EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 11, 1995

.1532 [Image]

[English]

The Chair: I would like to call the meeting to order. We are continuing our
examination of Bill C-68, An Act respecting firearms and other weapons.

Our witnesses this afternoon are from the Coalition for Gun Control,
represented by Wendy Cukier, president; Heidi Rathjen, executive director;
David Cassels, deputy chief, assistant director, Edmonton Police Service; and
Louise Viau, professeur de Droit, Universit� de Montr�al, conseiller juridique.
That is the delegation, although I understand there are others from the
coalition in the audience. You are all welcome.

Your voluminous and complete brief has been distributed to all members of the
committee. As you know, we ask witnesses before the committee to restrict
themselves, if possible, to 15 minutes in order to leave us enough time to
discuss the issues. You may read part of your brief or all of it, if it's short
enough, or if there's a special part you had intended to read, or you may speak
to the major points - whatever you wish. I turn the floor over to you, Ms
Cukier.

Ms Wendy Cukier (President, Coalition for Gun Control): Thank you very much,
Mr. Chair. We are very pleased to be here today.

I am a professor at Ryerson Polytechnic University in Toronto, as well as
president of the Coalition for Gun Control. With me is our executive director
Heidi Rathjen, a graduate of �cole Polytechnique; Deputy Chief Cassels from the
Edmonton Police Service; and Louise Viau, who is not only a professor of law at
the University of Montreal but was also a member of the last government's
firearms advisory committee.

Because we know you have spent the last few weeks in committee hearing a great
deal about gun control, we're going to try to focus our comments on some of the
issues we view as most important and highlight some aspects of the bill that we
think are critically important to the safety of all Canadians. We will also
talk very briefly about some specific concerns we have about the legislation
and possible amendments.

I want to begin by introducing the coalition. We were founded in 1990 and we're
a non-profit organization aimed at reducing firearms death and injury. Since
1990 the Coalition for Gun Control has advocated possession permits and
registration of all firearms, controls on the sale of ammunition, further
restrictions on handguns, a ban on military weapons and large-capacity
magazines, stiffer penalties for firearms misuse and measures to counter
illegal importation. Based on that position, over 300 organizations from across
the country have endorsed the position of the Coalition for Gun Control.

.1535 [Image]

Appendix 1 of our brief includes the most recent list of our endorsers. As you
know, groups like the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian
Criminal Justice Association, as well as groups like the Canadian Jewish
Congress, CAVEAT and others have all endorsed the position of the Coalition for
Gun Control.

However, I also want to draw your attention to some of the supporters we have
from individual provinces and communities. For example, you will note that the
Manitoba Police Association, the Brandon Police Service, the Winnipeg Police
Service, the Calgary Police Service, the Edmonton Police Service, as well as
police services throughout Ontario and other provinces are members of the
coalition. We also have support from health care organizations across the
country, not only national groups, but groups like the Alberta Injury
Prevention Association, Calgary Injury Prevention Association, Calgary Health
Services and so on.

The reason I point this out to you is that I know you've been hearing a lot
about opposition to gun control, particularly from western and rural Canada,
and I want to make sure that at some point you do look at the diverse range of
organizations that have endorsed the position of the coalition. You will note
they come from east and west. They come from small communities as well as large
communities.

Our brief is far more detailed than we have time to go into today, so I'm going
to try to hit on some basic issues.

First of all, I want to say that we believe that complex problems have complex
solutions; that gun-related death, injury and crime are a result of a wide
range of factors and access to firearms is only one of them. While it's not a
panacea, however, we believe that both common sense and considerable research
suggest that further gun control will reduce gun-related death and injury.

While many people are focusing on the issue of gun control specifically from a
crime prevention perspective, I know you've heard from witnesses in the health
care community who have talked about it specifically from the point of view of
injury prevention. I know next week you will also hear from women's groups who
will look at it from the perspective of domestic violence. Again, I want to
draw your attention to the fact that groups from across the country and with
diverse perspectives on the issue of gun control have come to agree this
legislation is needed.

I don't want to regurgitate the research and the arguments that have been made
in favour of stronger gun control; I just want to emphasize a few key points.

First of all, from the point of view of the costs of doing nothing, the costs
of gun deaths, injury and crime in this country, clearly gun control is
warranted. I think it's important to keep in perspective the kinds of economic
costs, the social costs, and the policing costs associated with firearms in
Canada when you're trying to evaluate whether or not we should be investing in
this legislation.

I want to also say that I believe there is sufficient evidence to support the
measures contained in the legislation. I'm an academic. Louise is an academic.
We would be happy to debate the nuances of the statistics and the research, if
you like. However, our conclusion is there is sufficient evidence to support
the legislation.

Our third point, which I think really must be made, is the legislation is not
only designed to address problems that exist today, but it is also an
investment in our future. If we look at the sources of firearms that are
misused in Canada - and by misused we're referring not just to crime, but also
to death and injury - we know that one of the sources of guns are guns that are
stolen from legal owners. We know there are at least 3,000 guns reported stolen
every year. There are many more that are stolen and not reported.

We also know there are cases where guns are misused by their legal owners. This
is particularly the case when we're looking at things such as domestic
homicide, suicides and accidental shootings.

Thirdly, we know that there are cases where guns are purchased or imported
legally and then sold illegally.

We have ample evidence to support this from a number of studies that the police
have done in cases that have been prosecuted successfully in the courts.

.1540 [Image]

The fourth source of guns that are misused in Canada is guns that are smuggled
into the country and sold illegally.

I must say I was delighted to hear the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
present empirical evidence from 10 forces across the country, which I think
should, once and for all, put to bed the argument that the principal problem is
smuggled guns. You will recall the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
presented preliminary evidence that showed that when you're looking at firearms
that have been seized in crime, almost 50% of them are rifles and shotguns.
About 20% of them are handguns and other restricted weapons, and of those, 40%
were at one time registered.

So the notion that members of this committee who were sitting here the last
time gun control legislation was presented to the government and heard the
argument that the only problem in Canada is smuggled guns...I hope they are
relieved to see that there is now empirical evidence to show those claims are
not well founded. One of the components of that study, which has not yet been
released because I understand they're still massaging the data, was the site
studies for individual communities that went into the overall conclusions
presented by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

With me today is Deputy Chief David Cassels from the Edmonton Police Service.
The Edmonton Police Service published the results of a six-month study of the
guns used in crime. He is going to describe the results of that study and talk
about how it relates to our discussions today.

Deputy Chief David Cassels (Assistant Director, Edmonton Police Service): Thank
you. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, let me first of all thank you
for the opportunity to discuss this very important legislative proposal with
you.

I appear before you as a representative of the Edmonton Police Service, and I
am safe in saying that my brief presentation reflects the views of the majority
of the police community in western Canada. I come before this committee from a
province that has one of the largest concentrations of gun owners in the
country and where the debate for and against this bill has probably been the
liveliest. However, having listened to these debates, I remain firmly convinced
that the bill indeed can accomplish what it is drafted to do.

The Alberta Association of Chiefs of Police share this view. Consequently,
allow me to emphasize several tangible reasons why registration of firearms
ought to become mandatory. I propose to do this firstly by reviewing the
reasons for mandatory registration and, secondly, by reviewing a study that
speaks in support of these reasons.

Because there is no registration in existence and because the majority of
firearms that are owned by Canadians fall into the unrestricted category, there
is often no way of knowing who owns what, nor whether a particular firearm was
acquired legally. This can be particularly troublesome if, for example, a court
prohibits a person from owning firearms. This lack of knowledge may also carry
deadly consequences in instances where police respond to emergency calls, such
as family fights.

More fundamentally, lack of information with respect to the ownership of
firearms at least occasionally contributes to the careless storage of firearms
and underreporting of loss through theft. Consequently, I am drawn to agree
with the drafters of the bill that the proposed registration system will assist
in meeting the following objectives. It will help the police in solving crimes
by tracking firearms that were used in homicides, robberies and other violent
criminal acts. It will, at least in part, assist the police in determining what
types and numbers of firearms they might encounter when responding to an
emergency call.

Registration will assist in enforcing court-ordered prohibitions that preclude
possession of firearms. Unlawful acquisition and smuggling of firearms will be
curtailed. Registration will promote and encourage greater adherence to the
already existing regulations on storage and handling of firearms, and I believe
people will be far more responsible for the guns they own. Registration will
assist in tracking missing and stolen firearms.

As already mentioned, the Edmonton Police Service recently carried out a study
into firearms occurrences in the City of Edmonton.

This study is a snapshot of any typical Canadian municipality during any
six-month period. In its conclusion the study supports the principles of the
proposed legislation.

.1545 [Image]

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to table the study for review and I'd
like to talk about some of the conclusions. I have provided copies to the clerk
for the rest of the members of the committee.

The study focuses on the last six months of 1993. In this period of time, 684
firearms were involved in 449 occurrences. Of these, 64% were Criminal Code
offences. The majority, or 50% of the firearms-related occurrences, involved
non-restricted firearms, such as rifles and shotguns. Restricted firearms were
involved in 40% and prohibited weapons were involved in 6%.

It is interesting to note that non-restricted firearms were stolen more often
in 56% of the cases, as compared with 40% of restricted firearms and 4% of
prohibited weapons. In 70% of the cases, these firearms were taken from private
dwellings.

During the study firearms were seized in 59% of all firearms-related
occurrences. Of these, 10% were prohibited weapons, 54% were restricted weapons
and 36% were non-restricted weapons. Remarkably, only 5% of the non-restricted
firearms could be traced back to their owners, and this was possible only
because of a prior report of theft to our department. This study furthermore
concluded that about 40% of the stolen firearms had not been stored properly.

