may be overlooked or perhaps remain undetected for a considerable amount of time. Early incentive for renewal or manual follow-up to determine any potential risks may be appropriate.

In proposed subsection 67(1), another concern with the renewal process is that it would indicate that the initial screening process may not be required for renewals. Here again we have concerns relative to risk factors being overlooked.

Subsection 116(2) of the Criminal Code falls within the purview of these amendments, and we see this as a bit problematic as well as potentially acting contrary to the interests of public safety. As things stand now, when an individual is charged with certain proscribed offences, pursuant to the Criminal Code, subsection 515(4.1), which says that offences of violence or threats of violence, firearms offences, certain proscribed offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act—in cases of those types of offences, the justice shall, when the accused is released, prohibit the person from possessing any:

firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things, until the accused is dealt with according to law unless the justice considers that such a condition is not required in the interests of safety of the accused or any other person.

Then referring back to section 115 of the code as well, it says this has meant that any item pursuant to the prohibition order was forfeited to Her Majesty. Now the new subsection, 116(2), would compel the return of items upon the expiration of the judicial interim release conditions, for instance, if the charge was withdrawn or dismissed and no prohibition order thereby stemmed from the offences. However, simply being found not guilty or having a charge dismissed does not necessarily alleviate safety concerns that led to the charge in the first place. We believe this is a step backwards in terms of public safety.

We fully understand the concern about taking a person's property without due process, and we believe this concern could be alleviated simply by adding that:

The return of any authorization, licence, and registration certificate relating to a thing, the possession of which is prohibited by an order made under section 515, is then subject to review by the Chief Firearms Officer or designate.

This would put a bit more of a safety valve in that particular piece, and we would urge it upon the government.

Subject to any questions you may have, those would be my submissions. I thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I go first to Mr. Breitkreuz for seven minutes.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for appearing before the committee.

On March 27 of this year I received a letter from the president of the Canadian Police Association, and you quoted quite extensively from that letter in your submission. I would like to refer, again, to several quotations in that letter. It says:

1. In order to achieve the stated public safety objectives of the legislation in a manner that ensures a high level of compliance, the....

a) ...government should facilitate voluntary compliance....

b) Consequences of simple non-compliance with the administrative requirements...such as failing to notify CFC of change of address, should be treated in a remedial regulatory manner and not...subject to criminal sanctions....

A little later on you mentioned that:

2. The Government of Canada must place greater emphasis and priority towards strengthening the security of and enforcement at our nation's borders....

Remember, this was written on March 27, long before September 11. You were calling upon the government to strengthen our security and enforce our nation's borders and to significantly reduce the illegal entry of firearms and other contraband into Canada.

My question to you then is, are you not greatly disappointed by Bill C-15 and the amendments that are before us today? What other amendments would you recommend to make this registry work better? I never heard any of that, but you mentioned it in your letter.

Mr. David Griffin: I can say that the period leading up to March of this year, and I believe into June, the Canadian Police Association was consulted significantly by the executive of the Canadian Firearms Centre. In fact, that consultation has continued since that time. We were engaged in discussions throughout the last 18 months concerning possible amendments. Certainly some of these issues were brought forward. We did discuss possible amendments as part of this legislative package. We were, of course, not privy to all discussions going on, but possible options that may be considered by the government were brought forward. And it was our view that the package that is here represents a positive improvement in fact, not just from the perspective of police officers but I think more importantly for law-abiding Canadians and firearms owners and those who wish to comply with the legislation. This bill does make it considerably easier for firearms owners to comply.

• 2005

So those issues were reported to our delegates at our conference in March of this year, and, as indicated earlier, our association has supported this bill. Certainly, there are issues that we have testified before—

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Can I just interrupt you? I don't know if you realize at committee we have very limited time in being able to ask questions.

Many of the conditions the CPA put on their support for this—in fact most of them—were never met. It is difficult to understand why you then support it, if the amendments do not address those concerns—the conditions you put forward that the government should analyze the legislation. I was invited to your meetings as an observer and I was there when those conditions were put forward—having the Auditor General review the legislation. None of these were ever met.

The concerns that are in your letter and that you just addressed were never met, and yet you supported the legislation. In fact, your president said:

It bothers me that the public would not support me in my line of duty. We've never been at odds with the public before. This issue has done this.

And this issue is the firearms issue.

The argument was made here that if it saves one life, we should support it. Has it not in fact done the opposite?

I don't know if you read my news releases, but in Nain, Newfoundland, as the direct result of this legislation, it has cost a life.

You have written in your letter that you need more resources to fight organized crime. You need more resources to put more police on the street. That could have a direct result in saving many lives, and that money now is going into the registry. In fact, this year alone in the supplementary estimates they've had to put three times more in than they had in the original budget. It's getting close to $700 million. The Attorney General of Ontario was on record as saying that for the original amount that he thought it might cost—half a billion dollars—he could have put 5,900 more police on the street. That would have genuinely saved lives and reduced crime and made our lives a lot safer.

How can you continue to support something that really goes in the opposite direction to its stated objectives?

Mr. David Griffin: First of all, with regard to your first point concerning conditions, I have the resolution in front of me from our annual general meeting in Regina in 1999. There were no conditions in our resolution. Our association recommended that the Auditor General of Canada conduct a review of the firearms system, and we listed a number of points why it was submitted that this would be appropriate, including verification of the accuracy of information being collected, confirmation that they system has the capacity to meet the legislative timeframes, ensuring the cost-recovery plan was viable or could be achieved, ensuring the consultations were being addressed, and confirmation that implementation of the system is not taking police officers off the street.

As you know, the Auditor General, who is independent, chose not to do that. But I think that did in fact have a great deal of effect for our association, because it resulted in increased consultation between the Department of Justice and the Firearms Centre and our representatives. Through that I think our members have been able to assess all of those issues to their satisfaction, and they have, as indicated, reviewed this decision in March of this year and reaffirmed their position.

• 2010

I believe that...I shouldn't say I believe. This isn't what I believe; this is what our association believes. Certainly we have clear direction on that. We may not have met or we may never meet the people who are going to be saved by this legislation.

