EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, May 3, 1995

.1529

[English]

The Chair: I wish to call the meeting to order. We are continuing our examination of Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons.

We have before us this afternoon the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, represented by Chief Brian Ford; Vince Westwick, general counsel; and Mr. P. Sangollo. We also have the Canadian Police Association, represented by Neal Jessop, the president, and Scott Newark, the executive director.

.1530

We'll proceed in the usual manner. I would ask each of the two police associations to start by giving their briefs in the order in which they are on the notice, with the chiefs of police first and the police association second. Then we will proceed with the usual rounds of questioning.

[Translation]

Chief Brian Ford (Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police): Mr. Chairman, honourable members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, allow me to introduce to you the members of our delegation. I am accompanied by Mr. Pierre Sangollo, Assistant Director of the Montreal Urban Community Police Service and member of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and Mr. Vincent Westwick, general council of the Ottawa-Carleton regional police service and advisor to the committee on legislative amendments of our Association. I am Brian Ford, director of the Ottawa-Carleton regional police service and chairman of the committee on legislative amendments of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, is very pleased to submit our position and recommendations on Bill C-68 to this Committee.

Despite this piece of legislation is somewhat controversial, we believe that it is an important one and that it is even crucial for Canadians to feel safer. Indeed, beyond the jingoistic disagreements and the academic debate, people do share the will to live in a safe country, without fearing daily the criminal actions of some. This bill is a step in this direction. Now, if I may, I will carry on in English.

[English]

The CACP supports this legislation and looks forward to its speedy passage. Bill C-68 is extremely important legislation, which will improve law enforcement, reduce injury and death due to firearms, and enhance our community understanding and respect for firearms. Police need this type of legislation.

A national registry for firearms will be a benefit for the community, but it will also improve officer safety. I remind you that in Ottawa we have had two incidents within the last six weeks. In the first one, two officers were shot during an aborted bank hold-up and the second was a robbery attempt where police met gunfire upon arriving at the scene.

I would like to speak for a moment about the preliminary results of a study conducted during 1994 involving ten police services across Canada. These results confirm what chiefs of police have maintained all along: that theft and misuse of legally acquired firearms remains a major problem.

In ten communities, 8,879 firearms were recovered by the police, of which 51% were traced to specific crimes, 24.6% were classified as found, and another 24.8% were recovered due to other circumstances, including suicides and accidents. Long guns represent 47% of firearms used in crimes, and 21% of the recovered firearms were restricted weapons; therefore, over 60% of the recovered firearms were not previously registered. Prohibited weapons represent a small percentage - 4% - of the weapons used in crime. In addition to real firearms, a substantial percentage - 28% - of fake or replica firearms were used in crimes.

Just this morning I received information from the Calgary city police that was not part of the study conducted by the Department of Justice but is consistent with these results.

.1535

In 1989 in Calgary 129 rifles and shotguns were stolen and only 31 handguns. By 1993 those numbers had increased dramatically to 214 rifles and shotguns and 137 handguns. In 1994 in Calgary commercial robberies committed using rifles or shotguns nearly doubled from the previous year, from 35 in 1993 to 58 in 1994. Similarly, in 1993 there were five financial robberies where the criminal was armed with a rifle or shotgun, but in 1994 that number rose to fifteen.

Clearly there are differences from community to community, and while analysis of the data is still under way, nevertheless we feel there is compelling evidence to reinforce the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police position vis-à-vis this legislation.

Tighter restrictions and greater accountability for legal gun owners is critical to the safety of our communities. Effective registration and compliance is pivotal to this accountability. Measures are needed to counter smuggling and the illegal gun trade. Penalties for firearms misuse must be strengthened.

The bill is preventive. We in the police community need real prevention. But as stated in our brief, like all preventive measures, the real success of prevention is always hard to measure. The true test of this legislation is where do we want to be in 20 years - do we want 50,000 more guns each year?

Few pieces of legislation in the recent past have caused as much controversy as this gun control legislation. Much debate has been carried on, including within our own community, and much public controversy and argument before this committee has focused on what we as Canadians disagree upon.

In deliberating on this bill, we ask that you focus on what we do agree upon. We ask that you recommend this bill for passage by the government without amendment, without removing its structure, its approach, and its teeth. We the chiefs of police from communities across Canada want and need this legislation.

[Translation]

Now, Mr. Sangollo, assistant director of the SPCUM who had a few comments.

Mr. Pierre Sangollo (Assistant Director, Montreal Urban Community Police Service and member of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police): Thank you, Mr. Ford.

Mr. Chairman, honourable members of the Committee, I am the assistant director of the Montreal Urban Community Police Service. Today, I am representing the Vice-President of the Montreal Urban Community Police Service, Mr. Jacques Duchesneau, as well as the Service as a whole.

The 4,600 policemen and policewomen I'm representing today want to express, unequivocally, their support for this bill for controlling firearms.

But first, allow me to give you a brief overview of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. The Association has been in existence since 1905. It is now composed of some 800 members who are either directors, assistant directors or executive officers for law enforcement agencies.

Furthermore, the CACP membership is composed of associate members representing the state security field, crime prevention, universities and even the legal community.

Our members can be found all across Canada, in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, in provincial police services, as the OPP and the QPP, but also in municipal police services. In summary, CACP represents more than 90% of the police craft.

CACP has set up 15 operational committees like the committee on legislative amendments, chaired by Mr. Ford, the national committee on drug abuse and the national committee on organized crime, of which I am a member.

CACP set two main objectives which are the improvement of the police efficiency and even more fundamentally, the improvement of the Canadians' safety.

The bill we debate today is of crucial importance for our association as a whole and the members it represents.

Mr. Chairman, honourable MPs, we are now ready to answer your questions.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Ford, does that complete the brief of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police?

.1540

Chief Ford: Yes. Normally we would have Mr. Westwick go through the technical aspects of the bill, but because each member of the committee has a copy of our brief, we thought we would be open for questions in order to save time.

The Chair: Thank you. They certainly will be doing that.

Mr. Jessop, it's over to you and your brief, if you wish, or Mr. Newark.

Mr. Neal Jessop (President, Canadian Police Association): Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for the invitation to speak to you.

I'm not going to dwell for a great length of time on who we are and what we do. Most of you know. We've been here before.

We represent 35,000 police officers across Canada. We've been very active in the legislative field for about the last three years.

The brief is before you. I'm not going to read the brief. I would ask that you refer to tab A, which is sort of a one-page synopsis of our presentation. I will add one particular aspect to it, which will be number 9.

The CPA supports a prohibition on assault weapons as outlined in Bill C-68, but views the enforcement provisions of the bill as inadequate and will pursue specific amendments at the committee stage. In relation to that, with one exception, I will either respond myself or defer to Mr. Newark for those questions.

We support, in principle, the restrictions on ammunition acquisition and transfer as contained in Bill C-68.

We recognize the clear value of information availability to police officers, which registration of all firearms provides, and we support a full firearms registration system, but cannot support the registration system articulated in Bill C-68 unless there is a guarantee from the federal government that any implementation or administration costs for such a system will not come from existing operational police budgets.

I will say to you that we are extremely strong on that particular point. We have spoken to the minister concerning it, we have made our point very forcefully, and we think he agrees that it is very, very important that this system does not interfere with putting police officers on the street.

The benefits of a full registration system, although many, do not justify removing police officers from Canadian streets. I emphasize that again: we do not want to put police officers in clerical positions. The CPA is fundamentally opposed to the potential criminalization of current lawful firearm owners due solely to regulatory non-compliance with Bill C-68 in the future. First offences of this kind should be placed in the regulatory firearms act, not the Criminal Code. If these two alterations are met, the CPA would endorse the registration system as put forth in Bill C-68.

As you know, there was a great deal of controversy in March at our last meeting in relation to this. We have examined the constitutionality of that particular proposal, and I and Mr. Newark, as the saying goes, believe it is doable.

We support the minimum mandatory sentencing provisions for offences where firearms are used, but we view the current enforcement provisions of the bill as inadequate. We will pursue specific amendments with you.

For example, proposed subsection 85(2) of the bill refers to firearms and imitations thereof. When we reach the mandatory sentencing provisions, we hear only about firearms; we do not hear about imitations thereof. It is my personal experience that unless we have the item, the weapon, the firearm in question, we have a very, very difficult time proving that particular aspect of a case. We of course may have a bullet, a projectile of some kind, but that is very, very difficult, and the likelihood of a conviction on description alone is remote, if not impossible.

We therefore ask you to examine that aspect. I have heard some comments that it was done deliberately so that we may not treat seriously mandatory sentencing. We do not think that was the case, but we think, for example, that this is a serious flaw in the legislation.

.1545

We support the creation of the offences of possession and trafficking in stolen or smuggled firearms with minimum mandatory sentences, but we view the enforcement provisions as inadequate, and again we will pursue that with you.

We support the restrictions and prohibitions on small-calibre handguns and increasing penalties for persons unlawfully in possession of handguns as contained in Bill C-68, but we view the enforcement provisions of the bill as inadequate and will pursue amendments with you and with the minister.

We're calling on the federal government to implement a full peace officer status, which we would refer to as the national border patrol, as a necessary step to reduce the smuggling of firearms into Canada.

I think it is quite clear to all of you who have had any previous conversation with us that we have a very serious problem with this bill unless we can adequately enforce the provisions of guns coming across the longest undefended border in the world. It would be no less than a joke to believe in this legislation if we cannot believe that we will soon, I hope, have some real enforceability for criminals and firearms crossing the border.

Quite frankly, this bill is quite empty without that. We've spoken to the minister about it. The problem, of course, is quite simple. It is difficult to be a revenue collector and an official greeter for the Canadian people with a smile on your face and also enforce the provisions of this act or any other federal criminal act at the border.

As you know and most of you would know, I have a lot of familiarity with this particular problem. We have gained the support of the customs union in relation to it, for the most part, and we are very, very interested in promoting that aspect.

It would be of interest to you to know that with the exception of the chiefs - and we are almost in 100% agreement with the chiefs - we stand independent of other interest groups and lobbyists regarding gun control. We have, of course, been approached by a number of groups in relation to gun control. Some of them we would definitely not like to be associated with. Some of them wear funny outfits and pretend they're soldiers on the weekend in the bush with guns, and we have no interest in associating ourselves with those kinds of people.

I think we're probably ready for questions if you are.

