EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 2, 1995

.0933

[English]

The Chair: Order. We are continuing our examination of Bill C-68, An Act respecting firearms and other weapons. This morning we have a panel of witnesses consisting of the Ontario Arms Collectors Association, represented by William Bateman, director, and Donald Holmes, member and spokesperson, and Judith Ross, spokesperson; the Saskatchewan Gun Collectors Association, Tom Lewis, president; and Robert Henderson, director and editor.

[Translation]

The last member of the group is the Association des collectionneurs d'armes semi-automatiques du Québec, represented by Mr. Stephen Torino, vice-president and Mr. George Panagiotidis. Did I pronounce your name correctly, sir?

[English]

M. Stephen Torino (Vice-president, Association des collectioneurs d'armes automatiques du Québec): Yes, you have.

The Chair: M. Torino is the vice-president.

We have received briefs from each organization. I would ask you, if you can, not to read the brief in your opening remarks, because the briefs have been distributed, but instead to refer to the highlights or to the main points you're making in your brief so each group would take approximately ten or fifteen minutes. However, if you can read the brief in that period of time, you may do so as well.

.0935

Following the opening remarks of the three organizations, we will have the rounds of questioning and an exchange of views with the members of the committee.

So I will ask you to make your opening comments in the order in which I called your names: first the Ontario Arms Collectors, then the Saskatchewan Gun Collectors, then the Association des collectionneurs d'armes à feu semi-automatiques du Québec.

Mr. Bateman.

Mr. William Bateman (Director, Ontario Arms Collectors Association): Our presentation will start with Dr. Ross, if you don't mind.

The Chair: Very good.

Dr. Judith Ross (Spokesperson, Ontario Arms Collectors Association): You have received in advance a copy of this paper that I wrote, which provides a detailed refutation of the arguments that are put forth by those who seek further gun control legislation. This document along with documents that have been sent to you by organizations such as the Ontario Handgun Association clearly indicate that restricting the access of law-abiding individuals to firearms does absolutely nothing to reduce crime and contributes absolutely nothing to public safety. This point has been made time and time again since Bill C-17 was introduced a few years ago.

Last September 23,000 owners of firearms came to Parliament Hill with the rallying cry, ``Crime control, not gun control''. Since last summer there have been well-attended rallies all across this country where firearms collectors and recreational shooters gathered to make this point. Yet the Minister of Justice seems not to have heard this message and has persisted with Bill C-68. Along with many other people in this country, I've been wondering why. When the point has been made over and over again that gun controls directed at legitimate owners of firearms contribute absolutely nothing to crime control or public safety, why are more such gun control measures introduced? Why would the Minister of Justice want to register all firearms? It's absurd to think for a minute this would be a crime-control measure. Criminals will not register their firearms. The cost of such registration will be phenomenal. Many individuals will not comply.

Why does the Minister of Justice, in the face of significant arguments against registration, persist in this plan?

Why would the Minister of Justice state that registration does not lead to confiscation when there is abundant evidence that this is precisely what has happened and what Bill C-68 indicates will continue to happen? A number of rifles and shotguns have already been prohibited in a totally arbitrary manner. That is, there's no valid reason related to public safety to single out these firearms for prohibition, but that is precisely what has already happened by Order in Council.

Now Bill C-68 prohibits two-thirds of the pistols owned by law-abiding individuals. Many of these are collectors' items and many are target pistols in current use in competitions such as the Olympics and the Commonwealth Games. Some of these firearms may be grandfathered, but that's simply a form of delayed confiscation. Exactly what purpose does the Minister of Justice feel is served by such prohibition? Certainly the loss to firearms collectors and recreational shooters is staggering.

As Canada already has very strict gun control legislation, as there is overwhelming evidence that gun control measures directed at law-abiding firearms collectors and recreational shooters contribute absolutely nothing to public safety, as universal firearm registration is useless and expensive, as prohibition of various firearms is arbitrary, senseless, and a serious violation of the right to private property, and as all this is well documented, we must ask why the Minister of Justice is insisting on this legislation? This is a very serious question. It's a question the members of this committee should be asking.

Only one conclusion can reasonably be drawn, which is that crime control is not the purpose of this legislation and that there is another agenda. What is this other agenda behind Bill C-68?

An examination of the bill leads to the inescapable conclusion that one aspect of this hidden agenda is the elimination of private ownership of firearms in Canada. This bill allows for the arbitrary prohibition, confiscation and destruction of any and all firearms. This would be done through Order in Council.

Both the War Measures Act and the Emergencies Act that replaced it require that orders and regulations come before Parliament for approval after debate by both Houses, but in Bill C-68Mr. Rock has assumed sweeping new powers, in that the Minister of Justice will be exempted from having his orders or regulations come before Parliament.

Thoughtful Canadians, regardless of their views on firearms or their political party affiliation, must be concerned about the implications of this legislation.

Other aspects of this bill reveal more about this hidden agenda.

.0940

The Minister of Justice also gives himself total power to regulate every aspect of firearms use and recreational shooting. He will have the power to regulate activities at all gun clubs and shooting ranges and to decide what firearms are ``reasonable'' for use in Canada for hunting and sporting purposes. We're looking at a situation where ownership of firearms and their use will be dictated by the Minister of Justice at his whim and with no recourse to Parliament.

The hidden agenda clearly involves the abolition of civilian ownership of firearms, but the civil liberties implications go well beyond that, and he or every Canadian, regardless of his or her views on firearms, must be concerned. It is not putting it too extremely to say that the extension of police powers permitted by Bill C-68 amounts to the loss of the protection of the individual from the abuse of power of the government to the point where Canada would be turned into something like a police state. An examination of this bill reveals the loss of the right against self-incrimination, the right to private property, and the right against unreasonable search and seizure.

You may say these violations would occur only for owners of firearms, but you must realize that these are law-abiding individuals. In any case, an extremely dangerous precedent would be set by allowing these violations of personal liberties. In fact, some of these provisions can be used against individuals other than firearms owners.

Why does Mr. Rock have this personal agenda, which involves such a serious loss of basic democratic rights for firearms owners? Mr. Rock may have revealed some of his reasons when he stated recently that registration was needed in order to be sure that no one was stockpiling firearms in order to start a militia.

When does a collection leave off and a stockpile begin? When do you have recreational shooters and hunters, and when do you have a militia? Mr. Rock seems to see sinister implications to lawful and innocent activities.

Firearms owners are not forming militias in Canada; they're joining new political parties.

Members of this committee, whatever your views on firearms, you really must think about the implications of this bill. Thank you.

Mr. Bateman: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm pleased to speak to you not only on behalf of members of the Ontario Arms Collectors Association, but also on behalf of all other collectors throughout Canada.

OACA is an Ontario-based organization that has roots extending back over forty years. The association has an extremely active program of providing a venue for its members to display weapons and items of military interest nine times throughout the year, as well as organizing four competitive shoots during the year.

The first and most obvious financial ramification of the proposed legislation is the anticipated cost of implementing a number of the provisions in the bill, particularly those requiring the registration of firearms that are currently not subject to such a requirement.

It must be borne in mind that not only is there a cost in dollar terms, but also there is a real cost in terms of time spent by both government employees and the general public in complying with registration procedures. I believe there is a feeling across the country that in some areas Canadians are being overregulated by governments at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. Taxpayers have seen a continued stream of requirements for more and more detailed forms, all of which require each Canadian affected by the requirements to take time and effort to complete the necessary forms.

The OACA's submission would be that no one has any accurate estimate of how much the registration requirements may cost in dollar terms either initially or to administer, and certainly no one has an idea of the cost in terms of convenience to ordinary Canadians.

Of greater impact on collectors is the fact that a number of provisions of the bill directly attack the value of firearms currently held by collectors. Certain aspects of the bill strike directly at the intrinsic value of those firearms that would be classed as prohibited. It is virtually impossible to reach any meaningful assessment of the cost in dollar terms which would be removed from collections.

The fact that the minimum barrel length has been established at 105 millimeters also means that a significant number of the firearms of interest to more modern collectors will fall within the prohibited category.

.0945

In this regard, Ontario Arms Collectors would strongly support a modification of the prohibited barrel length to 97 millimetres and, more importantly, would submit that the prohibited category be restricted either to firearms of an age less than fifty years or to firearms actually manufactured subsequently to 1946.

I draw to the committee's attention the fact that there is a precedent in firearms legislation for the exemption of collectors' items. When the government made an exemption for collectible large-capacity magazines, it also exempted the belts that fed machine-guns that had been designed or manufactured prior to 1946. If the legislation were to exempt from the prohibited category firearms that are more than fifty years old, or, alternatively, ones that were designed or manufactured prior to 1946, this would allow the preservation of such classic pieces of World War I and II history as Lugers, Walthers, Colts and Enfields, and would greatly lessen the impact on collectors.

OACA is also concerned that replica firearms are classed as prohibited devices. This for the first time brings under legislation those collectors who have attempted to avoid regulation by collecting non-functional replica items. By extension, that inclusion could cover plastic model kits and display items. We submit that replica firearms should not be categorized as a prohibited device.

It is the submission of OACA that collectors and collectors' items are no part of the problem and that those individuals are being placed in a position of very significant economic detriment by the provisions of the bill.

I thank you for the opportunity to address the committee and would now like to introduce Major Don Holmes.

Major Don Holmes (Member and Spokesperson, Ontario Arms Collectors Association): I am going to be brief, but what I have to say I hope you will study carefully and challenge us on later in questions.

I want to talk to you for a moment about universal registration. It has been in place for restricted firearms continuously from 1934. Those are the kinds of firearms that pose the greatest potential societal hazard, and there's no reason to represent that the present restricted firearm registration system is unsatisfactory; it's been working for 60 years. I know - I'm 60 years old and of the same vintage.

That present universal registration of restricted firearms covers 1.2 million firearms, and by government decision those are the firearms that are most in need of that kind of treatment. It escapes our understanding why sporting rifles and shotguns should be similarly treated, with the ensuing costs and expenses.

Moreover - and this is the important point that I want to bring to you - universal registration already exists for all firearms in Canada to the extent that no one may lawfully purchase any form of firearm whatsoever any more unless he or she has a firearms acquisition certificate, unless he or she shows it, and unless the number of that certificate is recorded along with the serial number of the firearm in the vendor's compulsory records.

Our position is that if government is hell-bent on having universal registration, then it ought to learn to do what citizens already do: live within its means and develop the system around the mechanism you have already devised and put in place.

I say this again for clarity: universal registration for all new purchases already exists. The 1.2 million restricted handguns have been covered for 60 years. For the last several years no one in Canada, unless they have an FAC, and unless the purchase is recorded and maintained by the vendor against that person's FAC and full identification of the purchaser and the serial number and full particulars of the firearm....

If you must have an additional system built around what the law already provides, don't foist another $100-million expense off on the taxpayers. I say this because, candidly, the residual firearms, the sporting rifles and shotguns, are simply not the cause of violent crime in Canada. There is no evidentiary basis.

Most of the committee members, as I read in your parliamentary guide c.v.s, are lawyers. You're supposed to have the reasoning ability to understand what I've just said. There is no evidentiary basis, even adduced by the minister and his staff, for how sporting rifles and shotguns contribute significantly in any way whatsoever to the problem of violent crime in Canada, and registration doesn't address that issue.

Of course, as I am sure you have heard before, those who are bent on illegality will not register in any event.

.0950

Accordingly, it is the respectful assertion of the Ontario Arms Collectors Association that since the means of universal registration are already statutorily provided, in place and in operation, consequently there's utterly no justification for the additional expense of a self-reported questionnaire form, to come into effect at the turn of the century, which is not as reliable as seeing an FAC by the vendor and recording details in the transaction. You're inviting us to have a several hundred million dollar system that will be six years down the pipe and will not be as reliable as what is already in place and able to be used, if the bureaucrats who want a registration system can learn to live within what's already provided. We feel very strongly about this.

I want to say a few things about calibre prohibitions.

Bill C-68 proposes the undiscriminating blanket prohibition of all now legally owned handguns of .25 and .32 calibre. No rationale for this measure is made other than in the Department of Justice briefing material. Such disposition would eliminate some 550,000 now lawfully possessed firearms.

The sophomoric targeting of specific calibres for prohibition is but one of a number of similarly discredited, exposed and failed schemes promoted by U.S. lobby groups such as Handgun Control Incorporated. Their other equally naive suggestions include that a fired bullet should be recorded for every firearm against a future possible criminal investigation, that chemical ingredients should be added to ammunition in order to identify users at some future date if a crime is involved, and that ingredients be added to ammunition so it goes stale and won't work after six months or a year. These hare-brained schemes are widely technically unfeasible and nakedly expose the naivety of the people who would advance that kind of idea.

I trust that the committee is sophisticated enough to understand that the calibre....

Countries such as Italy, Portugal, Mexico...many European countries allow private citizen possession of the lesser target calibres such as .32 and prohibit the more powerful and lethal and societally dangerous calibres this legislation ignores. It's madness. You can't say only the small calibres are prohibited.

The .22 calibre is the most universal calibre. It's untouched, and properly so; it's a target calibre. It would have been more clever if the drafters of this legislation had understood the problem, to address lethal calibres, not lower-powered target calibres.

I trust the Olympic and the international shooting community have already made this point to you. The calibre limitation is misdirected and naive. It shouldn't be the case.

