EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 16, 1995

.1933

[English]

The Chair: Order, please.

We are continuing our examination of

[Translation]

Bill C-68, an Act respecting firearms and other weapons.

Our witnesses tonight are from the National Crime Prevention Council: Johanne Vallée, Vice-Chair and Antoine Chapdelaine, a member of the Council.

[English]

We also have Madam de Villiers who is a member of the National Crime Prevention Council.

We have a document entitled, Policy Recommendations and Firearms Control from the National Crime Prevention Council. We also have a brief.

We ask our witnesses in their opening statements to limit themselves as much as possible to 15 minutes Perhaps you can do that with this statement that looks rather short.

So I give you the floor, Ms Vallée.

Ms Johanne Vallée (Vice-President, National Crime Prevention Council): Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I want to thank you most sincerely for giving the National Crime Prevention Council this opportunity of presenting its views on the matter of firearms.

I simply want to say a few words on the make-up of the National Council. I think that is extremely important in the context of today's discussion.

The National Crime Prevention Council is made up of 25 volunteers who hail from all regions of Canada. Our multidisciplinary approach is furthered by our members' experience in various sectors, such as justice for aboriginals, education, providing assistance to victims, the status of women, communications, criminology, law, health, business, and other areas as well.

.1935

I believe it is important to emphasize that the co-operative work that is done within the National Crime Prevention Council by its 25 members allows us to have an extremely rich perspective on various issues. Insofar as the prevention of crime is concerned, it is important to note that the Council favours prevention through social development.

The Council has struck various committees to deal with these priorities. Today, we are here as members of the Council's committee on firearms control.

Please note, however, that the position we are submitting to you tonight does reflect the unanimous point of view of the National Council and all its members. I feel it is very important that you be aware of that.

The threat to individual and community safety in Canada through the use of firearms and criminal offences, suicides and accidents, is a very real issue for Canadian men and women. Those incidents also entail high costs, not only for the victims of criminal offences committed with firearms; criminal justice costs must be added to that, as well as the cost associated with social services, counselling and psychiatric services, and the community services offered to persons close to the victims.

The control of firearms is a serious concern for a number of countries. I have just returned from Cairo where I took part last week in the ninth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders. I was able to see there that there was sufficient interest for several countries to endorse a resolution introduced by Japan in favour of increased firearms control. I can provide you with a copy of the resolution for information purposes at the end of our presentation if you like.

The position of the National Crime Prevention Council on firearms control is simple. An effective prevention strategy depends on the responsible use of firearms. Furthermore, a responsible attitude will enhance the long-term effectiveness of the crime prevention strategy.

Such a strategy must not only include measures to control the ownership and use of firearms, but must also include steps to make citizens more aware of the responsibilities that go along with the privilege of owning a firearm. The training of those who use firearms and of those who enforce laws and regulations is a component of the prevention strategy. That strategy must be balanced and must further the wish communities have of building more secure environments. The Council is not the only entity or organization which advocates stricter firearms control. You will see that that is reflected in the United Nations resolution and the position put forward by Japan.

Allow me to highlight a few of the information points which were raised during the United Nations Congress. The Swedish representatives, among others, put a lot of emphasis on the link which exists between reducing violent crime and firearms control. The Australian delegates were in agreement on that and invited the other countries to put effective legislative measures in place to control firearms. They felt that countries will only manage to reduce violent crimes if they adopt a long-term approach which includes good firearms control.

Further, several experts from various countries explained that the international conventions dealing with this issue will not be effective unless the signatory countries pass legislation to prevent an improper use of firearms within their own jurisdictions. International opinion was that, given the large number of firearms available on the international market and the profit that can be derived from illegal gun trafficking, countries must put controls in place to meet their domestic needs, as well as support international initiatives which aim to reduce illegal country-to-country gun trafficking.

The position of the National Council is also based on this information. We believe that the adoption of a firearms control bill is a proactive measure that can help to reduce the number of criminal incidents and potential offences in the short and long term.

.1940

Orientation of the National Crime Prevention Council. The National Crime Prevention Council is pleased with the introduction of controls contained in bill C-68, introduced by the Government of Canada, and we support most of its provisions.

Generally, the Council strongly supports controls on the ownership and use of firearms and ammunition. However, we are concerned by problems related to the implementation of those provisions because we believe that it is essential that a comprehensive approach to matters of safety in gun ownership and use be adopted.

Here, now, are some of the recommendations we are submitting to you today.

In the context I have just referred to, the National Council agrees that there is a need to increase controls over the import and export of firearms and ammunition into, and through, Canada, and to increase domestic controls over access to firearms and ammunition.

A universal or total registration system is an essential pre-condition of a system of firearm safety and control in Canada. Such a system will limit criminal activity, promote safe and responsible use of firearms, require accountability from those who are identified as responsible for firearms and help improve public safety.

However, the Council maintains that for a firearms control program to be truly effective, both in the prevention of crime and the prevention of death due to accidents and suicides as a result of the avaibility of firearms, the program must be balanced. That balance can be established through an effective registration system, proper implementation, and a long-term strategy that promotes the prevention of firearms and related criminal acts and accidents.

The registration system. To be effective, the universal system should meet several conditions of implementation and application. For instance, aside from an effective and efficient registration process, closely linked to the safe storage of all firearms and ammunition, the system must also ensure that those responsible for implementing it are well trained and accountable for their work.

Among other things, the Council recommends that the necessary community education and information systems be established to ensure compliance. It is hoped that this will help to reduce the number of firearms in circulation and thereby contribute to increase personal and community safety.

System demands: legitimate firearm owners should not be overly burdened by the system, either financially or otherwise. Thus, the council recommends an implementation phase designed to make the process relatively easy for individuals who wish to turn in firearms. A mobile collection service, or local police pickup or collection depots, with periods of amnesty, should be considered. The possibility of involving the private sector in this activity should also be considered.

Standards. For the registration system to be effective, standards for its application, as well as safety standards for the storage and use of both firearms and ammunition are important. The negotiation of a cost-sharing arrangement, before implementation, is essential if the legislation is to be effective. Standards for the storage of firearms and ammunition should be as high as possible but easy to implement.

Legitimate use of firearms. The purchase and delivery of guns and ammunition by aboriginal communities, and other communities that rely on hunting for subsistence, need to be accommodated in the system. I simply want to mention here that in some remote aboriginal communities it happens that a single member of a community travels to make different purchases, the purchase of firearms being among those. That reality must be taken into account in the bill.

Costs of the registration system. Implementing the registration system will involve substantial costs for the government responsible for it. Furthermore, the negotiation of cost-sharing agreements may be difficult and situations may arise because of this that could make implementation complicated. However, the Council believes that in spite of the substantial costs involved, we must go forward and put in place an effective, long-term plan that will allow us to control the use of firearms, as well as their inappropriate use, and to develop a strategic plan for the prevention of firearm-related offences.

.1945

What the Council is saying, essentially, is that in spite of the difficulties which may arise or of the costs which may be slightly higher, where prevention and safety are concerned, the good of the community must prevail.

Indeed, as I said earlier, the Council feels that an overall strategy has to be developed. That is important.

The prevention of crime and violence in our communities should be a major component in an effective firearms control system. Ideally, we need to promote societal responsibility for supporting a system that not only focuses on the opportunity component of firearms control, but also addresses the reasons why people feel the need to use firearms, and the vulnerability of certain groups, such as battered women.

Education and accountability of professionals. An effective educational and awareness program for professionals working in the criminal justice, social welfare, education, and health systems is an essential component in promoting societal responsibility. The police officer, the judge, the school teacher and the health professional should be competent to identify at-risk situations and take steps to deal with them. They have a role to play in the identification of situations that have the potential for violence, and they should be made fully aware of that role.

There maybe a need to consider situations when these individuals should be held accountable if they do not meet these responsibilities.

As an example, the system should require that a bullet wound be reported by health professionals, and police officers should be required to remove firearms in cases of family violence.

The system should at the same time facilitate this activity and provide protocols and protection for the professionals involved.

The federal government should take on the responsibility of developing training standards and providing training through the Canadian Police College.

Community education. Community education should be an essential ingredient of the proposed system and should be undertaken in partnership with the criminal justice, health, education and social service systems.

Education material should be available in plain language to ensure that everyone fully understands all aspects of the control and of the proper and safe use of firearms.

Civil liability. The question of civil liability relating to the ownership and use of firearms should be explored in light of the responsibilities of gun owners under the universal registration system. Property and casualty insurers should be encouraged to insist on the registration of firearms as a condition of insurability. For added clarity, claims for lost, stolen or damaged firearms should be denied by the insurer where firearms are not properly registered.