The Chair: Mr. Jessop, you said you were going to add a number 9 to the list in appendix A. Was it in addition to number 8, when you spoke about the national border patrol?

Mr. Jessop: Yes, sir, it followed after number 8. I don't think I missed any.

The Chair: You gave us numbers 1 to 8, but I thought you were going to add a ninth.

Mr. Jessop: Number 9 was the standing independent of other lobby groups and interest groups.

The Chair: Good. Now we will proceed with the rounds of questioning. We will start with Madam Venne.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne (Saint-Hubert): I will address my first question to the Canadian Police Association.

Let's talk about your magazine, titles L'Express and which is in part sponsored by Beretta and Glock. Of course, for the benefits of those who wouldn't know these companies, I must say that they are arms manufacturers. Your magazine mainly shows handguns.

.1550

I would like to know how you feel vis à vis your sponsors and how you can, in an objective way, accommodate your position on firearms control and your sponsors situation?

Mr. Scott Newark (Executive Director, Canadian Police Association): I am the magazine editor.

Mrs. Venne: That's fortunate.

[English]

Mr. Newark: When I heard you say the chiefs of police, I was hoping perhaps that the question would go over there.

Mrs. Venne: No, no.

Mr. Newark: We're doing the next issue right now. I was going through it and looking at the advertising, and the thought obviously occurred to me that our magazine has gone through a change in the last year in content and tone. Those ads were taken at a time when it was entirely consistent, when we did not in the magazine really express the kinds of philosophical views we are talking about. Obviously the contrast is there.

Having said that, my understanding of the legislation or indeed our position is that we're not talking about outlawing all firearms. We're not talking about making literally the possession of all kinds of firearms illegal in this country. The people who are the advertisers in that magazine advertise a product - and I must confess I have not looked at it closely enough, Madame Venne, to know the specifics - that is not somehow going to become illegal automatically.

Don't forget, as well, that our community uses firearms and that the advertisers have an interest, I suppose, in getting that kind of information about the product they produce into the hands of a readership that actually understands and uses that far more than the general public.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: I am well aware that you're using firearms, but I don't think the handguns advertised in your magazine are intended to be used by members of your community. That is what I meant, these ads appear in a magazine...

[English]

Mr. Newark: Yes, they are.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Yes, and policemen are not the ones - except if you can prove me wrong - who are going to choose the kind of firearms they are going to be using next. Isn't it rather the management, a board or an administrative committee which makes this kind of decision? This is what I would like to know.

[English]

Mr. Newark: Actually, my understanding is that the discussion about the appropriateness of types of equipment that are used, including firearms, very much has input from the people who have to go out and use them, and that carries over to ammunition use as well. There's a debate raging right now in this province in relation to the kinds of ammunition that are appropriate for use, and police officers, who have to use the weapons, very much want to have their views listened to by the people - you're quite correct - who make the decisions about which firearms to supply.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: In your general principles you say that we should not criminalize firearms owners who do not register their arms. Then, a little further down, you reaffirm the value of the firearms registration system. Don't you see a bit of contradiction in terms? What would happen if we would not criminalize the infraction? How could we put pressure on people? Do you simply want to say that criminalization would happen not after a first offence but after a subsequent one? I would like you to clarify things for me.

[English]

Mr. Newark: Yes, and I'll expand on it as well if I can. The concern we encountered in dealing with our membership across the country, and in fact with people all across the country who expressed their opinion, was that we were going from a system whereby something had been essentially lawful across the country and was widespread in its practice, that with a stroke in legislation we were changing what had previously been lawful. It was a regulatory system that was doing that.

.1555

From the first point, a lot of us had concerns about the notion of, in effect with a snap with legislative fingers, potentially criminalizing a large section of the population that had hitherto been completely law-abiding. We are suggesting that a purely regulatory non-compliance - i.e., somebody who has not completed what is required of them after the fairly generous phasing-in period - would be an offence under the firearms act, which although justifiable as federal legislation would not necessarily be a crime.

We envisage it having, for example, forfeiture. Police could seize the weapons upon that taking place. There would be provisions built into it for forfeiture of the weapons. The fact of the person not having complied should be statutorily relevant to the question of whether he or she would ever be entitled again to get a licence or have weapons registered. It should be dealt with as a penalty that would have a fine to it, like a normal vehicular provincial kind of penalty. It would have a fine and potential incarceration consequences. The point, though, is that under no circumstances would it criminalize that portion of society.

There are other options that can do this. Mr. DeVillers, for example, has a private member's bill, I believe, and there is some background material relating to it. It's the same basic idea using a slightly different method. What we're really suggesting to you is that you should examine all the different dynamics possible to be able to do that. What I suspect, as Chief Ford mentioned earlier, is we really should be looking at some point at where we want to be in twenty years. We have a distance to go in that sense, but we're not starting from ground zero. A large segment of our population has had access lawfully to this kind of material.

We don't think that having those kinds of provisions in a regulatory, non-criminal way would in any way be ineffective. We think you can make it pretty darn effective that way, but you don't need to turn people like that potentially into criminals.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: I will go to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. You don't think that a comprehensive inquiry over the past five years is enough. I am talking about the applicant of a firearm acquisition certificate which will soon be replaced by a firearm ownership certificate. Whatever, you say that an inquiry over the past five years would not be enough. On page 11 you even suggest an amendment to that effect.

I would like you to tell us why you propose that amendment, so that one could inquire beyond the five-year period. Also, I would like you to tell us what would happen with an individual who would commit a subsequent offence after having been pardoned. In such a case, should we have to inquire beyond his pardon?

[English]

Mr. Vince Westwick (General Counsel, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police): One of the fortunate things is that I'm not a legislative drafter; I just get to criticize them.

The concern we have is that we would like to see as much discretion as possible in the hands of the decision-maker with respect to a licence. We're not suggesting that each and every offence beyond the five-year period would be an eliminator. Rather, the decision-maker would not be prohibited from looking beyond five years to a certain set of circumstances that would be significant in making a decision as to whether to issue a licence or not.

In terms of the discretion we're talking about, your example is a perfect one. If, for example, such an offence existed in that period beyond five years, and there had been a pardon, as you suggested, surely that would be the kind of thing that would be discretionary for the decision-maker.

We simply didn't want a situation to occur where there was a serious offence at, for example, six or eight years that the decision-maker was prohibited from considering in making the decision as to whether to issue a licence. So we just want to see more discretion to that decision-maker.

.1600

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Do I have some time left?

The Chair: No, it's over.

[English]

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

I'd like to ask Chief Ford this question. I understand the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is not financially independent of the federal government. Is that true?

Chief Ford: Frankly, I'm not equipped to answer that because I'm not the executive director. I know that I pay dues, all members pay dues, and they do get grants from various levels of government - provincial governments and the federal government as well. But as for what the percentage of those grants are vis-à-vis the total income of the organization, I really couldn't say.

Mr. Ramsay: Can you tell the committee why you require funding from the federal government for your association?

Chief Ford: I honestly can't tell you why. I suppose that question would be best directed to the executive director of the CACP. I'm not on the board of directors of the CACP and therefore I'm not privy to that kind of information. I'm merely the chair of the law amendments committee. I'm not involved in the administration or the collection of any funds.

Mr. Ramsay: So you can't answer?

Chief Ford: No, I don't know what the dispersal of funds is. I haven't an idea.

Mr. Ramsay: In your presentation you stated, if I recorded your comments accurately, that you're asking for passage of this bill without amendments.

Chief Ford: Yes.

Mr. Ramsay: Now, that is somewhat different from the other group that's here, the Canadian Police Association. Would you tell the committee who your association represents.

Chief Ford: The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police represents, as Mr. Sangollo pointed out, chiefs of police from across the country, who are responsible for the administration of police services across the country. It also represents the Ontario Provincial Police, the Quebec provincial police, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I also represent the members of my police service as well, and so do the chiefs of police.

Mr. Ramsay: If you're representing your police forces as chiefs, how is it that you're not in agreement totally with the Canadian Police Association, which is below the rank of chiefs? Why is it that there seems to be a discrepancy between your organization and the Canadian Police Association? Are you both not representing police officers in Canada?

Mr. Westwick: To some extent the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police are in fact quite close on this one. The philosophy with respect to the response to this legislation and the large strokes, if you want, is quite consistent. The difference in terms of the critique of the clause-by-clause study of the bill may be a function of the fact that it's being looked at by different lawyers. I'm not sure it could be characterized as a major difference.

Mr. Newark may want to respond to that, but my understanding of their position, and certainly my understanding of the position of the CACP, is that the position of the two organizations does in fact not differ significantly.

Mr. Ramsay: Well, if you're representing your police officers, why is it necessary that you have two organizations?

Mr. Westwick: I'm not sure I can answer that. The associations are there to represent the specific interests of the police officers. They represent labour or concerns of the fraternity as opposed to concerns of management. That's consistent with the position in the private sector as well.

.1605

Mr. Sangollo: The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police represents the interests of the public. Our main concern is the interests of the public. The Canadian Police Association is interested in the police officers, union people. It's not that we're not representing police officers. In a global view, both of us have the same interests: public safety. But there is always a difference between union members and chiefs of police.

Mr. Newark: We've now had about three people express why the Canadian Police Association has a position or not. It's really been moved around. There's no surprise in this. One is a management-oriented group and the other is the people who do the job, who could be described fairly as the labour-oriented group. We have different perspectives. Frankly, I'm sure that even within your caucus there are different perspectives on different issues as well.

The Chair: That's correct.

Mr. Newark: The point, though, I think simply is that - and I very much agree with the points that were just made - we approach it from the perspective of both public safety, public interest, and also from the experiences or insights that hopefully the jobs have. Now, clearly there are differences in the dynamics of the specifics. I think Mr. Westwick put it best when he talked about the broad strokes.

Mr. Ramsay: I understand.

By the way, when there's disagreement in our caucus, we're not punished like the ones over there.

The Chair: [Inaudible - Editor].

Mr. Ramsay: Well, the chairman opened the door for that one.

Chief Ford, you have said this bill should pass without amendments. We have had representation from the Government of the Northwest Territories. Their justice minister was here with his delegation. They want exemptions and they give commonsense reasons for doing so. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture was here. They want exemptions. They have good commonsense reasons as well. Some of the guides and outfitters are saying that if this bill passes, if they lose 20% of their business, as some of them fear, they will have to go out of business. Organizations from the museums attended and said the same thing. They require an exemption. Collectors also indicated that they want an exemption. Yesterday we had two manufacturers of firearms here who said that if this bill goes through the way it is they may have to close down and move out, which will cost probably 100 or 120 jobs.