As you can see, shotguns and rifles are a part of the problem and figure
prominently in various crimes and various occurrences. This study allows us to
draw several conclusions.

First, it indicates that criminals do use non-restricted firearms with great
regularity. This may be explained at least in part because of their
availability, either through theft or legitimate means.

Second, non-restricted and currently non-registered firearms are stolen, and
the greatest from where they're most easily obtained: private dwellings.

Third, only a very minor portion of non-restricted firearms can be traced back
to their owners. A significant number of firearms are not stored properly.

I suggest this study graphically illustrates the benefit of an across-the-board
firearms registration system. It allows the court to impose meaningful firearms
prohibition orders that can be properly enforced. It will allow the police to
deal with dangerous situations such as family fights in a more informed and
therefore safe fashion. It will allow the police to take preventative measures
or problem-solving measures in many situations.

Mr. Chairman, I believe this is the most promising aspect of the bill. We will
be able to take preventative measures because of the information available to
us. It will enhance accountability of the firearms owners and therefore
encourage better firearms storage practices. It will encourage owners of
firearms to report thefts or loss of firearms to the police. These benefits
surely, Mr. Chairman, must be in the public's best interest.

Before concluding, I feel bound to comment on two practical issues that have
been raised in the public debates as well as before this committee. As I
understand it, a suggestion has been made that the bill ought to provide an
exemption from criminal liability for those who inadvertently fail to register
their firearms.

In light of what has already been stated, this suggestion is contrary to the
bill and its stated objectives. For that reason alone, I don't believe it
should be considered and I don't believe it's valid.

Some groups have also advocated that the bill ought to be met with civil
disobedience. I suggest that such threats provide the exact reason why the bill
is in the public interest and public safety and why it should be passed into
law.

For the reasons already mentioned, I urge the committee to approve the bill in
its entirety. This bill undeniably goes a long way towards making Canada what
we would consider a safer place to live.

Allow me to conclude by saying that one only needs to spend a couple of nights
with police officers on the beat or in cars to understand why gun control
legislation is so important and why Bill C-68 is so important. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.

The Chair: Ms Cukier.

Ms Cukier: The second perspective on gun control that I think is critical to at
least reference, although you've heard quite a lot about it both today and
previously, is the relationship between access to firearms and murders,
suicides and accident rates. Certainly you've heard from a number of public
health specialists, from emergency specialists, from suicide prevention
experts, who argue very clearly that there is a strong relationship between
access to firearms and the death and injury rate.

.1550 [Image]

I want to reference a couple of studies that reinforce this. One is the work of
Martin Killias, appended in our brief, showing very clearly correlations
between accessibility to firearms and suicide and death rates.

In appendix 3 is a very brief analysis of the current status of gun control in
some of those countries Professor Killias looked at having substantially lower
murder and suicide rates. When you have a chance to wade through the paper, of
note is that in virtually every European country - Belgium, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Great Britain, Italy, Ireland, The Netherlands, and so on -
registration of long guns is part of the gun control regime. This strengthens
the notion of a direct link between the strictness of the gun control regime in
a particular jurisdiction, access to firearms, and consequently the suicide,
murder and accident rates.

From our perspective, it is rather ironic that the provinces with the highest
death and injury rate from firearms are the ones most opposed to this
legislation; ironic also that the Minister of Justice for Manitoba, who
testified last night, was unaware of the rates of death and injury in her
province.

Appendix 2 pulls together from publicly available information a comparison of
the provincial rates of accident and injury. The gun lobby continually says,
particularly in the west, that this is somehow a conspiracy of Toronto and
Montreal. However, Ontario has one of the lowest rates of firearms death and
injury in the country, and provinces like Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta
are substantially higher than both Ontario and the national average. That's
important.

Within Ontario there is ample evidence that the notion of gun control being
more relevant in the cities than rural areas is simply not supported by the
facts. In Ontario it is very clear that gun death rates in the north are almost
twice the provincial average, again underscoring this relationship between
access to firearms, gun death and injury.

Clearly there's a relationship between access to firearms and the voraciousness
of the gun lobby in opposing gun control. That does not mean it is not a
problem in those provinces or our rural communities. We've provided some
evidence to support that.

In passing - and we really don't have to document this because you've certainly
heard testimony from a number of the gun-owning groups - it's obvious part of
their agenda is not simply the sporting use of firearms, but there are certain
elements within the gun lobby with the belief that Canadians would be safer if
we armed for self-protection. Speaking for all of us at the table and the
groups endorsing the Coalition for Gun Control, there is very clear evidence
internationally that the proliferation of firearms increases death, injury and
crime rates. We have to ensure that Canada does not follow the failed example
of the United States in suggesting civilians need to arm for self-protection.

Lastly, on the question of attitudes and the need to strike a balance between
the legitimate interests of law-abiding gun owners and the concerns for public
safety, the point has to be made repeatedly that gun control is not gun
abolition.

There have been very deliberate efforts, and we've documented some of them, for
the gun lobby to represent gun control as a step down the road to gun
abolition. They distribute pamphlets saying the Minister of Justice wants to
take your guns away and registration is the first step to confiscation. I think
we have to be really clear that there is a problem with the veracity of the
information being circulated about the legislation.

.1555 [Image]

There are some who would argue that Canadians support gun control in the polls
because they are misinformed and that if they had more information there would
be less support for gun control. I would argue the contrary. I would argue that
if many of the law-abiding gun owners in Canada had clear information about
what the agenda was, about what the costs of gun control were going to be, much
of the opposition to gun control would in fact subside.

At the same time I want to echo the concerns raised by Deputy Chief Cassels.
We're very sympathetic to the risks associated with inadvertent non-compliance,
and we think the current Criminal Code accommodates that. At the same time we
are very concerned about the efforts to fuel civil disobedience.

We have documented very comprehensively discussions on the Internet in which
people talk about strategies to bury guns, strategies to undermine the system,
and talk about it being a fight to the death in some of the more inflammatory
rhetoric.

I think we have to be very concerned about what this suggests about Canadian
values, and I would suggest to the committee that much of this represents
seepage over the border of what I consider to be quite undesirable American
attitudes.

In terms of the key elements of the legislation, I don't want to go through
them in detail. I think you can see from the position of the Coalition for Gun
Control and from the components of the legislation before you that we are very
pleased with the principle aspects of it, and we would certainly be happy to
argue in support of them during the questions.

I want to turn it over now to my colleague Heidi Rathjen, who will talk in more
specific terms about the legislation itself.

Ms Heidi Rathjen (Executive Director, Coalition for Gun Control): Thank you
very much.

Possession permits and the registration of firearms are the core to the gun
control legislation. Without information about who owns what guns there cannot
be effective gun control. A system of possession permits and registration will
identify gun owners, attach each gun to its lawful owner, and track the
movements of all gun shipments, as well as those from individual shipments
across the border.

Currently the bill criminalizes unlawful possession of a firearm; in other
words, possession of a firearm without proper licence and registration. It
proposes a penalty resulting from summary conviction for an indictable offence
for the possession of a firearm without proper licence and registration and a
penalty for an indictable offence for knowingly possessing a firearm without
proper licence and registration. Added to that is a minimum penalty of one year
for a second offence.

We need to ensure that any amendment does not weaken the bill, however minor it
may appear at first glance. For example, it has been suggested that failure to
register be decriminalized in order to protect the otherwise law-abiding
citizen from criminal sanctions for minor or inadvertent non-compliance.

As you know, the Canadian Police Association, which represents rank-and-file
police officers, suggested decriminalizing first-time offences of failure to
register; however, with penalties including fines and confiscation of the
offender's firearms.

However, other groups, such as the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and
the Canadian Association of Police Boards, have indicated that while they also
have concerns about criminal sanctions for minor offences related to the
failure to register, they maintain there are other approaches by which one can
address the issue. For example, as with many other criminal or regulatory
offences, police and the Crown have discretion over whether or not to lay
charges. In addition, the court may decide to issue conditional or
unconditional discharges. The same discretion could apply to the enforcement of
registration, thereby avoiding criminalizing genuine inadvertent
non-compliance.

.1600 [Image]

The chiefs of police have expressed concerns about deliberate efforts to
undermine the legislation. There is widespread talk of civil disobedience by
opponents of the legislation, including some politicians. Some gun owners have
publicly stated that they will not comply. Some groups have suggested ways to
disrupt the implementation of registration. For example, they suggest
registering their guns to people who don't exist, filling out thousands of
registration cards for non-existent guns, transferring their guns to
non-existent people, listing the residence as ``no fixed address'', giving the
wrong social insurance number and even burying their guns. Any modification to
the bill must not cater to those intent on disobeying or undermining the law.

While we share police concerns about criminalizing honest citizens who, for
example, may forget to register their firearm by a particular deadline, we are
also concerned that the legislation not be weakened and send the message that
registration requirements do not have to be taken seriously or, worse, that
they are optional.

The Coalition for Gun Control strongly opposes decriminalizing offences under
the requirement that all gun owners must be licensed. We also oppose any
changes that would undermine the ability to effectively implement registration
and ensure compliance. After having consulted with legal experts and police,
our position is to support the provisions of Bill C-17 as they are written,
while allowing for police and judicial discretion.

[Translation]

In other words, after consulting legal experts and police, our position is that
we support the bill as it now stands, while agreeing that some discretion
should be left to the police and the judicial, as is the case in the present
system.

[English]

In addition, in order to ensure consistent implementation across the country
and prevent the nullification of certain provisions of Bill C-68 by any
province, the coalition requires a clause preventing the use of alternative
sentencing programs for the Firearms Act, such as those in clause 6, proposed
section 717 of Bill C-41. We also would like to see a clause-vesting
prosecutorial authority in the Attorney General of Canada, to allow federal
crown attorneys to prosecute in cases where their provincial counterparts are
prevented from doing so by instruction from the provincial attorney general.

