EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, April 24, 1995

.1000

[English]

The Chair: Order.

This morning we will start our hearings on Bill C-68, An Act respecting firearms and other weapons. We have before us the Honourable Allan Rock, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, along with some senior officials.

Mr. Rock, when you begin, I would ask you to introduce your officials. If you will be - and I presume you will be - making an opening statement, we will listen to it and then we will continue with the usual rounds of questioning. The meeting is scheduled to go until noon.

Mr. Rock.

Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As always, it's an honour for me to appear before the committee, but particularly as the first witness in respect of Bill C-68.

.1005

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the committee's schedule, I have noticed that you will be very busy and that you will be working hard in order to hear all the witnesses and review all the issues.

[English]

As always, you're going to be working extremely hard. Let me at the outset pledge the assistance of the Department of Justice in your work. I'm delighted to have at the table with me this morning some of the officials with whom I've worked in respect of this legislation: Jim Hayes, from the Firearms Control Task Force; Richard Mosely, who is a senior counsel and assistant deputy minister; and Iret Weiser, senior counsel in the Firearms Control Task Force.

Mr. Chairman, the officials of the Department of Justice are at the disposal of the committee during its work. If we can be of any help in getting information, either from the department or from others, we'll be delighted to do anything we can.

Bill C-68 is a large, and in some ways complex, piece of legislation. It deals with a wide variety of matters. I know that before you finish your work you'll be looking at it clause by clause. But today, in beginning my presentation, I'd like to speak first about the context out of which this initiative grows and perhaps the context in which the legislation should be assessed. Also, I'd like to say a few words about why Bill C-68 is so important to this government and why it has such high priority for us.

When Canadians are asked about the features of our nation that distinguish us from others, usually a very short but a very important list of items are identified.

Among the first is our deep sense of civility because, while other nations were founded on themes of revolution and defiance, while patriots elsewhere shouted, ``Give me liberty or give me death'', Canada was created by quiet accommodation, taking as its highest objective peace, order and good government. And we are a peaceful people. That peacefulness is not only a heritage from the past, it is not only our greatest asset in the present, but it must also be our legacy to our children for their future.

Bill C-68 provides an important means for preserving that heritage and protecting that legacy. It establishes a framework to achieve a number of goals that relate directly to safety in our homes and on our streets.

May I emphasize that this legislation grew out of consultation. This was not an instance in which the Department of Justice simply published a discussion paper and received written responses. It was not a case in which the government conducted research on its own. It wasn't even a situation in which I sent out officials or even asked the committee as I have done with young offenders, Bill C-37 and the second phase of that work, to test the views of Canadians.

Instead, I personally travelled the country to speak to Canadians about this subject. Between May and November of last year, I put aside virtually everything else on my desk and devoted my attention to this issue. I travelled, during that period, to every province in Canada and both our territories. I spoke to rallies in the Maritimes, in Ottawa, in the West. I attended public town hall meetings in Sydney, Nova Scotia, in my own riding of Etobicoke, in Yellowknife. I sat at the table with firearms groups in Saskatoon and Charlottetown and on the west island of Montreal. Indeed, I met with over 150 national and regional groups of firearms owners, collectors and users. I met also with police, health professionals, teachers' groups and women's groups.

Mr. Chairman, these travels were not just an exercise in tourism. I listened and I learned. My conversations with those Canadians shaped the views that are reflected in Bill C-68. In many ways, they changed views that I started with.

.1010

I learned of the importance of firearms in farming and ranching. I learned of the economic importance of hunting with firearms in this country. I learned that firearms used for those purposes are, as much as anything else, a part of the Canadian tradition. I met collectors and sport shooters who were terribly avid about their pursuit.

[Translation]

This made me realize how essential it is to solve this problem in a calm and reasonable fashion. The right approach to firearms control in Canada is to find an efficient way to fight criminal use of firearms while respecting legitimate uses and interests of law-abiding firearms owners. The appropriate method is that which will reduce the risks of criminal acts, but which will not go against the interests of hunters or target shooters and which will not limit the rights of farmers who want to protect their cattle against wild animals.

To this end, the bill has three main objectives. First, to create deterrents by establishing new offences and very tough sentences for the criminal use of firearms. Second, to improve the control over firearms belonging to individuals. Third, to reduce the smuggling of firearms into Canada. To achieve that objective, we must strengthen controls at the borders and impose tougher sentences for smuggling and trafficking in illegal firearms.

[English]

The committee is already familiar with the criminal sanctions, the longest mandatory minimum penitentiary terms in the Criminal Code for those who use firearms for any one of ten serious crimes, including robbery; the prospect of a mandatory jail term for possessing stolen or smuggled firearms; the fact that the Crown will be entitled, if assets are used in a smuggling enterprise, to seize and sell those assets and take the proceeds as proceeds of crime; and the registration system to support our initiatives in the criminal law because criminals will not register their firearms and will thereby identify themselves; because registration will enable police in the enforcement of the criminal law to trace firearms used in crime; because criminals derive their firearms, not after getting a certificate of acquisition and going to the local dealer, but in the underground market fed by smuggling and theft, activities we can curtail through registration.

Our efforts at the borders must be more effective. It makes a mockery of our domestic controls if we cannot staunch the flow of illegal arms coming into Canada. We can and we must do better. I've worked with my colleagues the Minister of National Revenue and the Solicitor General to achieve just that.

The committee will hear that in the period 1988 to 1993 firearms, ammunition and gun parts were imported into Canada at an aggregate value of $1.8 billion. Every year an average of 375,000 non-military firearms are imported into Canada. Hundreds of thousands of firearms are transshipped through our country in a practice that's grown by some 300% over the last six years. There's leakage from those shipments. There's leakage from the crates of imported firearms. Greater control is needed. At present, and speaking generally, we treat boxes of imported firearms in much the same way as we treat boxes of butter, or apples, or car parts.

Bill C-68 would provide that all commercial shipments of firearms would require an approval permit in advance of their arrival. All firearms would be registered at the point of entry into Canada. Apart from the effect of a wide array of penalties provided for in Bill C-68, the registration system will enable us to track firearms from the point of entry to the point of sale into the hands of a law-abiding Canadian.

[Translation]

We must admit that, in real life, there are limits to the controls we can put in place. We share a border with a country where it is easy to obtain firearms of all kinds. Furthermore, 100 million people cross that border each year.

.1015

Unless we thoroughly search each car, there is no way we can eliminate all illegal imports, but we can, and we must, improve our controls. Maybe we will never put a complete stop to the flow of illegal arms through the border, but we can certainly bring it down to a minimum.

[English]

The registration of all firearms is the support structure that will enable us to achieve all of these objectives.

The questions arise: Why registration when criminals won't register? How will it help make communities safer? Why are we targeting the law-abiding gun owner instead of the criminal? Those questions miss the point that registration is integral to the entire strategy. Some pretend that it can be cut away: split the bill, deal with registration separately. But that ignores the fact that we can achieve our goals on the criminal side and with respect to border control only through registration because registration enables achievement of all the rest. It provides information that enables us to achieve those objectives. It enables us to track firearms from the border to the point of sale.

Mr. Chairman, a few weeks ago in Toronto the police arrested someone in circumstances in which firearms were imported into Canada quite lawfully but were then being sold illegally. It's not an uncommon problem. With registration of all firearms that enter, with the ability to track them to market, police will be better able to detect and to stop that insidious practice.

Registration will enable the authorities to know whether someone who has a gun has it lawfully. One thinks of the inquest into the death of Jonathon Yeo, the person implicated in the murder of Nina de Villiers, a tragic loss of a young woman to murder. Jonathon Yeo was seen at the border with a firearm in his car. There was no method of determining whether that firearm was lawfully his. After hearing evidence for almost six months, after a detailed examination of the safety and criminal justice systems, the jury unanimously recommended in the Jonathon Yeo inquest universal registration of all firearms.

Registration will provide information to police about whether someone's stockpiling firearms. Isn't that something the authorities should know - whether someone's stockpiling guns, creating their own militia?

Registration will provide police with information to know what's behind the door when they arrive at a suburban address where there's been a domestic problem that's turned to violence. It'll enable police to enforce prohibition orders. Some 13,000 times every year, courts in this country make orders forbidding people to possess firearms because they've shown a propensity to violence or because it's deemed to be imprudent to allow them to have guns. Police can't enforce those orders unless they know what firearms are there. Registration will give them that information.

Registration is not an end in itself. It enables us to achieve these objectives. Registration of all firearms is not the preoccupation of an urbanite out of touch with the needs of Canadians. It's not a hobby-horse for an MP from an urban riding. It's not a method for solving the problems of Toronto and Montreal and Vancouver on the backs of the farmers and the hunters.

Look at the company that we have in support of this proposal.

There is the Canadian Police Association, representing 35,000 front-line police officers. They met in convention here in Ottawa three weeks ago. They debated this fully. They heard from me. They discussed it in detail. They have endorsed Bill C-68, including the universal registration of firearms, on conditions that I'm confident we can meet, relating primarily to a concern about police budgets.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police as recently as two weeks ago, here in Ottawa, reaffirmed their strong support for Bill C-68, including the registration of all firearms. CAVEAT, the group that speaks for victims in the criminal justice system, strongly supports the registration of all firearms.

I say that those who oppose it, those who vote against this bill because it contains registration, are voting against measures that the police are asking us to put in place.

.1020

As for this being an urban as opposed to a rural preoccupation, I remind you of the numbers that establish that the fatality rate from firearms is much higher in the rural areas than in the urban areas. Indeed, I saw in the preparation for my appearance today a statistic that was just stunning. Less than one-quarter of Canada's population lives in rural areas. Yet rural areas produce almost half of the domestic homicides by firearms in this country.

This is not an urban problem that we're trying to address, Mr. Chairman. This is a problem of community safety that has elements that are relevant to every community in this country, be it the Northwest Territories and remote aboriginal communities, where the fatality rate from firearms is four times the national average, or be it downtown Vancouver or a rural area in northern Saskatchewan.

I'm often asked the cost in dollar terms of establishing this system of registration. I've prepared a summary for the committee, which I'd like to have distributed. I invite the attention of the committee to this summary, setting out the principal features of the cost of establishing a registration system.

I'd like briefly, Mr. Chairman, with your leave, to take the committee through the essential elements of that summary.

The Chair: Are you distributing the summary in the first place?

