CANADA

 

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

Comité permanent de la justice et des droits de la personne

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE number 60, Témoignages du comité numéro 60

- -

Á  (1110)  

[English]

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

    I'd like to call the 60th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to order.

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

    For the edification of the members of the committee, we've been asked why the subject of the motion wasn't placed on the notice of meeting. The reason for the fact the subject wasn't placed on this notice of meeting was because it is not determined until, in fact, the motion is put that this is the subject of business. As members will recall, there have been many occasions when members of the committee have given notice of a motion but it has not necessarily meant that the motion has been considered at the first occasion following. So therefore, we don't always know whether or not this would have been the day. I'm pleased, given that we have no other business particularly to deal with today that Mr. Breitkreuz is here and Mr. Toews is here, also.

    So, without further ado, unless anyone wants to question that, and I don't see any inquiring minds out there, I would turn then to Mr. Toews who is the mover of the motion and I understand he wants to perhaps give Mr. Breitkreuz an opportunity to speak to this.

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

    The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz.

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

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

 

that the committee or subcommittee study and hear witnesses with respect to the total cost and economic impact of the Firearms Act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Now, if we go to the response in Hansard and to the question that I've put on the Order Paper, the government responded that the costs were $487 million and $139 million more were estimated to be spent this year--and you can read that response. It's in the handout that I have given to you. We specifically asked fro the projected cost to fully implement and operate the program, enforce the legislation. The government has only given us the current cost of the program and that wasn't even correct. According to Treasury Board officials appearing before the Standing Committee on Finance on November 21, 2001, the current cost of the Canadian Firearms Program was reported to be $689 million. So the Treasury Board officials did not answer the question that was at the Senate committee by Senator Stratton when he said:

    “You said it was $600 million more than the original forecast. How can it be that wrong from the original? Where will this end and do you have any forecast?

    And he said:

    I'm sure not.

    That question was never answered.

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

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

Á  (1115)  

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

    In that response I got to access to information. It says, and I'd like to quote “we have identified one record responding to your request”. It's 115 pages. “This document has been deemed a cabinet confidence and has been excluded entirely pursuant to section 69(1)(a) of the act”.

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

    The government response as contained in Hansard, firstly, indicates that they feel certain members of the recreational community suggest that active firearms owners are leaving the shooting sports as a consequence of the individual licensing and firearms registration requirements included in the Firearms Act and there's no indication that this is true. The government says there are indications that individuals who own firearms who no longer use them have chosen to dispose of their unused firearms rather than apply for a licence and register firearms they no longer want.

    Mr. Chair, the justice department's own surveys show that the number of gun owners in Canada has dropped from 3.3 million to 2.46 million since 1994. As of December 3, 2001, the Department of Justice reports that 1.762 million firearms owners held valid firearms licenses.

    The department has no evidence whatsoever that more than a million firearms owners have chosen to dispose of their unused firearms. The police department have not received millions of firearms as would be happening if this statement had any validity. In fact, the RCMP reports that only 58,000 firearms have been surrendered to police since January 1995.

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

    I would like to refer to an access of information or statistics that I received from the Canadian Wildlife Service. It's pretty obvious from that that the number of migratory game bird hunting permits issued was 380,000. It was as high as 524,000 in 1978 and has dropped to 191,000 in 2000. That is a very serious drop in the number of hunters in Canada.

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

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

    That needs to be investigated as one of the key things that is causing a decline in the number of hunters in Canada and that of course would have a severe impact on the economy. The government really has failed to provide evidence of another significant drop in the number of hunters since the January 1, 2000 deadline for obtaining a firearms license.

    In Quebec's Label County alone there it was a 50% drop in the number of deer licenses sold and triple the number of deer killed in car accidents between 2000 and 2001. This is having an equally dramatic impact on tourism and outfitting operations and we have to hear from them directly.

Á  (1120)  

     Just an aside on this. This is not only going to have an impact on the economy. It's going to have a severe impact on the environment. That's not the mandate of this committee. But that is also something that has to be addressed.

    Now when we get to parts 3-5, the government has grouped those three together, that includes the number of visitors to Canada, the tourism outfitting operations and the wildlife populations, the impact that is having on these. The government says “Well it's not within our purview to deal with these issues”.

    Now the reason we ask the government these questions is because the Department of Industry, and the Department of the Environment, and the Department of Finance have all responded negatively to our access to information requests. When we look at what these departments are saying, they have cumulatively said, and I'd like to cite from January 31, 2001, access to information response. They said:

No records were found to show how migratory bird-hunting and bird populations were effected by the new firearms licensing and legislation regime.