Concerns. The Council recognizes that mandatory minimum sentences are not a panacea for the suppression of offences committed with a firearm. However, the Council is of the view that sentences should reflect the abhorrence of Canadian society for the use of firearms in the commission of violent crimes.

In the face of present-day fiscal restraint, it can be assumed that the proposals for sentences may require the diversion of financial resources from other worthwhile programs presently in operation. Careful consideration should be given to these decisions to insure that coping with one problem does not create others.

Young offenders. The National Crime Prevention Council ``NCPC'' has raised the concern that adults who want to commit crimes might encourage young people to get involved in their stead in order to avoid prosecution before the courts. The Council suggests that the government should review the provisions of the bill in order to insure that that particular use of firearms does not arise and is prohibited.

Conclusion. There is, in Canadian society, no tolerance for violence and a recognition of the importance of personal and community safety. The solution to the misuse and abuse of firearms is a comprehensive strategy that involves the development and application of enforcement procedures and the development of effective prevention measures. The proposal for a universal registration and control system for firearms and ammunition is a well-thought out response to enforcement needs.

It must be balanced with other prevention components, which will be implemented simultaneously.

.1950

The National Council is in favour of and encourages the development of proactive approaches. The recommendations we have made concerning raising citizens' awareness and the training and accountability of professionals are the raw material for a proactive, comprehensive prevention strategy, the benefits of which are guaranteed in both the short and long-terms.

The National Council also believes that access to firearms increases opportunities for murders, suicides and accidents. Yesterday, the Calgary police service and the Canadian Institute for Law and the Family released the results of a study according to which 4.6 per cent out of 486 male students in junior and senior high schools stated that they had had a handgun in their possession in school during the past year. That information shows that we need to put a long-term strategy into effect in order to prevent criminal acts or accidents involving the use of firearms.

The Council believes that owning a firearm is a privilege, one which comes with the concomitant responsibility of safe storage and use of firearms, as well as the accountability expected from those who own weapons. The control mechanisms proposed by the government strike a balance between the rights of citizens who are respectful ot the law and the protection of society.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Vallée. We will begin with three 10-minute periods; we will have one question period for each political party, followed by a 5-minute discussion period for the government and opposition members. Mr. de Savoye, you have 10 minutes.

Mr. de Savoye (Portneuf): Ms Vallée and Mr. Chapdelaine, welcome to our committee. Ms. de Villiers, I welcome you once again, since you were with us this morning.

The brief you submitted touches on several aspects of this issue, some of which have already been mentioned by other witnesses, others have been alluded too in a different way, or with less emphasis. One of the aspects you touched upon interests me particularly - and 10 minutes will not be sufficient to deal with all of the points you raised - fortunately, I'll be able to take advantage of the brief five-minute rounds later.

I would like to refer you to your point number 10 ``the education and accountability of professionals''. At the bottom of page 5, in bold type, you say ``there may be a need to consider situations when these individuals - you are referring to professionals - should be held accountable if they do not meet these responsibilities''. Those responsibilities involve the role the professionals have to play in the identification of situations that have the potential for violence. You certainly don't pussyfoot around.

I would like to know exactly what you anticipate and what you envisage. I will give you some examples, some of which may be exaggerated, or perhaps not, which you may comment. Take the case of a doctor who finds a bullet in a wound. I understand that that is certainly something that should be reported to police. But consider the case of a psychologist who has before him a psychologically distressed person who may have suicidal or violent tendencies and may constitute a threat to those around him. Think of the teacher who sees a young person whose behaviour is slipping badly and who may become a threat to himself or to others. Would you go so far as to say that that teacher, that psychologist or that physician, should he refuse to report the situation to the authorities concerned - to the police, I should expect, if you want someone to intervene - would be liable to prosecution? Is that indeed what you are saying?

Ms Vallée: I think there are different levels. When we talk about reporting situations, I think we have to be aware of the fact that we are appealing to the responsibility individuals have to play their role to the fullest extent.

.1955

You referred to schools; it does indeed happen that teachers or other stake holders avoid taking on their full responsibilities to young people who are asking for assistance or whose behaviour is potentially dangerous and should provoke thoughtful scrutiny. When we talk about ``reporting'' incidents or situations, that has to be put in context.

I think there are young people in schools, among other places, who could benefit from adult intervention. Schools generally have competent personnel to deal with youngsters who are having problems - I'm referring to social workers, psychologists or teachers - it all depends on the services that are in place. If a teacher sees that a youngster is headed for trouble, he does not necessarily have to call the police - there's no need to dramatize things - but he could call on psychologists and ask them to intervene.

Basically, we're calling on people to feel and be responsible for each other and play their roles fully. If someone can intervene on behalf of a youngster and get him the help he needs, that should be done. That is the sort of things we had in mind.

Mr. de Savoye: You are aware of the fact that in the bill before us, there are no clauses or provisions stating that any kind of specific assistance will be provided to distressed individuals. Nor is there anything that states that a health professional, for instance, must report the fact that some individual is distressed and that it might be appropriate to verify whether that individual has access to a firearm, whether he owns it himself, or whether someone else in his home owns a gun.

Do you think the bill should address those issues in a more specific way?

Ms Vallée: There are two components to the overall strategy we referred to. The bill is one, but the other is made up of all the mechanisms to further education and greater awareness among the general public.

I think the NCPC has made proposals touching on an education program for the public in general. You do not necessarily have to include provisions in the bill to implement an information and education strategy. I think there are a lot of examples one could quote. On the issue of violence against women, for instance, or drunk driving, if one looks at what is being done in certain provinces, there are laws that reduce, or attempt to reduce violence and drunk driving, but there are also all kinds of community education mechanisms. Both components have to be there. You can't ensure an effective crime prevention strategy simply by means of a bill; but you can't do it either without the bill and simply through public education.

Dr. Antoine Chapdelaine (Member of the National Crime Prevention Council): This is a question that was raised when we appeared before the Regional Board of Health and Social Services, and it was raised again when the Canadian Medical Association and the group representing emergency physicians appeared before the committee. I agree with you that there is no easy answer to that concern.

Some situations are very clear. Take, for instance, the situation of a physician who sees a patient in his office, a patient who says to him: ``I am going to kill someone.'' In that case it would be easy enough for the physician to act because such a statement has been made and certain concrete steps must be taken in spite of the requirements of confidentiality.

Things are somewhat more delicate where suicide is concerned, where there is a risk of suicide that has been diagnosed, where there is worry, depression, etc. Ms Vallée referred to the need for education; many health professionals and professionals in other areas involving public safety receive warnings about those things in their practices. Where suicide is concerned, for instance, it is a known fact that most of those who commit suicide stated their intention to do so, often to a health professional in the weeks that preceded the actual suicide.

.2000

But, to get back to education, we have become aware that there are many professionals who, when taking a history, do not even attempt to find out, or do not think to ask whether the person has a firearm at home. The professionals who are the most sensitive to this issue are psychiatrists, psychologists, emergency physicians and public health physicians - I am one of those - as well as the Canadian Medical Association. However, that association also represents other professionals such as dermatologists and gastroenterologists who have no concerns along those lines.

That is why the Quebec Medical Association and the Association des médecins psychiatres du Québec, the Quebec Association of Psychiatrists - which represent 900 members - and Public Health support this bill.

When situations are clear, things are relatively easy. In other, less well-defined situations, such as in cases where there is a risk of suicide - or a risk of negligence, in future, after the bill has been passed, we may expect to see adequate education of professionals to increase their awareness of those problems, so that they do what is required to protect people.

Ms Vallée: Just a comment. Where family violence is concerned, it is a well-known fact, according to empirical research done in Canada, that policemen sometimes repeatedly go to the same home before arresting someone or before some unfortunate action such as a murder is committed. One ought to encourage policemen to ask the spouse whether there is a firearm in the home when they first go there.

It would be of prime importance to find out and if the answer is yes, the policemen can alert the woman to the potential danger. Even though he may not be able to intervene right away for various legal - or other - reasons, the very fact of knowing that there is a firearm in that home and of taking that opportunity to sensitize the spouse to the fact that there is a potential danger is important.

[English]

The Chair: Ms de Villiers, you had something to add?

Ms Priscilla de Villiers (Member of the National Crime Prevention Council): Yes. That is actually the link between the suggestion and Bill C-68; it's the support. In fact if the registration were in place, that mechanism would be easier.

I'd like to say that this mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse isn't unique. That goes to support the various laws that deal with child abuse. Even if there's just a suspicion of child abuse by health care professionals, be they psychologists, surgeons or physicians, there is mandatory reporting. I don't think that's as big a leap as one might think.

The mechanisms can be quite clearly defined in relation to whom you report to.