[Translation]

I will repeat this paragraph in French.

In addition, in order to ensure consistent implementation across the country
and prevent the nullification of certain provisions of Bill C-68 by any
province, the Coalition requires a clause preventing the use of alternative
sentencing programs for the Firearms Act, such as those in clause 6, proposed
section 717 of Bill C-41.

We also would like to see a clause vesting prosecutorial authority in the
Attorney General of Canada, to allow federal crown attorneys to prosecute in
cases where their provincial counterparts are prevented from doing so by
instruction from the provincial attorney general.

We also expect the gun lobby to try everything to block or postpone the
enactment of the bill, especially its registration provisions. The bill allows
the establishment of regulations to postpone the implementation of the permit
and registration system.

In other words, it would be possible without passing new legislation to
postpone legislation of firearms. The fact that it might be possible to
postpone the date of implementation would give the gun lobby an opportunity to
weaken or block the legislation after passage of Bill C-68. It could continue
to lobby the next government to have the registration system implementation put
back indefinitely. This loophole must be eliminated.

[English]

In other words, the possibility to delay the final date of implementation
provides an opportunity for the gun lobby to undermine the legislation after
the passage of Bill C-68. In fact they can continue to lobby the next
government to delay the implementation of registration indefinitely. This
loophole must be removed.

.1605 [Image]

[Translation]

Let's talk about prohibition orders. Over 13,000 prohibition orders are issued
each year against individuals who represent a risk for public safety to forbid
them to have a gun in their possession.

These apply to people in very different kinds of situations: parole offenders,
people charged with a violent crime who have been released on bail, people
convicted of certain offences, people faced with very high risk situations,
such as family violence, and individuals suffering from depression or other
kinds of mental illness.

Prohibition orders are capital, preventative measures which must be taken
seriously by those concerned. Disobeying a prohibition order is an offence
punishable on summary conviction under the act and is therefore a criminal
offence.

In our first case, the penalty provided might be a simple fine. We are aware of
cases where offenders were fined 50$ for disobeying a prohibition order. Since
these orders apply to individuals who are considered to be a risk for society,
having a gun in their possession in their case becomes a deliberate violation
of the law, which implies a criminal intention.

We recommend therefore that the offences reflect the seriousness of such action
and always be a criminal act. When a prohibition order has been given following
a violent or criminal action, there must be mandatory imprisonment. Thank you
very much.

Professor Louise Viau (Law professor, Universit� de Montr�al, legal counsel):
Just a few more words on the legal aspects of this bill.

[English]

I have three points to make about this bill, especially about its
constitutional validity and some of the aspects that have been raised by some
people who appeared before your committee.

I will first address the issue of the provincial opting-out provision that
would be required by some of the people who appeared before you. I'm asking
myself ``Are these people aware of Canadian history, particularly of the
discussion that preceded the adoption of the BNA Act?''

[Translation]

This is the 1867 Constitutional Act which provided for the sharing of
jurisdictions between the federal Parliament and the provincial legislatures.

[English]

In Canada, as opposed to the United States, it was decided in 1867 that the
kernel of power should be attributed to the federal Parliament rather than to
the provincial legislature because it was thought it would be a way to provide
unity in this country to have just one criminal law that would speak about the
values that link all the people of this country.

I'm really surprised to hear there are some people who would like to have an
opting out of the criminalization of some conduct. I'm not sure it would be a
good idea for the federal government to accept such a suggestion.

I'm not aware that in the last twenty years there has been a discussion about
the division of power between the Parliament and the provinces to have criminal
law not apply to the provinces. It would be very surprising; I won't say more
than that.

[Translation]

Finally, beyond this one issue, if Quebec were to go forward with its
separation project, it would obviously have a different Criminal Code than the
other provinces.

.1610 [Image]

But until then, I do not think it would be a good idea. I believe that saying
that criminal law would not be the same throughout the country would set a
dangerous precedent.

However, I shall not go into a debate which I find in any case futile on the
validity of such a decision in view of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.

My colleague Tim Quigley of the Law Faculty of the University of Saskatchewan
has dealt with this issue in a letter to Mr. Dupuis, the Clerk of your
committee. I believe that you have already seen this document.

[English]

The second point I would like to make is about the decriminalization of
first-time offenders. It is not really clear to me how we would deal with a
person who did not register his firearm and was caught with an unregistered
firearm for the first time. Would it be by amending the Criminal Code and
saying, ``Well, for the first offence it's not an offence; it will become an
offence just for a second offence''? Would it by mentioning clearly that it
would not be a criminal offence but just a regulatory offence? I've seen and
heard the analogy with the registration of cars. As you know, the registration
of cars is of provincial jurisdiction, not of federal jurisdiction.

The way the bill is currently written the registration scheme is clearly
constitutional. It's clearly valid as an accessory to the colonial power of
Parliament. I don't know on what basis it would be possible to mention clearly
that it would be a regulatory offence. Maybe it would be possible on the peace,
order and good government clause, the general clause of section 91 of the BNA
Act.

[Translation]

There would be a risk of going ahead with this idea and of stating clearly that
certain offences related to the non-registration of firearms would be a
regulatory offence and not a criminal offence as such. There would be a risk of
a court action based on the distribution of constitutional jurisdictions. I
believe that this issue should be seriously considered before this option is
chosen.

I have also heard many things about the validity of the inspection powers
provided under the bill. I have carefully re-read these provisions and, in view
of the recent rulings of the Supreme Court, and especially those related to
section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

[English]

which guarantee the right against unreasonable search and seizure.

I'm absolutely confident that those provisions are valid the way they are
drafted right now. I wouldn't change a word. My colleague Mr. Quigley in that
respect would just add a word in the English version. I would guess that, for
this part of the bill, it is the French drafter who had deleted it. In the
English version it seems that in section 99 it just says, ``on reasonable
grounds'' and it would be better to have ``reasonable and probable grounds''.
In French,

[Translation]

this section simply talks about reasonable grounds, which is quite valid and
means the same. There is no constitutional problem here. There might have been
an omission in the drafting, but certainly not serious enough to justify
questionning the whole procedure which clearly makes the distinction between
inspections in locations that could be described as semi public, locations
other than the residence of an individual.

In the case of dwellings, the inspections could not take place without the
authorization of the dweller or, again, after the securing of a mandate, which
could be obtained by following all the customary rules contained in the
Criminal Code, which is why this measure seems perfectly adequate to me.

.1615 [Image]

I would add one last point. I will be expressing here my own point of view
rather than the coalition's because we did not have time to discuss this
together and to poll all the organizations supporting the coalition.

With regards to this decriminalization, I fully support the position taken by
the coalition for the reasons which it invoked, and particularly with regards
to the civil disobedience question which is being waved as a threat, with
people saying: Don't do this because there will be civil disobedience.

I think that if we maintain criminalization with all the consequences that that
can have, that will encourage people to abide by the legislation and that it
will not provoke instances of civil disobedience.

Also, it is important to remind people who suggest civil disobedience that once
the legislation will be passed, and I hope from the bottom of my heart that it
will be passed, that if they persist on that path, that will constitute a
criminal offence as such. If they do so, that will constitute an incitement.
That's why I'm not very worried that they will go very far with this idea of
civil disobedience. I strongly doubt that this idea will gain many supporters.

However, we included in our amendments two suggestions that would counter any
hint of civil disobedience which would be expressed with the support of a
province, if that is ever to occur, which I doubt personally. I do not think
that the provincial attorney generals, should this legislation be passed, would
go so far to say: We will not implement this legislation.

Should they ever go forward on that front, we suggest that provisions be
provided to the current bill to prevent any province from creating an
alternative measures program which would impede the implementation of some
provisions of the legislation, and also, a concurrent jurisdiction for the
federal and provincial crown attorneys, which would step in precisely in cases
where a province would refuse to implement the legislation.

Moreover, Heidi said clearly that we are not opposed to the exercise of
discretion by crown attorneys and law enforcement people case by case. For this
case-by-case business, we could perhaps also add another provision to the bill
- and I'm expressing here a personal point of view.

[English]

We may add a new provision for interim proceedings for the forfeiture of the
firearm without any prosecution against the person. The person would not be at
risk for any criminal charge, but at least the firearm would be forfeited in
case of non-compliance.

[Translation]

You could have an ``in rem'' procedure, which would apply to non-registered
firearms and which could lead to their seizure and forfeiture, as we have it
already in other areas of the Criminal Code. I'm thinking here in particular of
the seizure and forfeiture of obscene material. Thank you.

[English]

Ms Cukier: Thank you. I apologize, Mr. Chairman, for taking so long.

I should also mention that Keith Carter, our Saskatchewan coordinator, is
sitting at the end of the table.

The Chair: Thank you. Have you completed your presentation?

Ms Cukier: Yes, we have.

The Chair: We will now proceed to the rounds of questions.

.1620 [Image]

In the first round we have rounds of ten minutes for each of the three
political parties. Following the ten-minute rounds, we will then have
five-minute rounds in which we exchange between government members and
opposition members.

I will begin with Mrs. Venne.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne (Saint-Hubert): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, good
afternoon! This is actually not surprising, and looking at you I see that for
the first time, if I'm not mistaken, since the beginning of our sittings, there
is a majority of women among witnesses. This proves something about the present
state of the public opinion, if I'm not mistaken. It seems obvious to me.

First, I would like to address my question to Ms Viau, who teaches law, I
think. First of all, you spoke about a link created by a trans-Canadian
Criminal Code. I'm not that sure that this would be a good way to create a link
between provinces in Canada, but this is what you stated.

