File No. 35448

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE QUÉBEC COURT OF APPEAL) BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC APPELLANT (Respondent)

- and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

RESPONDENT (Appellant)

- and COMMISSIONER OF FIREARMS and REGISTRAR

RESPONDENTS (Mis-en-cause) - and LE CONTRÔLEUR DES ARMES À FEU INTERVENER (Mis-en-cause) - and LA COALITION POUR LE CONTRÔLE DES ARMES and CANADA’S NATIONAL FIREARMS ASSOCIATION INTERVENERS

RESPONDENTS’ FACTUM English Version Henri A. Lafortune Inc. Tel.: 450 442-4080 Fax: 450 442-2040 [email protected]

2005 Limoges Street Longueuil, Québec J4G 1C4 www.halafortune.ca L-3705-13

-2Me Éric Dufour Me Hugo Jean Me Suzanne-L. Gauthier Bernard, Roy (Justice-Québec) Suite 8.00 1 Notre-Dame Street East Montréal, Québec H2Y 1B6

Me Pierre Landry Noël et Associés l.l.p. 111 Champlain Street Gatineau, Québec J8X 3R1

Tel.: 514 393-2336 Fax: 514 873-7074 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Tel.: 819 771-7393 Fax: 819 771-5397 [email protected]

Counsel for Appellant Attorney General of Québec and for Intervener Le contrôleur des armes à feu

Agent for Appellant Attorney General of Québec and for Intervener Le contrôleur des armes à feu

Me William F. Pentney Deputy Attorney General of Canada By : Me Claude Joyal, Q.C., Ad. E. Me Ian Demers Me Dominique Guimond Department of Justice Canada Guy-Favreau Complex, East Tower, 9th Floor 200 René-Lévesque Blvd. West Montréal, Québec H2Z 1X4

Me Christopher M. Rupar Department of Justice Canada Suite 500 50 O’Connor Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H8

Tel.: 514 283-8768 Fax: 514 283-3856 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Tel.: 613 670-6290 Fax: 613 954-1920 [email protected]

Counsel for Respondents Attorney General of Canada, Commissioner of Firearms and Registrar

Agent for Respondents Attorney General of Canada, Commissioner of Firearms and Registrar

-3Me Alain M. Gaulin Juripop l.l.p. Suite 200 253 Sainte-Catherine Street West Saint-Constant, Québec J5A 2J6

Me Frédérick Langlois Deveau, Bourgeois, Gagné, Hébert & associés llp Suite 8 867 Saint-René Blvd. West Gatineau, Québec J8T 7X6

Tel.: 450 845-1637 Fax: 450 845-1667 [email protected]

Tel.: 819 243-2616 Fax: 819 243-2641 [email protected]

Counsel for Intervener Coalition pour le contrôle des armes

Agent for Intervener Coalition pour le contrôle des armes

Me Guy Lavergne 2051 Bordelais Street Saint-Lazare, Québec J7T 3C6

Me Solomon C. Friedman Edelson Clifford D’Angelo Friedman LLP Suite 600 200 Elgin Street Ottawa, Ontario K2P 1L5

Tel.: 514 245-0949 Fax: 514 800-2918 [email protected]

Tel.: 613 237-2290 Fax: 613 237-0071 [email protected]

Counsel for Intervener Canada’s National Firearms Association

Agent for Intervener Canada’s National Firearms Association

-iTABLE OF CONTENTS Page

RESPONDENTS’ FACTUM OVERVIEW

......................................... 1

PART I

– FACTS

......................................... 3

1.

Legislative History

......................................... 3

2.

The Canadian Firearms Program

......................................... 5

3.

The Firearms Act

......................................... 6

3.1

The Registar of Firearms and the Canadian Firearms Registry

......................................... 7

3.2

The Chief Firearms Officers and their records

......................................... 8

3.3

Mutual Access to the Registrar’s Registry and the Chief Firearms Officers’ records

....................................... 10

3.4

The Canada-Quebec Financial Agreements

....................................... 11

3.5

Conclusion: the registration records are under the control of the Registrar

....................................... 13

4.

The Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act

....................................... 13

5.

Quebec seeks the transfer of the Long-Gun registration records

....................................... 15

6.

The Judgement of the Superior Court of Quebec

....................................... 17

7.

The Judgement of the Quebec Court of Appeal

....................................... 18

PART II – QUESTIONS IN ISSUE

....................................... 20

- ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

PART III – ARGUMENTS

....................................... 21

1.

Only the Registrar has control over the registration records

....................................... 21

2.

The destruction of the Long-Gun registration records is within the criminal law jurisdiction of Parliament

....................................... 24

2.1

Method of analysis

....................................... 24

2.2

Section 29 is part of the abolition of the Registrar’s Registry (Long-Guns) and restores the privacy rights of long-gun owners

....................................... 25

Section 29 is within the jurisdiction of Parliament in criminal law matters and does not intrude upon the Legislative powers of Quebec

....................................... 28

Section 29 has a rational and functional connection with the Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act

....................................... 30

2.5

Cooperative federalism does not alter the division of powers

....................................... 32

2.6

Conclusion

....................................... 33

2.3

2.4

3.

Quebec has no right to obtain the transfer of the registration records 3.1

....................................... 34

The designation of a Chief Firearms Officer does not create a right to the registration records for Quebec

....................................... 35

3.2

The Canada-Quebec Financial Agreements grant no right to the registration records to Quebec

....................................... 35

3.3

References to provincial privacy legislation do not give Quebec any right over the registration records

....................................... 37

- iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

4.

3.4

Cooperative federalism does not create a right to the registration records for Quebec

....................................... 38

3.5

Conclusion

....................................... 38

The remedy sought by Quebec issues solely from section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982

....................................... 39

PART IV – COSTS

....................................... 40

PART V

....................................... 40

– ORDER SOUGHT

PART VI – ALPHABETICAL TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

_______________

....................................... 41

-1Respondents’ Factum

Overview RESPONDENTS’ FACTUM OVERVIEW

1.

On April 5, 2012, Parliament enacted the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act. The Act put an end to the obligation to register long guns with the Registrar of Firearms (the “Registrar”), and eliminated the criminal sanctions that could be imposed for failure to do so. The Commissioner of Firearms and each Chief Firearms Officer were ordered to ensure the destruction, as soon as feasible, of all records or copies related to the registration of long guns (section 29 of the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act). The records were destroyed in October 2012 for nine provinces and three territories, with the exception of Quebec. The Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, including section 29, falls within the jurisdiction of Parliament in matters of criminal law (Constitution Act, 1867, section 91(27)).

2.

The destruction of long-gun records forms part and parcel of the dismantling of the longgun registry and the restoration of privacy rights that legitimate long-gun owners enjoyed prior to the coming into force of the Firearms Act in 1998, which had forced them, under penalty of criminal sanctions, to disclose their personal information to the Registrar.

3.

Section 29 does not preclude Quebec from putting in place a long-gun registry or from collecting information from Quebeckers who are in possession of long guns. It does not regulate or otherwise interfere with the registration of long guns.

4.

Quebec has no right to the records and cannot demand their transfer in order to create a provincial registry “as it sees fit” [«comme il l’entend»]. The records were collected by the Registrar and were kept under his sole control. The financial compensation agreements to reimburse the cost of the activities of the Chief Firearms Officer for Quebec, whose responsibility is limited to issuing licences and does not extend to registering long guns, do not create a “partnership” that obliges Canada to remit its longgun registry records to Quebec. The responsibilities of the chief firearms officer continue

-2Respondents’ Factum

Overview

to be governed, in their entirety, by the Firearms Act, regardless of the fact that Quebec has designated a member of the Sûreté du Québec to this position. 5.

The ending of the long-gun registry and the destruction of its records, as soon as feasible, are legitimate policy decisions that fall within the purview of Parliament in exercising its criminal law jurisdiction. Since Reference re Secession of Quebec, this Court has not raised cooperative federalism to the level of a self-contained substantive rule giving rise to legally enforceable rights and obligations.

6.

It is not up to the courts to determine the appropriateness either of Parliament’s policy choice to abolish the duty to register long guns under pain of criminal sanctions and provide for the destruction, as soon as feasible, of the related records, or of Quebec’s preference to create an eventual registry of its own. Nor are the courts called upon to award priority to Quebec’s policy choices over those of Parliament. Quebec’s appeal must be dismissed. ----------

-3Respondents’ Factum

Facts PART I – FACTS

7.

The factual synopsis provided by the Attorney General of Quebec distorts the facts and the extrinsic evidence. Many references to documents are incomplete, cited out of context, and fail to support the assertions to the effect that Quebec took part in setting up the Canadian Firearms Registry. Accordingly, it becomes necessary to restate the facts; these facts lead to a single conclusion, namely, that the information contained in the Canadian Firearms Registry was gathered by the Registrar alone, and not by Quebec.

1.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

8.

From 1892 to 1940, Parliament enacted various regimes for licensing and registering firearms, 1 under penalty of criminal sanctions. 2

9.

During the Second World War, Canada imposed a general, non-centralized requirement to register all firearms, including rifles and shotguns, with the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the attorney general of a province. 3 In 1945, Canada abolished the registration of rifles and shotguns but maintained registration obligations

1

2

3

See, for example, regarding pistols and revolver, Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1927, c. 36, s. 121A, Respondent’s Book of Authorities (“R.B.A.”), vol. I, tab 1, added by An Act to amend the Criminal Code, S.C. 1934, c. 47, s. 3, R.B.A., vol. I, tab 6, amended by An Act to amend the Criminal Code, S.C. 1938, c. 44, s. 6, R.B.A., vol. I, tab. 7 and An Act to amend the Criminal Code, S.C. 1943, c. 23, s. 4, R.B.A. vol. I, tab 8. Criminal Code, 1892, S.C. 1892, c. 29, s. 105-106, 116, R.B.A., vol. I, tab 1; An Act to amend the Criminal Code, 1913, S.C. 1913, c. 13, s. 4, R.B.A., vol. I, tab 2; An Act to amend the Criminal Code, S.C. 1920, c. 43, s. 2, R.B.A., vol. I, tab 3; An Act to amend the Criminal Code, S.C. 1921, c. 25, s. 2, R.B.A., vol. I, tab. 4; An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offensive weapons), S.C. 1932-1933, c. 25, s. 1-3, R.B.A., vol. I, tab 5; An Act to amend the Criminal Code, S.C. 1934, c. 47, supra note 1, s. 2-6, 8-9, R.B.A., vol. I, tab 7; An Act to amend the Criminal Code, S.C. 1943, c. 23, supra note 1, s. 4, R.B.A., vol. I, tab 8. Order in Council, P.C. 3506 (1940), 74 Gaz. Can. 353, 353-354, July 29, 1040, R.B.A., vol. I, tab 9; Order in Council, P.C. 4086 (1940), 74 Gaz. Can. 664, August 21, 1940, R.B.A., vol. I, tab 10; see, more generally, R. Blake Brown, Arming and Disarming – A History of Gun Control in Canada, University of Toronto Press, 2012, p. 154, R.B.A., vol. III, tab 69.

-4Respondents’ Factum

Facts

for handguns and automatic rifles. 4 The personal information related to those who possessed rifles and shotguns was destroyed. 5 10.

In 1951, the registration of handguns was centralized for the first time 6 and placed under the authority of the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

11.