Do we need better security on our borders? Yes, we do. I've testified at a number of parliamentary committees on this issue. Certainly we are concerned about that. We're concerned about a number of different legislative issues. Do we see this as an either/or? No. As I indicated in the presentation, our members have indicated that they support registration for the reasons that have been cited. Has not...?

The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz, we'll be back.

Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your presence. I greatly appreciate the presentations that were made. There are two essential points I would like to discuss with you. I would like to know what you think about them.

As regards the new commissioner position that is being created, we know that the firearms director will somewhat change jobs and that you have a word to say about the appointment of this director. How do you see this, given that the commissioner will be subject to the Public Service Superannuation Act? Of course, the Minister will appoint this commissioner and, indirectly, the director, but with less power in the latter case, apparently. How do you see this?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Schumacher.

Mr. Gord Schumacher: As far as the CACP is concerned, we're not necessarily concerned with that. We are comfortable in understanding that this legislation is requiring some streamlining, and the government is choosing to do it by appointing a commissioner. We don't think the integrity of this legislation is going to be compromised by that process, and we're comfortable with the commissioner aspect of it.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: All right.

My second question is about the proposed provision which has a double negative and deals with initial energy or initial speed. The problem that seems to be caused by the “or” or the “and” is that many people were exempted from this licence and registration, which results in a lot of concern in the analysis or verification. Do you think these weapons will need to be registered and require a licence?

Ms. Perkins-McVey.

[English]

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey: I would defer to the police persons, as it pertains to the technical aspects.

I think the Criminal Lawyers' Association's concern was that if the intent of the legislation is to exempt this class of weapons, the legislation should indeed be drafted in such a way that there is no misunderstanding. It's clearly a question of drafting. I think with regard to the legislation, if the intent is to exclude this classification of weaponry, then the drafting should be made clear, so that there is no possible alternate interpretation.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I would like the police and chiefs of police associations to tell me if the ultimate goal is to make the registration of these weapons mandatory. These could be pinball game weapons. There may be a problem because the number of joules may be different. Is the goal really to require the registration of these weapons, or is it simply a drafting error that could be corrected by an amendment?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Griffin seems anxious. Do you want to weigh in on this? Go to it.

Mr. David Griffin: I have some knowledge of this issue, but I wouldn't say my knowledge is extensive. I know that in the last 12 months concern was raised about the capacity of certain “air guns”. Depending on the type of ammunition that was being used, there was a concern that the weapon might cause injury to or death for other individuals. There was a concern over whether or not these guns should be available for sale in Canada.

• 2015

There was also a concern from our membership, not only about the fact that these guns present a safety issue but about the fact that there is the potential, because they're constructed almost like replicas, that these guns can be confused with real firearms. Our members are also sensitive to the possibility of a 17-year-old kid robbing a store who points a fake gun at them, resulting in lethal consequences.

A technical committee was struck, which involved representatives from our association along with the chiefs of police and the firearms centre. I know they did evaluate this issue, and I believe that resulted in the legislation that's here.

I'm not personally familiar with the double negative. I know the goal is not to have these guns wrapped up into the firearms law. The intention isn't to have to license every pellet gun owner, unless of course that particular weapon exceeds a safe level.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: For you, personally, do both conditions need to be met to consider that a weapon must be registered, or is one condition enough? There is no answer, is there?

Mr. David Griffin: I am sorry, but...

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Perkins-McVey.

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey: The comments made by Mr. Griffin suggested that we would support use of replica handguns in the course of robberies. Don't forget that all this does is take it out of one definition section. It still is a weapon under the Criminal Code, and there are certain sanctions for the use of imitation firearms.

I would just simply indicate that I think what we're talking about is clarity of drafting. If the intent is that there is only one section and one criteria to be met, not two, then there doesn't need to be the double negative. I think that's clearly what we're saying.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay, seven minutes.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR): I will say thank you to all the witnesses for your evidence, your testimony, here.

Your last response with respect to the moving of sections within the Criminal Code is a good segue to the question I have with respect to the cruelty to animal sections. I fully support more vigorous prosecution of these types of offences, and clearly there has been a falling down, I think, on the part of the crown, of the law enforcement community, sadly, in putting greater emphasis on these types of offences. We've heard compelling, disturbing evidence of the number of cases across the country where terrible, terrible acts of cruelty have been committed.

My question to all of you is, could we not achieve the same objectives by not removing these sections pertaining to cruelty to animals from the current section, part XI of the Criminal Code? Could we not achieve higher sanctions, an expanded range of sentences, bans on possession of animals, and putting in place recognizance conditions that would achieve everything we hope to achieve? As well, putting a more vigorous effort into provincial regulations and into more training of police officers, judges, and prosecutors, I would strenuously submit, would do a lot more in that regard.

My second line of questioning pertains to the firearms sections. I very much appreciate Mr. Griffin's testimony because I know that he and others from the chiefs of police bring that practical application and consideration to what we often do here in passing bills.

We've listened to the presentation about the merits of the registry system and yet there are still some very practical aspects of the entire registry program that I struggle with, that is, the very real fact that those who pose the greatest danger, number one, don't use long guns. They are not the weapons of choice. Those who deliberately use firearms for criminal purposes will never participate. This is a voluntary system, voluntary compliance. The Hell's Angels are not lining up at the local mall, at the kiosks, to register their weapons.

• 2020

The reality is the black market availability has increased significantly since this registry program began; therefore, those who have criminal intent are far more apt to pick up a weapon, whether it be registered or unregistered, whether it be a long gun or a pistol—we've had pistols registered in this country for 50 years—at a flea market.

This is a cultural question, unfortunately, between rural and urban Canada. I know it's difficult even within the policing association, because I speak regularly to police officers from across the country. They struggle with it. And in the heightened rush to become more secure since September 11, we are again revisiting the issue of stretched resources. Seven hundred million dollars for a registry system that is not yet in place seems to me to be ludicrous in the context of the need and priority to give front-line police officers not only the investigative tools, but the overtime, the person power, the legislative ability to do their work.

Yes, it would be a luxury to think this system was somehow going to save lives. I've listened to the merits, and I've heard them time and time again, but I don't see that, on balance, this registry system is going to achieve the safety objectives.

The Chair: Mr. Schumacher.

