EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, May 15, 1995

.1933

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Order.

Tonight we'll continue with Bill C-68, An Act respecting firearms and other weapons.

Our witnesses this evening from the Canadian Criminal Justice Association are Yves Alie, co-chair of the policy review committee; Matthew Yeager, secretary, policy review committee; Marlene Koehler, a member of the committee; and Eugene Oscapella, also a member.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Alie (Co-Chair, Policy Review Committee, Canadian Criminal Justice Association): Good evening, Madam Chairman, members of the committee. Let me introduce to you, in the usual order, Eugene Oscapella, who has a law degree and acts here, in Ottawa, as a legal advisor in legislative issues; Matthew Yeager, our committee's secretary. He is a criminologist and is the one who will be talking to you tonight on our behalf. Finally, let me introduce to you Marlene Koehler, also a lawyer who agreed to be here with us tonight and myself, Yves Alie.

Mr. Matthew Yeager (secretary, Policy Review Committee, Canadian Criminal Justice Association): Good evening Madam Chairman. The Canadian Criminal Justice Association welcomes this opportunity to present a brief to the Standing Committee to which was referred a Bill on firearms control. As you well know, our organization is one of the largest collective of criminal justice professionals and interested citizens in Canada. The year 1994-1995 marks our 75th anniversary. We have an average of 1,000 members, publish the Canadian Journal of Criminology, author the Justice Report and the Bulletin and sponsor the Canadian Congress on Criminal Justice every two years. In fact, Congress '95, this year in Winnipeg will be our 25th.

.1935

We will emphasize at the outset that our Association has historically supported firearms control, and we therefore congratulate the Minister of Justice on sponsoring this much needed legislation. With one major exception, madatory prison terms, our Association supports passage of this bill.

[English]

It's not our intention in this brief to review the literature on firearms control save but to observe that there is a relationship between the level of gun ownership, the strictness of gun control and fatalities in crime involving firearms. For that reason alone our association has supported measures to reduce criminal activity involving firearms, curb unnecessary death by suicide and accident involving guns, and provide better control of firearms in general.

We Canadians hear a lot about how the availability of firearms allegedly contributed to the development of the American West and its accompanying cattle towns. But what most of our neighbours to the south don't realize is that in the cattle towns of Kansas, for example, and Wichita, the carrying of any firearms within city limits was actually illegal. Toll keepers at the Chisholm Trail bridge were authorized to exchange tokens for weapons as riders entered the city. In fact, the city of Wichita recorded no homicides whatsoever between the years 1875 and 1885.

By most estimates there are approximately 5.9 million firearms in Canada, the vast majority of which are unlicensed shotguns and rifles. Each year about 1,400 Canadians are killed by firearms in homicides, suicides and accidents - the majority again by unlicensed shotguns and rifles.

At present there are few, if any, restrictions on the purchase of ammunition. To quote Miss Wendy Cukier, president of the Coalition for Gun Control:

It's a bitter irony that in most Canadian cities we have more information about who owns dogs than about who owns rifles or shotguns. Given this lack of control, it is hardly surprising that sawed-off shotguns are frequently used in robberies and murders.

The Canadian Criminal Justice Association strongly endorses the creation of a central registry to record all firearms and firearm licence holders. In our view, this effort is central to the safety of both the police, who need to know who owns firearms, and the community. There is simply no justification for having to rely upon a guess as to the number of firearms owned in Canada.

A much underutilized provision in current law permits police officers to seize firearms with or without a warrant if they believe there are reasonable grounds to protect the safety of a person or group of persons. There are built-in safeguards to this procedure, including a review by a justice of the peace as well as a right to appeal.

The association believes that renewed police activity to seize firearms in dangerous situations involving domestic violence, disputes erupting into violence, suicide attempts and the like offers great potential to reduce violence by reducing the availability of lethal weapons in high-risk situations. However, knowing who owns which guns is central to this task.

Our association is intrigued by the idea, first introduced in a New York City precinct, of exchanging $100 gift certificates at a toy store for firearms. Apparently a carpet store owner decided to offer 50 $100 gift certificates to a well-known toy store in exchange for firearms. The response was overwhelming, with over 300 weapons being turned in over the following six days. Perhaps corporations could be granted a special tax incentive to donate funds that could be used to purchase toys, shoes, jackets and other gift certificates as an inducement to turn in firearms currently in circulation.

Amnesties conducted in the past have yielded a large number of unwanted and illegal weapons. While amnesties proclaimed on a local basis are beneficial, a national, well-publicized amnesty would be more effective. Thus, following enactment of Bill C-68, an amnesty should be proclaimed to encourage people to dispose of newly-prohibited weapons and other firearms.

.1940

With respect to the issue of failure to register - I realize this has been somewhat contentious on the committee - the association would like perhaps to offer a compromise to the committee, or at least a suggestion along that route.

We favour perhaps permitting first-time offenders who fail to register their firearms to be presumptively considered for alternative measures or a discharge. Either way, such persons could be sanctioned without the liability of a formal criminal record of conviction. In fact, rather than a record of conviction, a far better sanction would be a seizure and prohibiting such a person from owning any firearm for a certain number of years.

With respect to the question of implementation, we see no reason why there should not be a fixed implementation date for the registration of gun owners and their weapons. Accordingly, our association recommends that the language with respect to ``or such other date as prescribed'' in certain clauses of the act be deleted.

Current law with respect to mandatory prison terms provides that for any person who uses a firearm to commit or attempt to commit an indictable offence will be subject to a minimum mandatory penalty. These penalties range from one to three years, depending on the number of prior gun-related offences, and must be served consecutively to any other punishment.

Bill C-68 not only re-enacts this provision but also stipulates a host of mandatory minimums for possessing prohibited or restricted weapons, stolen firearms, trafficking in firearms, altering a firearm, or illegally importing or exporting firearms. Further mandatories are provided for using a firearm for the offences of criminal negligence causing death, manslaughter, attempted murder, aggravated assault with injury, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, robbery and, finally, extortion.

Our association has a long history of opposing mandatory sentences. Of course, the sanctions fail to take into consideration individual characteristics of the offence as well as that of the offender. They tend to shift discretion away from judicial officers toward the police and prosecutors. They increase populations in overcrowded penitentiaries. They are often the subject of plea negotiations. They undermine the totality rule in sentencing and they often increase both the costs and time of litigation in our courts.

Finally, the evidence isn't clear that mandatory prison sentences deter those planning to use a weapon in the commission of a crime. For instance, data from New York state and the former Rockefeller drug act, as well as the 1980 New York state gun law, has shown that mandatory sentences did not suppress drug crimes or the level of gun-related violence.

Indeed, one survey concluded that cross-cultural and interstate comparisons of sentence severity and the crime rate show that moderate variations in the severity of punishment for serious crimes are probably not a major factor in explaining the differences in the crime rates that are observed in different jurisdictions. Investigations of the use of capital punishment for homicide and of upward shifts in the minimum and maximum terms of imprisonment for other major crimes have produced mainly negative results.

Another sophisticated study of mandatory sentences for gun crimes in the United States looked at six different metropolitan areas. To quote that study: ``No individual city provides clear support for the proposition that mandatory sentencing reduces firearm violence''. Only when the data was aggregated was there a decrease in gun homicides. No finding could be made for gun robberies or assaults.

Indeed, a recent evaluation of section 85 of the Criminal Code concluded that two-thirds of section 85 charges are withdrawn, stayed or dismissed. Most offenders - literally all - are sentenced to significant imprisonment regardless of the additional one-year mandatory penalty. No evidence was provided to indicate that section 85 had reduced the number or rate of firearms-related offences.

It's our opinion that this legislation should not be oversold as a cure-all for solving the problem of violent crime in Canada. However, we believe that reducing the general availability of firearms through prohibition and registration, enforcing safe-storage requirements, seizing firearms during dangerous situations, and buy-back and amnesty campaigns are more fruitful responses to firearms-related violence than mandatory sentences. Prevention will always lead to better long-term results than reliance on the prison system to assess this problem.

With your permission, Madam President, I'd now like, if possible, to show some slides to members of the committee and open up the subject to some discussion.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Yes. Commence.

.1945

[Slide Presentation]

Mr. Yeager: It's clear, in our opinion, that the subject of firearms control is a question of striking a balance. So we begin with striking a balance with respect to that issue.

Clearly, there are benefits from firearms in Canada, in particular from hunting, target shooting and so forth. Many people in Canada feel the issue of self-protection is salient to them. There are sales and people who are gun collectors. So there are definitely benefits of firearms in Canada.