In 1968, Parliament established a system of firearm classification and defined the terms “firearm”, “restricted weapon” (hand guns and automatic rifles) and “prohibited weapon”. Registration of restricted weapons was maintained. 7

12.

The Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police remained responsible for the registration process. 8 Upon reception of an application to register a restricted weapon, the local firearms registrar, a person appointed by the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the attorney general 9 issued a transport permit for the examination of a firearm. If he was satisfied that the serial number of the firearm constituted sufficient information, or if the firearm was an antique, the local registrar gave the information to the Commissioner who issued the registration certificate 10 unless he was of the view that the safety of any person was at risk. The Commissioner kept a record of the certificate in his registry. 11

13.

In 1977, Parliament once again amended the Criminal Code. Parliament maintained: (1) the obligation to register restricted firearms with the Commissioner of the Royal

4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Order in Council amending the Defense of Canada Regulations (Consolidation) 1942, P.C. 1055, February 20, 1945, R.B.A., vol. I, tab 11; Automatic Firearms Regulations, 1946, P.C. 4885, July 10, 1945, R.B.A., vol. I, tab 12. BROWN, supra note 3, p. 154, R.B.A., vol. III, tab 70. Rapport final approuvé, février 2010, Service d’évaluation du programme national GRC, exhibit PGQ-9, J.R. vol. IX, p. 15 Criminal Code, S.C. 1953-1954, c. 31, s. 82, as amended by Criminal Law Amendment Act, 196869, S.C. 1968-69, c. 38, s. 6, R.B.A., vol. I, tab 13. Id. Id. Ibid, paras. 98(1) to (4) and 98A(4). Ibid, para. 98(1).

-5Respondents’ Factum

Facts

Canadian Mounted Police pursuant to a procedure similar to that instituted in 1968 12 and (2) the keeping of a registry of registration certificates. 13 Failure to hold a registration certificate for a restricted weapon became a criminal offense. 14 14.

Acquisition of a restricted weapon required an authorization 15 issued by the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the attorney general of a province or the chief provincial firearms officer, a position occupied by a person appointed in writing by the attorney general of a province. 16 Subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, the Solicitor General could enter into “agreements with the government of the provinces providing for payments by Canada to the provinces in respect of costs actually incurred” for the issuance of authorizations. 17

15.

The 1977 amendments also provided that regulations may be made “authorizing the destruction, at such times as are specified in the regulations, of such records and inventories designated in the regulations.” 18

2.

THE CANADIAN FIREARMS PROGRAM

16.

The Canadian Firearms Program (the “Program”) encompasses all federal administrative measures related to the control of firearms. 19 The Program is under the aegis of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Its objectives are to increase public safety, support law enforcement and to counter the criminal use of firearms by offering effective support to law enforcement officials. 20 The Program provides support and expertise on firearms to many organizations throughout Canada. It fulfills its mandate to increase public safety by

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s. 89, as amended by Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1977, S.C. 1976-77, c. 53, s. 3, R.B.A., vol. I, tab 14. Ibid, paras. 106.1(7) and s. 106.6. Ibid, para. 89(1). Ibid, s. 104. Ibid, para. 82(1). Ibid, s. 106.3. Ibid, s. 106.8h). Rapport final approuvé, supra note 6, J.R. vol. IX, p. 17. Gendarmerie royale du Canada, « Un Canada plus sécuritaire », exhibit PGQ-32, tab 10, J.R., vol. XII, p. 81.

-6Respondents’ Factum

Facts

promoting safe use of firearms and contributes to the enforcement of the law in preventing crimes linked with firearms and conducting investigations on such crimes. 21 17.

The Program cannot be reduced to the mere implementation of a computer program which allows mutual access, by the Registrar and the Chief Firearms Officer, to the different registries and records foreseen under the Firearms Act 22 (the “FA”).

3.

THE FIREARMS ACT

18.

In 1995, Parliament enacted the FA and amended the Criminal Code to impose rules governing, among other things, the possession, registration, transport, maintenance, storage, import and export of firearms, including long guns.

19.

The FA provided that all firearm owners must hold a licence and a registration certificate, under pain of criminal sanctions. 23 The FA allowed for issuance of an Order-in-Council providing an amnesty period in order, notably, to allow for the registration of firearms. An amnesty order was made in 2006 and renewed until 2015. 24

20.

The FA created the position of Commissioner of Firearms (a position given to the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police 25), who exercises the powers delegated to him or her by the Minister. Each year, the Commissioner provides the Minister with a report on the application of the FA. This report is tabled in Parliament. 26

21

22 23 24

25 26

« Un Canada plus sécuritaire », supra note 20, J.R., vol. XII, p. 80. See also Rapport final approuvé, supra note 6, J.R. vol. IX, pp. 18-19; Protocole d’entente Canada-Québec concernant l’entente financière visant la période de transition en vue de la mise en œuvre de la Loi sur les armes à feu et de ses règlements d’application, janvier 1999, exhibit PGQ-41, J.R., vol. XIII, p. 198. S.C. 1995, c. 39. FA, s. 4 et seq., part VII, pp. 66 et seq. and Criminal Code, paras. 91(1) and 92(1). FA, s. 139, part VII, p. 140, which has introduced s. 117.14 of the Criminal Code; Order Declaring an Amnesty Period (2006), P.C. 2006-395, SOR/2006-95, as amended by SOR/2007101, SOR/2008-147, SOR/2009-139, SOR/2010-104, SOR/2011-102, SOR/2013-96 and SOR/2014-0123, R.B.A., vol. I, tab 16. Rapport final approuvé, supra note 6, J.R. vol. IX, p. 17. FA, s. 93 and 94, part. VII, p. 106.

-7Respondents’ Factum 21.

Facts

The FA provides, in a distinct manner, that the Registrar is responsible for the issuance of registration certificates but that the chief firearms officer is responsible for issuing licences. 27

22.

Notwithstanding the challenges launched by several provinces, this Court has concluded that the FA falls within the jurisdiction of Parliament as to criminal law under section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867.28 3.1

THE REGISTAR OF FIREARMS AND THE CANADIAN FIREARMS REGISTRY

23.

The Registrar is a federal public servant 29 who has sole authority over the registration of firearms, including long guns. 30 Applications for registration of firearms must be made to the Registrar. 31 The Registrar issues registration certificates 32 and keeps a record in the Canadian Firearms Registry33 (the Registrar’s Registry, 34 “Registre canadien des armes à feu” in the French version of the FA). 35 Only the Registrar may destroy 36 or alter 37 the records in the Registrar’s Registry.

24.

Firearm owners who wish to modify their personal information contained in the Registrar’s Registry must apply to the Registrar. 38

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

38

Rapport final approuvé, supra note 6, J.R. vol. IX, pp. 21-22. Reference re Firearms Act (Can.), 2000 SCC 31, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783, R.B.A., vol. III, tab 60. FA, s. 82, part VII, p. 103. FA, s. 83, part VII, p. 103; Affidavit of Pierre Perron, April 5, 2012, paras. 3 and 22., vol. III, pp. 1 and 6. FA, s. 54, part VII, pp. 90-91. FA, s. 6, part VII, p. 68; Firearms Registration Certificates Regulations, SOR/98-201, R.B.A., vol. I, tab 17. FA, s. 83, part VII, p. 103. Identified in French as « RCAF » in the evidence (“CFR” in English). See also Firearms Record Regulations, SOR/98-213, s. 2, R.B.A., vol. I, tab 18. FA, s. 84, part VII, p. 103. Firearms Record Regulations, supra note 35, para. 7(1), R.B.A., vol. I, tab 18; Crossexamination of Isabelle Boudreault pursuant to section 404 of the Code of civil procedure, held on May 8, 2012 by Me Joyal, J.R., vol. IV, p. 66. Firearms Record Regulations, supra note 35, s. 7(5)a), R.B.A., vol. I, tab 18; Commissariat à la protection de la vie privée du Canada, Examen des pratiques relatives au traitement des renseignements personnels du Programme canadien des armes à feu – Rapport final, août 2001, PGQ-32, tab 1, J.R., vol. XI, p. 183.

-8Respondents’ Factum 25.

Facts

The Registrar issues licences to carriers, 39 and establishes and maintains firearms records in respect of peace officers and other public officers. 40 3.2

26.

THE CHIEF FIREARMS OFFICERS AND THEIR RECORDS

The FA provides for the designation of individuals as Chief Firearms Officers by either 41 the federal government or by provinces that choose to carry out this task, the costs of which are defrayed by Canada: 42 •

In five provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador) and in the three territories, the Federal Minister has appointed the Chief Firearm Officer. De facto, the Chief Firearms Officer is an employee of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. 43

•

Five other provinces (Ontario, Nova Scotia, Prince-Edward Island, New Brunswick and Quebec) have opted to appoint a Chief Firearms Officer for their territory, 44 the costs thereof being defrayed by the Federal government. 45

39 40 41 42

43

44

45

FA, para. 2(2.1), part VII, p. 66. FA, s. 85, part VII, p. 104 and Public Agent Firearms Regulations, SOR/98-203, R.B.A., vol. I, tab 19. FA, s. 2, definition of « Chief Firearms Officer », part VII, pp. 63-66. FA, s. 95a), part VII, p. 107. In the province of Quebec, see, for example, Accord financier Canada-Québec relatif à l’administration de la Loi sur les armes à feu, 1er avril 2004 au 31 mars 2006, exhibit PGQ-29, J.R. vol. XI, p. 116; Accord financier Canada-Québec relatif à l’administration de la Loi sur les armes à feu, 1er avril 2006 au 31 mars 2010, exhibit PGC-4, J.R., vol. VII, p. 1; affidavit de Pierre Perron, précité note 30, paras. 10-11, J.R., vol. III, pp. 3-4. In this regard, Isabelle Boudreault’s cross-examination, supra note 37, confirms that the tasks listed in the agreements are those under the responsibility of Chief Firearms Officer under the Act: J.R., vol. IV, pp. 14 to 27. Chief Firearms Officers for the province of British-Columbia, Manitoba and Alberta respectively cover Yukon, Nunavut and Northwest Territories: see affidavit of Pierre Perron, supra note 30, para. 12, J.R., vol. III, p. 4 and Examen des pratiques relatives au traitement des renseignements personnels du Programme canadien des armes à feu – Rapport final, supra note 38, J.R., vol. XI, p. 174. Affidavit of Pierre Perron, supra note 30, para. 10, J.R., vol. III, pp. 3-4. In the province of Quebec, see Délégation des attributions du ministre provincial au Contrôleur des armes à feu du 17 mars 2011 along with Désignation du contrôleur des armes à feu pour le Québec du 17 mars 2011, exhibit PGQ-31, J.R., vol. XI, pp. 160-161. FA, s. 95, part VII, pp. 106-107; Affidavit of Pierre Perron, supra note 30, para. 10, J.R., vol. III, pp. 3-4.

-9Respondents’ Factum 27.

Facts

The powers and duties of the Chief Firearms Officers, notably the issuance of licences for the possession and acquisition of firearms, 46 are provided exclusively in the FA, its regulations 47 and Part III of the Criminal Code. 48 Each Officer keeps records of these licences as distinct records (as opposed to “registres” in the French version of the FA) 49 that do not form part of the Registrar’s Registry. Section 7(2) of the Firearms Records Regulations provides that each officer may amend only the records that he keeps; he cannot amend the records kept by other officers or in the Registrar’s Registry. 50 Accordingly, officers may only destroy records for which they are responsible. 51

28.