Now, in view of that, are you still prepared to demand that this bill be passed without any amendments?

Chief Ford: Yes.

Mr. Ramsay: So you don't care about the economic impact this bill will have, according to what the other witnesses have told us? It's okay if the business is shut down and has to move to another country? Is that all right with you?

Chief Ford: Well, I guess the best way I can answer that question is to state that I'm here today to present a paper on behalf of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and to put forward an opinion paper, which was prepared through consultation with the people who are here with me today, as well as the members of my law amendments committee and the executive of the CACP. My answer is still yes.

Mr. Ramsay: In spite of the fact that your consultations never included these people? In spite of the fact that your consultations never took into consideration the economic ramifications that may put people out of work and businesses out of business? Is that what you're telling this committee?

Chief Ford: The other thing I could add is that it was not without consultation with a wide variety of community groups throughout Canada.

Mr. Ramsay: Did you consult with any of the six groups I listed here?

Chief Ford: No, not that I can recall.

Mr. Ramsay: I'd like to ask Mr. Newark or Mr. Jessop this question. Do you demand the passage of Bill C-68 without any amendments?

Mr. Newark: No.

Mr. Ramsay: So there is a difference between the two groups.

Mr. Newark: Well, as I think was expressed fairly clearly for everybody in the room, yes. That's why, Mr. Ramsay, we tried to approach it at the outset recognizing some of the difficulty with the principles that were involved here, such as registration, small-calibre handguns, ammunition and assault weapons, we thought were important.

.1610

I think Mr. Westwick probably hit it dead on. With some of the facts of the details I'm talking about here - it may be on Bill C-41 when we're talking on other issues - I seem to be the one who always comes and says there's another way of doing it better, no matter what the issue is. I'm looking particularly at some of the enforcement sections and saying I suspect if this bill is passed as it is we're going to be back here in a year, saying we can make it better by doing this, we can get at the goal we want better by doing this. This is the first go-round of the committee, so we decided to do it right here.

We agree on the general principles involved here - I think that's what is at stake - at least in the sense of the agreement between our mutual groups.

Mr. Jessop: Mr. Chair, I would like to make clear - and obviously we've had a great deal of consultation with the people at Justice - there's no indication yet as to what the sum of the regulation will be in accordance with this bill. That needs a great deal of study. We talked about it moments ago for the purposes of native peoples.

There may be a situation in Hudson Bay that demands an exemption for people so they can hunt. I'm not so sure the same exemption would apply for people at Akwesasne, where guns and smuggling don't mix. We recognize that and I think the chiefs recognize that. There's a great deal more discussion to be had here, particularly in relation to the regulations, and we're anxious to participate.

The Chair: Before I go to Mr. Bodnar, I think I should advise you, because the Police Association recommended an amendment so there would be criminalization on a first offence for non-registration.... The Minister of Justice, when he appeared before this committee, said he recognized the problem in that respect and asked the committee to look for an alternative means of dealing with first offenders for non-registration. So the committee has the task of looking for a better way of dealing with that problem.

In case there are further questions, when we invite the police associations, the museums associations or the outfitters, we expect them to speak on behalf of their own members and not for the general public interest. It's our job on this committee, after we have listened to you all, to make the decision as to what the amendment should be or not. We didn't expect the outfitters to speak for the police, the police to speak for the museums or whatever. Obviously you're speaking within your own mandates. The members can ask questions on that if they wish, but I don't expect your associations to have consulted with all the others, nor did I expect them to have approached you to consult with you.

Mr. Bodnar (Saskatoon - Dundurn): Thank you for being here today. My time is limited, so I would ask that your answers be as brief as possible so I can ask questions in as many areas as possible. I'll also try to avoid Mr. Newark, keeping that in mind.

One of the concerns I have is with the penalties and the mandatory sentencing. I'm concerned that the mandatory sentencing provision perhaps be changed so persons be sentenced to their normal term - let's take a manslaughter using a gun, whatever the normal term is in the province as set by the courts, but that there be a consecutive four-year term if a gun is used. Would you agree to such changes or not, Mr. Westwick?

Mr. Westwick: I'm sorry...to a consecutive four-year term?

Mr. Bodnar: A consecutive four-year term over and above the normal term for the offence if a gun is used.

Mr. Westwick: The difficulty is that if you want the courts to stand up and take notice, in our view you must include mandatories, whether it's four years, three and a half, or whatever.

Mr. Bodnar: That's what I'm saying, mandatory.

Mr. Westwick: Yes. We don't have trouble with that.

Mr. Bodnar: What about a provision as well, because many guns are stolen from private dwellings and used in offences - and this would cover many other areas of criminal law - that there be mandatory imprisonment for all break-ins to residential dwellings, and that the court simply sets the term, whether it's one day or ten years?

.1615

Mr. Westwick: I'd have a hard time supporting something that's as broadly worded as that. If what you're getting at is in terms of a break and enter where the theft includes a firearm, that's something the committee may want to discuss. But I think to make a mandatory sentence for break-ins across the board is not -

Mr. Bodnar: Break-ins into dwellings.

Mr. Westwick: Break-ins into dwelling houses. Yes, I understood your question. Mr. Sangollo may have an opinion on it.

Mr. Sangollo: We had a survey done recently, and 63% of the firearms that were stolen as a result of breaking and entering dwelling houses were stolen by youth. There's a distinction in my mind as a police officer, not as a lawyer, when someone is arrested for breaking and entering, is charged with breaking and entering, and the firearm is what was stolen. Now, if he breaks and enters, steals a firearm, and commits an armed robbery with the firearm, that's something else. That's the four years we were looking at.

Mr. Newark: Mr. Bodnar, with regard to your last point about break and enter, there is already a minimum sentence in relation to break and enter into a residence. It currently carries life imprisonment.

Mr. Bodnar: That's maximum.

Mr. Newark: It is, but it's one of the offences.... Your government's Bill C-41 is going to remove the section that stops it from being just a fine. If you remember, at the justice committee on Bill C-41 we violently objected to the amendment contained in that legislation because you are taking away precisely what we suggest is absolutely necessary.

Your original point in terms of the consecutive was our original recommendation: that in effect you roll the odometer on the existing section 85 and make the number higher, but make it a consecutive sentence to the sentence that's already there. Secondly, I think the point required here that is missing in this bill, contrary to our recommendations, is that there should be a statement of principles at the beginning of this part of the Criminal Code to give direction to the courts about how seriously Canadians take crimes committed with firearms, to act as guidance to courts in sentencing.

Mr. Bodnar: Thank you. With respect to the inspection provisions of the bill - that's perhaps the area that causes me the greatest concern - the concerns are the provisions for entering buildings, and primarily for entering dwellings. Even though it's with a warrant, the warrant doesn't require much information to get into the dwelling. I'm wondering - and I'll ask the chiefs first - whether you would be comfortable with the removal of the inspections provisions and the substitution in the firearms act of provisions that would simply reinforce the existing search and seizure provisions that are presently in the Criminal Code.

Mr. Westwick: We wouldn't support that. I think the inspection provisions are, on their face, something people should be concerned about. I can understand that, but there are a number of protections, in my view, built into these inspection provisions. The concern would be that they would be abused by police officers, that police officers would use these inspection provisions to do indirectly what they can't do directly.

In my opinion, the courts of this land, including the Supreme Court of Canada, don't have the slightest hesitation to reprimand police officers in the most serious way by staying the charges during which the action was done. They don't have the slightest hesitation to do that daily in our courts with regular search warrants, so I can't think for a minute that the protections of section 8, together with the protections that are built right into this proposed section, protect against abuses.

Mr. Bodnar: But Mr. Westwick, let's use an example of the peace officer who wants to enter a premise where he suspects there may be trafficking of narcotics. Obviously there aren't enough grounds for getting a warrant to search that particular premise, but the peace officer believes the person has a gun. He has reasonable grounds - not necessarily probable, but that's not necessary - believes the person won't allow him to search the premise, gets the warrant and walks into that premise. He gains entry to that premise - and I realize there are different rules once he gains entry - and comes in the back door when he couldn't come in the front door.

.1620

Mr. Westwick: I understand the concern. You and I have had this debate on other points.

Mr. Bodnar: Yes, we have.

Mr. Westwick: I do not believe that criminal law should be used to police the police. I'm not as familiar with the other provinces, but certainly in Ontario there are all sorts of accountability provisions built into the Police Services Act, and the Criminal Code has its own provision together with the charter.

I can only repeat that in my experience in the trial divisions of the provincial criminal courts, every single day the courts have little hesitation in using the powers that currently exist to ensure that the police are complying with the law in terms of bona fides. Where they suspect that the police are not exercising bona fides, they respond very quickly.

Mr. Bodnar: All right. I have two minutes left. Therefore, I would like to cover one other area just slightly: decriminalization. Perhaps this will open the door for Mr. Newark.

Would the Police Association be satisfied with a condition that the first time a police officer comes across a gun that is not registered there would be no charges laid, but simply a warning and seizure of the gun and a period of time to comply - for example, six months to comply and then the gun is returned once the owner has complied with the provision? In that way, there's no offence the first time, but a criminal offence if the person doesn't... well, there won't be a problem with complying the second time.

Mr. Newark: No. In some ways, I think that answers your question.

First, what you're talking about is like a warning system that exists with tickets. But it doesn't exist with crimes. I suggest it is not really appropriate that there be a warning system in place. If something is a crime it should be, by definition, sufficiently serious that we don't say we're not going to bother to really enforce it, which is my problem with the nature of having it exclusively criminal.

We're not suggesting you take it out of the Criminal Code by any stretch of the imagination, because there may well be circumstances, particularly in relation to people who repeat, in which you want to have it there as a criminal offence. I just don't think it's a very good idea to create sections of your criminal law, which is pretty serious stuff, where on the one hand you are creating and on the other hand saying but don't really go ahead and enforce it. So our recommendation is that there be a regulatory authority with the full range of discretion of a regulatory offence, not nothing other than just a criminal offence.