    That needs to be done, Mr. Chair.

    Also Industry Canada responded, saying they:

Have no records that document how the tourism industry will be effected by the new requirements for visitors bringing firearms into Canada.

    That is a major oversight, Mr. Chair. We need to have this committee look at how that is affecting the tourism industry. That could be, and I believe it is, having a tremendously negative effect in that area, costing our economy a lot of money.

    The Department of Finance responded that:

No records exist in the Department of Finance Canada concerning this request.

    So again, these are all areas that need to be addressed.

    In number six, this is the aboriginal people, communities, businesses and employment. The government responded by saying that nothing precludes aboriginals, aboriginal Canadians from participating in their traditional lifestyles.

    Well if the government's response is true, why then have the Saskatchewan Federation of Indian Nations and the Territory of Nunavut launched a constitutional challenge to the Firearms Act? It would be very prudent for us to hear directly from these challenges to find out how the Firearms Act is affecting their participation in their traditional lifestyles, and how it's affecting aboriginal employment in guiding and outfitting businesses.

    Going to number seven. Seven dealt with international trade. The government responded that:

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

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

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

    On March 7, 200, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade responded to our access to information request, saying they could find no records to show how the implementation of the Firearms Act will effect imports and exports. Mr. Chair, that has to be done. That's why I'm requesting this committee look into this.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton--Melville, Canadian Alliance): Now if we deal with 8 and 9 which the government has grouped together, I wanted to know the economic impact that shooting sports, Olympic and international shooting competitions, would experience as a result of Bill C-68.

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

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

Dear Minister McLellan:

I'm writing to voice my strenuous opposition to the new procedure that will require law-abiding sportsmen from the U.S. to pay a $50 annual fee along with the firearms acquisition certificate upon entering Canada. This measure is punitive to the legitimate gun owner and will be ultimately harmful to the Canadian outfitters industry and ironically will result in substantial revenue losses to the Canadian Government.

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

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

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

    Now going to number 10, the firearms and ammunition manufacturing sales and service sector. The Firearms Act the government says provides for the licensing of firearms businesses and nothing in the act precludes a business from operating on the terms of its licence.

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

Á  (1125)  

    Mr. Andy Scott: Excuse me, Mr. Breitkruez. I know you're eager to get a lot of the information forward, could I ask you to just to slow down a little bit for the translaters. Particularly when you're reading, they have a hard time keeping up.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz:

    Okay, yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is also available in the other Official Language.

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

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

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

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

    Going now to number 13, what impact does this legislation have on gun shows. The government responded by saying the Firearms Act show regulations are not yet in force. The changing demographics of firearms ownership may be reflected in the participation rate at gun shows. However, it should be noted that these changes may reflect the result of other recreational opportunities being available to all Canadians.

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

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

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

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

    Number 15, firearms collectors and museums--what is the impact on these? The government responds that Canadians continue to maintain their firearms collections and that new entrants may begin firearms collecting. Museums may be licensed to maintain firearms in their collection.

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

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

I was talking with two brothers who own a gun museum.

    Bailey said

They told me that it takes a minimum of a half hour to register each gun. The have approximately 400 guns so at that rate it will take them two months working eight hour days to register their guns and that's if everything goes smoothly. One of the brothers told me it took 20 hours to register just one of their rifles.

    This illustrates just how ridiculous the law is declared Bailey.

Á  (1130)  

     One of the brothers told me it took 20 hours to register just one of their rifles. This illustrates just how ridiculous the law is declared really. This is really forced labour because if they don't spend that time registering their guns, the government will consider them criminals. This is not an isolated example, Mr. Speaker, but I cite this as one of the key problems and the economic impact of this on museums is substantial.

    Number 16, movie and television production. The government responded by saying the Firearms Act provides a framework to regulate movie supply companies and nothing in the Firearms Act prevents licenced production supply houses from providing material to productions.

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

    Number 17, the heritage and historical re-enactments. Again the government says nothing in this Firearms Act precludes Canadians or non-residents from pontificating in these historical re-enactments. On Thursday, September 21, 1995, Mr. Richard Feltoe representing the British North America Living History Association appeared before the standing committee on legal and constitutional affairs during their hearings on Bill C-68 and he requested specific amendments to ensure the Firearms Act would not negatively affect historical re-enactments. The Senate passed Bill C-68 without any of these amendments and it's now time to find out what that economic impact has been.