These are statistics on some of the data that give some indication of the prevalence of firearms in Canada. You can see from this 1992 study that approximately 10,000 households were surveyed. This is where we get our general figure of about 5.9 million firearms owned in households across Canada.

As you can see, the majority of firearms in Canada are not handguns, but rifles and shotguns, both of which, under current law, are not required to be registered with the owner.

Generally speaking, the owners of firearms are men; a small number are women.

This gives you some idea of some of the revenues involved in the firearms industry.

With respect to the issue of self-protection, which I'm going to illustrate in a second, there's an interesting trade-off or a risk-benefit issue that involves owning a gun for self-protection. I know that a lot of Canadians feel this is one of the reasons why they need and want to own a gun. It's perhaps even the reason why they may go to a store to purchase a gun.

This is exactly the chart that illustrates that problem with respect to that trade-off. It's an interesting trade-off, because this research was strictly on the issue of homicides in a home. You can see that for every self-protection homicide in the home, there's a dramatic trade-off in other kinds of deaths, particularly suicides, as well as criminal homicides.

Those criminal homicides tend to be domestic homicides involving acquaintances. In fact, in Canada the research indicates that the vast majority of homicide offenders know their victims. So we're not really dealing with stranger-to-stranger homicides. In homicides, the vast majority of people know the victims.

So one of the problems with the issue of self-protection, as the association sees it, is this trade-off between self-protection and, literally, fallout with respect to the probability of suicide, accidental fatalities and harm, as well as domestic homicide.

As for the cost of firearms, there are intentional and unintentional injuries. Here are some of the data collapsed over a period of several years indicating the number of suicides, homicides and accidents resulting from firearms. This is to give you some idea of the impact these injuries have in Canada.

This a study in Quebec particularly, but in Canada also, of the availability of firearms and the correlation between the availability of firearms and suicides in the home. Here we have another study of the increase in the suicide rate since 1960. This is a study in Quebec in particular about suicides, which indicated that the rates were 21% higher than that of Canada. This draws some concern with respect to that issue.

In particular, this is the chart I would like to focus on. This is fairly recent data that looks at the probability of suicide. This particular chart is extremely interesting because - I'll pause on this for a while - it gives you the general probabilities of suicide depending on whether a firearm is in the home, particularly a handgun or a long gun, and also whether the gun is loaded or not.

.1950

You can see that the ratios are quite dramatic, especially going from using no firearm in the home as a base and giving that a ratio of one, and then seeing that if there's one or more handguns in the home, the chance that a suicide will occur is six times greater.

I think this kind of data underscores some of the issues we were talking about with respect to the accessibility of firearms and their correlation to unintended results, meaning, in this case, suicides. In other cases we see the same pattern that occurs with homicides. Here we have an indication that in Canada the vast majority of suicides are committed with unlicensed shotguns and rifles.

There's an interesting question in the literature on firearms about instrumentality. Usually when we speak of instrumentality we talk about the ability of a firearm to result in a fatality, and in comparing that often with other forms of suicide attempts you can get some indication of the lethality of firearms.

One of the interesting statistics in the suicide area is that while women make more attempts to commit suicide, men apparently are more successful in actually committing suicide. We think one of the reasons that's true is because men are more likely to use a firearm with respect to their suicide attempt.

This is some data on homicides to indicate that approximately one-third of homicides in Canada involve firearms of some sort.

A large portion of these homicides by guns, by the way, in Canada are by shotguns and rifles, approximately three-fifths, and a smaller number by handguns.

That's fairly interesting, because the statistics in the United States are almost exactly the reverse. I think if you were to point to one of the reasons why we have this distribution, it would be the very nature of the regulations we have right now on handguns and the fact that we're fairly strict about our control of handguns.

Again, the majority of homicides, as you can see from this statistic, usually do not occur between strangers. The majority of homicides in Canada do not usually occur in the commission of some other felony, such as a robbery or a burglary. In the vast majority of homicides the people know each other and are acquaintances. That brings the question of the accessibility of firearms and what happens when a firearm essentially escalates a conflict into a fatality of some sort, whether it be a shooting, an aggravated assault or, in this case, a death by another.

Unintentional injuries would be accidents that have occurred as a result of the use of a firearm. Approximately 4% of firearm deaths each year are classified as accidents. So cumulatively we've seen about 2,600 deaths by accidental firearm use since 1970 in Canada.

This is a distribution of the victims of accidental firearm deaths. You can see that a sizeable proportion of these deaths involve children under the age of 15, as well as essentially adolescents and young adults. So when you add up the figures, at least half of those accidental fatalities involve young people in the prime of their life, or even before that.

This is a study in Manitoba that looked at some of the origins with respect to accidents involving firearms. Particularly, it was interesting to look at some of the correlations. Careless storage and handling in the home, particularly, was associated with a large percentage of these non-hunting accidents.

.1955

Getting back to the question of balance, there are several ways to approach the question of firearms control. The association's preference is not to wait until after the fact, after a suicide, or homicide, or a gun robbery has been committed, but to try to suggest ways to intervene before that situation occurs. We're particularly interested in a means to help control the accessibility of firearms. Therefore, generally speaking, measures to regulate the accessibility of firearms, as opposed to necessarily waiting until after the fact, are a preferred strategy.

That's why we think that Bill C-68 will hopefully initiate a major education campaign across Canada as part of the legislation, and that the education campaign will hopefully result in a way to educate people about the dangers involved in firearms and their misuse.

The solution to many of today's medical problems will not be found in the research laboratories, but in our parliaments. For the prospective patient, the answer may not be cure by incision at the operating table, but prevention by decision at the cabinet table.

That reiterates our perspective about crime control. We know now what some of the correlates are to violence, and particularly to firearm violence, in Canada. I think we can go a long way towards beginning a comprehensive approach to safety prevention and educating Canadians about firearms, and then hopefully seeing the impact many years down the pipe.

The association does not regard this as a cure-all or a panacea and we're not predicting that there's going to be a decrease in violence in the next year or two as the result of Bill C-68. We do think it is part of a package of intelligent, preventative, and intervention techniques that will ultimately benefit all Canadians in the future.

Madam Chairman, I think I've probably hogged too much time.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Thank you for your presentation.

Do other members on your panel wish to add a few words at this time, or should we go into the rounds of questioning?

[Translation]

Mr. Alie: Please, let's go into the questioning.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Alright. Questions.

Mr. Langlois, you have 10 minutes.

Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): Thank you, Madam Chairman. I thank the witnesses for their presentation. I am looking forward to getting a copy of your slides. I find that my glasses aren't very good. I would find it hard to repeat all that was said, for there was quite a bit of information. However, Mr. Wappel took some notes and I could ask him to have them photocopied after the meeting.

If my memory serves me right, you said in concluding:

The legislation should not be oversold as a cure-all for solving the problem of violent crime. However, we believe that reducing the general availability of firearms through prohibition and registration, enforcing safe storage requirement, seizing firearms during dangerous situations, and by-back and amnesty campaigns are more fruitful responses... And you go on with measures, and I quote once again: "reducing the general availability of firearms through prohibition and registration, enforcing safety storage requirements and by-back and amnesty campaign..." wouldn't you say that the measures that I have just mentioned have a lot more to do with the powers given to the provinces under paragraph 92(13) of the BNA Act of 1867, having Propriety and Civil Right, than with criminal law as such?

.2000

[English]

Mr. Yeager: I think generally we would prefer that the provinces take the lead with respect to enforcing any measures in Bill C-68. Not being counsel, I can't say whether or not that is a question of provincial rights under the British North America Act.

We envision that there would be some ability by the provinces to administer the enforcement of firearms control, particularly in areas such as the territories, where firearms and firearm usage are a way of life and in fact a livelihood.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Do you think that the bill should include a clause allowing a province or a territory to opt out?

[English]

Mr. Yeager: Generally speaking, I think our association would take the position, Mr. Langlois, that it would not be desirable with respect to the enforcement of firearms, mainly because of the situation we see in the United States. With the very weak gun control laws in the United States, we see a lot of traffic going across states with respect to the source of the firearms used in crime. It would not be a good idea to allow provinces to opt out of a matter such as gun registration because of the very danger that the province could ultimately become, in the future, a source of firearms used in crime.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: I don't know if you've had the chance to hear the First Nation's chiefs who came to tell us about their constitutional claims. They unanimously declared that the present law doesn't apply to them because of the ancestral rights they enjoy under article 35 of the Consitutional Act of 1982. Don't you think that it is dangerous, in our society, to give some people rights that others don't enjoy?