You also stated that in a sovereign Quebec the Criminal Code would be different
from the rest of the provinces. You seem to assume that it would be different.
In my view this is only speculation, and it was many times publicly stated that
a separated Quebec would first and in a transitory fashion adopt the present
Canadian laws. So it remains to be seen whether our Criminal Code would, at
that time, be so different from yours.

This being said, I would like to ask the coalition what kind of compromise it
would eventually be ready to accept, as we are getting closer to the final
stage. I'm looking at your amendments, quite a few of those I would be ready to
endorse and submit to the Committee. I'm thinking of for instance limiting for
a period of five years any trading of prohibited military weapons, I'm thinking
of authorizing only permit holders to buy ammunitions... There is a host of
proposals as those that the Bloc Qu�b�cois would certainly agree with, and
could easily be submitted to the Committee.

On the other hand, when negotiating, both sides make concessions. Concerning
Bill C-68, I would like to know what kind of concessions you would be ready to
make? Would it pertain to the powers of inspection? Would it be decriminalizing
the failure of registering firearms, as Ms Viau was mentioning, as a personal
suggestion? How far are you ready to go, or do I have to assume that you're
adamant and not ready to budge?

[English]

Ms Cukier: I think a couple of points need to be made.

First of all, in our view, there have been some compromises made already to get
the legislation to this point. As you will recall, the trading provisions were
introduced in order to accommodate grandfather donors of banned guns. We
thought that was reasonable.

In terms of the decriminalization issue, which is certainly one of the hot
topics, quite honestly we have consulted very widely on this. In particular we
have to defer to the judgment of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
and their legal counsel, who is here with us, as well as Professor Viau,
insofar as we do believe that decriminalizing the registration provisions
basically makes registration seem optional. So any changes to those provisions
have to be very clear.

We would prefer that the committee direct its attention to some of the issues
around the inspection powers, because clearly if you look at the rhetoric
that's circulating these days and some of the concerns that have been brought
forward, there's a lot of attention being focused on the inspection powers.

.1625 [Image]

Our legal advisers have told us they really don't view those concerns as valid.
At the same time, if you were to look at places to make concessions, we would
direct your attention there.

In terms of the registration and licensing, if you want people to take it
seriously, as my colleague Vince Westwick said, I think you have to have teeth
in the bill. We think there is ample discretion within the current Criminal
Code.

Right now, for example, if they catch Grandma with an unregistered handgun,
they do not charge her, they do not put her in jail. They basically say,
Grandma, you should either turn that gun in or you should get it registered.
Quite frankly, given that more people in this country are killed with rifles
and shotguns than with handguns...the evidence we've seen is that rifles and
shotguns are more of a problem in criminal offences than handguns. I don't
understand why we would have possession of an unregistered handgun as a
criminal offence and say the first time with an unregistered rifle or shotgun
we're going to look the other way.

That's our position.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: My second comment is as follows. My one reproach to the Minister of
Justice is that he hasn't marketed the bill properly. If he ever gets involved
in a leadership campaign as some journalists have mentioned, I think it will be
beneficial to him to change his marketing agency.

The Chair: For which party?

Mrs. Venne: For which party?

The Chair: We already have a leader.

Mrs. Venne: According to what we read in the newspapers the Minister would like
that.

I think he should change his marketing agency because the one he has now has
misinformed the population as far as this bill is concerned.

This is unbelievable... The disinformation has been such that open lines are
flourishing. That is a way to understand more about this whole question as
competent people are invited as hosts on these open lines.

So according to me the Minister of Justice has not chosen a good marketing
agency. I would like you to tell me what you think about that. Do you think
that the population has been well informed?

[English]

Ms Cukier: I wouldn't necessarily blame the Minister of Justice. I think
anybody engaging in this debate who thinks it's a matter of common sense...the
fact that the experts say this is going to reduce crime, that if you look at it
on the face of it, it's not an undue burden on legitimate gun owners...I think
most reasonable people would look at the provisions of the law and think most
law-abiding gun owners should accept them, and there wouldn't be a big problem.

I think perhaps the Minister of Justice underestimated the scope, the
resources, and the energy that were going to be put into deliberate
misinformation. We've bought copies of all sorts of things distributed by the
groups that have appeared before this committee, saying the Minister of Justice
wants to ban all guns, registration is the first step to confiscation.

I was in a debate with a member of the government, Chris Axworthy, who said on
national television that it was going to cost $100 per gun to register them. So
when you have politicians joining in with the gun lobby -

The Chair: He's a member of Parliament, not a member of the government.

Ms Cukier: I'm sorry, a member of Parliament. When you have members of
Parliament, and some of them are sitting at this table, deliberately
distributing the same misinformation as that which is being put forward by the
gun lobby, one can understand why the Minister of Justice, as well as many of
you, has problems back in his constituency.

I absolutely agree with you that there has to be accurate information about the
intention and the content of this law, and I would encourage all of you to be
part of that process.

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): I would like to welcome the coalition.

I appreciate the sincerity with which you have presented your proposals.

I would like to begin by carrying on from the last comment that Ms Cukier made
about misinformation.

The justice minister stated some time ago that in his opinion only the police
and military should have firearms. Would you consider that misinformation?

Ms Cukier: I would consider that his personal opinion, not a statement of
government policy. He was reflecting, I believe, on his personal experience.

Mr. Ramsay: He indicated that he thought there should be gun-free zones,
particularly the cities, where any gun owner or firearm owner would have to
store their firearms in a central location. Would you consider that
misinformation?

.1630 [Image]

Ms Cukier: Again, I would have to see the specific reference. But my
understanding is that the comments of the Minister of Justice were ``Frankly,
this is what I think; here are some things that we're looking at''. I do not
recall any case where he said we are going to introduce gun-free zones. Perhaps
you have an example of that.

Mr. Ramsay: Well, of course, this is being stated by the justice minister of
Canada, who was also indicating there would be forthcoming gun control
legislation in accordance with the red book, or the policy, or the instructions
he received from the Prime Minister. So is it not realistic to assume people
would draw conclusions from statements made by the justice minister of Canada?

Ms Cukier: In the early stages it may be reasonable, but we have copies of
brochures that were very clear that have been distributed in the last two or
three months after the proposals were actually tabled. I can understand that
last summer people were perhaps wondering what was going to be in the law, but
we have things that have been distributed by the Responsible Firearms Owners
Coalition of B.C. saying that the federal Minister of Justice wants to ban all
guns, that the anti-gun lobby is determined to use every means at its disposal
to ban all guns, that the NDP government in B.C. plans to ban hunting. Those
things are not based on anything that was included in the proposals.

When you look at some of the advertisements that are being run about
warrantless search and seizure - you know there's a big difference between
warrantless search and seizure and the inspection powers contained within the
bill. While some people may have concerns about the inspection powers contained
in the bill, it's a lot different from people telling you that someone's going
to come to your home at 2 a.m. and walk in, or we're moving towards a police
state.

I believe there are some people who genuinely do not understand what's in the
legislation, but I must tell you, Mr. Ramsay, I also believe there are people
very deliberately misrepresenting what's in the bill, misrepresenting the
process and the intention of the government.

Mr. Ramsay: Once the bill is out, there may be errors in interpretation, but
certainly there should be no deliberate intent by anyone to claim there's
something in the bill that is not there, and anyone who is doing that of course
- I think that's wrong. I think what the people of this country want is the
knowledge, the truth about what the bill means to them, whether they're gun
owners or not, and I think any attempt by anyone to mislead anyone with regard
to what is in the bill is wrong.

You mentioned 300 organizations that support the bill. During your travels and
your efforts, have you met with the Attorney General of Manitoba?

Ms Cukier: I have not, but a number of our supporting organizations have, such
as the Manitoba Police Association and the Chief of Police in Manitoba. They've
also written to them.

Mr. Ramsay: Are they members of your association?

Ms Cukier: Yes, they are.

Mr. Ramsay: Have you met with the Attorney General of Alberta?

Ms Cukier: I have not, but, again, I believe the police in both Edmonton and
Calgary have had discussions with the Attorney General in Alberta on this
issue.

Mr. Ramsay: What about the Attorney General of Saskatchewan and the two
territories?

Ms Cukier: Keith Carter has had meetings with the Attorney General of
Saskatchewan.

Mr. Ramsay: What about the justice minister of the Northwest Territories?

Ms Cukier: We have not had any meetings with the justice minister in the
Northwest Territories or the Yukon.

Mr. Ramsay: What about the justice minister of the Yukon?

Ms Cukier: No, we haven't had any meetings with them. We have, however, had
meetings with the attorneys general in B.C., in Ontario and in Quebec and we
have had correspondence with the eastern attorneys general as well.

Mr. Ramsay: Do you support the provisions of Bill C-17?

Ms Cukier: Bill C-17?

Mr. Ramsay: Yes, Kim Campbell's Bill C-17. That's now part of the Criminal
Code. Do you support it?

Ms Cukier: For the most part, we supported it and said it did not go far
enough.

Mr. Ramsay: So you support all aspects of it?

Ms Cukier: As far as I recall, but there may be something that you will draw to
my attention that I will want to say that I don't support, so perhaps you could
be more specific.

Mr. Ramsay: You see, we always look at the practicality of the law and
particularly those who attempt to influence the creation of the law.

.1635 [Image]

We have had witnesses here from the Northwest Territories who have testified to
us of the impracticality of the existing law. To give you an example of that, I
think everyone is interested in the storage requirements and yet the bill
requires a firearm to be stored in one room, locked up securely, and the
ammunition in another room. How does that occur in a one-room cabin in the
Northwest Territories, or any other part of Canada?