Mr. Bodnar: If a person does not comply the first time and is given a warning but has other guns and complies with respect to the first gun, the second gun then would have a criminal charge the first time around. Doesn't that just cover exactly what you're asking for? You don't want criminalization on the first offence, but that's what you'd be getting under this system.

Mr. Newark: No. I think what you find is that it would be rather difficult to put forward a defence that you really didn't know about this and you were not flagrant inasmuch as it had already been proceeded with under provincial legislation.

Mr. Bodnar: That's a different matter as a defence, not having knowledge.

Mr. Westwick: The concern that's been described about the criminalization, as I understand it, is dealing with what's been described as the forgetful grandmother, the elderly person who's not familiar with that. In our submission, there's ample provision within the criminal law as it exists now to deal with that. You have police discretion, you have crown discretion, and you have the discretion within the Criminal Code for discharges. It was exactly why discharges were put in place.

What we're getting at is that if you change it and decriminalize it or put in warning systems - and I caution you very strongly on this point - what you're doing is designing an important part of this bill, the teeth, that is focusing in on a very small percentage of the population, as opposed to the flip side, where you're focusing in on the real abuse of compliance in order to catch that small exception.

In our submission, we feel you should direct the application of the law at the large group, if you will, cast the large net, and worry about the exception by way of discretion.

Mr. Newark: That is exactly the point where we disagree, because in our view key things like teeth in the criminal law do not apply, thankfully, in this country as a broad base. It is fortunately still a very small group of people, and our most serious sanctions that apply should be applied to those people, not to the broad base of citizens who own firearms in this country.

.1625

The Chair: I think you both referred to Bill C-41, which gives the crown and the police wide discretion in alternate ways of dealing with offences when they are discovered on the street. Mr. Newark already referred to Bill C-41.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois or Mrs. Venne, you have five minutes.

Mrs. Venne: I will go on. I'm going to address my question to either group, and both can answer it. I would like to know if you're in favour of a new infraction, concerning the use of firearm while impaired, or the loan of a firearm to an impaired person. It could be an amendment to this bill, and I want to ask you if it would be easy to apply, what you think of it, how do you see it.

[English]

Mr. Westwick: I think the answer is that it would be difficult to apply. I can't stand before you and deny that. All you have to do is look at the amount of litigation, of trial time, that is consumed right now dealing with matters of impairment, even with the breathalyzer sections. Anyone who is familiar with the criminal courts would agree that a large percentage of the criminal courts' time now in Canada is taken up dealing with matters of impairment.

Madame Venne, the regret is that it still is a serious problem and I'm not sure you can ignore it simply because it becomes a headache for the criminal courts. Our position is that the combination of firearms and impairment is so serious that it must remain to be addressed, and addressed in a very realistic way.

Mr. Newark: I agree with what Mr. Westwick said, but there's already a section of careless use that I can remember from days of prosecuting. We would consider as a factor in determining that the use was careless somebody's alcohol consumption or being impaired by alcohol.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Well now, with this new bill, the police will be given exceptional search and seizure powers. You certainly heard about that, I suppose. I would like to know how you can explain - explain to us, to the Committee - that you will indeed have greater search powers, and whether they're sufficient, whether they're justified since we say they are needed for public safety.

First, do you recognize we're saying that you'll now have increased powers?

[English]

Mr. Westwick: I won't repeat all of the discussion I engaged in with Mr. Bodnar, but that is one area where there are new powers to the police. Those are the inspection powers in clause 98 and immediately following. In my submission, those particular powers are sufficiently circumscribed by this piece of legislation, in addition to the charter, in a general policing by the criminal courts.

So I appreciate the concern that lies behind your question and a genuine concern for the public that they don't want to see an over-enforcement. But these powers in the inspection provisions, for example, are for inspection and compliance. If they're abused, the courts will have little hesitation to employ strong remedies to do the indirect thing.

[Translation]

Mr. Sangollo: It was the same thing for searching car trunks. Some police officers tried to do without a search warrant by stating that they were checking their spare tire, since motorists had to have a spare.

.1630

The courts meted out very stiff sanctions. We don't suppose, of course, that those sections might not occasionally be abused, like with all other police activities. Still, we are in the picture, there are interest groups involved, there is the law, there are a lot of people who watch what the police is doing. If those sections are abused, the courts and police forces will exercise their responsibility.

Mrs. Venne: Very well.

[English]

Mr. Jessop: Yesterday I was in Ste-Marie. If you can address this act in generalities, a man there killed a police officer and a ten-year-old girl. He shot her through a door three times. I guess the proper term in French is armoire. There are certain aspects of this act that, had it been in force in 1983 when this individual was first convicted, would have alleviated what happened there over the weekend. I think I can tell you, on behalf of Canadian police officers, that is the kind of act this is. It has sufficient good things in it for us to possibly alleviate situations like that, with conformity. It is not a backwards step.

I think there were 800 cops there yesterday, and a number of them who knew what's coming probably thought about just that. Would two people be alive if we had this legislation? After being there, my answer is yes, probably.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mrs. Venne, one last question.

Mrs. Venne: It's always difficult to talk about a situation like the one of Sainte-Marie. Mr. Jessop, I would appreciate your telling us what sections you were referring to, when you said that, had they been enforced in 1983, the tragedy that happened last weekend might have been avoided.

[English]

Mr. Newark: I believe the reference is in relation to the seriousness with which this act views firearms ownership. This is somebody who had a previous incident of violence involving a firearm, as you're aware. The information would have been available.

I must admit that when I saw it, for me the sense was that somebody involved in that kind of a circumstance is precisely the kind of target you want to say in future shouldn't have a firearm. I think that's probably what Neal was getting at.

Mr. Jessop: In addition, if this had been there, as we wanted it to be there years ago, we would have known what he had in there. The police chief would have probably known what he had in there.

You spoke of drunkenness. This was a serious circumstance in which drinking was involved. If we'd known the prior history, if it had been available to us, we would have probably been in 1983 where we should have been. It didn't come for us, and for those people, fast enough. It's a probability only. It's not a certainty for us.

As we go there in a similar circumstance next time, with this legislation we can't assume that individual's guns will be licensed and registered, nor can we assume that we will know that. All we can do as Canadians is increase the probability that we will know that. For us to do the job, that's a step in the right direction.

Ms Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): If a first-time failure to register a firearm is decriminalized, would you also be in favour of decriminalizing first-time offences against clauses 102 to 105? These clauses deal with the enforcement of offences directly related to the regulatory system, such as providing false information on a document. Paper offences such as this would seem to be quite a bit less serious than not registering your gun. I just wondered if the penalty should be more severe than for not registering your gun.

.1635

Mr. Westwick: With respect, that's part of the problem. If you take non-compliance as being one of the most serious elements and you're saying you're going to decriminalize that, then you move the whole scale down. We're not in favour of that.

For all the reasons this bill is important, and specifically the registration system is so important, if you take away the teeth, if you take away the respect for that, in our opinion that's where it's dangerous.

Ms Phinney: But you're really getting back to the fact that you don't want the registration decriminalized.

Mr. Westwick: That's right.

Ms Phinney: If we do decriminalize registration -

Mr. Westwick: The answer is no.

Ms Phinney: It is still no for the other part of it?

Mr. Westwick: Still no, yes.

Mr. Newark: No.

Ms Phinney: Proposed subsection 84(1) defines a replica firearm as:

any device that is designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, a firearm, but that is not designed to discharge, or is not capable of discharging, ammunition;

Do you feel this bill should cover such things as paint-ball guns or low-powered pellet guns?

Mr. Westwick: To be honest, I hadn't put my mind to that. Replicas that have no ability to project anything are certainly intended to be caught by this. It would be logical that you would want to include something that is less a replica and more a firearm. The answer would be yes.

Ms Phinney: You'd want them included. It could be interpreted as not being clear whether a paint-ball gun or a pellet gun should be included. That's why I'm asking.

Mr. Sangollo: I think there has to be some distinction made. In my mind, when you talk about a pellet gun that resembles a real firearm, it should be included. When you talk about the manufacturers of toy guns, this has nothing to do with us. We cannot control them. If they want to make guns, they should make water guns that look like whatever, but not like a real gun. We have seen that done with water guns that look like a big whatever. I don't agree with that kind of a weapon because it's dangerous. But at least nobody will commit an armed robbery with that kind of water gun.

Ms Phinney: So you think the two should be included.

Mr. Sangollo: Yes.

Ms Phinney: Mr. Jessop.

Mr. Jessop: There has already been a ruling that a pellet gun is a firearm.

Ms Phinney: Well, it depends on how far the pellets go.

Mr. Jessop: No.

Ms Phinney: Yes.

Mr. Jessop: No, the courts have ruled.

Ms Phinney: Well, what about the other one, then?

Mr. Jessop: What other one?

Ms Phinney: The paint-ball one.

Mr. Newark: I'd like to take a look at it. I'm not sure I agree with the premise of your question, about that not being covered. I've never thought of it.

Ms Phinney: Do you think it should be covered? Whether it's covered in here or not....

Mr. Newark: If it looks like a gun, walks like a gun sort of thing, that's what it's aimed at.

Mr. Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Jessop, you made a statement that some people shouldn't have guns. You couldn't have made a better statement. We certainly agree with that. There are some good things in here. It addresses the criminal. We agree. That's why we tried to split the bill, to divide it up into criminals and -

The Chair: Do you have a point of order?

.1640

Mr. Thompson: Is it appropriate for a member of a committee to misrepresent a motion that's in the House that has been voted down, when misrepresenting the contents of the motion?

The Chair: That's not a question of order, that's a question of debate - and it's done, unfortunately, by members of Parliament all the time. It's a very unfortunate happenstance. It's done too often, but it's not a question of order. You control that by effective debate.

Mr. Thompson: We made an attempt to split the bill in half, but of course that was turned down. We wanted to address the criminal parts and get them in place quickly. Then we wanted to deal with the other parts that deal with law-abiding people and certain things. From about 117 pages to about six is the close estimate we come up with; 117 pages deal with law-abiding citizens and six deal with the criminal.

I want to talk about the representation I heard, something in the neighbourhood of 35,000. Representation is one of the reasons why the Reform Party has ended up in Ottawa.

I'd like to share some things with you. I've been riding in cop cars all over the country, talking to rank and file police officers constantly, in Toronto, Calgary, Saskatoon and many rural areas. I really enjoyed the time I spent with them. I'm concerned - they too feel we should get after the criminals - when they make statements like, ``Registration just means another pile of paperwork; it won't make any difference. The guys in Ottawa aren't representing my views. Give us more people so we can do a more efficient job; we're having problems keeping up with all the work.''