Licence holders who wish to modify their personal information contained in the records maintained by a Chief Firearms Officer must apply to him or her. 52

29.

Chief Firearms Officers have no function or responsibility as to the registration of firearms or the issuance of registration certificates for firearms. 53

46 47

48 49 50

51 52 53

FA, para. 56(1), part VII, p. 91. See, for example, Firearms Licenses Regulations, SOR/98-199, s. 2, 4-5, 8.4, 15, paras. 16(1), 19(1), 26, R.B.A., vol. I, tab 20; Firearms Record Regulations, supra note 35, s. 3, 5, para. 7(2), R.B.A., vol. I, tab 18; Public Agents Firearms Regulations, supra note 40, s. 1 (“Public Agent”), s. 3, para. 15(1), R.B.A., vol. I, tab 19; Aboriginal Peoples of Canada Adaptations Regulations (Firearms), SOR/98-205, s. 7-10, 12-13, 15-16, R.B.A., vol. I, tab 21; Authorizations to Carry Restricted Firearms and Certain Handguns Regulations, SOR/98-207, s. a, 6-9, R.B.A., vol. I, tab 22; Authorizations to Transport Restricted Firearms and Prohibited Firearms Regulations, SOR/98-206, s. 1.1, 4-6, R.B.A., vol. I, tab 23; Shooting Clubs and Shooting Ranges Regulations, SOR/98-212, s. 9-10, 12-13, paras. 14(3), 15(1), R.B.A., vol. I, tab 24; Conditions and Transferring Firearms and Other Weapons Regulations, SOR/98-202, s. 4, R.B.A., vol. II, tab 25; Storage, Display, Transportation and Handling of Firearms by Businesses Regulations, SOR/98-210, paras. 5(2), 6(2), s. 8b), 9(1)e), (2)b), 10(2)b), R.B.A., vol. II, tab 26; Special Authority to Possess Regulations (Firearms Act), SOR/98-208, s. 3c), 8b), 9d), s. 13-15, R.B.A., vol. II, tab 27. Délégation des attributions du ministre provincial au contrôleur des armes à feu, 17 mars 2011, supra note 44, J.R., vol. XI, p. 160. FA, para. 87(1), part VII, pp. 104-105; see also Firearms Record Regulations, supra note 35, s. 3, R.B.A., vol. I, tab 18. Firearms Record Regulations, supra note 35, para. 7(2), R.B.A., vol. I, tab 18; Crossexamination pursuant to section 404 of the Code of civil procedure of Pierre Perron, held on May 1st, 2012 by Me Dufour, J.R., vol. III, p. 102; Cross-examination of Isabelle Boudreault, supra note 37, J.R., vol. IV, p. 137; Reexamination pursuant to section 404 of the Code of civil procedure of Isabelle Boudreault, held on May 8, 2012 by Me Joyal, J.R., vol. IV, p. 157. FA, s. 87(2), part VII, p. 105. Firearms Record Regulations, supra note 35, s. 7(5)b), R.B.A., vol. I, tab 18. Firearms Registration Certificates Regulations, SOR/98-201, R.B.A., vol. I, tab 17.

- 10 Respondents’ Factum 3.3

Facts

MUTUAL ACCESS TO THE REGISTRAR’S REGISTRY AND THE CHIEF FIREARMS OFFICERS’ RECORDS

30.

In order to allow mutual access to the various records, the Registrar and the ten Chief Firearms Officers have a right of access to the Registrar’s Registry and all of the Chief Firearms Officers’ records. 54

31.

This mutual access for the Registrar and the Chief Firearms Officers is implemented by means of the Canadian Firearms Information System (the “Computer System” 55), a computer system created, managed and paid for by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. 56 The Computer System is not the Registrar’s Registry. It is, indeed, not a registry. 57 The Computer System does not allow for the amendment of information by someone who is not in control of a given record. 58

54 55 56

57 58

FA, s. 90, part VII, p. 105. Also identified in French as “SCIRAF” in the evidence (“CFIS” in English). Affidavit of Pierre Perron, supra note 30, paras. 2, 34, 35, 38, J.R., vol. III, pp. 2, 10-11; Documents de la GRC expliquant le SCIRAF, exhibit PGC-7, J.R., vol. VII, p. 66; Examen des pratiques relatives au traitement des renseignements personnels, supra note 38, J.R., vol. XI, pp. 176-177; Accord financier Canada-Québec, 1er avril 2004 au 31 mars 2006, supra note 42, J.R., vol. XI, pp. 119, 127; Accord financier Canada-Québec, 1er avril 2006 au 31 mars 2010, supra note 42, J.R., vol. VII, p. 5. See, for example, Affidavit of Isabelle Boudreau dated March 8, 2012, par, 45-46, J.R., vol. III, p. 144. Cross-examination of Pierre Perron, supra note 50, J.R., vol. III, p. 102; Cross-examination of Isabelle Boudreault, supra note 37, J.R., vol. IV, pp. 66, 137; Reexamination of Isabelle Boudreault, supra note 50, J.R., vol. IV, p. 157.

- 11 Respondents’ Factum 32.

Facts

The Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC), which is part of the RCMP’s national network of police services, is a national computerized system that allows sharing of information collected by over 900 organizations responsible for law enforcement and by federal and provincial departments. It is also linked with international organizations such as the FBI and Interpol. 59 CPIC provides access to the Computer System through a platform, the Canadian Firearms Registry Online (CFRO), not to be confused with the Registrar’s Registry. 60

33.

The Computer System, CPIC and CFRO are nothing more than platforms that provide access to the Registrar’s Registry. They have not been implemented to confer rights over the firearm registration records to anyone, or to alter the distinct legal status of the Registrar and the Chief Firearms Officers. 61 3.4

34.

THE CANADA-QUEBEC FINANCING AGREEMENTS

Section 95 of the FA provides for the entry into agreements “providing for the payment of compensation by Canada to the provinces in respect of administrative costs actually incurred by the provinces” as to expenses incurred by a province when it agrees to designate a Chief Firearms Officer. 62

59

60 61 62

Examen des pratiques relatives au traitement des renseignements personnels du Programme canadien des armes à feu, supra note 38, J.R., vol. XI, pp. 177-178; Affidavit of Denis St-Pierre, April 5, 2012, J.R., vol. III, pp. 137 et seq. Examen des pratiques relatives au traitement des renseignements personnels du Programme canadien des armes à feu, supra note 38, J.R., vol. XI, p. 177. See, for example, Affidavit of Isabelle Boudreault, supra note 57, paras. 45-46, J.R., vol. III, p. 144. Accord financier Canada-Québec, 1er avril 2006 au 31 mars 2010, supra note 42, J.R., vol. VII, p. 1; Accord financier Canada-Québec, 1er avril 2004 au 31 mars 2006, supra note 42, J.R. vol. XI, p. 116. See also Accord financier entre le gouvernement du Québec et le gouvernement du Canada relatif aux armes à feu, 24 février et 4 mars 1997, exhibit PGQ-32, tab 2, J.R., vol. XII, p. 35; Accord financier entre le gouvernement du Québec et le gouvernement du Canada sur le financement des dépenses actuelles relatives aux armes à feu, 12 et 15 janvier 1999, exhibit PGQ-32, tab 3, J.R., vol. XII, p. 44; Protocole d’entente Canada-Québec, janvier 1999, supra note 21, J.R., vol. XIII, p. 196.

- 12 Respondents’ Factum 35.

Facts

The Agreements signed with Quebec describe the functions of the Chief Firearms Officer as set forth in the FA and its regulations. 63 These Agreements make no provision as to the functions that a Chief Firearms Officer may assume under the laws of Quebec. 64

36.

The information exchanged between Canada and Quebec in these Agreements is of a financial nature, 65 i.e. the salary, fees, benefits, and administrative fees of the Chief Firearms Officer and his office personnel, the expenses for his office, office furniture and equipment, the other business costs of the office or that of his personnel, or costs incurred following agreements made with third parties mandated to complete some firearm control functions in the name of the Chief Firearms Officer. 66 This information is covered “by the rights and protection provided in the federal and Quebec legislation relative to access to information and the protection of personal information.” 67

37.

The Agreements provide that the parties will reciprocally advise each other prior to the disclosure of any financial information obtained through the Agreements. 68

63

64 65

66 67

68

Accord financier Canada-Québec, 1er avril 2006 au 31 mars 2010, supra note 42, annex A, J.R., vol. VII, p. 14; Accord financier Canada-Québec, 1er avril 2004 au 31 mars 2006, supra note 42, annex A, J.R., vol. XI, p. 125; Cross-examination of Isabelle Boudreault, supra note 37, J.R., vol. IV, pp. 14 to 27. See also Cross-examination of Isabelle Boudreault, supra note 37, J.R., vol. IV, p. 25. In this regard, see Accord financier Canada-Québec, 1er avril 2004 au 31 mars 2006, supra note 42, paras. 9, 11(1), 11(2), 12(4) and annex C, J.R., vol. XI, pp. 120-121, 131; Accord financier Canada-Québec, 1er avril 2006 au 31 mars 2010, supra note 42, paras. 17(1), 19(2), 22(4) and annex C, J.R., vol. VII, ,pp. 7 to 9, 34. See also Protocole d’entente Canada-Québec, janvier 1999, supra note 21, paras. 11, 12(1), 19(1), 19(2), 19(5), 20, 22, 23, J.R., vol. XIII, pp. 200 to 202. Rapport final approuvé, supra note 6, J.R., vol. IX, p. 181. Accord financier Canada-Québec, 1er avril 2004 au 31 mars 2006, supra note 42, para. 13, J.R., vol. XI, p. 121. See also Accord financier Canada-Québec, 1er avril 2006 au 31 mars 2010, supra note 42, para. 23, J.R., vol. VII, p. 9. Accord financier Canada-Québec, 1er avril 2004 au 31 mars 2006, supra note 42, para. 14, J.R., vol. XI, p. 121; Accord financier Canada-Québec, 1er avril 2006 au 31 mars 2010, supra note 42, para. 24, J.R., vol. VII, p. 9. See also Protocole d’entente Canada-Québec, janvier 1999, supra note 21, para. 24, J.R., vol. XIII, p. 202.

- 13 Respondents’ Factum 38.

Facts

These financial Agreements have nothing to do with the operation of the Registrar’s Registry. 69 Neither the purpose nor the effect of these Agreements is to transform the Registrar’s Registry into a common endeavor. 3.5

CONCLUSION: THE REGISTRATION RECORDS ARE UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE REGISTRAR

39.

The FA and the evidence show that it is solely the Registrar who controls the registration records. The designation of Chief Firearms Officers, the ability to access various records, the existence of the financial Agreements and the notices relating to the protection of personal information have no bearing on the legal structure applicable to the registration records and do not give Quebec a right to obtain the transfer of these records.

4.

THE ENDING THE LONG-GUN REGISTRY ACT

40.