The Chair: Mr. Ramsay, you have ten minutes.

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to welcome our delegates here tonight. Thank you for your presentation.

When you attended the Ninth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders, were there delegates from New Zealand?

[Translation]

Ms Vallée: Yes.

[English]

Mr. Ramsay: Did they advise you that New Zealand had adopted a universal registration program and had later dropped that program? Are you aware that that happened?

[Translation]

Ms Vallée: No, they said nothing at all about that.

In my presentation I said that the resolution was prepared by Japan. It was supported by several countries and will become an international convention. The support given to the resolution was sufficient for it to be passed by the U.N. member-States as a whole.

[English]

Mr. Ramsay: Of course, I'm looking at the validity of a universal registration system. Many witnesses who have appeared before this committee have indicated clearly that they do not see the link between a universal registration system and the health and safety goals we would all like to see achieved.

.2005

New Zealand had a universal registration system, but dropped it because of a number of reasons, including the fact that it was drawing front-line police officers off the street in order to administer it. This was leaving fewer police officers available for police duty, particularly prevention work.

There are provisions dealing with firearms within the existing Criminal Code. Subsection 100(4) indicates:

Where a peace-officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that it is not desirable, in the interests of the safety of any person, that a particular person should possess any firearms or any ammunition or explosive substance, he may apply to the provincial court judge for an order prohibiting that particular person from having in his possession any firearm or any ammunition or explosive substance.

Now, subsection 100(9) reads that ``a peace officer may apply to a provincial court judge on an ex parte hearing.'' That means that the owner of the firearm need not even be present and a prohibition order may be obtained.

So if it is known that a firearm is in the home and the owner or anyone who has access to it is dangerous, there are laws now available to take that firearm out of the presence of that individual. I just put that on the record for your information.

I'd like to look at the fifth section of your brief. It deals with the registration system. You say, ``To be effective, the universal system needs to meet several conditions of implementation and application.'' That's where I have great concerns.

Bill C-68 does not outline the registration system, but we have been advised by the justice minister and others who have appeared before the committee that the registration system is going to be a mail-in system. The owner of a firearm will fill out the identifying features of the firearm and mail in the form.

Now, I have grave concerns about that kind of system inasmuch as this bill creates an offence for being in possession of a firearm that's not registered.

If we do not validate the information that comes in, if we issue a certificate to an individual that may, through an honest mistake, not reflect the proper serial number or other identifying features on that firearm, and then he is checked - while hunting or otherwise, or inspected in his home - and asked to produce his registration, when he produces the card with the error, it means that firearm is not really registered.

Although it may be a technicality, the fact of the matter is that that person is liable to be charged under proposed section 91 of this new bill. So I have grave concerns.

We've also had forensic experts come in and testify that they would not feel confident to issue a registration certificate from information that had not been verified by an actual examination of the firearm.

Do you understand my concern? Unless the information going into the system is verified, then what you get out is only as good as what you put in. If errors are going into the system, that means errors are coming out in the form of registration certificates that do not match the firearm. Because of honest errors that individual is not in possession of a registration certificate, and under this legislation he can be charged.

I don't believe that will create a valuable tool in the hands of law-enforcement officers. I've asked many of them to comment on that. They've told me, you cannot register what you do not inspect.

Would you comment on that?

[Translation]

Ms. Vallée: Before answering your last question, I would like to come back to the New Zealand example, since our executive director is originally from New Zealand. She is quite familiar with the universal registration system which was implemented there.

.2010

She told me that the problem with the universal registration system which was implemented in New Zealand - and I say this with all due respect because I remember exactly what she told me - was the absence of a computerized support system to ensure the effectiveness of unversal registration.

With respect to what you said about police officers being able to ask the court for an order because they know that there is a firearm in the home and that there is a potential for violence, I would point out to you that, at the present time, we do not know exactly who is in possession of a firearm. So, the police officers cannot act if they do not know who owns the firearm.

I will now turn the floor over to Ms. deVilliers who would like to answer your last question.

[English]

Ms de Villiers: Quite frankly I am quite puzzled by this question, because certainly in Ontario all our driver's licences and car registrations are done quite regularly without any sort of inspection system. We take in the number, we hand it in, and it comes out of the computer, or it's mailed to us.

Mr. Ramsay: According to the RCMP, 370,000 or 30% of the handguns registered within the system have the same serial number or similar serial numbers. They also go on to state that 18 firearms had identical serial numbers, make, barrel length and calibre.

In their standard collection, which is one of a kind and is at each forensic laboratory - there are about 17,000 in the RCMP collection across the country - 20% of the rifles and about 15% of the shotguns had no serial numbers at all. So it means there are tens of thousands of firearms out there with no serial numbers at all.

In order to register them, a serial number will have to be placed on those firearms. Now, that's not done easily. If we're going to mobilize 3 million gun owners who may own from 5 million to 20 million long guns, it's going to be quite a task.

But the question I'm asking is about the integrity of the system. The integrity of the system is absolutely essential. If a policeman picks up a firearm at the scene of a crime and wants to relate it back to whoever owns it, and if there's been a mistake in the inclusion of identifying features from that firearm, they'll not be able to identify it. That's happening with the handgun registration system now.

Terence Wade conducted a review of the handgun registration system in 1994 and submitted his report. I have it here. He's says there's an enormous number of errors within the system, amounting to approximately 30%.

Ms de Villiers: Perhaps you should address that to those police forces? I was not aware of the duplication of numbers. I'm very aware of a large number of particularly long-barrelled guns that were never given a number. They were put into the system over a number of years. I was told that blocks of numbers would be issued to indicate that this was the new number.

Quite frankly I think what you've told me makes it even more imperative to start a registration system. We have to start dealing with this.

To be quite honest, I think that if a weapon has been labelled in Europe, during the [Inaudible] there will be ways of showing that this is in fact an error. I don't think this is a reason to throw out the whole system.

Certainly the fact that they are are dealing with the problems of handguns now - thank goodness - before we have double or triple the number that are not numbered.... We have to start looking at it. We also have to rely on the fact that, in many cases, there is misfiling, misnumbering and duplication. It still -

Mr. Ramsay: It points out the enormous challenge of establishing a registration system with integrity.

Ms de Villiers: Absolutely.

.2015

Mr. Wappel (Scarborough West): Well, there are a lot of things to ask about; I only have ten minutes. Let me start with the policy recommendations you issued on December 14, 1994. The only reason I'm even referring to this is that the following comment was made on page 1 of these recommendations:

Therefore the Council wishes to propose a number of items for consideration and also reserves the opportunity to comment on the legislation when it is tabled.

Now, of course, you're here tonight to comment on the tabled legislation. I notice what I would characterize as perhaps a variation between what is contained in your December 14 paper and your comments to us tonight. These are on two fronts. I'd like to ask about those initially.

On page 4 of this document, under the heading, ``Cost of the registration system'' you say in bold print:

This would increase

``this'' meaning the costs

the demands on legitimate firearms users and reduce the risks of engaging in the illegal distribution and use of firearms; that is, the consequences of the cost of registration may include a lack of compliance and an increase in criminal activity.

Now, in your remarks to us tonight under ``The Registration System'' on page 3 of the English version, those comments are absent.

I wonder if you had evidence, had considered or heard testimony, or had reason to believe that your concern about the cost of registration had now been dealt with in some way, and that's why you didn't put it into your presentation tonight.

Ms Vallée: Let me look at the...because I just find the -

Mr. Wappel: It's the first paragraph on page 4.

The Chair: Mr. Wappel, might I suggest you go to one of your other questions before your turn is finished. Maybe Dr. Chapdelaine and Madam de Villiers can listen to your second question while she's working on that answer.

Mr. Wappel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The second question also concerns the recommendations of December 14 as they pertain to young offenders.

In your recommendations you said you're concerned:

that the provisions for minimum mandatory sentences do not apply to young offenders under the Young Offenders Act, thereby affecting only those young offenders prosecuted in adult court.

That was your concern then.

You have now addressed the issue of young offenders on page 6 of the English version of your remarks. You've made a comment, about which I'm not sure this committee can do anything. You said that we should:

review the provisions of Bill C-68 to ensure that the proposed legislation does not allow this type of activity in relation to the use of firearms.

You're there referring to adults using children in various offences involving firearms.

Again it's a long way of asking the question.

In December you were concerned that there were no minimum mandatory sentences under the Young Offenders Act. We now have legislation. I believe it is correct to say that there are no minimum mandatory sentences for young offenders, yet you have not put that concern in your comments tonight. I was wondering why.

