[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, May 9, 1995
.1107 
[English]
The Chair: I'd like to call the meeting to order. We're ready to start if somebody could find our witness. He's probably been kidnapped by the press.
We are continuing our examination of Bill C-68, An Act respecting firearms and other weapons. We're pleased to have with us the Honourable Brian Evans, Q.C., the Minister of Justice from Alberta.
Mr. Evans, I see you have someone accompanying you; you can introduce that person when I give you the floor. We have your lengthy and complete brief. We have only two hours, so we would appreciate it if rather than reading the brief you could refer to it and read maybe those parts you consider more important than others. We'll attach the brief to the record of today's proceedings so it will be available in our reports.
Before I go to Mr. Evans and give him the floor, I want to mention that at the end of this afternoon's meeting we'll deal with the questions and proposals Mr. Ramsay put before us late last week. We said we'd take them up this week. We'll also deal with my request to the committee to consider whether or not we should allow cellular phones in the committee room, which have a habit of interrupting us with their little buzzes from time to time.
So Mr. Evans, you have the floor to address us for about fifteen minutes initially on your position, and then we'll have the usual rounds of questioning.
Hon. Brian Evans, Q.C. (Minister of Justice of Alberta): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen.
Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen, I wish I were as proficient in our second official language as is my brother, who lives in Montreal. I am not, so my presentation will be exclusively in English. I apologize to those members of the committee who are of French descent and have French as their first language.
I am very pleased, Mr. Chairman and committee members, to have the opportunity to appear before the committee today and to express the views of the Province of Alberta on Bill C-68, a very important piece of legislation for the country and one very actively debated in the province of Alberta. My deputy minister, Mr. Neil McCrank, is with me and may be making comments, although he has indicated to me that he'd far prefer me to make the comments on behalf of the Province of Alberta.
As you've indicated, Mr. Chairman, our brief has been circulated to all committee members. The brief itself is actually rather short. It's six pages in length. I will not be referring to it specifically, but the process of my comments will go along the same format as the brief itself.
To begin with, about the rationale for Bill C-68, in the view of Alberta - and certainly this is consistent with the discussions I've had with Mr. Rock - the bill was created to reduce and hopefully eliminate serious and violent crime in Canada and thereby create safer communities.
.1110
We take that seriously and the Government of the Province of Alberta is on record as being very strong on the issue of safer communities. We're doing everything in our power and working with the federal government in an effort to reduce serious and violent crime.
When we look at firearms and the history of firearms in Alberta, it wasn't too long ago that Alberta was part of the frontier of Canada. Even today, by our estimate, some 39% of households have firearms. We have a strong position, as do western provinces generally and the territories, on the firearms legislation we have currently in Canada and legislation being proposed in Bill C-68.
We have made this remark previously, and I'll make it again, Mr. Chairman and committee members. Canada is made up of divergent regions with very individual types of pasts, and one of the things that have kept Canada strong is a recognition of regional differences and a respect for those regional differences. We have concerns that the legislation as proposed does not take into account fully those regional differences.
Much has been made, Mr. Chairman...and in reading over the federal minister's remarks from April 24, I see he has remarked as well on polling that has been done across Canada. A federal poll indicated a support level for registration in Alberta of some 72%. We did our own poll in the month of January of this year, and to our surprise, quite frankly, question 4 on the poll - and the entire poll is in the briefing material - indicated 64% of Albertans were not opposed or were in favour of registration.
That was an interesting question, because the question immediately before that question asked whether Canadians and Albertans had too many laws and regulations, enough laws and regulations, or too few laws and regulations on firearms. Fifty-four percent of the same sample, a sample of 602 people, stated that we had either enough laws and regulations or too many laws and regulations. The next question, then, on whether we should add to those regulations...one would assume the percentage would be about the same; but it was 64%.
We then looked at the next question, question 5, which was, If this legislation were to pass, is it your opinion that the country would be safer? Fifty per cent said yes, 48% said no.
So there was a bit of confusion and disagreement in the questions.
I then looked at the second question, about the familiarity with the legislation, and 76% of the 602 individuals who were polled indicated they were only somewhat familiar with the legislation.
A lady from northern Alberta, from Grand Prairie, spoke to me on a radio talk show in early February. Basically what she said was, I'm a housewife, and three or four weeks ago if someone had phoned my home and asked me whether I favour firearms registration universally applied I'd have said yes; but since that time I have reviewed the current legislation we have in Canada and I've considered the costs of imposing this legislation as proposed. Her words, Mr. Chairman, were, ``I could never support this legislation''.
I believe that view is consistent with the direction of support or lack of support in Alberta. To review my own office records, we've had since December 1 and up to the end of April some 5,000 letters, and 97.5% of those have been in favour of the position of the Government of Alberta; which, briefly stated, is that we see no causal connection between the universal registration of firearms and reducing crime. Secondly we have serious concerns about the financial implications of this bill and what the actual costs will be.
So we believe, Mr. Chairman and committee members, as Albertans become more aware of the current laws and regulations and about the potentially intrusive impact of the legislation, opposition to licensing and registration is increasing.
.1115
I would advise you that is the same position as the other political party representative in our legislative assembly, the Liberal Party of Alberta. They take the same view as we. As late as April 29 of this year, I attended a meeting of the Alberta Association of Municipal Police Commissions in Lethbridge, in southern Alberta, and they passed a resolution endorsing and supporting the concerns Alberta has raised and as I've just indicated.
Mr. Chairman and committee members, what do we support in this bill? We certainly support two planks in the platform of this bill. I've said that to Mr. Rock since he first called to advise me the package was going to be tabled. I think the two parts of the bill dealing with the issues of increased penalties and new anti-smuggling offences are steps in the right direction and clearly focused on criminal activity.
Again, our objections are to the licensing of individuals and to the registration of firearms. We both believe our current laws are a good and effective compromise between the need for public safety and the rights of law-abiding firearms owners.
We do have some other concerns and they've been briefly referred to in the presentation: the impact on aboriginals and certainly the impact on treaty rights from enforcement of this piece of legislation, the social costs, and the economic benefits or disadvantages that may be attached to the legislation.
We've also made note of the Auditor General's 1993 report to the House of Commons, which argues for the need to evaluate the current laws. We believe that is an appropriate caution and should be taken into account before moving forward on Bill C-68, especially on the universal registration and licensing provision. Again, we see no evidence of a causal connection or a link between registration and reduction in crime.
Much has been said about an analogy to motor vehicle registry; if we register motor vehicles, why would we not register our firearms? In my view, the purposes for registering of motor vehicles don't include the reduction of a criminal code activity such as impaired driving.
Impaired driving charges - and they are a good example - have decreased substantially in our province and I believe elsewhere in Canada. There are about half the charges now that we had ten years ago. I believe that's because of increased penalties, upgraded enforcement, and increased public education.
We've also mentioned in our paper that the current system of registering firearms is very difficult because it is unreliable. There is currently, for restricted firearms, a very poorly identified process, and of course the firearms can be modified very easily, making clear identification virtually impossible.
We then went on to talk about the costs. We feel the expense can't be justified based on the expected return on the investment, because we don't believe it will reduce serious and violent crime. Initially, Mr. Rock had talked about $85 million. I see from his presentation he's now talking about $118 million. But that doesn't take into account the cost to administer and to enforce this legislation, which would drive the costs much higher.
From a provincial perspective we estimate - and there is a breakdown on this too, in our estimate at the back of my presentation - our additional costs would be some $500,000 per year. At a time when my budget in Justice has been reduced by 15%, I have to be very conscious of how we can be most effective with the moneys we have available to us. I dare say that were I to have the $500,000 to put towards serious and violent crime by placing more officers in the street to deal with the matter, that money would be much more effectively used.