Upon deciding that the registration of long guns was not useful or effective and constituted an unjustified intrusion in the private lives of Canadians who are legitimate long-gun owners, Parliament chose to terminate registration of long guns. [Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC)] “We repeated time and again that the long gun registry was wasteful. It was ineffective. It did nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Yet still the parties that now form the opposition stood against us and against the law-abiding Canadians for whom we were standing.” 70

41.

The Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act 71 amends the FA and the Criminal Code 72 and removes the requirement to register long guns and transfers of long guns, and repeals the

69

70 71 72

Accord financier Canada-Québec, 1er avril 2006 au 31 mars 2010, supra note 42, annex A, J.R., vol. VII, p. 14; Accord financier Canada-Québec, 1er avril 2004 au 31 mars 2006, supra note 42, annex A, J.R., vol. XI, p. 125; Cross-examination of Isabelle Boudreault, supra note 37, J.R., vol. IV, pp. 14 to 27. Compte rendu officiel (Hansard), Journal des débats parlementaires, Chambre des communes, 26 octobre 2011, PGQ-58, J.R., vol. XVII, p. 68. S.C. 2012, c. 6. An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act, s. 9-28, part VII, pp. 47 to 51.

- 14 Respondents’ Factum

Facts

criminal sanctions for not possessing a registration certificate for a long gun. 73 The Registrar can no longer issue a registration certificate for a long gun. 74 42.

Parliament has kept in place the obligation to obtain a licence for all categories of firearms, including long guns. 75

43.

Section 29 of the Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act provides for the destruction “as soon as feasible” of all records and registration certificates concerning long guns. The effect of section 29(3) is to abridge the delay and the procedure for the elimination, conservation or removal of personal information relative to long-gun owners in the Registrar’s Registry:

73 74 75

29. (1) Le commissaire aux armes à feu veille à ce que, dès que possible, tous les registres et fichiers relatifs à l’enregistrement des armes à feu autres que les armes à feu prohibées ou les armes à feu à autorisation restreinte qui se trouvent dans le Registre canadien des armes à feu, ainsi que toute copie de ceux-ci qui relève de lui soient détruits.

29. (1) The Commissioner of Firearms shall ensure the destruction as soon as feasible of all records in the Canadian Firearms Registry related to the registration of firearms that are neither prohibited firearms nor restricted firearms and all copies of those records under the Commissioner’s control.

(2) Chaque contrôleur des armes à feu veille à ce que, dès que possible, tous les registres et fichiers relatifs à l’enregistrement des armes à feu autres que les armes à feu prohibées ou les armes à feu à autorisation restreinte qui relèvent de lui, ainsi que toute copie de ceux-ci qui relève de lui soient détruits.

(2) Each chief firearms officer shall ensure the destruction as soon as feasible of all records under their control related to the registration of firearms that are neither prohibited firearms nor restricted firearms and all copies of those records under their control.

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act, s. 2-8, amending, inter alia, paras. 91(1) and 92(1) Cr.C., part VII, pp. 43 to 46. An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act, s. 10, part VII, p. 47. FA, s. 5-9, 11-12, part VII, pp. 67-73; Chambre des communes, Comité permanent de la sécurité publique et nationale, 41e législature, 1re session, no 11, 15 novembre 2011, testimony of the honorable Vic Toews, minister of Public safety, exhibit PGQ-62, J.R., vol. XVIII, p. 180.

- 15 Respondents’ Factum (3) Les articles 12 et 13 de la Loi sur la Bibliothèque et les Archives du Canada et les paragraphes 6(1) et (3) de la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels ne s’appliquent pas relativement à la destruction des registres, fichiers et copies mentionnés aux paragraphes (1) et (2). 44.

Facts (3) Sections 12 and 13 of the Library and Archives of Canada Act and subsections 6(1) and (3) of the Privacy Act do not apply with respect to the destruction of the records and copies referred to in subsections (1) and (2).

The long-gun registration records held in the provinces and territories other than Quebec were destroyed in October 2012. 76 Given the orders issued by the Superior Court of Quebec and this Court, 77 the registration records relative to Quebec have been preserved and the Registrar has continued to register transfers of long guns reported to him by residents of Quebec.

5.

QUEBEC SEEKS THE TRANSFER OF THE LONG-GUN REGISTRATION RECORDS

45.

Quebec indicated that it opposed the elimination of the requirement to register long guns. 78 In his appearance before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, the Quebec Minister for Public Security requested that the long-gun registry be

76 77

78

Chief Justice’s reasons for judgment, June 27, 2013, p. 9, J.R., vol. I, p. 46. Judgment of the Superior Court (Declaration of Constitutional Invalidity) (Blanchard, J.S.C.), September 10, 2012, J.R., vol. I, p. 1; Transcripts of the reasons for judgment rendered from the bench on April 5, 2012 (Safeguard Measures) (De Granpré, J.S.C.), J.R., vol. I, p. 128; Judgment (Safeguard Measures) (Blanchard, J.S.C.), April 13, 2012, J.R., vol. I, p. 133; Judgment (Interlocutory Injunction) (Blanchard, J.S.C.), April 20, 2012, J.R., vol. I, p. 137; Judgment noted in the Minutes (Blanchard, J.S.C.), June 13, 2012, J.R., vol. II, p. 64; Decision from this Court on the Application for leave to appeal and the Motion for a stay of execution, November 21, 2013. Résolution de l’Assemblée nationale du Québec du 27 octobre 2011, exhibit PGQ-21, J.R., vol. X, p. 112; Résolution de l’Assemblée nationale du Québec du 2 novembre 2011, exhibit PGQ-21, J.R., vol. X, p. 111; Comparution du 17 novembre 2011 du ministre de la Sécurité publique du Québec devant le Comité permanent de la sécurité publique et nationale, exhibit PGQ-23, J.R., vol. X, pp. 139 et seq; Lettre du 2 décembre 2011 du ministre de la Sécurité publique du Québec au ministre de la Sécurité publique du Canada, exhibit PGQ-24, J.R., vol. X, p. 160; Motion de l’Assemblée nationale du Québec du 6 décembre 2012, exhibit PGQ-21, J.R., vol. X, p. 113.

- 16 Respondents’ Factum

Facts

maintained or, in the alternative, that Bill C-19 be amended in order to remove section 29 of the Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act. 79 46.

In essence, Quebec is invoking financial considerations and difficulties in updating an eventual provincial registry80 as the grounds for seeking the transfer of the registration records: We thought just the opposite after Mr. Paradis’ answer to Mr. Blaney—I quoted it earlier. He said that, if we wanted to set up our own registry, we could, but it would have no criminal bearing because we have no criminal jurisdiction. He said that a registry would be our business and we would have to pay for it. We agreed to that. However, how can we re-establish a registry if the data is destroyed? How much will we have to pay for a registry we have already paid for? I have to point out that we have already paid for it. Quebeckers also participate in the Canadian federation through their taxes. They have already made their contribution. Why would this data be destroyed? 81

47.

Quebec argued, before the Superior Court, that it wanted to create its own long-gun registry “as it sees fit” [«comme il l’entend»], 82 that is to say by starting with the longgun registration records compiled by the Registrar.

48.

Quebec does not challenge the abolition of the long-gun registry or the end of the obligation to register long guns. It sought that the Superior Court: a) declare that the jurisdiction in matters of criminal law (Constitution Act, 1867, section 91(27)) does not allow for the destruction, as soon as feasible, of the long-gun registration records without first making these records available to provinces that wanted to establish their own

79 80 81 82

Comparution du 17 novembre 2011, supra note 78, J.R., vol. X, p. 141. Appellant’s Factum, paras. 21, 60, 101, 109 to 115. Comparution du 17 novembre 2011, supra note 78, J.R., vol. X, p. 149. Appellant’s Factum, paras. 17 and 122.

- 17 Respondents’ Factum

Facts

registry; and b) order the Attorney General of Canada to transfer the long-gun registration records. 83 49.

Quebec has filed no document showing that it had developed an implementation plan for establishing a provincial registry with a supporting informatics system, 84 or that it had assessed the costs involved. 85

50.

On February 19, 2013, the Quebec Minister for Public Security introduced Bill 20 in the Quebec National Assembly, the Firearms Registration Act. 86 The Bill provided at section 29 that a registration certificate issued under the FA is deemed to be a registration certificate issued under and in accordance with this Act. Section 30 further provided that the registration number established by the Registrar is deemed to be the firearm’s registration number. The Bill did not get further than the introduction stage and died on the order paper following the dissolution of the National Assembly in March 2014.

6.

THE JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF QUEBEC

51.

The Superior Court of Quebec granted the motion filed by Quebec and declared section 29 to be of no force and effect. The Court found, notably, that: (1) section 29 of the Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act is not within the jurisdiction of Parliament in matters of criminal law 87 as its true purpose is to preclude Quebec 88 from creating, as it wishes, 89 a long-gun registry from the registration records, (2) section 29 substantially

83 84

85

86 87 88 89

Requête introductive d’instance en jugement déclaratoire, injonction permanente, injonction interlocutoire provisoire et ordonnances de sauvegarde, para. 276, J.R., vol. I, pp. 122 et seq. Rapport sommaire d’Imed Masmoudi, May 30, 2012, p. 5, J.R., vol. V, p. 65; Cross-examination pursuant to section 404 of the Code of civil procedure of Imed Masmoudi, held on June 1st, 2012, by Me Guimond, J.R., vol. VI, pp. 1 to 6. Affidavit of Isabelle Boudreault, supra note 57, paras. 67 to 69, J.R., vol. III, pp. 146-147; Crossexamination of Isabelle Boudreault, supra note 37, J.R., vol. IV, pp. 98-99; Rapport sommaire, supra note 84, p. 5, J.R., vol. V, p. 65; Cross-examination of Imed Masmoudi, supra note 84, J.R., vol. VI, pp. 1 to 6 A.B.A., vol. V, tab 86 Judgment of the Superior Court, supra note 77, paras. 116, 119, 136-139, J.R., vol. I, pp. 27-28, 21-32. Id., para. 116, J.R., vol. I, pp. 27-28. Id., para. 40, J.R., vol. I, p. 8.

- 18 Respondents’ Factum

Facts

intrudes into the jurisdiction of Quebec in matters of property and civil rights 90 and (3) Parliament’s objective is contrary to the principle of cooperative federalism. 91 52.

The Superior Court also declared that Quebec had the right to receive updated registration records and maintained the obligation to continue registering long guns in Quebec. 92

7.

THE JUDGEMENT OF THE QUEBEC COURT OF APPEAL

53.

The Quebec Court of Appeal (five judges) granted Canada’s appeal. The Court concluded that the proceeding initiated by Quebec was based on the merits of destroying the longgun registration records, a policy issue that is not within the purview of the courts. 93 It also found that Parliament could decide to no longer collect or preserve long-gun registration records, given that it considers them useless and ineffective and that their presence in the Registrar’s Registry is an unjustified intrusion on the privacy of Canadians. 94

54.