[Translation]

Ms Vallée: On your question about young offenders, you are quite right. We decided not to include that in our presentation here tonight, because in reviewing the brochure, we realized that the comment was worded in such a way that it could be interpreted to mean that the Council would want minimum sentences for young offenders. That is certainly not the case. In fact, and all 25 members of the Council are quite clear on that, we simply wanted to make the government aware of the way in which some gangs operate.

.2020

Let me give you a very concrete example from Quebec. In a recent statement, the Sûreté du Québec said that members of the Hell's Angels would use young people to do their dirty work when the risk of getting caught by the police was too high.

Given the rise in organized crime, we wanted to suggest that you need to be aware that organized crime and gangs such as the Hell's Angels and other types of groups will increasingly turn to young people. Obviously, we are referring here to organized gangs, not the individual who in a state of panic, kills his spouse. We were referring to those groups in particular. Unfortunately, as I said earlier in speaking about the United Nations, we must recognize that organized crime is on the rise and there is a growing tendency to use young people to do the work.

As a Council, we could have come forward with recommendations aimed at preventing young people from getting into crime or becoming victims of groups such as the Hell's Angels or the mafia. Unfortunately, we have not carried out any in-depth studies that would allow us to suggest effective solutions. This is nevertheless a concern for our Council, especially in urban areas where organized crime is quite prominent.

But you're perfectly right. As Vice-Chair of the Council, I take all responsibility for the wording of the brochure, and I agree that people could take to mean that the Council is indeed heading in that direction, it just isn't so. All we're saying is that there is a problem with criminal activity in Canada and that some groups are becoming a threat for young people because of the way in which they operate.

[English]

Mr. Wappel: Okay, what I'm interested in - and thank you for the answer.... This is an act respecting firearms and other weapons. Can you help us out by explaining what you meant in section 14 of your presentation today?

I'm having difficulty seeing what we could put into an act respecting firearms and other weapons that would deal with young offenders and, in particular, the examples you have given us.

What exactly did you mean by the comments contained in section 14 of your proposal?

Ms Vallée: We'll look at the English version, because in French it's quite clear.

[Translation]

Dr. Chapdeleine: Mr. Chairman, while we're waiting, could I try to answer the question about costs?

[English]

Mr. Wappel had a question about what we wrote in December compared to our sentiment today. At that time it was not precise exactly how much the ownership licences would cost. It also wasn't clear how much the fees for registration of every firearm would be.

At that time we had a concern - several members of the council spoke to it - that it should be as easy and balanced as possible to be effective. That is quite reasonable.

In fact when we saw in the more concrete proposals that a licence would be about $60 for 5 years, which meant $12 a year, in other words, $1 a month, it seemed quite reasonable, especially compared to the $50 cost for obtaining an FAC. It was just $10 more and was well calibrated.

.2025

In terms of registering each firearm, we heard it would probably be free as an incentive to launch the system quickly. After a while there would be a cost, but it would be up to $10 for the first 10 guns, and then another $10 for the next 10. That is also very reasonable.

Later on there might be a transfer. Let's say I sell my gun to my son. I want to get rid of the responsibility of storing it, etc. He takes over that responsibility. To register it then would cost $10.

That sounds very reasonable, especially if we compare it, for example, to registering a car in Quebec at the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec. There you have to register every year and you register each car, not ten cars. It's between $4 and $10 - usually $10 - for the administrative costs. All

that seemed very reasonable, so we did not readdress that, especially -

Mr. Wappel: If I could summarize then.... I agree that the potential concern you saw in December has in effect been dissipated by the information you have subsequently obtained with respect to the likely costs of registration. So you therefore don't flag it with the same precision as before, which is perfectly legitimate. I just wanted to understand that.

Dr. Chapdelaine: That's precisely it. May I add that since December we have had a chance to see.... As you know, when I appeared in front of you two weeks ago, we calculated the costs of gunshot wounds, the direct costs and the quality of life and productivity lost.

Even if the cost of the whole registration system, which includes ownership licences and registration of each firearm, were higher than $85 million, the cost-benefit is still extremely high.

Mr. Wappel: Madam Vallée, do you have an answer to the young offenders question?

Ms de Villiers: What we were addressing here was specifically in terms of firearms. It was just appropriate here because we were addressing this legislation.

The discussion was about the utilization of children as an arm, as the person who in fact fires the weapon. We would like to see some clause or wording that stipulates that the adult was in fact the primary offender, that they couldn't hide behind the youth.

That is of great concern and came directly out of the Quebec experience. Actually the Hell's Angels problem has really come up this year, rather than earlier, as far as I can make out.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. de Savoye, you have five minutes.

Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Chapdelaine, I believe that you are a doctor and I would like to take this opportunity to raise once again the issue of circumstances where a professional's responsibility might be involved. I will give you right away indications on the answer that I hope to get from you. To what extent are professionals ready and able to take on this responsibility? Earlier, Ms. de Villiers gave the example of battered children. One can easily understand that in the presence of a battered child, a doctor must take into account his patient's interest and shield him from the ill-treatment being inflicted upon him. Moreover, if the doctor is facing a person in distress whose weapon should be taken away, would the patient, who is presumably the owner of the weapon, not feel betrayed if the doctor took measures, to do so, with or without his knowledge?

.2030

You are a doctor, and I am not, and as such you have a point of view that may be of particular interest to the members of the committee. Please go ahead.

Dr. Chapdelaine: These thoughts also have bearing on other professions. I'm sure you realize that, but I am going to use physicians as an example anyway, because our profession is very regulated by the colleges of physicians in each province. We are also bound by a professional code of ethics which protects the confidentiality of the relationship between patient and doctor and has done so from the time of the first Hippocratic oath 4,000 years ago. It is indeed essential that that confidentiality be preserved to keep the patient's trust if he is to continue receiving care from you, and if the therapeutic bond is to form. There are sometimes, however, very clear situations that are not difficult to report because they are life-threatening, and that is the easy part. But it is not always easy, because you first have to think about asking whether someone has a firearm - and then you have to know where to turn to get help from the authorities. You have to have the 1-800 number or a special number to call the Sûreté du Québec or the municipal police, in some municipalities.

In more delicate situations where the person is himself or herself at risk, such as when there is a risk of suicide, there are different ways of proceeding. You ask whether some are willing to shoulder that responsibility in the medical profession, and I would answer that those who must deal with those problems on a daily basis, such as psychiatrists and general practitioners who work in emergency rooms must know what to do and to what extent they can intervene.

Often, the firearm can be removed, either with the patient's permission, if the bond is good, or with the family's permission.

Since the problem has been raised, what concerns us are certain specific cases. Take the case of a young man who is depressed and suicidal and seeing a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist wants to hospitalize him but the family is against it. Also consider that there are few free beds in hospitals and it is not easy to hospitalize him. The family also assures the psychiatrist that the young man will be watched 24 hours a day to prevent suicide, while the medication is acting to lift him out of his depression.

Now, no one has tried to find out whether there is a firearm in the home. The young man is continually monitored and there is an alarm ringing every 15 minutes to make sure someone goes to see what he is up to in his room. But during one of those 15-minute intervals, the young man left his room, went into his brother's bedroom - his brother was sleeping - took the 22 that was hanging from the wall, took bullets out of the drawer, loaded the gun and fired it into his mouth. Everyone had focused attention on the individual, but not on his environment, the environment in which the individual actually makes choices - or does not make them. No one had thought about the technology available.

So, people have to be educated. The first step in any process to raise public awareness - these hearings are certainly one component - and to reach professionals, is to get them to ask systematically about the presence of a firearm.

Mr. de Savoye: Now I am going to be the devil's advocate, in response. If that public education is not done, a universal registration system will allow us to know who has weapons, but it will not prevent anyone from using them.

.2035

[English]

The Chair: Your time is finished, but complete the question and they may answer.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Conversely, if the registration system does not exist but professionals think to ask that question, many lives will be saved. So, is the system useful?

Dr. Chapdelaine: Yes, for a very simple reason. For the time being, people still think that the small .22 calibre firearms that are to be found casually stored on farms in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada are nothing to get excited about because they are only used to shoot at skunks, just like the .12 calibre firerarms that are so common that they are stored with just about the same amount of care as fly swatters.

The fact of having to register them and of making them a legal concern sends a very loud signal to all levels of society; women, future victims, physicians, psychologists, everyone. The message is that those objects are not toys, there are not fly swatters and must be treated with respect. It is to be hoped that people will begin to be mindful of the problem, and that policemen will go into homes, be it in St-Marie or elsewhere, and will ask, in violent situations, whether there are firearms on the premises, since they have the power to seize them, as Mr. Ramsay was saying. But for the time being, these weapons are trivialized too much. Tragic and unfortunate events such as what took place in Sainte-Marie-de-Beauce - I know the area well and I also knew the police officer who was killed, because I worked with him on highway safety - also raised peoples' awareness enormously.