So our recommendation to the committee is to remove the provisions requiring the licensing of owners and the registration of firearms. We recommend that the money that would be saved be used to step up our enforcement of our criminal laws and the new provisions that are targeting offenders and that we increase our public education efforts at the same time.
.1120
That is a brief overview, Mr. Chairman, of our presentation. I thank you very much for the opportunity, and I'm anxious to have the opportunity to answer any questions that may come.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Evans.
[Translation]
Mr. Dumas, of the Bloc Québécois, you have ten minutes.
Mr. Dumas (Argenteuil - Papineau): Thank, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Minister, I'm quite pleased to welcome you on behalf of the Official Opposition.
In the third paragraph of your brief, you state that 39% of Albertan households own firearms. Obviously, the proportion is not as high in Quebec. In our province, putting aside hunting clubs or the various organizations using firearms, we tend to find firearms mostly in rural areas, on farms. Can you tell me how this 39% breaks down between rural and urban areas in your province?
[English]
Mr. Evans: Of course this is only an estimate; the 39%. However, anecdotally, I can tell you there is likely a much more significant percentage of our population in Alberta who reside in urban areas and do own firearms than perhaps is the case in the province of Quebec.
Of course we have a substantial aboriginal population. We have many people living in remote areas in the north of our province. The statistics at those levels and in those groups are significantly higher.
But I'm afraid we don't have exact figures. We get some figures, of course, from the target clubs and from the fish and game associations, etc. But it is an overall estimate of 39%, and I can't break it down much better than that.
[Translation]
Mr. Dumas: Thank you.
The Chair: Do you have any other questions?
[English]
Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Evans and colleague, I welcome you. You're from my home province and I'm glad to see you here today. I thank you for your presentation.
I have three areas I would like to get into with the justice ministers appearing today, and I'm following pretty well the same format.
We have heard witnesses from across the country, and I've spoken to groups that were interested in knowing more about the bill and that had concerns about the constitutionality of this bill. My leader, Preston Manning, and I have sent a letter to all the premiers in Canada, pointing out some of these concerns and urging them to examine the bill from that viewpoint. If they feel concerned, we're suggesting they consider requesting the federal justice minister to initiate a court reference to ascertain the constitutionality of these questionable areas of the bill before the bill goes forward.
Some of these areas - and I'll just mention some of them, such as ending the right to remain silent, as contained in clause 100; the requirement to cooperate with the police, clauses 99 and 101; the presumption of guilt until proven innocent, clauses 99, 103 and 107; the assignment of guilt by association, clause 111; allowing the continuation of confiscation of property without compensation, which is contained in the grandfathering clause and touched on in clause 12 and others. The assignment of guilt by association, of course, I've already mentioned; and the provisions for search and seizure without a warrant, as contained in proposed section 117. Do you have any concerns over the constitutionality of any aspects of Bill C-68?
.1125
Mr. Evans: Mr. Ramsay, we in Alberta have begun to review the constitutional aspects of the legislation. Our focus at this point is on the registration, because that relates to personal property and there may be an issue from that perspective.
However, we have been very clear in comments in Alberta that we wish to debate the merits of the bill and the effectiveness of the bill at this point in time in order to give our legislators an opportunity to hear from Canadians on the effect this legislation will have on them, and basically to withhold judgment or a position on the constitutional aspect until we see what the final bill will be.
I am still hopeful the two planks in the platform of the bill dealing with the issue of increased penalties and importation will receive the approval of the House of Commons. I'm just as hopeful the provisions related to registration and to licensing will not be approved in the House of Commons and therefore we will not be getting into an issue of constitutionality.
About one specific comment you made on search and seizure, if the bill, as it is presented, were to be reduced in scope so that clearly the provisions of the bill were focused on criminal behaviour and were clearly focused on the criminal element, then I would give my support to the search and seizure provisions. I find them extremely intrusive into the lives of law-abiding citizens as the bill now stands, because it is so intrusive and comprehensive for all Canadians, whether they are law-abiding citizens or criminals.
Mr. Ramsay: The other area I'd like to ask you about is the area of consultation that occurred between yourself and the justice minister before these proposals were tabled. The justice minister has indicated that there has been broad consultation with various groups. We've already heard about the lack of consultation that occurred between the justice minister of Saskatchewan and the federal justice minister. I'd like to know what, if any, consultation occurred between your office and the justice minister or any of his officials prior to the tabling of this proposal.
Mr. Evans: Let me advise first that at the administrative level there were minor consultations between our department and the federal Department of Justice; not nearly enough to resolve our concerns or, in our view, to address the relationship among the federal, provincial and territorial governments.
In fairness to the federal minister, he contacted me by telephone to advise me of the proposal for the legislation before the initial announcement. We talked at some considerable length about the planks in the platform. I indicated to him at that time that I had two major concerns about the universal firearms registration and licensing - and they are the same concerns, Mr. Ramsay, that I have today - the concerns about the causal connection between a paper registration process of creating safer communities and reducing serious and violent crime; and secondly, the cost implications and the justification for the estimate of $85 million.
Mr. Rock and I then met in Calgary after the legislative package was announced. We had another brief conversation there. Then all justice ministers and I had an opportunity to speak with the federal justice minister when we met, as ministers, in Victoria at the end of January.
Mr. Ramsay: Inasmuch as you're going to be responsible for the administration of this bill if it is passed, did you, in fact, have any participation in creating the proposals that were tabled?
Mr. Evans: No, we did not. As I stated earlier, from an administrative point of view we would have liked much more time to analyse what the implications were for our provincial budget and to talk about the broader principles of the bill.
.1130
Mr. Ramsay: Now, in another area, if we look at clause 110 of this bill, we see where the federal government is going to encroach upon areas that have been traditionally regulated by the provinces and the territories, such as the establishment and operation of shooting clubs and shooting ranges, the activities that may be carried on at shooting clubs and shooting ranges, the possession and use of firearms at shooting clubs and shooting ranges, and of course the keeping and the destruction of records in relation to shooting clubs and shooting ranges; and over on the next page, under paragraph 110(g), about the operation of gun shows, the activities that may be carried on at gun shows and the possession and use of firearms at those gun shows.
In my interpretation and understanding, clause 110 means the federal government is now going to be controlling an area the provincial governments and the territorial governments have traditionally looked after. Inasmuch as this is supposed to be a bill designed for the safety and health of society, and I do not see a problem of health or safety within these areas I have mentioned, it seems the federal government is attempting to fix something that is not broken, while at the same time it is encroaching upon the traditional territory of the provincial and territorial governments. Do you have anything to say about that?
Mr. Evans: Constitutionally, we're all aware that the federal government has the authority in the BNA act for peace, order and good government, and in essence that can be an override over property and civil rights - responsibilities of the province. But certainly it has been the tradition in Canada, and I think there's a good constitutional argument for it as well, that there should not be a reduction in provincial authority and rights unless there is an overriding federal responsibility and concern. With respect, I don't believe that exists, insofar as law-abiding firearms owners are concerned, in Canada. Therefore those provisions that do relate to what have traditionally been provincial responsibilities, insofar as they do not relate to criminal activity, I think are debatable at best.
I understand Mr. Rock has indicated some enthusiasm for making some changes to accommodate some of the gun clubs and some of the recreational uses of firearms. I don't know whether that has been expanded upon to any degree or whether it's just a broad-principle statement.
