37^th Parliament, 2^nd Session
(September 30, 2002 -     )

Edited Hansard • Number 145

Tuesday, October 28, 2003

[Hansard – Page 8810]

Questions on the Order Paper

    Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 248 and 256.

[Text]

Question No. 248—

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: With respect to the following statements from page two of the Government of Canada Regulatory Policy published by the Privy Council Office “to ensure that use of the government’s regulatory powers results in the greatest net benefit to society,” and “the government will weigh the benefits of alternatives to regulation, and of alternative regulations, against their cost, and focus resources where they can do the most good”: (a) what are all the benefits of gun ownership in Canada; (b) what are all the direct and indirect costs of regulating firearms ownership in Canada; and (c) what were the benefits and costs for each of the alternatives to regulating firearms ownership weighed by the government?

Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, hunting and other shooting sports do have a sizeable economic impact on Canada.

    In response to (a), in 2000 the report “The Importance of Nature to Canadians: The Economic Significance of Nature-related Activities” published by Environment Canada indicated: In 1996, residents of Canada reported spending $11.0 billion on a variety of nature related activities within Canada. They made trip related expenditures for transportation, accommodation and food. They also purchased equipment, supplies and other items needed to pursue nature related activities, such as camping gear, outdoor clothing, boats, trucks, hunting and fishing equipment and supplies, licence and entry fees, cameras and binoculars. Other examples of expenditures for nature related activities are membership fees or donations to nature related organizations, costs to maintain land for conservation and purchase of feeders and feed for wildlife.

    Of that total, $828.3 million is estimated to have been spent by hunters. It is important to note that this estimate does not differentiate between those hunters who use firearms and those who use other means. The 1996 survey breaks down estimated expenditures by hunters in this way: Hunting equipment accounted for 46.5% of the $823.8 million spent within Canada. The remaining amount went for trip related expenses, including: transportation, 20.2%; food, 12.1%; and accommodation, 4.7%; or for other items, such as licence fees and ammunition, 16.5%.

    Hunting is the overwhelming reason for firearm ownership in Canada. A study conducted in the fall 2000 by GPC Research found that 74% of Canadian firearms owners owned guns for hunting. Fourteen percent of Canadian owners are target shooters, with this the second most common activity reported in the survey.

    With regard to the year preceding the GPC Research survey, it should be noted that more than half of Canadian firearm owners had used their firearms no more than once. In fact, 37% of Canadian firearm owners surveyed had not used their firearm in the previous 12 months.

    In response to (b), a more fulsome report on costs will be provided in the chapter on the firearms program contained within the Department of Justice’s departmental performance report, DPR, for 2002-03 that will be tabled in Parliament this fall.

    Direct costs incurred by the Canada Firearms Centre since the passage of the Firearms Act in fiscal year 1995-96 to the end of 2001-02 were approximately $668.3 million.

    This amount includes funds reimbursed by the centre to its federal partners, such as CCRA, RCMP, HRDC and PWGSC, and contribution funding to the provinces, territories, aboriginal and other communities, and non-profit organizations.

    In response to (c), it is impossible to determine the economic impact of firearms without considering the costs associated with firearm crime, violence and accidents. A study by Ted R. Miller published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal in 1995 indicated that the total estimated costs of gunshot wounds in Canada in 1991 was $6.6 billion in 1993 dollars. That study looked only at incidents where an individual was shot. Clearly, there are also economic costs related to firearm crime where victims are not shot. This amount would be in addition to Dr. Miller’s $6.6 billion estimate.

    The financial impact of not controlling firearms is evident. The economic impact of alternatives to universal licensing and registration can be seen, for example, in the United States. It was recently reported that Chicago public schools spend approximately $60 million U.S. on security. According to the chief executive of Chicago public schools, “That's the price we're paying for our society's appalling fascination with, and easy access to, guns”.

BREITKREUZ’S INTERIM LIST OF THE BENEFITS OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP

http://www.cssa-cila.org/garryb/publications/Article149.htm