[English]

Mr. Yeager: I would hope that we don't get into a position in Canada of balkanizing the country into restricted and unrestricted gun zones on the basis of these kinds of issues. It has always been our preference, particularly with criminal law matters that are preventative in nature - and I'll emphasize it again, are preventative in nature - that we have a uniform approach across Canada. We encourage the provinces to take the matter seriously and not to have these kinds of gun-free zones or what have you. I think our association would be reluctant to endorse that provision.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: On the first page of your brief, you say that your association supports passage of this bill with one major exception, mandatory prison terms. I would like to draw your attention to sections 98 and following that deal with the power of inspection. Those sections give a police officer the right to enter and inspect any place, most of the time without a warrant, unless it is a dwelling house, to see if there are any non-registered firearms.

I also draw your attention to section 100 that asks citizens to give that police officer all the assistance that he needs to carry out his inspection. There is also a section that can result in self-incrimination.

Don't you think that we are going against the rights that we have been enjoying for hundreds of years under our British law system under which one doesn't have to self-incriminate, has the right to remain silent and the obligation not to hinder a police officer in his duties?

.2005

There is not only a prohibition for citizens to obstruct peace officers, an obligation is being made to provide every possible assistance to them during an inspection. Are you not concerned when you look at this bill, by the sweeping powers thus provided to peace officers and other such persons?

[English]

Mr. Yeager: On the question of the seizure of firearms, that's currently law under Criminal Code section 103. It's my understanding that the person who is the subject of the seizure has the right to contest it by taking it before a magistrate, and, even after that, appealing any such seizure order. So the person's constitutional rights are fully protected under that provision, which is actually current law. I don't believe this is a new law that is being made in Bill C-68.

With respect to the self-incrimination issue, unfortunately I'll have to plead a little bit of ignorance, not being counsel. I'm not an attorney; I'm a criminologist. But I'm surrounded by three of my attorneys this evening, who indicate to me that they don't read the self-incrimination issue into the language you're referring to, at least not to the extent you're characterizing in the clause.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: One minute, please, Madam Chair.

I'd like you to elaborate on section 85 of the Criminal Code. You say it has been shown that it doesn't work very well. What should be done to make it more effective? If section 85 of the Criminal Code which, "allows to sentence a person who committed a criminal offence with a firearm to harsher punishment", doesn't work at the present time, what makes you think that an even stricter system would be more effective?

Mrs. Alie: We think that the reason it doesn't work is this matter of mandatory and consecutive sentences. Our recommendation is to abolish this type of consecutive and mandatory sentences in the bill.

Mr. Langlois: But if we provide for concurrent prison terms, Mr. Alie, what would be the use of having the criminal provision allowing the judge to tell the accused: ``So I'm sentencing you to three years, including a concurring one year prison term because you used a firearm in the commission of the crime''.

Mr. Alie: I believe that way to look at it should rather be to say that if an offense is committed by using a firearm this would be an aggravating factor taking into account in sentencing. There should be a total sentence appropriate to the circumstances.

Mr. Langlois: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Thank you for your presentations.

Mr. Yeager, do you support all aspects of Bill C-68?

Mr. Yeager: We support most aspects of it, except the mandatory sentencing provisions.

Mr. Ramsay: So those are the only aspects you don't support. Are you aware of the ramifications of this bill?

Mr. Yeager: Could you be a little bit more specific?

Mr. Ramsay: If you're supporting the bill, obviously you should know its ramifications, including the economic ones. If you support all aspects of the bill except the ones you identified, then of course we would think you'd be aware of the ramifications of all aspects of the bill.

Mr. Yeager: Are you referring to the cost of the bill?

Mr. Ramsay: I'm referring to the cost. I'm referring to the testimony we've received about the economic ramifications to the guides and hunters who rely upon U.S. hunters who may not come across the line and to the two firearms manufacturers who indicated that because of the costs they will have to incur they may move out of the country. Are you aware of these aspects of the bill?

Mr. Yeager: Yes.

Mr. Ramsay: And you support the bill in spite of those ramifications?

Mr. Yeager: Yes.

Mr. Ramsay: Can you tell us how the registration of rifles and shotguns will reduce the criminal use of these firearms?

.2010

Mr. Yeager: As I said, we're not predicting that as a result of the passage of Bill C-68 there's going to an immediate decrease in gun-related misuse of firearms. That is not our argument.

Our argument is based on the research that looks at patterns over the long term, particularly with respect to the accessibility of firearms, and shows a correlation with respect to suicides and homicides. It is our hope that with this legislation, in combination with other measures that are preventative as well as educational, we'll begin to see a suppression effect in the years to come. It may take five, ten or fifteen years to begin to show the kinds of decreases we would like to see, but we certainly think we're going to see a decrease in these kinds of accidents, suicides and homicides by the use of guns. We think that any kind of prevention, any saving of somebody's life from a firearm-related accident or suicide, is a step in the right direction. As a criminologist I can't promise instant gratification, but I can indicate to you that it's the right direction in which to go.

Mr. Ramsay: The handgun registration system has been around for 60 years and yet the criminal use of handguns hasn't decreased; in fact, it has increased over the years since its inception. How do you explain that?

Mr. Yeager: Again, when I'm looking at handgun data I like to contrast it with a control group. The best control group, if you follow my logic, is the United States. When you contrast the misuse of handguns in Canada with the misuse of handguns in the United States, it's very clear which country is succeeding with respect to the violent crime issue.

I would hope that those of us in Canada will continue along the plane we've been taking with respect to certain paramilitary weapons, which really ought not to be in circulation, and tighter controls on certain kinds of weapons. If that answers your question, that's my general response.

Mr. Ramsay: Do you think Canada will become like the United States?

Mr. Yeager: I would hope not.

Mr. Ramsay: Well, that's not my question. You have used references to the United States. Do you feel Canada is in danger of becoming like the United States?

Mr. Yeager: No.

Mr. Ramsay: Okay. Is it not reasonable to assume that if the registration of firearms does not reduce domestic incidents or suicides, then what we're really looking at is the removal of the firearm from the home? If we register the firearms, it's only speculation that it's going to increase the possibility of safe storage, more than what is occurring now under the present law that demands it. So if the registration of these firearms does not successfully affect those figures and statistics, is it not realistic to assume that the next step is to remove the firearms entirely from the home?

Mr. Yeager: I would hope that the same thing as happened with drunk driving would happen with gun control in Canada. After the public became alarmed with the growing carnage on our streets, measures were passed to deal with drunk driving, but in particular we began to see a decrease in the number of automobile fatalities on our roads. A lot of that decrease had to do with changing the culture and the attitudes toward driving while intoxicated.

I hope that one of the outcomes of this particular legislation will be that we will change the culture of gun use in this country. So we won't be seizing guns from homes, as you might suggest, Mr. Ramsay, but we'll be using guns much more carefully in a much safer manner and we'll be prohibiting and seizing weapons from people who ought not to have them.

Mr. Ramsay: Then you don't expect to see any significant change in those statistics for approximately 15 years? Is that what you said?

.2015

Mr. Yeager: I would love to be able to give you that kind of a solution and promise you that so forth and so on - that we'll see this kind of a decrease in 15 years. What I think is going to happen and what we hope will happen is that we're going to see a long-term impact. It will be a decrease, not an increase, in the misuse of firearms resulting in fatalities, accidents and suicides.

Mr. Ramsay: In your view, the registration of shotguns and rifles will bring this about?

Mr. Yeager: In my view, it's part of a total package of prevention, education, changing the culture and assisting people with the safe use of firearms in a combination of a number of measures. Not just registration, but a number of measures will aid our police forces in intervening in dangerous situations. It will help us with respect to seizing weapons from people who shouldn't have them; for example, militia groups that sometimes cause problems - we've seen that down south - sometimes gangs and various motorcycle groups, who no one would want to allow to have weapons of any sort. So this is basically our general approach.

Mr. Ramsay: The registration of rifles and shotguns, and, of course, nothing I've seen in this bill, will do anything about reducing, attacking or addressing the cause of domestic violence or suicides.

Mr. Yeager: Remember, one of the problems we see with respect to domestic violence, homicides and suicides is that the use of a weapon is correlated with that issue; that you're much more likely to die if you use a firearm than if you use some other instrument to try to take your own life. So there's a major instrumentality effect with using a firearm. If you're held up by somebody with a firearm, you're much more likely to die - that is, be killed - than if they hold you up with a knife or a screwdriver. So there's a major effect here that we would like to address. It may take several years to do that, but we think it can be done.

Mr. Ramsay: And yet the majority of violent deaths are not caused by firearms. They're caused by other instruments.

Mr. Yeager: That's correct.

Mr. Ramsay: This is a little bit off target in terms of what you've presented here tonight. We have had representatives of five governments appear before the committee: Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and, of course, the two territories. They are all opposed to this bill. Why do you think that is?