The fact of registring fireamrs, then, reflect the importance the federal government attributes to that and it is a tool for public education that is much more powerful than any prohibitively priced public awareness campaign.

[English]

The Chair: Do you want to add something, Ms Vallée?

[Translation]

Ms Vallée: Yes. We have talked about positions and professional responsibility and the confidentiality they must keep, but I think there are other professionals who also have the same responsibility toward their clients. I am a criminologist by training and even if the people we deal with are serving a sentence and we are in a position of authority the fact remains that we are professionals and must respect the confidentiality of our clients. However, I think that most professionals, criminologists certainly, are honest enough to explain to their clients that there are limits to confidentiality. If citizens or people around the client or in the community generally are endangered because of the client's attitude or deviant behaviour, the criminologist has the duty to tell his client that he will intervene, either by telephoning the police or advising his family or those close to him. It think that the confidentiality professionals must keep has its limits and must not become a yoke that will ultimately undermine other people's safety. I think that it would be the case for professionals in several fields.

[English]

Ms Torsney (Burlington): I guess I have several questions. I'll put them on the table, because I want all of you to have a chance to comment.

My first is just a clerical question. On page 5 you identify concerns of certain groups, such as battered women. I wondered why you didn't include just women but rather specifically identified battered women, but that's a very minor point.

I wanted to know primarily how the council works. How did you come to this conclusion together? I read your report and I think I hear that you're supportive, but I see a lot of ``howevers''. I'm a bit concerned that we might leave this meeting and people might not be sure of what you are really saying to us. I think there are four or five ``howevers'', and I was concerned about that.

.2040

Dr. Chapdelaine, you may have had a chance to hear or to read the testimony of the emergency physicians and of the suicidologists. I wonder what your comments are on the urgency for the implementation of this. We've certainly heard from people that they want delays, that they want exemptions for specific provinces.

To the group, what are your comments on decriminalization? We've heard presentations suggesting that it shouldn't be a criminal offence and we should somehow implement this in another way, so I'd like your comments. I know you're focused on education and on prevention, but what are your comments about decriminalization? Will that help the system? Please answer in either English or French.

The Chair: Perhaps you should answer the question on how you came to the conclusions and ``howevers'' and ``wherefors'' and ``exceptions'' before you go to the other questions, because it's a basic question.

[Translation]

Ms Vallée: As to the way in which we work at the council, we have a very simple approach. The council is made up of 25 members who determine various priorities. They came to the unanimous conclusion that the gun control bill had to be a priority so much so that they appointed people to a committee which drafted a first version of our comments. That first draft was submitted to the council for discussion, and also to expand on the points of view that had been expressed.

Before the document was submitted to you here today, it was sent back to all the members of the National Crime Prevention Council for their opinions. They had ample time for consultations and to put their views forward.

That is why, when I said at the beginning that the brief before you today truly reflects the consensual view of our 25 members, that was the absolute truth. I wasn't stretching it.

As to the concerns we have, the council does indeed support the bill, with some reservations on a few points. I must again go back to the matter of education and to the idea of an overall strategy. For the National Council, it is extremely important that we do not depend only on the law to ensure a decrease in violent crime. A public education campaign is also important, as is a campaign to educate professionals, as well as the adequate training of the police officers who will be doing the actual registration of the firearms.

Those points had not been discussed at the outset, therefore we decided we would take the opportunity the study of the bill gave us to put forward those concerns.

[English]

The Chair: Do you want to go to the other questions now?

Dr. Chapdelaine: Ms Torsney, on your question about the urgency of proceeding, here I'm in a difficult position, because in terms of public health and in terms of the problems we have identified that I've had a chance to tell all of you about and what we heard from the doctors and the Suicide Prevention Centre of Chicoutimi the other day...makes it very clear that we see it as a big problem. We find that the registration and other dispositions in Bill C-68 are part of the solution and that it has to be implemented as soon as possible. So, in fact, if I were talking under only the hats of a public health physician, I would say ``as fast as possible'', because with every delay people are dying.

.2045

In terms of homogeneity throughout Canada and the aspects of crime that I have to consider as a member of this council also, it is very important that it be implemented homogeneously throughout Canada. Therefore, a normal transition period has to be taken into account so that it works and has a reputation and doesn't fall into disrepute because we've been too fast or the computer systems fail, etc.

I would answer also by adding what in fact we told you when we appeared on April 27. As public health people, we see the problems. We're stuck with the broken people. We can identify those problems well enough to explain them to people like you. But in this case, contrary to the case of infectious diseases, we don't have the solutions. They're not in our hands. They're in your hands. You have the responsibility to act as legislators in a way that will prevent problems that you will be stuck with in several years, and perhaps not many years in the future. So the onus of the responsibility is much heavier on the shoulders of the legislators than on the shoulders of those who are stuck with the problem.

I'm thinking of the contaminated blood.

The Chair: Your time for asking questions is finished, Ms Torsney. You put several on the record. Have they all been answered?

Ms Torsney: Decriminalization was not answered.

Ms de Villiers: The criminalization issue did not come up as an issue. I think there's a tacit support by the council for the bill as it stands. But I think that illustrates the way in which the council works, and I've gathered quite a bit of puzzlement from members of the justice committee on what exactly is our focus. I think Mr. Wappel was saying that, and this is the way to express it.

The members of the council are multi-disciplinary. They come from extraordinarily different backgrounds and from extraordinarily different areas of Canada. They are very representative. The fact that we can sit down and come to a consensus on anything is quite remarkable, and sometimes it's quite tough.

The whole point is that we are looking at this law from a Crime Prevention Council aspect and wherever possible we are trying to put in the concerns that we have about the support to the actual legislation from the crime prevention point of view. In other words, we did not set ourselves to sit and nitpick over wording in the actual legislation as such, but to express broadly based concerns about the crime prevention and the support aspect that would make this bill the effective one we want it to be.

So that, I think, if I expressed myself adequately, is why some of these areas are being addressed that I know some of you are a bit puzzled about. But we feel it's very important for the support of this legislation.

Mr. Thompson (Wild Rose): I don't believe anybody in this room wouldn't say that we want to do what will get the job done and we want to know that it will happen.

Do you have any evidence that registration will work? We've asked for evidence for months and months, but nobody will supply any.

The Chair: I'm biting my tongue. Please answer Mr. Thompson's question.

Mr. Thompson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, maybe they've convinced you, and maybe they've convinced you, but I haven't been convinced. I'd like these people to have the opportunity to convince me.

The Chair: All right. That's a very legitimate point of order.

Mr. Thompson: That's a legitimate point of order? Thank you.

Ms Torsney: On a point of order, I think the question was put that no evidence has been produced. Whether or not we believe the evidence is another issue altogether. I think the witnesses have been misled as to whether or not....

.2050

The Chair: That's why I was biting my tongue.

I'd like you to convince Mr. Thompson as well.

[Translation]

Ms Vallée: Mr. Thompson, the automobile registration or licensing system also has its problems. The same can be said of credit cards. Even if companies follow accounts extremely rigourously, they still cannot prevent fraud or other problems. However, no one questions the rights of individuals to obtain credit cards.

What we are saying is that the universal registration system is very important to our way of thinking. We are denying that there may be problems, where technology is concerned, for instance. That is normal, I believe. There is no system at this time that does not have computer problems.

Besides, what we are saying is that it is becoming increasingly important to monitor firearms and their movements in Canada, in light of the fact that they are becoming more widespread, and of the fact that organized crime is on the increase, as we all know, and of the increase in crimes forecast for the coming years. We all read the newspapers and the crime studies.

I'd like to go back to what was said last week at the United Nations Congress where Japan pointed out that a couple of years ago those who owned firearms were mostly criminals. Today, that is no longer the case. The possession of a firearm has become a very common thing. Ordinary law abiding citizens now own firearms. Let's talk about statistics on the murder of wives and girlfriends. Unless I'm mistaken, there is a woman killed by her partner every six days. The men who kill their wives are not necessarily men who have been in jail, or who are known criminals - they are men who own guns or have access to them.

May I remind you since this is my field and since I work with offenders, how easy it is to obtain a firearm in 1995. Today, in downtown Montreal, a youth can purchase one easily. That very fact speaks volumes.

The registration of firearms is extremely important to gain information about the fluctuations of the firearms market. Add to that what Mr. Chapdelaine was talking about, public education, another essential element.