Mr. Ramsay: I want to refer to the cost. Under clause 5 of this bill, the chief firearms officer of the province will have to do a criminal background check and a medical-record check to determine if the applicant for a licence has ever experienced mental illness. Then there is a neighbourhood history check to determine whether there has ever been any incidence of violent behaviour on the part of the applicant.
Now, this is very similar to the process some provinces have to go through for the FAC application. I look at the cost figure I have from the Metro Toronto Police Board, which indicates the cost to process one FAC during 1994 was approximately $185. If you multiply that by the 3 million gun owners the department claims are in Canada, we get a figure of $555 million expended before a single firearm is registered. If you take the higher figure of 6 million gun owners, then of course we have a figure of $1.110 billion, before the registration of a single firearm.
From your experience within your province, what do you see the cost would be to your taxpayers and the taxpayers of the country in processing the licensing procedure as contained under clause 5 of this bill?
.1135
Mr. Evans: You're correct, Mr. Ramsay, that much of the wording has a similarity to the requirements under the firearms acquisition certificate and the firearms safety course, which are already in existence and I think are a reasonable balance between the rights of society in general and the rights of responsible firearms owners.
I have heard figures as high as $300, in the province of Alberta, to obtain a firearms acquisition certificate when you take into account, as well, the cost and the time to take the firearms safety course leading up to the FAC. That's a considerable amount of change for an individual.
But I don't have many Albertans coming to me and disputing the need for that, or disputing the cost. I think most people in Alberta who have taken the course and written the exam and have acquired an FAC realize, because it is focused on safe handling, safe storage, and increasing the education of Albertans generally about firearms, it is an appropriate infringement. Were that to be extensively changed, modified, extended, then I'm not quite sure they would have the same kind of positive attitude towards it; and I'm not sure the provisions in clause 5 make much of a difference from what we have now.
I understand Mr. Rock has said - and I'm not going to try to defend his position on this issue - the new firearms possession certificate and the process will be less expensive and speedier. I'm not sure that would come to pass. Again, I think the process we have today is a reasonable one and I'm not sure why it needs to be tinkered with.
The Chair: Mr. Wappel.
Mr. Wappel (Scarborough West): Good morning, sir.
Before I begin my questioning, just an observation. We've had a lot of witnesses come before the committee on all sides. Many have pointed out what they consider to be the intrusive powers of inspection being granted by this bill. Some have pointed out the broad regulation-making power allowed for in this bill. My friends in the Reform Party are constantly harping on the potential unconstitutionality of certain provisions of the bill. Of course, I know from my own riding that many are concerned about confiscation without compensation.
These are all very important issues, at least in my judgment. Yet I note that you, sir, and your counterpart from the Province of Saskatchewan chose, at least in your initial remarks, not to address those matters and to concentrate solely on the registration system. You, sir, have said the reason for that is that you know the other issues will be dealt with by other witnesses.
I want to assure you that this issue has also been dealt with by other witnesses. I would take serious fault with the chief law officers of the Crown of two provinces who choose to concentrate on one aspect, the registration aspect, while not dealing with these four other aspects until prompted by questions from the committee.
That having been said, you chose to draw the analogy of the motor vehicle registration system on page 4 of your report, so I'd like to talk to you about that for a moment. I take it every operator of a motorized vehicle in the province of Alberta requires a licence.
Mr. Evans: Correct.
Mr. Wappel: Why?
Mr. Evans: It's a very good question. I think the main reason is so we can keep track of individuals who are driving, for a number of purposes, not related to Criminal Code activity.
Mr. Wappel: Why don't you tell us about that? Keep track of individuals. Why?
Mr. Evans: For insurance purposes, for safety purposes, for one thing.
Mr. Wappel: Safety. Tell us about safety.
Mr. Evans: So we can pass along to individuals in Alberta who are owners and operators of vehicles safety information related to the vehicles they drive and the type of driving they do.
.1140
It is a useful tool to us, Mr. Wappel, but I don't want to leave the impression that I think all the registration we require today is either effective or can be justified in a free and democratic society. Many of the things we do that require registration today are products of a time when we had greater resources and more of an attitude that governments were there to help. We had to ensure we were helping Canadians. I'm not sure, if we were discussing motor vehicle registration today, we would have such enthusiasm for that process, on a cost-benefit analysis.
Mr. Wappel: We are discussing motor vehicle registration and the individual registration of drivers because you brought it up in your brief.
You mentioned safety. Is it not a fact that one of the reasons the Province of Alberta requires every driver to be licensed is to ensure every driver knows the rules of the road and knows how to operate the particular motor vehicle for which he's licensed? Is that not a fact?
Mr. Evans: Yes. That's what I said.
Mr. Wappel: Is it not a fact that a person who is registered to drive one kind of motor vehicle isn't necessarily allowed to drive another type of motorized vehicle?
Mr. Evans: That's correct.
Mr. Wappel: You have to demonstrate different abilities to drive, for example, a motorcycle, a tractor-trailer, a snowmobile, or whatever it may be. Is it not a fact that you have to demonstrate that by taking a test?
Mr. Evans: Yes.
Mr. Wappel: Is it not a fact that people are encouraged to take lessons before they go to take the test?
Mr. Evans: Yes.
Mr. Wappel: Is it not a fact that those lessons and the test itself cost money?
Mr. Evans: Yes, indeed.
Mr. Wappel: Is it not a fact that those licensed individuals have to pay a licensing fee, yearly, every second year or every five years, in order to get their licences back?
Mr. Evans: In Alberta it's a renewal process, and the renewal occurs once every five years.
Mr. Wappel: They don't have to take more tests; they simply have to renew their licences.
Mr. Evans: That's correct.
Mr. Wappel: Is the licensing system for drivers paid for by the people who pay for their licensing fees? In other words, do the licensing fees pay for the costs, or are additional costs absorbed by the government?
Mr. Evans: I believe there are additional costs that are absorbed by the government. It's not my ministry, so I don't have that information at hand.
Mr. Wappel: Okay. Having said all that, do you not think it is appropriate for a person who wishes to have a firearm for the first time - let's not talk now about people who currently have them - to demonstrate that they understand the proper use of a firearm, by way of a test, to the appropriate government authority, and obtain a licence for the possession of such a firearm?
Mr. Evans: You're more aware than I am of the current rules and regulations. In Alberta, as of January 1, 1994, anyone who wants to acquire a long gun or a shotgun, or a handgun, must take the course and write the test. If the person feels confident, he or she can write the test. Then he or she has to fill out a very extensive form to acquire a firearm acquisition certificate.
Mr. Wappel: Is there anything wrong, as a logical completion of that, with obtaining a licence to do so?
Mr. Evans: No. I think that is a reasonable restriction on the rights of individuals. I am not arguing with the current legislation. In fact, I would argue it is very sufficient to protect the rights of society relative to the rights of the individuals who are involved.
Mr. Wappel: So you have no problem with new people who wish to obtain firearms of whatever description having to show they know about those firearms and being licensed.
Mr. Evans: With respect, Mr. Wappel, that's the law of the land.
Mr. Wappel: My question is: you have no problem with that.
Mr. Evans: I'm not here arguing...any disagreement with the law of the land.
Mr. Wappel: All right.
Let's talk about the registration of motor vehicles. I presume every motor vehicle that has its home base in Alberta is licensed in the province of Alberta.
Mr. Evans: Every individual who is law-abiding has his or her motor vehicles registered. That's correct.
Mr. Wappel: And what's the purpose of that?