The Court of Appeal also concluded that the Superior Court committed a palpable and overriding error in its assessment of the evidence, 95 that it confused the Registrar’s Registry with the Chief Firearms Officers’ records, 96 the role of the Chief Firearms Officer, 97 whose activities are compensated by the Federal government, 98 and that of the Registrar. 99 The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that there existed a partnership that granted Quebec a right to obtain the registration records. 100 The Chief Firearms Officer, whose role is shaped by the FA and not by Quebec legislation, is only responsible for firearm licences and the related records; he plays no role in relation to the Registrar’s Registry, 101 regardless of the fact that he is designated by Quebec and also

90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101

Id., paras. 119-135, J.R., vol. I, pp. 28-31. Id., paras. 4, 144, 150, 192, J.R., vol. I, pp. 2, 32-33, 40-41. Id., paras. 192, 195, 197, J.R., vol. I, pp. 40-42. Chief Justice’s reasons for Judgment, supra note 74, para. 35, J.R., vol. I, p. 52. Id., para. 55, J.R., vol. I, p. 57. Id., para. 33, J.R., vol. I, p. 52. Id., paras. 15, 28, J.R., vol. I, pp. 48, 51. Id., paras. 29, 57 to 59, J.R., vol. I, pp. 51, 58. Id., paras. 60 to 62, J.R., vol. I, pp. 58-59. Id., para. 28, J.R., vol. I, p. 51. Id., paras. 32, 56 to 63, J.R., vol. I, pp. 51, 57-59. Id., paras. 29, 32, 56, 57, J.R., vol. I, pp. 51-52, 57-58.

- 19 Respondents’ Factum

Facts

happens to belong to the Sûreté du Québec. 102 From their registration to their destruction, the registration records are under the sole and exclusive responsibility of the Registrar,103 the Chief Firearms Officer only having access to this information. 104 55.

Finding that the true purpose of section 29 of the Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act is simply to provide for the modalities of the destruction of the long-gun registration records, in the same way as section 84 of the FA, 105 the Court of Appeal determined that this provision could not encroach on provincial jurisdiction any more than the FA had been doing. 106

56.

The Court of Appeal concluded that cooperative federalism does not force Canada to transfer the registration records to Quebec prior to their destruction. 107 This would be tantamount to shifting the constitutional boundary lines on which the division of powers rests. 108 ----------

102 103 104 105 106 107 108

Id., paras. 58-59, J.R., vol. I, p. 58. Id., para. 55, J.R., vol. I, p. 57. Id., paras. 19, 27, 29, 56, J.R., vol. I, pp. 49, 51, 58. Id., paras. 46-47, J.R., vol. I, pp. 54-55. Id., para. 49, J.R., vol. I, p. 55. Id., paras. 52-54, J.R., vol. I, pp. 56-57. Reference re Securities Act, 2011 SCC 66, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 837, para. 62, R.B.A., vol. III, tab 61, referred to in Chief Justice’s reasons for Judgment, supra note 74, para. 53, J.R., vol. I, p. 57.

- 20 Respondents’ Factum

Questions in Issue PART II – QUESTIONS IN ISSUE

57.

The Honorable Chief Justice set forth the following constitutional question: L’article 29 de la Loi sur l’abolition du registre des armes d’épaule, L.C. 2012, ch. 6, outrepasse-t-il les pouvoirs du Parlement en matière de droit criminel que lui confère le par. 91(27) de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867?

58.

The answer is no.

59.

In addition, the following question also arises:

Is s. 29 of the Ending the Longgun Registry Act, S.C. 2012, c. 6, ultra vires Parliament having regard to its criminal law power under s. 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867?

Is Canada required to transfer to Quebec the long-gun registration records that have not been destroyed from the Registrar’s Registry? 60.

The answer is no. ----------

- 21 Respondents’ Factum

Arguments PART III – ARGUMENTS

1.

ONLY THE REGISTRAR HAS CONTROL OVER THE REGISTRATION RECORDS

61.

Quebec is mistaken as to the content of the Program, 109 confuses the Registrar’s Registry with the Chief Firearms Officers’ records, 110 erroneously alleges that it participated in the Registrar’s Registry111 and errs as to the scope of the financial Agreements concluded to compensate Quebec for the administrative expenses incurred in relation to the tasks of the Chief Firearms Officer. 112 Properly considered, the FA and the extrinsic evidence do not substantiate Quebec’s position that (1) the registration of long guns flows from a “partnership”, 113 (2) is a “common endeavor” 114 and (3) the records governed by the FA are transformed into “common” records by the simple fact that section 90 of the FA provides that the Chief Firearms Officer has a right of access to them. 115

62.

The Court of Appeal did not err in correcting the factual findings of the Superior Court on these issues: 116 [16] With respect, and despite the thoughtfulness of the trial judge’s opinion, it appears from his judgment that there was some confusion regarding the various components of the registry established under the FA. Some of the facts should therefore be restated before proceeding with the analysis of the issues raised by the appeal. [29] The trial judge’s finding that Quebec contributed to the CFR and that the CFR was the fruit of a partnership between the provinces and the federal government is erroneous in light of both the facts and the FA. The participation of the Quebec Chief Firearms Officer is limited to compiling the information she collects with regard to licences for the purpose of the [record] for which she is responsible.

109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116

Appellant’s Factum, paras. 2 to 4, 9, 13, 14, 31, 34. Id., paras. 8, 9, 10, 13, 31. Id., paras. 10, 13, 29, 41, 49. Id., paras. 29 to 31, 34, 35, 39, 46 to 48. Id., paras. 13, 29 to 41. Id., paras. 13, 41. In this regard, see, inter alia, Cross-examination of Isabelle Boudreault, supra note 37, J.R., vol. IV, pp. 118-119, 136. Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, paras. 10-18, R.B.A., vol. II, tab 51.

- 22 Respondents’ Factum

Arguments

She does not contribute to the CFR, but has access to it through the [Computer] System. 117 63.

The Registrar is solely responsible for the registration of long guns. 118 The personal information of Canadians long guns owners that is collected in the Registrar’s Registry is under his sole control and supervision. 119 Quebec has no responsibility for registration records. 120 The ten records of the Chief Firearms Officers were implemented pursuant to the FA and they are distinct from the Registrar’s Registry. 121

64.

Notwithstanding that he is designated by Quebec, the Chief Firearms Officer derives his powers from the FA, its regulations and Part III of the Criminal Code. The fact that Quebec has chosen to grant powers not provided in the FA to the Chief Firearms Officer does not change him or her into a provincial institution and does not give Quebec the right to receive the long-gun registration records. 122

65.

Quebec confuses the Registrar’s Registry and the records of the Chief Firearms Officers when it states that it has “contributed in establishing and enriching” the registration records. 123 The Chief Firearms Officer cannot be assimilated with the Registrar. 124 The Chief Firearms Officer maintains records of firearm licences for which he is responsible under section 87 of the FA; his records are available through the Computer System. 125

117 118 119

120 121 122 123 124 125

Chief Justice’s reasons for Judgment, supra note 74, paras. 16, 29, J.R., vol. I, pp. 48, 51. FA, s. 83, part VII, p. 103; Affidavit of Pierre Perron, supra note 30, paras. 3 and 22, J.R., vol. III, pp. 1 and 6. FA, s. 84, part VII, p. 103; Firearms Records Regulations, supra note 35, paras. 7(1), 7(5)a), R.B.A., vol. I, tab 18; Cross-examination of Isabelle Boudreault, supra note 37, J.R. vol. IV, p. 66. Firearms Registration Certificates Regulations, supra note 32, R.B.A., vol. I, tab 17. FA, para. 87(1), part VII, pp. 104-105; See also Firearms Records Regulations, supra note 35, s. 3, R.B.A., vol. I, tab 18. Chief Justice’s reasons for Judgment, supra note 74, paras. 58-59, J.R., vol. I, p. 58. Appellant’s Factum, para. 13. Chief Justice’s reasons for Judgment, supra note 74, paras. 18, 27, J.R., vol. I, pp. 48, 51. Affidavit of Pierre Perron, supra note 30, paras. 2, 34, 35, 38, J.R., vol. III, pp. 2, 10-11; Document de la GRC expliquant le SCIRAF, supra note 56, J.R., vol. VII, p. 66; Examen des pratiques relatives au traitement des renseignements personnels du Programme canadien des armes à feu, supra note 38, J.R. vol. XI, pp. 176-177; Accord financier Canada-Québec, 1er avril 2004 au 31 mars 2006, supra note 42, J.R., vol. XI, pp. 119, 127; Accord financier CanadaQuébec, 1er avril 2006 au 31 mars 2010, supra note 42, J.R., vol. VII, p. 5.

- 23 Respondents’ Factum

Arguments

Quebec does not “feed” the Registrar’s Registry. The Computer System is simply a computer platform that allows access to the Registrar’s Registry and the Chief Firearms Officers’ records. 66.

It is not because the Chief Firearms Officer designated by Quebec has access to the Registrar’s Registry pursuant to section 90 of the FA 126 that he has control over them, or that the Registrar’s Registry has become a “partnership” or a “common endeavor” or that Quebec has the right to obtain the long-gun registration records prior to their destruction. 127

67.

Quebec also confuses the Registrar’s Registry with the Computer System. For example, the financial Agreement 2004-2006 describes in a distinct manner the Registrar’s Registry and the Computer System. 128

68.

Parliament cannot have intended to give rights over the registration records to all the entities described as “partners” that have access to those records, such as the Canada Border Services Agency, federal and provincial corrections agencies, federal, provincial and municipal law enforcement agencies as well as foreign agencies such as the FBI and Interpol. 129

126 127 128

129

In this regard, see, inter alia, Cross-examination of Isabelle Boudreault, supra note 37, J.R., vol. IV, pp. 118-119, 136. See, for example, Criminal Records Act, RSC, 1985, c. C-47, s. 6, R.B.A., vol. II, tab 28. Accord financier Canada-Québec, 1er avril 2004 au 31 mars 2006, supra note 42, J.R., vol. XI, pp. 119 (definition of « Système canadien d’information relativement aux armes à feu), 127 (« Offrir un réseau de téléphonie national et un système automatisé national, le Système canadien d’information sur les armes à feu (SCIRAF) […] ») et 129 (« Garder à jour et exploiter le Registre canadien des armes à feu (RCAF) »). Examen des pratiques relatives au traitement des renseignements personnels du Programme canadien des armes à feu, supra note 38, J.R., vol. XI, pp. 170-175; Affidavit of Denis St-Pierre, supra note 59, J.R., vol. III, paras. 3, 8-9, pp. 137-138.

- 24 Respondents’ Factum 2.

Arguments

THE DESTRUCTION OF THE LONG-GUN REGISTRATION RECORDS IS WITHIN THE CRIMINAL LAW JURISDICTION OF PARLIAMENT

69.

The true purpose of the Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act is to put an end to the obligation to register long-guns and to cease the governmental intrusion in the private lives of Canadian firearm owners. Canadian firearm owners can rightly expect the registration records to be destroyed now given that, as was the case prior to coming into force of the FA in 1998, the obligation to register long guns no longer exists and the failure to register no longer constitutes a crime. Section 29 reflects this purpose by ordering the destruction of the registration records — and thus the personal information contained therein — as well as copies as soon as feasible.

70.

Section 29 does not intrude on the legislative powers of Quebec as it contains nothing that precludes Quebec from enacting legislation requiring the registration of long guns.

71.

Cooperative federalism does not supersede the text of section 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Court cannot, through the application of cooperative federalism, order Canada, by way of financial grants, in-kind subsidies or otherwise, to participate in the implementation of a Quebec long-gun registry.

72.