Ms Cukier: In fact, Mr. Ramsay, I believe if you are talking about rifles or
shotguns, you can keep the ammunition in a secure case. You can trigger-lock.
You can have a case in which the rifle is stored. I think it is also important
to emphasize that the current law does accommodate some variance, and in
communities where there is the need to have ready access to firearms because of
threats of predators or pests, the regulations clearly state that those people
are exempt from the safe storage requirements.

You have to remember there are several options for safe storage. Trigger locks
are clearly one of them. Having the ammunition locked in a tackle box with a
lock would clearly address the safe storage requirements.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you. Then anyone suggesting that, if you're living in a
one-room cabin or a one-room apartment and own a firearm -

Ms Cukier: That you have to build an extension? No, you don't.

Mr. Ramsay: So that would be misinformation, would it?

Ms Cukier: I believe it would be.

Mr. Ramsay: Do you oppose the possession of firearms for self-protection?

Ms Cukier: If you're talking about an alternative to relying primarily on the
police, I believe our current law does not support the notion of individuals
arming with handguns for self-protection except in very circumscribed cases.

Mr. Ramsay: I asked you about your feelings. How do you feel about firearms for
self-protection?

Ms Cukier: I believe that the evidence shows very clearly that the
proliferation of firearms for self-protection results in more people being
killed. I think the example of the United States is absolutely clear. One of
the most important things about this legislation is it sends out a clear
message that the solution to making Canadian streets safer is not for us all to
be packing pistols.

Mr. Ramsay: Then would you recommend the removal of subclause 19(a) from Bill
C-68, which allows a person to carry a firearm to protect the life of that
individual or of other individuals? Would you recommend we strike that from
Bill C-68?

Ms Cukier: Currently, there are provisions in the law for an individual who
requires a firearm for self-protection and can demonstrate that the police
cannot provide adequate protection, which allows them to carry a firearm for
self-protection, and we think those are reasonable tests.

Our argument is that the average civilian does not need to be carrying a
handgun for self-protection. We have, again, documented evidence. We're very
concerned about the extreme elements in the gun lobby making the case that more
guns will make Canadians safer.

We've seen very clear evidence of campaigns targeted at women suggesting if
more women have guns, they'll protect themselves from rapists. It's a great way
to sell more guns; it's a great way to kill more women. We absolutely object to
those notions.

Ms Torsney (Burlington): Welcome to all the witnesses. I know you've done a lot
of hard work on this issue and that you're very dedicated and have been working
on this issue for a number of years.

I too had the pleasure of going to a gun meeting organized by the Reform Party
in Kamloops, where there were 450 people and most of them were gunowners. Only
2 or 3 or maybe 7 had had their storage checked.

It got very interesting, of course, when people starting talking about UZIs and
150 people put up their hands as being interested in possessing an UZI.

.1640 [Image]

So as for your comments about whether or not we're headed toward an
American-style philosophy in Canada, such that you should have lots more guns
and everybody should be armed for self-protection, we are definitely on the
edge, one way or the other.

I wanted you to elaborate a little bit on the issue of criminalization and also
whether smuggled guns are really the problem or whether it's in fact guns in
the hands of law-abiding citizens that are either improperly stored or stolen.

The other thing I wanted more comments from you on - I don't think you did this
in your presentation - was your suggested amendments on prohibition orders.
Clearly, we've had some mistakes in the past.

Jonathon Yeo is an example of somebody who murdered two people, presumably. One
was in Burlington and another was in New Brunswick. He was up on charges but
nobody bothered to put in a prohibition order.

When he was stopped and had a gun, he didn't have any restrictions over him. He
was certainly entitled to have the gun in his possession. Perhaps two young
women in Canada might still be alive if that had not been the case.

I'd like you to expand on the two amendments you suggested and elaborate a
little bit on the issue of whether it's just smuggled guns or also law-abiding
citizens.

Ms Cukier: You will recall that with the testimony before the committee the
last time around there was a lot of debate. People would stand up and say that
the problem was smuggled guns. Then people would stand up and say that it was
legal guns.

I believe that some of the comments out of the Auditor General's report really
reflected a lack of empirical information.

We now have empirical information that supports what the chiefs of police have
been saying all along, along with public health people, which is that this
nice, clean division between the guns that belong to law-abiding gun owners and
the criminal element simply does not exist.

Almost half the guns used in criminal occurrences across this country are
rifles and shotguns. We have no evidence whatsoever that people are smuggling
rifles and shotguns into this country. That's partly because they are difficult
to conceal compared to handguns. That's one point.

We also know that of the handguns used in crime, 40% in Canada, overall, were
at one time legally registered or owned. In Edmonton, it's a higher percentage;
in Toronto, it's slightly less.

Consider the arguments that guns in the hands of legal owners are not in some
way contributing to this problem through gun theft or misuse by owners. There's
also the big gap that currently exists in which you have an FAC and you can buy
as many guns as you want. The only way the police can trace those back to you
is by doing store-by-store searches.

I think those facts have now been substantiated. They lend much more support to
the legislation. They certainly support our position more than that which we
had the benefit of back in 1990, when we started.

In terms of the amendments, I think Heidi and Louise can comment.

Ms Rathjen: We had asked earlier on for Bill C-17 to increase the circumstances
in which prohibition orders could be issued. The bill does increase the
different types of offences that would justify either a mandatory or a
discretionary prohibition. In addition, if the judge decides not to issue a
prohibition order, he or she has to justify it, which is absolutely what we
support.

I think the only thing that was perhaps omitted in the bill is in the case of a
violation of a prohibition order. There's still a possibility that you would
only have a fine. Because these prohibition orders are very serious and any
violation is deliberate, we think it should be a criminal offence at all times.

In cases in which the prohibition order was issued under sections 109 and 110,
which is criminal offences involving violence, we've asked that those
individuals, as opposed to perhaps somebody who's suicidal - that's somebody
who has committed a criminal offence - be subject to a mandatory minimum jail
sentence.

Ms Torsney: Do you think, Ms Cukier, that the empirical information you have
should be enough for the Manitoba Justice minister to appreciate the value of a
registration system?

.1645 [Image]

Ms Cukier: Quite frankly, I found her testimony quite astonishing in terms of
the fact that she wasn't aware of the death and injury rates.

I have to also say that I found the brief from the Alberta justice minister
astonishing because it didn't make any reference to death or injury by guns or
the sources of firearms. When it listed the groups that supported his position,
you would have thought he was the minister of hunting and target shooting
because there was absolutely no reference to crime prevention or injury
prevention.

I think we perhaps have to take some responsibility in terms of our efforts
because we've focused very much on the federal government and federal
politicians.

Look at many of the gun organizations. You heard from a range of the provincial
responsible firearms owners on Monday. They realized they weren't going to get
very far with the federal government so they shifted their focus to the
provincial governments. Quite frankly, some of those briefs could have been
written by the responsible firearms owners in those provinces.

I think part of the problem was a lack of consultation, perhaps, with health
and safety specialists. Once someone commits to a certain position, it's very
hard to say that they didn't have all the information and to back down.

Quite frankly, in the western provinces, there is a problem with legal guns.
Very good arguments for the registration of firearms were put forward. I think
that perhaps those messages simply have not been communicated to those
individuals as aggressively as that of the arguments on the other side.

Ms Torsney: I noticed that in your list of supporters you have an impressive
number of health care organizations that have people who deal on the front line
with gunshot wounds and suicides. We certainly heard impressive testimony from
them today. You've also got a good list of community and women's organizations.

Last week, I guess, we heard from somebody who suggested that the reason
women's organizations supported this legislation was that they were misinformed
and didn't appreciate the issues. I believe that was Ms Ross's presentation.

Can you tell me what kind of consultations you've had with women's
organizations? Are they informed on these issues? Is their support justified?

Ms Cukier: Two things. First of all, I think the polls show that there is a
gender split in terms of support for gun control. However, it is not as big as
the regional splits.

If you contrast, say, Quebec with Alberta, you'll find maybe a 15-point spread.
If you look at the average for men and women, you'll find maybe a 12-point
spread.

I think the differences in attitudes to guns are there between men and women. I
think the women's organizations that support gun control are very often coming
at it from the perspective of domestic violence.

I believe that the representatives of the Provincial Association of Transition
Houses of Saskatchewan, as well as the provincial Council of Women, tabled a
brief on death and injury in Saskatchewan. This made the point very succinctly
that from the point of view of a woman who's being abused in her home, the
notion of the criminal element is quite irrelevant. As we know, the risk to
women is not strangers jumping out of the bushes with illegal handguns, just as
the risk to children is not strangers abducting them. There's a lot of
attention focused on random violence, but the people on the front line in the
transition houses know that a lot of the problems are the so-called
``law-abiding'' gun owners and their lawful weapons.

When I said there wasn't empirical evidence about the misuse of illegal guns
until the chiefs of police presented their study's initial results, that's not
entirely true. The best study that looked at the use of firearms in crime
focused specifically on domestic violence.

It was a study that was done a couple of years ago. It showed that 78% of the
firearms used to kill women in domestic violence situations had, at one time,
been legally owned. About 35% to 45% of women killed by their spouses were
shot.

The evidence that legal guns were part of the problem was on the table a couple
of years ago, but it was in in the context of domestic violence. So the police
chiefs have added more information about the misuse of legal guns in a broader
range of crimes. I think that's the reason front-line women's organizations
were strongly in support of this.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mrs. Venne, you have five minutes.

Mrs. Venne: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

.1650 [Image]

Mr. Chairman, I'm looking at the witnesses' amendment on ammunition control.
You did not mention that transitional provisions would be required until the
act is fully in force. Nevertheless, I do think you favour transitional
provisions and until the act is completely in force, individuals will have to
show a driver's license in order to purchase ammunition, until everyone has
their firearms possession license.