Mr. Evans: Well, there are a number of purposes. One is to keep track of the vehicles on the road. A second is for insurance purposes, to keep the costs down for individuals who live in the province and must pay insurance for their vehicles. The third is to deal with the safety of the vehicles themselves; to keep some record of how long a vehicle has been in use in the province and when it was originally registered. So it's road safety, essentially.
Mr. Wappel: As far as that safety aspect is concerned, you have no problem with that, as far as motor vehicles are concerned.
.1145
Mr. Evans: Again, that's the law of the land. As I said, if we were creating a new system I might have some serious concerns about how comprehensive the information is, and I'd want to have evidence before me as to the effectiveness of a very comprehensive registration process, as you mentioned and true to what you said.
Is it working? Quite frankly, we're not debating that or dealing with that in Alberta. But we may in the future, because we're trying to analyse and critique, on every level, the effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of the rules and regulations we have in place.
Mr. Wappel: However, those rules and regulations are in place and have been thought to be fit for a number of years. Now, I presume, we have a desire, or at least an indication, that we wish to apply to firearms what we are already applying to the operation and ownership of motor vehicles and motorized vehicles of all kinds. Is that not the case?
Mr. Evans: You're a government member, Mr. Wappel. You would know better than I would.
Mr. Wappel: That's really the debate, isn't it? There are some who agree they should be registered, and there are some who disagree. Correct? Would you agree with me that there are reasonable and valid arguments on both sides?
Mr. Evans: I would agree there are reasonable -
Mr. Wappel: And valid arguments on both sides of the registration of private property.
Mr. Evans: With firearms, I'm trying very hard to find some reasonable rationale for their registration, and I haven't found that yet.
Mr. Wappel: And you don't think there's any analogy at all between the safety features of licensing individuals to drive and licensing individuals to use firearms; and registering motor vehicles for safety and insurance purposes, and registering firearms for safety and insurance purposes.
Mr. Evans: I see the laws and the regulations we have today, which are quite extensive in terms of ensuring that those who choose to acquire firearms will have to learn about safe handling and storage, which I think is extremely important. The ability to own a firearm is something that is deemed to be appropriate in our society and has been deemed to be appropriate in the past, under certain restrictions. I feel those existing restrictions are appropriate.
This new package, with universal registration and universal licensing, I believe goes much too far along the road, without an additional benefit to be achieved. In times when the federal government, just like the provinces and territories, is having a serious look at how we can utilize effectively the moneys we have available to us, I truly believe we have to have some kind of evidence that this new intrusion - that's my terminology; yours would obviously be different - will be effective in dealing with what this bill is intended to deal with, and that is serious and violent crime.
The Chair: Your time is up now, Mr. Wappel. I will just leave Mr. Evans to answer. If he has fully answered, that's fine.
Mr. Evans: Yes, I believe I have.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Dumas, it is your turn. You have five minutes.
Mr. Dumas: Mr. Minister, during this debate, you specifically mentioned the case of a lady who allegedly changed her mind about firearms registration. In your province, to what extent does the press influence public opinion, considering the fact that some articles contain false information? Do you think that the people of your province are really well informed, and how?
[English]
Mr. Evans: It is difficult, Mr. Dumas, to analyse how much of the information that is coming from the media is actually brought home to Albertans. I mean no disrespect to those in the media, but they tend not to get into great detail as to legislative intent or the existing legislation. It's more the headline of the day. I don't think the media in Alberta have influenced Albertans substantially one way or the other, because there has been a cross-section of opinion in the media, both supportive and in opposition to parts of Bill C-68.
.1150
Again, not in any great detail, I have certainly done my best to try to inform Albertans of the existing legislation we have in Canada. I have indicated my support for two of the planks in the platform of Bill C-68, and have questioned, just as I am questioning today, the aspect of registration and licensing; from the perspective of cost-effectiveness, secondarily, but primarily from the position of whether there's a causal connection between what is being suggested and reducing crime.
Ms Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): There's no doubt this bill, as written, is very confusing in some clauses. Our job is to try to clarify that. As a result of this confusion, and also because of deliberate attempts by certain groups, a lot of misinformation about the bill and what it contains is floating around. Even when some people hear the clarifications, they don't want to repeat the truth. They still say, well, maybe it's this, maybe it's that.
Most people I've talked to in the last few months have had most of their fears relieved by the answer to three questions. It comes into the ``not in my backyard'' syndrome. I wonder if you could answer these very quickly. How much will it cost for an individual person to go and register guns? Do you know what it will cost?
Mr. Evans: The individual registration cost?
Ms Phinney: Yes. If I want to go register my gun, do you know what it will cost?
Mr. Evans: He's talked about a maximum of $60. I think $10 is what he was hoping to get through the treasury as an initial cost and $60 on renewal.
Ms Phinney: How often would an individual have to register their guns?
Mr. Evans: Every five years, as I understand it.
Ms Phinney: No. It's once in a lifetime for registering guns. You register once in a lifetime.
Mr. Evans: But you do a renewal every five years.
Ms Phinney: No.
Mr. Evans: Okay.
Ms Phinney: That's your own registration.
The Chair: Licensing is every five years. You register your gun once in your lifetime, or when the gun is transferred to somebody else.
Ms Phinney: Can you tell me what happens to an individual who accidentally, when they're filling out the registration form, maybe misses a number on the serial number, or puts down their telephone number wrong, or something? Do you know what happens to them, what the penalty is?
Mr. Evans: I believe Mr. Rock has indicated there would be an exemption for someone who, in filling out a document, is guilty of an honest mistake.
Ms Phinney: You put in here that Alberta feels opposition to the registration is growing. I think part of the reason for that is there's too much misinformation out there and it's being deliberately built upon. I think if people knew the real answers there would be much less opposition. That's certainly what I have found with anybody I have spoken to who has had opposition...particularly to these three questions. If they're clarified, they feel much better.
We need your help on this. I presume you want to have input into this to make it the best bill possible. Some groups have suggested to us they won't help us at all to improve the bill, because they're against it, period, and they won't help us.
If we decriminalize the first-time offence for not registering the firearm, what would you suggest the penalty could be? There have been a number of suggestions - take the gun and once it's registered give it back; a fine. Can you give your suggestions for what you think we could put in there if we decriminalized it?
.1155
Mr. Evans: The suggestion is there would be a fine. I have a great deal of difficulty with the restriction on when that would apply, because as I understand, that would apply only if someone mistakenly chose not to register their firearms. How, with the amount of debate in this country, anyone could argue it was an honest mistake not knowing they were required to register stretches my imagination.
Ms Phinney: Right. Now it's a criminal offence not to do it. If we change this, what do you think we should do?
The Chair: I think Ms Phinney was also asking not only if they fail to register by mistake or oversight but if they put down some wrong information by mistake or oversight.
Mr. Evans: I would rather not see even an administrative penalty attached to someone who chooses not to register, because again, I think there should be some justification for this registration process. That's my fundamental concern with the bill as it stands. So it's difficult for me to get into a debate with you, Madam, on what I would suggest the penalty might be.
Ms Phinney: I thought you might want to get the best change possible in this for your constituents.
Mr. Evans: I believe the best change would be to put this particular part of the bill aside, do an evaluation on the effectiveness -
Ms Phinney: If the bill is passed, what would you like to see in there?
Mr. Evans: Well, a minor administrative penalty; a fine.
Ms Phinney: A fine?
Mr. Evans: Yes.
Ms Phinney: Thank you.
Mr. Thompson (Wild Rose): Welcome, Brian. I'll try to be kind to you. I might want your vote, because you're in my constituency.