It is the only way we have come up with in Canada to date to ensure that we have the best possible knowledge about the purchase and sale of firearms and the ups and downs in that market I think we musn't forget that this matter does not only involve the responsibility of citizens where firearms are concerned, but also that of the gunsmiths. Those who produce firearms must also be accountable with regard to the weapons they produce and sell. At this time, in the United States and in other countries, people don't quite know where the guns that are produced are going. It is extremely important to set up a universal registration system that will provide a minimal amount of information on the circulation of firearms.

[English]

Mr. Thompson: I guess the point I'm trying to make - and I heard what you said - is that the young people have to acquire an FAC and have to go through quite a process in order to own a gun.

I've checked into this and found out that you can rent a gun, even buy one under the table, just like that, thousands of them, in a number of cities. In the Globe and Mail on Saturday the detective in charge of the task force said that it's completely out of control.

What I'm saying is that when we are recognizing an actual problem, I can't understand why we don't put our energy towards fighting what we know is a problem and that we can do something about, rather than play guessing games with registration when we're not very sure.

Automobiles are registered for a lot of reasons. They raise money annually to help build highways.

You've got to remember that the banks have a vested interest in that thing. So they had better be registered on their behalf and that of others.

.2055

I think we're comparing apples and oranges in that sense. There are a lot of arguments on that, but I don't really believe that's what they want to accomplish in that sense.

If I can just finish with that, I'm really concerned about the things that we know are completely out of hand. When you hear people in Calgary say, ``My gosh, our kids are carrying handguns with the number scratched out'' - I've met with them personally, and they've told me - ``Can't you guys do something about that?'', I'm trying to find something in here that will do something about it. But I don't see it. I think that's the problem.

Ms de Villiers: I'm dying to convince you. I'd just like to say -

The Chair: You may not have that much time. But I'll be as tolerant as I can.

Ms de Villiers: It is the beginning of a process, Mr. Allmand.

The Chair: See if you can do it in a few minutes.

Ms de Villiers: I'm going to try.

As I said ad nauseam earlier today, first we have to start the process.

I totally agree with you. The importation and the availability of illegal weapons are out of control and getting worse. We have to have some measure of judging what is.... It's the grey area in between. It's the safe storage and responsibility that we have to start trying to impose, and at the same time, hopefully, work at the other end.

I think we are comparing apples and oranges. There are two very big issues here.

One is that we must deal with the guns in Canada, some of which have slipped out into the other side, which is the illegal weapons. We have to start a process. You have to define what is legal. You have to inventory what you have. Then you can start actually deciding from that what is illegal and how big your problem is. You cannot start that without a norm. I don't think there's any study or process you can start without knowing what is normal, or what is in fact legal in this case.

Secondly, one of the big problems is that you hear from so many different groups and each one gives you a different reason. Let's put them together.

We've heard very convincing evidence about how this would be a major factor in trying to prevent suicides. There should be registration. Registration would play not an entire part but a large part in ensuring that safe storage is in fact applied. I think it is of interest to every single gun owner to see that safe safe handling is applied. That is a large part of that, because the responsibility will be placed on them.

The police have given extraordinarily convincing reasons about how they really need to know if there are weapons in a house they're entering. The past police officers probably know that from experience. I've been told how they have to creep around the house looking in the windows.

In my own case, they had no idea on a great big farm how many weapons they were looking for, or if he even owned a weapon.

So from a police point of view, we need to give them the tools.

I've probably left out a whole dozen.

What I'm asking for is that in all the testimony that you've heard, from all the disparate groups - some against, some for - one actually puts it together and says, well, it will help here, it will help there, more there, less there. I looked at this very carefully myself, and I think we did on the council. We look at it and we say that, in a large number of areas that have been identified as being directly impacted on by firearms, a standard and comprehensive registration system would play a large part.

The Chair: We'll know only when it's time to vote whether you've convinced Mr. Thompson or not.

Mrs. Barnes.

Mrs. Barnes (London West): I have to start by putting on the record that, from the materials I've seen before this committee, empirical evidence has been submitted.

I just picked up one of the briefs that was sitting here from a couple of days ago, and all members of the committee got it. It was on the international correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide, by Martin Killias. The objective was to examine international correlations between reported rates of household gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide with a gun. It was an international crime survey conducted in 1989 in 11 European countries, Australia, Canada, and the United States.

.2100

The results were that positive correlations were obtained between the rates of the household gun ownership and the national rates of homicide and suicide, as well as the proportions of homicides and suicides committed with a gun.

It goes on to say:

The correlations detected in the study suggest that the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood of homicide and suicide.

That's just some of the evidence.

I think some people would like to say that there's no evidence because they don't want to hear or understand the evidence. We can only do our job and let others do theirs.

The other thing that really concerns me - and I think it's something you talk about - is the cost-efficiency, or efficacy, of a national registration system.

We sit beside the United States, which is probably the antithesis of what most Canadians want, and we seem to think of that as the comparison. Then you go out into the communities and listen to the radio talk shows and you always hear about New Zealand. It happens in my own riding and other places. It was raised here earlier tonight.

The New Zealand system was started around 1934. It was hand-written; it was manual. Then it was written again in another manual. Basically, after a number of decades, they abandoned it as totally inefficient. It was just a silly system, and that's how everybody talks about it. It was a failed system in an island nation that doesn't happen to live beside the United States. There are a lot of sheep in that country. Okay, they also have people and guns. But they still have possession permits and registration of handguns, even today.

I will also state that the norm is actually the European nations. It's not as if we're doing something totally new here in Canada. I think most Canadians don't realize that Belgium, Finland, Germany, Greece, Great Britain, Ireland, The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland all have possession permits and registration of guns. There are positive correlations on their successes there, and they are documented. So we are not inventing a new world here. We're actually copying the norm of the European countries.

I want to ask a question of Dr. Chapdelaine.

In answer to my colleague's question earlier tonight, you talked the cost of this system. I think you said, in relationship to the proposed cost of $85 million, that the cost benefit is extremely high.

What are we talking about here? I'd like you to expand on what actual figures you're talking about. What does ``extremely high'' mean in dollars and cents?

Dr. Chapdelaine: I'll answer that right away, but I want to underscore the comparison you were doing without really comparing them.

On one side you have the Martin Killias study. That, by the way, was published after peer review in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. He compares countries with different firearm densities, firearm ownership rates and death rates. What he didn't know and he didn't use - and we didn't know - at that time were the countries in Europe that had registration systems, the list of which you just gave us as an example.

If you look at the countries where the rates are lower, they resemble strangely those that have a registration system. Keep an eye on that.

As for the question of costs, it's a difficult one, because the study on costs that was done during the autumn is presently under peer review at the Canadian Medical Association Journal. In our job as epidemiologists, there is a tradition that you don't divulge the results until it's published.

When we appeared in front of you on April 27 with the CPHA - the Canadian Public Health Association - we mentioned that it's all a question of how much you put on the price of life. If you put $1 million, and you have 1,400 deaths by firearms in Canada, as is the case each year, then you can make your calculations by yourself. If you put a price of $4 million Canadian, you can also do those computations.

So whether it's $1 billion, $500 million or $6.5 billion gives us an indication that the cost per year is much more than a registration and possession certificate system, even if that system were to cost over $160 million, as the last figures seem to indicate.

.2105

Another important point is that is the costs of the possession certificate system and the registration system are supposed to be autofinancés, self-financed on the basis of cost recovery.

So in fact the investment each firearm owner is putting in to make Canada safer is not an enormous investment on an individual basis. But it might have enormous returns, not only in terms of the continuity of their favourite sport - hunting, etc. - but also with respect to their reputation in the way they deal with guns.

Mrs. Barnes: Also, I should note that the current system in effect, based on the last bill, has an ongoing cost. So it's not like there's a choice between a zero cost and an $85 million cost. In fact the numbers, as given to us by the Minister of Justice, show that this new system will actually be cheaper than our current system. People have to bear that in mind.

The Chair: Do you have any response to that?

I will go to Mr. de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Ms Vallée, one of things I appreciate about your brief is that it does not have a legalistic approach. We know that the bill before us deals with a matter already governed by the Criminal Code and can be conducive to a meticulous, legalistic approach that focuses exclusively on the clauses.

Your approach is much broader and more humanistic. You talk about balanced programs, long-term strategies, education and information systems, a prevention program, the accountability of professionals, community education, and even civil liability and insurers. It isn't necessarily easy to bring all of that into this bill.

The question that comes to mind is the following one: How can we implement such a broad vision? We were talking earlier about the body that registers motor vehicles in Quebec, the Société d'assurance automobile du Québec, but it does much more than that, since it also provides drivers' education and examinations and whole range of integrated activities that cover every aspect in the field.

The purpose of this bill is not to set up a firearms management corporation but simply to criminalize certain behaviours, without creating proactive resources to ensure better handling of firearms and a decrease in their use.