It's incumbent on people like us to recommend and suggest constructive solutions, not just to complain, and we mean to offer constructive suggestions. We have in the brief deposited before you, but about ammunition, for instance calibres, we ask that you consider about the .32 calibre that what's called the .32 Smith and Wesson short, which is the calibre of the so-called Saturday night special and suicide special, those small, concealable, rather unredeeming calibres, be considered for restriction, prohibition, but that the calibres used in competitive target shooting, specifically the .32 Smith and Wesson long, the .32-20 long black-powder turn-of-the-century cartridge and the .32 Harrington Richardson magnum, which is a longer target cartridge in sporting use against silhouette targets, the tin chicken field-shooting competitions, not be included.

We're asking that you more closely define the calibre limitations to target the offensive calibres if you must, and save harmless calibres which are not part of the problem.

I digress for a moment to point out to you that throughout this morning and until the noon hour there is a display here. We'll be pleased to show you micrometer-sighted many-hundred-dollar target pistols that would fall into the prohibited category and that absolutely don't merit or deserve being there.

.0955

We also have a small display of rather less-deserving handguns that certainly are the more logical target for the legislation before you. Only a small modification is necessary to define the calibre limitations more closely, to examine the barrel length limitation more closely.

For over a century now - and we have hard examples to show you - the standard pistol barrel length has been four inches virtually 90% of the time. Longer barrels were necessary with black powder and earlier technology. That's no longer the case. The reduction of the barrel-length limitation by a miserable three-eighths of an inch, eight millimetres, from 105 to 97 millimetres, saves the good and still abundantly captures the bad. If you mean to improve this legislation, consider carefully the merits of a three-eighths of an inch diminution in the barrel length in the draft legislation.

I have two other points to cover briefly, but they are important. You've heard from other representation that the civilian commercial limited-magazine capacity, single shot only in the sense that they're not full automatic, target rifle equivalents to the national service rifle should be exempted from prohibition.

The AR-15 commercial target rifle and its variants, all of them called generically AR-15s, are universally used across Canada, in every province, in every locality, by civilians competing against their local militia units. They facilitate militia-unit competition against civilians, and that's constructive in the education of youth in marksmanship and so forth. These things are already restricted.

They once were not. A former minister, when the FAC system was introduced in 1978-79, rose in the House and announced that because of the FAC system the former registration of AR-15s was no longer necessary, and they were removed from registration. They were as unregistered as hunting shotguns and rifles are today. Then a later government reconsidered that and made these restricted and registered as they are now.

This legislation would prohibit the civilian target version of the national service rifle, and that, ladies and gentlemen, is a travesty for a century of civilian marksmanship and militia competitive shooting across this country. There's no basis for it, no evidentiary basis in any kind of abuse. AR-15s are not used in crime.

You may have read in the newspapers a week ago that an Ottawa target shooter's home was broken into. The thieves found his target rifles. They left them in disgust and departed with his computer and other small valuable portables. There's no viable argument against these civilian target rifles on the basis of public safety or offence against public order.

Our last point, which I think merits your close consideration, has to do with grandfathering. This legislation proposes that the firearms that are to be prohibited may only be traded among existing grandfathers, which means persons who already own them. If you and I own something in that category, then we can sell to one another but not to a third party.

The Canadian tradition in the past in such legislation has been to freeze the inventory - in other words, to allow no further additions to the holdings in Canada - but not to interfere so drastically with the trafficking of existing lawfully held, responsibly stored, legitimately owned firearms. We would urge you to reconsider that for this. If the government feels sufficiently strongly that there should be prohibited categories and can make the case that the things to be prohibited merit that treatment - and I've already said the AR-15s do not - then at least have the decency to allow those who already use them to trade so those things will not to be expunged from Canadian history.

.1000

In the display you see, there are a number of firearms, which, if at the time they had been prohibited as being the current military firearm, for instance, would be gone from the Canadian scene. Perhaps some museum somewhere might have one. But there's just an enormous amount of cultural heritage and genuine Canadian history, and a lot of tradition, aesthetics, as you will observe, as well as the technical merits for unusual fine mechanisms.

With prohibition, when the last grandfather dies, they all go to the breakers; and that, ladies and gentlemen, as well as constituting state theft - because that's what it is - constitutes state vandalism as well, because the things you see on that table would have suffered that fate if this kind of legislation had been in effect long ago.

I thank you for your time.

The Chair: Thank you.

Now I will call on the Saskatchewan Gun Collectors' Association. Mr. Henderson will give the brief or the opening statement.

Mr. Robert Henderson (Director and Editor, Saskatchewan Gun Collectors' Association): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am a retired Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer, having retired with the rank of staff sergeant after 35 years of service. My postings included Ontario, Saskatchewan and the Yukon Territory, and included at least some responsibility for security at the prime minister's residence, the Canadian Mint and the Parliament buildings.

The Saskatchewan Gun Collectors' Association was formed 34 years ago, in 1961. We are a patriotic, educational and non-profit organization dedicated to the collection of firearms, edged weapons, cartridges, Indian artifacts, police badges, militaria, and related items. We provide a forum for collectors to meet and exchange information. We publish a regular monthly newsletter for our members, containing both scholarly historical articles and information on current events, and every year we organize two of the major gun shows in Saskatchewan.

As firearms collectors, our members will be seriously affected by the proposed new legislation.

The problem faced by all of us in assessing Bill C-68 is the lack of solid information. No studies have been undertaken to determine how effective the existing control system actually is. The SGCA takes the position that further changes to firearms registration is premature.

The history of collecting.

After the end of 1945, and certainly by the 1960s, the general population in Canada were finding a more stable financial status and the employed were provided more free time away from work. This provided time to develop hobbies for a great number of people, and one of the hobbies that developed was gathering or collecting of firearms of different types into collections, at one time a pastime for only the very wealthy.

It is a generally recognized fact that collections consist of two or more firearms of any type that are retained for display, examination or utilization for hunting or target practice, as a core on which to expand the variation and volume of items falling within the owner's own interest. Persons who collect firearms have normally had their interest piqued because of the style, make, model, special engraving or historical, possibly family, interest - just as people become interested in collecting postage stamps, pottery, bear traps, antiques or art.

Firearms and cartridges are duly acquired by purchase, trade or donation, and, in the case of handguns, registered in accordance with existing regulations. They are cleaned and repaired to the satisfaction of the new owner, and they form part of the collection, meeting current legal firearms transportation and storage requirements.

In the 1960s a new phenomenon developed: collecting firearms whose value was increasing rapidly, as a form of financial investment. Collections exist in Canada today that are not only extensive but also very valuable, easily exceeding $100,000. These are a potential retirement fund for those individual owners.

.1005

The dollar value of each firearm, based on collector values, can range from zero dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars each. For example, in 1987 a handgun from the Swift Current, Saskatchewan area sold by auction in the United States for $114,000 U.S.

Many current firearms exist in Canada that have historical significance in relation to individuals, locations, organizations and events, in both peace and war. These firearms, both long arms and handguns, range in date from the conception of firearms - the hand cannon - in the 1300s to those of recent manufacture. Needless to say, not all are located in museums.

Our concerns.

The present concept of calling all handguns of .32 calibre or smaller or those with a barrel length of 105 millimetres or less, identified as ``suicide specials'' in the proposed firearms legislation, is seen as an intentional attempt to mislead the general public and political representatives into believing all such handguns are inexpensive, mass-produced weapons of choice for individual self-destruction. To the contrary, suicide specials are normally cheaply produced handguns of the 1920 era that are simply unsafe to fire.

Many of the handguns falling within the new criteria created by Mr. Rock and his colleagues are in fact those with both personal and/or historical interest to collectors, and include such well-known names as Walther, Luger, Mauser, Nambu, Steven, Colt, Smith and Wesson, etc. Included in this category is the previously mentioned pistol sold earlier into the United States from Canada for $114,000 U.S. Had this weapon still been in Canada, what would have been its destiny underMr. Rock's original plan for destruction of such arms? What museum could afford to pay the cash, or would want to? Tax write-offs in such transactions are hardly worth much incentive when the final benefit evolves.

The volume and variety of collectible firearms in Canada are such that official museums have neither the display or storage space, nor funding or collecting mandate, to ensure that such firearms are retained in the varied collections for the viewing of future generations of Canadians. Thus, collectors form a pool of retention for both interesting and historical firearms in Canada for future generations to enjoy.

Until recently, firearms collectors took a very active part in the locating, acquisition and legal registration of previously unregistered handguns, thus providing an essential service for the police forces of Canada. In most areas the rapport between the firearms collector and the police had developed over a number of years and was excellent. This cooperation also provided an independent source of information for the police on various other activities in a community, an essential ingredient to the police function.

As a direct result of Mr. Rock's attempt at firearms legislation, this cooperation between collectors and the police can be expected to decrease dramatically, as many collectors have now developed a fear of being charged with a firearms offence by overzealous police if unregistered firearms are presented to them for registration at this time. The old trust between the collector and the police is becoming badly eroded and may well never develop again. This comes at a time when the country can ill afford it. It will turn a large section of society away from the police at a time when closer cooperation is deemed essential by police forces in their efforts to combat crime.

The resistance by individuals in registering long arms - rifles or shotguns - stems from the potential cost that may well be assessed against individual owners, presently or at a later date, particularly involving those who may have collections consisting of several hundred firearms at this time. The majority of these people no longer trust the current and future intent of most politicians from escalating future costs, expanding the banned types of firearms, and possibly future confiscation and destruction, with or without compensation.

No amount of assurance by politicians and their supporters will ease this concern, as these people feel betrayed and misled by the current and potential anti-firearms legislation imposed under both Ms Campbell's and Mr. Rock's separate terms in office.

.1010

The proposed legislation to control firearms with such force is apparently compiled without much consideration of what current criminals want as a weapon for their illegal activities. During the latest bank robbery or drug deal, were the criminals involving cap-and-ball handguns or rifles? Who in his right mind would try to smuggle a flintlock pistol into Canada to sell as a street gun?

There are samples of both of these weapons on the table. If you don't know what they are, please ask to see them on the table.

Some of the antique firearms are masterpieces of craftsmanship in their own right. Insisting that a serial number be placed on them for registration purposes is like writing a museum reference number on the front of the Mona Lisa.

Surely the people behind the anti-firearms legislation can pick a reasonable date and agree that any firearm produced prior to that date would be exempt from registration; for example, anything older than 75 years of age.

Mr. Rock and his supporters should be trying to eliminate the acquisition and use of street guns, those firearms used in crimes or held illegally by persons who may commit crimes, both of which are currently covered by existing handgun and automatic weapon legislation. A ban on firearm possession as a result of various crimes instead of further firearm registration would go a long way toward correcting current or future problems with either handguns or long arms, at a financial saving of at least $85 million and possibly much more.

The regulations currently being initiated are seen as being biased, unjust, and largely unenforceable. They lack support from a large percentage of legal firearms owners and also from the average police officer, whose responsibility it will be to enforce this legislation.

The indication by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police of total support of Mr. Rock's legislation is seen as a myth by many firearms owners and collectors. This group feels that chiefs agree in public only because the politicians control the financial purse-strings. However, the police forces have neither the personnel nor the time to allot to controlling firearms ownership by the otherwise law-abiding private citizens of Canada.

Some common sense being applied by the committee members present in this meeting should result in condemning the proposed program. Not only is it a massive financial drain on our society when we can ill afford it, but also it will have little if any impact on the use of guns for criminal activities.

Collectors are alarmed at the current and potential loss of value they face as a direct result of the proposed new firearms legislation. Some collectors face severe financial losses. Many will lose thousands of dollars as collection values collapse because of this government action, with no financial compensation offered by the government.

The minister has suggested that registration could be funded on a cost-recovery basis. A figure of $50 to $100 for a firearm appears likely. Furthermore, it has been suggested that the old fee would increase with the volume of firearms registered by an individual. Individual collectors could be forced to pay thousands of dollars to register property they already legally own. This will create a serious financial hardship for many of them. The alternatives are unpalatable: forfeit valuable and legal property to the police, sell assets at fire-sale prices, or face criminal charges.

It is apparent that the problems identified by the government will not disappear with the registration of firearms but in fact many additional problems and costs will evolve from this expensive experiment in firearm control.

We recommend the following.

One, target firearm controls on street guns; those firearms actually illegally obtained and utilized by criminals for illegal activities.

Two, stop identifying all handguns of .32 calibre or smaller, or those with a barrel length of 105 millimetres or less, as ``suicide specials''.

Three, identify, for the benefit of the public, all methods used for homicides and suicides over the past two years. In those cases where firearms were used, provide a breakdown of the firearms used by type - i.e., shotgun, rifle, or handgun - and the calibre. Where handguns have been utilized, identify if they were registered or not.

.1015

Four, provide a separate antique classification of firearms, ammunition, and related items with an ongoing age of 75 years or more that would allow retention without registration.

Five, provide a separate classification for deactivated firearms and non-guns - commercially made copies - and replicas that are for display only, to be recorded as being possessed by specific individuals, with those items being allowed to be retained by their legal owners and sold or otherwise given or traded to other interested individuals for collecting purposes.

Six, support the legal activities of gun shows and sales as being a source for educating the general public about firearms. Promote the participation of museums and the police forces in these activities.

Seven, ensure the seizure of banned weapons that are turned in to the police results in full and fair remuneration for those items.

Eight, all firearms seized as a result of banning or confiscation should be reported to an independent source to ascertain the suitability for retention by an authorized museum or forensic laboratory. Ensure the owner is provided details as to the disposition of the firearms.