I would like to hear what you think about the example we were given of a farmer
who has to deal with a coyote and asks his wife to purchase some ammunition.
She has no firearms possession license. So they're in a panic. What is your
reaction to that argument? I must confess that such cases are quite rare. I'm
told that for people who live in the city, the situation is rare, but it is not
rare for people who live on farms.

Ms Rathjen: People who live in rural areas and have firearms to deal with
dangerous predators should have a supply of ammunition in the home. If the
husband knows that his wife cannot go and purchase ammunition in a specific
situation, he will ensure that he has a supply of ammunition on hand. The
situation is similar to that of people who expect to have to drive - they have
their driver's license with them. I don't think it's asking too much for people
to have a supply of ammunition purchased by the person who holds the license on
hand to deal with emergencies.

Mrs. Venne: So you wouldn't make an exemption for such people.

Ms Rathjen: No.

Mrs. Venne: Ms Viau, I did not follow your explanation very well earlier when
you were discussing the fact that provisions regarding fines could not be put
in a regulatory act rather than the Criminal Code. I'm referring here to the
decriminalization of failure to register a firearms. I would like you to repeat
your explanation, please, because we do have federal regulatory statutes.
Earlier, you made a comparison to the legislation on driver's licenses, which I
believe is a provincial statute, but there are federal regulatory statutes,
such as the Excise Act, which provides for fines. So I'm wondering whether I
followed your explanation correctly.

Prof. Viau: There is a specific provision regarding excise. I could not quote
you the exact subsection of section 91 of the 1867 Constitution Act, but I know
there is one that gives the federal Parliament exclusive power in the area of
excise. So there is no trouble for the federal Parliament to legislate outside
its responsibility for criminal law in this area.

The same is true of the Bank Act. There's also aeronautics, and protection of
migratory birds, for example, which are areas of federal jurisdiction which do
not come under the criminal law as such, as mentioned in section 91(27). Of
course, to ensure compliance with this legislation, the federal Parliament can
provide for criminal punishments in this legislation, that is create offences.

There is no other subsection in section 91 that applies specifically to
firearms. Thus, it becomes difficult to pass legislation outside the context of
91(27). This would have to be done under the residual power regarding peace,
order and good government, if it were to be done at all.

I am not an expert on the interpretation of this clause. I know that the
federal Parliament has used it in the past, particularly with its
Anti-inflation Act, but using this clause always leads to constitutional
debates about whether the matter comes under federal jurisdiction or whether
the federal government is intruding in an area of provincial authority.

The other problem is that there is a difference for the person charged with the
offence according to whether the offence comes under the Criminal Code or
another piece of legislation.

.1655 [Image]

If we say that the offence was against the regulations, given the way the
Supreme Court interpreted offences against regulations, first in the Sault Ste.
Marie decision and more recently in the Wholesale Travel Group Inc. case, it
has the effect of reversing the burden of proof on the person subject to be
tried. The Supreme Court stated it was quite constitutional to act in such a
matter.

Lastly, it could be said that it makes a difference on the criminal record, but
if I read the Criminal Records Act correctly, I notice that any offence to a
federal act or any one of its regulations is entered into the criminal record.
Once again, I fail to see the difference.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Gallaway, five minutes.

Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You used two words in your presentation that we've heard a lot about here. It's
called ``empirical evidence''. For example, this morning we heard one of the
doctors refute something that was said by another doctor, which was that if the
studies in The New England Journal of Medicine dealt with gun control, the
editor was biased - that sort of thing.

We've had a number of witnesses appear before us who flashed something called
the Fraser forum and who flashed the name Gary Mauser. In one of the briefs of
this week there was a reference to the fact - and I don't want to overstate the
number, and I don't have the brief here - that 23,000 Canadians every year use
a gun for protection, for self-defence. I'm not talking about protection from
animals and protection from the perils of the wild, but protection from other
people. I find that an incredible number. Quite frankly, it boggles my mind. I
wonder if you could comment on that particular statistic, which is, in some
corners, accepted as something akin to the gospel.

Ms Cukier: There are two things. First of all, I think it's important to
distinguish between empirical evidence and your analysis of the evidence. I was
making the point that we had not previously had information, data, about the
sources of guns. What you then conclude about what that data means, of course,
is subject to interpretation.

Gary Mauser, I find, is an interesting example, because people think he's a
criminologist. He's not; he's a business professor, the same as me, at Simon
Fraser University. The other thing that's often not mentioned in his bio is
that he is the spokesperson for the British Columbia Wildlife Federation and
that his 1988 research was funded by the National Rifle Association. He's also
a former American.

Under those circumstances, his objectivity, it seems to me, is questionable to
start with. When you look at the study I have done, which you're referring to,
where he claims that Canadians use guns 32,000 times per year to protect
themselves, what you have to do is go back and look at what that's based on.

What it's based on is a telephone survey of 393 people who were asked: ``Aside
from military service and police work, have you used a firearm? Have you
yourself or a member of your family used a firearm for self-protection or
property protection at home, at work or elsewhere, even if it wasn't fired, and
was it in the last five years? If yes, was it an animal, a person or both?''

You have to look at the question. What that means is, if somebody heard
something go bump in the night, grabbed their shotgun and ran outside, they
could conceivably say, yes, they had used their.... It doesn`t distinguigh
between perception and reality. How many cases have the police actually
documented where someone has used their firearm? So that's one point.

The other point is that of his sample, 12 people said they used their firearms
for protection; 6 of them said they had used it to protect themselves from
other people. It's purely perception. He extrapolated, based on 6 people on the
telephone saying, yes, they had used their firearm in the last five years, to
the number of 32,000. I have to tell you that not only has the sample size been
criticized, but if you asked the same number of people if they thought Elvis
still lived, you might get the same response.

The research is simply not supportable.

The fact that it and the research of Suter, the anti-self-protection physician
- and most of it has not been peer-reviewed - are cited to counter the
voluminous research that has been presented to support the efficacy of gun
control, as an academic I think is quite hilarious, frankly.

.1700 [Image]

Mr. Gallaway: The other point is the whole question of our existing
registration system with respect to handguns. We've heard it's existed since
1936 and it's not working.

I have to acknowledge that systems change. This may not be a correct analogy,
but I would never go to a doctor who advertised that he only used technology
invented in 1936 or before.

I'm wondering how you view this proposed system as compared to the existing
system.

Ms Cukier: First of all, I think you have to ask yourself the question ``What
if we had no registration of firearms?'' I don't think you would have to look
very far to see what would have happened if we had had no registration of
handguns. We have that great laboratory south of the border.

As to arguments that the registration of handguns has not had an effect, I
think it's a question of whether the glass is half full or half empty.
Certainly there are still problems with handguns, but I think it's very clear
that our strict controls on handguns have contributed to improve safety.

The second thing is, as you point out, the technology on which that or the New
Zealand system was based is archaic by modern standards. I have, for the sake
of the debate, included in our appendix a list of the countries in Europe that
have registration as well as possession permits for long guns. That is the norm
in western civilized countries. The United States example is the aberration,
frankly.

Mr. Hill (Prince George - Peace River): Thank you, and welcome to the
committee.

I want to start off with a question, and I would ask if you could please keep
your response as short as possible. That way we can try to get to as many
questions as possible, not only for me but also for other members of the
committee, in the time that's remaining.

In your document and in your presentation you referred to 3,000 guns stolen.
You went on to say registration would help prevent this. I was just wondering
how you feel it would prevent that.

Ms Cukier: The police have said quite clearly that while we have safe storage
requirements on the books, the fact that gun owners are not being held
accountable for their firearms contributes to the problem Deputy Chief Cassels
mentioned, which is that a lot of people are not storing their guns securely.

The notion is that registration increases accountability and people will store
their guns more safely.

Mr. Hill: So what you're suggesting, then, is that having it in a locked
cabinet prevents the theft, and yet there are obviously lots of instances
already on record where people come in, rip the cabinet right off the wall and
steal the guns. They know where they are.

Ms Cukier: Sure, just like locking your car doesn't guarantee that it won't be
stolen, but it reduces the probability. What we're talking about is reducing
probabilities.

Mr. Hill: I see.

Perhaps you could help clear up some misinformation. A lot of people have made
the claim - myself one - that if the criminal element were to gain access to
this list -

Let's just surmise for a moment that everyone was to comply with the law and
register their firearms and we had that in a central data bank somewhere in a
computer. We know computers aren't safe. We know they can be broken into by
hackers all the time.

Some people are suggesting that the accumulation of this list would actually
promote this theft of firearms, because then when the thieves get the list,
they would know which homes the firearms are in.

Ms Cukier: Well, we haven't seen that happen with the handgun registration
system.

What we heard is that in Winnipeg, the way they find out where the guns are is
to grab a kid and basically force him to tell them where someone in their
family has guns. They target those places for break-and-enters. A very easy way
to find out who has guns is to hang out in gun clubs and follow people home.

It seems to me that, again, the arguments about the security or lack of
security of the registration system - and I do teach information systems - are
analogous to arguments that because the banks now have on-line banking,
someone's going to tap in and find out who has the most money in the country
and then target their homes for break-and-enters.

.1705 [Image]

It's really a spurious argument. There are easier ways to get access to
information about gun owners than through hacking.

The security provisions governing the system will be comparable to what's
already involved with CPIC and other police services.

You're right, it's a potential risk. People have broken into military
computers. But there are easier ways of finding where the guns are than
accessing the database.

Mr. Hill: There might be easier ways; however, there wouldn't be such an
all-inclusive list of everybody in one town, what firearms they have, and
where.