Mr. Gord Schumacher: On your first question, with regard to the moving of the animal section out of property, I think you are probably correct in the sense that with regard to the penalties themselves, the end could probably be achieved by leaving it in the property section. The CACP doesn't have an issue with leaving it in the property section. We are in support, however, of increasing the penalties, as I've mentioned.

With regard to the firearms question, you mentioned, Mr. MacKay, the group of individuals who are most dangerous not being the ones affected, necessarily, by this legislation. I disagree. I believe domestic violence and violence resulting from long guns and shotguns is a tremendous problem in all countries of the world. This registration system goes directly at that. The licensing and the registration both go directly at that. I think the public safety mandate that was brought along with this legislation is going to be accomplished—it is being accomplished—and once the registration process is finished, I think it will be of tremendous benefit. The costs are high, I realize that.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Let me ask you, Mr. Schumacher, about a hypothetical example—and sadly, it's not very hypothetical, because we all know these types of horrible domestic acts of violence and murder occur far too often. But tell me how having a laser imprint sticker with a number that was filed in a computer system, nationally on CPIC or otherwise, would prevent an individual from taking a shotgun in rural Saskatchewan and taking the life of his wife and child and then himself? It will help you in the aftermath, perhaps, to link what has happened, but that type of example, I strongly submit to you, is not accurate.

I've seen the statistics that police and the government often rely on. Firearms are found at a home where a domestic assault has occurred, and the incident is then recorded as a firearms incident when there was no use of the gun or even reference to it.

That firearms registry will not prevent that type of atrocity, just as having a firearms registry would not have prevented Marc Lépine from doing what he did in Montreal, or anyone, for that matter, who is deranged enough to use any type of weapon. Sadly, that is just not the case.

• 2025

The Chair: Mr. Schumacher, and then Mr. Griffin.

Mr. Gord Schumacher: I think in the type of situation you described, if that shotgun had been in place long before, you would be correct. I don't know that we would be able to stop a situation like that. If he hadn't owned a shotgun, and he decided to go and get a shotgun, the risk factors in the application and a number of other factors would have caught that individual. In fact, those lives would have been saved.

So it's a matter of allowing the process to get in place. Once the process is in place, we're going to see the results we're looking for.

The Chair: Mr. Griffin.

Mr. David Griffin: Yes, I'd like to make a couple of comments. First of all, we're not going to save every life, and we're not going to prevent every death, but I think often in these cases there are culminating incidents in people's lives. This is not something where somebody has all of a sudden decided to take the life of their family and commit suicide. It's often a culmination of a sequence of events, and countless coroners' juries have recommended that steps be taken to intervene and get the guns out of the home before that happens.

Is it going to happen in every case? No, but I think Bill C-68 has provided tools to deal with those situations.

Certainly the Hell's Angels aren't lining up to register, but there have been cases already where the illegal movement of firearms from the United States into Canada, particularly into the possession of organized criminals, has been thwarted by the registration information and being able to trace firearms to the source.

In the reasons we cited, the 10 reasons for supporting registration, we cited that as an example, the ability to track the firearm from the manufacturer to the point where we lose track of where that gun has been moving.

Certainly $700 million is a lot of money, but I would respectfully submit this is not just for the registration system, but also for a licensing system, which the firearms community has generally supported as well.

The Chair: Ms. Perkins-McVey.

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey: I think, Mr. MacKay, you're absolutely right when you suggest the registration system that's prescribed is not going to stop that kind of domestic crime. It's not going to stop anybody from getting a gun if they really want to. It's not going to put me out of business. But if you have a clear, streamlined system that allows the easy tracing from manufacturer to possession, it may in some circumstances mean law enforcement persons will be able to locate those weapons and get them out of the house if there is a concern, if there's a sense of escalation of violence within the home, or when police officers attend and CPIC reveals there is an FAC.

I think that is the reason the Criminal Lawyers' Association does support very clear, streamlined registry systems, with minimal cost to allow more persons to register.

I think it's an interesting segue into the cruelty to animals section, because you suggest...and I'm not trying to say you're minimizing the importance of the section. But what was the lead story in tonight's news? The lead story in tonight's news was about a matter in Brockville where an animal, I believe it was a German shepherd, had been strangled or injured, and there was a cruelty to animals case that was being prosecuted. That was the number one story.

I've been told when I've talked to ministry of justice officials in a different capacity that the cruelty to animals issue is one of the number one areas of concern among Canadians. That's the area where the minister gets the most mail about the need for reform.

The other aspect is—and I'm aware of your background—if you were to read pre-sentence reports prepared by probation officers, if you were to read psychiatric reports, if you were to look at some of the psychiatric profiles of perhaps the most deviant of criminals, you would usually find at some point cruelty to animals. It's usually in that...fire starter, cruelty to animals. They are key indicators of deviant behaviour. Studies have clearly shown that persons who go on to commit very serious acts of violence against people have often practised on animals.

• 2030

For that reason, I think we have to give greater attention to the section of the Criminal Code. You've indicated you're asking for greater vigilance and prosecutions, and yes, I agree with you that within the current section you can change it to a hybrid offence. Yes, I agree that you can change the maximums and minimums. All that can be done. But what's wrong with giving it a separate section so it can be dealt with, perhaps giving it a higher profile and greater consideration?

I think the concern is not with changing its location within the Criminal Code. That's largely political and somewhat cosmetic. The greater issue is to ensure that the section is dealt with appropriately and that it indeed captures the kind of activity we are meant to look at. If one of the purposes of dealing with animal cruelty and giving greater focus to that offence is because we want to stop people or have a look at people who may go on to commit more serious offences, then let's ensure that this piece of legislation and that definition are clear.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll have Mr. Myers for seven minutes.

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I want to thank all of you for appearing.

Ms. Perkins-McVey, I wanted you to pick up on what you were saying about deviant behaviour and the connection you made between cruelty to animals and people going on to commit other crimes. I too have read evidence along those lines, and also the connection with spousal and child abuse and other things. That was an important point to make, and a very compelling one.

This is what I wanted to ask you, though. We have had a number of groups testify, people on the animal rights and animal welfare side of the equation, and they have argued that if in fact we put in qualifiers saying that normal farm practice, for example, is exempt—

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey: You're referring to a list of exceptions.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Yes, exactly: for trappers, medical researchers, etc. It has been suggested that this would potentially have the effect of gutting the bill. Those are their words. I wondered if you shared that view.