Mr. Rock: Yes. The clerk is distributing it now, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Very good.

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Chairman, on a point of information, was this available prior to this morning for the members of this committee?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Ramsay: So it's arriving just now?

The Chair: Yes. I'm just receiving one myself. The minister is distributing it just now.

Mr. Ramsay: So we can follow it along, can we wait until we get the copies?

The Chair: Excuse me, I thought you had it. I'm sorry.

Mr. Rock: It's being distributed just now, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Quite correct. That's why I was asking as well.

To follow the explanation, we'd need the document in front of us. Does everybody have it?

Minister, the clerk is distributing the document to members of the committee, but there are some members of Parliament who aren't on the committee. Will these documents be available to all members of Parliament?

Mr. Rock: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Good. Do all members of the committee have the document?

Proceed, Minister.

Mr. Rock: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The first thing we do on the first and second pages is set out the assumptions we've used for the purposes of this summary. We assume, for example, as fact, in terms of firearm licences, that the number of current firearm owners to be licensed is 3 million. We know that there are 1 million firearms acquisition certificates in place at present. There are approximately 2 million owners without firearms acquisition certificates in Canada. Over the next five years, approximately 1 million firearms owners will apply for firearms licences with acquisition privileges equivalent to the number of FACs currently being issued for the same purpose. Over the next five years, about 2 million firearms owners currently without FACs will apply for licences without acquisition privileges at a pace or a rate that is set out on the first page.

With respect to registration certificates, we assume that the number of currently owned firearms pre-registered is about 7 million, of which 1.2 million are restricted firearms, mostly handguns, and 5.8 million are non-restricted, the long arms. Three million firearms owners will register their currently owned firearms starting in 1998, at about 20% each year over the five-year compliance term.

.1025

On the third page, we set out the time lines. The committee will see that in 1995 Parliament may conclude its consideration of Bill C-68. On the assumption that it's enacted, in 1996 the process of licensing will begin. By the end of 2000, the registration of firearms owners through licensing will be completed. In 1998 the registration of the firearms themselves will begin, a process that will be completed by the end of 2002.

On page 4, we set out the costs that are in place at present. In other words, just to run the present system of firearms acquisition certificates and the registration system for restricted firearms, the present system would cost $60 million over the next five years, or about $12 million a year. This is money that would be spent if we did nothing. It's already committed. It's money spent by, among others, the RCMP for the registration of handguns and other purposes.

Revenues would be anticipated over the next five years, based on fees for the FACs and for renewing FACs. Those would total about $38 million. There would be a net deficit, as there has been in the past, of $27 million over the next five years, or a net deficit of about $5.4 million a year. That's what's happening at present with the firearms regime in place now in Canada.

On page 5, we set out the incremental cost of establishing a registration system over the next five years. You'll see it totals $85 million. It's broken down into a number of elements, including system development and implementation, which total about $48.8 million. This is money that will be spent for the design, development and implementation of program management, business analysis and process re-engineering to provide hardware and software to licence owners and registered firearms. It will involve upgrading the firearms acquisition certificate system and the restricted weapons registration system and migrating them to the Canadian firearms registration system. It'll involve initial data entry for 2 million new firearms licences and the registration of firearms commencing in 1998.

It'll also involve additional moneys to the provinces, some $17.9 million over the next five years, to defray additional costs that they will incur in connection with the new system. RCMP will spend money linking the registration system to CPIC so police officers can have access to this information in the car as needed. Customs, with registration at borders, will spend $14.2 million for systems over the next five years.

That is the cost of establishing the registration system. There are other costs associated with Bill C-68 in general. They are set forth in the second half on page 5. They include public education....

May I stop there for a moment.

One of the key elements of this bill is deterrent sentencing for crime with guns. General deterrence works only with awareness of the consequences. I think the deterrent sentences in Bill C-68 will succeed only if we make a real effort to let people know what the consequence is if they pick up a gun for the purpose of committing a crime.

Public education also means enabling firearms owners to have a clear understanding of their obligations with respect to safe storage. One of the conclusions to which coroner Anne-Marie David came after an inquest in Quebec this year into deaths by firearms was that the requirements for safe storage are not sufficiently understood or enforced. It's going to be necessary for us to bring that message home. With registration we'll be able to do it far more efficiently by speaking directly to the firearms owners. But it is an investment that will pay dividends.

The training of police and others with respect to the new law, policy development, and other substantive issues will arise on such matters as revisions to the safety course dealing with both long arms and handguns, shooting club standards, rules for collectors, meeting the concerns of aboriginal communities and the development of regulations, research and assessment to ensure that the control initiative is successful and is evaluated.

.1030

These are the expenditures. They total, between registration and other costs, $118 million over the next five years, from which we anticipate revenue of $116 million. The net deficit, which has been over $5 million per year in the current operation, will drop to under $500,000 per year in the coming five years on this approach.

So far as the revenues are concerned, I invite the attention of the committee to page 6 of this summary, where we set out the proposed fees for licences, and to page 7, the proposed fees for registration certificates. So far as licensing of owners is concerned, the committee will note that the basis on which we're working is that the licensing of owners will commence in January of 1996. The cost will be between zero and $10 per owner in the first year. It will increase incrementally each year until the fifth year, when it will arrive at the full total of $60. So there'll be incentives for early compliance. This is for people who are registering without the intention to acquire, just to identify themselves as owners so they can be licensed.

The renewal fees for the licences, every five years, will be $60. For those who use firearms for sustenance purposes, there will be no fees.

On the subject of fees between zero and $10, I should tell you that I have not yet obtained a decision by cabinet on the question of whether we will be able to have a zero fee or whether it's going to be $10. I will have to have conversations with my colleagues at Treasury Board and Finance before I'll be in a position to make a recommendation to cabinet. But that is the range in this package for the licensing of firearms owners in the initial year of the introduction of this system.

On page 7, we set out the proposed fees for the registration of the firearms themselves, which will commence in January 1998. Again, in the first year it could be zero up to $10 for the first 10 firearms, then increasing incrementally over the five years to a maximum of $18 for the first 10 firearms by the year 2002.

If you're registering a newly acquired firearm at a dealer, we anticipate a charge of $15 per non-restricted firearm - those are the long arms - and a fee of $60 per restricted firearm effective next January, to be reduced to $30 in January 1998 when the new software will be available for the registration of all firearms.

On that point, may I just pause to say that at the moment the best estimate of the cost to register a handgun is about $82 per handgun. At the moment there's no cost. There's no charge to the owner for that registration.

That program operates at an enormous deficit and police forces across the country are put to expense that is not recovered. One of the real concerns police have expressed to me, both chiefs and officers, is that any program of firearm control not impose that kind of burden on police budgets. They need the police officers in the cars and on the streets.

Commencing next January, we will introduce a fee of $60 for the first time for those who register handguns. This is still $22 short of the actual cost. That'll drop to $30 in January of 1998, when the new systems will be in place and we will have the economies of the new information technology that will be part of this registration system.

On page 8, we've set forth the comparative costs of licensing and registration. For those who look at the $60 renewal fee for the licence every five years and wonder whether it's a fair amount, we invite them to consider what it costs to register an automobile in Ottawa or to get a driver's license, $50 for 5 years in Ontario, or that it costs $57 to register a boat in Canada, or that in Saskatoon it costs you $57 to register a car. In Calgary a dog licence costs $36.50 per year.

.1035

The point is that I believe these figures, while they allow for cost recovery, are not unreasonable. They permit a system to be put in place to achieve important societal goals without imposing unduly on the firearm's owner. Let it not be said that cost is an argument against establishing a system that can achieve so much for our society.

Over five years, $85 million to establish a registration system. Is it worth it?

[Translation]

But should money be a consideration when we talk about public security, about not having to keep a gun close to one's bed to have a good night's sleep or being able to walk safely in the streets? What is the impact on the quality of our individual lives? How does that influence those who think about doing business in a country like Canada?

Or, to put the question differently, what about the cost of not taking this step, of letting violence increase and firearms proliferate? When we take into consideration all the aspects of the equation, I think we have to agree that universal registration is a very good investment for all Canadians.

[English]

May I identify some particular items in respect of which I want the help of the committee, particularly as it relates to changes that might be needed to improve Bill C-68.

The first deals with firearms as relics and heirlooms.

First, the issue of relics and heirlooms arises only with respect to prohibited firearms. It's not an issue for unrestricted or restricted firearms. Those can be left to the next generation, if that person gets a licence and becomes a registered owner or collector as the case may be.

If a firearm is prohibited and the state must sell laterally to a buyer in the same class and devolution to offspring is not permitted, the question is how to respect the sentimental or emotional attachment that a family might develop to a relic or an heirloom. How do we allow that family to pass it on to the next generation without allowing abuse, without getting large collections of prohibited firearms remaining in circulation, without having people misuse such a provision to keep around a fully automatic sub-machine-gun that has no place in Canada?

I'd be very grateful if this committee would listen to witnesses and conduct its own assessment on this question. I'm very anxious to find a solution and I'd be very thankful for the committee's advice.

As starting-points of that analysis, the committee might take into account that relics and heirlooms, when we're talking about sentimental value, ordinarily involve a single firearm or maybe a matched pair or maybe a handful, but generally not a large collection.

Second, ordinarily, when we're talking about respecting the sentimental value of relics and allowing them to be passed on, we're talking about devolution on to the next generation in the family and not sale in the market generally.

Third, the committee may wish to consider whether relics and heirlooms should be tied to some military or historic significance.

I'm certain the committee will take into account that there are some firearms that are inherently very dangerous - such as I mentioned, a fully automatic sub-machine-gun - that, notwithstanding sentimental value, perhaps shouldn't be kept in circulation.

May I ask the committee in doing this work to bear in mind our overall objective, which is to promote community safety and in the final analysis to get these prohibited firearms out of circulation in the long term while respecting the interests of the present owners and their financial investments in the short term.

.1040

The other thing in respect of which I specifically asked the committee's help has to do with the question of what should be the consequence for the person who, for the first time, is found to have a firearm that is not registered and who might otherwise face the prospect of criminal conviction and a criminal record.

Some contend that it's inappropriate to have such a person, who's a first-time offender and perhaps has forgotten or inadvertently not registered, face the prospect of a criminal sanction. I observe, first of all, that section 91 of part III of the Criminal Code, as it appears in Bill C-68, does not require that a criminal record ensue. Indeed, such an instance might give rise to a prosecution on summary conviction, with the prospect of a discharge so that there would be no record at all.