I'll use another example: young offenders fall under the Criminal Code. And yet the Code does not provide anywhere for the creation of an organization that would be responsible for a range of measures involving prevention and assistance to young offenders. What happened? We know that the provinces have shouldered that responsibility in various ways, through various means, and with a certain success in the province of Quebec, by the way.

That being said, how do you envision the implementation of the measures you recommend by a province, since such measures would fall under provincial jurisdiction? On the matter of education and prevention, each province administers those measures since the Criminal Code is not involved. How would you see, then, the concrete implementation of the various measures you recommend?

Ms Vallée: I must admit that we did not go into an in-depth exercise on the matter of implementation. With my colleagues' permission, I will answer you on the basis of the experience we have in other areas where a considerable coordination effort is also required.

.2110

Firstly, in so far as the language used by the National Council is concerned, it is important that you realize that the Council's very mandate specifies that there must be cooperation with community groups. Community groups are not necessarily staffed by professionals alone; there are a lot of volunteers. If we want full participation from citizens, as an organization, we must use plain language, even though we have experts in our group.

As for strategy - you refer to education and to the bill - you wonder whether education should be a part of the bill. We are talking about an overall strategy that includes various elements, namely the bill and an education system. There are various possibilities where implementation mechanisms are concerned. There are committees that deal with crime prevention at the federal, provincial, and territorial levels that could become one of the coordination pivotal points for a project of this scope.

On education, there are inter-departmental mechanisms, both provinciallly and federally. Inter-departmental committees could also be used in the areas of health, public safety, and justice.

It certainly would be possible to develop close cooperation among the various governments, be they federal or provincial, once again, and the community organizations that may be closer to the communities concerned, and in a better position to develop effective education programs for certain groups or the community in general. It is also certainly possible to develop close cooperation with the private sector.

As to the proposal involving civil liability and insurance, as Ms de Villiers explained very well, the council is made up of a range of people who represent various sectors, the private sector among those. It was the private sector which suggested that insurance companies had an important role to play. That is why we included it; we felt that it was indeed a good idea.

We feel certain that the implementation of such a project is possible. Allow me to go back to the idea of an overall strategy that includes both the law and education and control - I would say social control - mechanisms. That would of course entail coordination efforts, but it is possible. We have seen it in other areas. The initiative to fight violence against women is a good example of extremely effective cooperation among the provinces and the various departments of the federal government. Ten or fifteen years ago, this was a taboo subject but that is no longer the case.

[English]

The Chair: I have a question. Then Mr. McClelland and Ms Phinney will have the last word.

Mr. Ramsay and some other witnesses have expressed concern about the mail-in registration system. The concern is that mistakes might be made by the person filling out the form and sending it in. Also, there is concern that without verification, some guns may have no registration number, or they may have several numbers that are the same.

We raised this concern with the RCMP when they were before us. They are the ones who are going to run the registration system. In response, they said that not only will they ask for the serial number, but they'll also ask for the make, model and calibre of the gun, as well as other identifying marks.

The gun will not only be registered under the serial number, which they say exists in the great majority of cases, but not in all cases. So they'll have several identifying marks in addition to the serial number.

They said that while the system will not be perfect, they felt it would do the job. They still would have a fairly good registration system, despite the fact that some mistakes might be made.

.2115

It seems to me that in Canada we have many systems where we have to report information to the government. I just went through one horrible experience filling out my income tax return.

When we're asked to fill out our income tax return in Canada, they rely on the person who is filing to provide information. The don't go to every house, and make sure.... They check the information you send in, and they have random checking.

We never know when the great official is going to come down and visit us, but it's never happened to me. It's happened to some of my colleagues two or three times. But it happens on a random basis.

When we apply for life or casualty insurance, we have to fill out forms that we send in. When you apply for a car licence, when you apply for a mortgage, you fill out one horribly long form, and credit cards.... When you apply for your old age security, your guaranteed income supplement, public housing....

Of course there are people who help you with this. There are people in government departments, at advocacy or poverty groups, who help people fill out these forms. We have all sorts of complicated things that we fill in.

They rely on what we sign and, of course, on all of them they have little caveats, that if you provide the wrong information, you're subject to a serious offence. With income tax you're subject to a serious offence. You're subject to a serious offence when you apply for old age security, if you give false information. With insurance, if they find out you've given false information, you may lose your entire insurance if you die, if you have a fire or whatever.

Now, Dr. Chapdelaine, you're a doctor. You must have experience with people filling out forms and providing information where you more or less rely.... When you ask them questions about this or that, about their past medical experience, to what extent would you say that people give complete and honest information?

To what extent are they dishonest? Either they're dishonest or not educated or literate enough, so they give false information.

Are the systems to which you send information for the most part reliable, as the RCMP think, although they admit there will be mistakes? Doesn't our system more or less work on...? What is your experience with this sort of thing? I know doctors are asked to deal with forms of many kinds.

Dr. Chapdelaine: In fact I was a bit surprised. It's the second time I hear this question. One Sunday I was watching these hearings while I was doing my accounting at home. I saw Mr. Thompson pose the same question to a group.

I know that last Friday you met with the civil servants of Justice Canada who take care of this question. In fact I'm surprised. Was the question posed to them, because they would probably have had quite an answer.

The Chair: We did on a previous occasion.

Dr. Chapdelaine: When we were preparing our work for the council we had the privilege of having a meeting with the civil servants at Justice, the firearms control group. They explained how the registration system would function.

Neal Jessop was also at the meeting. You problably know him. He remarked that this makes sense. He's a policeman. He knows some things that I don't know and he certainly is a man of common sense. His remark was that this makes sense, this is simple; keep it simple and easy.

On the issue of not having numbers, numbers can be provided. I'm sure there is technology nowadays. If we are able to go to the moon, we should be able to engrave a number that cannot be deleted.

The Chair: He said they would provide a number where there wasn't any.

.2120

Dr. Chapdelaine: That's not really a problem. In fact because of Mr. de Savoye's question about the collaboration between the federal government and the provincial governments, I'm trying to answer several questions at the same time.

There has been a lot of consultation between the firearms control group and those who will administer the law in each province, the CPFOs. The collaboration is very close, and the CPFOs are gearing up to what is coming. At least in the province of Quebec, Pierre Vincent, the CPFO for the Sûreté du Québec, is very receptive to this project.

He and his group - his équipe - have been

[Translation]

they have been setting an example with community checks, and they are going beyond the prescribed process for obtaining a firearms acquisition certificate by doing some checking in the community where the applicant lives. Other provinces are doing excellent work.

I have been following the matter for the past five years.

[English]

I follow this question. It has not been done in a vacuum, without consultations at every single level in the civil service.

I would be a bit worried that this mail-in verification would be more for the process of obtaining an possession licence. If for reasons of saving -

The Chair: It's only for the registrations.

Dr. Chapdelaine: Would there be a screening of every person who will -

The Chair: That's for the licence that applies to the person. It's renewable every five years. But the registration is with respect to each gun. That's what we're talking about in reference to the mail-in registration systems.

Dr. Chapdelaine: I just wanted to pose the question of whether there is a system of screening before you give the person his possession licence.

The Chair: Yes.

Dr. Chapdelaine: Will that be done by mail or -

The Chair: Here's the application form. It will be similar to the FAC, only applied to all possessors, not just new acquisitions. So you have to get two signatures and you have to have your picture taken. The police do an investigation in the community and then they approve or disapprove.

Dr. Chapdelaine: I'm well aware of that form. We worked on it when I was on the Canadian -

The Chair: That will remain the same; only it will be called a possession licence rather than a firearms acquisition certificate.

Dr. Chapdelaine: That's a very important thing. Right now there are around three million firearms onwers in Canada, and only about one million have FACs. So only about one million have passed through the process of screening.

If the possession certificates give us the opportunity to rescreen everybody, that's a very good way to at least pick out those who perhaps should be told not to have a firearm.

Ms de Villiers: If I could just add to this, I can't remember if it was in our discussion with Justice, but in discussions about this - because we really did look into this registration - I was particularly cynical at one point about the whole thing.

One of the areas that came to my attention previously that had to do with FACs was the extraordinary difference between areas to get FACs. In fact, in some local police forces, which will remain nameless, anybody who had a bit of a murky past would go there, because you literally went up to the window.

One of the comments that was made - and we went into this quite thoroughly - was that this new system, because it's tied into the upgraded CPIC, is really going to be a much fuller system. The section sought registry on it; the child abuse registry etc. It has really been pumped up quite a lot.

But in effect, this would be a much more standardized system. You wouldn't have a volunteer one afternoon a week handing out FACs, as was the case in certain local areas. So it seems to me this is actually superior in terms of a possession certificate.