Nine, insist that all changes to the Firearms Control and Registration Act receive full and proper processing through Parliament and not by Order in Council, as was done with the pistol-grip crossbow.

Ten, ensure a provision is made where an independent person is appointed to make rulings on special circumstances. Such rulings would permit an owner to retain items of historical significance or other oddity in contradiction to the firearms regulations where justification is warranted. Retention by the owner instead of seizure and destruction would be equivalent to a ministerial exemption as an opportunity for these firearms to be retained as family heirlooms or sold to other collectors who conform to firearms regulations.

Eleven, insist that a similar review committee such as this be called in five years. The review would ascertain the status of firearms control and evaluate the success or failure of the legislation that comes forth as a result of this meeting. Ensure representatives from the same groups again have an opportunity to provide input. Insist that the committee from that time is entitled to provide further recommendations to the federal government of that day.

We are of the opinion that the Honourable Mr. Rock's obsession with firearms control has overcome good judgment. He has already made many biased comments from his position of authority. As justice minister, Mr. Rock has a responsibility to provide fairness and neutrality to all Canadians. With his political extremism, he has contaminated the Canadian ``equality for all'' status as a political figure. Based on his actions, we feel he should be removed from having any further input into this or any future firearms legislation.

The Saskatchewan Gun Collectors' Association wishes to thank the committee for this opportunity to make the submission about our members' concerns about Bill C-68. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Now we'll hear from the Association des collectionneurs d'armes semi-automatiques du Québec, Mr. Torino or Mr. Panagiotidis.

I see there's a Mr. Caron with you as well.

Mr. Torino: Yes, Mr. Caron is here also. I'll be making the presentation, Mr. Chairman.

We, the representatives of the Semi-Automatic Firearms Collectors Association of Quebec, first of all would like to thank this committee for inviting us to present our members' position on and concerns about Bill C-68. The purpose of our brief will be an update of the members' opinion and position on firearms ownership, along with a second request for a separate collector class, being the ``genuine firearms collector'' category on any future permits that will be required.

In addition, we will be covering the prohibited firearms categories and our expectation to have seen their transfer of ownership between qualified persons to have been restored. Such transfers have been prohibited as per the various Orders in Council of November, 1994. There were some amendments, according to press releases we received, dated February 14, 1995; however, we cannot seem to obtain any clarification on that at this point.

.1020

Justice Minister Allan Rock stated in a quotation in the Montreal Gazette on April 24 that the ``stockpiling of weapons'' is dangerous to society and militias cannot be tolerated in Canada. We do not see the relationship of one with the other as they relate to the genuine firearms collector. However, we see a very dangerous and damaging situation being created wherein he has painted the genuine firearms collector with the same brush as the dangerous fanatics in the U.S. who caused the bombing in Oklahoma City.

We believe to throw firearms in with terrorists is behaviour beyond belief from a justice minister, and creates a problem in the minds of people that truly does not exist. However, the justice minister has a solution for this non-existent problem, universal registration, which he states will prevent stockpiling and militias. This would directly apply to firearms of law-abiding collectors and target shooters, especially collectors at this point.

A rational person would see that the steps necessary to prevent such acts of violence do not include ``voluntary'' registration of all firearms. However, these arguments have been given in the past, at the time of Bills C-80 and C-17, with the predicted results.

We find it almost impossible to believe this committee accepts the premise that voluntary or mandatory registration of an unknown number of firearms owned by an unnamed number of Canadians will be the solution to crime, domestic violence, or acts of terrorism. In the opinion of our members and others, this is an impossible solution that has not worked in other countries, where terrorism and violence are unfortunately a part of life.

At this point, I'd like to comment on recent testimony that was apparently given last week before this committee by public health officials as reported to us on April 28, concerning the 1,400 annual firearms deaths by accidents, suicide and homicide. Based on a U.S. study of $4 million for each premature violent death, it was stated that the cost would be approximately $6 billion in Canada per year. We agree that this is a lot of money and, more importantly, many senselessly lost lives. However, we did not hear any reports of testimony given on the other 11,600 deaths from these three causes in Canada each year, being again suicides, homicides, and accidents. This puts the cost, using their figures, at approximately $46 billion.

We believe the government's efforts and public funds should be directed towards reducing these deaths, without question, but we believe the cost being applied to this new firearms registration system, which estimates on run as high as $500 million, could be earmarked for such worthy causes as education relating to family values, poverty, violence and teaching persons about responsibility for their own actions, which seems to be a major problem in society today.

The definition of a firearms collector, in our opinion, anyway, is a person who collects or accumulates many firearms for the study of their historical, technical and scientific aspects. This is what a collector is and does. To our knowledge, and from collectors we know, the violence prone are not involved in this. A collector is a person who accumulates, collects, puts together as large as possible an assortment of different firearms of the type that interests him or her for the above reasons.

It must be stated at this time that a large collection of firearms does contain many hundreds of varieties of different firearms that are of interest to the particular collector at a particular time because of their individuality, rarity, historical significance, construction markings, variations, etc. Many smaller collections also exist; however, the value of these collections varies up to the hundreds of thousands of dollars, built up with the life savings of the individual collector.

The genuine collector has not posed a threat to society or the government in the past, nor do we see any indications that the genuine collector is at present or in the future a threat to anyone in any way, except possibly his or her wallet.

At a recent meeting held by this association in preparation for this brief, members and others have mandated us to demand, on their behalf, the implementation of this category of genuine firearms collector as possibly a sixth category to the FAC-FPC, as suggested. We believe this proposal, with its suggested methods of implementation, would go very far in removing any undesirables who might exist by requiring a person to apply for and be accepted as a genuine firearms collector under the rules currently being applied. Coupled with our suggestion that the applicant be required to be a part of a collectors organization, having met all criteria, this would effectively eliminate the possible problem of undesirables claiming collector status.

.1025

Since the rules currently apply to target shooters and in Quebec are currently being applied to anyone who requests a permit for restricted firearms, we believe this situation would work.

Members' concerns under the legislation. Under Bill C-68, I would like to touch on three main points.

The first is the elimination of the genuine gun collector category. Paragraph 27(d) and clause 29 of the Firearms Act no longer mention that category. They do touch on requirements, but nothing in particular insofar as a separate category is concerned.

Item two is loss of firearms currently owned under the following provisions. Clauses 58 and 121 refer to a registration certificate as being expired in five years.

By clauses 65 and 69, the chief firearms officer shall decide whether any of those firearms possessed are being used for the purposes described above, namely collection and target shooting. Our members' fear of confiscation is based on the fact that if a registrar or someone else does not believe a person is still using a firearm for the purpose stated, the certificate will be revoked and the firearm or firearms will be confiscated.

Clauses 72 and 74 refer the matter to court for the applicant; however, the burden of proof is on the individual. In our opinion this is being guilty before being proven innocent and against principles of justice in Canada.

There can little wonder that many collectors and firearms owners fear the reason for Bill C-68 is eventual total confiscation, based on these clauses.

Item three is inspections and search and seizure without a warrant.

Clauses 99 through 101 cover that any designated person may enter a premise at any time to inspect firearms, open any container, take samples, etc.

Subclause 99(3) says any samples taken may be disposed of in any manner the inspector sees fit. As far as we're concerned this is a potential for seizure without recourse. We are concerned here with due process and the protection against self-incrimination.

Clause 100 requires the owners or anyone present actually to help in the inspection. One comment made by one of our members was that a suspected murderer is not required to testify against himself. It is not that we are putting anyone in this category; however, we believe this to be a case of self-incrimination.

Clause 101 and proposed section 117.04 state that an inspector may not enter a dwelling-house without the consent of the occupant or a warrant, except that 117.04 in the Criminal Code appears to state that if a police officer believes there are reasonable grounds for a person not to possess any weapon, he may search and seize. This, as far as we are concerned, constitutes search and seizure without any warrant and without any standards.

By clauses 110 to 112, the Governor in Council may make regulations respecting gun collections and shall have each proposed legislation laid before each House of Parliament. However, under clause 112 these regulations may be made without being laid before the House, and under subclause 112(6) they may be made at the discretion of the minister. This can result in a collector or target shooter being guilty of an offence created by regulation without being able to be informed of an upcoming new infraction.

When we come to 117.15 in the Criminal Code, this is the change in the Order in Council procedure whereby any firearms may be made prohibited that are, in the opinion of the Governor, not reasonable for use in Canada for sporting or hunting purposes. This change is from the previous wording of subsection 84(1) in the Criminal Code, not commonly used.

This is what collectors fear the most in Bill C-68, the legal right of the government to do anything it wishes to prohibit any item, revoke any certificate for any registered item, and revoke any permit to possess any firearms if it so desires. Further, such matters can be done merely by Orders in Council or by regulations that do not, in the opinion of the justice minister or any other government body, have to be put before Parliament for scrutiny and viewing by the affected public.

.1030

Our members again have requested that we receive some clearance from the committee after the hearings have been completed insofar as whether or not the firearms covered by prohibition will be grandfathered in that they can be exchanged amongst collectors. Again, we request that all collectors be licensed as genuine gun collectors, if they so qualify, so as to prevent any possible usage of the collector category for other than its valid reasons.

Conclusion and recommendations.

We have attempted to demonstrate why our members have grave concerns about the proposed legislation under Bill C-68 by referring to specific clauses of the bill and by reference in our presentation to our previous brief of January 4. We have also tried to provide suggestions for the handling of an area with which the government seems concerned, the collector. These recommendations come from experienced collectors, who are more than willing to provide any assistance to overcome the problems the government is attempting to efface at this point.

We believe the proposed legislation is severely flawed at best, and dangerous to the Canadian democracy without the necessary series of checks and balances in the form of public scrutiny of all legal reforms. The rights of a significant portion of the Canadian population cannot be forgotten, put aside and otherwise obliterated without considering the consequences. Also, the government will find itself in the near future in the strange position of trying to explain to Canadian voters why Bill C-68 did not perform as anticipated and having to propose further measures to do the job it did not do properly this time.

Recommendations.

First, we believe the government, or spokespersons for government, should stop the derogatory remarks that the stockpiling of weapons for criminal purposes is somehow related to the hobby of firearms collection and target shooting. Also, it should cease relating criminal activity to the legal activity of firearms ownership.

Also, we believe the government should not implement mandatory registration of all firearms as a way to solve Canada's present crime and violence problems. The justice minister will only have to come back in the near future to explain the failure of the present legislation.

Do not prohibit all firearms, as was done by Order in Council, including the recent proposed prohibition of some 550,000 handguns already registered and causing absolutely no problems to society for the past 60-plus years.

Sections 110 to 112 and 117 of the Criminal Code allow unlimited power to the government to enact legislation without presenting such laws before the people. This must be looked at. In our opinion, it severely erodes what confidence may remain in the government's policies.

Allow the free exchange of all firearms between categories of qualified firearms owners. To do otherwise solves no real problem; it creates only financial hardship and anger, instead of support for the government's position.

Put in a class of genuine firearms collector as a way to deny undesirables a way of justifying their existence, and let the various associations police their own ranks, working with local authorities, as is currently being done with gun clubs.

Provide public funds for proper education about firearms storage and safe handling over a long period, not as was done under Bill C-17. This was also reported on at the coroner's inquest in Montreal in November 1994.

Also, finally, take the $300 million to $500 million that we believe will be spend on universal registration and apply it to better education of our youth and others about self-respect, self-reliance, and responsibility for their own actions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of this committee.

The Chair: Thank you.

We will now proceed with questions. I would ask members of the committee to address their questions to the witness they wish to have answer the question, since we have three groups and various representatives with each group. If you wish to have your question answered by all the groups, you could indicate that, as well.

.1035

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne, you have 10 minutes.

Mrs. Venne (Saint-Hubert): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

My first question is for the representatives of the Ontario Arms Collectors Association. I would like for one of your members to answer my questions.

First of all, I would like to know what the words "NRA affiliated" on your letterhead mean. I have an idea but I would like to hear your explanation.

I would also like to know if you support the National Rifle Association's position. What contacts do you have with the NRA? Do you use its resources, its funds?

[English]

The Chair: Who wishes to answer for Ontario?

Mr. Bateman: I will respond.

The indication on the Ontario Arms Collectors Association letterhead is simply an indication that Ontario Arms Collectors is a group interested in firearms preservation and has a relationship with the National Rifle Association. That association is no more than membership in that association. There is no connection other than that. We do not draw any resources from that association, or any funding, or any information.

Ontario Arms Collectors Association has been an Ontario and a Canadian entity for well over 40 years and stands on its own initiative when it comes to looking at matters that affect it.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: You tell me that you are affiliated with the National Rifle Association, but that that's all there is to it. Those who become affiliated with a group usually do so for a specific reason, usually because they share a similar point of view. That's usually why people become members of specific associations.

What I find puzzling, is that the National Rifle Association, as you know, threatened to launch a boycott of hunting and fishing in Canada. I find it surprising that you admit being affiliated with that kind of people who want to boycott Canada for their hunting and fishing trips next summer as well as the following summer.

[English]

Mr. Bateman: I would have to respond that it is a large jump to assume that if one is a member of a group, one automatically espouses everything that group may put forward. The National Rifle Association is a U.S.-based group, and it has particular points of view, I guess, based on the American experience. The Ontario Arms Collectors Association has its own viewpoint, based on the Ontario experience and specifically the Canadian experience.