Mr. Yeager: Unfortunately, I didn't have the opportunity to attend the hearings to listen to the testimony. But in general, if I can anticipate the direction of the question, our association does not endorse the balkanization of gun control to permit certain provinces or territories to opt out of this kind of legislation. It would be our opinion that if they did that, it would only make matters worse and could result in the flow of illegal guns from states in the United States.

Some states in the south, for example, have extremely liberal gun-sale laws. We've seen that there's literally a flow of guns coming up the eastern seaboard as a result of that. That kind of balkanization is the very reason why the United States has so many problems with gun control.

Mr. Ramsay: Of course, that's not the purpose of my question. I don't recall that they were here requesting a specific opting-out clause. Under the Constitution, they cannot opt out. So that was not the point of my question.

Surely we're all concerned about public safety. The question is the linkage between this bill and public safety. Over and over again, we heard that same issue. If you show us the linkage, we will take a look at supporting the bill, particularly the main thrust of the bill, which is the registration system. So apparently no one has been able to convince them of the linkage between the registration of rifles and shotguns and the public safety that would occur from it.

Mr. Yeager: Again, this whole issue of linkage and the request to show instantaneous results is something that unfortunately we really can't do. In the literature we can show you correlations between availability of firearms and homicides, suicides and accidents. We can show you international comparisons with respect to the accessibility of firearms and the rates of homicide and suicide. Those are the kinds of indirect measures that you would relate to with respect to the control of firearms.

.2020

In general, restricting the accessibility of firearms results in fewer homicides, suicides and accidents by firearm. That's what the literature suggests. In general, having a firearm in your home gives you a chance of being a victim of a suicide or a homicide three to five times what it would be if you had no firearm in your home. If the firearm in your home is loaded, your chances of suicide become nine times greater.

Mr. Wappel (Scarborough West): I would like to touch on four things, starting on page 4 of your brief. Incidentally, I note that your brief is brief, which is interesting.

On page 4, in paragraph 3, you talk about mandatory prison terms. You say that mandatory prison terms undermine the totality rule in sentencing. What rule is the totality rule?

Mr. Yeager: The totality rule is a rule in common law for sentencing in Canada with respect to the totality of a sanction for a particular act or a series of acts. It is used by courts of appeal across Canada to attempt to balance and even out sentences when they review these on appeal. It's called the totality rule, and that's basically what we're referring to.

The problem with a mandatory sentence is that, because you're asking a judge to impose a second consecutive mandatory sentence on top of what the offender would also receive, usually speaking, that can violate the totality rule.

What we see happening, actually, with respect to section 85 of the Criminal Code is the majority of these mandatory minimums are never really processed. They are plea-bargained out by the crown in the particular province in which the crime occurred and the person usually gets a major sentence anyway.

Ninety-seven per cent of most offenders who are involved with firearms-related criminal activity receive a sentence to imprisonment. So we're not talking about this being a situation where these offenders are getting lenient sentences, even to begin with.

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Yeager, I don't wish to put too fine a point on the words, but I view there being a difference between a totality rule and a totality principle. Is there some decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to which you can point that has enunciated a rule, which all criminal courts in Canada must follow, that would prescribe a totality in sentence?

Mr. Yeager: Mr. Wappel, you've got me. Being a non-lawyer, I'm going to have to.... I'm surrounded by lawyers.

Mr. Wappel: Maybe they can help you out.

The reason I'm asking the question, Mr. Yeager - and I don't want to appear as if I'm trying to surprise you - is that in my opinion and in my belief there is no such rule. There is such a principle.

Perhaps a majority of judges in this country look at the totality of a sentence before they impose it and decide on a certain number of years, and they don't care how they get there. They figure that's the number of years. There are other judges who do not follow the totality principle, and sentence on other bases. That's why I want to know if there is any particular case to which you referred that has suddenly turned a principle into a rule of which I'm not aware.

Mr. Yeager: Let me make a reference, if I may, Mr. Wappel, to Bill C-41. There's an interesting section on one of the fundamental principles to which you referred as opposed to a rule. If I could just read that principle to you, I think it's exactly what you're talking about. ``A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender''. That may be what we're both talking about.

Mr. Wappel: The thing I thought I heard you say - and I just want to clarify it - is, do you believe that there are mandatory consecutive sentences in Bill C-68?

.2025

Mr. Yeager: In fact, the current law, Bill C-85, is a mandatory consec of one to three years, depending on the priors. My reading of Bill C-68 is that we are adding mandatory consecs to a whole range of offences.

Mr. Wappel: Not wishing to put you on the spot, would you point to where you see mandatory consecutive sentences in Bill C-68?

Mr. Yeager: Maybe I'm referring to mandatory minimum.

Mr. Wappel: Mandatory minimum and mandatory consecutive are two different things.

Mr. Yeager: Let me correct the record. I apologize again, Mr. Wappel; I appreciate your comments. I think I'm referring to mandatory minimums.

Mr. Wappel: All right.

Perhaps I could turn to suicide. I noted that one of your slides pointed out that the vast majority of suicides are committed with long guns. Have you drawn any conclusions as a result of that statistic?

Mr. Yeager: Yes. The accessibility to firearms is a correlate to suicide.

Mr. Wappel: Have you any drawing of conclusions with respect to the difference between the suicide rates vis-à-vis long guns and handguns?

Mr. Yeager: Yes. It would appear that, because it's more difficult to access a handgun and easier to obtain a shotgun or rifle, the easier accessibility of long guns becomes a stronger correlate to suicide.

Mr. Wappel: Let me turn to Mr. Oscapella for a moment.

My understanding is that you have some degree of knowledge in privacy law.

Mr. Eugene Oscapella (Member, Canadian Criminal Justice Association): Yes.

Mr. Wappel: I believe you've acted as a consultant to the privacy commissioner in the past in reference to several issues?

Mr. Oscapella: Yes, that's correct, and I still do.

Mr. Wappel: Good. We've heard concerns expressed that the national firearms registry that will be developed - it's going to be computerized, naturally - might be broken into by computer hackers, and organized crime might obtain this information and find out where weapons are, and information might be transmitted south of the border so that authorities who heretofore wouldn't know where American hunters' weapons are would suddenly find out where they are.

Do you have an opinion on the potential accessibility of this information, and if so, what is that opinion?

Mr. Oscapella: As with anybody else, I would be concerned about the potential accessibility of it. There are ways to make systems more secure than perhaps they are initially planned to be. One way is encryption. You would have to ask the privacy commissioner this. It may be opportune to have the privacy commissioner appear before this committee to address some of the privacy concerns. Encryption is one means of protecting the integrity of the information in the database.

Another means would be to make the database, the information in the registry, subject to the federal Privacy Act so that the federal privacy commissioner would have an oversight role with respect to the maintenance of the database. You could enact specific rules that would restrict the flow of information across borders, for example.

It's true that there's no perfect security in any system. I think we've seen it too many times. Hackers can violate systems, so you really have to design a registry system where the data is perhaps encrypted. There are some excellent encryption programs around, and you have to restrict access to those databases.

Mr. Wappel: Thank you, sir.

May I turn back to Mr. Yeager. I think you are going to have to refer to your lawyers here. Section 91 and 92 of the act - this is in part III of the Criminal Code - deal with creating offences for possession of a firearm without having a licence or a registration. Have you done any analysis on the difference between section 91 and section 92 insofar as the requirement of mens rea is concerned?

Mr. Yeager: Mr. Wappel, we haven't, and we haven't been able to get into the bill in that much detail. Part of the reason is that it was very difficult, given the time constraints we had, to put together an analysis and circulate that analysis to our 68 board members, and then make an appearance before you that was at least partially intelligent. Unfortunately, I'm unable to respond to your question.

Mr. Wappel: The reason I ask is that I'm sure you would agree with me that one of the cardinal precepts of holding a person criminally responsible is that they had a criminal intent. Generally speaking, the criminal law does not punish for non-criminality; in other words, it doesn't punish a person if they had no intent to commit a crime. Wouldn't you agree?

.2030

Mr. Yeager: I believe that in general you are correct, but I would ask perhaps Mr. Alie.... There are some sections of the Criminal Code in which a specific mens rea is not absolutely required, but I'm not certain about that.

[Translation]

Mr. Alie: No, I believe Mr. Wappel is perfectly correct in his analysis concerning actus reus and mens rea. I should also underline that the actus reus often includes an underlying mens rea. Therefore, since there is possession, it must be justified.