You made the statement that gun control is not abolition when addressing
misinformation spread by the other side of the argument, the gun lobby, as you
call it. In fact, if this bill proceeds, half a million legally acquired
handguns will be placed on the prohibited list.

Ms Cukier: What's going to happen to those people?

Mr. Hill: The people are going to be able to keep them, but they are restricted
to selling them to people of a similar class, unless I misunderstood.

Ms Cukier: Do you think that's the same as confiscation?

Mr. Hill: Eventually it will be.

Ms Cukier: I can't sell a crib that no longer complies with safety standards.
I'd have a hard time arguing that's confiscation.

Mr. Hill: When firearms are put on the prohibited list, they will eventually be
banned in one form or another. They'll have to be turned over to the
government.

I'd like to move on to your amendments. One of your suggested amendments is to
subclause 5(2). This clause deals with previous offenses, mental illness, that
type of thing, over the past five-year period, preventing ownership of
firearms. Your amendment suggests deletion of the five-year term.

Do you not believe in rehabilitation? Do you believe that someone who might
have had a problem at some point in their life should be prevented from owning
a firearm 20 or 25 years later? This is what you're suggesting by putting
forward an amendment that would take the five-year term out of the bill.

Prof. Viau: It would depend on the person's situation. For example, if it is a
case of a man being violent toward his wife, five years is not long enough.

Mr. Hill: You don't believe in rehabilitation.

Prof. Viau: I don't believe in rehabilitation in cases of family violence. I
have difficulty with that after looking at data on men who kill their wives, on
their background and the reason for first-time divorce.

Ms Rathjen: This allows the chief arms officer to examine those cases. It
doesn't mean they have to refuse.

We just don't want to limit the investigation to five years. It could go
further, but they could still grant the permit if they feel the person is
rehabilitated.

Mr. Bodnar (Saskatoon - Dundurn): I have twin areas. You are probably aware I
support the bill, but there are parts of concern to me.

One primary concern is the inspection provision. As I have made it known on a
number of occasions, I very strongly believe in individual rights. I realize
there are opinions the legislation may be constitutional. That's fine. But do
you not find it very intrusive for police officers to be able to come into any
other premise but the dwelling house, meaning garages, farm buildings, etc.,
without any warrants, without belief there's an offence being committed, but
simply reasonable grounds there's a firearm there?

In the province of Saskatchewan virtually all farmers have guns. So any time of
the day a police officer could come in and conduct an inspection of those
premises, with the exception of the dwelling.

Do you not find this very intrusive?

.1710 [Image]

Ms Cukier: I have to tell you honestly I don't. I submit to spot checks on the
road at Christmastime, restaurants have to submit to random health and safety
inspections, and so on, so I personally don't find it intrusive.

My understanding from the legal advice we've received - and perhaps Professor
Viau would like to comment - is that the provisions in the law are not
inconsistent with provisions elsewhere, and they are subject to the charter.
Quite frankly, the police have many other things to do. I really don't think
they're going to want to spend their time harassing law-abiding citizens
without due cause. In fact, I've been told that in many cases they'll go for a
warrant when they think there is a reason for inspecting in the first place.

Mr. Bodnar: I'm aware of what the law is on this particular point.

Perhaps by asking this next question I'll use up the rest of my time. Again,
I'm simply trying to take a practical approach to this, but as much as we can
have faith in police officers, quite often this depends on the individual
officers. I can see police officers using this provision when they cannot
obtain the proper warrant to enter a particular place, using the inspection
provision when they have the reasonable grounds to believe there are guns in
there, entering the premises that way and perhaps obtaining other information
so that they can then get a warrant. That's a concern I have.

I'm wondering about a change to that particular section simply requiring the
police officer to give, let's say, 48 hours' notice of inspection. If you want
to inspect my premises, give me 48 hours' notice. That will force people who
may not be complying, to comply. In effect, the reason for the inspection
provision is to see that there is compliance with the act. Do you feel this is
a reasonable alternative, to do away with my concerns?

Ms Cukier: We haven't discussed this point, but I'll let the deputy chief
respond.

D/Chief Cassels: Police officers are reasonable people. They know they are
going to be held accountable for their actions. They know that the legislation
is put in place for a specific purpose. They know there are oversight bodies.
They know there are supervisors who are watching their actions, and, with the
charter, if those kinds of things happen, if they begin to abuse their
authority, they are going to be corrected in short order.

I don't think 48 hours' notice would be appropriate in something like this,
because there will be opportunities for people to change things and to dispose
of things. So we'd not be able to find out if they're complying with the
regulations, which was the intent. I don't think 48 hours' notice is
appropriate.

Ms Cukier: I think you get caught in the same problem we raised before. If
you're dealing with the law-abiding gun owner who just didn't get around to
registering his gun, that's one thing, but if you're dealing with the guy who's
got them buried in the backyard, or if you're dealing with the illegal dealer,
that's another.

Professor Viau mentioned the proposal that Quigley brought forward, reasonable
and probable grounds, for example. I assume you've reviewed his advice.

On the inspection provisions, we are sensitive to the fact that there are
concerns. The committee may come up with something that addresses the concerns
but does not undermine the intent of the legislation.

Mr. Bodnar: That's what I'm trying to come up with.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mrs. Venne, for five minutes.

Mrs. Venne: Yes. I will probably not use up my five minutes.

I would ask the Coalition what they will do once the bill has come in force.
You see, I think we have been meeting since about 1989 or 1990. We met on
previous occasions to deal with Bill C-80 and C-17, and we are now dealing with
Bill C-68.

Also, since those amendments that you are putting forward are meant in your
opinion to improve the bill and not bring about fundamental or major changes or
even changes of a philosophical nature, I wonder what you will be doing after
the bill has come in force.

.1715 [Image]

Prof. Viau: In answering your question, I am tempted to paraphrase Gis�le
Halimi who said something similar about feminism. She said: ``The best thing
that could happen to feminism would be its disappearance; mission
accomplished.'' So, similarly, the best thing that could happen to the Gun
Control Coalition would be its disappearance; mission accomplished.

Ms Rathjen: We are often accused of wanting - We have an agenda and our task
will be completed when all firearms have been prohibited, but as you can see,
our position has been consistent over these five years and it will not change.

If the bill is passed as it was tabled, without major amendment, then, as far
as we are concerned, after what we've presented today, we will no longer fight
for a federal legislation: I think that we will stay around a while for the
regulations and the implementation of the act, but after that, we will have
achieved our objective.

Mrs.Venne: Thank you.

[English]

Mrs. Barnes (London West): Welcome, witnesses.

I'd like to say today that as I look down your list, I see you have an
impressive group of endorsers. I see the United Church of Canada, the Canadian
Teachers' Federation, and nearly 300 others. It was pleasant for me to see my
London Police Services Board and my municipal council for the City of London.

In fairness, that does make my job of sitting around this table a lot easier,
but it also makes me very much aware of how different it is for a lot of
people, a lot of members around this table, who are from different parts of the
country and have to deal with more hostile environments to try to get to the
facts and cope with making this legislation acceptable and relevant to what is
happening in Canada today. A good law has to be accepted by the people to be
relevant legislation. I think that's primary in understanding the legal system.

Many times in the committee we have heard comments about the charter getting in
people's way. I have heard comments that the charter is bad. I would like the
constitutional lawyer to talk about search and seizure and the charter and what
protections there are under our charter to rights and freedoms with respect to
seizure.

Prof. Viau: Well, there is a lot of protection, because the charter guarantees
the right against unreasonable search and seizure. ``Unreasonable'' has been
interpreted in a broader way than just illegal. It can also apply to a
situation in which the police officer behaves in a bad way in an otherwise
lawful search and seizure. Therefore, it is very wide.

Once an illegality has been committed by a police officer, there is judicial
control. The Supreme Court has sent a very strong message that a police officer
should respect the charter. Generally speaking, police officers are respecting
the charter and are behaving properly with respect to the rights that are
guaranteed by the charter.

Mrs. Barnes: Is there a difference between inspection and search and seizure?

Ms Viau: There is a difference in that the power to search must be linked to
reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed. An inspection
power is more preventive - but it is linked to legislation that says one has a
duty to register something - or when something is possessed. The inspection
power is linked more to regulation.

Mrs. Barnes: There has been a lot of concern. A lot of people think anyone can
go into their home, even though it's in the legislation you can't do that. Is
it easy to get a warrant?

D/Chief Cassels: No, it's not that easy. You have to involve a third party - a
judge or a justice of the peace - who is going to be inquiring and asking what
your reason is, and you must have reasonable grounds.

I don't know what you mean by ``easy''. You must be sure that you have
reasonable grounds. On the other hand, time is the issue. You can do it fairly
quickly, but it's not a sure thing.

.1720 [Image]

Mr. Ramsay: We do live in a democracy, and the will of the majority is supposed
to prevail, not the will of the minority. We talk about the polls; we've all
wrestled with the polls.

When the delegation from Manitoba appeared here last night, they clearly
indicated that in their recent election this gun control issue, Bill C-68, was
front and centre. They attended meetings, they knocked on doors all across the
province. The NDP and the Conservatives apparently opposed the bill; the
Liberals embraced it and supported it. The result was that the Liberals lost
50% of their seats. They took 5% of the seats in what I think is a 57-seat
legislature.

It is not often that the average individual has an opportunity to vote on a
bill such as Bill C-68 or on any other controversial bill, but that is
happening. It happened in Manitoba, and when Saskatchewan holds its
election.... The people, not interest groups - not my interest, but my
neighbours, my friends, my relatives - will have the say on an issue like that.
We'll see that as these things emerge.