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey: I can indicate that generally I would not be in favour of a list of exceptions. The danger with a list of exceptions is, how far do you go? Do you gut the bill by naming too many exceptions, or do you not name enough? It's a very delicate drafting problem when you start to get into exceptions.

In some ways it would clarify certain concerns, such as the example of vermin control or of persons who are involved in legitimate activities. If for clarity they need to see that they are exempted, there is some advantage to having them listed. On the other hand, if you list so many exceptions that the section no longer has any oomph, that's a concern. I'd have to see the exact exemptions that were proposed before I could give a clear opinion as to whether or not a list was appropriate or not appropriate.

I was figuring that someone would ask me about my not liking the definition of “animal” because it's too broad, because it refers to any animal that may feel pain. And yes, setting out certain exceptions, perhaps clarifying necessary and unnecessary procedures, and ensuring that those justifications are there may be the answer.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Thank you very much.

Mr. Griffin, Mr. Schumacher, and Mr. Brown, I just want to say that I very much appreciate the fact that you can articulate the lists of reasons why gun legislation is important. I think we all feel saddened and a sense of loss when, Mr. Schumacher, you point out that 112 police officers in the period of time from 1961 to 1997 were murdered as a result of their work. I think that's a tremendous loss, and to think, as you pointed out too, that the potential exists to save thousands of lives. I think that's well worth noting.

I'm not sure, Mr. Chairman, that we always take the time. I used to be with the Waterloo Regional Police. I was part of their association and sat as chairman of the board. I don't think we thank the police enough, Mr. Chairman, in terms of the kind of work they do and the professionalism they have, with their ability to make our communities, neighbourhoods, towns, villages, and cities safe places in which to live. The community-based policing you do and all the efforts you make to reach out and be partners in the wider community often go unnoticed. I don't think we should do that. I think decent, law-abiding Canadians—in fact I know they do—very much value the good work you do, and I think we should echo that.

• 2035

Maybe it takes something that's unfortunate, such as the events of September 11, to make us understand that more than ever we need the good work of good police officers, which all of you represent. I'm very heartened by that, and on behalf of the people I represent, I just want to thank you for the good work you do.

I wanted, though, to get a sense from you how the gun legislation is working and how the process is going. Is it working in a manner consistent with the way you hoped? What kind of weapons are you seeing come in? Are you surprised by some of the things you're seeing?

Maybe, Mr. Griffin, you can elaborate a little, because I'm aware that, as you say, there were some things thwarted at the border. Maybe you can expand a little on the cooperation we exercise with our American counterparts when it comes to some of those issues. What I'm asking for is a sense of where this is going and whether the transition and the process are moving along in a reasonable fashion, or is there still work to be done?

The Chair: Mr. Griffin.

Mr. David Griffin: I should clarify that I'm not an active member of a police service, so I don't have first-hand experience. But certainly, in talking to my colleagues, I think the flow of information is improving. The capacity of the system to provide information to police officers is also improving. It's in a growing state, and the Firearms Centre has adopted a number of innovative methods to improve the awareness of police officers as to how they can access information concerning firearms licences and registration and how they can trace firearms.

The department was instrumental in establishing the National Weapons Enforcement Support Team, known as NWEST. The organization is now in place on a coast-to-coast basis and is working to assist police forces in tracking the illegal movement of firearms, ensuring that every effort is made to prevent the flow of firearms into our communities.

I don't think the system is perfect. Certainly, we've heard concerns about the accuracy of information. A number of the steps contained in this bill have addressed that and in particular have reduced the sort of quantum level of information that's required to register a firearm. A lot of that information was of interest to people who are really close to guns. But for the front-line officer, they need basic facts. How big is it? How powerful is it? Is it a shotgun or a rifle? Is it a handgun? They need the make, model, and sufficient information to identify it.

I think the amendments in here address that as well. What we have seen over the last 18 months are significant efforts to address the concerns, within both the police community and the firearms community. This bill is a product of that effort.

The Chair: Mr. Brown.

Mr. Bruce Brown: Thank you.

Mr. Myers, I can tell you that as part of my preparation for appearing here tonight, I spoke to our firearms officer in the London Police Service and asked him much the same question you did: how is it working; how are things going? His answer was similar to what Mr. Griffin has already said. The information flow is increasing. It's certainly much better now than it was pre-Bill C-68. The CFRO, the Canadian Firearms Registry On-line, is working well, the aim being to list all guns.

For the most part it works well. There are still some glitches in the system, still some problems, but the information highway has definitely expanded as a result of this legislation. I think I should share that with you.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll have Mr. Toews for three minutes.

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

I certainly do have a lot of questions, unfortunately not enough time. I have interesting questions, such as, how would the witness know what topic the minister would get most of her mail on? I find that quite an interesting question.

There are other interesting legal propositions the witness has put forward. For example, if the general defence in the Criminal Code is applicable to the new part V.1, why would the legislature have included specific defences in the property offences? It seems to me the logic doesn't fly. I come from a rural area. My farmers are concerned they're going to be put out of business. They deserve protection; they face enough uncertainty.

• 2040

I too want to compliment the police officers and say they do a good job. In my former life as an attorney general of a province, I believed in police officers. I believed in putting police officers on the street. What I saw Bill C-68 do was take police officers off the street and make our citizens more vulnerable.

As for how this program is going, the government estimated in this fiscal year it would cost $35 million. They've had to put in $149 million. How is this program going? It's out of control. Everybody realizes that. The police officers I speak to on a daily basis—city police, RCMP—tell me it's not working. I respect you as police officers. I can only assume maybe you aren't speaking to the same police officers I am.

When I think of $650 million and what I could have done as an attorney general in putting police officers on the street and giving them the support they deserve, then look at this, the results of this legislation are very questionable.

And I don't think it's getting any better. We see the percentage of homicides from firearm deaths rising. We see homicides from firearms—handguns that have been registered or supposed to have been registered since 1934—continuing. This is not going to do it. We need more police officers.