[English]

Mr. Wappel: Your association takes a diametrically opposed view, I think, to many of the witnesses who were here who pleaded that this committee keep the criminalization of the failure to register. I wonder why you favour the compromise? Why is it that you don't accept what so many of the witnesses - certainly not all, by any means - feel is absolutely critical to the success of the registration program?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): That's the last question, Mr. Wappel.

Please answer.

[Translation]

Mr. Alie: Mr. Wappel, I believe we must make a distinction between deep criminalization and alternative measures. What we are proposing is that the offense be dealt with, but through alternative measures. The term we normally use in English is ``diversion''. We don't want to remove responsibilty in the case of ownership of a firearm that is not registered. What we want to do, is to treat this type of situation differently.

We could, for example, examine those measures used, in Ontario and in Quebec in particular, in the area of different treatment for persons having committed a first shoplifting offense and a person having committed other criminal acts labelled technical.

What would we do in the following case? Let us say that a 70 year old woman inherited a gun ten years earlier. Unfortunately, she didn't register it. I think that it would be very severe punishment to give this woman a criminal record simply because she forgot to register the gun.

Therefore, while retaining a section punishing the non-registration of a firearm, we should also be providing diversion measures for situations such as the one I have just described, in order that there be some alternative. I'm convinced that in my example the woman would be perfectly happy to dispose of the gun or to give it to someone. In this way, we'd avoid having to sentence someone in cases where the sentence wouldn't be in proportion with the degree of seriousness, or lack of seriousness, of the offense.

Mr. Langlois: Mr. Wappel touched upon a very interesting point when he mentioned section 91 and 92 of Part III of the bill.

Under section 91, the legislator makes it an indictable offense, a person to carry a weapon firearm weapon without the necessary permits and authorizations. Under section 92, a person who possesses a firearm knowing that he or she does not have the required licenses, is guilty of an indictable offense and is liable to a heavier sentence.

The legislators were not supposed to be empty. You stated that actus reus can include an underlying mens rea. Here, it is clear. In section 92, the legislator says: ``If you have a mens rea, your maximum sentence will be ten years, and if you don't have a mens rea, under section 91, your maximum sentence will be five years of emprisonment''.

I doubt that having an indictable offense without the mens rea criterion would withstand a constitutional challenge. I'm thinking here of the reference to the Motor Vehicle Act of British Columbia, where the Supreme Court added a few conditions to this possibility.

Does the answer you gave to Mr. Wappel earlier still stand? I found it a bit hasty.

Mr. Alie: Listen, as we've said earlier, we haven't studied the bill from that angle. What we wanted to do was present the position of an association that is much more general. We didn't study clauses 91 and 92 from a legal point of view.

.2035

It would certainly be possible to look at that further. I am however unable to give you an answer right away.

Mr. Langlois: You spoke earlier of another interesting question, that of the totality of the sentence or penalty. In the area of sentencing, there is a criterion that is important: namely that of the proportionality of the sentence.

Under section 92, the legislator is proposing that a person who is not the holder of the required licenses be liable to emprisonment for a term of 10 years. Do you find that acceptable given that the same maximum sentence is provided for in the case of persons found guilty of second degree murder? Do you not think that the difference between these two types of crime is such that the punishment is completely unacceptably disproportionate?

[English]

Mr. Yeager: Generally speaking, there is another example. For example, the sanction for burglary in Canada is life imprisonment. There's a possibility of getting a life sentence for burglary. We all know that in the vast majority, if not all, cases that's not what happens. The courts have long recognized that the fact that there may be a maximum penalty of 10 years or 14 years does not necessarily indicate that that's what the sentence will be. By common law, the courts of appeal have essentially devised sanctions and created an informal tariff system, given the trial court's direction with respect to what the appropriate sanction would be.

It's our position that, with respect to the issue of the firearms registry, a very suitable compromise for the committee would not be to decriminalize the possession of an unregistered weapon but, rather, to encourage some of the very measures we talked about when we testified on Bill C-41, the sentencing bill. These were to talk about alternative measures, alternative sentences, discharges and other kinds of things we hope we could see in respect of a Canadian penal law.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: I would like you to explain further what you say on page 3 of your brief concerning criminal records for failure to register.

You say that you would favor a compromise permitting first-time offenders who fail to register their firearms to be presumptively considered for alternative measures - i.e. diversion - or a discharge. Either way, such persons could be sanctioned without the liability of a formal, criminal record of conviction.

What I'm more interested in, is the discharge issue.

If you look at the Criminal Records Act, in chapter C-47 of the statutes of Canada, subsection 2(3) reads as follows:

...for the purposes of this act, a person who has been directed by a court, under section 736 of the Criminal Code, to be discharged in respect of an offense absolutely for all the conditions prescribed in a probation order...

We're talking here of absolute discharges...

shall be deemed to have been convicted of the offense.

Clause 3 reads as follows:

A person who has been convicted of an offense under an act of Parliament or a regulation made thereunder may apply to the Minister for a pardon in respect of that offense.

We're talking here of a pardon in respect to the offense.

How can you succeed in avoiding that there be a criminal record in the case of absolute discharges when under the Criminal Records Act it is provided under the Records Act, it is provided that there be a criminal record in case of absolute discharges?

Mr. Alie: First of all, if I may, the use of diversion measures automatically prevents the establishment of a criminal record in case of persons who had no prior criminal record.

In case of conditional or absolute discharges, it is true that there may be a criminal record for a short period of time. If you look further in the Criminal Records Act, you will see that it is clearly indicated that following a given period, the person automatically obtains a pardon.

Obviously, in the case of a conditional discharge, the timeframe is longer, given that the condition in question must first be estinguished. That is followed by a moratorium, that is also provided for under the Criminal Records Act. These are measures that flow one into the other over time.

What we have tried to demonstrate is that there was a series of measures, depending upon the seriousness of the offense and the circumstances, that the Attorney General or his replacement could have studied and analyzed.

.2040

[English]

Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): Mr. Yeager, we've heard from a number of witnesses expressing a wide range of opinions, as you can imagine. I liken it - this may be a crude analogy - to a Greek chorus of Eliza Doolittle singing, ``Show me''. They all want absolute proof that a registry system is going to yield results, and yield results the day after it's enacted. I was somewhat taken by your talk of ten, fifteen, or whatever the number of years is.

Getting slightly off that topic, I assume that your presentation is saying that there is a correlation between the control of the flow of guns in a society by way of regulation and the types of crimes or unfortunate incidents that occur as a result of some type of control system.

Can you indicate - and this a leading, unfair question - what the strength of that correlation is?

Mr. Yeager: In the research we cited, particularly in footnote number one, there are a number of detailed epidemiological studies that give you the correlations. To give you an example, when I showed you that suicide chart, do you remember the probability of a suicide in the home if a gun was a loaded weapon in the home? It was nine times what it would be if there was no firearm in the home. Those are the kinds of data we can show you in the studies we've seen. I'm sure some of the other witnesses have testified to that. That's the kind of data that emphasizes and underlines the issue when we say there is a correlation between the accessibility to firearms, and the kinds of things we don't like about firearms, which are homicides, suicides, accidents and accidental fatalities.

I concur with you, Mr. Gallaway. We're not, as the Canadian Criminal Justice Association, proposing any instant gratification to the members of Parliament. We wouldn't ever attempt to impose that on the members of Parliament. What we are suggesting is that to begin to initiate a prevention campaign, to begin to change the culture around the use and misuse of firearms, you need to begin with things like a registration system.

Mr. Gallaway: Have you done any studies, for example, on the antecedents to the usage of seat-belt legislation?

Mr. Yeager: Personally?

Mr. Gallaway: I don't mean you, but your association.

Mr. Yeager: I don't believe we have.

Mr. Gallaway: All right, fine. Thank you.

Another question in the vast array of people we have seen, surprisingly - this won't surprise you - is that we have people who draw conclusions that are totally in opposition to what you have said this evening. For example, recently we had a gentleman, a doctor, who stated that those articles appearing in the New England Journal of Medicine to which you have referred are biased when they deal with gun control. Apparently the editor, or whatever, of that journal has a particular slant on control of weapons in the United States.

Mr. Yeager: Did you ask the witness if he or she knew that the articles in the New England Journal of Medicine are pre-reviewed by other researchers and doctors before they are even accepted into the journal? Did you ask the witness if he or she knew that in those articles by lead researcher Dr. Arthur Kellerman there were a host of other co-researchers working on this research? Did you ask the witness for that person's data that has been pre-reviewed to indicate that those articles are misleading?

Mr. Gallaway: No, we didn't.

Two other researchers come to mind immediately, who are quoted widely in parts of this country: Edgar Suter and Gary Mauser. Have you had an opportunity to review either of those two gentlemen's work?