I have eight large detachments in my riding and spend a lot of time there. I have found that no one is supporting Bill C-68. One of my members attended a policemen's ball in Rocky Mountain House with 180 policemen and spent the whole night there. He didn't find one who supported Bill C-68.

The other day the chairman - rightfully so - mentioned something to one of the witnesses who referred not too kindly to the people on the Hill who are representatives of these people. Here's what I heard from policemen: ``What do you expect from those on the Hill? They're politicians in disguise.'' And they say: ``When you get to be the government, they'll dance to your tune too.'' What terrible statements to be making. There's really something wrong when those kinds of things happen.

The Chair: I won't take this out of your time, but I don't want you to be misunderstood. When you talk about people on the Hill, are you referring to the members of Parliament or the heads of the police associations?

Mr. Thompson: I'm talking about the heads of the police associations - ``our representatives''. The police are talking about their representatives.

The strongest one that comes out more than anything else is they'll say, ``Because of these kinds of things, we are slowly losing a sense of purpose. We forever have to cover our backsides. We want to do a great job, but legislation is forever coming down that's actually preventing us from doing that.''

They're wondering why we don't pursue this section 745 and get rid of it, and why the Minister of Justice would vote in favour of not doing that. They wonder why we're not pursuing capital punishment and getting tough on some of this stuff that's getting right out of hand.

If you're representing these people, I'm surprised that I'm not hearing that. I also understand that the retired policemen, the chiefs retirement associations and other retired policemen, haven't even been consulted. I would think their wisdom would surely have some value.

So my question to all of you, if you'd like to answer, is how can you explain that so many front-line police officers are strongly opposed to this bill? Some front-line officer polls show that as many as 98% oppose this legislation. How can you explain that you're representing the views of 35,000? This is being heard by a number of people all over the country.

Mr. Jessop: I'm the only guy sitting at this end of the table who's elected to his position. Twenty years ago I entered police politics; it's a tough way to go. I can tell you this: I ran for election one time and lost only once. I think the rest of the time they just couldn't find anybody to do the job.

I lost once in an election for two reasons. I didn't kiss enough babies because I was too busy getting the job done, and most of you are familiar with that. The other reason I didn't get elected is I ended up not listening to my constituency and representing my own views, or in one case I thought I altered the views of some people to my own and it didn't work. That was in 1975.

.1645

Mr. Ramsay: You sound to me like a Reformer.

Mr. Jessop: I think few people in this room would view me as backing away from any issue. After over twenty years in police politics, I can tell you that our politics is democratic. It's the best we can make it, Mr. Thompson, as is yours.

In March, all the representatives of police officers in Canada came together and voted on this bill. They voted over 80% to put forward to you what I said to you today.

Like a lot of you, I don't have much sympathy, nor do I have much time, for people who express their views at second or third hand, or who have strong views but won't enter the fray. I've heard those people. I understand and respect their views. I'm a country boy and have all kinds of guns. I'm a law-abiding citizen.

We studied this bill and we studied our recommendations. Mr. Newark and I discussed it. We discussed it with our membership. We're a democratic organization and what you see before you here today is the result of that. I will not back away from it; I'm not ashamed of it. I respect the views of the people that are different from mine. But if they wish to put a different view before you, they can come to our organization, which is lawfully constituted, gain support, run for election, get elected and come here in my place. But I don't have much time for anybody who doesn't do that. I respect what they say; I understand what they say, because I too will have to get a licence for my guns.

In the end, if you bounce all the views and you're not paranoid, you'll simply go and do that. It will not be difficult. It will be something you have to do that you never had to do before. I will not and cannot accept that kind of rhetoric I hear from people, sort of like voices out of the bush, trees, sky, or wherever.

Mr. Thompson: These are policemen.

Mr. Jessop: Fine. If they choose to disagree, and if they can gain support in our organization and get elected, then they can come here and put those views forward.

Mr. Thompson, is that any different from what you did when you ran for election? Am I hearing from your constituents who don't agree with your particular views, or those people you spoke to? I don't think they're all like that. I don't know what the percentage is, but I haven't heard from them either. I don't think it's fair to do that to me, and I don't intend to do it to you.

The Chair: The time is up. While Mr. Thompson may have got those views from his police officers in Wild Rose, I know a lot of policemen in Montreal - I run into them quite frequently - and not one has ever expressed that view to me. They have come to know me over the years. They give me their views quite differently on other things, I might say. But they told me they favour this one.

Mr. Thompson: On a point of order, I just want to make sure Mr. Jessop understands that I wasn't attacking him. I'm trying to deliver a message I heard loud and clear, and it's not a personal attack on him.

I also think they ought to know one other thing, and I think it's something that's worth concern. That is, ``I'll tell you what I think, but don't use my name''. That's a disgrace.

The Chair: What?

Mr. Thompson: That some people don't want their names used out of fear. I have no idea why.

The Chair: Now, wait a minute. You've made your point, but I think Mr. Jessop made a point. We have open democratic institutions in this country, and the Canadian Police Association is one of them. If people have the courage of their convictions and they believe in something, surely they will go to the meeting - and some of them did, I understand, and they expressed their views and did it without fear.

.1650

Mr. Newark: As the person who was responsible, in effect, for attempting to carry the debate through immediately following the election of the government, when we presented a great number of other issues, and then to our September meeting in Winnipeg, where we purposely identified it issue by issue, and the one who organized the debate here in May, where we conducted the vote on the resolutions issue by issue so that people were not forced into voting entirely on the bill but were free to express their views on all of the points, let me offer the insight, sir, that we bent over backwards to make sure that everybody got the opportunity to express their view. In fact, the firearms committee that we struck that had our panel of people specifically interested in it contained police officers from across the country, including two from Saskatoon, the association to which you are referring. They were given full opportunity, and in fact presented the draft report, which virtually mirrors the recommendations that we put forward.

So in terms of ultimately canvassing opinion and making sure that the point we put out was as clear and as representative a position as possible, frankly I don't think we need to take lessons from too many people as to how that is actually done.

You're absolutely correct, though, in the sense of police officers expressing their desire to have other issues dealt with. Madame Venne held up the issue of our magazine. The front cover of the last issue, which I hope everybody sees in their office, is about cut-backs, about having adequate police officers on the street. It is the reason why the entire issue of registration is based on that for us.

I wish that in a perfect world all of the energy, debate, focus and money that is going into the discussion of this would at the same time go - and this applies with respect to all three parties - into protecting the children of this nation as well. But that applies to everyone.

We don't set the agenda; we respond to it. A bill is here and it is our duty to the members across the country to gauge the best reaction we can get from the people in the association and then to present it to you.

The Chair: I think it's important that we got very clearly how the Canadian Police Association arrived at their decision on the bill.

I'm wondering, Mr. Ford, Mr. Westwick, or Mr. Sangollo, if you would tell us how you canvassed. You say you represent all of the chiefs in Canada. Do you have some kind of vote? How did you arrive at a decision that this should be supported? Both of your groups have been attacked by other witnesses for not really being sincere in what they're saying, and I would like you to tell us how you arrived at your decision in the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

Chief Ford: On page 3 in the brief we outlined the process. This matter of supporting arms control was brought forward with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police at their annual general convention in 1993. It has been a subject brought forward at previous years' annual conventions as well. Consultation was held with various provincial associations of chiefs of police that have endorsed the position taken by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and through their representation.

The law amendments committee is represented from across the country. We make sure that different areas of the country are represented from B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the Maritimes, Quebec and Ontario. That's the make-up of our committee, to make sure there is good representation from there. Those people on the committee go back to their provincial associations of chiefs of police and discuss that with their law amendments committee and other chiefs at their general meetings. We bring it all back together in that way.

During the convention, when various aspects of our submission were brought up, for instance, our stand on registration.... That was brought up and voted on by the membership at the general meeting. A couple of members voted against it, but the vast majority of police chiefs voted for it. An overwhelming majority wanted it. Each part of our position was put forward through a resolution by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which the association in turn then submits to the justice department, saying these are resolutions vis-à-vis different bills and Criminal Code changes that we would like to see.

.1655

Mr. Gallaway: I would like to follow up on some of what Mr. Thompson has alluded to in terms of tyranny, because the suggestion is that decisions are being made in a somewhat less than democratic manner.

This week we've heard from witnesses in this committee who have talked about Stalin and Hitler. They've talked about oppression and about tyrannical government. One of the things we keep hearing from some of these people is that this bill gives you some new form of power. I'm talking not about inspection powers but about search and seizure powers. I wonder if you could respond to those concerns of the people who have been here.

Mr. Westwick: As I said before, the area that I see as being new is the area to which Mr. Bodnar referred. Those are the inspection provisions, and I won't repeat my answer to that.

On the general Criminal Code provisions dealing with search and seizure, you heard from Mr. Newark that he wants to go further. I think that the search and seizure provisions are certainly consistent with the general law on search and seizure, but when you're dealing with firearms and the nature of firearms there is, by necessity, a need when you talk about enforcement. We say enforcement in a general sense, but there must be enforcement. When you get down to the particulars of what enforcement means, it means going in and looking and doing things when you find them. So there must be realistic search and seizure powers.

Quite frankly, sir, I say to you that the Supreme Court of Canada, in its short history of applying the charter, has shown no hesitation whatsoever to ensure that individual rights are always upheld over those of the state - read ``police''. I can't see anything in the recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada that would suggest that trend is going to change in favour of more police powers.

In answer to that, I would say that there is a great deal of comfort to the citizens in the power of the charter.

Mr. Newark: Perhaps the next time somebody makes that reference you could suggest they have a peek at section 103(2) of the Criminal Code as it exists now. We're talking about rather broad powers. It's already in the Criminal Code right now. It's a recognition of a regulatory nature of the search and seizure powers that are already there.

Mr. Gallaway: Thank you. I would point out to you gentlemen that in Alberta the Safety Code Act allows a building inspector to go in at any time without a warrant to inspect. So it's quite interesting.