Section 29 is similar in nature to section 84 of the FA and falls within the jurisdiction of Parliament in criminal law matters, pursuant to section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867. 2.1

73.

METHOD OF ANALYSIS

In order to determine if section 29 falls within the jurisdiction of Parliament, one must identify the true object or purpose of section 29, i.e. its “pith and substance” or the “matter to which it essentially relates”. This generally results from an analysis of its purpose (the issue it addresses) and effects (its practical and legal consequences as

- 25 Respondents’ Factum

Arguments

opposed to the legislation’s efficiency), following which one can determine where the matter fits in the constitutional division of powers. 130 2.2

SECTION 29 IS PART OF THE ABOLITION OF THE REGISTRAR’S REGISTRY (LONG-GUNS) AND RESTORES THE PRIVACY RIGHTS OF LONG-GUN OWNERS

74.

Section 29 raises no difficulties of interpretation. It is not colourable legislation aimed at another purpose, unlike the legislation of Newfoundland in Reference re Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act. 131 It is part of the abolition of the long-gun registry and ends what Parliament has found to be an unjustified intrusion of the state in the privacy of Canadians who own long guns, including Quebec residents. It also restores them to the situation that existed prior to when they had to give their personal information to the Registrar. 132

75.

Given that the obligation to register long guns no longer exists and that the failure to register them no longer attracts criminal prosecution, Canadians who own long guns can rightly expect their personal information relating to long-gun registration to be destroyed.

76.

During second reading of Bill C-19, the Minister of Public Safety stated that the abolition of the registry logically implies the destruction of the long-gun registration certificates: [Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC)] “The bill would also provide for the destruction of records held by the Government of Canada relating to the registration of long guns and it would only make since. If we are getting rid of the registry, we get rid of the

130

131 132

Marine Services International Ltd. v. Ryan Estate, 2013 SCC 44, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 53, para. 48, R.B.A., vol. III, tab 53; Reference re Securities Act, supra note 108, paras. 63-66, R.B.A., vol. III, tab 61; Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta, 2007 SCC 22, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 3, paras. 2527, R.B.A., vol. II, tab 44; Reference re Firearms Act (Can.), supra note 28, para. 15, R.B.A., vol. III, tab 60; R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933, 998, R.B.A., vol. III, tab 58. [1984] 1 S.C.R. 297, R.B.A., vol. III, tab 63. See, inter alia, Compte rendu officiel (Hansard), Journal des débats parlementaires, Chambre des communes, 26 octobre 2011, exhibit PGQ-47, J.R., vol. XIV, pp. 175, 179.

- 26 Respondents’ Factum

Arguments

registry. The registry is comprised of information. We are getting rid of that registry.” 133 77.

The Minister indicated that this information should never have been collected in the Registrar’s Registry and that its destruction was the only way to respect the right to privacy of long-gun owners and place them in the situation that prevailed before 1998: [Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC)] “The reason for this being unacceptable is that it focuses on law-abiding Canadians who should not have been targeted. This information should never have been collected in the first place. To maintain the registry and the information is a complete violation of law and the principles of privacy that all of us in the House respect.” 134 “We have heard loud and clear from Canadians who own long guns that they want the long gun registry eliminated. They want to ensure that their private information is not distributed to others. That is what is proposed under Bill C-19.” 135

78.

The effect of section 29 is the same as that of section 84 of the FA, which allows the Registrar, subject to the Regulations, to destroy the records included in his registry. 136

79.

This measure is not new. Prior to enactment of the FA, the Criminal Code also provided that the Governor-in-Council could, by regulation, authorize the destruction of registry records. 137

80.

The Court of Appeal was correct in determining that Parliament is not preventing Quebec from implementing its own registry. 138 [Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC)] “The reason for this is the simple fact that we do not want to assist anyone to set up a back door registry. As we heard from the NDP members during

133 134 135 136 137 138

Idem. Idem. Id., p. 69. FA, s. 84, part VII, p. 103; Firearms Records Regulations, supra note 35, para. 4(1), R.B.A., vol. I, tab 18. Criminal Code, supra note 12, s. 106.8h). Chief Justice’s reasons for Judgment, supra note 74, para. 42, J.R., vol. I, p. 54.

- 27 Respondents’ Factum

Arguments

question period, they have clearly indicated that they will reimpose a long gun registry should they ever have the opportunity to enter into a coalition with the Liberals on that fact.” 139 81.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety have both recognized that Quebec has the authority to create its own long-gun registry: [Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC)] “Mr. Speaker, our platform commitment is clear. We do not support a long gun registry. Our position has been clear for a long time. The provinces have the right to pursue their own policies, but this government will not help them to maintain the registry through the back door.” 140 [Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC)] “That ledger could be compiled centrally, in a computer or whatever form, by a provincial government so they could in fact construct a long-gun registry, and that is exactly the fear we have with the maintenance of the ledger. We are saying this is essentially a matter of property and civil rights. If a province wants to do that, it is in their hands to do that.” 141

82.

The fact that the destruction of the registration records forces Quebec to implement a long-gun registry from information that it must gather itself in no way modifies the true object or purpose of section 29.

83.

Moreover, constitutional analysis discounts the fact that an Act of Parliament may have secondary or incidental effects on matters of provincial jurisdiction. 142

139

140 141

142

Compte rendu officiel (Hansard), 26 octobre 2011, supra note 132, p. 192. See also pp. 175, 179; compte rendu officiel (Hansard), Journal des débats parlementaires, Chambres des communes, 1er novembre 2011, exhibit PGQ-7, J.R., vol. VIII, p. 138. Compte rendu officiel (Hansard), Journal des débats parlementaires, Chambre des communes, 13 décembre 2011, exhibit PGQ-8, J.R., vol. IX, p. 2. Délibérations du Comité sénatorial permanent des affaires juridiques et constitutionnelles, 1re session, 41e législature, no 22, 21 juin 2012, J.R., vol. XXI, p. 137. See also Firearms Information Regulations (Non-restricted Firearms), SOR/2012-138, s. 2, R.B.A., vol. II, tab 29. Reference re Securities Act, supra note 108, para. 63, R.B.A., vol. III, tab 61; Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta, supra note 130, para. 28, R.B.A., vol. II, tab 44; Reference re Firearms Act (Can.), supra note 28, para. 49, R.B.A., vol. III, tab 60.

- 28 Respondents’ Factum 84.

Arguments

The effectiveness of the long-gun registry, 143 the existence of financial Agreements, 144 the purported “partnership”, 145 the warnings as to personal information included in a number of administrative forms 146 and the allegations by Quebec that implementation of an eventual long-gun registry would present financial difficulties 147 are not factors to consider in determining the constitutional validity of section 29: 18 […] Within its constitutional sphere, Parliament is the judge of whether a measure is likely to achieve its intended purposes; efficaciousness is not relevant to the Court’s division of powers analysis. […] 57 […] The only real effect of the law, it is suggested, is to burden law-abiding farmers and hunters with red tape. These concerns were properly directed to and considered by Parliament; they cannot affect the Court’s decision. The efficacy of a law, or lack thereof, is not relevant to Parliament’s ability to enact it under the division of powers analysis. […] The cost of the program, another criticism of the law, is equally irrelevant to our constitutional analysis. 148 2.3

SECTION 29 IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF PARLIAMENT IN CRIMINAL LAW MATTERS AND DOES NOT INTRUDE UPON THE LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF QUEBEC

85.

The registration of long guns imposed by the FA pursued objectives within the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament in matters of criminal law. 149 By designating a Chief Firearms Officer in accordance with the FA, Quebec agreed to carry out certain functions linked with this position. However, the FA did not create a joint program in which Quebec also plays a role through legislation that it enacts within the powers under its jurisdiction pursuant to the Constitution Act, 1867.

143 144 145 146 147 148

149

Appellant’s Factum, paras. 20 to 28, 60, 104, 111 to 115. Id., paras. 14, 30 to 39, 41, 46 to 48. Id., paras. 4, 5, 8, 13, 29 to 37. Id., paras. 14, 44 to 51. Id., paras. 109 to 114. Reference re Firearms Act (Can.), supra note 28, paras. 18 and 57, R.B.A., vol. III, tab 60. See also Reference re Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act, supra note 131, 334, R.B.A., vol. III, tab 63. Reference re Firearms Act (Can.), supra note 28, paras. 19-24, 33-35, 58, R.B.A., vol. III, tab 60.

- 29 Respondents’ Factum 86.

Arguments

Section 29 does not regulate the ownership or the use of long guns, nor does it intrude on the powers of Quebec in matters of health, public safety or the administration of justice. 150 Section 29 does not constitute an abusive use by Parliament of its jurisdiction in matters of criminal law. It creates no infractions or criteria that would prevent Quebec from implementing a long-gun registry.

87.

Quebec’s legislative power to enact a law establishing a long-gun registry has no relationship with the practical and financial obstacles that result from having to put in place a registry on the basis of personal information that it collects itself. 151 Quebec can require its residents to supply it with whatever information it deems useful to constitute a long-run registry. It has not seen fit to do so, since no follow-up was given to Bill 20. It prefers to wait for a favorable decision from the Courts rather than going ahead with such a legislative initiative. 152

88.

Quebec’s claim to obtain the long-gun registration records despite section 29 would impose upon Parliament a policy choice made by Quebec: The country is entitled to insist that legislation adopted under section 91 should be passed exclusively by the Parliament of Canada in the same way as the people of each Province are entitled to insist that legislation concerning the matters enumerated in section 92 should come exclusively from their respective Legislatures. 153 The Constitutional Act does not, as I read it, bear an interpretation inevitably leading to such anomalous consequences; the powers of the federal authority cannot, to such an extent, be dependent upon the consent and good-will of the provincial authorities. 154

150 151 152 153 154

Appellant’s Factum, paras. 4, 14, 17, 18, 28, 32, 34, 35, 68, 72, 122, 123. See, by analogy, A.G. (Can.) v. Can. Nat. Transportation, Ltd., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 206, 225, R.B.A., vol. II, tab 46. Communiqué de presse du ministre de la Sécurité publique, exhibit PGQ-19, J.R., vol. X, p. 48. Attorney General of Nova Scotia v. Attorney General of Canada, [1951] S.C.R. 31, 34, R.B.A., vol. II, tab 41. The Citizens’ and The Queen Ins. Cos. v. Parsons (1880), 4 S.C.R. 215, 314, R.B.A., vol. III, tab 68, repeated in Attorney General of Nova Scotia v. Attorney General of Canada, supra note 153, 41, R.B.A., vol. II, tab 41. See also pages 51, 54; A.G. (Can.) v. Can. Nat. Transportation, Ltd., supra note 151, 225, R.B.A., vol. II, tab 46.

- 30 Respondents’ Factum 89.

Arguments

Notwithstanding the impact (financial or other, direct or indirect) that might result from the repeal or amendment of a federal Act, Quebec cannot claim a right of veto over federal legislation; it must adjust itself to the legal framework that Parliament enacts within its fields of jurisdiction. 155 Quebec cannot demand to be consulted on such issues. 156 The reverse is also true, and the federal government cannot demand to be consulted on legislative measures enacted by Quebec in its fields of jurisdiction. 2.4

SECTION 29 HAS A RATIONAL AND FUNCTIONAL CONNECTION WITH THE ENDING THE LONG-GUN REGISTRY ACT

90.