Quite apart from that, some contend that the full weight of the Criminal Code should not be brought to bear, notwithstanding that it might not result in a criminal record.

First, may I point out to the committee that there doesn't appear to be a consensus on this point although concerns have been expressed on both sides.

The Canadian Police Association three weeks ago, when they endorsed registration of all firearms, asked that before it's implemented some way be found to ensure that the persons such as those I've described don't face a criminal record or the prospect of criminal conviction. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police take the opposite view and say that there should be criminal sanctions for non-compliance with registration.

I invite the committee to look at options. I express today my preparedness to examine those options with the committee in a spirit of flexibility and preparedness to solve this problem. But let us take some guiding principles to assist us in our work.

First of all, surely we speak here only of long arms. Indeed, the Canadian Police Association made it clear that they were concerned only about those who, but for Bill C-68, would not face a criminal sanction for non-compliance. Right now, the non-registration of restricted firearms, including handguns, is covered by the Criminal Code, so surely we're talking here about only those long arms that are brought into the system through Bill C-68.

Second, surely we're speaking, as the Canadian Police Association emphasized, about the inadvertent failure to register, those who forgot or who didn't manage to get it registered or for some reason or another didn't comply. But we're surely not talking about those who willfully defy the law, because we still live in a country in which we cannot pick and choose those that we can obey. As April 30 approaches, there are many of us who might wish it was otherwise, but the fact is that we don't have that choice.

I would suggest as a guideline in your exercise that we're looking at people who inadvertently or forgetfully find themselves in possession of a firearm for the first time without it having been registered.

Next, may I ask the committee in examining this question to put whatever model you're considering to the criminal test; look at it, read it and ask whether it could be claimed as protection by someone who's found on the street on the way to a robbery with a firearm on their person that is not registered. By whatever means we devise, surely we don't want to make life easier for that person. Please test it against that standard as you evaluate models that you might consider.

Finally, let us be certain not to have a system of registration that is optional for practical purposes in this country. That is not why we've gone through the laborious process involved in this legislation. It is not why we've gone through the anguish and the controversy of taking this stride forward. An optional system will not allow us to achieve our goals.

Bear in mind that when the Canadian Police Association asked us to look at alternatives to the criminal conviction for non-registration of firearms for the first time for those with long arms, they suggested that the firearm be confiscated if it's not registered. That's what the Canadian Police Association said, the 35,000 front-line police officers in this country. They don't want it to be without sanction; they want it to have teeth. I ask the committee to work towards the same objective.

I'm not suggesting that confiscation is the answer. I use that to demonstrate that the Canadian Police Association wanted this to have real teeth in order to be effective.

.1045

As I conclude, may I observe that in the coming weeks the committee will hear from a broad variety of sources on this subject, sources with very different points of view. As the committee sits here and listens, it will travel across a very wide spectrum and you will see for yourselves how differently the same issues are seen depending upon where one stands.

It's a fascinating and a very revealing journey. I know, because I've taken it myself. But throughout the journey and in the context of all that you hear, may I ask the committee to remember that in Canada we've always recognized the legitimate interests of firearm owners but the rights of all of us to safe communities.

As early as 1877, possession of a handgun without reasonable cause in Canada could land you in jail.

We've had a nation-wide permit system for the carrying of small arms in this country since 1892. The registration of handguns has been a feature of Canadian life since the early 1930s.

My point is that when we count the blessings of a relatively serene and law-abiding society, we should remember how they came to be. We don't enjoy these assets of a peaceful country because we're somehow more virtuous than others, but because of the development of an infrastructure of policy begun over a century ago and conscientiously improved ever since. We cannot afford neglect. These blessings are neither innate nor imperishable; they are ours to preserve or ours to lose.

The challenge of gun control will not wait unchanged for our attention when time permits. Left to run its course, the issue will grow in size and complexity. The number and the variety of firearms in circulation will multiply. The criminal use of firearms in crimes of violence will increase. The incidence of firearms in crime will tend toward the everyday rather than the extraordinary.

In presenting this bill, I suggest that the government has re-engineered the systems to support a timely law that continues our tradition of control but also reflects society's current values. Now we have an open window of opportunity to do what needs to be done to preserve the way of life we want for ourselves and for our children. Let us be guided by that goal.

Thank you for your attention.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

We will now proceed with the rounds of questioning in accordance with the rules of the committee: on the first round, ten minutes to the Bloc Québéçois, ten minutes to the Reform Party and ten minutes to the Liberal Party; then five-minute rounds alternating between the government and the opposition.

I remind the committee that we hear from members of the committee in the first place and hear non-members of the committee only when we've exhausted the list of members who wish to speak, unless there's unanimous consent to the contrary.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne (Saint-Hubert): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To begin with, I will raise a point of order. As I see the Reform Party is over-represented this morning, I wanted to know whether the same rules still apply. You just answered my question. I suppose this over-representation is due to the interest these members are taking in this bill.

I wanted to welcome you, Mr. Minister. I have a brief comment to make on your paper entitled Financial Framework for Bill C-68. On page 8, we find the comparative costs of licensing and registration. Obviously, you mention the costs in cities like Ottawa, Saskatoon, Calgary and Vancouver. Quebec is not mentioned. Is it because Quebec statistics do not make it to Ottawa? I think it would surely have been interesting to have the statistics for Quebec, since it represents a quarter of Canada's population.

That being said, I would like, first of all, to ask you a question about your meeting with your provincial counterparts last January in Victoria. You discussed a territorial implementation of Bill C-68 we are now studying.

.1050

You must know that, in some areas of the country, people say that they have a different way of life, that they depend a lot on the touristic benefits of hunting. Would you agree that coast-to-coast legislation may not be the best solution. If Alberta, the Yukon and Saskatchewan wanted a different application of the Act respecting firearms and other weapons, would you be prepared to amend Bill C-68 to reflect the distinct characteristics of these regions?

Mr. Rock: Thank you for asking this question. First of all, as far as statistics are concerned, we have, it is true, only included the cities you mentioned. However, it must be noted that a number of other urban centres were not mentioned. The ones we mentioned were only intended as examples.

[English]

We simply wanted to identify, to illustrate certain expenditures. I have no doubt that there are useful examples that we could have included from many other parts of Canada. Of course, we could have learned from examples in Quebec, and we'll be happy to look at those, but I assure you that we were selecting samples randomly. Frankly, it was a thought we had at the last moment.

Before the offices closed on Friday, we called across the country, and we favoured the western jurisdictions because their offices close later in the day and there was someone there to answer our questions.

[Translation]

As far as the second question is concerned, it relates to a different application of the law from one region to the other, in other words, the possibility for Alberta or any other province or territory to have a different system.

[English]

I believe that community safety is a concern and objective across Canada no matter where people live. I don't think that we can subdivide the country based on characteristics that are not relevant to the achievement of that objective. I believe that the answer lies in a sensitivity to local conditions.

I believe that the solution is to prepare and to enact legislation that permits legitimate uses to continue, that respects community traditions, that respects treaty rights, but at the same time establishes a universal regime in Canada for safety.

Mr. Chairman, among the documents that Justice will leave for the committee's consideration are the Statistics Canada figures for accidents, deaths and suicides by firearms in Canada. I am anxious to have the committee examine the information contained in those statistics.

Let me give you an example. In the period 1989 to 1992, the figure for firearm deaths in Canada for the country as a whole was 4.9 per 100,000 of population, but the rate in the Northwest Territories was 21.2 per 100,000 of population. Now, the Northwest Territories is vastly different from downtown Montreal or Halifax or Vancouver. The Northwest Territories, as I learned in my visit, has important aboriginal traditions that must be respected.

I met with the Alberta Tribal Chiefs Association. When I was in the Yukon I met with the Council for Yukon Indians. When I was in the Northwest Territories I met with Minister Kakfwi, Government Leader Nellie Cournoyea, the chief of the Dene Nation, the Yellowknife Dene Band. I saw for myself what differences there are and what traditions must be respected.

When we have a rate of firearm deaths in the Northwest Territories that's more than four times the national average, something is wrong.

We're talking about people's lives. I suggest that Bill C-68, with its comprehensive regime for identifying firearms, for ensuring that people know what they're doing before they get them, for permitting police to take them away if someone has a propensity towards violence and has been ordered by the court not to have one, will save lives. That's what this is about.

.1055

I'm fully aware that as we implement Bill C-68 we have to do so in a manner that reflects the constitutionally entrenched treaty rights of aboriginal peoples, including those in the Northwest Territories, but I believe we can do that while at the same time achieving these goals.

I know you're going to be hearing from Justice Minister Kakfwi this evening, and when Stephen Kakfwi is before you, I ask you to seek his view of and his commitment to participate in the elaborate consultation process we've put in place for the implementation of Bill C-68 in the Northwest Territories. This should include the development of regional groups to meet with community leaders to find out how it can be implemented in effective ways in a territory that has eight official languages, none of which are English, that has far-flung communities sometimes of small size and where people share firearms for hunting.

I believe we can do it. I asked for his collaboration in achieving it.

So I say to Madame Venne, in answer to her question, that a stern response to crime with firearms is a pan-Canadian concern. It does not break down by district or by region, and for that reason I do not believe in subdividing the country and parcelling out safety on a regional basis.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: My second question concerns searches. Clause 99 of the bill would authorize police officers to enter any premises where there could be firearms. They could make inspections if they think there might be firearms, or prohibited or restricted weapons.

However, clause 101 of the same bill provides that if a police officer wants to inspect a dwelling-house, he or she must have the consent of the occupant or a warrant. Section 107(2) of the Criminal Code, as modified, would provide that one cannot search a dwelling-house without a warrant.

How can you explain that members of your own caucus, Mr. Minister - who are here and who certainly recognize themselves, for example, Mr. Lee - say that the bill opens the door to abuse of police authority, in other words, that from now on, police officers will be able to enter and search premises without a warrant? I would like to know what you think about that, because this is a widespread rumour.

[English]

Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, it is a widespread rumour. It's an important point and I think it's essential to look at it on the facts.

One of the things that happen when controversy erupts about a point in public discussion is that people have an opportunity to encourage fear or opposition towards that proposal by pretending that it does something it does not. In this instance I read or I hear from time to time that what we're proposing is the warrantless search, the hobnailed boots charging into the quiet house at 3 a.m. by a police force out of control, civil liberties being sacrificed.