Mr. Jessop: With respect, Mr. Gallaway, I'm quite sure I know how you feel. Those who speak of Stalin and Hitler in relation to Canadian police officers either know little about us or haven't read much about Stalin and Hitler.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Gallaway: I've got one other question, and that is that there appears to be a theory - and right now the messages are flying on the Internet that this is a fight to the death, that this is a fight for freedom - that registering your gun is in some way a penalty on law-abiding citizens.

I want to ask you, as the people who deal with the people, who deal with severe and often tragic acts of violence in homes, if it's your belief - because we heard a witness yesterday express a differing opinion - that everybody who legally acquires a gun is forever and a day a law-abiding citizen.

Mr. Westwick: I'll start, but I know that Chief Ford will want to deal with this.

The concern I have - and maybe I'm hammering a little too hard on a point - is that as well it's the kinds of things that are flashing around the Internet in terms of non-compliance that, in my submission to you, you should read very carefully when you are dealing with the issue of decriminalization. When you have a large segment of people standing up and saying that they are absolutely not going to comply with this bill, that they're going to ignore it, and are publicizing and marketing strategies as to how to non-comply, how to get around it and how to defeat the purpose of the registration system, with the greatest of respect I would very much encourage you to consider strongly the decriminalization of it. I know I'm moving a bit from your question.

Mr. Gallaway: That's all right. It's a somewhat leading question.

.1700

You, as a group, have advocated a ban on military weapons. We've also heard that no one ever uses a military weapon in the commission of a crime. Why are you advocating it?

Chief Ford: Well, quite the contrary. I think the anniversary of the École polytechnique incident is coming up and also a shooting in Oshawa where the police officers at a bank robbery.... Those were military-type assault rifles that were used.

The last bill dealt with the issue of the capacity of magazines. This bill goes the step further we had asked for at that point in time, with the ban on military-type assault rifles. They have been used in the past in the commission of offences.

If I may comment on what you said previously about all gun owners being legal...that they will continue to.... It's important to note that 40% of women killed by their husbands are shot and that 78% of the guns used by men to kill their wives were legally owned. That's an important statistic. Mr. Jessop addressed part of that issue earlier.

So the answer is that gun ownership is not about punishing people who are law-abiding citizens at all. It's merely, in our view, putting accountability and responsibility in the hands of people who have very, very lethal weapons. That accountability and responsibility includes safe storage, but it also includes the cost recovery aspect of it. I hesitate to use it, but it's often used vis-à-vis motor vehicles and other regulatory things that take place throughout our society. We can't lose sight of the fact that guns are lethal weapons.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Just a small point to clarify what has been said here since I do not wish to raise a point of order. That's all I wish to do at the present time.

I think it was Mr. Jessop who, earlier on, either said or suggested that exemptions would be provided for native people and that they would not have to register their weapons. I'm not sure I understood correctly what Mr. Jessop said but there will be no exception made if I correctly understood what the minister said. According to the bill as drafted, there will be no exemptions except for people who earn their living by hunting or by trapping fur animals. These people will not have to pay any registration fees. But they will still have to register their weapons unless a legal advisor says otherwise.

[English]

The Chair: Paragraph 110(t) in the regulatory powers allows the government to make certain exemptions for aboriginal people. It's on page 48 of the bill. It says that the government can make regulations

respecting the manner in which any provision of this Act or the regulations applies to any of the aboriginal peoples of Canada, and adapting any such provision for the purposes of that application;

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: In that case, then, since you've taken the time to make that point, it would mean that the minister means to exempt aboriginal people from the required registration of firearms? If that were the case, I would have to say very frankly that I must clearly disagree. That's exactly the point that I wish to raise and so I will now have to re-examine the relevant sections to be quite certain as to how they will be applied.

That is all. I only wanted a clarification on that point and I require no further comment.

[English]

Mr. Wappel (Scarborough West): Chief Ford, I of course am not a gun expert, but I think it is accurate to say that the weapon used by Marc Lépine was not an assault rifle.

I want to be crystal clear, Chief Ford, on your evidence. Do you say that the bill should pass without amendment?

Chief Ford: Yes.

.1705

Mr. Wappel: How does that jibe with page 5 of your recommendations, in which you ask that language be user-friendly, and page 11 of your recommendations, where you specifically recommend changes to the bill? Surely you must mean that you don't want any amendments that would derogate from the general broad principles of the bill.

Mr. Westwick: I wrote that portion of it, so I suppose I stand accountable for it, Mr. Wappel. I would say that's a matter of interpretation of the word ``amendment''.

I think the message we're trying to make very strongly is that we agree entirely with what the bill is trying to do.

I never miss an opportunity to come in here and tell you what I think of the way law is written. I stand personally accountable for the words about user-friendly language. We've had this discussion before as well.

The amendments that are referred to on page 11 are of the most minor nature and do not in any way affect the substance of the section. We actually debated among ourselves whether we should even include them. We put them in because we felt it was worthy of the committee's attention, but, in my submission to you, they are of the most minor and technical nature.

Mr. Wappel: All right, I understand the point.

Secondly, the position on page 2 is that a national registry will reduce illegal use of firearms and help catch illegal users of firearms. Could you explain how you came to that conclusion?

Mr. Sangollo: You have to bear in mind that there are some weapons found at the scene of a crime and we cannot track down who the owner is. You have to remember also that in homicides we often find the weapon used but we cannot track down the owner. With registration, we could at least have a point from which to start our investigation.

Also, when we face a hostage situation or a barricaded person, knowing the calibre, the type of weapon, we could make a distinction between a .22 calibre regular and a .223, which is able to pierce a bullet-proof vest.

If police officers across Canada have calls for conjugal violence, with registration when they appear in front of the house they will know what type of weapon is inside: a handgun, a long rifle, or a shotgun. So they already know that they are facing weapons. If the threats were made at a woman's or girlfriend's place of work and we intervene, by checking on this person we will know that he is in possession of weapons at home.

I was told about an incident that happened last night. I have fragmentary information. A 15-year-old boy is dead in Abitibi-Témiscamingue. From what I heard, when they entered the premises after the shooting, they found this young boy, who had been barricaded with his father for at least forty hours. They found three legally acquired weapons that belonged to the mother. It is important to realize that with the registration of firearms that woman may have had the choice of registering her firearm or giving it back. Maybe we could have saved lives.

I myself investigated a 12-year-old Asian boy who shot a 9-year-old girl on the sidewalk. This boy was visiting a friend and he saw a rifle on the wall. This happened in the winter of 1976. He borrowed the rifle and he went on a balcony. He aimed at two young girls coming out of the school. He shot one of them. He didn't kill her.

So when we talk about registration we're talking about preventive and repressive.... Sure it helps the police. I hope this bill will go through fast, because we need help, with our budget restraint, resources and whatever. It also helps the preventive.... We don't want children in....

.1710

We have to make a distinction between an impulsive person who for whatever reason decides to kill the person living with him and goes to a place to buy a weapon.... If this law prevents him from doing that because he has to acquire certain papers or whatever, then we may save a life.

If someone is suicidal, 48 hours may give that person a chance to change his mind. So if it takes more hours to get that weapon, we may save a person. That's the main purpose.

Mr. Wappel: To the Canadian Police Association, you cite as a positive aspect of the bill the fact that regulations will have to be brought before the House. Do you refer there to clause 111 of the firearms act portion of the bill, and if you do, what about proposed subsection 117.15(2) of the part III amendments to the Criminal Code, which I don't think are referrable to the House?

Mr. Newark: I suspect I'm going to have to get back to you on that. The one I had specifically in mind was in relation to fees, in coming before the House. I know there was some concern about in effect accomplishing prohibition by fees, and I thought that to be -

Mr. Wappel: I was referring to the section prescribing weapons as prohibited.

Mr. Newark: I'll take a look and get back to you.

The Chair: Of course that's an area where we might want to amend the bill to make both parts consistent with each other.

Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): I can't tell you how pleased I am to have people here who are talking about part III of this particular piece of legislation. It has concerned me that most of the discussion has been on registration and has not dealt with the criminal use of firearms.

I am concerned because I don't feel, in my interpretation of this legislation, that it is going to change the situation we have today in any way. In one instance in my community there was a shoot-out with the police on a main street. Thirty-four charges were laid, many of them firearms charges. Two charges made it into court and neither of them was a firearms charge. I don't feel that this bill is going to address that.

I want to pose a scenario and ask you whether or not you feel this bill is going to deal with it. If somebody who had a number of robbery instances was picked up on a camera with an object that looked like a firearm in his hands, but when they caught him he did not have possession of that object, do you think under paragraph 344(a) he would charged, that a conviction would be upheld? That one is if it were proved it could discharge a bullet at 152.4 metres per second.

Mr. Westwick: My understanding of that is it could, but I believe Mr. Newark raised that point earlier, if I understand your question right, concerning the application of the imitation provisions to the general provisions to facilitate prosecution. To the extent I understand your question and Mr. Newark's position, we agree.

Ms Meredith: My concern is that under this legislation the individual is either charged with the use of a firearm or faces a separate charge of the use of a replica. In my understanding of Canadian law, if you cannot prove it was a firearm you cannot charge him a second time with the use of a replica. I don't see that this legislation is going to allow the interchange between a replica and a real firearm. Can you tell me whether I'm right?

Mr. Newark: I don't agree with the last conclusion, that because we couldn't get him on the proof of the firearm as defined in the code, he could not be charged in relation to a replica firearm.

Ms Meredith: What I'm asking is that if you charge him with the use of a firearm and he successfully shows that you cannot prove it was a firearm because you did not have it there for ballistics, and he is released or found not guilty of use of a firearm, can he then be charged with the use of a replica?

.1715

Mr. Newark: Yes, and there are a lot of procedural things along the way, too, about how the charge would be laid, when it would be laid, if it were stayed and things like that.

I think the major flaw you've identified is not about whether he's in this or that cubby-hole, but what on earth the justification is for not having that section apply to firearms or replica firearms if we are talking about literally making it clear that we take a dim view when people commit these crimes. I cannot fathom why it could possibly be that that's not the case.

The second one is where is the statement of principles to direct the courts as to what direction to go in in terms of sentencing? Our legislation now is chock full of principles. In the drunkenness bill there is more preamble than bill. Where is it in this bill? In my opinion, it's an extreme mistake not to have that.

Ms Meredith: So you would agree with me that this needs to be addressed, that there needs to be a clarification that it doesn't matter to the teller at the bank whether it was a replica or a real gun. The trauma is just the same. The intent of using that object was the same, and that was to gain a power situation of fear.