The Chair: I'll have to rule that out of order. There is to be no campaigning in the committee.
Mr. Thompson: Well, if you can't laugh in this business, you're in real trouble.
There's one particular clause in here, along with the registration, that a lot of people in Wild Rose have talked with me about. The people I'm referring to have immigrated here over the years from the old country. They are farmers who've settled in Wild Rose. They're quite familiar with different kinds of gun laws where they came from. I've placed this document in their hands and they've gone through it. One of them pointed out to me that 117 pages out of 124 deal with law-abiding people, and only 6 deal with the criminal.
Some of the things Ms Phinney stated are true, in terms of the $10 and $60, getting your facts straight and so on. But then you go to clause 110, which Mr. Ramsay referred to, pages 45, 46, 47, 48, and they all deal with something called Orders in Council that can be set up. The Governor in Council may make regulations about many of the things Mr. Ramsay mentioned, including that he has the authority to create offences under paragraphs (d), (e), (f), (g), (i), (j), (l), (m). It's an unlimited number of things an Order in Council could do. In other words, a $10 one-time registration doesn't mean anything, if an Order in Council decides it should be different.
That's the way the people are looking at this. When they measure this all together in one lump sum, they feel a document of this nature is dangerous, not because of Mr. Rock or this government but because down the road somewhere in the future the freedom this country stands for and has stood for for many years is being jeopardized.
I'd like you to comment on that.
Mr. Evans: Mr. Thompson, we have tried as the Government of Alberta to be sensitive to the concerns Albertans have raised with us about Orders in Council and regulations that do not have the same amount of scrutiny by the public as do laws or amendments to existing legislation. I would relate back to the environmental legislation we have in the province of Alberta, the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, which I travelled around Alberta taking input on.
.1200
Clearly, with environmental laws, the view of Albertans was that you should minimize ministerial discretion and you should minimize the use of any type of regulatory process or Order in Council by Lieutentant Governor in Council in laws of general application to Albertans, because there isn't that same type of scrutiny as Albertans feel is necessary for laws of general application.
I think that is a uniform concern across this country. Citizens of Canada are concerned about participatory democracy; they want to participate more and they don't want to see legislators passing laws and regulations, under whatever guise, that have impact on them without having the opportunity to review them fully and to have public input. Therefore in Alberta we've tried to legislate public input in all of our legislation and we're continuing a methodical review of legislation to ensure that is the case. I believe the federal government would want to espouse the same kinds of principles.
Mr. Thompson: Thank you.
Recently in the House Mr. Rock made some statements about gun control and he followed them up by appearing, although that may not have been the intent, to try to equate gun control with preventing such things as the bombing that took place in Oklahoma. I took exception to that kind of thing, as did most Canadians. They felt it was completely out of touch with reality. This is Canada; this is not the United States. Militias and those kinds of things are not a desirable thing to see happen here. I don't think they're desirable south of the border, either, but they are happening.
Have you or has your department thought about that particular aspect, and do you consider it to be a concern in Alberta?
Mr. Evans: Organized criminal activity under whatever guise - and the militia guise we're hearing about currently is just one type of organized criminal activity - is a substantial concern to Albertans. I don't think we have a problem with organized and sophisticated criminals in the province now. Of course, we meet regularly with the RCMP in Alberta and get an update on their overview of criminal activity. We also meet regularly with municipal police chiefs to overview the same kinds of concerns.
You also asked a question about whether I saw any connection between a registration system and assisting in the kind of tragedy that occurred in Oklahoma City. I do not, and I'd be rather surprised if Mr. Rock saw a direct connection between the two. It stretches my imagination to see how there could be a connection there.
The Chair: Before I go to Mr. Gallaway, Mr. Thompson, you said most Canadians objected to Mr. Rock's statement. All I can say -
Mr. Thompson: Most Canadians I have talked to.
The Chair: Okay, good; because most of the people I talked to in my riding agreed with him.
Mr. Thompson: That doesn't surprise me.
The Chair: Mr. Gallaway.
Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): I just want to follow up very briefly on that theme. One of my colleagues across the way issued a press release on April 27 stating that Bill C-68 in fact creates the right breeding ground for a militia mentality. What do you think about that statement?
Mr. Evans: I'm very concerned, Mr. Gallaway, that the debate over this bill be debated at an intellectual and practical level rather than at an emotional level. Quite frankly, I don't want to get into a debate on the merits or lack of merits of various comments that I think are a reaction to tragedies and tragic circumstances. I don't think that advances the cause either way.
Mr. Gallaway: What would your reaction be, then, to the statement that Mr. Rock's tactics are tantamount to those of a snake-oil salesman?
.1205
Mr. Evans: I haven't been appointed to the bench, so I can't stand in any kind of position to judge on tactics.
Mr. Gallaway: All right, that's fair.
Mr. Evans: Again, much of the information that comes to us is second-hand and third-hand communication. As our premier has often said, it's not so much the story or the first comment, it's the response to that comment and then the response to other comments that get you off track from what the real -
Mr. Gallaway: I appreciate that. What we're finding here is that the effective response within communities to these kinds of press releases by members of this place hardly leads to objectivity in the discussion.
I have very limited time, and I want to discuss briefly the whole question of objectivity. In an Edmonton newspaper you were reported as saying, I think in March, that registry makes no sense, period. That's the quote that's reported, and I'm assuming that's accurate. In your brief to us, in Appendix 1 you list Albertan views on Bill C-68, and you list in 2 the organizations that represent some of those who have expressed their concerns. I wonder if you can tell us about those organizations with which you have consulted or with which you have met and which have a point of view opposing these listed in this appendix.
Mr. Evans: Very few organizations we've dealt with have had an opposing view. When a view has been expressed, it has been basically that we must differentiate ourselves from the United States, which has very few laws, if any; we must stand out separately as Canadians, and we must have reasonable rules and regulations to ensure all law-abiding Canadians are entitled to feel safe in their own communities - none of which I disagree with, Mr. Gallaway. It is a matter of interpretation, then, as to what laws we have now and what this would add to that mix.
Mr. Gallaway: My question is, other than these shooting clubs, the firearms dealers, and the interest groups, have you consulted with, for example, the chiefs of police of Edmonton and Calgary? Have you consulted with the public health officials and safety officials in your province?
Mr. Evans: I have met with the police chief from Calgary. I've met with the police chief from Lethbridge. I've met with the recently retired police chief from Edmonton, with RCMP, executive members, and a number of others. I've talked to members from organizations such as public health and some of the umbrella organizations as well. I assure you, Mr. Gallaway, I have not in any way, shape, or form attempted to avoid communication or contact with any Albertan on this issue. I've welcomed that opportunity and I've been on enough talk shows and other forums to give Albertans an opportunity to make their views known to me.
Mr. Gallaway: We all know that laws are very complex, difficult things to read from the perspective of lay people. You've talked about the level of how well-informed these people are. If you were to hand the Highway Traffic Act of Alberta, for example, to a layperson, do you think they would form a positive or a negative reaction to some of the provisions within it? Do you think they would even understand it?
Mr. Evans: That's a difficult question to answer. The Highway Traffic Act in Alberta is a fairly significant piece of legislation, and if there were an issue out there in the media or in the general population in Alberta that would give focus to the act, it would probably give focus to one particular aspect of it rather than to the act comprehensively.
Mr. Gallaway: Okay. Then when I show you - and I know you haven't read it - a press release that refers to snake-oil salesman tactics, the militia-type mentality that's being issued in western Canada, would you agree with me this would create an effective reaction?