The reference on the letterhead is simply to indicate that as far as Ontario Arms Collectors is concerned in the collecting area, its scope, if you like, or its interest, is a little wider than simply being confined to Ontario.

If I can digress for a moment, by way of example, a number of the directors of the Ontario Arms Collectors Association were recently invited to and participated in a dry-powder shoot in South Africa. They recently returned, and they did very well in that competition. Ontario Arms Collectors is not confined to Ontario in the area of its interests, in the same way as I don't think collecting of firearms is confined to any one particular group or any one particular area.

.1040

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: I think you're getting off the topic. In any case, I've had the answer to my question about your association dealing with the National Rifle Association.

[English]

Dr. Ross: May I respond further on that question, Madame Venne? I think I can elaborate.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: I already got an answer. I would like to go on because each of us only has 10 minutes in the first round of questions. My colleague will have the next 10 minutes. I would like to go on to another question.

[English]

Dr. Ross: There was something else.

The Chair: The members of the committee have the right to ask questions of the witnesses. If Madame Venne put a question to the Ontario Collectors and Mr. Bateman answered on their behalf, Madame Venne has the right now to go on to another question. She has limited time and she can put her question to whomever she wishes.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: I have another question for the Ontario Arms Collectors Association. Regarding the letter dated May 26, 1994 that you sent to your members and in which you say that the federal government's intention is to... Let me quote you:

[English]

``ban all semi-auto firearms, register all firearms with registration fee, limit possession of ammunition to 100 rounds''.

[Translation]

Can you seriously tell me this morning that that's what Bill C-68 is all about?

[English]

The Chair: You'll decide among yourselves who will answer the question.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: My question is for the Ontario Arms Collectors Association.

[English]

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Until now we have not stifled the responses from the witnesses.

The Chair: That's right, and we're not doing it now.

Mr. Ramsay: As far as I'm concerned, that's exactly what has happened here this morning. If the witnesses wish to respond and give a broader response, they ought to be allowed to do that.

The Chair: I'm hoping that during the morning they will have a chance, but Madame Venne is in charge of her ten minutes, just as you are. On occasion, Mr. Ramsay, I've heard you want to go on to other questions from time to time; that's your right.

Mr. Ramsay: I've never stifled the witness.

The Chair: Madame Venne put her question to the association, not to Mr. Bateman. She allowed them to decide which one of them would answer and Mr. Bateman decided to answer. Now she wants to go on to other things.

Hopefully, during the morning the other members of the table will be able to chime in and give their answers to these various questions. You could follow up on her questions if you wish; so can other members.

Mr. Ramsay: My concern is on the record, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

The Chair: All right, very good.

Madame Venne.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: I hope that time was not deducted from my 10 minutes, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: No, not at all.

Mrs. Venne: Thank you.

I have asked a question. Can one of the representatives of the Ontario Association answer?

[English]

Mr. Bateman: Again, I will respond.

You have the advantage of me, having in front of you a copy of that specific letter to the Ontario Arms Collectors membership. I assume it was one of the regular newsletters that went out.

You have to bear in mind the context in which those remarks were written at that time. I'm not certain there had been a particular opportunity to review the specific terms of this particular bill. I would draw to the committee's attention that the actual text of the bill was not available until relatively recently, and Ontario Arms Collectors, as any group that appears to be affected by legislation that is unclear, is apprehensive as to its content.

About the specific references in that letter, I believe there was one relating to the anticipated cost of registration. As far as I'm aware, there has been no specific determination of exactly what that cost would be, and I think some of the witnesses here today have expressed a grave concern about what that cost would be.

There is a reference to the fact that there is an apprehension that the legislation will have the effect of confiscating certain items. Again, I think the committee today has heard significant concerns from collectors that this in fact will be the case.

I would be happy to analyse the newsletter in more detail if you'd care to give me a copy of it, but I think the points raised in there were simply the legitimate and expressed concerns of the membership of the management or of the directors of that association to its membership. As far as I'm aware, that was a letter sent to its members, and as such it was an internal document expressing concern.

.1045

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: You recognize that when you wrote this letter, you did not know what was in the bill, and neither did I. In any case, you sent a letter which assumed certain things which are not in the bill. I don't see what was your purpose in giving that kind of information to your members.

My other question is directed to each one of the groups. Each of you can answer if you want.

Do you think that there should be a limit to the number of firearms a person can own and keep at home? Do you think there should be a limit on that or not? Each of the groups can answer my question.

[English]

The Chair: We'll start with the Quebec group...then Ontario and then Saskatchewan. Madame Venne has put the question. You need not answer, but she's asked if you would comment on her question.

Mr. Torino: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will comment.

I have to go back and refer to the comments I made previously on what a collector is. A collector collects as many firearms, variations of firearms, etc., as fit in his area of interest.

If a person meets the requirements of investigation under the Criminal Code, having passed investigation procedures - especially those in Quebec, which are more stringent than we have ever seen - and meets the requirements and the regulations of proper storage, I do not see why there should be any limit. A person who collects paintings or coins or stamps does not find himself with any limit.

You will reply to me that these items are not dangerous. I agree with you that they are not -

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: A painting cannot be used to kill. The difference is that a painting, stamps or coins cannot be used to kill. It's the reason why I was asking whether you think that there should be a limit. You are telling me that there should not be such a thing. You can have 100, 200 or 300 firearms; it does not matter. That's your answer. Thank you.

Are there any other comments?

[English]

Mr. George Panagiotidis (Vice-President, Association of Semi-automatic Firearms Collectors of Quebec Inc.): I'd like to comment on that. You stated that basically firearms are the cause of all the killings. I beg to disagree with you. You would be able to state in the same manner that a car is the instrument that kills thousands of individuals a year.

I would appreciate a bit of respect on my point as I do respect you when you are making your comments, Madame Venne. I think this is a serious meeting and we're here for that purpose, and if you do not wish to express this personal situation of courtesy to me, then basically what is the point of us being here?

Again, I'd like to address my point. A car collector, an individual who collects airplanes.... They are all basically instruments. You are putting the emphasis on the instruments themselves and not on the individual who may be the cause of this problem.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: I am not insulting you. I am just telling you that I do not share your point of view.

Are there any other opinions?

[English]

The Chair: Ontario and Saskatchewan? Major Holmes?

Mr. Holmes: I suggest to you that it's more enlightened public policy to have 300 firearms concentrated in one place; I don't have 300 pairs of hands. The police problem with 300 firearms in 300 different locations is enormously more complicated.

Moreover, people with large collections tend to invest more heavily in security facilities; the lock-up kind of thing. Some of the things you see on the table over there have insured value, and my insurance company requires that measures sometimes in excess of what the law requires are needed in order to have the coverage one needs for that kind of thing.

It's better that there be large collections in a few locations rather than firearms more broadly scattered throughout any community.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: The number of firearms one owns and keeps at home can be unlimited.

[English]

Mr. Holmes: It requires human instrumentality to cause a firearm to discharge. The number and kinds of people who are in that location are more important than the number of firearms.

.1050

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Could you answer my question directly? According to you, should we reflect in the legislation the fact that you can own and keep at home an unlimited number of firearms?

[English]

Mr. Holmes: If they are lawfully possessed and if they are responsibly stored pursuant to the law, a flat yes.

Dr. Ross: Madame Venne's question illustrates, just as this Bill C-68 does, the failure really to understand what the problem is. The problem is crimes of violence. The problem is not a problem of firearms in the hands of their legal owners.

These firearms are safely stored. The people who have them have passed through all of the checks to get their permission and there is no problem. Of course they can have, as they should be able to have, as many firearms as they want.

With respect, when you ask a question such as that I think you're indicating a failure to appreciate what the real problem is. The problem that concerns the Canadian people is violence. It doesn't matter if a firearm is used in the violence or whatever is used in the violence. I think that's what we really should be looking at.

The Chair: We've gone beyond the time, but I would permit the Saskatchewan group to answer if they wish.

Mr. Tom Lewis (President, Saskatchewan Gun Collectors' Association: Our comments are that there should be no limit. A collector is a collector. He has already gone through all the criteria to store. He bought them legally, traded, or whatever the case may be.

As far as I can see, Bill C-68 was designed for crime control, not the actual... The gist of the bill, as I would see it, is actually the crime, not the storage.

Mr. Ramsay: I would like to make a point about some of the correspondence that has been exchanged between interested groups as these trial balloons have been floated, since well over a year ago. Surely we cannot take to account people who have expressed concerns over statements such as the justice minister made, that only the police and the military should have firearms. Surely we cannot take exception to concerns expressed over those kinds of statements, including the fact that the justice minister was talking about setting up gun-free zones where perhaps cities would be free zones, where there would be areas or buildings where the firearms would be stored. Surely we cannot blame, discount or criticize organizations who hear these things prior to the bill coming out for expressing their concern, whether it's in written or any other form.

I just make that comment.

In fact, the justice minister when he was here produced one sheet of a petition he claimed I had presented to him, but of course I've never presented a petition to the justice minister in my life. He said that because of the contents of what it was claiming, he would sign it. Well, how can he blame people for getting together and expressing their concern about these trial balloons prior to the bill coming out?

It's just normal that when we see what has happened in this whole area since the 1970s, there is a gradual movement towards reducing what they call the proliferation of firearms in society. Law-abiding people have not only a right but a tendency to express their views within the letters they send to their members of Parliament or to one another within their membership.

I would like to go to the cost. I have lots of questions I would like to put to you; perhaps I could start with this. I would ask it of Mr. Henderson, since he is a former member of the RCMP.

The justice minister stated that the .32 calibre, the .25 calibre and all of these other firearms whose barrel length is less than 105 millimetres will be banned because the barrel length is too short for accuracy and they're simply made to kill. In my service in the Mounted Police, I met not only our own plain-clothes members but also members of other police forces who used to carry snub-nosed Smith and Wesson .38 specials, and certainly the barrel length was than 105 millimetres.

.1055

First, are you aware of police officers carrying handguns whose barrel length is under 105 millimetres? If the justice minister is right, why in the world would governments at all levels be arming our peace officers with a firearm that is not accurate?

Mr. Henderson: Some of the plain-clothes officers across Canada, in particular the RCMP, carry a Smith and Wesson .37 Special revolver with a two-inch barrel.

Some of the policies being brought down by the current government have the RCMP really amazed at the regulations and wondering how to get around them, because in fact they eliminate many of the firearms that they actually have on issue and that are carried by their personnel, particularly plain-clothes units. I know the RCMP from Regina - the training academy - has written directly to the justice minister saying it's impossible for them to comply with these regulations because....

A prime example is a shooting federation in Regina where it's insisted that all the firearms that belong to the organization be registered to an individual. If you comply that to the RCMP, that means all the handguns within the training area for recruits' practice etc., .22s, .38 specials, would have to be registered to an individual instead of to the force. They are just willy-nilly regulations.

Mr. Ramsay: As I have looked at this massive document and have become more and more familiar with it - I'm doing so more and more each day, particularly when I hear witnesses testify about their concerns about the bill.... Of course, I have never been dogmatic on the registration of firearms, but I've always approached it from a common-sense point of view. No one has been able to explain to me how the registration of rifles and shotguns is going to reduce the criminal use of those firearms. Therefore I challenge the government to show how that will occur.

If I'm wrong and the government is right, then I ask why, if the registration of rifles and shotguns will reduce deaths at the instrumentality of those firearms, the justice minister not making it mandatory until 2003. Why are we not moving as quickly as we can to save lives? And if the 58% of those handguns that are going to be banned are truly dangerous to be in society, then why are they being allowed to stay in society?

So I see this inconsistency in this legislation and in the reasoning behind it.

I would like each group to comment on those two areas, perhaps starting with the Quebec delegation.

Mr. Jean-Claude Caron (Director, Association of Semi-Automatic Firearms Collectors of Quebec Inc.): There's one thing that doesn't make any sense in Bill C-68, basically, and that is the classification of firearms. Basically we're knowledgeable in firearms and any kind of firearm can be used for crime if it falls into the wrong hands. Prohibiting a certain class of firearms just points the finger at the debate of the good gun and the bad gun, which is totally absurd. It doesn't respond to the criminal element at all. The criminal does not need a sophisticated firearm worth several thousand dollars to commit a crime. He needs just something that will do the job.

The registration of restricted firearms in Canada has never been proven to be very effective. Therefore we don't support the registration of long arms either.

There's one thing I think the justice minister will need, and that is the participation of the people who are involved in firearms-related sports and collecting. As long as the prohibition orders are there, it's going to be very difficult to have our compliance, because basically right now we're faced with a very uncertain future.

.1100

Mr. Ramsay: The group from Ontario...if you'd like to respond to that.

Dr. Ross: Part of your question was about the presumed danger of these items and why they're not being registered and therefore I would say confiscated more rapidly. The answer is they're not dangerous. I think the minister knows that. There's nothing that will be added to public safety to take these out of circulation. He knows that registering them is not going to make a difference.

The Minister of Justice stated himself, in the last few days - and perhaps it was before this committee - that he knows criminals are not going to register their firearms. So he knows that he's talking only about legally owned firearms, that they're not dangerous, and that there is no rush to register them. It's quite clear that the ultimate goal is confiscation, and that can be a way down the road. It's not a good political move to rush to do that more rapidly.

You ask if saving lives is the issue, why isn't there more concern about this. My reply to that is that it's quite clear saving lives is not the issue. It's not the point of this bill. If there were concern about saving lives we wouldn't be talking about putting - to take the government's estimates, which many people consider low - $85 million into registration...or an estimate from other sources that goes higher than $500 million. We'd be putting the money to some other use.