    And finally, Mr. Chair, number 18 asks for the economic impact on employment in all impacted industries and activities and the government brushed this off by saying that nothing in the Firearms Act precludes Canadians from participating in activities which they participated in before the coming into force of the Firearms Act. And while the forces of demographic change and the free choice of other recreational activities may have resulted in the decline of active participation in hunting and shooting sports, there is nothing to indicate that any decrease was the direct result of that introduction passage coming into force or implementation of the Firearms Act. And my response to that, Mr. Chair, is that just from the information provided above, it is clear that the implementation of the Firearms Act will have a significant negative impact on the economy, on specific industries and certain types of business.

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

    I appreciate your patience, Mr. Chair, and I think I have clearly indicated that there is a need to study the economic impact of this. It is incumbent upon the government to clearly indicate to us what that economic impact is. I have a list of witnesses from across Canada who would like to appear to relate the economic impact this is having and it's generally negative and all of this, Mr. Chair, contributes to economic woes in this country. And we have too much too lose by not taking a close look at this. If you would like I have that list of witnesses here but first of all I guess this committee has to decide where they're going to go with this.

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

Á  (1135)  

    The Chair: I see, Mr. Maloney, I'll be taking the list, John.

    Mr. John Maloney: Just a comment, Mr. Chair. I think we have to look at what we have on our platter and discuss priorities. We have the health provisions, we have conditional sentencing, we've been asked the blood content levels Bill C-284, responsibility of directors. We have a tremendous amount on our platter already and to undertake a study of the magnitude that Mr. Breitkreuz is suggesting I say where would these be and which is more important to all Canadians.

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

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

    I believe that three issues have been raised. One is, you know this committee is pretty busy, in my motion I made it clear that a sub-committee could be struck to study this. It would not have to be the whole committee and that sub-committee could hear the witnesses.

    I think this too important an issue for it not to be a priority and a sub-committee could be struck, that's very clear in my motion.

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

    And last of all, the point was made that well, the minister is going to be appearing before the committee and you can ask the minister these questions.

    Mr. Chair, we have asked the minister time after time these questions and we don't get a response. Either the minister doesn't want to reveal that to us or doesn't know the answer and so we need more than just the minister appearing before the committee and brushing this off.

    I mean this is a key thing that this committee should be dealing with.

    The Chair: Mr. Fitzpatrick.

    Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Just a comment on that as well. I would be of the view that a lot of the business that we have been dealing with that we're proposing to look at for my province of Saskatchewan generally would be low priority items compared to a lot of other things that would be high priority. Or on the contrary are having a negative impact on my province.

    People of Saskatchewan don't have the virtue of living in a big center like Toronto, where the economy is doing very well and everything seems to be going along fine.

    We have a lot of problems in Saskatchewan and the sport of hunting and fishing industry and so on is important in that province. It may not be important to somebody in a large urban center, but it's important where I come from. To me this is a very important issue.

    I'd like to see something from Saskatchewan or the prairie region made a priority in one of these committees, one of these days in this house.

Á  (1140)  

    The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur.

[Français]

    M. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier--Montcalm, BQ): Ce serait un commentaire. Je pense que ce serait important qu'on sache véritablement le coût de la mise en application de la Loi sur l'enregistrement des armes à feu. Vous savez fort bien que le Bloc québécois, on a appuyé une loi pour enregistrer les armes à feu parce qu'on disait que dans un pays libre et démocratique comme le nôtre, ça prenait une loi pour avoir une meilleure surveillance, bien que l'ancienne loi, si elle avait été mieux appliquée--on revient toujours à la même affaire--peut-être qu'on aurait eu des meilleurs résultats dans la Loi sur les armes à feu.

    L'accord que vous avez eu du Bloc québécois et l'accord de plusieurs citoyens du Québec et du Canada également, c'était sur certaines données. Entre autres, on disait que la Loi sur l'enregistrement des armes à feu était pour s'autofinancer dans les cinq premières années et on parlait de dizaine, mais il me semble, de mémoire, que c'était une douzaine de millions par année durant les premiers cinq ans. Mais là même avec les chiffres du ministère de la Justice, on est loin du compte. Et si on prend les chiffres du Conseil du Trésor, on se rapproche dangereusement du milliard de dollars pour enregistrer les armes à feu.