I just make reference to it. In fact one of the defeated candidates in that
election - this was read out last night, and I kept a copy of it - said it
infuriated him to hear Justice Minister Allan Rock say after the election that
gun control had nothing to do with the Manitoba Liberals' poor showing. He has
his head in the sand.

I don't make anything more of that than it says.

Anyway, with the last minute or so that I have before we shut down, I'd like to
address the deputy chief.

If we are going forward with a firearms registration system, it's got to be a
reliable one so that it will grant the law enforcement agencies a credible,
reliable tool.

We have been told, although it's not in the bill, that it's going to be a
mail-in registration system, where the owners are simply going to have to pick
up the documentation from wherever, fill in the identifying features of their
firearms, and mail the form in.

We had forensic scientists: one from the RCMP crime protection laboratory in
Regina, and the other, Mr. Nielsen, from Ontario. When I asked them whether
they would feel confident in issuing a registration certificate for a firearm
from information they had not verified, both of them said no.

The reasoning for that is the same reasoning the revenue people presented when
they were here, and it has to do with the registration of Americans who come
across the border to hunt. They said they could send them the documentation
beforehand, and if they had all the documentation made out before they got to
the border, it would expedite the process. I asked them what they would do when
they received the documentation from the owner. They said they would check it
against the firearm itself. In other words, they would inspect the firearm to
verify the information.

If a person can be charged for not having his firearm registered, and if he
makes just one simple, honest mistake on the serial number, for example, which
will be extremely difficult to pick up, that registration can be produced but
the firearm won't be registered. The firearm is not registered. And it's a
pretty serious offence to not have your firearm registered.

.1725 [Image]

The Chair: That was a five-minute question, but according to our rules you have
the right to answer beyond the time.

D/Chief Cassels: I'll keep it short. I think if it was an honest, simple
mistake, it's not likely that police officers are going to enforce it. They're
going to use discretion if it's an honest, simple mistake.

Mr. Ramsay: My question has to do with the integrity of the registration
system.

D/Chief Cassels: The system has yet to be developed so I can't comment on the
integrity of this system. I don't know. I understand that the plan is to have a
mail-in system, Mr. Ramsay, but I can't comment.

I would like to clarify one thing with Mr. Ramsay though. I think he asked a
question earlier, whether I had discussed Bill C-68 with the Alberta justice
minister. I have corresponded with him and I have given him our perspective,
but I have not actually discussed it with him. I want that on the record.

The Chair: Mr. Lee, for five minutes.

Mr. Lee (Scarborough - Rouge River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two items
I would like to ask you about. One of them has to do with this issue of
possibly decriminalizing the so-called first offence. I put to you the
possibility that one might mandate a conditional discharge in the statute on a
first offence, where the facts did not give rise to any other charges, where
there was no other previous criminal record.

In that way, the person would not have been a lifetime thug and would be deemed
not to have committed a criminal offence. Obviously, one of the conditions
would be registration of the firearm or licensing, as the case may be. I put
that to you as one possibility. What do you think?

The second is, section 97 of the code revisions require the licensing of a
person who would acquire a crossbow. We've been talking about firearms here
today. Perhaps you have some so-called empirical evidence; maybe you don't. If
you have no comment on the crossbow, that's just fine. We can just deal with
criminalization.

Prof. Viau: I will deal with your first question about the use of a conditional
discharge. It is already a power that is given generally to any judge for an
offence that is not extremely serious, and I would consider that the offence
that relates to the negligent non-compliance with the legislation would qualify
for the application of 736.

I would not put this as an amendment within this specific part of the Criminal
Code because it might be that is a person who is a first offender with respect
to the compliance with the firearm provision but is someone who has a lengthy
criminal record.

Mr. Lee: That was one of my conditions, that there be no other criminal record.

Prof. Viau: If there is no other criminal record, it is already within the
discretion of the court. It might even be that the police officer won't even
charge.

Mr. Lee: Especially if the position was mandated.

Prof. Viau: Yes.

Ms Cukier: It's an interesting point to consider. I think the question I have
is where would the onus lie to prove inadvertent...? If it's someone who's
stockpiling weapons and has no previous record, but just got caught.... I think
Vince Westwick made the point of giving people a free first-time offence not
necessarily being in the interests of the public. If you found a way to couch
it in terms of the onus being on the individual to demonstrate that it was
inadvertent, that might actually address some of the concerns. That's our
biggest concern. How do you differentiate between those different individuals?

The Chair: Just to close the meeting, I have a few questions on clarification.
You're considered the most comprehensive, largest pro-gun control organization.
I'd like to know, as an organization or as a coalition, if you have any
objection to legitimate hunting with a rifle or shotgun, either for sport or
sustenance. Do you have any objection to that?

Ms Cukier: No.

The Chair: Do you have any objection to competitive shooting in the Olympics or
Pan American games, with Canadians training and participating in that kind of
competitive shooting?

Ms Cukier: No.

.1730 [Image]

The Chair: That's fine, because I think it should be clear that as a major
organization promoting gun control, you recognize that this has a legitimate
place in Canada.

I want to ask you now about what some people have suggested. They haven't
suggested decriminalization, but they have suggested, for example, moving the
penalties for non-registration, the penalties in section 91, to the Firearms
Act. As far as I'm concerned this is cosmetics, because we have penalties in
the Narcotic Control Act, they're not in the Criminal Code. They're still
criminal penalties.

In other words, if you move the very same sections that are in section 91,
sections for the penalties, both summary offence and indictable offence, and
not put them in the Criminal Code but put them in the Firearms Act and put all
the penalties that dealt with infractions with respect to registration, failure
to register, failure to licence and so on - don't put them in the substantial
criminal offence but put them there - do you have any objection to that?

Prof. Viau: I would say that this move would be interpreted as
decriminalization, and you will have to ask what the constitutional basis is
for a regulatory offence in that field.

The Chair: As a lawyer, do you think that because you have the penalty in the
Firearms Act and not in the Criminal Code it will fall down on constitutional
grounds? We have penalties in the Young Offenders Act that are not in the
Criminal Code. We have penalties in the Narcotic Control Act. We have penalties
in the Competition Act, which are criminal penalties, but they are not in the
Criminal Code.

Prof. Viau: I'm not sitting at the Supreme Court, so it is extremely difficult
for me to determine in absence what the decision of the Supreme Court would be
in that respect. The only thing I know for sure is that, generally speaking,
the judges of the Supreme Court are considering the offences in the Criminal
Code as being the exercise of the crminal power of Parliament. I wouldn't say
that every time, but I would say that most of the time offences that are
outside the Criminal Code are considered as regulatory offences, but there are
some in-between situations, such as the Narcotic Control Act. I cannot answer
precisely what the result would be, but it is a question that should be further
analysed before making just that move. It may be apparently just cosmetics, but
it can have adverse effects.

The Chair: I believe myself that the penalties would be just as much
criminal-type penalties, but the people who are asking for them seem to believe
they would rather, if they were convicted under the.... They would be much
happier to tell their friends and grandchildren that they were convicted under
the Firearms Act rather than convicted under the Criminal Code. I met these
people and they were proposing this to me. They feel strongly about this
because they feel it's more of a regulatory-type of offence as opposed to armed
robbery with a weapon or sexual assault with a gun, etc.

Ms Cukier: Do you remember that the principal impetus for decriminalization was
brought forward by the National Firearms Association, which argued that this
should be regulatory and not criminal law? I think it's also important to bear
in mind the source and again to emphasize that the Canadian Association of
Chiefs of Police has been pretty explicit.

I think the deputy wants to make a comment.

D/Chief Cassels: I want to comment on another item, if I can, Mr. Chairman, if
you'll allow me to. That's the comment I made earlier with respect to
prevention. I feel very strong that this bill can do a tremendous amount for
public safety for Canada in the long run. I'd like to explain to you why I say
that.

We've had significant success in Edmonton with this notion of community
policing, this whole notion of problem solving, and we're only able to do that
because we can work closely with people to solve local neighbourhood problems.

.1735 [Image]

Information, as everyone knows, is the lifeblood of policing. We can't do
anything without information. When you put this in the context of family
violence or firearms, and when you think that we're dealing with lethal force,
police officers who are working closer with the community have access to
information.

If we take the example of family violence, in Edmonton we have family violence
follow-up teams that specifically go in to stop the repetitive cycle of family
violence and to work with the family as soon as they recognize something is
going to happen. Family violence is just one example, but if there's a firearm
there, it is very easy for them to go in, to talk about counselling and do
things to bring the family together, to stop this cycle of violence I talk
about, and to ask the owner of the firearm, in the interim, whether it would be
better if he let us take the firearm to prevent something.

We shift from this law enforcement mentality or approach to a community
problem-solving approach, which is in the community's best interest. That can
go much broader than family violence when it comes to firearms, because that
information is in the registry and is available to us.

That kind of thinking in policing is spreading across the country, and I think
that's very important for the committee to know.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I want to thank the coalition and all those who
came with it today to testify. It was a very important testimony.

I want to remind members of the committee that we meet again tomorrow at 9 a.m.
Tomorrow morning it will be an opportunity to take all the technical issues
we've saved over the last three or four weeks and to ask questions of the
technical experts or the technical people - legal, mechanical or whatever. It
is not the minister and we're not dealing with policy tomorrow, but we can ask
many types of questions of things we've had contradictory evidence on.

We'll also deal tomorrow with the motion that was put on the table by Mr.
Ramsay. Depending on what happens to that motion, we'll organize our schedule
of meetings either for another bill or this bill, and we'll also decide on
whether we will continue to sit in this room. Thank you.

This meeting is adjourned until tomorrow morning.

Return to Committee Home Page