Mr. Newark: Yes.

Ms Meredith: I am really concerned it is a change that needs to be made in this legislation. I take it that you, as well as the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, would agree with me that it's an amendment that probably should happen.

Mr. Westwick: Yes, Mr. Newark pointed that out to me today and I agree.

Ms Meredith: Good. I thank you for that.

The other thing I'm really concerned about - and I'm going to address the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police - is that you're really glad it has teeth, that we're getting tough on criminals, that you feel that's necessary with the registration aspect, so you have the teeth. Can you show me where in this bill it's getting tougher on criminals than the existing laws today?

Other than the ten most serious crimes, you're talking about ``criminal or summary convictions'', which means, to me, a fine. I don't consider that to be a deterrent. When you talk about the ten most serious crimes, would you be content for manslaughter with the use of a firearm to get the same sentence, with a minimum of four, as it gets now? I don't see where this bill is any tougher than existing legislation.

Mr. Westwick: Let me go first, and then Mr. Newark can speak to it.

It's difficult to answer that question. If you see what goes on in the sentencing courts across the country -

Ms Meredith: We see it daily.

Mr. Westwick: - on a day-to-day basis, when you're talking about a four-year minimum for an offence of this nature, I think police chiefs across this country would be more than satisfied with that. You've heard that from this panel on many other bills, particularly conditional release and the sentencing provision. We discussed those and I remember engaging with you on them, Ms Meredith.

We're not here to suggest that penalties should be less. You don't normally hear that coming from the police. I think we're satisfied, in respect of the firearm component of the crime, that the fact that minimums are in place, and in some places consecutives, and the fact that there are new offences are very good news.

Ms Meredith: It's not a consecutive.

Mr. Newark: Exactly. There are in fact new and more stringent penalties in this bill than what currently exists in the code in terms of possession of stolen firearms, trafficking in firearms, possession of a loaded handgun in the proximity -

Ms Meredith: But those are summary as well.

Mr. Newark: No. Those are in fact a crown election, and I think this is part of the point, because they have been billed to a certain extent as being the tough new penalties. Well, they're the tough new penalties if the crown goes by indictment.

The Chair: [Inaudible - Editor]...offences are only indictable offences.

Mr. Newark: I think Ms Meredith was asking me about the other offences - for example, possession of stolen firearms or trafficking in stolen firearms. Those are if the crown goes by indictment. If the crown chooses not to go by indictment - and again I'll hearken back to Bill C-41 - as a result of the amendments the government has introduced in relation to that they could be met with a $50 fine. So precisely the complaint that has been expressed about the fact that there is too much discretion at the front end is simply being reinforced here.

I'd like to conclude that by saying our suggestion is as well - and this is what I meant by beefing up the enforcement - that if we take it seriously and think those things are appropriate, why don't we make them consecutive penalties? Why don't we add them so that in fact they're like that if you're trafficking in firearms, dealing in stolen firearms or you've got a loaded handgun nearby? Why don't we have that sentiment expressed through a statement of principles and make it a consecutive penalty?

.1720

Mr. DeVillers (Simcoe North): I just want to clear up a point that Mr. Newark made earlier. He referred to my having a private member's bill. It's not a private member's bill dealing with the decriminalization of failing to register; it is an amendment I drafted that I'll be presenting later to this committee.

I would like to ask the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police about this. It is proposing to decriminalize the failure to register when it's through inadvertence and leaves the wilful refusal to register under the Criminal Code. In view of the obviously loud and clear response from gun owners, if they feel registration is a problem for them, if the goal is to seek compliance and if this can be accomplished without weakening the registration scheme, I'm wondering if, in view of trying to gain compliance, that might not be something they could support.

Mr. Westwick: No, for myself anyway, and Chief Ford meant no.

I don't want to get into an academic debate about criminal law, but the difficulty you have goes back to a point we were talking about before in terms of imitation weapons versus real weapons. It becomes very difficult as a matter of proof when you talk about wilful offences, and compliance in this from a factual standpoint is very simple: it's either registered or it's not registered. So from that standpoint the job of a prosecutor is very simple: if there's no registration, there's no registration. But then adding the element on each and every prosecution across the country that you must prove and establish wilfulness becomes a much more complex problem.

Secondly, I want to go back to a point that was raised earlier in the same context in terms of the possibility of warning. Maybe I'll overstep my bounds just a bit, but if the concern is to warn the public to get the message out, then surely there are ways of doing this other than giving each and every person one free shot at breaking the law, which in fact is what would be recommended. Surely there are other ways of marketing and promoting information to the public. I can't think of another area where people feel strongly about the nature of the offence but are saying they don't want to do it on the first go-around.

Again, I will only repeat by saying that in our submission it's a very, very small part of the population you're talking about. I don't mean the whole population, but the population of non-compliers, if you will. Those are the innocent, forgetful types. In our submission there's ample provision within the criminal sphere now to deal with that.

Mr. DeVillers: But if there's a penalty under the firearms act, and it's imposed, the only effect is that people aren't left with the practicality of a criminal record in answer to their legitimate concerns of being criminalized. Up until now there's been no necessity to register. I don't consider that to be one free go-around. It's still a penalty and they're still being told that it's a very serious matter and that these firearms should be registered.

Mr. Westwick: The only difficulty I have with that is for all those other people who are now promoting non-compliance for wilful reasons, who are promoting non-compliance and using the Internet and all the other things, by standing up and saying they won't register their guns, they'll bury them and break down the system, and all that. They too are benefiting from the lessening of the remedy under the law.

.1725

Mr. DeVillers: But there would still be the discretion to which you refer if an officer found guns buried in the ground wrapped in oil or whatever the kits are that are being sold to accomplish that. That would obviously not be an inadvertent failure to register. That would be wilful and the penalty would still be in the Criminal Code.

Mr. Jessop: You're correct. Burying your guns in the ground is evidence brought before a court in the event we chose to do so. With respect, that's what we need. We need some simple discretion in that area to deal with a few people who are not criminally oriented and are in lawful possession of their guns and have never done anything wrong in their entire lives.

All we're saying to you is give us the discretion, as we said before, to deal with it in that way. Believe me, the discretion in the first instance might be more difficult than to deal with it criminally.

If you're faced with the loss of all your guns, never to get them back, and you're faced with a heavy fine, then perhaps some would treat that more seriously than they would a criminal conviction. What we're saying is give us that area. In my view, it's not something we should fight over. It's an option we should make available to people who are lawfully in possession of their guns for a very honest reason and didn't register them.

I would venture to say that there are a hundred thousand people in this country - maybe a million - who have not participated in the gun debate. They don't know anything about the gun debate. They don't know anything about the new law and never will. And that old shotgun will be in the closet until by some accident we find it. Should that person, who acted honestly and responsibly and doesn't show up here to give evidence and know all the details of the crime bill legislation, be penalized criminally? Give us the discretion to deal with it that way, and we will.

Ms Torsney (Burlington): My comments follow exactly on what Mr. DeVillers was talking about. It seems somebody made the analogy that we seem to be talking about the cases as if we were writing, for instance, a drug law that was talking about the actual incidents of people passing, and that's how our drug law was written. It was for dealing with the big issues.

Certainly we are talking about cases where some of you.... I ask both groups to comment. Say that we have a tip that there are 20 guns holed up somewhere. This person has never broken a law. They don't have a record. You don't have any specific information about whether they are breaking the law. But you figure out that this person is in fact trafficking in guns. The only way you can't charge them with that is if you technically don't have any information on it. But you could get them on non-compliance of registration of these weapons if you had a bill that said it was a criminal act not to register those weapons.

The second circumstance I would like you to comment on is when you stop somebody who clearly has a rifle in the back of their car, but some sense police officers have and others in their community have that this person is about to commit a crime.... They're on their way to rob a bank, to shoot their former spouse, or whatever, and you don't have anything right now to stop that individual. You know that you have to let that person go about their business. Perhaps you can follow them, perhaps you can do something else or maybe they'll wait until tomorrow. But if you had this law in place as it is now, you would be able to stop that person and charge them with not registering their gun.

If you have a system where there's a warning, I'm not sure that you would have the tools to stop that crime from happening. And I'm not sure that discretion is going to be very good for you, as police officers, when that situation turns bad.

I'd like you to think about that and comment to us on how we should deal with these situations. The very reason the government has put this in is that it would be a criminal act.

Mr. Sangollo: Ms Torsney, I think we'll use you in place of Mr. Westwick. You've made a very good comment.

.1730

When you look at all this in a general view, we're not going for the law-abiding citizen; we're going after that particular person using a weapon and going for his boss, his spouse, or whoever. That's one of the reasons the warning wouldn't apply if you said okay, we'll give you a chance; here's a kind of traffic ticket, come back within 48 hours with the registration. And his spouse was in the back of the car. So it doesn't make any sense. I want to be sure. That's one of the main reasons we don't have any warning in our position.

Ms Torsney: [Inaudible - Editor]...issued a comment on what that responsibility is for your police officers.

Mr. Newark: I think the Supreme Court of Canada would have a fairly dim view of the procedure you're suggesting, that police officers could routinely employ doing something for a different purpose. They have, on occasion, expressed some disapproval of that kind of practice.

Don't forget we're not recommending taking it out of the Criminal Code. We want it left in the Criminal Code for your first scenario, so it would still apply there. We are saying there are scenarios other than the first two you have demonstrated that are appropriately dealt with by a regulatory offence under the firearms act, that could have all the powers you spoke about in your second situation, attendant to it. The point is simply that I don't think it has to be as black and white as it is right now.

Ms Torsney: I'm not talking about the Supreme Court, I'm talking about individual police officers, especially in small communities, who would have stopped that individual on the way to the office to shoot his or her boss, or if there was intent to get his or her former spouse. If they didn't have the law, as it is currently written, they could charge that person with not registering his or her gun. In fact, they could give the person a warning and later in the afternoon have to go to that person's house to tell the rest of the family that person had been shot because they didn't have the tools.

Mr. Newark: I don't remember saying we recommend a warning system. I think the point we were trying to make here was that -

Ms Torsney: So what is it, a traffic ticket?

Mr. Newark: No. You leave it in the Criminal Code -

The Chair: You want discretion.

Mr. Newark: - and have a separate regulatory offence under the firearms act. It would still be in the Criminal Code.