The destruction as soon as feasible of the registration certificates has a rational and functional connection with Parliament’s objectives to end the long-gun registry and the unjustified intrusion of the state into the privacy of Canadian long-gun owners, including owners in Quebec, and to restore them to the situation that prevailed before they were obligated to transmit their personal information. 157

91.

According to the Privacy Commissioner, the destruction of personal information “seems to be consistent with one of the foundations for the protection of personal information whereby any personal information that is not used for the reason for which it was gathered must be destroyed”. 158 The destruction of registration records is consistent with the legislative practice of Parliament, 159 Quebec 160 and other provinces and territories. 161

155 156 157

158

159 160 161

Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan (B.C.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525, 566-567, R.B.A., vol. III, tab 64. Id., 557-559. Quebec (Attorney General) v. Lacombe, 2010 SCC 38, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 453, paras. 41-45, R.B.A., vol. III, tab 56; Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act, 2010 SCC 61, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 457, paras. 137-140, R.B.A., vol. III, tab 59; Kitkatla Band v. British Columbia (Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture), 2002 SCC 31, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 146, para. 58, R.B.A., vol. II, tab 43. Statement of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada [Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security] [Evidence], House of Commons, 22 November 2011, exhibit PGQ-64, J.R., vol. XIX, p. 33. R.B.A., vol. II, tab 40. See, inter alia, Privacy Regulations, SOR/83-508, s. 4, R.B.A., vol. II, tab 30. R.B.A., vol. II, tab 40. R.B.A., vol. II, tab 40.

- 31 Respondents’ Factum 92.

Arguments

Amendments made to the Criminal Code in 1977 provided that the Governor in Council could make regulations “authorizing the destruction, at such times as specified in the regulations, of such records and inventories that are required by the provisions (…) to be maintained as are designated in the regulations”, 162 as is provided at sections 84 and 87 of the FA.

93.

In Quebec, section 73 of the Act respecting Access to Documents held by Public Bodies and the Protection of Personal Information 163 provides that information must be destroyed “[when] the purposes for which personal information was collected or used has been achieved”. 164 The Guide en matière de protection des renseignements personnels dans le développement des systèmes d’information à l’intention des ministères et organismes publics is to the same effect. 165 This practice also applies to information gathered by non-governmental agencies in Quebec 166 and in other provinces. 167

94.

The destruction of personal information gathered within a legislative framework that is subsequently repealed is recognized by the OECD as a practice that is not only desirable but necessary. 168 The United States 169 as well as a number of American states 170 and other countries 171 have enacted similar laws targeting government or private enterprise.

162 163 164 165

166 167 168

169 170 171

Criminal Code, supra note 12, s. 106.8h), vol. I, tab 14. CQLR, c A-2.1. Our translation. Compared with section 6 of Privacy Act, S.R.C. 1985, ch. P-21, R.B.A., vol. II, tab 32. Guide en matière de protection des renseignements personnels dans le développement des systèmes d’information à l’intention des ministères et organismes publics, Commission d’accès à l’information, gouvernement du Québec, 2001, p. 14, point 10 : « Vous êtes tenus de détruire irréversiblement tout renseignement personnel lorsque l’objet pour lequel il a été recueilli est accompli », vol. III, tab 73. R.B.A., vol. II, tab 40. R.B.A., vol. II, tab 40. In this regard, see paragraph 54 of the comments on the Lignes directrices régissant la protection de la vie privée et les flux transfrontières de données de caractère personnel de l’OCDE, exhibit PGQ-33, J.R., vol. XII, p. 104. R.B.A., vol. II, tab 40. R.B.A., vol. II, tab 40. See, for example, Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, s. 28(3), R.B.A., vol. III, tab 72; State Records Act, 1997, s. 24, (South Australia), R.B.A., vol. II, tab 33; Privacy Act 1998, No. 119, 1988, annex 1, s. 11.2 (South Australia), R.B.A., vol. II, tab 34. See also Privacy Act, 1993, s. 6, principle 9 (NewZealand), R.B.A., vol. II, tab 35.

- 32 Respondents’ Factum 95.

Arguments

The destruction of records is an integral part of the abolition of the “long-gun” part of this registry. 172 It was implicit in the bills proposing to abolish the long-gun registry that died on the order paper: [Ms Candice Hoeppner (Portage – Lisgar, CPC)] “Bill C-391, my private member’s bill, did not explicitly contain a provision for destroying all of the data. Whenever I was asked if we were going to destroy the data, my answer was that we were ending the long-gun registry, of course we were going to end the data.” 173 [Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC)] “I don’t know how much clearer I can be. The suggestion--and I think it’s an artificial distinction without a difference--that somehow the registry is separate from the data... The registry is the data; without the data there is no registry. So when our government and our party made the very clear commitment that we would scrap the long-gun registry, that we would end it, implicit in that, indeed explicit, is that we would be destroying the information that’s been collected under the authority of that legislation. There’s simply no other answer to that.” 174 2.5

COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM DOES NOT ALTER THE DIVISION OF POWERS

96.

Since Reference re Secession of Quebec, this Court has not elevated cooperative federalism to a self-contained substantive rule giving rise to legally enforceable rights and obligations. 175 The interpretation of the division of legislative powers is limited to determining which level of government can enact legislation. 176

172

173 174 175

176

See, inter alia, similar legislation providing files destruction, Identification of Criminals Act, S.R.C. 1985, c. I-1, s. 4, R.B.A., vol. II, tab 36, Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1, s. 128, R.B.A., vol. II, tab 37, An Act Respecting the Sharing of Certain Health Information, CQLR c P-9.0001, s. 176, R.B.A., vol. II, tab 38. Comité permanent de la sécurité publique et nationale, 15 novembre 2011, supra note 75, J.R., vol. XVIII, p. 180. Id., J.R., vol. XVIII, p. 180. British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2005 SCC 49, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 473, para. 60, R.B.A., vol. II, tab 48; Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act, supra note 157, para. 182, R.B.A., vol. III, tab 59; Reference re Securities Act, supra note 108, paras. 54, 61, R.B.A., vol. III, tab 61. See also Quebec Court of Appeal’s Decision in Canada (Ministre de la Justice) v. Québec (Ministre de la Justice), [2003] R.J.Q. 1118 (C.A.), para. 80, R.B.A., vol. II, tab 45.

- 33 Respondents’ Factum 97.

Arguments

Federalism, just as any unwritten constitutional principle, can “not be taken as an invitation to dispense with the written text of the Constitution.”177

98.

Cooperative federalism does not dispense with the text of sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, 178 nor can it be allowed to “sweep designated powers out to sea, nor erode the constitutional balance inherent in the Canadian federal state.” 179 It is a more flexible and modern approach to the division of powers that promotes the doctrines of pith and substance, double aspect and federal paramountcy, 180 but the division of powers remains. 181

99.

Cooperative federalism cannot dictate the degree to which one order of government must collaborate with the other for the implementation of a legislative measure. 2.6

100.

CONCLUSION

Section 29, like the other provisions of the Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act that are not challenged by Quebec, must necessarily be encompassed by section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867: “A law may be validly enacted “in relation to” the criminal law, although the law itself does not have the characteristics of a criminal law. This would be true, for example, of a law which simply repealed a criminal law.” 182

177 178 179 180 181 182

Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217, para. 53, R.B.A., vol. III, tab 62. Reference re Securities Act, supra note 108, paras. 54, 61, R.B.A., vol. III, tab 61. Id., para. 62. Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta, supra note 130, para. 42, R.B.A., vol. II, tab 44. Chief Justice’s reasons for Judgment, supra note 74, para. 52, J.R., vol. I, p. 56. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, 5th ed., vol. 1, Toronto, Carswell, 2007, p. 555, R.B.A., vol. III, tab 70. See also R. v. Swain, supra note 130, 999, R.B.A., vol. III, tab 58.

- 34 Respondents’ Factum 101.

Arguments

The principle of parliamentary sovereignty183 allows Parliament to amend the FA and the Criminal Code and to order the destruction of personal information of Canadian long-gun owners.

102.

In order to be complete and effective, the power to amend or repeal legislation must necessarily allow Parliament, having abolished the obligation to register long-guns, to order the destruction of registration records that contain personal information that had been included in the Registrar’s Registry. 184

103.

Canada has always recognized that Quebec has the power to create, at its own costs, a long-gun registry. Section 29 of the Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act does not preclude Quebec from enacting legislation to that effect or collecting personal information from Quebec long-gun owners.

3.

QUEBEC HAS NO RIGHT TO OBTAIN THE TRANSFER OF THE REGISTRATION RECORDS

104.

The designation of a Chief Firearms Officer, the right to access the registration records, the financial Agreements as well as the notices concerning the protection of personal information fail to give Quebec a right over the records in the Registrar’s Registry. These registration records are undoubtedly in the control of the Registrar, and Quebec has no rights over them.

183

184

Canada (Auditor general) v. Canada (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 49, 103, R.B.A., vol. II, tab 47; Babcock v. Canada (Attorney General), 2002 SCC 57, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 3, para. 55, R.B.A., vol. II, tab 42; Singh v. Canada (Attorney General), [2000] 3 F.C. 185, paras. 17, 35 (C.A.), R.B.A., vol. III, tab 66. Interpretation Act, S.R.C., 1985, c. I-21, para. 42(1), R.B.A., vol. II, tab 39. See Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan (B.C.), supra note 155, 563-564, R.B.A., vol. III, tab 64; Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v. N.A.P.E., 2004 SCC 66, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 381, paras. 34-35, R.B.A., vol. III, tab 67; Ferrel v. Attorney General of Ontario, 1998 CanLII 6274 (C.A. Ont.), R.B.A., vol. II, tab 49.

- 35 Respondents’ Factum 3.1

Arguments

THE DESIGNATION OF A CHIEF FIREARMS OFFICER DOES NOT CREATE A RIGHT TO THE REGISTRATION RECORDS FOR QUEBEC

105.

Quebec cannot have any rights as to the registration records on the sole basis that it designated a Chief Firearms Officer responsible for the issuance of licences. Should it be otherwise, this mere designation would create an asymmetrical regime under which the right to obtain the registration records would depend on the choice of a province to designate or not to designate a Chief Firearms Officer. 3.2

THE CANADA-QUEBEC FINANCIAL AGREEMENTS GRANT NO RIGHT TO THE REGISTRATION RECORDS TO QUEBEC

106.

The Canada-Quebec financial Agreements provide simply for Quebec to be compensated for the administrative costs incurred as a result of the designation of a Chief Firearms Officer. 185 The financial Agreements have no other purpose. They do not concern the maintenance of the Registrar’s Registry by the Registrar 186 and they do not transform the Registrar’s Registry into a joint enterprise or a binding partnership.

107.