That's nonsense.

What's proposed in this legislation is an inspection regime to complement firearms control. Any time a government of any level proposes a regime of regulation, it's common that that government will also provide for inspection to determine whether the regulation is effective. I could give a variety of examples.

I could take, on the federal level, the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act. That doesn't sound like a very interesting statute, but it provides a very interesting analogy.

That's the statute that governs the installation, use and measurement of gas and electricity meters. By section 26(3) of that act the minister may designate inspectors, and under subsection 26(6) a dwelling-house may be the subject of an inspection at all reasonable times for the purpose of performing any function pursuant to the act. The inspector can enter the premises for that purpose, and they can inspect the dwelling-house only with the consent of the occupant or under a warrant. Then subsection 26(8) spells out the conditions for obtaining the warrant. Subsection 26(9) limits the use of force, and paragraph 33(i) provides that every person who obstructs or hinders an inspector executing functions under the act is guilty of an offence punishable by up to $1,000 if prosecuted summarily or $5,000 if prosecuted on indictment.

.1100

Why am I talking about gas and electricity inspection? Because it's an example, and there are many others, of statutes in which once you have a system of control you have to have a regime of inspection to ensure compliance.

I will leave with the committee a list of other statutes federally -

The Chair: Like Spanish fishing boats.

Mr. Rock: That's exactly right. If we don't know what's on the trawlers, how do we know if they're complying with the new rules?

I'll leave with the committee a list of statutes, federally and provincially, that illustrate this point. Let me also point out that in the inspection regime provided for in Bill C-68, we require in terms of dwelling-houses, consistent with the experience in other practices, that the inspection take place only during reasonable hours, obviously that it not involve force and take place only with the consent of the owner. How that becomes a warrant to search is beyond me.

The Supreme Court of Canada has long recognized the distinction constitutionally and practically between regimes that involve search and seizure in the criminal mode in respect of which a warrant is required and, on the other hand, powers of inspection, which are quite different, which are regulatory.

I refer to Canada Inc. v. Quebec (Attorney General) 1994, in the second volume of the Supreme Court Reports at page 339 for the most recent reaffirmation of that distinction. The court said that there's a relatively low expectation of privacy with respect to administrative searches in regulatory schemes where the key goal is to ensure compliance with the statutory scheme rather than the prosecution of criminal acts.

What is required in this statute? The consent of the owner before you gain entry. If the consent isn't given, then the person needs a warrant, and to get a warrant the person would have to establish three things: first, a reasonable expectation that a firearm is in the dwelling-house; second, that inspection of that firearm is reasonably necessary for the enforcement of the act; and, third, that entry by consent was not permitted. Only in those circumstances....

By the way, the giving of that warrant is discretionary in the justice, so it's not automatic by any means.

To take from that experience in other regimes, to take from that proposal with those limitations in the context afforded by the Supreme Court of Canada's analysis and to say broadly that we're now providing for warrantless searches to trample constitutional rights is, in my respectful view, at least a gross overstatement - and, beyond that, it's an incorrect assessment of the proposal.

So in response to Madame Venne, Mr. Chairman, I say that we respect constitutional and legal principles; we simply provide for a regime that will ensure compliance.

The Chair: I'm wondering if the minister could provide us with some information in the weeks to come on the point raised by Madame Venne. She talked about the possibility of regional differences in the law. In the United States they have different gun control laws from state to state. I'm wondering if you can get some information from your counterpart in the United States on the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness that takes place when you have different laws in different states or provinces without any border control. We could use that information.

Mr. Rock: I'd be happy to do that, Mr. Chairman. May I just observe that the criminal law power here, of course, is federal as opposed to the States, so it's nationwide.

The other thing that I'll mention is we already have some of that information - particularly from Australia, for example - that we'd be happy to share with you. In Australia it's not a federal power.

.1105

Just last week, I was speaking to the Attorney General of Australia about this very point and about their experience with firearms control, and he was lamenting the fact that they were not able to legislate federally for all states and territories in a uniform fashion. At the moment, only five of the eight states and territories have mandatory registration of firearms. Five years ago, a national committee recommended that it be put in place for the whole country, but it hasn't been, and the Attorney General was telling me that he envies our ability to legislate for the country uniformly for this purpose.

The Chair: Would you provide us with documents or otherwise on that point?

Mr. Rock: In fact, I think we've put together a draft report on the experience with firearms regulation and use elsewhere. We'll be happy to make that available.

The Chair: Good.

Mr. Ramsay, for 10 minutes.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Minister, I thank you for your presentation. There is much in it that I disagree with.

I'd like to begin by pointing out that you have indicated some of the areas of support for this bill, but of course you didn't mention the fact that three provinces - Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan - have publicly opposed certain portions of this bill, and I think they have informed you that they're opposed to certain portions of this bill, particularly the requirement for universal registration. I also understand that there is some concern from the governments of both of the territories and we'll hear about that from one of them today.

I would like to direct your attention to subclause 81(1) of the firearms section, which establishes the Canadian Firearms Registry. It points out that that will be created and also what that registry will have to do in terms of keeping a record. It has to keep a record of every ``licence, registration certificate and authorization that is issued or revoked by the Registrar''; it has to keep a record of ``every application for a licence, registration certificate or authorization that is refused by the Registrar''; it has to keep a record of ``every transfer of a firearm of which the Registrar is informed under section 25 or 26''; it must keep a record of ``every exportation from or importation into Canada of a firearm of which the Registrar is informed under section 41 or 49; it must keep a record of ``every loss, finding, theft or destruction of a firearm of which the Registrar is informed under section 86; and it must keep a record of ``such other matters as may be prescribed'', and I suppose that will be under an Order in Council.

So this is all that the registration system is going to have to do.

Now if we go to clause 5 of the bill, there is going to be the establishment of provincial firearms officers positions under this act. Before a single firearm can be registered, all Canadian owners - and there are three million to six million, depending on whose statistics you look at - will have to be licensed. In order for them to be licensed, the chief firearms officer has to determine whether or not, within the last five years, each and every one of these owners has been convicted or discharged, under section 736 of the Criminal Code, of an offence in the commission of which violence against another person was used, threatened or attempted, an offence under this act or part III of the Criminal Code, or an offence under section 264 of the Criminal Code, which is criminal harassment. Then it relates to offences relating to the contravention of subsections 39(1) or (2) or 48(1) or (2) of the Food and Drugs Act or subsections 4(1) or (2) or 5(1) of the Narcotic Control Act.

When he's finished with that, he has to check to determine whether the individual gun owner wishing to be licensed has been treated for a mental illness, whether in a hospital, mental institute, psychiatric clinic or otherwise, and whether or not the person confined to such a hospital, institute or clinic was associated with violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the person against any person.

.1110

Once that is done, he has to do a neighbourhood history check to determine if the behaviour of that individual, within the last five years, includes violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of that person against any person.

This is not part of the question I have for you, but it is very ironic that if Bill C-41 is passed, under the alternative measures chief firearms officers will not have access to records of this nature, because no records will be kept under the alternative measures system. The offences for which alternative measures may be used are not specified in Bill C-41, and therefore, although the CFOs will, by law, have to conduct a lengthy background check, because of Bill C-41 pertinent information will be hidden from them, information that relates directly to their duties and obligations in issuing a licence.

All of this has to be done before a single rifle or shotgun of the 6 million to 20 million gun owners is registered.

I have information from the Metro Toronto Police Department and from other sources across the country that the cost to process a single FAC application in 1994 was well over $100. In the case of the Toronto police it was $185.11, and another source indicated a minimum of $150.

So if the licences are going to cost anywhere near what the FACs are presently costing, and they may cost more, then if we take the minimum figure of three million gun owners and multiply it by $100, we have $300 million incurred for the cost of just issuing licences, and that is not dealing with the registration of a single firearm.

Mr. Minister, in the light of this information, do you maintain that the Canadian firearms registry will cost only $85 million?

Mr. Rock: I maintain that the figures I've put before the committee are our best estimate, based on reasonable assumptions, calculated responsibly, and reflecting all of the costs of establishing the registration system.

That is to establish the registration system.

Now let me say a few things about what Mr. Ramsay has said. First of all, may I deal with the glancing blow that he struck, at the introduction of his question, in respect of certain western provinces that may not be in agreement with Bill C-68, the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Mr. Ramsay suggested that they have publicly opposed registration.

I can recall my counterpart in Alberta, Brian Evans, with whom I met in January when I was in Alberta, having expressed real concern about registration and not seeing the usefulness of it, and so on. I think he has been a lot less vocal on that subject since his own polling indicated that two-thirds of Albertans are in favour of it. He may maintain his opposition, but I think the legitimacy of that opposition is very much undercut by results of a poll that he himself commissioned, asking Albertans how they felt about this important step toward community safety.

In respect of Manitoba, the Attorney General there, Rosemary Vodrey, is also the minister responsible for women's issues. And when I was last in Winnipeg to speak to this issue, I asked the question, to which I have not yet received a response, ``What is the Attorney General of Manitoba's position, stated clearly, on the question of registration of firearms, and if she opposes it, how does she square that with her responsibility as minister for women's issues when, in a very real sense, this relates to the safety and the lives of women?''

One woman is shot to death every six days in this country, most often by someone she knows, most often in her home, and almost always with a legally owned rifle or shotgun.

The police tell us that registration of all firearms will save some of those lives by enabling them to pick up firearms from someone who has been prohibited from having them. That commonly happens in domestic violence situations.

Does Rosemary Vodrey oppose that measure? I'd like to get a clear statement.

So I'm not so sure that they've publicly opposed registration in Manitoba. If they want to, let them say so and let them justify that position in front of the voters of that province.

Insofar as Saskatchewan is concerned, there has been little doubt left by my colleague and counterpart, Bob Mitchell, that he opposes registration, and that's just the fact. But I look at the number and rate of firearm deaths in Canada and I see the national average at 4.9 and for Saskatchewan at 6.1, and I wonder if there isn't a point to be made for safety.

.1115

If you take a registration system that involves either zero dollars or $10 to sign onto it some time over the next eight years and that the police, say, will give instruments and information for making communities safer, where is the basis for the opposition? Is it because people say we're going to be barging in with search warrants at 3 a.m.? Well, as I've said, that's nonsense.