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton - Melville): I have a point of order. I do not believe the justice minister from Alberta has to defend my press release. I do not see the relevance of this to our discussion.
.1210
The Chair: I have been pretty lenient in allowing members to ask questions. I don't always agree with the content of their questions, but on leniency, I don't think I'll rule it out of order.
Other members have put statements to our witnesses made in other places and asked them whether they agree with them or don't agree with them. When it gets excessive I've tried to limit it. I have not ruled it out of order, so I think I should be consistent.
You can finish that question, Mr. Gallaway. Your time will soon be up. As a matter of fact, your time will be up when you complete this question.
Mr. Gallaway: I think I will just end it right there. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Do you wish to respond, Mr. Evans?
Mr. Evans: With any press release, you have communications people, the opposition have communications people. We have communications people in Edmonton. They do the job they think they are empowered to do. People have to make that decision on their own. It is not for me to debate a press release you would put out, Mr. Gallaway, no more than it is my position to debate the chairman's last press release, or that of any member of this committee.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Dumas, you have five minutes.
Mr. Dumas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Sections 98 to 101 deal with powers of inspection. One of them states that ``the inspector must believe on reasonable grounds there is a probibited firearm on the premise''. Don't you think that this excuse could be used for any other reason?
During the events of October 1970, I remember being inspected several times under the war measures. Don't you think that this authority could be abused?
[English]
Mr. Evans: About dwelling-houses, the request could be made, it could be denied, and then it's a matter of proceeding from there to obtain a warrant. I think there has been an attempt to have some kind of balance there.
Certainly any time we are talking about the authority of government to inspect and to go into a dwelling-house, or a business firm, for that matter, it is very clear it is a matter of balancing the rights of the individual and the rights of a free and democratic society. So you have to focus on what the issue is that is so serious as to provide those kinds of rights.
As I mentioned before, were that clause, and other clauses dealing with seizure and search, focused strictly on criminal activity, I would be much more inclined to be supportive, with, again, some reasonable constraints in order to prevent an overzealous officer from unduly infringing on the rights of individual Canadians. With it being so broad so as also to have impact or potential impact on many law-abiding citizens, I have great concerns.
[Translation]
Mr. Dumas: Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Lee.
Mr. Lee (Scarborough - Rouge River): I just wanted to note for Mr. Thompson's benefit that we shouldn't assume we're not at risk in this country from things that sometimes happen south of the border. In Scarborough - Rouge River last weekend there was a very serious bombing that destroyed over half a dozen homes and the bombing was as a result of a criminal act. I wanted to make note of that.
Mr. Thompson: A point of order. I want to be perfectly clear that I abhor that kind of activity -
Mr. Lee: I'm sure you do.
Mr. Thompson: - and I certainly don't condone it in the slightest. My point is, will registration really, indeed, have an effect on that kind of thing?
Mr. Lee: And that's my point. I want to get right to that, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: That was a question of debate rather than a point of order. In any case, it's on the record.
Mr. Lee: Well done, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Evans, I wanted to address the process of registration. Some 50 or 75 years ago in this country people were flying aircraft. They weren't registered. They didn't have flight plans. As you got more and more aircraft, you were developing relative chaos. So now whenever an airplane takes off it has a flight plan, it has a pilot who is registered and licensed, and the plane is registered and licensed. It is very bureaucratic, but it seems to work for the benefit of the users and the public.
.1215
Now with firearms we have a problem, because the only threshold for dealing with what's out there is the Criminal Code. You have good guys and bad guys, and you have a bunch of good guns. We'll assume all guns are good. The only means we have dealing with the bad guys is the Criminal Code, and even if you have a good gun with a bad guy, you still can't do much, because the bad guy has the benefit of presumption of innocence and a good gun is a good gun.
Someone mentioned earlier, well, it's so easy to take the serial numbers of the guns. Well, yes, it is. If you don't have a registration system, it doesn't matter whether you have a serial number or not. If you have a registration system and the gun doesn't have a serial number, it's a bad gun. So by having a registration system you can isolate the bad guns. By having a registration system you can also deal with the ``bad guys'', because they end up not being licensed; they end up having the ``bad gun''.
Would you accept that without a registration system you can't deal with the problem of the good gun in the hands of the bad guys, and you just don't have a way to deal with all the risks to the users, who may be untrained, and the public, who are simply innocent bystanders?
Mr. Evans: Mr. Lee, under the current law we have in Canada, if there are reasonable and probable grounds, the police officers have a great deal of latitude with criminal activity. I think the bottom line of your statement is that we should be getting after criminals. I agree wholeheartedly with that.
I think we should be focusing on criminals. I believe if we have to make an amendment to the Criminal Code to give more powers of search and seizure with - your term - the ``bad guys'', then we should focus on that and utilize the moneys we have available to us to do just that. I think to a large extent the bill does address that, both in the new provisions focused on anti-smuggling - I'm very supportive of those - and the increased penalties for those who are charged and convicted of using firearms in connection with robbery and other serious offences.
However, that money has to be used effectively, because we just don't have it in great gobs any more. I don't think we ever had it in the past.
I would suggest to you that were we to have those two planks in the platform and dedicate the resources, both financially and in people power available to go after the criminal element, focused on those two aspects of the bill, we would be much more likely to reduce the amount of criminal activity in Canada and have a much better final outcome than we will with this third plank, which I think is going to move both enforcement and resources away from what should be the focal points of the legislative package.
Mr. Lee: Don't you think a registration system for guns in which once the gun is there, registered, it's there forever, until there's a change in ownership or the gun gets destroyed or whatever...don't you think the existence of that one-time only firearm registration will permit authorities and the good gun owners with all the good guns to isolate who the bad guys and the bad guns are? Once everybody is in, then you know which are the good guns and who the good gun owners are. Otherwise it's chaos out there.
I could just draw the analogy with aircraft. You have to have a flight plan, registered users and everything else to make the thing work safely. That's what I'm finding, and I think that's the position the government has. Don't you see an argument for a registration system using that perspective?
Mr. Evans: I could debate with you at some length whether there's chaos out there, because I don't believe there is.
.1220
But more importantly, if you review what has transpired since 1934 with the registration of handguns, I don't see, Mr. Lee, a connection between that process and minimizing criminal activity or assisting the police in any measurable way by differentiating between bad guys and the good guys and making their job easier. There's just a total lack of empirical evidence to show whether the system that's been in place now for sixty years has achieved any of the benefits that it is alleged a universal system, including handguns, long rifles and shotguns, would have and what the main difference would be between the two systems.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Thank you very much for your presentation and for coming before the committee.
We've heard from witnesses, as recently as yesterday, that this legislation will put women in a much more difficult position than men. They're much more reluctant to come forward and admit to gun ownership. Studies done indicate only 40% would come forth and register their guns.
Saskatchewan people are telling us that many people would not comply with this in their province. They just don't see this making sense. I myself have looked at this and we are registering 99.95% of the guns when only 0.05% of them are the problem. It's like treating everyone in society with chemotherapy because a very few have a cancer. We're not zeroing in on the problem. That's how people see this.
Saskatchewan has raised the problem of non-compliance. They have asked the question, and some other witnesses have asked the question, do the police understand all the present legislation? Will they be able to grasp another 128 pages of new legislation? How effectively will they be able to enforce it? Will people be intimidated by the police because nobody knows what's going on?
My question to you is very much the one that was raised by the previous witness, the justice minister from Saskatchewan. The provinces will be left holding the bag. The federal government can pass this legislation very quickly without doing all the evaluation of everything. It becomes criminal to do various things.