If I can mention just one other use, if we look at mortality statistics provided by the Canadian government for one year - I have them available for 1992 - to look at a woman's issue, the number of women who were killed by guns - these are guns being used dangerously, not the guns legally owned - was 69. In the same year over 4,000 women died from breast cancer. I have to say, if you want to save lives, where do you want to put your money?

The Chair: Saskatchewan, we've gone beyond the time, but please answer it.

Mr. Henderson: I'll say we agree completely with the representative, and registration of these firearms will make no difference in the use of them by criminals.

Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): Part of the exercise for someone sitting at this table on either side is trying to determine where a group lies on the continuum of opinion about this bill, and also to discern what degree of objectivity exists. That's difficult, because everyone has their own biases; we all understand that.

I want to pose a question to the Ontario Arms Collectors Association, in particular Dr. Ross.

Dr. Ross, in your letter to us of April 27, one of the points you make has to do with the fact that gun control had nothing to do with suicide prevention. Last week we heard from a number of groups, including the Canadian Public Health Association, who provided us with a number of studies that said there is a link. We also have a letter on file from the Ontario Council on Suicide Prevention, which is urging this committee to proceed with this bill.

In your opinion, are these groups misinformed or are they misleading us? Which is it?

Dr. Ross: To put a good interpretation on it, they're misinformed. The negative interpretation is that they're misleading you. Certainly I don't believe you've been provided with factual information.

I have done a fair bit of reading on suicide, and those people use firearms to commit suicide are in the group who have the definite intention of killing themselves. These are usually men and they take a fast method. If they don't have a gun available, these are the people who will jump in front of subways in big cities or will throw themselves off bridges. They are going to kill themselves, and if they don't have one means, they'll use another.

.1105

If we consider some of the means people use to commit suicide, perhaps this might seem like rather a bizarre thing to be saying, but if we want to be humane about it, when we talk about putting an animal out of its misery, we give them a shot in the head. I've read about people - a lot of these are young people on native reserves - who have killed themselves in the most horrible ways, by drinking toxic substances and dying agonizing, lengthy deaths. If people want to kill themselves, they're going to do it.

If we were really concerned about preventing suicide, we wouldn't be looking at firearms control as some way of dealing with that. We'd be looking at putting money into mental health centres, into drug treatment programs, into alcohol treatment programs, into dealing with poverty, into dealing with problems on the native reserves. We wouldn't be looking at gun control.

Mr. Gallaway: Would you not agree, then, that firearms are more lethal than other weapons in terms of suicide?

Dr. Ross: No. I think subways are pretty lethal. I think jumping from high places is pretty lethal. People who are intent on committing suicide will use one of those methods.

There is a totally different group of people who commit suicide in other ways, in the slower and less definite ways, such as by taking pills. Usually these are women, and very often they're people who are hoping to be discovered. They're not going to use firearms. They're going to use some other method.

Those who are using firearms are going to kill themselves in some other way; and there's a lot of excellent evidence to support that.

Mr. Gallaway: Why do you think groups such as the many women's interval homes here in Ottawa and certainly in many other communities right across this country are advocating gun control as a means of stemming the violence against women?

Dr. Ross: It's because they really fail to understand the issues. They haven't really examined the issues. If you look at domestic violence, first of all those who say that firearms are the main instrument used in domestic violence are lying to you. That is not the truth. This is a distortion of statistics.

You may read in information given to you by people who want to prohibit firearms that firearms are the single greatest cause of death in domestic homicides. It doesn't mean they cause the most deaths. They have been considered as responsible for some 30% of deaths, so some 70% are caused by other means. But no other means is used more than the 30%. In this bit of trickery with statistics, you could say firearms are the single greatest cause of death in domestic homicides. In fact, they're not. Other causes and other implements, including bare hands, are used much more.

Something that really has to be taken into consideration when you look at homicide in general, and very much so with domestic homicide, is that one particular group in society is vastly overrepresented there, and that is the native people. There are more domestic homicides among native people, and these would be using firearms. They are very much overrepresented, and the causes here really should be addressed.

I don't think anyone's going to run out and take the hunting rifles, which are generally used, away from the native people. The causes obviously are social causes that go well beyond gun control. That's the real shame of a measure like this: that some people who really don't understand the issues think it will take care of everything. It just won't. We've going to be left with crime problems, we're going to be left with suicide problems, we're going to be left with domestic violence problems, because we haven't addressed those problems.

Mr. Gallaway: You were quoted in August 1993 in the Burlington Spectator as saying the police are hiding behind the skirts of the coalition for gun control in order to further their own agenda, which is to be the only ones with guns. What evidence do you have to support that kind of a claim?

Dr. Ross: That was my belief. I don't have evidence for it, although I know police traditionally have wanted - and I think this is understandable, but we have to offset their wish - to have all the power and all the firearms. They think their job would be easier.

.1110

Certainly not all the police support the coalition. In fact, recently a police group - I forget the name of it; I do have the document with me and I could give it to you - has withdrawn its support from the coalition. I think a number of police groups are doing that. But there is this police chiefs association, which was one of the initial groups behind them. I don't have evidence that they are funding them, but I have my suspicions about that.

Mr. Gallaway: According to your curriculum vitae, you are a practical shooter. Practical shooters, as I understand it, aim at like-form targets. Do you advocate shooting as a form of self-defence?

Dr. Ross: You have asked me a couple of questions there.

Some of the targets the military use are drawings of people, and the police use some targets that have human silhouettes.

Practical shooters are part of an international organization, and the target is internationally determined. It is a rectangular piece of beige cardboard that is about 2.5 feet by about 18 inches, with I guess about a 6-inch square on the top. I wouldn't say that's an actual depiction of a human being, but I won't deny that it's certainly intended in the sport, which is a fantasy kind of sport. We have scenarios - it's actually a very imaginative kind of sport - and it's intended as a defensive kind of scenario.

For those who object to the target, I would say that if our target contained a photograph of a person it would be no less appropriate for us to use it. It might be distasteful - I personally would find it distasteful - but do you pass laws because you find what someone is doing distasteful, or do you pass laws in order to protect the public?

You asked another question. Did I answer your question?

Mr. Gallaway: I'll go on to another question.

Dr. Ross: I think you asked about self-defence.

Mr. Gallaway: Yes, I did.

Dr. Ross: I'm not here particularly to advocate self-defence, but self-defence is a right in Canadian law -

Mr. Gallaway: Yes.

Dr. Ross: - and the Minister of Justice has said he wants to prohibit certain firearms which he thinks are used only for self-defence and which, as a matter of fact, are target pistols. But he feels we shouldn't have the right to use firearms to defend ourselves.

I say that since self-defence is a right in Canadian law, that kind of statement discriminates against a certain class of people in society - women and older people and handicapped people - who if they were actually in a situation where they needed to defend themselves against either an animal or a human attacker, who is probably going to be bigger and stronger than they are, they would be unable to do so unless they had access to a firearm.

I think when you talk about women's issues, women should be very concerned that they in particular would be discriminated against in this way. I am not especially advocating this, but I think we have to be aware of what we're saying if we say firearms shouldn't be used for self-defence, but presumably knives or baseball bats can. They can be very violent - just ask Nicole Brown Simpson about knives - but women are less able to use these implements or their bare hands to defend themselves.

The Chair: Is this a point of order?

Ms Torsney (Burlington): Yes. The witness has made an incorrect statement about rights in Canada. It is not a right to self-defence. It is a criminal defence, but it's not a right in Canada.

The Chair: That's not a point of order, that's a question for debate, and there are many questions here for debate and difference of opinion, but not points of order.

Madame Venne.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: I would like to ask the Association of Semi-automatic Firearms Collectors of Quebec to explain to me the difference between an AK-47 automatic and AK-47 semi-automatic.

[English]

Mr. Torino: The difference between an automatic and a semi-automatic is that a full automatic will continue to fire as long as you hold the trigger back and until the magazine has been emptied. A semi-automatic requires a concerted effort, a determined effort on the part of the person pulling the trigger, to fire each shot, in that he must release the trigger and pull again.

.1115

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Wouldn't there be a difference in the number of seconds necessary to discharge 20 rounds? I think I read this somewhere in the document of the American Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms administration. They make a difference in the timing.

In the case of an automatic weapon, you need 2.4 seconds to fire 20 rounds, that's what they said, and in the case of an AK-47 semi-automatic, you need 4.6 seconds. What I just mentioned comes from the American Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Organization which makes that difference between the two weapons. So there is a difference of 2 seconds. So I would like to ask you if you think that these 2 seconds are actually changing anything for the victim, whether the firearm is an automatic or semi-automatic one.

[English]

Mr. Torino: Whether a firearm is semi-automatic, full automatic, or has a capacity of 10 rounds, 5 rounds, or 20 rounds.... If we take the most disastrous incident of Marc Lépine at the École polytechnique, according to the coroner's report, a copy of which I saw last night, he had over 60 rounds left over, and in a period of 20 minutes he proceeded deliberately to kill 14 people and shoot how many others I don't know. Whether he had a capacity of five rounds, full automatic or semi-automatic, we do not see where the difference would be. He took his time. He deliberately went at it and fired his shots deliberately.

If you restrict a person to a bolt-action rifle, for example a hunting rifle, he probably would have caused not 14 deaths. Maybe he would have caused more, maybe he would have caused less, depending on what his target was. So we do not see that the limit or the number of shots, or the time it takes to fire these shots, enters into it.

An experienced shooter, as I have seen in many clubs, can empty a 45-calibre target, semi-automatic pistol in, let's say, 2 seconds and reload probably in under that period of time and be ready to shoot again. A person firing full automatic will empty a clip in, let's say again, 2.4 seconds, as you stated. He must still reload afterwards. Accuracy with a full automatic, firing a long burst of one clip.... A gun will tend to climb and rise completely and be right off the target. He must then fire one or two shots, which brings him back to the same mode of semi-automatic.

I don't know if this answers your question.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: In fact, this is what I would like you to say. Since we ban all the automatic weapons in Canada, we should also ban the semi-automatic weapons since their impact is the same. We should ban them the same way since they're in fact the same.

Mr. Caron: It has been proven that the classification of weapons is nonsensical since we can take a modest single shot hunting rifle and cut its barrel to a length that will make it look more like a handgun. A one shot firearm can be reloaded in less than two seconds. So this doesn't yet answer - - In the report on the Polytechnique incident it is mentioned that any firearm would have done the same damages.

This doesn't resolve the problem of violence in our society. If we say that we're going to ban semi-automatic weapons, there will be a great number of repeater or one shot guns that we won't control anyway because these weapons are sold on the black market. The Bill C-68 is not going to affect the black market in any way.

Mrs. Venne: This is quite obvious.

.1120

[English]

Ms Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think it was Dr. Ross who commented about the minister having a hidden agenda. I just want you to know that I had the lead-off question on April 24, when we started this. I was also concerned about a couple of clauses in here that talk about the power of the minister. One is clause 112, on page 50, if you have your bill here. I asked about it specifically, because a lot of people have made comments such as you have made, that he has a hidden agenda. His comment to it was quite simply that he didn't necessarily want this; that he was quite willing to have this changed.

Now, we haven't had time to look at it further and to see what changes we could make in that area, but I just want to clarify that at least in this particular area, he clarified that and said he didn't particularly want that in there. But we haven't talked to him further on that, about what changes he would make.

I'd like to ask about genuine.... You all seem to be asking for a gun collector category and I wonder what's wrong with or what is missing from what we already have. In clause 27, on page 16, it says ``A chief firearms officer may approve the transfer to an individual of a restricted firearm'' - and then, going on to paragraph (d) - ``to form part of a gun collection of the individual, in the case of an individual who satisfies the criteria described in section 29'', which is on page 17.

The criteria referred to in paragraph 27(d) are that the individual

(a) has knowledge of the historical, technological or scientific characteristics that relate or distinguish the restricted firearms or handguns that he or she possesses;

(b) has consented to the periodic inspection....

(c) has complied with such other requirements as are prescribed respecting knowledge, secure storage....

Is that not enough of a category for collectors? What is it you want more than that? Anyone? I know particularly you from Quebec mentioned the situation.

Mr. Torino: I'll attempt to answer.

When Bill C-17 came into effect, the category of genuine gun collector, genuine firearms collector, was introduced, and as you mention, certain requirements were listed. We have been working with the CPFO in Quebec, Pierre Vincent, to try to establish some kind of practical guidelines on what these might be. We have managed to establish a fairly good working relationship with the Sûreté du Québec and Mr. Vincent on this basis, and we have agreed to the following items. A genuine gun collector, in addition to the general parameters listed in the Criminal Code at present in section 84 and as shown now in section 29, would require additional modifications, which are being implemented on a practical basis right now in Quebec.

Ms Phinney: Are you talking about the ten that are in your report here?

Mr. Torino: No, I'm referring to sections 27 and 29 of the Firearms Act and to section 84 as it stands currently in the Criminal Code. There are additional points the CPFO has decided would be beneficial in his investigation of various individuals who are applying either for an FAC or for a permit to acquire a restricted firearm at this time.

Ms Phinney: So these are not included in the new bill - what you're talking about?