.2045

Mr. Yeager: I'm familiar with Dr. Mauser's work. I believe he's a professor of business administration out west. I think I've read one or two of his pieces. I'm not familiar with the other gentleman.

Mr. Gallaway: Would you care to comment on any of the work of Dr. Mauser that you have read?

Mr. Yeager: Not specifically, without really going into the article and refreshing my memory.

Mr. Gallaway: This may be too general for you, but would you care to mention what your opinion would be of his work?

We've also had a number of witnesses who have referred to studies admittedly funded by the NRA. Would you be suspicious or not? Do you think it's sufficiently objective?

Mr. Yeager: I think as long as you understand the funding source, the ideology and their history - and the NRA has a long history - it's suitable information for the members of Parliament to consider. I'm not a member of Parliament. Certainly, I'm a researching criminologist. If the National Rifle Association submits some research to me, I'll definitely evaluate it with the knowledge that the NRA has a long history on this issue.

Mr. Thompson (Wild Rose): Earlier you said to my colleague something to the effect that if a rifle and a shotgun are in the home, there's more chance of having a suicide or a homicide. Is that correct?

Mr. Yeager: In fact, the research indicates that when there's a loaded weapon in the home, the chance of a suicide is nine times more than it would be otherwise.

Mr. Thompson: I heard that.

Mr. Yeager: I believe the statistics on homicide are about three times what they would be without a firearm in the home.

Mr. Thompson: What difference would it make if it's registered? Is it supposed to make you feel better if it's registered?

Mr. Yeager: No. As I said, it was our opinion that a registration system, along with a bunch of other reforms and approaches to firearms control, would hopefully change the culture and impact specifically on things such as safe storage and the intervening on people who perhaps shouldn't have a firearm. People will often make a suicide attempt; there are a range of possible approaches to that area.

I think our argument is that if we can use a combined approach with respect to education, prevention, seizure, buy-back and other kinds of approaches, then hopefully we will begin to see a diminution in the misuse of firearms in Canada. It's not going to be instantaneous, or occur next year or even in two years. But hopefully you will begin to see a trend line in the long term that will be safer and better for all Canadians.

Mr. Thompson: But you have no statistics or any reason to believe that, other than that you think so. Is that correct? Where has that occurred that this is indeed a fact?

Mr. Yeager: No, sir. Mr. Thompson, in our experience in looking at international comparisons with respect to the accessibility of firearms, we see a definite correlation between the level of firearm ownership and the kinds of misuse of firearms that we deplore. That's what some of our research is based on.

Mr. Thompson: Are you talking about registered firearms, or just in the home? Do you have specific data about registered guns, rifles and shotguns?

Mr. Yeager: In fact, in many of the countries where we've done international comparisons there are registration systems and prohibitions in place. I couldn't give you specific information; again, I'd have to go back to the research and identify the countries that have those systems in place.

Mr. Thompson: I think all the members would like to have that. I know I would, if you would do that.

Returning to clause 110 of the legislation, I want to talk about one other thing that's mentioned quite a bit, and I'd like your response, Mr. Yeager. You'll probably need a lot of help from lawyers on this, because I did.

.2050

When people look at this legislation, in a lot of places they're quite concerned with such things as indication of guilt, proof of innocence, loss of the right to remain silent and confiscation with no compensation.

Then Orders in Council: In clause 110 on page 45, it says, ``The Governor in Council may make regulations...''. Then there's a whole pile of things he may do, (a) through (v); it's several pages. These are normally done by provinces, but they're not very serious things. But there is page after page of them. When you get to (t), it's a little bit concerning - it ought to be - to a number of people, because it deals with the aboriginals.

Throughout, there are words in there such as ``prescribe'' and ``respecting''. I thought those were just words; I've used them in my day and they meant certain things. But when I talk to the lawyers, they say those words are extremely important. They are all-encompassing. When it starts with ``respecting'', I wasn't quite getting the drift of what they were talking about.

Then I went back and they showed me page 98 of this bill. Proposed section 117.15(2) says: ``In making regulations, the Governor in Council may not prescribe any thing to be a prohibited firearm...''. That sounds good; you can't prohibit things. Then it goes down the list until it gets to the last part of that paragraph and it says, ``...if, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, the thing to be prescribed is reasonable for use in Canada...''. So he makes that decision.

Then I go back to page 50, clause 112(6):

For greater certainty, a regulation may be made under Part III of the Criminal Code without being laid before either House of Parliament.

The lawyers I've talked to - and I've talked to several because I didn't want one opinion - say to me that is an extremely frightening piece of work. That's the kind of thing that tramples all over civil liberties and can lead to total confiscation. It may not be with this government; it may be 20 or 50 years down the road. That's the kind of thing that all of these individuals who came from old countries say Stalin, Hitler and Castro did. They are quite fearful of a possible dictatorship from that kind of legislation.

Mr. Yeager: I think all of us in the association are glad to have you here to make sure these issues are brought before Parliament and dealt with and addressed. We would certainly not want to discourage members of Parliament from addressing those kinds of issues.

Mr. Thompson: Madam Chairman, I didn't get to ask my question.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): You used your time for a speech, then. You have the same five minutes as everybody else has. Actually, you've now had nearly eight.

Mr. Thompson: That makes up for all those times when you cheated me.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Oh, Mr. Thompson.

I might clarify something you said earlier. You talked about regulations being something the provinces usually do. I think all of us on this committee are well aware that statutes have regulations, no matter where they're enacted, and whether they are federal or provincial. If anybody needs further clarification, I'm sure they can seek it on that point.

Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure - Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Sir, in the application of Bill C-68, would you see any role or any necessity of suggesting an amnesty for certain weapons? You also mentioned that amnesties have been conducted in the past and they've yielded some success.

.2055

Mr. Yeager: I think the buy-back campaigns, interesting variations in buy-back campaigns, amnesty campaigns and educational campaigns can all be used effectively to educate the public as well as to try to reduce the accessibility of firearms in this country. I think all of those approaches could be combined into a large approach.

There may be other great ideas out there that we haven't even thought about.

Mr. Gagnon: Other than the American example in New York that you gave us, where they would accept a gun or firearm in return for $100, can you give me examples of amnesty campaigns that may have taken place in Canada, Europe or anywhere else in the so-called civilized world?

[Translation]

Mr. Alie: I think we have recently witnessed this type of amnesty program. I would remind you of the experience that happened at the Expos game in Montreal two or three weeks ago, where knives were exchanged. These weren't firearms, but they were arms nevertheless. Knives were exchanged against caps or tickets for a game that was held a few weeks ago. I'm sure that if you would like further information on that, it should be easy enough to obtain press clippings about it, because it was front page news.

Mr. Gagnon: So you have no idea of the probable cost of the setting up of some such program whereby people will be encouraged to hand in their firearms, that anyway are considered illegal under the bill?

Mr. Alie: No, there has been no estimation of the cost involved.

[English]

Mr. Gagnon: If I'm not mistaken, you also mentioned that we should be child-proofing guns versus gun-proofing children. We had a number of testimonials over the past number of weeks. Aboriginal and rural groups appear to have the belief that, having grown up with a father who owned a gun - as I did - they were instructed on how to use a gun. In your opinion, what guarantee does that have? Does it decrease the likelihood of any hunting or firearm accident?

Mr. Yeager: The research -

Mr. Gagnon: There's a whole myth around this. We've been hearing that this has been passed on from father to son or daughter. In the few remaining minutes, despite this family attitude or spirit around holding firearms, I'm trying to see if you could expose to us how this does not decrease the incidence of firearm accidents.

Mr. Yeager: Mr. Gagnon, you stated the argument in your question quite well. The data indicates that accessibility of firearms seems to be one of the major correlates to the outcomes we do not like - suicides, accidents and homicides - often irrespective of whether there's a history of long-term usage of firearms or a lot of knowledge of firearms. The accessibility seems to be one of the keys.

That's why our association has urged the committee to explore and improve upon a registration system and storage requirements, enhance the seizure of weapons in dangerous circumstances and undertake a major preventative and educational campaign to try to change the culture.

When I was growing up...I always remember my father, who had a gun cabinet in the house. I asked him one day if I could play with one of the guns. He said, ``No, they're dangerous''. On top of that, he said that he had disarmed all of our guns; none of them had firing pins. I said, ``Daddy, I don't understand what you mean''. He said, ``Well, son, none of those guns work''.

Mr. Thompson: I'll try to be shorter this time. How are we doing on the present laws?

Mr. Yeager: With respect to...?

Mr. Thompson: How are they doing? They must have some effect.