Do you have concerns about the difficulty the agencies in your province may have in enforcing C-68? Will this alienate some of the members in your society? Would you mind commenting on that?
Mr. Evans: As you know, Mr. Breitkreuz, the laws of Canada and the laws of our province and other provinces and territories are constantly changing. The police, the enforcement officers, adapt to that and they do the best job they can with the tools they have available to them.
I don't think there is a fundamental problem with this particular piece of legislation that would be insurmountable for the average officer on the street. Yes, it is a complex piece of legislation, and that's been referred to by a number of members of the committee. Yes, it would take some time to develop a familiarity with it. It will certainly take some time for Canadians to become familiar with it. But I don't think that it is an insurmountable problem for the officers in the street.
Mr. Breitkreuz: The non-compliance aspect of it: you don't feel that would be a problem?
Mr. Evans: Quite frankly, I fear there will be a substantial amount of non-compliance. I'm not trying to raise anyone's hackles here. I'm just basing that on the observations made to me by individuals who have analysed some of this legislation and said they don't intend to follow it and don't intend to be bound by it. That's a very serious concern for me as the chief law enforcement officer in the province of Alberta. I believe we operate within the rule of law and laws that are passed and are enforceable must be obeyed.
You then run into the enforcement issue of what priority would be given to this massive piece of legislation relative to the other pieces of criminal legislation we have in Canada. I've made some comments on that, but obviously not all 600-odd sections of the Criminal Code aren't enforced with the same amount of vigour and enthusiasm, because they don't all represent the same kinds and degree of concern to the officers in the street. They must utilize the time and effort that they can put into the job in the most effective way.
.1225
I see where that same kind of conflict may well develop if this bill is passed in the form in which it is presented to us today.
Mr. Breitkreuz: This question also comes out of the discussion and would be a logical question to put to someone who has the provincial jurisdiction you have. Very often people don't recognize the significance of what is being done through this legislation; how the government, through putting the penalties into the Criminal Code...from not filling out the card, you could get up to ten years in prison. That kind of thing has been put in the Criminal Code just to override the jurisdictions the provinces logically would have in licensing and registration.
Would you be in favour of referring this to a court for a ruling on whether this is an infringement of provincial jurisdiction?
Mr. Evans: If this legislation passes in the current form, then I think there are some significant questions about normal and historical provincial jurisdiction, particularly with the registration, which relates to property, which in our Constitution is the responsibility generally of the provinces. So I think there is some merit in asking for a review by the Supreme Court of Canada as to the constitutionality of the legislation. I believe Mr. Rock has stated there was quite a considerable review of the constitutionality before the bill was introduced, but there are still some considerable concerns.
The Chair: Mr. Evans, I have a few questions. Sixty-six per cent of the homicides in Canada in the last number of years, according to Statistics Canada, were first crimes. That means the individuals who committed those homicides had no criminal record whatsoever, not even minor offences. In other words, they were law-abiding people and then they committed homicide, either first- or second-degree murder. Marc Lépine, for example, who killed fourteen women at the University of Montreal, had no criminal record before that horrible offence. Valery Fabrikant, who killed four professors at Concordia University, had no previous criminal record.
The purpose of licensing and registration is to screen out the irresponsible, the unbalanced individuals, the potentially dangerous individuals. It seems to me if we focus only on the criminal, the person who's committed the offence, then what's suggested is we wait until a crime is committed, then we apply the harsh penalties of the law.
I ask you, as an Attorney General, don't you think we should have an effective prevention system, a system which would prevent irresponsible, unbalanced, dangerous people from getting weapons? As far as I can see, that is the purpose of a licensing and registration system. Don't you believe in a system of crime prevention and don't you see licensing and registration, or the FAC system, as a means of screening out and preventing people....
Just as Mr. Wappel said, we try to screen out people who really don't know how to handle automobiles, because they're dangerous. Shouldn't we screen out people who shouldn't get handguns because they have a bad reputation in the community, because they have a history of mental illness, or whatever?
Mr. Evans: Mr. Allmand, I agree we should be looking at crime prevention and that should be a focus. With handguns we do have that kind of screening process, universally applied. As well, we have a screening process which I think is quite effective and quite reasonable for firearms acquisition certificates.
.1230
So you're really focusing on a limited group who have acquired a firearm in the past and are not subject to review in terms of a firearms acquisition certificate unless they choose to acquire another firearm and unless they choose to go through the reasonable process that has been established for them to hold and to use that firearm legally and lawfully within Canada. There must be a better way of dealing with those individuals who may not be caught by the existing legislation. I would be curious about whether Mr. Lépine or Mr. Fabrikant had firearms for any particular length of time and therefore would not be caught by the existing legislation or whether in fact they acquired firearms -
The Chair: Both got them legally.
Mr. Evans: - and it was not done in a way that was consistent with the current laws we have today.
The Chair: My final question is on ammunition. There are provisions in the bill that say in order to purchase ammunition - and in due course you'll require your FAC, but until that time you will have to show certain identification, such as a hunting licence or a driver's licence.
In other words, more or less 3,000 guns are stolen or lost each year in Canada. If they fall into the hands of the wrong person, he or she still has to buy the ammunition. Right now you can buy ammunition probably with fewer problems than buying cigarettes at the local hardware store. What about those provisions in the bill that will require some sort of identification - hunting licence or FAC - in order to buy ammunition?
Mr. Evans: I haven't heard, Mr. Allmand, of anyone in Alberta being critical of a system with respect to ammunition that was consistent with the firearms acquisition certificate system now in place. There is a recognition that ammunition is part and parcel of the firearms issue and there should be some reasonable restrictions. Again, the question is ``reasonable'', and we're talking about a proactive approach to present and future purchases.
Mr. St. Denis (Algoma): Mr. Minister, thank you for being with us today. I represent a rural riding in northern Ontario, so you can appreciate that I've heard quite a bit from my constituents on this matter.
What I would like to do, with your indulgence, Mr. Minister, is to read you a list of the concerns that people, individuals and groups, have expressed to me about the registration system. I won't comment on whether those concerns have a basis in fact or not, but it's a list of concerns that have been expressed to me. It may not be complete, and I'm wondering if you would be prepared, having listened to it, to say what the number one or number two issue to your constituency is. Do you mind?
In no particular order, the concerns that have been expressed to me are that registration will be too confusing for the average person; registration will lead to the mass confiscation of firearms; registration will be too costly for the individual firearms owners and/or too costly for governments; registration will lead to the loss of personal privacy; and it will lead to the criminalization of otherwise law-abiding citizens. Because there will be many who will choose not to comply, why should I bother; the system won't work without 100% compliance. Let me say it won't work to reduce crime or family violence or suicide.
Some worry that the information system in a registration system will not be secure from those who would improperly use the information. Some suggest it's a tax grab by the government. Others say it's non-constitutional. Others say there will be a loss of front-line police resources, tied up because these resources will be used to maintain a system. Others say it would be a loss of tourism, particularly visitors from the U.S..
.1235
Others say it will discourage young people from becoming new entrants into recreational hunting and target shooting. Others say it will mean the loss of personal protection. Some people believe they need to have a gun for personal protection.
I'm not saying I agree with all of these concerns, but I'm wondering if you would be so kind as to suggest which one or two, in your opinion, are the most important ones.
Mr. Evans: Mr. St. Denis, I must say I too have heard from individuals in the province of Alberta all of the issues to which you've referred. Certainly the criminalization of law-abiding citizens and the loss of personal privacy rights is a constant refrain from those in Alberta who oppose this legislation. I would say it is followed closely by concern about the effectiveness of law-enforcement agencies and the front-line workers taking on the additional burden of responsibility when many people debate and doubt the effectiveness of what these laws on registration and licensing will in fact do to make our community safer.