Let's debate this on the facts. I believe that when we do debate it on the facts, the people will be persuaded.

On that subject, let me just say one last thing before going to the burden of Mr. Ramsay's question. I think it's terribly important to confine our analysis to the facts. I was in Sault Ste. Marie last December 8, speaking to a group of firearms owners who were extremely upset with me. There were about 1,200 people present, and it was difficult for me to be heard because they were expressing so loudly their being upset.

But when I finished, I was about to leave the platform and I was surprised to see, emerging from the gathering darkness of the northern night, a familiar face; it was my friend Mr. Ramsay, and with him he had a colleague from the Reform caucus. He handed me a document and said that I should take it home and table it in Parliament. It was a petition. He gave it to me personally.

When I got inside I read it, and this is what I read:

The Liberal government is currently considering legislation that will ban all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, ban all handguns, require the registration of all firearms with a $100 registration fee per gun, and limit the amount of ammunition you may possess to 100 rounds. This legislation would destroy the recreational shooting community. We of the Algoma Rod & Gun Club, support....

There were 5,000 names on that petition that was handed to me by Mr. Ramsay, and there were 1,200 very angry people in that parking lot who were yelling at me that night. And do you know something? I would have signed that petition, because that is not the way to proceed.

Nor is that the proposal we're putting before the House with Bill C-68. It has nothing to do with Bill C-68. And I have to tell you that my job doesn't get easier when I'm crossing the country to talk to people about this issue on the merits when members of Parliament are identifying themselves with petitions that grossly misstate both the substance and the intent of Bill C-68.

So I suggest we keep this a discussion on the merits. It's always a pleasure to discuss these matters with Mr. Ramsay. I know the extent of his feeling on the subject, and I'm always happy to do it. But let's do it on the facts and not let these distortions take away from a debate that's worthy of us.

Now, may I get to his question, briefly?

The Chair: Briefly. Mr. Ramsay took seven of the ten minutes to ask the questions. But we have a policy where we allow you to answer, so we'll have another turn.

Mr. Rock: For the purposes of brevity, I'll be so presumptuous as to say that there were essentially three points in Mr. Ramsay's presentation. The first was that this is a system of great complexity and completeness. The second is that there's some difficulty with the sharing of information, which weakens the regime. The third is that the cost of a system that's so complex and comprehensive must be in excess of the amounts I've summarized in the presentation before the committee.

Let me take those points in turn. First, as to its complexity, at the end of this month, from 10 million households in Canada and from several millions of taxpayers, one department of government is going to receive millions of complex forms, recording the income and the expenses of millions of Canadians. In the course of a couple or a few months, that department of government is going to digest that information, in some cases validate it, in many cases recalculate it. In all cases it's going to make computer entries to record it. Then it's going to take action, to send either refunds or assessment notices in respect of every single one of those forms.

That's an unbelievable task. You'd think it would never get done. You'd think it would cost so much it would be ruinous. But do you know what? It happens every year.

.1120

Let's not be frightened. Let's not be frightened by the constituent elements of this package, pretending that they are too complex for us to manage. They are not. We already have an FAC system in place upon which we will build to make this happen.

The second aspect of the three had to do with the sharing of information. I assure Mr. Ramsay that by reason of the provisions of clause 88 of the firearms bill, as well as other means, all information will be passed back and forth to those who need to have it for community safety. If he has some suggestions to make to the bill to improve it, I'll be happy to hear them.

The third thing has to do with cost. There is a fellow in Simon Fraser University who claims the registration system will cost hundreds of millions of dollars to establish. First of all, he takes the $82, which is the average cost of registering a handgun today, and he multiplies it by the total number of firearms - as he says, 5 or 6 million for purposes of his calculation - and it comes out to $500 million or $600 million for registration. That of course totally overlooks the reality that when we take people in as licensees, when we register in the first instance, we're not doing the full check that is done on the registration of a handgun today. All we're doing is a screening to ensure that those who are getting licences are not on CPIC as having prohibition orders against them and do not have criminal records for violence in recent years, and that can be done quickly and inexpensively. Let's not confuse apples and oranges.

Eighty-five million dollars establishes the system. The fees from renewals of licences every five years fund its continued operation together with the fees for new transactions and transfers. The system functions from that revenue at almost break-even, and that's a lot better than we're doing right now.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

As the minister often is, he's wrong. He said I handed him a copy of signatures or a petition. I have never handed this justice minister a petition of any kind. I would just like to make that correction on the record.

Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, he was with John Duncan from his....

Mr. Ramsay: I have never handed the justice minister a petition.

The Chair: This is a question for debate, I suppose, a question of fact.

Mr. Ramsay: Just to make it clear, he said that I served him with a petition. I certainly did not, so let's get it straight.

Mr. Rock: If I'm mistaken, then I'm mistaken. It could very well have been a caucus colleague, Mr. Ramsay. Was it Mr. Breitkreuz?

Mr. Breitkreuz: Sorry, it was not. I wasn't even in Sault Ste. Marie.

The Chair: Perhaps that can be resolved elsewhere.

I want to remind the committee that on these rounds the committee member who is called upon to question can use the time as he or she wishes. Because we have a full committee, I would ask, in order to be fair to all colleagues, that you try to be brief and to the point.

I always allow the minister or the witness to finish answering the question even though they go beyond the time allocated. If we're going to get everybody in this morning, let's try to be as precise and to the point as possible.

For 10 minutes, Ms Phinney.

Ms Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): Welcome, Mr. Minister. We're glad you are here.

Like most of the other members, I have been meeting with individuals who come in with concerns about the bill. You're right: it's amazing the amount of misinformation that's out there, and how many people will support the bill once they have had this misinformation cleared up.

That having been said, having gone through this bill clause by clause and having spent about 24 hours with a group of six or seven people who have gone through this, there are a number of technical and administration problems, things such as definitions and so on, that we can clear up in the committee, and that's what our job is.

There are several areas where I think the public needs reassurance. One of them is regarding the power of the minister. On page 50, clause 112 states that regulation made under section 110 can be made without being laid before the Houses of Parliament if the minister feels that the regulation he's making is so immaterial or insubstantial. Subclause 112(3) states that if the minister feels it is urgent....

.1125

I'm just wondering who defines immaterial and urgent. Give us an example of a time when you feel you would have to change this section of the act - and it does cover a lot of the bill - without having to go before Parliament, or where you couldn't do it. Maybe you would want to stop a gun at the border and you can't take two or three days to hold the gun somewhere and have at least the cabinet come together for a decision.

What are the safeguards against another minister - not yourself - abusing this? Is there going to be something added in there where the minister might have to go to the Prime Minister first to ask for this? There is a general feeling that it is a power that could be abused.

Mr. Rock: I remember this clause having been discussed when the bill was being drafted, and I raised the same question, particularly in the current environment. I was worried that ministerial discretion to avoid parliamentary scrutiny for something that is subjectively deemed to be immaterial or unimportant might attract exactly this kind of attention.

I was told in the process of analysis that there can be things that arise, whether in the administration of the act or the setting of regulations for businesses, that are details, changes that can sometimes make the lives of firearms owners or users easier, where they are small and relatively unimportant, they don't affect the whole scheme of the regulations, and it would take time and expense to have them go through the whole parliamentary process.

It's not something I feel strongly about. Indeed, my initial reaction when I read it was yours.

Officials will be before the committee. They may wish to provide further detail, but it is not something I feel strongly about. If we want to have an invariable practice of putting all such matters through Parliament for scrutiny, then I'm not going to live or die on that one.

Ms Phinney: Maybe on another date we could ask the experts for an example of where this could be used.

Mr. Rock: They'll be back.

Ms Phinney: The second question I have is about security, and it has come up quite a bit. A number of people have to put this information into the computer. They will have access to whatever information they are putting into the computer. I have talked to a number of clubs and they are very pleased that you are going to be involving them in these activities, but they don't want to know a lot of information. They don't want to know that Joe Blow in their club has 53 guns and what they are. It is mainly because somebody, maybe the secretary of the club, has this information, and where does he have it? Does he take it home every night? Could his house be broken into, etc.?

When a policeman gets the information, is he going to call it up on his computer? Does he have to phone some other place to get the information? Do they contact Ottawa? How many pieces of paper are sitting around with a little bit of information on them? I'm using a policeman, but not with any implication that he might or might not do something wrong. Say the policeman is golfing the next day and he's from a little town and he says to his friend he's golfing with, ``Did you know that Joe Blow has a so-and-so kind of gun in his house?''

What is the accountability to the public? What sanction...? We look through here and can find no sanction or penalty to anyone who gives out any information that's in that computer. If they gave out enough information that somebody was injured because somebody found out there are certain kinds of guns being stored in a house, there could be serious injury and there could be death because of this information getting out. What is the penalty to the person or the many people who are going to have access to some of this information along the way?

Mr. Rock: First, it was never part of the proposal, nor is it today, that the gun clubs would get access to this information.

Ms Phinney: No, no. I didn't mean this information, but if they're going to process licensing or if some of that is renewals, if any of it is going to the gun clubs or if you're asking for their help to send in or pick up renewal forms or whatever....

Mr. Rock: It's never going to be the case that gun clubs or secretaries of gun clubs will have detailed information about what guns are owned by members. That's not part of the plan.

.1130

The plan is that as an owner I will identify my firearms for the purpose of registration. That will be stored securely.

I quite agree, and I acknowledge, that the protection of that information has to be to an uncompromising standard.

I also point out that CPIC and FACS, the registration for handguns that's in place right now, has never been broken into. The only time problems have developed - and this is the human factor, which is always impossible to control with 100% certainty - has been where individual police officers or others have been charged or disciplined because of allegations that they were going to misuse information in the CPIC or in the FACS.

For example, a so-called hacker has never broken into the CPIC computer system or the computer system for the registration of handguns.

First, let me say that the organization of the CPIC registration information for firearms will be on the basis that firearms will be recorded against a licence number and not against a name or an address. What you'll see, even if you see the screen, is a licence number, mine, but you wouldn't know that, and then you'd see the firearm identification numbers for my firearms. To go beyond that to find out who I was, you have to have access. Police officers will have access because they will want to know on the way to my address, if there's a commotion, whether I have firearms registered to me and what they are. Only police will be able to have those link-ups that get them the inventory in detail.