I'm surprised to hear you today. Do you know where this $650 million is coming from? It's from your membership—a reduced membership. That's where it's coming from.

If you want help, I'm prepared to give it to you. I certainly needed that help when I was a provincial attorney general and the federal AG kept sucking off money for a gun registry that doesn't work. But I think you should stand with your police officers, who are saying, “We can't patrol the areas we have responsibility for because we don't have the resources.” I'm telling you I'm here to support you in your resources—for more manpower, for more personnel.

I'm surprised at what I'm hearing here tonight. I'm disappointed and I'm surprised, because my experience in administering government programs certainly has not been the same as what you're telling us. It must be that I'm from Manitoba and you're from elsewhere.

That's probably my three minutes.

The Chair: It's a little bit better, actually.

Ms. Perkins-McVey.

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey: The first egg was at me. I think I'll be the first one to answer.

I'll tell you why I know that. I have been involved in consultations with Bill C-15 in my capacity in involvement in the Canadian Bar Association. As a group of lawyers we almost laughed, quite frankly, at having to deal with the cruelty to animals section—until we were told, first of all, some of the background information that led to the inclusion of the section in the omnibus bill, in the original Bill C-15; until we started to look at some of the material that was presented to us by various attorneys general, by various crowns, and by various defence lawyers; until we started to look at why it was an important piece of legislation and why it was a concern not only to animal rights groups but to other persons in the psychiatric profession and in the correctional field.

That's the reason why, I was told. I made fun of the legislation, and I was put in my place when I started to appreciate the importance of it. That's the reason I gave the answer I did, and it's something you can consider as well.

As it pertains to the gun legislation, what I would say on that point is this. You've heard my comments about the need for the streamlining of legislation. Largely, as criminal defence lawyers our concern is to ensure due process and fairness. Your concern—well placed and well spoken—is that the money be put where it can do the most good. The question is this, however: yes, as agreed, the outlaws are not lining up to register and it's not going to solve all crime, but if there is no registry system, then what kind of anarchy will occur? Will we have an even greater problem in dealing with those guns we do know about? Perhaps the greater harm is in not having it at all.

• 2045

The Chair: Mr. Griffin.

Mr. David Griffin: I've learned that in Ottawa we talk a lot in millions of dollars, because when you spread it out across the country of 30 million people it sounds a lot more sometimes than its impact is. Certainly, in recent announcements from the Solicitor General we've seen that approach used.

From our perspective the costs of the system have been significant. Certainly there have been concerns over cost overruns, but we are seeing steps in this bill to address that.

In fact, policing has benefited to some degree from some of those expenditures, because the government is now paying the costs of front-line police officers who were formerly involved in the licensing and FAC process at a cost to the local taxpayer. Those costs are now being billed back to the federal government. There has been in fact some—albeit relatively minor—benefit back, in the capacity of local municipalities to put additional officers on the street.

Are we here on other occasions advocating for increased resources for the RCMP? Certainly, we are, and certainly we agree we have a significant number of members who are quite vociferously opposed to this legislation. But having said all that, I think we've stated our case in support of the registration system, and we believe that moving this to a single-agency status will address some of the concerns that have existed over the RCMP's management of this process.

The Chair: Mr. Schumacher.

Mr. Gord Schumacher: Just briefly, I acknowledge, Mr. Toews, that you have probably heard many times over that policing needs more police officers. I'm not going to dispute that. What I will say is that policing does not only consist of police officers; it has many prongs. One of those prongs is information; one of them is prevention. This firearms legislation provides us with just one more prong for us to do our jobs. More police officers alone won't do it. We need to spread out, and this is one of the things we're using to spread out and cast a big blanket over the people in our society who are causing violence, death, and destruction to our citizens.

The Chair: Mr. Grose, you have three minutes.

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've been very close to a point of order a couple of times, because I think it's most unfair to ask the witnesses to comment on expenditures by this government—whether they be right or wrong, or whether they're spent wisely—and I don't think it is something the witnesses should have to answer. I think it's an embarrassing question, and I think we shouldn't ask it. That's a political question. We can solve it amongst ourselves.

Getting to the animal parts of the bill, I was very heartened to see the resolution you have presented to the committee on injuring or endangering police animals. I note there's one part left out of it. The proposed amendment says:

The court, in addition to any sentence that it may impose under subsection (3) must order the offender to pay all restitution costs, including training costs resulting from the law enforcement animal being killed or otherwise rendered unable to perform its duties.

Now, you know as well as I do that it's very costly to train a police animal, be it a horse or a dog. Did you leave this out because you thought, “Well, that might prejudice the bill”? Now I'm talking about money that comes out of your budget, so it's all right; it doesn't come out of ours. That is part of the amendment, that is the way the amendment will go through, and that is the way I will defend it.

I would like your comment on whether or not you think that is a fair addition to the amendment. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who injures a police animal is injuring a part of the police force, and I think that's the way we're going to have to look at things from now on. Some of the horrible things that have happened in Toronto, with people trying to hamstring horses, are just unspeakable, and that's something we're going to have to address.

• 2050

We're now using police dogs to a greater degree than ever before. I know in my own riding in Durham we started with one dog, who is now almost at retirement age and has been injured many times. We now have upwards of a dozen of them who are performing yeoman service. Therefore, this is something we have to look at.

But I'm wondering about this one clause you left out of your resolution.

The Chair: Mr. Griffin.

Mr. David Griffin: I thank you for the question, because the resolution was prepared by a committee of our members who had a specific interest in this, and I think it was primarily an oversight. Your proposal is a valid one because the cost of training the animals is extraordinary, so I think it makes sense.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Grose hears that all the time.

[Translation]

Mr. Lanctôt.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We have heard several witnesses, some of whom support the protection of animals. As did Ms. McVey, they told us that certain things absolutely needed to be changed in the definition, including the addition of the “capacity to feel pain.”

It is also proposed that the provisions on cruelty to animals be moved from part XI to part V.I. Several people have come to tell us that they will loose some defence rights provided under section 429 of the Criminal Code if this change is made, while Ms. McVey tells us that a new part must be included to stress the importance of cruelty to animals. However, I heard you say that if part XI were kept and animals remained property, the same results would be achieved, providing that there would be higher sanctions and sentences.