Mr. Torino: They are not mentioned in the new bill. The new bill right now is simply mentioning the categories of items ``has knowledge of the historical, technological and scientific'', ``has consented to the periodic inspection'', ``has complied with such other requirements as are prescribed'', etc. By putting in a separate category with certain requirements, we believe...andMr. Vincent also believes he can maybe not eliminate, but reduce to a great degree, the number of people who are possibly trying to hide as collectors because they cannot qualify as target shooters or anything else. He has gone on the basis that a person who has 100, 200, or 300 firearms and who is investigated every year in the sense that he is buying 10 or 20 guns a year.... He is much happier with this person, because this person's name is constantly appearing in the computer and he is constantly being investigated and his dossier is being constantly updated. They know who this person is; they know this person has been accepted and is constantly being verified as a safe person.

.1125

He much prefers 100 guns in the hands of one collector to 100 guns out there amongst 100 different people who possibly might be dangerous. They're all claiming to be collectors buried in the closets or whatever for years. This is his policy and this is what he has implemented, and we have agreed to this.

Ms Phinney: Could I ask the other groups if you agree the ten points he has mentioned in his report - I don't know how to tell you the page number, because they're not numbered -

Mr. Torino: Yes, it's page 8.

Ms Phinney: Did you have the report?

Mr. Bateman: I'm afraid we don't have a copy of the report in front of us.

Ms Phinney: Could you pass it to him?

Mr. Torino: Sure.

Mr. Bateman: Thank you.

Ms Phinney: Do you think we would need these, in addition to what's already in the new bill?

Mr. Bateman: I think what we need is some sort of specific set of criteria, whatever those criteria may be. The difficulty with clauses 27 and 29 of the bill - as I read them, anyhow - is that the chief firearms officer must be satisfied...for example, under clauses 27 and 29, to me a subjective determination has to be made, perhaps by the chief firearms officer in each particular location. If there is going to be a category of genuine collector, then I think it is very important that these specific criteria be set down so everyone knows what the rules are and they are applied the same way across the country; so there is not a different set of rules, for example, in Manitoba and in Ontario. In Ontario there may be more concern, I guess, from particular chief firearms officers.

So without exhaustively analysing the ten points, I think what I would say is that there should be and there could be criteria. The important thing is that they be fair to everyone and that they be set down clearly so someone who wishes to become a collector or is a collector can know the standard he must meet in order to be so considered. Obviously there should be some sort of transitional provision that allows persons who may not have specific expertise to develop that expertise.

For example, one of these is to be a member of an accredited collectors' association. Now, that brings into question what an accredited collectors' association is. The pool widens from there on.

Ms Phinney: Anyone from Saskatchewan?

Mr. Lewis: I have a comment. My concern about the collecting category is how do we determine a genuine collector in the general sense? Not everyone is going to like one particular brand or one particular style. It bothers me to have it nailed down to three specific items, I guess. How do you determine a genuine collector of that on the merit of just technical or scientific or historical?

Ms Phinney: How would you determine it?

The Chair: Your time is up, Ms Phinney.

Mr. Thompson (Wild Rose): I want to make a statement and thank you people for being here. I don't think most of my Reform Party colleagues would even advocate or promote the ownership of a gun. In fact, I believe if you have no useful purpose for owning one, you probably shouldn't. We think that makes sense.

The thing that frightens me and that I'm worried about is that we have come to a time when there are a number of people who feel they need to own a gun for some protection. I think that fear stems out of a very poor job of operating a judicial system that does its job in protecting society. I think they've made a mess of it.

Having said that, I'm frightened, as many people are, when you pick up a document that says you're guilty and you must prove innocence - for the first time I can recall. We have searches without warrants, as I can recall. It is true that compensation will not be made for continued confiscation, and that Orders in Council are set up where we're going to be governed from now on, with this regulation, by the decisions of one or a very few rather than legislation of the Canadian people. When you come up with a document such as that, I think it's very non-democratic and I fear for our civil liberties.

.1130

I would like each group to respond.

Mr. Henderson: I certainly agree with your comments. There is concern about firearms owned by irresponsible people or people who will not comply with our arms regulation storage policy or whatever. But the courts already have the tools to control this if they would apply the regulations. But they don't.

Time and again firearms charges are laid by the police, are not supported by the magistrate or whatever, and the person gets a very light fine or it's traded off against another plea.

The tools are there. Please insist they be utilized.

Mr. Holmes: We agree with Staff Sergeant Henderson as well. There is a societal malaise, and yes, there are those who fear they will need recourse to a firearm. Self-protection is not one of the lawful reasons for acquisition of a firearm, and any individual who says so receives a short and sharp rejoinder from the police.

Also, it is always police-discretionary in respect of restricted firearms whether permission should be granted to acquire. If one doesn't like that, one can go to a magistrate and make one's case; but few do. Few who are challenged, knowing the handwriting is on the wall, go further.

We here are collectors. One cannot imagine the Walter Mittys and Elmer Fudds and we who collect like steam-engine enthusiasts having a firearm for self-defence. These citizens in society who do that tend to have a single firearm and, one suspects, very frequently are not part of the record.

While responsible citizens everywhere share your concern about the proliferation of violence in society, it can hardly be said collectors are an integral part of that problem. I guess that's all we have to say.

The judicial system...yes, it's difficult. Those who are in greater jeopardy of firearms charges are propertied individuals whose collections are jeopardized by any kind of firearm conviction. You get some kind of technicality that may in itself be trivial. If it's a firearm conviction, then it empowers prohibition for some period and the forced dispossession of an entire collection. That threat is nakedly apparent to collectors who are caught in a quasi-infracting circumstance.

Mr. Caron: I agree with Mr. Myron Thompson and everything you've said. This law goes well beyond gun control. It's an attack on civil liberties in Canada.

I question the law with reference to the Charter of Rights of Canada and also Bill C-17, something we had two years ago. Even Bill C-17 is questionable against the Charter of Rights. It went to court in the Zimmerman case in Alberta, and it will eventually go to the Supreme Court.

I don't understand why a government would enact laws that are against the charter in the hope of convincing people that this will do for crime. It won't. It just doesn't work.

Ms Torsney: First I want to clarify something. Dr. Ross, you're a professor in clinical psychology. Are you an adjunct professor or are you a full professor with tenure?

Dr. Ross: I'm a clinical psychologist. I work for the University of Toronto in two capacities. I'm on the staff of the psychiatric service and I teach through the psychology department. I don't have a tenured position in the psychology department; I teach part time.

.1135

Ms Torsney: I take it from your testimony to my colleague Mr. Gallaway that you are an expert on suicide.

Dr. Ross: This sounds like a law trial. No, I'm not an expert on suicide. I'm a psychologist and I have done some reading on suicide, but I'm not an expert on suicide.

Ms Torsney: You suggest that some of the groups who would favour gun control, who would favour this legislation, play fast and loose with the facts, and yet you yourself have done so this morning, representing yourself as what appears to be a professor of psychology, an expert in suicide, in making all kinds of analysis of what people do and how it happens and how in fact the numbers are different and what have you.

Dr. Ross: I beg your pardon, Ms Torsney, but I did not play fast and loose with anything. I have just finished telling you I am not an expert in suicide but I've been reading about it.

I would suggest you are taking a line straight from the Coalition for Gun Control, which has referred to me as an ``alleged professor''. I have not misrepresented myself and I think your arguments are totally ad hominem and inappropriate.

The Chair: Excuse me. This morning, just to be clear, it's on the record, in answer to a question - I forget to whom - you suggested that the Canadian Public Health Association was badly informed and misled this committee. I wrote down your words when you said that.

Dr. Ross: Yes, that's correct; and I want -

The Chair: About suicide, by the way, these were experts from the Canadian Health Association who were testifying. I don't know if you've read the record, but you've made comments about their testimony.

Dr. Ross: Yes, I just have some excerpts from some of their references that were given and I know some of these articles are articles that are held in disrepute. In the larger paper I submitted I refer to another article, a copy of which I have here: Guns in the Medical Literature, a Failure of Peer Review. In this article, which I have referred to in my paper, they give an excellent and thorough analysis of some of these articles that have been quoted by the Coalition for Gun Control and by the Canadian Public Health Association, indicating these articles are disgraceful. First of all, they're based on the American experience. They don't apply here. They're so biased they don't even reflect the American experience accurately.

Ms Torsney: Yes, well, I'm specifically referring to the Canadian Medical Association's publication. Are you suggesting they are not peer-reviewed properly?

Dr. Ross: I'd have to be familiar with the particular publication you're referring to, and you haven't given me a reference. I don't know what it is.

Ms Torsney: The Canadian Medical Association Journal, Dr. Ross, published a study by the Swiss criminologist Martin Kylius that specifically makes positive correlations between access to firearms and murder-suicide in 14 of 17 countries around the world. Are you calling that article into question, Dr. Ross?

Dr. Ross: I would have to look at the actual article. Obviously I can't do that right now.

Ms Torsney: Well, perhaps you can get back to the committee.

Dr. Ross: I do know I have referred to some of the Kylius research in my own document, and I know, in a general way, without picking out particular articles and critiquing particular studies, there is no evidence that gun control measures contribute anything to reduction of homicide.

Ms Torsney: Sorry. Since we would want to be factual and we wouldn't want to mislead people, it's access to firearms that is the correlation to suicides and murder, not gun control.

Dr. Ross: Okay. If you consider access to firearms, first of all, you have to consider other methods that are used in suicide and murder. Many of these studies don't bother to compare with other methods. Firearms are not a major cause there.

Ms Torsney: Sorry, Chair; excuse me. With respect, we've heard all of her testimony on suicide, which I personally don't feel she's qualified to make. I've got my answer from her and I was making a point. I did not want further discussion on this point. I would like to move another....

.1140

The Chair: Excuse me. One thing we can't tolerate is both people talking at once. So when one has the floor, everybody else should be quiet and when the witness has the floor we should be quiet as well. So I'd ask you to respect that on both sides. Please don't interrupt each other.

Ms Torsney: Absolutely.

To the Quebec group, are you aware we have heard that in a study of people who own firearms in Quebec one-third have self-declared they do not properly store their firearms? Yes or no; I'm aware or not aware.

Mr. Caron: Yes, I've seen that in the newspapers. I don't have the actual transcripts in my hands, but I have seen it. That's one of the things we want to promote, and we do education through the association. Education has been proven to be a much more effective tool in promoting responsibility than legislation.

If we look at the storage laws, they were enacted with Bill C-17. It's totally incoherent. The storage laws should be revised, simplified, and they should probably follow the recommendations of the report of the coroner, Anne-Marie David, which has not been done yet.

Ms Torsney: Certainly we would appreciate your support with that. Anything that you can suggest to clean up that part of it and that we can enact in this legislation we would be happy to do.

My final comment is to you, Dr. Ross, is that, as chair of the women's caucus, I have a real problem with people like yourself who invalidate the experience of women who work in shelters in Canada and deal with battered women on a daily basis and who have a particular perspective and expertise that I don't think you have in this area. You come here today and say they're either uneducated or uninformed. How dare you say that to those women in our country who are very informed about the issues with which they speak.

Dr. Ross: Was that a final comment with which you want to have the last word rather than -

The Chair: Madam, you have a right to respond, but in the same length of time.

Dr. Ross: If you would like the last word, I think -

The Chair: No, excuse me. The witness always has the right to respond. You have the right to respond, so let's stick to the facts.

Dr. Ross: I am trying to respond.

Ms Torsney: That was my final comment, yes, but you are allowed to have a comment.

Dr. Ross: I think you're distorting what I have said. I think you're setting yourself up as an expert in an area where you are not an expert. I think you're making a very emotional argument.

Certainly one must have sympathy for battered women who are in shelters. If you're suggesting for one minute that any of the provisions of Bill C-68 are going to do one tiny little thing for one woman in a battered women's shelter, then you are deluded. Thank you.

The Chair: We're going to hear from the women's organizations, and they'll speak for themselves: Women and the Law, the National Action Committee and other groups.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Our witnesses, who are collectors, must all have firearms at home. I would like to know if they think that everybody in Canada should have a gun at home to protect themselves against thieves. And if not everybody, who should have guns at home?

We could start with the Saskatchewan group which haven't had the chance to go first very often.

[English]

Mr. Lewis: I don't even know how to begin with that one. It's a very debatable thing. I personally wouldn't take my gun out to shoot somebody in self-defence. That's my personal view. My guns are all locked up.

The second question I didn't quite get through the translation. Could you repeat it?

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: I was asking whether Canadians should own, at home, a firearms to protect themselves against robbers or would be attackers. If not everyone, what kind of people should have firearms?

Some witnesses told us that they should have a firearm, easily accessible at home, that they should have an easier access to firearms than others. I want to know whether you agree with this.

.1145

[English]

Mr. Lewis: We are not allowed by law to have it accessible right now; it has to be in a safe with a trigger lock on it. So that pretty much answers that it can't be used.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: I didn't really want to know if guns should be accessible or not but rather if a certain categories of people should have guns at home to defend themselves. There is no problem if you don't want to answer my question. We can move to another group.

[English]

Mr. Lewis: Well, it's not that point. It's against the law. We'd be breaking the law, plain and simple.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: It's not against the law to have a gun at home.

[English]

Mr. Lewis: No, you said the firearm in the home to protect yourself. We can't do that by law. We cannot do that. We have to have the ammunition locked in one separate location, the gun in another location, with a trigger lock on it. It's impossible to use it.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: but you can have one at home.

It is not impossible to use a firearm at home even though it's stored properly. One just has to get it, to put ammunition in and to unlock it. According to the testimonies we heard yesterday, everybody at home knew where the key was. That is why I'm asking you that question. If you think that it is irrelevant, it's even better.