The financial Agreements provide that only information of an administrative and financial 187 nature such as the salaries granted to the personnel of the Chief Firearms

185

186

187

Accord financier Canada-Québec, 1er avril 2006 au 31 mars 2010, supra note 42, J.R., vol. VII, p. 1; Accord financier Canada-Québec, 1er avril 2004 au 31 mars 2006, supra note 42, J.R., vol. XI, p. 116. See also Accord financier, 24 février et 4 mars 1997, supra note 62, J.R. vol. XII, p. 35; Accord financier entre le gouvernement du Québec et le gouvernement du Canada sur le financement des dépenses actuelles relatives aux armes à feu, 12 et 15 janvier 1999, supra note 21, J.R., vol. XIII, p. 196. See also Affidavit of Pierre Perron, supra note 30, paras. 10 and 11, J.R., vol. III, pp. 3-4; Rapport final approuvé, supra note 6, J.R., vol. IX, p. 181. See responsibilities of the Chief Firearms Officer, which do not refer to the maintenance of the “RCAF” nor the “SCIRAF”: Accord financier Canada-Québec, 1er avril 2006 au 31 mars 2010, supra note 42, annex A, J.R., vol. VII, p. 14; Accord financier Canada-Québec, 1er avril 2004 au 31 mars 2006, supra note 42, annex A, J.R., vol. XI, p. 125; Cross-examination of Isabelle Boudreault, supra note 37, J.R., vol. IV, pp. 14 to 27. In this regard, see Accord financier Canada-Québec, 1er avril 2004 au 31 mars 2006, supra note 42, paras. 9, 11(1), 11(2), 12(4) and annex C, J.R., vol. XI, pp. 120-121, 131; Accord financier Canada-Québec, 1er avril 2006 au 31 mars 2010, supra note 42, paras. 17(1), 19(2), 22(4) and annex C, J.R., vol. VII, pp. 7 to 9, 34. See also Protocole d’entente Canada-Québec, janvier 1999, supra note 21, paras. 11, 12(1), 19(1), 19(2), 19(5), 20, 22, 23, J.R., vol. XIII, pp. 200 to 202; Rapport final approuvé, supra note 6, J.R., vol. IX, p. 181.

- 36 Respondents’ Factum

Arguments

Officer are subject to the rights and protections provided by federal and Quebec legislation as to access to information and protection of personal information. 188 From a reading of this clause, Quebec erroneously deduces that the registration records are subject to provincial legislation. 189 108.

If this financial information was concerned with the records contained in the Registrar’s Registry, prior consultation with the other level of government 190 would be contrary to section 90 of the FA that allows for mutual access to the Registrar’s Registry and the records of the Chief Firearms Officers; it would also be inconsistent with the practice to allow access to the Registrar’s Registry and the records of the Chief Firearms Officers to different police corps across Canada. 191

109.

The financial Agreements are of a different nature than agreements that provide for the exchange of information on different subjects between Canada and Quebec. 192 The Agreements are also different from agreements signed in fields of shared jurisdiction such as agricultural marketing, that specifically foresee that the different levels of government must exercise their legislative jurisdiction in a manner consistent with ensuring the implementation of the agreements and achieving the desired results without legal obstacles. 193

188

189 190

191

192 193

Accord financier Canada-Québec, 1er avril 2004 au 31 mars 2006, supra note 42, para. 13, J.R., vol. XI, p. 121. See also Accord financier Canada-Québec, 1er avril 2006 au 31 mars 2010, supra note 42, para. 23, J.R., vol. VII, p. 9. Appellant’s Factum, paras. 14, 46 to 51; Factum filed at the Quebec Court of Appeal by the Attorney General of Quebec, January 31, 2013, paras. 103 to 107, J.R., vol. II, pp. 178-180. Accord financier Canada-Québec, 1er avril 2004 au 31 mars 2006, supra note 42, para. 14, J.R., vol. XI, p. 121. See also Accord financier Canada-Québec, 1er avril 2006 au 31 mars 2010, supra note 42, para. 24, J.R., vol. VII, p. 9. Affidavit of Denis St-Pierre, supra note 59, paras. 3, 7 to 11, 15, 17 to 20, J.R., vol. III, pp. 137139; Examen des pratiques relatives au traitement des renseignements personnels du Programme canadien des armes à feu, supra note 38, J.R., vol. XI, pp. 177-178. Appellant’s Factum, para. 48, note 47. For example, see 2001 Federal-Provincial Agreement for chicken.

- 37 Respondents’ Factum 110.

Arguments

By concluding these financial Agreements pursuant to section 95 of the FA, the executive branch did not prevent Parliament from ordering the destruction of the registration records.

111.

Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan (B.C.) is determinative: the existence of a federalprovincial Agreement is of no relevance 194 to the sovereignty of Parliament. The financial Agreements did not create a right to the registration records for Quebec and do not bind Parliament. 195 Parliament was not required to secure the consent of Quebec prior to ordering and proceeding with the destruction of the long-gun registration records. 3.3

REFERENCES TO PROVINCIAL PRIVACY LEGISLATION DO NOT GIVE QUEBEC ANY RIGHT OVER THE REGISTRATION RECORDS

112.

The interpretation advanced by Quebec 196 of the application form to register firearms 197 leads to an absurd result. If this form creates rights for Quebec, all provinces including those who did not designate a Chief Firearms Officer would have rights over the registration records.

113.

The application form to register firearms contains the following: 198 Information contained in this application is obtained under the authority of the Firearms Act. The information will be used to determine eligibility and to administer and enforce the firearms legislation. In addition to the provisions outlined in the Firearms Act, individual rights regarding personal information are governed by the applicable federal, provincial and territorial legislation relating to access to information and privacy.

194 195 196 197 198

Supra note 155, 561. See also Reference re Securities Act, supra note 108, para. 119, R.B.A., vol. III, tab 61. Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan (B.C.), supra note 155, 557-560, vol. III, tab 64. Appellant’s Factum, paras. 44-45. Fiche de renseignements, Demande d’enregistrement d’armes à feu (pour particuliers) et Certificat en blanc émis par le directeur de l’enregistrement, exhibit PGQ-14, J.R., vol. X, p. 40. Demande d’enregistrement d’armes à feu, exhibit PGQ-5, J.R., vol. VII, p. 40.

- 38 Respondents’ Factum 114.

Arguments

This text does not give Quebec any right over the long-gun registration records that are, pursuant to the FA, under the control of the Registrar and subject to the federal Privacy Act. 199

115.

In any event, in case of conflict with section 29 of the Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, provincial legislation concerning the protection of personal information must give way under the doctrine of paramountcy. 200 3.4

COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM DOES NOT CREATE A RIGHT TO THE REGISTRATION RECORDS FOR QUEBEC

116.

Parliament and the provinces are autonomous in their respective fields of jurisdiction. Each order of government is responsible for the implementation of the legislative regime it enacts. If Quebec is of the view that it does not have the financial means to constitute its own eventual long-gun registry, 201 it cannot resort to cooperative federalism to force Canada to collaborate in its project. 3.5

117.

CONCLUSION

Quebec has no right to the registration records. The Chief Firearms Officer designated by Quebec for the enforcement of the FA exercises his powers pursuant to the FA. He only holds a right to access the registration records. Only the Registrar has control over them. The Chief Firearms Officer does not hold a “provincial” position; it is, rather, a federal position whose activities are entirely funded by Canada, in accordance with the financial Agreements.

199 200

201

Supra note 164. Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, 2010 SCC 39, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 536, paras. 62, 64, R.B.A., vol. III, tab 55; Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Human Resources and Social Development), 2011 SCC 60, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 635, paras. 17, 3536, R.B.A., vol. III, tab 54. See Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan (B.C.), supra note 155, 567, R.B.A., vol. III, tab 64.

- 39 Respondents’ Factum 4.

Arguments

THE REMEDY SOUGHT BY QUEBEC ISSUES SOLELY FROM SECTION 52 OF THE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982

118.

The Court cannot order the remedy sought by Quebec, i.e. transmission of the registration records. If section 29 is found to be ultra vires of Parliament, only one conclusion can follow: section 29 is invalid. 202 Such a declaration of invalidity does not lead to the result that Quebec would thereby gain a right to obtain the registration records. 203 ----------

202

203

See Guimond v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 347, para. 19, R.B.A., vol. II, tab 50; Mackin v. New Brunswick (Minister of Finance), 2002 SCC 13, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 405, paras. 79-81, R.B.A., vol. II, tab 52; R v. Ferguson, 2008 SCC 6, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 96, para. 35, R.B.A., vol. III, tab 57. Schachter v. Canada, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679, 709-710, R.B.A., vol III, tab 65.

- 40 Respondents’ Factum

Costs PART IV – COSTS

119.

The Attorney General of Canada asks the Court to dismiss the appeal with costs in all courts. ---------PART V – ORDER SOUGHT

120.

For these reasons, the Attorney General of Canada requests: •

That the Court respond to the constitutional question in the negative;

•

That the appeal be dismissed Montréal, July 16, 2014

_____________________________ Me Claude Joyal, c.r., Ad. E. Me Ian Demers Me Dominique Guimond Department of Justice Canada Counsel for Respondents

- 41 Respondents’ Factum

Alphabetical Table of Authorities

PART VI – ALPHABETICAL TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Jurisprudence

.......... Paragraph(s)

Attorney General of Nova Scotia v. Attorney General of Canada, [1951] S.C.R. 31

............................ 88

Babcock v. Canada (Attorney General), 2002 SCC 57, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 3

.......................... 101

Kitkatla Band v. British Columbia (Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture), 2002 SCC 31, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 146

............................ 90

Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta, 2007 SCC 22, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 3

.................. 73,83,98

Canada (Ministre de la Justice) c. Québec (Ministre de la Justice), [2003] R.J.Q. 1118 (C.A.)

............................ 96

A.G. (Can.) v. Can. Nat. Transportation, Ltd, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 206

....................... 87,88

Canada (Auditor general) v. Canada (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 49

.......................... 101

British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd, 2005 SCC 49, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 473

............................ 96

Ferrel v. Attorney General of Ontario, 1998 CanLII 6274 (C.A. Ont.)

.......................... 102

Guimond v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 347

.......................... 118

Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235

............................ 62

Mackin v. New Brunswick (Minister of Finance), 2002 SCC 13, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 405

.......................... 118

Marine Services International Ltd. v. Ryan Estate, 2013 SCC 44, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 53

............................ 73

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Human Resources and Social Development), 2011 SCC 60, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 635

.......................... 115

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, 2010 SCC 39, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 536

.......................... 115

- 42 Respondents’ Factum

Alphabetical Table of Authorities

Jurisprudence (cont’d)

.......... Paragraph(s)

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Lacombe, 2010 SCC 38, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 453

............................ 90

R. v. Ferguson, 2008 SCC 6, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 96

.......................... 118

R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933

..................... 73,100

Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act, 2010 SCC 61, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 457

....................... 90,96

Reference re Firearms Act (Can.), 2000 SCC 31, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783

........ 22,73,83,84,85

Reference re Securities Act, 2011 SCC 66, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 837

. 56,73,83,96,98,111

Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217

....................... 96,97

Reference re Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 297

....................... 74,84

Reference re Canada Assistance Plan (B.C.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525

....... 89,102,111,116

Schachter v. Canada, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679

.......................... 118

Singh v. Canada (Attorney General), [2000] 3 F.C. 185, 35 (C.A.)

.......................... 101

Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v. N.A.P.E., 2004 SCC 66, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 381

.......................... 102

The Citizens’ and The Queen Ins. Cos. v. Parsons (1880), 4 S.C.R. 215

............................ 88

Doctrine R. Blake BROWN, Arming and Disarming — A History of Gun Control in Canada, University of Toronto Press, 2012

.............................. 9

Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, 5th ed., vol. 1, Toronto, Carswell, 2007

.......................... 100