So I heard two completely different opinions today and last week. You are police officers. We were told that police officers, prosecutors and judges did not take this seriously, and even that you could not do your work because the law was drafted this way, and that this is why a new part was created, part V.I.

I would like to know if it is more of a resource issue, because what will be dealt with is murders, robberies and things relating to human beings instead of enforcing this law. So is it a lack of resources, and can the same thing be done with the same law, or must it absolutely be changed?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Schumacher.

Mr. Gord Schumacher: Thank you.

Unfortunately, as far as the CACP is concerned, we've had limited discussion on this particular amendment, outside of just changing the penalty to hybrid offences. Outside of that, I'm sorry, as far as the CACP position, I can't comment on that.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: But you do understand that it is very important that each member of this committee fully understands. If the law is not changed, will it still be possible to fight against cruelty to animals, or does this part absolutely need to be changed, as suggested by Ms. McVey? Maybe you did not correctly study this modification, but it is enormous, and you are involved in implementing this law and having it enforced.

To decide whether it is necessary to have a new part, i.e. to distinguish between animals and property—furniture and animals are not the same thing—, each member of the committee must have an answer to this question. The committee must know whether the same result can be achieved with the old legislation. We were told that we could not have the same result.

• 2055

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Lanctôt, I go to the book.

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey: Under section 446 there is clearly a provision that allows for law enforcement officers to deal with cruelty to animals. But I think you've been told statistics that there's very minimal enforcement and very minimal prosecution under that section.

Is that because the code is deficient, or is it because the police officers...? Is it an attitude issue or an enforcement issue? Is it a problem with the drafting of the legislation?

Quite clearly, the legislation as it now stands allows for prosecution for cruelty to animals—effectively the kinds of concerns you have. It allows for prosecution for poisoning, wilful negligence, neglect, wilful damage, and injury. Largely, it allows for the prosecution of the offences that are meant to be caught. The concern is, it's a summary conviction offence as it currently stands. That can be amended and still stay within the same section.

The question really is, how should it be classified? Part of this is a political agenda, which you can sort out within your various divisions. But police officers don't look at injuries to animals in the same way as they do injuries to people. The very answer that was given by Mr. Schumacher suggests that, for example, the police associations have not looked at this section with the same degree of concern as they have other sections of the code that deal with people. So it's an attitude issue. It's an education issue.

Could the section of the code be improved? Yes, and that's the job of this committee. It's to examine whether or not the proposed section in the legislation, Bill C-15B, improves and allows for that change in attitude. By giving it its own section, perhaps it does refocus and give it some credibility, for lack of a better word. Maybe that's the purpose. Does that solve all the problems? No.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Griffin. We're slightly over three minutes.

Mr. David Griffin: I see it slightly differently. I think, realistically, the move in the Criminal Code was probably lost on us, in terms of its implications. Certainly from my experience these types of incidents are generally complaint-based. Where it becomes known that somebody has done something to an animal and we receive calls, we respond accordingly. Perhaps it could be interpreted that because we have come here without a position on this it somehow indicates there's a reluctance to enforce the law as it stands now. But I don't think that's the case.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Owen.

Back to Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we've hit upon something very important. This is very much about trying to change the attitude or put a greater focus on the seriousness of animal abuse.

I can tell you, Ms. Perkins-McVey, I prosecuted a case where a couple of young offenders went out and shot a boy point blank in the face. When we had psychiatric evidence induced at a transfer hearing, it came to light that they were very much, in their youth, engaged in abusive activities toward animals. So I accept your point that there's clearly a nexus.

However, I don't accept the fact that by simply plunking this from one section of the code into another it will be tantamount to changing the attitude. A more rigorous pursuit of these cases by the police and the crown, the inducing of evidence and bringing the evidence forward to secure convictions.... If somebody strangles a German shepherd in Toronto, they should be charged, if the evidence is there.

The fear is by moving this section it is tantamount to diminishing the common law defences. You're right to point out that it's there in another section and applies to the whole code. But right now, because it exists in the property section, it is specifically highlighted for the judge that there is a common law defence that has to be examined.

• 2100

Now that may not cause you concern. But for a farmer, for a furrier, for somebody who depends for their livelihood on animals and has a vested interest in seeing that animals are not treated cruelly or abused, they have angst. Whether you accept that or not, that's there. And moving this section has caused them incredible angst, because we've been hearing about it repeatedly through their testimony.

I just want to direct one other comment for a response to representatives of the police. The firearms registry itself, whether my friend opposite likes to hear the cost or not, was sold to the public as costing somewhere in the range of $85 million. It's now almost ten times that amount, and there is very much a connection between the resources that are allocated for policing and this particular registry system that has been abysmal in its efficiency.

There have been numerous examples of people who have been given the wrong ID. They've had to several times mail information back in. There have been questions by the Privacy Commissioner as to the appropriateness of the information that has been gathered under this registry program. The costs have continually escalated.

I am so pleased that today the Attorney General of this country has finally responded to my fourth request that a value-for-dollar audit be conducted on the system. I hope it's going to be broad enough to expose some of the inadequacies of the system. But that nexus exists. That decision to put $700 million into the registry does affect the resource allocation for police in this country, and it does come down to priorities.

So I would strongly suggest that your police association and the chiefs revisit, talk to the members who are tasked with enforcing this. Ask them if they can rely on the accuracy of the information, because that is what it's all about. It's protecting lives, it's protecting police. When they get a call for a domestic, if they go to the door and they rely on their CPIC system, they're relying on it to be accurate. If they go believing that there is or isn't a weapon in that house, it's going to affect potentially the way they deal with that call. I would suggest that we're nowhere near that level of efficiency so that they can 100% rely on that system to be accurate. To my way of thinking, that could affect their safety and the safety of people who are in that house.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. MacKay.

We're going to go to Ms. Perkins-McVey first.

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey: I'd just simply indicate that I'm glad you accept that section 8 of the Criminal Code will apply because I think it does.