    Moi, le cinq ans, au moment de l'adoption de cette loi-là, si vous m'aviez dit, moi en tant que gouvernement fédéral, j'ai un milliard de dollars à mettre pour la sécurité des Canadiens, ma priorité du Bloc québécois et du Québec n'aurait peut-être pas été de le mettre sur les armes à feu, mais de mettre le milliard ailleurs tout en améliorant la loi actuelle qui existait à cette époque-là.

    Du côté des coûts, je pense qu'en quelque part, il y a quelqu'un qui s'est mis le doigt dans l'oeil. Et moi j'aimerais savoir, en gestionnaires que nous sommes, c'est quoi exactement le montant que ça coûte cette loi-là. Est-ce que c'est le Conseil du Trésor qui a raison ou si c'est le ministère de la Justice? Il y en a un des deux qui ment. C'est lequel des deux? Et peut-être que c'est ni un ni l'autre. C'est peut-être un autre chiffre. J'aimerais ça le savoir également.

    Quand je vois qu'un document aussi anodin qu'un rapport sur l'incidence économique de l'enregistrement des armes à feu est assujetti au secret ministériel, j'ai un problème. Moi ici, je représente les gens de Berthier--Montcalm et je dois rendre des comptes. J'imagine que le gouvernement a des comptes à rendre également. Et lorsqu'on cache de l'information aussi anodin que cela, l'incidence économique, ce n'est pas un secret d'état. Écoutez...c'est quoi l'incidence économique de l'enregistrement des armes à feu? Je suis sûr que vous voulez le savoir vous aussi, si vous voulez faire votre job correctement. Et là, c'est secret. Qu'est-ce qu'ils ont à cacher?

    Je pense qu'on doit se poser des questions. C'est quoi la vérité dans tout ça? Ce qu'on présente ce matin, c'est soit que le Comité ou le Sous-comité fasse la lumière là-dessus. Personne n'est contre la vertu ici. Tout le monde doit appuyer ça.

    On a, semble-t-il, beaucoup de choses sur la planche. Même avec sursis, l'alcoolisme, un projet de loi émanant d'un député, on en a déjà vu d'autres. Depuis 1993, on a abattu pas mal d'ouvrage ici. Si on n'est pas capables de le faire dans le comité principal, faisons un sous-comité. J'appuie ça sans aucun problème. On pourra avoir l'heure juste dans un dossier aussi important que celui-là.

    D'autant plus, je sais que vous en avez dans vos propres comtés. J'ai des gens qui sont obstinés encore à ne pas enregistrer les armes à feu pour toute sorte de raisons. Peut-être qu'on aurait des arguments pour les convaincre avec l'étude qu'on ferait de les enregistrer. Peut-être aussi qu'on aurait des arguments pour dire, vous faites bien parce que c'est un panier sans fond et ce ne sera jamais applicable cette loi-là.

    Mais moi je veux le savoir. Bien que je le répète, au début de tout, le Bloc québécois, on a appuyé le gouvernement dans ça. Mais aujourd'hui, c'est le temps de commencer à regarder comment on l'a appliquée cette loi-là et si c'est possible de l'appliquer, parce que, encore aujourd'hui, il y a plusieurs personnes qui n'ont pas enregistré leurs armes à feu, qui ne les enregistreront pas et demain matin, on va avoir des problèmes dans nos comtés respectifs parce qu'on va connaître d'honnêtes citoyens qui vont être traités comme des criminels. Et là chacun de nous, on va avoir ces problèmes là sur le dos. Je pense que c'est le temps d'avoir les réponses. J'appuie, sans aucune réserve, la motion qui est présentée.

Á  (1145)  

[English]

    Mr. Andy Scott: Merci, Mr. Bellehumeur.

    Mr. Fitzpatrick.

    Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: One further comment and it's an observation I have.

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

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

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

    The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I'd just like to respond to what the Bloc has said here.

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

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

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

    The Chair: Mr. Sorenson.

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

    This last week I spent in my riding and I had seven town-hall meetings. As a new member of Parliament, I was not in former parliaments that brought in Bill C-68 on the gun law, but let me just say that when we did town-hall meetings, you know, what we were anticipating talking about was Bill C-5, Bill C-15, and all the other bills that have basically come through this place and to give an update to the constituents as to where they were at. By the second town-hall meeting it became very evident that Bill C-68 was still the issue that many in my riding wanted to talk about. I received a letter from W. Douglas Fossett, who wrote out his concerns about security and also his concerns for where the government was going. The question that kept coming was:

In the days gone by when the old Reform Party was active, you guys came out here and said this thing was going to cost $85 million and you were arguing against it saying there's $85 million that could better be spent to health care. How come now it's up over $600 million? What is the opposition doing? Watching the government run away with a program that isn't working?