[English]

Mr. Henderson: I don't think the majority of households in Canada have any desire for such a regulation. A lot of Canadian homes have no firearms and will never have firearms.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: In that sense, things are completely different and distinct.

[English]

Mr. Henderson: Oh, very much so.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Does anybody else have anything to say?

Mr. Caron: I would like to answer your question on behalf of the Association. We're collectors. We are not buying firearms for our self-defence; that is not our goal. Like someone said, those who buy firearms for self-defence buy only one. That is not our case. Furthermore, the firearms that we buy are sometimes artefacts, very old firearms that, very often, don't even work. Therefore, we are not here to talk about self-defence. We are collectors first and foremost.

Mrs. Venne: Yes, but there are people who present themselves as collectors and who are not. Thank God, they are not here today. Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Torino: There are many people who are simply not suited to owning a firearm; it is that simple. Our suggestion, which fortunately or unfortunately only covers collectors, I think is being applied to anyone who wishes to acquire a firearm, especially with the new screening requirements for an FAC or an FPC that have been put in through Bill C-17. I think these requirements screen out an awful lot of people who say, gee, I should have a gun at home in case somebody decides to come home and do something to me. This type of person is most likely not suited to have a gun. The screening process removes this type of undesirable.

A person who has a firearm has a responsibility to himself, to his family, to the firearm, and to society to take care of the firearm. Society also has a responsibility to make sure it protects its citizens. Unfortunately, as we all know, the police departments simply cannot be everywhere at the same time, so you have the mentality of many people saying, ``Maybe I should do something to take care of a situation the police cannot control at this point''. However, we are here as collectors and not as people promoting self-defence.

Maybe the question is slightly inappropriate, but I hope I have answered something towards what this is about.

Mr. Bodnar (Saskatoon - Dundurn): I just want to clarify a matter that deals with the question of guilt unless you prove your innocence. In our society, in our Criminal Code, we have a number of offences where if the Crown shows certain facts, the accused must prove innocence. I'm sure Mr. Henderson knows that.

Dealing with the care and control of a motor vehicle, the reverse onus is there. There is break and entry into homes, where a person in a home then has to show he or she was not intending to commit an offence. The list goes on, including cheque charges, also known as false pretences.

.1150

So the reverse onus provisions are nothing new in our criminal justice system.

Obviously our object is not to infringe on civil rights. That's what we're trying to look at. Our object here with you today is to see how we can accommodate gun collectors, and the suggestions you have, the recommendations, are extremely important.

One suggestion I found extremely important today came from Major Holmes when he suggested the freezing provision rather than dealing with the guns. That's a matter that will be looked at, because even though it's traditionally been done, I find that very intriguing and one I think we should look at very seriously.

Also, before my question I have to indicate that I also agree with Mr. Henderson and his indication that there's been too much trading away of offences in the past. That is why we need this legislation to bring in some minimum penalties to make sure the courts cannot treat these offences in which firearms are used in a trivial fashion, as has been done by the provinces, which we do not control. We do not control the prosecutions.

The last comment deals with the natives and the use of guns. In all my years in the criminal justice system...I do not agree with that comment. I do not agree that the predominant or large use of guns is in the native communities. If that is so in your province, it certainly does not appear to be like that in the province of Saskatchewan, where many of the deaths are caused by knives. Some are by guns. I hate to categorize one group like that. I believe it's a problem across all of society, not just the one group.

So Major Holmes, about your suggestion on freezing, if it were changed to a freezing of the number of guns as of now, let's say, should these guns then be traded among all people who have firearms possession certificates, or should this be simply for collectors? What do you suggest in that category?

Mr. Holmes: Freezing the inventory puts in a slow strangulation, and ultimately either we'll be out of the business or those things that are frozen will be so obsolescent that they'll no longer be relevant in a societal hazard context.

About who should be allowed to acquire such a firearm in future, the mechanism is already in place where, for restricted firearms, there was a potential societal hazard. One goes carefully, and properly so. Without the rule of law, civilized existence is impossible.

Currently, you or I or anyone who seeks to acquire a firearm in the category of a restricted firearm must make prior application, in addition to having the FAC and the course and all those other things, to his local police force, whose onus is to investigate the matter and either to approve or to deny. If you're denied you have the right of mandamus to go before a magistrate and make your case. That seldom happens, because those who are refused tend to understand why they are refused.

If the local police force is satisfied about an individual, then it doesn't really make any difference whether they're approved to acquire a target revolver or something that might now be more stringently regulated. The fault of logic is that if we accept grandfathering and something can be kept between us grandfathers until the last one expires, if that firearm poses no more threat to public safety than that, then, with increasing obsolescence forty years from now.... There are examples on the table.

It seems to me the mechanism already available suffices. One goes to the police; they satisfy themselves; they say ``Snooks may have a...'' - whatever it is, or not; and therein lies the decision.

.1155

In tragedies like Lepine, these are manifest failures of the investigative mechanisms already in place, where it's acknowledged that there was too cursory an investigation or no investigation whatsoever. You don't need more rules. You need more careful compliance with existing procedures. With overtaxed police resources that becomes ever more problematic the more of these kinds of things there are.

It's not to plead that it's too complicated, thus society shouldn't have.... I do not argue that.

We plead the case for the rule of law, but I think the mechanisms are already in place to satisfy the legitimate and proportionate societal concern in the matter. Therefore, as I said a long time ago, firearms of some intrinsic worth and merit for aesthetic or historical reasons or whatever are preserved for posterity.

There's a large-magazine device that dates from 1776 on the table. It would have been long gone had Bill C-17 been in effect then, yet now it's a simple and rather clever curiosity to facilitate the more rapid reloading of the muzzle-loading rifle.

I think the mechanism is in place.

Ms Meredith: I want to deal with a couple of issues here. I just want to follow somethingMr. Holmes brought up on more than one occasion, which is that in essence we already have registration of all firearms, such that every firearm manufactured in our country or every firearm sold in our country has a registration number which transfers to the person who purchased it. Is that fact?

Mr. Holmes: Imprecisely. With the legislation currently in effect, only holders of firearms acquisition certificates may purchase. They must present that photograph documentation and it has a magnetic strip on the back. Whether it has my mother-in-law's birth date in place I do not know.

It is the plan of the justice department that ultimately there'll be things like the credit card readers on every licensed vendor's shelf so that you can run the card and instantly verify whether that continues to be a valid FAC or whether there are restrictions that thus-and-such kind of firearm ought not be sold. The licensed vendor - these are important words - method doesn't cover a private sale between two individuals, but it most emphatically universally covers all lawful sales by licensed vendors, wherein the FAC and the whole history of where I come from are captured.

The serial number and description of the sold firearm are accumulated and must by law be kept in registry. Now it's a simple thing to marry those things together.

Ms Meredith: Are you telling me the person who is already registered.... I buy a gun from a store. The store registers that I am now in possession of that firearm, because that number transfers from the store to me.

Mr. Holmes: By law they're required to maintain that registry.

Ms Meredith: Do people who privately trade or sell weapons not pass that record on to the new owner in some manner or other?

Mr. Holmes: I think the method is imperfect at the moment, and that's an excellent question.

Ms Meredith: I'm not asking whether it is perfect.

Mr. Holmes: No, it's not perfect.

Ms Meredith: But it does more or less happen at this time.

Mr. Holmes: I cannot agree, because I don't completely understand it. A licensed vendor is required to keep records and they are complete and that's it. There's no escape.

If you should sell to me or I to you, I'm legally bound to be satisfied that you have an FAC and are a legitimate purchaser. But other than for currently registered firearms such as a pistol, there's no paperwork transition wherein the system captures that.

Let me go further. I buy something at Canadian Tire; I'm recorded. A year later that firearm is found in a crime or the police, as they are entitled to do because I'm a collector, knock on the door and say, we understand you have this firearm, show it to us. I say, oops, I sold it. Then I'm answerable at law for whether my transfer of that firearm to you was lawful. Did I see your FAC? Did I write down the number? Otherwise, I'm left to answer not quite in reverse onus, but I have some serious explaining to do.

.1200

You see, it remains on my charge until the system knows otherwise.

Ms Meredith: But that's what I'm getting at: there is a record that it is in your charge at this time. So you're quite right in saying there is a method in which they can develop something that might work a little better.

I want to move on to another point here. I had a collector come to me with some great concern. I'm not going to get into the dollar values, because I don't think it helps anybody's case to talk dollar values. He was somewhat concerned that he had this item - the book value of it was whatever - and that with the passing of this legislation, because it happened to be a pistol, that book value was now zippo, and he, in the signing of a pen, was losing substantial property.

Is he just an isolated case, or does this reflect most collectors where they have substantial investment, shall we say, in their items, that with this bill they are going to lose their value...because they can't be sold or traded to somebody outside of the collectors? There will be no value to it, because there's nothing you can do once it comes to an end.

Mr. Holmes: His was a factual assertion for firearms that would be prohibited if they can only be transacted to other grandfathers - forgive the sexist terminology - to another pre-existing holder of a similar category of firearm. Then one must contemplate that ultimately there will be no one left to sell it to.

One hears the glib retort, well, sell it out of country. Well, I'm sorry, the U.S.-Canadian border is largely impermeable. The firearms that can permeate the U.S.-Canada border are not the firearms that are prejudiced by prohibition orders, if you understand. They don't want the things we don't want either, and so it's not an answer to say, oh, but you can sell it out of country, or yes, although technically I'm empowered to sell it to Bill, he's not crazy, because he can't be rid of it afterwards either.

It's sadly, absolutely, factually true - Mr. Bodnar's question comes to some of that as well - if the present inventory were frozen so there could be no new acquisitions, but if such firearms could still be transacted to the people the police approve of, and agree and consent can have them, then that might conceivably be an 18-year-old when I'm 93. Then in addition to preserving the very substantial cash value of the commodity, it preserves for posterity some of the things you see on the table, which have intrinsic aesthetics and merit, cultural, historical significance, and they will not go to the breakers as an act of vandalism, in due course.

Mr. Mitchell (Parry Sound - Muskoka): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Like Mr. Bodnar, I'd like to thank the groups for being here today. Some good suggestions are being put on the table, and we appreciate that.

I want to explore the degree of extent, if I could use that phrase, and I'd like to talk to Staff Sergeant Henderson for a second.

You made a comment, and one I agree with, that the legislation should be targeted at street guns; trying to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals who use them. I don't think there would be a lot of people who would disagree with that.

My question, though, is if we find the source of the handgun or the firearm is a legal source - at one time that was a legal firearm, it has entered into the realm of being illegal, held by a criminal - is it appropriate to put some of your regulations and restrictions in place at the time that firearm was still legal, in an attempt to prevent it from becoming an illegal firearm?

Mr. Henderson: I'm sure everyone would support the fact that once a firearm is legal it should remain legal, and any steps necessary to ensure it remains that way would be supported.

Mr. Mitchell: So such a thing as we went through in Bill C-17, in terms of safe-storage requirements, which are an attempt to ensure safety, is also an attempt to ensure it doesn't fall into illegal hands. That's an appropriate action for government to take, in your opinion.

Mr. Henderson: Absolutely. I think collectors and shooters, and firearm-owners in general, in fact support it.

It was a financial difficulty for some of them to have to purchase a trigger lock, for example, at $38 or $40 each, for 30 or 40 or 200 guns.

.1205

Mr. Mitchell: Without prejudging whether it will happen or not, if registration could be demonstrated to be effective in stopping a portion of legal firearms from falling into the hands of people who intend to use them illegally, would that be an appropriate response and an appropriate regulation for government to pursue?

Mr. Henderson: I don't personally believe it can be proved. I don't feel it's a fact that registration will prove that. If it can, I'll support it.

Mr. Mitchell: Now another question to you, Staff Sergeant. About self-defence - and I think we almost had a consensus here that it's probably inappropriate or not likely people would hold it strictly for the purpose of self-defence - if you could demonstrate that a handgun had no purpose other than that - in other words, it was not used by target shooters, it's not a collector's item - would it be appropriate to prohibit ownership of that type of handgun?

Mr. Henderson: I personally believe it's already very strictly controlled, and I don't believe there's anyone here who would say change that. Make it difficult and if they say it's absolutely out of the question, I have no problem with that, nor would my colleagues.

Mr. Mitchell: So you're suggesting you don't need to prohibit it, because there's enough regulation.

Mr. Henderson: You don't need that firearm for self-defence unless you're a policeman or acting in that type of work.

Mr. Mitchell: One last question, Dr. Ross. I believe you made a comment in your testimony - correct me if I'm not accurate here - that gun controls will contribute nothing to criminal control. Is that a fair statement of what you said?

Dr. Ross: Gun control will contribute nothing to....

Mr. Mitchell: To criminal control.

Dr. Ross: Crime.

Mr. Mitchell: To crime control. Is that a blanket statement - any regulation that governs the use of firearms will have no impact?

Dr.Ross: No, I wouldn't say that totally, but I think where you're talking about regulations that are going to affect only the legal gun-owners, that won't have any impact on crime control. So when we're talking about registration, as even the minister has said himself...he doesn't expect criminals to register their firearms.

Mr. Mitchell: A quick follow-up to that, though. If registration could be shown - and without getting into the argument about whether it can be shown - to allow a prohibition order issued by a judge to be executed better, would you then say registration is serving a worthwhile purpose?