.2100

Mr. Yeager: If we were to compare the efficacy of Canadian laws with those of the United States, for example, then clearly we are doing a much better job at protecting our citizens than the United States is. There's no doubt of that in my mind.

Mr. Thompson: In your brief or statement, you said that we should give this several years and we're sure to see a positive effect.

Mr. Yeager: I'm pretty sure we'll see a diminution in the statistics that you and I both dislike.

Mr. Thompson: Wouldn't it make sense to take some of the older legislation that was drafted just in 1992...? Bill C-17 is only three years old. All of the legislation that's on the books now was reviewed and renewed. Even the Auditor General says that we haven't even had time to evaluate them. Why would we want to come out with 124 new pages of gun legislation when we don't even know whether the legislation they introduced in 1992 was effective or not? You indicated that it takes years to determine that.

Mr. Yeager: In fact, it does. But I think the easiest answer to your question is that the majority of Canadian citizens favour this bill. The polls indicate this. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but even among Reform Party members a bare majority of your own members favour a gun control registration system.

Mr. Thompson: I know a couple who do. I don't know about that. I haven't got the final details.

All the polls we did in my riding indicated that about 85% are against it. All the polls they did in the riding of Vegreville came out about 88% against it. A poll of all the police in Saskatchewan - it was confirmed today - showed that about 86% at present are against it, and that 98% of the police force in Saskatoon are against it. I think the discrepancies in these polls are something that really needs to be questioned. But that's really not my point.

My point is, if you're so determined that you need years to make sure a piece of legislation is going to work, why wouldn't you be as determined to save dollars and gear it towards what we presently have and see if it is working? It's been in for only three years.

Mr. Yeager: Because I think the association believes that this kind of a registration system is central to any effort to undertake the kinds of campaigns we would like to see that are going to reduce and diminish the homicides, suicides and accidents that result from the misuse of firearms.

Mr. Thompson: Well, you were the one who said that you will produce evidence that registration works. I'll be looking forward to getting that.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I guess both of you could give your polls and evidence to the whole committee. Thank you.

Mrs. Ur (Lambton - Middlesex): I'm a rookie on this, so you'll have to bear with me. I'm short on preamble because I have a lot of questions. Unlike the rest of my colleagues, I haven't had the opportunity to sit here and question for weeks.

I certainly appreciated two of your statements, on striking a balance and that no one single thing will cause a real positive, but it's a combination. I agree with you there.

The worldly daily paper in my riding, The London Free Press, stated in the new year that the OPP said rural Ontario was the safest place to live. We have the chiefs of police saying the opposite. I don't know whom to believe on that.

Do you believe this is also a cultural situation - rural versus urban culture?

I think there's firearm prohibition in Japan. Am I correct? Is the crime rate not escalating there?

Do you feel there's sufficient research on registration to make it one of the viable options to make Bill C-68 effective?

Mr. Yeager: I'm having a little bit of difficulty in following all of the questions.

Mrs. Ur: Do you want me to ask one by one? Okay, please answer what I've asked so far, but hurry; I've got a lot more.

Mr. Yeager: With respect to Japan, you're correct. That country has historically been known for its very severe gun control policy. There are a number of criminologists, colleagues, whom I regard as concluding that policy has produced very low rates of gun-related homicide and suicide in that country. They have a high suicide rate, but it's not by guns.

Your other question....

Mrs. Ur: Do you feel there's sufficient research on registration to make it one of the viable options in Bill C-68? Or do you think there's something more -

.2105

Mr. Yeager: I think we now have sufficient evidence for members of Parliament to make a decision about the viability and desirability of a registration system, using that system as a starting-block to begin a comprehensive crime control and preventative approach to the misuse of firearms in Canada.

Mrs. Ur: Do you know of something that would be better or more effective in the shorter time frame?

Mr. Yeager: Remember, we commented on the issue of balance. The association endorses the use of firearms for hunting for a livelihood, and for collectors who wish to collect firearms. You didn't hear anything at all from us opposing that.

There are appropriate, legitimate uses for firearms. I've used firearms on occasion; I'm sure some of your colleagues have also. The question is one of striking an appropriate balance so we can all feel protected. It's the same reason why we have laws to regulate and license automobiles on the road. If we didn't have that, I think you and I would agree that it would be a chaotic way to get around town.

Mrs. Ur: But do you really think registration has stopped accidents, drunken driving...?

Mr. Yeager: Compared to no registration, yes.

Mrs. Ur: Do you believe this is a cultural difference - urban versus rural culture?

Mr. Yeager: I'm not going to answer that directly; I apologize in advance. I think there's a culture associated with guns, regardless of whether you're living in a city or in a rural area. I would like to see that culture changed in Canada so we shall have a greater appreciation for the use of firearms and the precautions necessary to use them safely.

Mrs. Ur: Should registration be implemented? Who would best be able to handle the registration system - a civilian group or police?

Mr. Yeager: I may be incorrect, but my understanding is that the registrars in the local areas under the statute will be civilians. But I'm not sure about that.

Mrs. Ur: In your brief you said:

For instance, data from New York state on the former Rockefeller Drug Act, as well the 1980 New York state gun law, has shown that mandatory sentences did not suppress drug crimes or the level of gun-related violence.

Could it be taken from this statement that mandatory registration would not suppress crimes? Could you switch that? Do you think that would be a possibility?

Mr. Yeager: I don't know. I can only cite the research with respect to mandatory minimum sentences. Actually, it's very interesting. A recent study in criminology looked at 38 states with respect to the efficacy of mandatory sentences for firearms, finding again that the mandatory minimum sentences did not appear to have a suppression effect on crime rates and gun-related crime rates. That's why I can testify too. It's hard to grapple with a hypothetical.

Mr. Thompson: We've had some concerns from realtors regarding the possibility of loss of businesses that are unable to sell guns. This document was tabled in February, and the headlines came out in the Calgary Sun yesterday. After doing a little bit of checking today, we haven't had time to do more research. But suddenly, since this legislation has come out, sales of guns in retail outlets are up by 15% to 25%. This was rather surprising to them. Ammunition and guns are selling like crazy.

Do you see any correlation here? Does that make any sense to you?

Mr. Yeager: There probably is a correlation. I'm not sure what it is. I think any time we have a measure that's this emotional, that is so conflict-laden among certain segments of society, we're going to have these kinds of short-term reactions.

.2110

On balance, once this legislation is passed and people become more comfortable with the process of getting a certificate and participating in the necessary training courses, I think in the long run this will not be the problem that is currently referred to.

Mr. Thompson: What are we going to do? There have been very strong indications from different groups and some aboriginals from places throughout the country that there may be a serious problem with non-compliance. What do you suggest we do if that is a massive problem?

Mr. Yeager: I don't know that it will be a massive problem. My best guess is that it will not be a massive problem, because I don't really think registering your firearm is going to be any more difficult than running down to the Department of Transportation to get your car registration. I don't think it's going to be as difficult, once people begin to go through the process.

Even more importantly, people will know that their colleagues, friends and others who have firearms who have gone down and had them registered have not experienced any absolute, horrendous problems in doing so.

Mr. Thompson: That has yet to be seen. I understand they've cancelled some registration plans in some countries for that simple reason. They got to where it just wasn't being complied with.

The figure used by the Minister of Justice in his financial plan is $85 million. It's broken down as to where it's going to be spent. We've got $85 million to spend, and I believe we want to do it over five years. You could hire about 850 people to work in crime control, smuggling control, order control, or whatever it may be.

Doesn't it make more sense to you to train some people to strengthen our borders against smuggling, which is completely out of control, as was stated by the detectives who are in charge of that? It does to me, because we know that the more people you lose from the streets and the front lines, the more crime happens. It just works that way. Doesn't it make more sense to do that than to register shotguns and rifles?

Mr. Yeager: I think it's the association's advice to you and your colleagues that this particular measure is exactly what Mr. Allan Rock said it was, which is a kind of a central hallmark to a crime prevention approach. We regard the estimate of $85 million over five years as money very well spent with respect to the long-term safety and protection of citizens in Canada. I know you and I may from time to time disagree on these matters, but we do so respectfully.

Mr. Thompson: Most of the time.

Mr. Yeager: In any event, it's our position that that money will be very well spent for the long-term protection and education of the community. We would prefer to see it used in this fashion rather than hiring some officers to do border patrol. We think there will be a greater pay-off in the long term, which is really how we're looking at this particular legislation.

Mrs. Ur: One of the accountability factors is ensuring safe storage. How is that being implemented, and do you know how many charges have been laid?