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

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

    I again say, you know, when I receive four-page letters about concerns of where our government is going in security and personal security and all those types of things, I have to be able to give answers. My only answer is, “We can't get them from this government.”

    So I would appeal to all members of this committee to allow us the opportunity to do our job as an official opposition and to allow this motion to go through.

Á  (1150)  

    The Chair: : Mr. Cadmen.

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

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

    We just had the figures released for the number of crimes committed with firearms and what they're saying is that they're still increasing and they're handguns, which have been registered since 1934. That's what the majority of the crimes are being committed with--at least with the statistics that I'm getting locally.

    So, again, people see that and they say, “Well, what good is this thing doing, what good is this registry doing? We're still seeing crime going up that require the use of firearms.“

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

    The Chair: This side, or back in Surrey?

    Mr. Chuck Cadman: Back in Surrey.

    These are responsible people and I get complaints from them all the time about the problems they're having. I have a very close friend who is a hunter and a gun collector. He has 16 firearms, 16 weapons. At last count, given all the screw ups with trying to register, he had 57 different registration certificates for 16 guns. Some of them were erroneous, some of them were scratched off the system. He showed me 3 separate registration certificates for 1 particular firearm. The serial numbers were the same, but they were taken off of different parts of the gun. They were taking numbers off the barrels, off the stocks, so he had 3 different certificates for 1 individual weapon. He showed me 3 others where he had 2, and these were current, these are on the system.

    What does this make this guy look like when it comes up on the system? He's got 16 weapons that he's trying to register and the computer shows that he has 57.

    This is nuts. We've got to get to the bottom of this. How much is it costing us to do all this in the first place, the cost for the individual firearm owner, the time that he's been spending trying to comply, and what's it costing the system to correct the errors? It's just one error after another. And this is only one guy that I'm talking about. I have, on average, one person a week coming into my urban constituency office complaining like hell about what's going on with this firearms registry. So I support this motion. We have to get to the bottom of this.

    The Chair:

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

    Now I'm going to put the question.

    Mr. Lee, sorry.

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

    I was around when Bill C-68 went through and throughout all of the elements of it--from the very beginning to the very end, including the regulations and even precursors to Bill C-68--and what I would not be interested in doing is re-fighting the battle. Maybe my colleagues here don't feel that way, but I'm tired. I regard the battle as over and there is substantial support for the firearm control legislation across the country. It is not consistent right across the whole country and I accept that there are significant areas of the country where there is a lot of concern about the implementation of it but Parliament has decided that there will be comprehensive firearm control, including all of those long guns. As difficult as the exercise was--and perhaps is in some places or some circumstances--that is ongoing, so I'm not interested in re-fighting the battle over comprehensive firearm control.

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

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

    I'm not so sure the issue of the cost overruns, while it's one we can all agree is there, is the most important issue the committee has to deal with this spring or this year. On the pure issue of the financial elements of this, I think the estimates procedures are fully adequate at least to raise a number of questions, to publicly have the Minister answer. The procedure itself as it has evolved is clearly inadequate to go into the kind of depth that Mr. Breitkreuz has urged upon us here but because I believe there are issues there--I'm not in a position to say that I don't want to hear about this--I don't want to re-fight Bill C-68 but I am interested as an MP in the financial issues and in the implementation issues.

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

Á  (1155)  

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

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

  (1200)  

    The Chair: Mr. Sorensen.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Just very quickly, because I don't want to speak too long on this, but, you know, Mr. Lee has mentioned that he doesn't want to refight Bill C-68. I really don't believe that that's what this motion is doing. This motion is not refighting Bill C-68. This motion is giving us the opportunity to hold to account a government that has promised that it would be $80 million and it's been $680 million. In those town hall meetings, and I was feverishly looking through my briefcase here to find the response that one gentleman gave me because the question just kept coming up.

    The question that keeps coming up from the people is what do we do? Initially we had to send in a registration and then we had to send in money. Now they've sent the money back. Am I going to go to jail if I don't comply? Will I be a criminal if I don't comply? I've never had a traffic ticket in my life. Am I going to go to jail when I don't comply? Can I buy ammunition if I don't comply?