If persons are concerned that they no longer have the right to reasonable excuse and justification, then we can simply either indicate in section 429 that it applies to the proposed section 182.2—that's quite simple—or a subsection can be added under part V to indicate that this does not in any way take away common law defences as set out in section 8 and/or section 429 of the Criminal Code. I think that's the intent of the legislation, as it pertains to the wording of “and kills an animal without lawful excuse” and the use of words such as “unnecessary”, which allows for necessary activity, and as such, if there's any concern about clarity, then simply indicate in section 429 that this section continues to apply, and that solves the problem.

The Chair: Thank you.

Is there a response from the police?

Mr. David Griffin: Well, certainly, in four reviews of our support of this legislation our association has heard from various members, many of whom feel very passionately in opposition to our position. As indicated, those views were weighed by the delegates in attendance at our national conference, and I'm here today to convey their support for the position.

Certainly the costs have been a concern. I guess at the end of the day we have the luxury of coming forward and saying we'd like all of the above. We'd like to see more police officers on the street. We'd like to see tighter controls at our borders. We'd like to see tougher sentences for people convicted of crimes. But I don't think we're about to say that one should be at the cost of the other.

The Chair: Police chiefs, Mr. Schumacher, Mr. Brown.

• 2105

Mr. Gord Schumacher: I guess our only comment is that, yes, the cost is high. Certainly, Mr. MacKay, your role is to look at those costs and criticize those costs. As far as chiefs of police are concerned, that's not our role. Our role is to look at what the legislation is doing for the citizens of Canada. We're concerned with public safety. We see this as a vehicle for us, and that's why we're supporting it.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Schumacher.

I'll go to Mr. Toews for three minutes.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you.

I appreciate the suggestion made by Ms. Perkins-McVey. It's in fact what members of the opposition committee have been asking for exactly. So I thank you for providing that very valuable testimony.

With respect to the animal sections, I think in defence of the police officers, not that they need defence from me, but it's not a question of attitude. I think police officers are very concerned, but it gets down to that same issue again: resourcing.

In my province of Manitoba we have a domestic abuse policy that is a very stringent one, and we work very hard to prevent domestic abuse. I was very proud to be a part of the government that brought that policy in. What that does then is take away resources from other areas. Domestic abuse investigation was very important. The officers, I'm sure, simply looked at priorities. There were many times they simply wouldn't investigate or charge because of the amount of expense. So ultimately it gets down to an issue of resourcing.

When we pass legislation here today, we have to look at the issue of resourcing, because we don't have the luxury of saying, well, we'll just pass the law and let the provincial attorneys general worry about enforcing, let the police worry about enforcing. We have a duty to our citizens to make sure that when we pass laws, the appropriate resourcing is in place. So I'm supportive of increased penalties and I'm supportive of vigorous prosecutions of abuse of animals. But if we want that, it's not so much a question of the attitude of police officers—it's already a positive one—the issue is one of what resources are we willing to put into that.

So I want to commend the police for bringing forward this amendment in respect of the endangering of police animals. You certainly have my support on that, and we'll work forward. I think it's a very important issue.

The last comment I want to make then is that the minister has made certain public statements about this legislation on animals. Do you believe, Ms. Perkins-McVey, that these amendments bring any substantive change to the law?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Toews.

Ms. Perkins-McVey.

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey: I think it does bring substantive change inasmuch as it becomes no longer simply a summary conviction offence; it becomes a hybrid offence, so that the most serious cases of animal abuse can be dealt with in a more serious way. It increases the maximum penalties that can be prescribed by the courts to deal with those most serious cases. It brings them in line with other sections of the Criminal Code dealing with acts of violence. I think in that sense it is a substantive change.

Mr. Vic Toews: In terms of penalties.

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey: In terms of penalties, yes. I think there is clearly an attempt to deal and to clarify the types of harm we're trying to protect animals from. I think the legislation attempts to do so.

I do have concerns, as I've indicated at the outset, about the definition, and I think that is something that should be further examined. I think there should also be serious consideration given, as I have indicated, to ensuring that those common law defences are clearly made available and made known to people, because what we support is of course clear legislation.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Owen for three minutes. Our three-minute rounds are looking terribly like seven-minutes rounds, so I hope this doesn't enter your mental memory for tomorrow.

Mr. Owen.

Mr. Stephen Owen (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Thank you.

• 2110

Ms. Perkins-McVey, this really builds on your last comment. I'm scratching my head as to the difference between legal justification, excuse, and colour of right, and lawful excuse, which is in the new section. I wonder if there's any difference, given the fact that the common law defences don't disappear. I wonder if the colour of right defences are simply more appropriate to inanimate property relationship with an owner and simply aren't as applicable in this to animals, or are we losing something in terms of a legitimate defence for people's normal use in agriculture or whatever sort of business or uses we see as appropriate and normal in our society? Are we losing something, and should we amend it and put it in the new section?

The Chair: Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey.

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey: You raise an interesting point. You ask, is colour of right more appropriate to deal with property; is there a real difference between legal excuse and justification? In real terms, we're not talking about major differences. The same would apply to both, and when you talk about property and the use of colour of right, yes, it is usually referred to when you're dealing with property. But let's face it, animals are something we own. They are property, in a sense, but they're different property than me owning this pen, because my pen doesn't have any feelings or any ability to feel pain. So I think we're not wrong in using property-type terms when speaking of animals, because they are owned and we do allow them to be owned. However, they're different in that they're different from other types of property, and I think that's where some of the differences arise.

Another issue is—

Mr. Stephen Owen: I'm sorry, just on that point, do you see any reason for not having the same phrase in the new property section or the new animal welfare section? Does it make any sense to you?

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey: As I've indicated, I don't believe the lack of the words causes any problem in law.

Mr. Stephen Owen: Right.

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey: However, if people are going to be concerned about it, whether it be constituents or government drafters, then by all means include it so there is no issue.

Mr. Stephen Owen: So you don't feel that we lose anything by including it—

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey: No.

Mr. Stephen Owen: —that we otherwise would achieve by the objectives of the bill.

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey: Right.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Owen. That's just under three minutes. Great.

[Translation]

Mr. Lanctôt.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you.

I will pick up on Mr. Toews comments. I will speak to Ms. McVey.

There is a very important change, and not only with sanctions and sentences. You say that legal justification, reasonable excuse, and colour of right are three different concepts.