The other thing I would say is that the computers will have so-called firewalls. If you think, for example, of your automated teller machine or a credit card system in general, you can get access to your own account information but not the information of anybody else. You can get some information out for yourself but that's all, and you can put some information in. You cannot move laterally to look at other people's information. That is also the way the system is going to be designed.

I understand that tomorrow the committee is going to be hearing from the deputy commissioner of the RCMP. Deputy Commissioner Bergman will be able to go into more detail about the CPIC system and its security because the RCMP are going to be the proprietors of it.

I assure Ms Phinney that security of the information is going to be critical. That will be the watch-word as it's designed, and firearms will be recorded against licence numbers, not names.

Ms Phinney: You still haven't answered the question about the policeman who gets the information because he's going to go to a house. He finds out they are living in a rural area and that Joe Smith has 23 firearms in that house. Maybe they are antiques or they are valuable and people might want them. What do you have as an assurance that he will be penalized in some way if he happens to slip out to his golf buddy the next week and says, ``Did you know that our friend Joe Blow or farmer So-and-so has this many guns in his house?'' The following week he's broken into because by some error the policeman let it slip out. He has it in his head once he's had to go to that house for a problem.

Mr. Rock: I suppose that could happen right now. I don't need registration for police officers to see the 23 firearms in the house, that they are there for a purpose.

At present, both the disciplinary regulations governing police officers and their conduct and relevant sections of the privacy act would be available to protect people. We have not included a specific provision in Bill C-68 to deal with that kind of issue.

Ms Phinney: A lot of people are concerned about it.

[Translation]

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

Mrs. Venne: Mr. Minister, there is a working document prepared by your Department on section 85, in particular, and on the imposition of minimum sentences, in general, which concludes that the public usually ignores what offences have minimum mandatory sentences.

Also, the same document concludes that, as a deterrent, mandatory minimum sentences have probably very little impact on the commission rate of the substantial offence. Even worse, it seems that jurors would be less inclined to find the person guilty if they know that the offence the defendant is accused of has a mandatory sentence attached to it. Despite these conclusions, you still decide to raise the mandatory minimum sentence from one to four years for anyone using a firearm for a criminal offence.

.1135

I would like to know what research or what statistics justify your position. You realize that, as a sub-question, I am going to tell you what cost the provinces will incur to apply this new minimum sentence which will be consecutive to any other sentence imposed by the judge, which means that we are going to end up with over-populated prisons.

Mr. Rock: First of all, as a principle, you have before you a completed Bill C-41. The principle of this bill is that jail sentences will be limited to crimes with violence. For the other crimes, imprisonment will be rarely imposed and as a last recourse. I think it is very important to limit imprisonment to violent crimes.

[English]

That's the same principle as is expressed in Bill C-37, and I hope when it's fully acted upon in the fullness of time we will address the overcrowding problem at least to some extent by acting upon it.

Second, with respect to section 85 and the way it relates to these proposals, let me make clear there is a world of difference between the way the criminal law before Bill C-68 dealt with firearms in crime and the way this bill proposes to deal with them.

Under the old regime, where section 85 was the only tool available in the criminal justice system, if I was charged with robbery, I would come before the court on that charge. If my robbery was with a gun as opposed to with a stick or knife, then I could be charged with a separate offence under section 85. If convicted of robbery, then I could be convicted of the section 85 offence. If I was, then there was a mandatory minimum of one year in jail.

The study the Department of Justice conducted on section 85 last year established that in about two-thirds of the cases those charges were not proceeded with. They did not result in a conviction largely because they were bargained away or abandoned. There was a second and separate charge that could be used for that purpose in the bargain.

The approach we've taken in Bill C-68 is very different. We have built the aggravated sentence right into the substantive offence. If you are convicted of robbery with a firearm, the penalty is four years as a mandatory minimum. You don't have a second and separate add-on. It's part and parcel of the punishment for the robbery because you did it with a firearm.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: I'm sorry, I don't want to interrupt you. We are talking about the fact that the mandatory minimum sentence doesn't have a real deterrent effect. I would like you to comment on this.

[English]

Mr. Rock: Then let me go right to that.

I cite as an example available research based on experience, mostly in America, with respect to the deterrent value of such penalties. I refer to Vischer in 1987, who concluded that selected crimes could be reduced by 5% to 10% merely by the imposition of such deterrent sentences, mandatory minimums.

I refer to McPheters in 1984, who found that more severe penalties for firearms robbery did lead to a reduction in that specific type of crime.

McDowall in 1992 reviewed several studies on mandatory prison terms for firearms offences and found that gun homicides were thereby reduced.

There is research in the literature that shows that general deterrence can help, depending upon awareness. That is the point I stressed when I took the committee through the figures on public education. Part of our task, if and when Bill C-68 is enacted, will be to let people know that if they choose to use a gun in such a crime, the consequence will be sudden, significant and certain. That's got to be an important part of the strategy.

I believe there is evidence that in certain crimes, such as a premeditated robbery where you decide to bring the gun along, knowing there's a certain penalty of that kind does make a difference.

.1140

It's not true of all crimes, I agree.

The last thing I'll say is on cost. Ironically, if this approach does anything to the provinces in terms of their corrections costs, it reduces them. It will be taking people out of the provincial system, where they're reposing for two years less a day or less, and will be putting them in the federal system, where we'll be paying for it. Yes, there is an additional cost, but it's federal, not provincial, for the most part.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: It's still the same citizen.

[English]

The Chair: Time.

Ms Torsney, for 5 minutes.

Ms Torsney (Burlington): First, Minister, let me say to you that, having been to at least one of the meetings the Reform Party has organized across the country, it has become evident to me that the timing of this bill is critical.

In Canada right now we have a certain percentage of the population increasingly adopting the mentality that says, ``I need a gun for self-protection''. We certainly heard in Kamloops, withMr. Ramsay and Mr. Thompson, of lots of law-abiding citizens who keep loaded 45s beside their beds because they need to protect themselves against intruders.

Those same people are going to be important to us in terms of the public education that's going to be necessary across the country to make sure information is disseminated to those same gun owners about the importance of some of the provisions in Bill C-68.

What efforts have you made to involve the firearms groups in the dissemination of that information and in that education process?

Mr. Rock: Well, we've done the best we can. We've been disappointed in some cases by groups who would rather withhold any cooperation until after the bill is enacted because they don't want to be taken as relinquishing or diminishing their opposition to it in any way. I believe the collaboration with the firearms community is going to be essential if we're going to make this proposed system as effective as it can be.

For example, after the dust has settled, I think of enlisting the active participation and collaboration of wildlife federations, hunters and anglers, and handgun associations in the process by which information is gathered for licence applications and the registration of firearms. I think of working with those federations and associations in perfecting the system, in designing it, and in disseminating information to their members.

I'll give you an example.

Because of the myths that have grown up around registration, such as those in this petition from Sault Ste. Marie, I wrote a letter to twelve or fifteen wildlife and hunting associations in Canada. I said, ``Would you send to your membership a copy of this booklet that we've printed''. It's the booklet about the questions and answers involving registration. It's just the basic facts - over what period will it be phased it, will it cost $100 per gun, what purpose will it serve? I said, ``I know you oppose this - I've heard you - but I want you to send out at least this basic information to your members so that we can tell them what the facts are''.

I must say I've been disappointed with the response I received. There have not been enough responses saying they are prepared to send them out. I told them I'd provide them with the material. All they have to do is include it in the next mailing. I wish they would, because I want these facts to get out. I'm committed to working with firearms groups, as I have to date, to ensure we're sensitive to the needs of legitimate firearms owners as we implement these important principles in this act.

Ms Torsney: It was also interesting, Minister, that members of the opposition parties - I have to exclude the Bloc, but certainly some of the other parties - chose not to disseminate the information available from the government. I suppose if you don't have the facts it's easier to pack a meeting with Reform supporters and sell more memberships in the Reform Party and appeal to those special interest groups.

One of the other issues that came up in Kamloops was the issue of military and paramilitary firearms. It was interesting to me that by an informal hand count there were about 150 people, or about one-third of the crowd, who would have liked to acquire an UZI at some point. I'm not sure if that was for fishing or what, but apparently it was of interest to them.

In Bill C-68 why have we pretty well prohibited every military and paramilitary firearm, making them not available in Canada? Why was that so important?

.1145

Mr. Rock: For a number of reasons. First, the principle of the firearms regulations in Canada has always been that we provide for the acquisition and use of firearms that have a legitimate purpose. Hunting and ranching are purposes beyond dispute and very important economically. The target-shooting communities enjoy their sport, and some of them bring us glory internationally because of their achievements. Collectors derive a great deal of enjoyment and sometimes tie up a great deal of money in firearms collections.

When it comes to military types of firearms, weapons designed for use in war, the question arises, what legitimate purpose do these serve? Take, for example, the AK-47; ask yourself what purpose this serves in Canada. Why would someone want to have one of these things? I don't know what the answer to that question is. That's one of the ones we've prohibited.

Look at the HK 94, the Heckler & Koch. That's not something I associate with hunting, or with angling, for that matter. But we've prohibited that because we feel that, with its high lethality, it's emblematic of a military type of weapon. It just doesn't have a place in the country.

We've gone beyond that in terms of the pistol-grip crossbow. We've said that too has no place in the country. It's silent in operation, it can be used with one hand, and it just doesn't have a place here.

At a certain point you ask yourself, is it a legitimate firearm for purposes that are recognized in the country? Oftentimes the answer is no.

Let me also say, if I may, that this AK-47 we've prohibited is one of the firearms on the prohibited list in the American crime bill. Even the Americans have prohibited this firearm.

Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): Because time is an element here, Mr. Minister, I'm going to ask about a couple of things that concern me. I'm going to deal with part III of this legislation.

I want to start by following up on this issue that has been raised about misinformation. I was on a radio talk show the other day when one of your cabinet colleagues implied that the four-year minimum was a sentence additional to the sentence for the original crime. This wasn't the first time I'd heard that. It seems to be something Canadians out there believe and accept as part.

My reading of this legislation and what you're doing, as you explained a little earlier, is that it's a combined sentence. It's not an additional sentence. That concerns me, and I will explain why.

The average sentence for manslaughter right now, as I understand from a number of incidents in my community, is four years whether you use a firearm or not. The average sentence for an armed robbery right now is five to six years. Courts generally use a minimum sentence unless there are aggravating factors to give a more severe sentence.