    All these questions are asked. That isn't even what this motion is doing. This motion is simply allowing us the opportunity as a committee or as a subcommittee, if we can strike a subcommittee on this, the motion isn't one that's saying let's derail everything this committee is about to do.

    What this motion is saying is, is there another avenue we have to get answers because all the other avenues that we've been told to take in the past have come up against a brick wall.

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

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

    The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz.

  (1205)  

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

    Could this committee not direct a subcommittee to hold the hearings in such a way that they would address the concerns that Mr. Lee has raised? You could strike a subcommittee so that the parameters were to strictly deal with the economic impact in all the different areas that I listed and you wouldn't have to go into refighting the whole battle. If that's the concern of the government, then...you know, see it's our job as opposition to hold the government to account and especially in the area of spending, we need to know what's going on.

    My fear is that we're going to get the minister before the committee and the same thing will happen as has happened in every other year, that they will simply brush this off and give us a number that does not reflect all of the economic impacts that this bill is having.

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

    The Chair: Clearly, the committee can do generally whatever it wants and the motion that is put would entertain, as a possibility, the striking of a subcommittee, and if the committee decided to strike a subcommittee it could give that committee whatever mandate the committee decided to give it.

    So if the question is as to whether it's in order, then clearly it is. I would hesitate to intervene in this discussion or debate, but I heard a pretty significant signal from Mr. Lee, I think, having to do with the fact that perhaps while the subject at hand is of interest to the committee, that perhaps the timing is a little bit less urgent, and that maybe after estimates I would...I think I heard Mr. Lee suggest something like that. So I would bring to the mover's attention that I would seek counsel. Can the committee make a friendly amendment, not that I'm suggesting this, but by way of process, in the absence of the mover? Can that be done in the absence of Mr. Toews?

    An hon. member: Yes.

    The Chair: It can. Okay, well, if that's the case, because I bring to your attention the fact that if the committee votes on this today, and defeats it, if that were the outcome, then we would not be able to entertain this question again this Parliament, as a matter of process and procedure.

    The Chair: I only make the point for all committee's consideration, to make sure that all the information is available.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes.

    The Chair: Mr. McKay is next, Mr. Breitkreuz.

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

    And I simply do not want to get into the rehashing over C-68, that debate has been held. Having said that, Mr. Breitkreuz does raise a number of issues which, arguably, to which he has not received an adequate response. Possibly, there are adequate responses, and so I urge Mr. Breitkreuz to consider deferral of this motion pending the appearance of the minister at estimates. And if the answers of the minister are inadequate, you're at liberty to bring back the motion to see whether they should be pursued by way of a sub-committee, or indeed a full committee hearing. So, I would think that would be in order.

    The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I appreciate those comments.

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

    I would like to be more positive about this and make this suggestion, that we pass the motion today, and then put in place some kind of a time frame and deal with it after the minister appears at committee, and if the minister adequately answers all the different concerns that I've raised, it's a done deal.

    But, if we pass it, if we negative this today, then it's done, it could be three or four years before we'll ever come back to it, and that might mean another half a billion dollars that is spent. But, if we say yes to this, then we can put in place a sub-committee, and put an appropriate time frame in place.

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

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

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

    Mr. John McKay: Can I offer a motion?

    A motion to table pending government estimates, and I'll move it. Mr. Lee, second it?

    Mr. Derek Lee: Sure, I'll second it.

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

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

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

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes, okay.

    The Chair: And we'll have a vote on the motion to defer. I think in the interest of trying to accommodate the committees wishes in as non-partisan was as I can, I think there is genuine interest in coming back to the question after the minister. Whereas, I think if the issue is forced today, I think the outcome might be that it would be defeated, and if that happens, then even those from the government side who wish to come back to this after the minister would not have that opportunity.

    So, perhaps, Mr. Breitkreuz, I know this is probably.... If you would be in agreement I think we can.

  (1210)  

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

    The Chair: If the House prorogues, you can bring it back.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: You can. Okay.

    The Chair: You can bring it back to the justice committee. You as a member of Parliament, you can get a status of this committee.

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

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

    Mr. Lee, procedure

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

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

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

    A voice: A motion to travel?

    Mr. Derek Lee: So I just make that suggestion that we try to narrow things so that we can do a good job of the elements we choose to study, rather than looking at everything.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I appreciate your advice.

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

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

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Agreed.

    Mr. Derek Lee: Agreed.

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

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

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

    The Chair: With that, the meeting is adjourned.