I am a lawyer. I am not in criminal law, but I think there is a considerable difference. Moving these provisions from part XI to part V.I. removes the defence rights provided under section 429. This is undeniable. Of course, we still have section 8 and common law, but section 429 provided other defence options. For my part, I appreciated hearing you say that if these provisions are moved from part XI to part V.I, adding these defence options, both in form and content, and adding that it applies, common law, to section 8, it is not simply a question of vision or form to please farmers, hunters or trappers. There is a possibility to increase sanctions and to make a distinction between property and animals while protecting farmers, trappers, hunters, and all these groups who feel they are loosing rights.

Do you still agree to propose an amendment that would explicitly add these three defences to the proposed part V.I? Animal rights defence organizations told us that we were doing away with the logic of this bill.

• 2115

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Ms. Perkins-McVey.

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey: Well, I'm looking at section 429, and clearly it indicates under subsection 429(1) that:

(1) Every one who causes the occurrence of an event by doing an act or by omitting to do an act...knowing that the act or omission will probably cause the occurrence of the event and being reckless whether the event...shall be deemed...wilfully to have caused the occurrence of the event.

The act or omission that's referred to in section 429 is implicitly contained in proposed section 182.2.

Subsection (2) indicates that:

(2) No person shall be convicted...under sections 430 to 436 where he proves that he acted with legal justification or excuse and with colour of right.

Looking at subsection 8(3) of the Criminal Code, as I indicated, it clearly preserves that reasonable excuse and legal justification, without question. The colour of right defence is inherent in that, that there is some inherent justification for the acts you have committed. I think it does not take away by moving it from that section. I think it is preserved with the use of the words “without lawful excuse”. It's implicit in the form of the drafting, and I would suggest that section 8 is going to apply.

The Chair: I know you're interested...if you could be very quick....

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Can you guarantee it? I am not sure of that. Can you guarantee that a judge will not interpret this in another way? You cannot be sure. Farmers and trappers are asking that it be explicitly stated. What difference does it make? If it is already implicit, then it should be stated explicitly.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Lanctôt, if you get this guarantee, she's going to be back a lot.

Ms. Heather Perkins-McVey: That's what I was going to suggest, that if you could arrange it so that I could get that power, then so be it.

As I indicated, if there is concern, that is not the focus or the intent of the legislation; that's not the harm that's meant to be prevented. If there is a concern, then from a drafting perspective, I think it can be clearly remedied.

While I believe, in my interpretation, it is there inherent in the bill, I strongly suggest, for clarity purposes, that it be made clear that the common law defences remain. I've said that, and I think we have to look at what the intent of the legislation is. The intent of the legislation is to prevent certain harms to animals. It's not to prevent farmers, who have the need to carry out necessary procedures...to be convicted. We've already heard about the problems with the enforcement and resources, and I think that's unlikely to occur, but for clarity purposes, by all means, there should be an inclusion of either an adoption of section 429 or clearly indicate that the common law defences remain.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I think I'm going to give the last word to Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It has been very interesting to sit back and listen here.

The police have stated in the defence of the gun registry that it's really not your concern what the costs are; your support is based on the fact that it's a tool you may be able to use. We have a vicious circle here, because the government says the police say this is useful to them, so we have to have it. In other words, nobody's really willing to blow the whistle on this thing.

There are really three major problems at this point that we can identify that will make it useless as a tool. First of all, the errors in the system make it virtually unusable. I believe the errors in the system at this point are beyond remedy, but even if you poured another $1 billion into it, I don't think you'd have anything reliable.

Secondly, the minister's user group, her own appointed group of people to advise her on this, have clearly stated that the black market and smuggling have increased as a direct result of the registry. In fact, in the Toronto area, 86% of the handguns associated with crime that have been confiscated were unregistered, and we've had a handgun registry since 1934.

• 2120

Thirdly, non-compliance is a huge problem for the government. In fact, their latest stay-out-of-jail sale, where they've reduced the registry fees to nothing in an effort to entice people to comply with the registry, indicates there's a huge problem. In other words, the non-compliance indicates that the public has thumbed their nose at this thing.

I said at the beginning of this whole presentation that the president of the Canadian Police Association said this is a huge problem for them and that it actually works against what they really want to do. They have to have the public's voluntary compliance with this and an agreement that this is a good law before they can ever make it work.

How can you support something that can never be made to work and to achieve the aims the government has stated? We have a vicious circle here. If somebody doesn't blow the whistle on the thing, it's going to continue.

The Chair: Mr. Griffin.

Mr. David Griffin: With regard to the errors in the system, our members have had concerns, which have been brought forward to the centre. We've participated in discussions about the steps that are being taken to ensure the data are as accurate as possible. As I indicated in my statement, we recognize that police officers will have to assess any information they receive, as they would in any situation. Any information they receive in CPIC will be assessed.

With regard to the black market and smuggling and whether it is going to eliminate it, no. Has it perhaps at the outset caused problems with regard to smuggling by people who might once have been lawfully able to access firearms? Potentially. But our belief is, as I indicated earlier, that over time the value of the system will increase.

With regard to non-compliance, from the data we've seen circulating, it would appear that 90% of firearms owners in fact have a licence. So I would think that would be considered a fairly successful measure.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: That's not true.

Mr. David Griffin: We have indicated in the position we brought forward that we think steps should be taken to facilitate the compliance of those otherwise law-abiding Canadians who wish to comply at this point in time.

The Chair: Mr. Schumacher and Mr. Brown.

Mr. Gord Schumacher: Just briefly, I concur with all the comments made by my friend Mr. Griffin.

I can comment that Canadians are law-abiding people. We have until January 2003 for the registration process to be completed, and I am confident that these law-abiding Canadians will come forward and register their guns properly. It will be a tremendous resource for Canadian police.

The Chair: We'll give the last word to Mr. Brown.

Mr. Bruce Brown: The only brief word I'd have to add to this is that I find it surprising that there's an allegation that the system is unusable. That hasn't been the experience in my jurisdiction, after speaking to our firearms officer. There are problems but they're certainly not insurmountable. According to him it has proved to be a useful tool.

The Chair: Thank you all for your testimony tonight. You've been helpful as we consider this legislation. Also, I want to thank all the members of the committee.

The meeting is adjourned.