My concern is that this four-year minimum is definitely not going to be a deterrent. In some cases it's a reduction of sentence, and that concerns me.

The second thing that concerns me is that I too went around and studied why it is that so many firearm charges are plea-bargained away or dropped. The crown counsels I talked to said it's because they can't take them through the courts. The onus of proof that it's a firearm just isn't there unless they either catch the guy or shoot it off and have ballistics to tie the firearm found on the person with the actual event.

I find the way you've dealt with the replica and firearms in this particular bill is not going to solve that problem. You've dealt with it as two separate charges. The onus is still on the Crown to prove that it's either a firearm or a replica. I feel that's still going to have an end-result of a plea-bargained dropping of the charges because they are not going to be able to get them through the court system.

I would appreciate your addressing those are two concerns.

Mr. Rock: I will, Mr. Chairman.

Dealing with the first, I'll be happy to share with the committee the research we did into the range of sentences being given at present for the relevant offences with firearms.

.1150

We found, for example, from basic information that we obtained from sentencing digests - a review we completed last November - looking at these ten serious offences and firearms, that the courts in fact are giving sentences of less than four years of imprisonment, and the low range of the aggregate sentences included, for example, a suspended sentence for manslaughter with a firearm, 90 days of imprisonment for discharge of a firearm causing bodily harm, and one year for robbery with a firearm. Those are amongst the cases we found in the digest.

Second, we took data provided by Correctional Services Canada last fall and in that way we also confirmed that sentences of less than four years are more than just commonly given for the kinds of offences we're talking about when committed with a firearm. From a sample of federal and provincial robbery inmates of the offender management system, we looked at 111 cases in particular where inmates had received both a robbery conviction and a section 85 conviction, meaning they'd used a gun for certain. The average aggregate sentence was 4.7 years, but 59% of those cases had received an aggregate sentence of less than 4 years.

So almost 6 out of 10 of these people who'd used firearms in the commission of robbery were getting less than 4 years. The others got sufficiently above 4 years that the average aggregate was in excess of it. Of the 132 inmates identified in this study with a robbery conviction but without a conviction under section 85, even though there was evidence on the file that they'd used a firearm, 43% of the offenders were serving an aggregate sentence of less than 4 years.

So, in answer to the first part of the question, I think there's cogent evidence that the four-year minimum - remember, it's a minimum, not a maximum; it starts at four years and goes up from there - will change the landscape in terms of the deterrents to using a gun. By the way, we've already calculated it's going to cost us substantial amounts of money to act on that. We know it's going to be costly.

The second thing, very briefly, had to do with section 85 on the difficulty of proof. One of the reasons section 85 has never worked well enough is that the Crown always had to prove that the person used a firearm in the commission of the offence. So if you were caught on a video camera in the corner store with your hand inside your coat, committing the robbery, that wasn't sufficient; the Crown had to prove there was a gun in there. Not only that, Mr. Chairman, but if you were caught on the camera with a black object in your hand intimidating the clerk to get the money, that wasn't sufficient; you had to prove it was actually a firearm.

We did two things to overcome that, because I agree there was a problem in proof. First of all, we backed out the mandatory sanction for those ten offences and put them right in the substantive sections. So now if you do a robbery with a firearm it's a mandatory minimum of four years. Second, while we left section 85 for other offences, we added to it imitations, relieving the Crown of the burden of proving it was a real firearm in every case. If I go in holding a black object pretending it's a gun, then that's sufficient for the section 85 liability.

So we tried to address the very problem in proof that Ms Meredith has identified.

Mrs. Barnes (London West): During the course of the past year we've heard a great deal about how the bill is going to inconvenience hunters and target shooters but will do little to combat crime. Those are sentiments that I don't agree with. However, one type of crime that opponents to this bill seem not to want to talk about is the domestic violence that we have in this country. Some even think it's a matter for joking.

What does this legislation mean for the government's fight against violence against women and children, especially in the homes? I'd particularly like you to focus on prohibition orders as part of your discussion of this area.

Mr. Rock: I think this bill and its elements have a great deal to do with domestic violence and safety in the home. When we think of gun violence we think of movies that portray a stranger in the corner store with a smuggled handgun firing and inflicting tragedy through random violence. That's what people commonly think of when they associate guns and crime. But the fact is that the greatest threat in terms of homicide by firearm is at the hands of people we know, not strangers, and a very large part of that involves violence in the home.

.1155

I mentioned earlier that the statistics demonstrate that every six days, on the average, a woman is shot to death in Canada, and it's almost always by someone she knows, in her home. In the vast majority of cases it is a rifle or shotgun that's legally owned. In fact, the statistics are very troubling. When women are killed in domestic disputes, guns are the weapon of choice by a margin of two to one; 85% of guns used to kill women are rifles and shotguns, and up to 82% of those were legally owned at the time.

If you look at the numbers, 75% of female homicide victims in 1993 were killed in a private residence. Homes with guns are three times as likely to be the scene of a homicide than homes without a gun. Spousal arguments are 12 times as likely to end in death in homes where a gun is present.

Some people say we should ban knives because these are used as well as guns. The fact is that studies tell us and physicians demonstrate that gunshot wounds are fatal at least three times more often than knife wounds. In other words, knives tend to wound and guns tend to kill. So I suggest this has a great deal to do with safety in the home.

I can remember being in Whitehorse and learning from a police officer that an order was made prohibiting a man from having firearms because of domestic violence. The police turned up at the address and asked the person to deliver over his guns. He gave them one rifle. They asked him if that was all he had. He said it was. The woman standing behind him did not speak but shook her head. So the police knew that she was disagreeing. They went away, and they came back the next day pretending to have information from another source, and they asked again. He then delivered over two more firearms. When they came back again with a warrant, they found a fourth firearm.

I don't believe people's lives should be at risk in that way. I don't think the police should have to go through that, Mr. Chairman. With registration of firearms they'll know what's there and be able to enforce these orders and make them meaningful. I think it has a great deal to do with safety, and that's one of the reasons why I think it means so much to Canada.

Mrs. Barnes: Regarding prohibition orders, I wanted to question you about the definition of ``associate'' and what the intent of the legislation is with respect to prohibition orders in proposed subsection 111(1), where associates of a person could potentially have their weapons under a prohibition order. Could you go into detail for me on that?

Mr. Rock: The concept is that if I am prohibited from having firearms because a court has determined that it's not in the public interest for me to have them, then the safety of the public might not be achieved as the court intended if I live with someone who also has firearms freely available to me in that environment. What's contemplated is the prospect that such an order might also require that other person to keep their firearms somewhere else. It's not a question of seizing their firearms. It's not a question of taking them away. It's a question of having them keep them somewhere else if they're cohabiting with somebody who the court has said should not have access to firearms. We thought it might be important for public safety to deal with that issue.

Mrs. Barnes: And what process do I go through to have one of these prohibition orders?

Mr. Rock: That would be a judicial process.

Mrs. Barnes: Thank you. I've heard a lot of misinformation about that section also.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Several territorial and provincial governments, as well as several associations, are very concerned about the impact of the legislation on tourism in general and, more specifically, on hunting. Some even claim that the cost of a temporary hunting license - we know that from now on, when American hunters in particular, come to Canada, they will have to buy a temporary license - will discourage the Americans to spend their American dollars in our country.

.1200

Does your department - obviously in cooperation with Revenue Canada - adopt a formula to calculate the cost of these licences? Will it be based on age groups, since some people also come to do target shooting, or will it be based on the type of weapon? What will the cost be for target shooting or hunting tourists who come to Canada?

[English]

Mr. Rock: This issue has been considered carefully in the preparation of Bill C-68. For example, when I was in the Yukon I met with outfitters associations, wilderness guides, and proprietors of hunting facilities who rely for their livelihood upon visitors not only from across Canada but from the United States as well. It was clear from early on that what we had to do was to devise a system that, among other things, would not impede or inconvenience unduly those persons who were coming here to spend their money in Canada hunting, providing Canadians with a livelihood. I believe we've achieved that.

The process we have in mind is simply this: that where someone is going to come to Canada to hunt, say from the States, in advance of their coming, to make things easiest, they would obtain a temporary registration and licence, which would last for, say, 60 days. That would be the hunting visitor's equivalent of the licence and registration of an owner in Canada, and it would expire after they left the country.

What we've pledged to the outfitters and the others is that we will work with them to ensure that hunters who want to come to Canada - and often these visits take place through organized groups - will be alerted to the requirements in advance; they'll get that information, they'll know to make the application in advance, the permit will be issued in advance, and they'll come through without having to fill out a form. The alternative is that the person would arrive at the border, make a declaration to a customs officer, and at that point get issued a temporary licence and registration certificate.

I believe that can be achieved without doing any harm to the important economic interests, which I acknowledge. I look forward to working with, for example, the Yukon Outfitters Association and others to make it happen.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: How much will it cost, minister?

[English]

Mr. Rock: We have a range of the domestic costs. I cannot say that we have determined them finally. But let me say, about fees generally, that fees will be established by a process of regulation that will bring them through Parliament. Nothing will happen in secrecy or without Parliament having a chance to participate.

Mr. Bodnar (Saskatoon - Dundurn): Mr. Minister, quite often in reviewing a statute like Bill C-68 it's good to go through an example to see how the act may or may not affect such a particular FACS situation.

Last year I resided here in Ottawa, and one of the occupants of the apartment block I live in went for a walk on Elgin Street and got shot. That person was Nicholas Battersby. In that particular case a group of youths stole a gun - it's my understanding - from the home of a law-abiding gun owner, bought ammunition from Canadian Tire, and used it to shoot this innocent man who went for a walk. Fortunately, I guess, I don't go for walks, because it could just as easily have happened to anyone else.

I look at Bill C-68 and I wonder how it may affect this situation and hopefully, if not prevent it, prevent some such situations. How would Bill C-68 affect a FACS situation such as the Battersby case?

Mr. Rock: I well remember the tragic events to which you've referred. I believe they're still before the court, and I won't speak to that case because it might not be appropriate.

But let me speak more generally in answer to your question, Mr. Bodnar; for example, the theft of firearms from law-abiding gun owners.

On average about 3,000 to 3,500 firearms are stolen every year in Canada. By definition, they fall into the hands of criminals because somebody stole them. They turn up in the underground market, are sold for purposes of crime, and end up being turned on the police or, in other cases, on innocent people.