Again, all these concerns you've raised I have heard before in Alberta.
Mr. St. Denis: Short of not proceeding with registration, is there anything you would suggest? You may have done this in your opening remarks, but just by way of summary, would there be anything you could suggest to deal with those two main concerns in an environment where registration is in fact in place?
Mr. Evans: The one thing I have suggested, and it's been suggested by the Auditor General, is a review of the current laws in terms of the effectiveness of those laws. I think a delay in dealing with the clauses on registration and licensing would be appropriate, given that the review is being done. I think there should be some more review as well of the potential effectiveness of the provisions in Bill C-68 related to this.
Secondly, there should be a cost-benefit analysis of where the $85 million comes from. It's now $118 million. I'm talking about not just headings but a comprehensive review of that. As well, there should be a further review of the administrative and other costs that would be incurred in terms of investigation and then prosecution.
Mr. Ramsay: I personally have heard, and witnesses who have appeared before the committee, Mr. Evans, have indicated, the difficulty in establishing a credible registration system for long guns that will be able to identify positively one firearm out of the 6 million to 20 million that are alleged to be in Canada.
The RCMP crime laboratories have what they call ``standard collections'' of firearms which are basically one of a kind. They have about 17,000 in their six labs across Canada; and that's just a sampling. That's well under 50% of what they think is representative of the makes and models and so on that are out there in that number, between 6 million and 20 million. Twenty per cent of the rifles do not have serial numbers and 15% do not have shotguns.
I just received the last part of the information I was seeking from the RCMP from the Honourable Herb Gray, for which I thank him. My question was how many handguns have the identical serial number - and we talk about good guns and bad guns, particularly if one doesn't have a serial number, since it's been ground off - whether it's good, bad or indifferent in terms of being a firearm?
.1240
I am advised this morning that out of the 1.2 million firearms registered in the handgun registration system, 370,000 have the identical serial number, or approximately 30%. They have been able to identify 18 firearms that have the identical serial number, identical make, identical barrel length, and identical calibre.
Experts in the field have indicated to me, and to some degree to this committee, that it is going to be extremely difficult to create that kind of system with the credibility and integrity...that they will be able to rely upon the information coming in to issue a registration certificate that will positively identify the firearm it's intended to identify.
Now, with the mail-in system, there will be no hands-on examination of the firearms, no verification by the people who run the system of the information they're placing into the system. I have some real problems with that. If we're going to spend the millions of dollars to establish a registration system, we had better make sure what we are buying and creating is something that's going to be a useful tool in the hands of our law-enforcement agencies. The information I'm getting is that it will not be, because the integrity of the system will not be verified.
Do you have any comments on that?
Mr. Evans: Mr. Ramsay, that is an issue that has been brought to my attention on a number of occasions.
Even if this legislation were passed and we had manufacturers in Canada, who make up such a small percentage anyway of the total firearms production per year...even if we could have those manufacturers showing some responsibility relative to the legislation and changing their habits with serial numbers, you wouldn't have any impact outside of Canada, where the majority of the firearms are manufactured. Certainly having individuals who own firearms fill out that form and send it in is a less intrusive process than there might be.
The only way to improve on that system is to require the firearms to be taken down to a firearms officer and to have that officer indicate what the correct serial number is and all the other identifying features. In my opinion, that would increase the cost of this process immeasurably.
Mr. Ramsay: How do you feel about the mail-in system that has been suggested by the justice minister and embraced by the police forces, at least the RCMP, who will be responsible for running it? How do you feel about that?
Mr. Evans: It's challenging, to say the least, in terms of effectiveness, to come to a conclusion, given the current reality, that the system being contemplated would be effective in identifying firearms so that we could, as Mr. Lee pointed out, try to differentiate between the good guns and the bad guns.
The Chair: Mr. Ramsay, the information you got from Mr. Gray is extremely important and would be valuable to all members of the committee. Would you mind giving the information you got on the numbers to the clerk after the meeting so we can all have that? As I say, that's extremely important information. I think it would be helpful if we all had it.
Mr. Ramsay: I can submit the entire information I received from the Solicitor General, which includes the standard collection, the percentages, and so on. This is just a fax. The original is in the mail. They knew I was anxious to receive it. I'm quite prepared to provide that for the committee.
Mr. MacLellan (Cape Breton - The Sydneys): At present in Canada there are approximately 40,000 weapons prohibition orders. What has the rate been in Alberta for success in enforcing these prohibition orders?
.1245
Mr. Evans: Mr. MacLellan, I may ask my deputy to try to answer that, if he has any specifics on it.
As you know, there has been some difficulty with enforcement of the prohibition orders. I think that is a matter worthy of some additional consideration and perhaps some change to the Code to make it more effective, just as we've seen the change to proposed section 85 to deal with imitation firearms, which actually was a suggestion from our officials in Alberta.
Mr. MacLellan: Don't you feel with a registration system that would catalogue these firearms it would be easier to enforce these prohibition orders?
Mr. Evans: Well, again you're presuming, Mr. MacLellan, there would be compliance with the legislation. I tend to think the same individuals who would be the subject of a firearms prohibition order would be the kind of individuals who would be very unlikely to fill out the forms and register their firearms voluntarily. I'm talking about the current situation. I'm also considering any future situations.
That is part and parcel of my concern with the vast majority of this legislation. It's not focused and directed towards the criminal behaviour we're all trying to eliminate. It's focused in an overly bureaucratic way, in my opinion, on law-abiding citizens.
Mr. MacLellan: The actual compliance is going to be something for which we're going to depend on the ministers of justice, and attorneys general, such as yourself, in the provinces.
You mentioned proposed section 85, robbery with a firearm. The fact exists that there's been a lot of, I guess you could say, dissatisfaction in the country about the number of times this has been plea-bargained away. With dangerous-offender provisions and the number of times they've been used...there are a lot of people who feel they could be used more.
It is going to be the same situation with the firearms provisions. It's going to be open to the ministers of justice and attorneys general of the provinces to determine how strictly they want to apply these provisions. Have you given any thought on what Alberta's position will be with these?
Mr. Evans: With proposed section 85 applications, often it's an evidentiary problem. I think the amendment in this bill will address that and hopefully we'll have a greater success rate in our prosecutions.
About dangerous-offender applications, Mr. MacLellan, in Alberta we have taken the position that we will process those applications wherever it's deemed appropriate. In January in British Columbia we chatted about the federal government's initiative in this regard in terms of amendments that would make all sentences indeterminate and would talk about another category of long-term offenders. I'm completely and totally supportive of those initiatives, because I think they do direct our resources and our focus where that attention deserves to be focused.
I have said as well that if this legislation passes through the constitutional challenges that may come about and is deemed to be the enforceable criminal law of this great country, we as law-abiding citizens will promote compliance with it and ensure that our officers are ready, willing and able to enforce it in the province of Alberta. That is not my preference, because I believe our resources could be used much more effectively on the other two planks in the platform of this bill. However, we operate by the rule of law and we will want to ensure the law of this land is enforced in our province, as will other ministers of justice and attorneys general in Canada.
The Chair: It's time to adjourn for lunch. We meet again at 3:30 p.m., with the Government of the Yukon.
.1250
Mr. Evans, I want to thank you most sincerely for coming all this distance to meet with us and to give us the views of your province. It's very important to understand your views directly, and I want to thank you for that.
So the meeting is adjourned, members of the committee, until 3:30 p.m.