Dr. Ross: I think that ``if'' is a terribly big one, and I don't think that's possible.

Mr. Mitchell: I'm granting you that ``if'' is big, but I'm saying if registration can be demonstrated to make the execution of a prohibition order more effective, would you support registration?

Dr. Ross: You're asking me a question to which it would seem I should reply in the affirmative, but I can't accept that hypothetical ``if''. I would have concerns, such as to whose satisfaction will this be demonstrated? The way the legislation is written now, it looks as though anyone can be satisfied. There's this part of the legislation whereby anyone can be appointed a police officer for these purposes. So who is going to say this? I'd have a lot of concerns about going along with something like that.

In a question about whether there could be any legislation drafted that would have some positive impact on crime, of course I don't think you actually have to draft any more. We have, in clause 85, the provision for a penalty for using firearms. I'm actually concerned that when we provide extra penalties for using firearms, we may be encouraging people to use other methods which are also...[Inaudible].

Mr. Mitchell: So you don't support the four-year minimum sentence for those ten selected violent crimes.

Dr. Ross: It's not that I would say we shouldn't have penalties for violence in the commission of a crime. I just think it shouldn't be confined to violence with a firearm. I think we should be talking about any kind of violence, regardless of how it's committed.

.1210

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: In some other countries, collectors are required to make their firearms inoperative. I don't remember the names of those countries. Mr. Bartlett could give us a few names if necessary. I remember clearly that previously, when we studied it...

There are no countries which ask their collectors to make arms inoperative?

[English]

Mr. William C. Bartlett (Committee Researcher): I know there are some, but I don't know the names.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: You don't remember? I do and I should be able to find them back? Anyway, I would like to know whether you don't think that considering that you can collect banned firearms, it will be interesting to make them inoperative so that if stolen, the person couldn't use them. What do you think of this suggestion?

[English]

Mr. Bateman: It may be that one of the countries you're thinking of is Japan. It's my understanding that the private ownership of firearms that are operable is extremely difficult in Japan. I'm not certain of the others.

About firearms that have been made inoperable, I believe the bill itself, as I mentioned very briefly in my remarks, categorizes replica firearms as prohibited devices. So this bill places significant sanctions on exactly what you're mentioning, a replica firearm or a firearm that is incapable of functioning the way it was designed to function.

So to look at that as a solution to concerns of collectors in that respect doesn't work. In fact, collectors of replicas - and that can go everywhere from a replica that is fairly sophisticated to a plastic model kit you can probably buy at The Bay store.... There is an argument to be made that even that sort of device is covered by certain of the prohibition portions of the bill and would subject the person holding those to sanctions.

More important, though, from the collector's point of view, is that in order to make any sort of a collector's item inoperable, you have to damage it; you have to change its intrinsic function. By doing that you deduct very significantly from the value of that firearm. It's exactly the same as making an automobile or anything else inoperable. By removing its ability to function as designed, you are turning it into a different device, one that has far less value.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: I have certain questions before we adjourn. To begin with, I want to clarify the rules on regulations in the bill. According to clauses 111 and 112, the minister must table all proposed regulations in the House. Those regulations are referred to a committee; for the present that would be this committee. This committee could then examine witnesses, examine those proposed regulations, and make a report either criticizing them, supporting them, or whatever.

Clause 112 also allows the minister not to table those proposed regulations in the House when he believes the change is to be a minor matter or a matter of urgency. But when he decides not to do that, he has to table a statement in the House of Commons giving his reasons for not tabling the proposed regulations and justify that the matter is minor or urgent.

Now, I want to make clear that once that statement is tabled, that's not the end of it. This committee has oversight responsibility with respect to the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General. If there's some feeling in the House that the statement is not solid enough, we can call a meeting of this committee and examine the reasons from the minister, call the minister before us.

You might say the majority which represents the government wouldn't do that, but as a matter of fact, according to the rules of our committees, it requires only four members of this committee of fifteen members to force a meeting of the committee on a specific subject, e.g., that the reasons given by the minister for not tabling the regulations are unjustified. We'd have to hold a meeting to deal with that.

So I don't think the suggestion that what's in the bill is a gross violation of what's been done in the past or of democratic principles holds up.

.1215

On another matter, the burden of proof, again I see nothing in the bill that changes the traditional burden of proof in Canada. The rule ``innocent until proven guilty'' is a rule that applies when you're charged with a criminal offence; it doesn't apply to the application for permits and administrative matters. As Mr. Bodnar pointed out, even in criminal charges the burden reverses in certain circumstances. For example, if I am found with heroin on my person, then of course the burden switches to me. There are other cases like this.

But when you're applying for an FAC or you're applying for a registration permit or a licence, of course the burden is on the applicant. If I go the drugstore and ask for a certain type of medication that requires a prescription, the burden is on me to produce a prescription which is issued by a licenced doctor. If I want to drive a car, the burden is on me to pass the test to get the licence; and so on.

So I must say I see nothing in the bill - and you're going to have a chance to respond to this - that changes the traditional burden of proof.

My final statement, which you can comment on as well, is that while I fully respect the rights of witnesses who come to this committee and of members of the committee to have divergent views on this very controversial subject, I must say I find some of your statements disturbing, especially when Ms Ross states that others who have appeared before the committee are misinformed, that they've in fact misled the committee, and even that members of the committee are misinformed. I've read some of what's been said in documents about us being misled. The inference is that only you are well informed and don't mislead, and I find this rather strange coming from....

Ms Ross, you've admitted yourself that when you said police were hiding behind the skirts of the Coalition for Gun Control simply to further their own agenda, you made that statement in a rather unsubstantiated way. Also, you belong to an association, as pointed out by Madame Venne, that put out a document, a letter, which had grossly misleading information about the government's proposals.

So while I respect your right to different views - that's democracy - I don't think it's fair to suggest everybody else is misinforming or misleading the committee. I think we'd be better advanced in examining this important subject if we respected each other's views but did not charge each other with misleading and misinforming.

I want to get at this question of the police. Mr. Henderson, you've said ``this group'', meaning your group from Saskatchewan, ``feels the chiefs agree in public'', referring to the Canadian Chiefs of Police, ``only because the politicians control the financial purse-strings''.

Then I return again to the statement we read from you, Ms Ross, that the police were supporting these sorts of measures because they were hiding behind the skirts of the coalition in order to further their own agenda.

Are you really suggesting, Ms Ross and Mr. Henderson, that the police are intellectually dishonest?

By the way, I accept that in these associations, as in all associations, there will be minority views. There will be certain policemen who don't agree with the Canadian Police Association, but the majority carry the position. Among the chiefs there may be minority views, but the majority carry the position.

Are you suggesting that those policemen who fought for the resolutions in their associations in a democratic forum were not intellectually honest, that they really do not support these kinds of things, that they are being duped or that they are stupid, that they don't really understand the issues? I find that hard to accept, and I'd like you to.... Somebody may come next week and say the same thing about you, and I would say the same thing to them if they started charging you with being dupes, stupid, or misinformed and not really knowing what you're talking about.

We're going to have the Canadian Police Association before us, we're going to have the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and I'm going to put to them the question you put. I'm going to quote what you said and ask for their response. Do you really believe the chiefs agree in public only because the politicians control the financial purse-strings? Ms Ross, do you really believe the police take their position simply because they have their own agenda and they're hiding behind the skirts of the coalition?

I want both of you to answer that, because really I don't think we advance your cause or my cause in these things by making those kinds of charges.

.1220

Mr. Henderson: These views have been told to me by other firearm owners; not necessarily just collectors but firearm owners. I do know from talking to them, many average police constables feel these whole proceedings of further registration of firearms etc. are a complete waste of time. They in fact do not support their chiefs.

The Chair: By the way, I admit there could be some who would think that way.

Mr. Henderson: The chiefs are not only -

The Chair: By the way, you know the Canadian Police Association is an association of front-line policemen, as opposed to the chiefs.

Mr. Henderson: Yes, but they're all elected, etc.

The other concern as expressed to me is that because they're policemen, these fellows are expected to stick together. Once the commitment of the majority is made the rest are expected to tag along and in fact do.

The Chair: Do you question that the majority at the Canadian Police Association convention passed a resolution that was debated? There was a minority point of view, but they passed a resolution. That's how we do things in a democratic society. You're saying some disagree. That's fine, but the majority at the convention agreed.

Mr. Henderson: This is the feedback provided to you on this as a result of the views of both collectors and non-collectors but firearm owners from the civilian side of things, and on occasion supported by regular policemen.

The Chair: You admit it's not the most scientific way of finding out.

Mr. Henderson: Oh, no. No, it's not. But it's still the view that was expressed.

The Chair: Okay, I accept it on that basis.

Mr. Henderson: I would also like to point out that I believe at Prince Albert and Saskatoon they had a review of the firearm policy among them and both came out against them, and that's...[Inaudible]]

The Chair: Yes, I know the Saskatchewan group dissented from the majority.

Mr. Henderson: It's been well advertised, and that's the stand I was asked to bring forward.

The Chair: Okay; but we're talking about...as I say, it's been the suggestion here this morning that others who have presented evidence, such as the Canadian Public Health Association, which is made up of eminent doctors and scientists...that their submission was less than well informed and so on. On the other hand I'm accepting from you - and you're admitting it and I accept it for what it is - that you have street evidence, not scientific evidence. So I'm insisting we be a little more...let's not suggest others are not doing things some of you yourselves are not doing.

Ms Ross.

Dr. Ross: Thank you. Where I had made some comments that another group, the Canadian Public Health Association, was - I don't recall if I said ``misinformed'' or ``had misinformation'' -

The Chair: I wrote it down. You said they -

Dr. Ross: - I think that is accurate, and I'm not the first person to question another witness. First of all, I believe my credentials were being questioned by a member of this committee, Ms Torsney. She was trying to suggest that I was not competent to answer the questions....[Inaudible]

The Chair: I don't want to get into that. I'm just saying with respect, if I understand correctly, you couldn't have read the evidence of the Canadian Public Health Association because it's not printed yet. There are only newspaper reports.

Dr. Ross: Let me explain this. First -

The Chair: So it's not a very scientific approach in criticizing.

Dr. Ross: - with regard to what Ms Torsney said, I have been told she said yesterday - and it's true these records are not available - that she criticized the methodology used by Professor Gary Mauser, and as she tried to question me as a person with my credentials she was also questioning him. Professor Gary Mauser is a person of good reputation and the work he does for the Fraser Institute is highly regarded.

About the testimony of the Canadian Public Health Association, it's true I haven't been able to read it because it's not available yet, or at least it hasn't been to me, but I do have some material that was given to me this morning which indicates a number of the references they used, and I am familiar with these references. I have to say I'm very concerned that they should have relied on this kind of material without going further than that. I'm really questioning the way some of these studies were done.

The Chair: That's legitimate. But one had the impression, from your testimony this morning and from some of the things you've written, that perhaps only you have the truth and others that have come before this committee...that we're all misinformed and not really well read.

.1225

It's in your purview to criticize the scientific approach or the scientific method of any organization as they of yours, but I thought it was a bit much.

By the way, if Ms Torsney had not raised that I was going to raise it myself, because you questioned...and in several cases - I read your remarks - seemed to be indicating that many of us are not capable of really doing scientific research or coming to opinions. The fact of the matter is that you are and we are, but we come with different approaches and different political agendas, and that's what a democratic society is about.

Dr. Ross: I think the different approach and the different political agendas are important to consider, but when you assess research it really shouldn't be with a political agenda and -

The Chair: Are you serious? I felt this morning you had a political agenda. Mine is public safety.

Dr. Ross: I feel very strongly about public safety and crime control -

The Chair: That's a political agenda.

Dr. Ross: - and that's why this bill concerns me, because it doesn't address those issues -

The Chair: That's a point of view.

Dr. Ross: I don't say there's no research that's good research, but there are certain standards that should be applied. Very often studies get printed which haven't met those standards. Then they get passed on and on and get referred to and that information is taken as factual.

The Chair: You're right in doing that, but maybe you should direct some of that same strong criticism to your own organization. As Madame Venne said, the letter which went out, and which the president wasn't familiar with, was fast and loose with the facts, badly misinformed, and your statement that the police hide behind the skirts...that they really have their own agenda - that's not a very scientifically based research point of view. It's your own personal point of view; which is accepted.

Dr. Ross: I believe I stated it as such.

The Chair: Well, now you are, but when it -

Dr. Ross: No, I never said I had this document. I would surely love to document it if I could, but it's not a thing I'm likely to find.

I think Mr. Ramsay spoke very well to the point Madame Venne had made about the letter, that there was a lot of material, a lot of statements were made by the minister, about what may be contained in this bill. I think he was really floating trial balloons on a number of things.

I know I had a meeting with him in the summer and he said something. I know other people met with him in the spring and he said other things. Of course interested groups passed that information around and reacted to it. I think it was only reasonable that we should. We couldn't say it was factual. We could only say this is what has been talked about.

The Chair: As chair of this committee I'm interested in having all points of view. That's why we invited you and that's why we're pleased you came. As a matter of fact, many of our members - Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Gallaway - have said there are some very worthwhile proposals in your recommendations, which we'll look at seriously for amending the bill. So I accept that.

In speaking to you, I'm speaking to all witnesses who may come before this committee. I think we must be more respectful of others who come before the committee and not make ad hominem arguments or question their ability to do scientific research or to inform. I wouldn't want it done of you and I don't want it done of them either. So on that note I thank you.

The meeting's adjourned.