.1205

There is reason to believe that compulsory registration of all firearms will imbue the individual firearms owners with a heightened sense of responsibility, making it more likely that they'll comply with requirements for safe storage and diminishing the incidence of firearms theft.

As an example, in Houston, Texas an ordinance was passed that required people, on pain of civil liability, to store their firearms securely. A medical journal, Academic Emergency Medicine, the March-April 1994 issue, published a study conducted by physicians who examined the incidence of firearms-related injury and death to children before and after that ordinance was introduced in Houston. The conclusion they came to was that the combined number of unintentional and suicide firearms injuries and deaths of children fell by more than 50% after the introduction of that ordinance.

In other words, people felt responsible. People then began to secure their firearms and the incidence of injury and death went down by one-half. The police have also expressed to me their view that registration will encourage compliance with safe storage.

If someone breaks and enters a dwelling-house - Mr. Bodnar, from your years of criminal practice you will know better than I - if that person is a criminal of opportunity, if they see a shotgun standing against the closet wall or they find the handgun in the night side table, they'll take it because they can turn it into money or they can use it for their own criminal purposes. If we have those firearms secured as required by law, then that will change.

Mr. Chairman, Coroner David identified a lack of education on this subject, which we will address as part of these initiatives.

The second thing I would say is that under Bill C-68 it would not be possible for someone under 18 years of age to buy ammunition. Bill C-68 proposes that ammunition and its control be moved from the Explosives Act to the Criminal Code, that an age limit of 18 years be imposed, and that one be obligated to show appropriate identification when the system is in place, proof of registration or licence of a firearm in order to get ammunition.

So that's the way in which it might have made a difference.

Mr. Thompson (Wild Rose): I would like to comment first of all, since my name has already been used once as being from Kelowna, that I would make the same statement here as I did in Kelowna. I being in Ottawa and my wife being at home alone, if a perpetrator entered my premises I would not mind seeing the perpetrator hurt rather than my wife, and I don't apologize to anybody for that. I believe it's a rule of thumb that we've a duty and an obligation to protect those we love, and we have a duty and obligation to do the same thing in legislation and in government. Unfortunately, this bill doesn't do that, and that's loudly expressed by a number of people.

Your polls do not compare at all to my polls in Wild Rose. Eighty-two percent of the people oppose this bill. I put it in their hands and let them decide themselves at a great cost to myself and to my own budget. I want them to read it.

I want to refer to one statement I heard you make: don't be frightened by this bill. In my riding I have a number of people who have this bill, who have looked at it extensively, and who I know have written to you because I have the same letters - in case they have not, I would be more than pleased to deliver them to you - but who are extremely frightened by this bill. They have lived through these kinds of situations in other parts of the world in the past and they are very concerned that these kinds of liberties are being infringed upon, which will result in drastic things. They've experienced it.

Some of them say they look at Bill C-68 and it really frightens them because 30 or 40 or 50 years ago they read documents that were similar. These are huge communities who have immigrated to this country, who have settled this land and who are living very happily, but suddenly they are frightened.

.1210

I would like to know how you're responding to these individuals. I think they need to know.

Mr. Rock: I welcome the opportunity. The first thing I have to say is that I've met Canadians who have had this experience, those who have come from other countries where seizing or confiscating firearms was either a prelude to or part of a dictator's taking power.

I say that situation is entirely different. It should not and cannot be related to what is going on in Canada, where a government in a free and democratic country is simply introducing a reasonable means of control over something that, if not properly used and stored, can be extremely dangerous. While I am sensitive to the memories that they carry with them from another time and another place, I say that those memories are of no relevance in the present context.

We're not talking about a totalitarian regime grasping power in an undemocratic way through a whole range of methods. In Calgary they're required to register cats. We're talking about a society in which the registration of property or the regulation of enterprises is the rule and not the exception.

Mr. Thompson: Why Orders in Council?

Mr. Rock: What we have before you, Bill C-68, is a regime that simply introduces for firearms a process for registration that is the same as it is for many other kinds of property. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, cars are a good example.

Let me go beyond that, if I may, and say that on the subject of self-protection we all have the same instinct that Mr. Thompson has expressed to protect our families, our children. We all have that instinct and of course it's natural. But, Mr. Chairman, the principle of getting firearms for self-protection is just going to end up hurting our kids and our families.

An hon. member: We wouldn't have to do it if -

The Chair: Please don't interrupt when questions are asked. I don't want the witness to interrupt the questioner and I don't want vice versa.

Please complete the answer, Mr. Rock.

Mr. Rock: By way of completing it, the answer is simply this. Studies in America have shown that where firearms are in a house for protection, that house is at a greater danger, by a large multiple, than is a house where there are no guns of that gun being used against somebody in the house, either accidentally or in a dispute. The number 43 springs to mind, but I would like to check the study before I say that's it. You are 43 times more likely to end up getting shot in a house in which there's a gun for protection than you are in a house where there is no gun. I will confirm the the number.

Last week I was in the car on the way to a meeting in Waterloo. I went down to see the Crime Prevention Council there. The CBC news had a story on about a mother in America who left her 14-year-old in charge of her children and had given the 14-year-old a gun to protect everybody. Accidentally the 7-year-old was shot to death.

We read the story with sorrow last year of the man who pulled out his .357 revolver for protection when he thought he heard a noise in the closet. His daughter jumped out and he shot her to death accidentally.

We don't want that in this country. We don't want to have guns for protection in this country. It's not the kind of country we have. We don't want to go the way of some others, including America.

Now, I fully accept that as part of that we're obligated to have a criminal justice system that protects us without our having to arm ourselves and I acknowledge that's a responsibility that I bear, along with the government in general. But guns for protection is surely not the way you want to go in Canada.

Mr. Nault (Kenora - Rainy River): I have two questions for the minister in the short time I have. One deals with the Auditor General's report and the argument put in it that the Department of Justice has not at this point done a rigorous evaluation of the gun control program that we have in place now.

I want quickly to relate to the committee the department's response when asked by the Auditor General on this issue. It states: ``The current gun control initiative made only limited use of the 1983 evaluation. More reliance was placed on the statistics available since the 1970s on homicides, suicides, accidental deaths and robberies. In any event, the legislation and regulations were driven by clear public interest considerations which needed to be acted upon despite the absence of precise data''.

.1215

My question, Mr. Minister, is simply this. Would you not think it would be prudent at this point to build into the legislation some sort of mechanism to find out whether in fact the criteria that you set for yourself with this legislation in particular, the ones dealing with legitimate gun owners, are effective, efficient and affordable? Obviously effectiveness and efficiency can't be proven unless we do some evaluation of our own, as suggested by the Auditor General.

Mr. Rock: I agree. That's the reason why we have budgeted $1.6 million over the next five years for research and assessment on that very point.

I also want to point out that we do have some analysis of the system to date. For example, there was a section 85 study referred to that tracks the experience with criminal charges under that section for guns in crime. Furthermore, a comprehensive study was done by Terence Wade for the Department of Justice last year on the registration of handguns, the FAC system, identifying a wide variety of weaknesses and from which we learned. And, of course, we have continuing research on the incidence of firearms crime and penalties in the department.

Mr. Nault has a point that is extremely important, and it is that we should continuously evaluate the effect of these laws. We intend, through the money that is budgeted for the purpose, to do exactly that: to monitor the experience with registration and licence, to determine what improvements are available and to make that information available to Parliament and the public as it's accumulated. So I take his point.

Mr. Nault: I have one last question to the minister. It deals with the decriminalization of registration.

I know there has been a lot of discussion about that issue. Now, one of the things I tend to compare registration of firearms to is the situation we find ourselves in when we have speed limits on highways. In fact, it's there for safety, and I think we've all agreed in this place that gun control as it relates to legitimate gun owners is intended for safety reasons more than it is intended to catch the criminals. Quite frankly, it would not make a whole lot of sense if we argued that in fact registration is going to catch a whole slew of criminals, because we don't have the data to prove it. But we can argue quite effectively - and some members have already in this room this morning - that you can deal with domestic violence and things such as that with information of registration.

I would like to find out why it is that if this is a safety measure similar to why we have speed limits and when people go over the speed limit we give them a ticket - we don't criminalize them or give them some sort of record - we would not be able to decriminalize registration because of the fact that it is mainly a safety feature. The information gathered from this system is really what the police are looking for to the extent of using it to track criminals. But in fact we don't want to end up criminalizing people who are just law-abiding citizens going about their business who, like anybody else, forget.

Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to take the time of the committee in repeating myself, but let me say that I've already signalled, I hope very clearly, that I want the help of the committee with this very point. I want the wisdom and the perspective of this committee on the penalty for first-time failure to register by reason of forgetfulness or inadvertence with respect to long arms.

While Mr. Nault's point about criminalizing innocent people has some force, I've already pointed out that there are some people, whose views I value, who feel differently. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police think we should leave it exactly where it is, in the Criminal Code.

If you look at the incidence of people out there who are saying that come hell or high water they're not going to register, you have to bear in mind we have those people to contend with as well.

We don't want an optional system. There's no point in going through the anguish and the expense of registration unless it's going to produce the information that will save lives, and it won't produce that information without compliance.

I ask the committee to help me with this. If you would like, I will come back at some other time and discuss with you models that you might propose. I know that a lot of people around the table have questions that perhaps we didn't get to today because this is an issue on which feelings run high. If you, Mr. Chairman, want me to come back at some other time and address them, I will be happy to do that.

On this issue in particular, the criminal response to the non-registration, I want the committee's proposals within the guidelines I've identified bearing in mind always what our goal is, which is to achieve compliance and public safety.

.1220

The Chair: With that, we will adjourn the meeting.

I want to thank you, Mr. Minister, and your officials. No doubt we will be asking you -

Mr. Ramsay: On a point of order, I would like to move a motion that our clerk invite the minister and his officials back before May 19, when we are supposed to end our deliberations. I'm sure there are other members around the table, including myself, who would like to examine other aspects of this bill with the minister and his officials present.

Mr. Chairman, I would move that motion.

The Chair: In accordance with our rules, your motion is considered tabled and it can be taken up for consideration after 48 hours.

Let me say that it's a tradition for the minister to come back before the committee before we proceed with clause-by-clause consideration, to answer all questions that arise during the hearings. But we could have other meetings as well. We will deal with your motion in 48 hours.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.

The Chair: The meeting stands adjourned until 3:30 p.m.