Mr. Yeager: I don't have the figures on how many charges have been laid. I understand they've been beginning to do that just in the last year or two. I imagine that the members of the Department of Justice testified before the committee. Perhaps you did not have an opportunity to ask that question. I think it's an excellent matter to be followed up with the members of the Department of Justice. I'd like to know myself, because that's really central to part of this, to begin the process of educating and enforcing that particular aspect of current law.

Mrs. Ur: You mentioned education. Do you feel the education is insufficient for the lawful gun owner who is purchasing the gun or for the general public?

Mr. Yeager: The association believes one of the ways you begin to deal with that culture regarding the use of guns is to provide an educational campaign for all the public, not just the people who use them. The people who have the certificates are going to be required - in the statute, as you already know - to take a special training course. Plus, in order to get their certificate, they have to have a background check.

.2115

Mrs. Ur: Do you feel the militias' main weapons are shotguns?

Mr. Yeager: A militia group?

Mrs. Ur: Your fear of shotguns and rifles was related to militia groups, if they're really macho, coming out with their shotguns.

Mr. Yeager: Personally, I'm afraid of firearms.

Mrs. Ur: That's not my question. I can appreciate that; I'm not a lover of them either. But do you really feel the militias' main weapons are shotguns?

Mr. Yeager: I don't know if it's their main weapon. I know that south of the border, apparently, they have automatic para-military weapons. I'm awfully fearful of that. I'm informed that we have militias in Canada and they are as adamant about their perspective as those to the south of us. Those kinds of perspectives scare me, frankly.

Mrs. Ur: What method would you suggest they would have to use regarding registration of firearms for those weapons that do not have serial numbers or model numbers? In what format do you think that will have to be addressed in the legislation?

Mr. Yeager: I'm not certain about that, because I believe, if I'm reading the bill correctly, each firearm has to have a serial number on it.

Mrs. Ur: I'm aware of some in my community that do not have that.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I believe we had some information from the RCMP earlier today answering those very questions.

Mr. Thompson: In my travels throughout the country, I've visited with a number of police forces. One area I've always asked to see, and have been given the opportunity to see, is the confiscation room, where they collect the drugs and all the other things. I've found an amazing number of guns in most of them. In my own riding, I've found several shotguns and rifles.

Of course, they confiscated these from domestic disputes. They just took them, mainly because they weren't locked up properly and they were sitting in the closet or something. On a couple of occasions, they took them from a house party where the booze was flowing and everybody was rowdy. The neighbours phoned the police to come and quiet them down. When they went in, there were the guns. They took them because under the present law you can do that.

There are many things under the present law that you stated you were glad to see in this bill, because this and that was going to happen. But many of these things are already in place. Basically, the only thing that really isn't in place is the registration - the most expensive part of this thing and the one with no evidence that it actually works in curbing crime.

We agree with you on all these other things. They're already there; the police are already doing them. I don't think the police are going to like the idea of going into homes to see if they're registered or not, especially if they have worked in the communities for several years. They don't want to come across as harassing.

I would like you to respond to me. What is it that we aren't doing now where this bill is going to make a difference? The registration isn't going to make a difference, because most of these things are already happening.

Mr. Yeager: I may be repeating myself at this juncture. I think we've essentially responded to you about how we've interpreted the research literature and how we see this bill impacting in the short and long terms. If I'm correct, I think we've talked about the general approach and all the kinds of things we think are central, the need to have some better knowledge about gun ownership and the fact that a registry is central to that aspect. I don't know that we're going to reach a meeting of the minds, but we've been doing our best to answer your questions.

Mr. Thompson: You are aware that all of these laws now exist.

Mr. Yeager: Some of them do.

Mr. Thompson: Except registration.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Do you have any further questions? You have two minutes.

Mr. Thompson: No, I want to make up for that eight minutes previously.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): All right, we're even, Mr. Thompson. That's very good.

.2120

The chair has a few questions. I first want to go to page 3 of your brief, on the criminal record for failure to register. You've made some interesting alternate considerations for the committee to look at.

One of the principles of sentencing has to do with proportionality of the crime and the sentencing. One of your suggestions is that, rather than a record of conviction, you might have a seizure and prohibit the person from owning any type of firearm for a certain number of years. Earlier you said for six months.

I have a bit of concern about seizing a weapon that may be valued at many thousands or many hundreds of dollars. I hear the property arguments right now. What would this mean, and have you thought that through? I'm playing more the devil's advocate here.

[Translation]

Mr. Alie: Madam Chair, you certainly know that they are currently prevention measures under the Criminal Code. They are temporary measures that enable indeed to seize or confiscate firearms or to temporarily remove them from someone's possession. This can be done upon request.

Eventually, once the prohibition period is over, that person may own firearms again. The previously confiscated weapons will very often be handed back to their owners.

More often than not, in practice, the person is prohibited to keep any firearm during the prohibition period. They have to make sure that another duly qualified person - in possession of a certificate - is able to store the weapons during that period.

With regard to your concern about the risk that somebody might lose a firearm that might have some monetary or sentimental value, some provisions to that effect are provided.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): In sort, we could do this right now under certain current provisions of the code.

Another thing I want to draw attention to is that a lot of times we've heard about the right to remain silent. I wish one of the lawyers would comment on when the right to remain silent actually comes into play in our criminal justice system.

[Translation]

Mr. Alie: Your question is highly relevant. I have on my desk a recent decision of the Supreme Court on this topic.

Essentially, one could say that the right to remain silent is the right that someone has under the Charter to answer or not any questions asked of him or her after any charges have been layed. The person is under no obligation and cannot be put under any obligation to answer any question. The questions may be asked but the accused person doesn't have to answer them.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mrs. Koehler, would you like to answer?

Ms Marlene Koehler (Member, Canadian Criminal Justice Association): No.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): The right to remain silent comes after a person has been charged with a criminal offence?

Mr. Alie: That's right.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Okay, thank you. It's not when somebody comes knocking at a door for an inspection?

Mr. Alie: No. Basically, anybody can ask a question of anybody. The matter is, do you want to answer or not? If you are under no legal obligation to answer, then you simply do not answer.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): There is another point in the same area of your brief that I wanted to pursue for a minute here. You state:

The Association favours a compromise permitting first-time offenders who fail to register their firearms to be presumptively considered for alternate measures; i.e., diversion or a discharge.

Would your recommendation be the same if, for example, I don't have a criminal record and tonight I get an unregistered firearm and commit a criminal offence? Would you then not want me charged on my failure to register my weapons, assuming I had a weapon that required registration?

Mr. Yeager: Under the provisions of the alternative measures in Bill C-41, as you well remember, Madam Chairperson, the crown attorney's office has the discretion to deny you, unfortunately. I would be in favour of a diversion for you.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I'm glad. I think they work.

Mr. Yeager: The crown attorney's office would have the discretion to deny you the diversion. If you go out and commit another offence with your newly purchased firearm, you're probably looking at a rather severe term of imprisonment.

.2125

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): However, you still don't want the charge pursued, as it is right now, in our proposed bill. You would want that charge dealt with less seriously, if I can use those terms. That's what I'm interpreting in your section. Mr. Alie?

[Translation]

Mr. Alie: Madam Chair, we are not in diversion as such. What we mean is that we would like that it be regarded as an offence. We agree that there will be an offence but we could find a middle ground so that, as an alternative measure, we might deal with a crime-inducing situation where a charge might possibly be laid against someone. When reference is made to Bill C-41, as in this case, the crown attorney has the discretion to lay charges. In some cases, some type of diversion may be authorized.

I gave earlier the example of a law-abiding lady who might have inherited a firearm and who by neglect will just have put it in the attic. Seven years later, she is being asked whether she owns a firearm and she answers yes and hands it over. She would then essentially be charged with not having stored the arm correctly, for example because of her failure to lock the safety. This would be a technical offence. In such a case, diversion might possibly be contemplated.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Perhaps I'm not making myself as clear as I should.

What I'm saying in my own head is that I think there's a difference for me between someone who hasn't registered for a first time and that's their only infraction and someone who hasn't registered at the same time as he's caught committing a criminal offence with a firearm. I would like to see some sort of differentiation between the two.

Mr. Yeager: That's exactly the issue we've tried to highlight for the committee, to suggest a middle ground, if you will, where there is the availability of using some of the work we've done in Bill C-41 without decriminalizing this registration issue.

There's the ability to work with people locally and local discretion with the crown attorney's office and the courts, which will work much better than those of us sitting here in a beautiful chamber making these decisions.

There's a middle ground in this area that could work quite well for the committee.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I appreciate more what you're saying now, and I thank you for enlightening me.

I also thank you for your testimony here tonight.

We stand adjourned until tomorrow morning.