Mr. Jessop: Number one is to seize the firearm, and re-enact that scenario today. I don't have any trouble taking that gun, and I would take that gun. In the first instance, it doesn't comply with the safe storage regulations. There's obviously going to be other evidence there to present with it. We're advocating, number one, seizure. We have never talked and will not talk about warnings.

Mr. Ramsay: Inasmuch as the figures and statistics indicate that, I think it was in 1991-92, 1,400 deaths were caused by firearms, and the justice department estimates there are 3 million firearm owners, that represents a misuse by 0.046% of the firearm owners in Canada. If we look at the cost - if we look under clause 5, the firearms regulations, we see where the chief provincial firearms officer must do all these checks. He must do a thorough criminal background check. He must do a check for mental illness, which is an examination of the medical files of the person applying to be registered, before any gun is registered. There has to be a history check of that individual's behaviour in the neighbourhood to see if he or she is guilty or has been involved in any violent incidents.

The information I have from one of the police departments in Ontario is that the present FAC process costs about $185 per FAC. This would at least equal the process the chief firearms officer would have to go through to check whether or not an applicant should be issued a licence. If you take that figure of $185 and multiply it by the minimum estimated number of firearms owners in Canada, that's $555 million. If you take the higher figure, which has been estimated at 6 million, then you're looking at $1.11 billion before a single firearm has been registered.

.1735

Mr. Thompson asked a witness some time ago - it is just on the $85 million cost that the justice department claims will be incurred - I think it was a police officer, whether or not they would be willing to put 850 additional police officers on the street over a five-year period at $100,000 a police officer, or whether they would want a registration system that is designed to deal with .046% of the gun owners in Canada.

I address my question to Mr. Jessop or Mr. Newark. Because you've expressed some concern about the cost and pulling the front-line police officers off the street to administer this, how do you feel about that?

Mr. Jessop: How I feel about it, Mr. Ramsay, is very simple. I'd like to have both, thanks. I don't know how to put a price on life and death.

If the rest of the policemen and I go to a domestic situation involved in the .046%, I will be very grateful when I approach the male spouse and the female spouse, and when I ask the question, ``Do you have any guns in the house?'', they both say to me - one through fear and the other through lying - no. I will be extremely happy when I can go out to the car and press a button and someone at a computer terminal somewhere tells me, ``Wrong answer. This is a lie. There's a shotgun in that house. This is the serial number of it and this is who it's licensed to.'' I'll go back in that house in a New York minute, and believe me, I'll have all the justification in the world to tear that house apart, get that gun, and arrest somebody. If that's one of the .046%, yes, it's worth it.

The Chair: Does anyone else wish to comment on the question?

I have a comment and Mr. Gagnon has a question.

According to the statistics section of the Department of Justice, 66% of those who have committed homicide in recent years are first-time offenders. In other words, until they committed the homicide, they were law-abiding.

We've had a number of witnesses who've come before this committee and criticized this bill because they say it impacts on the law-abiding. The conclusion we're to draw from that is with respect to guns we shouldn't legislate, except to deal with those who are criminals. We must wait until they commit a criminal offence, and then we come down hard with penalties.

The thrust in policing today, if I understand correctly, is proactive policing, preventive policing. It would seem to me that if you're concerned with preventing these crimes from taking place, if for 66% of those who commit homicide it's their first offence.... I'm not talking about their first offence in committing homicide. For example, Fabrikant in Montreal had never committed an offence until he killed four other people. Marc Lépine had no other offences on his record. He was a first offender.

How do you, as policemen, respond to those who want to wait, who say we should concentrate on the criminals? By that they mean wait until they commit the crime and then we come down hard with strong criminal penalties. The suggestion is that we do nothing in advance to regulate, control, try to prevent the access, the things Mr. Jessop just talked about, being able to tell who has the guns and who hasn't got the guns. How does that correspond to a whole new thrust in policing that is proactive, preventive?

I would like it on the record because we had so much of this business before this committee criticizing the registration system, criticizing preventive measures dealing with trying to stop the offence from taking place. How do you respond to that?

.1740

Mr. Sangollo: Sir, I hope my answer is short and clear.

When I was in charge of homicide division in August 1992 there were thirteen people killed, nine murders, four suicides. None of them had criminal.... This was all conjugal violence.

I say the main purpose of the bill is not only for the criminal. It is for these impulsive persons, conjugal violence, murder.

Mr. Newark: When we first spoke to Mr. Rock, we stressed to him that we felt legislation of this kind should be balanced. It should deal with, as has been mentioned, the impulsivity or the access to the firearms, and anything you can do to put some barriers in the way of people making those kinds of decisions that lead to those kinds of crimes or those kinds of tragedies is a very good idea.

At the same time, we also mentioned to him it must be accompanied by a recognition in society, through its criminal law, that people who break our laws, and use guns while they're doing it, will face severe penalties.

With respect, I don't think it's an either/or situation. It should be a complementary strategy.

The Chair: Yes, agreed.

My final question is to the Canadian Police Association. Mr. Jessop, you said amendments will be presented. We don't have the text of the amendments today. Is it your intention to prepare specific amendments and in one way or another get them to us before we go into the clause-by-clause consideration, which will be at the very end of the month or the beginning of June? Is that your intention?

Mr. Jessop: Yes, sir, we'd be willing to do that.

I think what Mr. Newark did when he prepared the brief was to suggest some changes that one of your draftsmen might put into words.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Jessop: As you know, Mr. Newark is quite talented as a legislative draftsman, particularly when it's in our best interest. He would be happy to do that on anything you consult us on.

The Chair: We have draftspeople too. I just want to be clear. Some of your amendments sounded very interesting. You said, for example, ``We will pursue specific amendments at the committee stage on certain points''. I presume you're hoping that somebody on the committee will do this in consultation with you.

Mr. Newark: I'll be happy to send them.

Ms Meredith and I were talking about making a penalty consecutive. I think any draftsman working here is more than capable of doing that, the kind of simple possessor offence we're talking about. The firearms act is not very complicated. I'd be happy to do a draft. The one I did send along, though, I believe was the inclusion of the statement of principles we think should be contained in the part of the Criminal Code to offer some assistance to sentencing courts.

If I can, I'll review all of the material, sir, and forward it by the end of next week.

The Chair: We're going to be hearing witnesses and won't get into the clause-by-clause consideration for anther three weeks.

Mr. Newark: Yes, sir.

Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure - Îles-de-la-Madeleine): My questions will focus on costs.

The opposition has been telling us that the registry of our weapons and what not would cost in excess of $400 million. However, we were told last week by a number of Canadian health practitioners that the economic loss in the past year because of crime...we were informed that in the province of Quebec alone we're losing, in terms of productivity, $1.6 billion a year. We were also told that Canada-wide we're talking in terms of $6 billion in one year. That means a loss in productivity. Obviously people have been traumatized by the violence they've gone through.

Have you made any evaluation of the cost to your police forces in terms of productivity, in terms of the need to leave work, in terms of the effects this has on your workforce after an event has taken place? Have you made an evaluation of what costs are involved? Are we talking in excess of $10 million, $20 million, $50 million in lost productivity a year?

Mr. Jessop: Above all, the cost to us is the lives of our members. As you know, we have a very selfish interest in this because more and more of us are being killed as the result of firearms.

.1745

With respect, we haven't costed it. I don't think we'd know how. It probably would be something the chiefs would be better equipped to do. I would caution, if I may, about one thing to the opposition, and maybe I shouldn't inject this view, but I will. I don't think it's fair, for want of a better word, to hide behind those kinds of statements. Those costs do exist. But we've said very plainly in this brief that the actual costs of this legislation and the implementation of this legislation should not be passed on to municipalities.

I see the deputy paying some considerable attention to me. He and I both know the situation we're in, as does the chief. We don't have any money to do this. We either need it supported by the federal government....

Mr. Gagnon: I understand the human cost and I am fully aware of the tragedies that have taken place in the past, especially this past weekend. But in response to the Reform and in response to the growing opposition in some parts of Canada when they're coming up with figures of $400 million a year, I'm asking you, sir, to tell me what the psychological costs to your workforce are. What are we talking about in terms of psychosomatic problems? What are we talking about in terms of anxiety symptoms? What are we talking about regarding the rapid increase in alcoholism in some of our police forces? These are obvious costs. It's costing you. It's costing the Canadian taxpayer and it's costing society greater security as a result.

My heart goes out to these people, but all we've been hearing.... We've been bombarded by the opposition with all kinds of costs, all kinds of figures, and I'd like to know from you what percentage of your workforce is set aside as a result of an event.

Mr. Jessop: The costs are astronomical in the greatest fashion. We, as police officers, tend to minimize those kinds of costs because we're expected to do that. We know they're there and we know they're long-lasting. To measure them, obviously, as you know, is very difficult, but they're astronomical. The social costs are astronomical.

I know you've heard from the medical profession, and next week you'll probably hear from me asking you to give me the very minimum, either in this legislation or some other legislation, for the medical profession to report gunshot wounds. Do you believe that they don't have to report gunshot wounds? Those are the social costs I'll be talking about next week.

Chief Ford: In response to Mr. Gagnon's question, I don't have the exact figure, but 10% of my budget wouldn't be an unreasonable figure when you consider that in the last two episodes within the past six weeks, which I've addressed in my brief, we've had over 106 police officers having what we call critical incidents, stress debriefing, that took over half of a day in each case. We now have about five or six police officers who are off on stress leave and who are seeking the kind of medical help they need.

Mr. Gagnon's quite right. The cost in terms of employee dollars is quite high. We spend a lot of money and a lot of time on recognition of stress, the cost of that stress where a police officer goes into a home and he sees somebody killed, where a police officer goes to talk to a parent whose child was accidentally shot or where a police officer goes to a shooting. In the case of the recent shoot-out, one of the most traumatized officers was the officer who was first on the scene.

It's a horrendous cost psychologically, socially and financially to every police department. Although I don't have the statistics, the medical people could give you those statistics more readily than I. But it is a considerable cost, and I agree with them.

The Chair: It's been a very long afternoon. I want to thank both of you. I know you have appeared before the committee on other bills and they're all important. We'll probably see you again.

Mr. Jessop says he'll be back in another week on another matter.

The meeting stands adjourned until 7:30, when we will hear the two witnesses suggested by Mr. Ramsay, the forensic experts on guns who testify in court on gun matters.