.2125

I don't know if you've had information to the contrary.

Mr. McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): I have just one idea I would like confirmation on. Then, if I may, I'll give the remainder of the time to Mr. Ramsay.

It seemed to me to be implicit in your presentation, Ms Vallée, and in other discussions surrounding the whole notion of registration and the new licensing arrangment for possession - and I agree 100% with the new possession licences - that the combination of the new licence for possession and the registration is going to be - not so much the cost - such a massive pain in the butt for the average person who is not motivated to be an active hunter or an active recreational sportsman that they are going to look at this on balance and say, ``Who needs this shit? My life is complicated enough as it is.'' Therefore, when the truck comes down the street, they will throw away whatever guns they had in their basement and just not have them in circulation.

Is this idea or feeling I have accurate? Do you think this is part of the plan? Do you think this is going to happen? Do you think it's fair to people who own the guns legitimately?

[Translation]

Ms Vallée: If you would like to believe that the registration mechanism would be so unwieldy, that people would turn away from it and would refuse to go through all the regulations, I believe that you misunderstood. To the contrary, it is extremely important to us.

We are merely issuing a warning, as we would for any other system. Any process must remain simple, the forms have to be simple and they must contain informations as to what exactly people are supposed to do. This is what we meant.

[English]

Mr. McClelland: I appreciate that. I'm saying that no matter how simple the procedure is, many people will just say that it's not worth it, and they won't be bothered.

[Translation]

Ms Vallée: I do not believe so. Eversince the hearings on this famous project, many people have realized the importance of the subject, and among them, people who were in no way interested by the subject of firearms, because they do not possess any themselves, because they are not hunters and nobody around them is. More and more people are starting to realize that firearms are not only a matter for hunters, something that has no impact on other people.

During the hearings and the debates over the last few months, more and more citizens have come to realize how important it is to do something about firearms and I believe that the people in the community will gain a new awareness and will be encouraged to conform.

[English]

Mr. Ramsay: Doctor, are you a forensic scientist?

Dr. Chapdelaine: No.

Mr. Ramsay: Have you ever appeared in court and given testimony as an expert on firearms identification?

Dr. Chapdelaine: No.

Mr. Ramsay: Then you have never had to rely upon information in a court of law that comes from a registration system.

Dr. Chapdelaine: No.

.2130

Mr. Ramsay: Then would you consider that the people who should be testifying before this committee on the questions asked you by Mr. Allmand ought to be those people who have to rely upon the registration system, and the information contained therein, at times when they go into court? If they are in court and they provide information from a registration system that has not been validated, then that information isn't worth the powder to blow it. Would you agree with that?

[Translation]

Dr. Chapdelaine: What is «power to blow it»?

[English]

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Ramsay: This information would not be acceptable in a court of law?

Dr. Chapdelaine: I would rather answer the question you raised, because it resembles Mr. Ramsay. We know from repeated polls on several occasions - one was done in Quebec exclusively, but also throughout Canada - that about half of the people who have a firearm in the home have not used it in the last 12 months.

When we did the inquest in Quebec with Anne-Marie David, we realized there were a lot of cases of suicide we were examining in that inquest where the gun had not been used for 15 years. It was just used for the kid's suicide. It was probably bought to shoot some animal, or something like that, 15 years earlier.

Obviously the registration system will force people to remember that they have one somewhere, in their basement, or in a cupboard somewhere. Some might choose, because they haven't used it and they don't have a lot of attachment to it, they've just forgotten it's there, to do away with it, either by having it melted or by selling it to a friend who has 20 and he stores them properly and people will be safer then. There will be one house where there will be 21, but well-stored, and another house where there will be 0, which enormously reduces the risk of suicides, accidents with kids, and even homicides.

Mr. Allmand posed a question about insurance papers, etc., and even taxation forms. There are a lot of groups helping people to fill out those things. I think there are a lot of groups all over Canada - shooting clubs, hunting clubs, hunting friends - who know much more about guns than I do - and this is to answer Mr. Ramsay's question - who will be able to help, as long as they don't want to sabotage the system.

I don't think law-abiding, honest gun owners will want to sabotage the system. They'll help out the neophyte, like myself, who brings in Dad's .12-gauge that he wants to have registered because he wants to use it, or just to keep it. They will bring the gun to that club and meet with people who know about guns and ask how to fill in the form. I'm sure the attitude will be very helpful in those groups.

I'm not discouraged at all by this talk about sabotaging it, or encouragement to bury it in the garden, and filling in any numbers, etc. That is very much minority talk.

That's part of the answer I'm trying to give Mr. Ramsay.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Vallée.

Ms Vallée: Mr. Ramsay, members of the National Council may not be all court experts, but I think that there are a lot of members who, in their daily work, come in contact with thousands - and I am not exaggerating - of people whose life was devastated by violence, be it through firearms, by suicides, etc. That may not make us court experts, but I believe that it is still worth hearing out people from the council and seeing to what extent the negative consequences of the absence of a firearms control system bear on people's lives.

.2135

We did not say, when we came here, that we pretended to speak in the name of the silent masses, but I believe it is important to realize that these silent masses are fairly important. Since the Council started working on this issue, people we come into contact with in our private lives know it and they tell us that it is true, that it is important, and that they do not even think about it. These people are not groups in sports associations, in hunters associations who use firearms. They have no place to go to make their views known.

The ordinary citizen, who would like to testify today before this House of Commons committee, does not know how to go about it. You are saying how complicated it can be for the ordinary citizen to fill out the firearms registration form, but it is also complicated for the average citizen to come here today, to meet members and not to be an expert. We do not claim to speak in the name of the silent masses, but in our view, there is an important number of citizens out there who support firearms control, if only because they care for the quality of life of their environment.

[English]

Ms Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): You do represent the National Crime Prevention Council, and I'd just like to mention that I think most of us are very pleased that Mr. Rock had the foresight to set up this committee.

On page 10, you're talking about education accountability of professionals. You mentioned that there may be - and I say ``may'' be - a need to consider situations where individuals - these would be police officers, judges, school teachers and health professionals - would have a role to play in identification of situations that have potential for violence, and that there may be situations where these individuals should be held accountable if they do not meet these responsibilities.

I know you're looking at situations in the future, etc., but could you explain that a little bit? To says they should be held accountable is quite a daring thing to say. Could you expand on that a little bit?

[Translation]

Ms Vallée: In the case of some professional bodies or of law enforcement officers - fortunately, it is not the case for the majority - these people often have to do something, and the educator, the teacher or the police officer is aware of the danger and does nothing.

A lot of these professional bodies have internal ethics codes. They can do something and blame the professional who did nothing in a given situation. That is what we are talking about. Obviously, we are not saying that this person should be tried, but within their professional body, they should be made aware of their responsibilities and they should conform to their code of ethics in some of their responsibilities.

[English]

Ms Phinney: Are you suggesting a teacher, say, or a school that has a student who's showing some very strange behaviour should report this person to somebody? What there is in place right now? What do you see that should be in place to allow this reporting?

I taught, myself, and I don't know of any situation that's in place now where the teacher would carry this...to the school board, maybe; I'm not sure. Then somehow it would get to the police or someplace where that person applied for a licence. What is in place now, and what do you see that should be in place?

[Translation]

Ms Vallée: We do not necessarily wish to have other measures put in place. We are saying that we must use the systems that are currently in place in order to guarantee the security of an individual or of the community. You mentioned the schools. Currently, in most schools - I presume that is the way it works in the rest of Canada as well - there are, in Quebec at least, helping mechanisms. Teachers can refer a youngster having problems to a psychologist, a social worker.

.2140

If the teacher does not do anything, we are not saying that this teacher should be taken to court, but that he should perhaps be officially blamed, that there should be a note to that effect in his personal file. It is important that people be responsible in situations which present some risk.

[English]

Ms de Villiers: I think this is part of that whole idea of each of us taking our responsibility, however small it is and whatever field we're in.

We've had a number of cases in our area, in Toronto, for example, where there have been very violent incidents in some of the schools. Because of the stigma on the school, this has been suppressed. By the time the whole thing has escalated to a point where police have had to come in, and headlines are out, you find this has been an ongoing problem.

I think already the process in many of the school boards, and I suspect the Queen's Park regulations - although I haven't actually read them - is that this has been addressed, because there seems to be much more disclosure and more open policy now. If it's all let out, it can be dealt with at source. I think this is really what we were getting at.

Dr. Chapdelaine: I would like to give the example of what occurred on June last year, in Aylmer, where it was very clear cut. A child came to school with two handguns; one revolver and one pistol, .9mm. He got them from his father who was away with the military in Boston. He picked them up; they were unlocked.

The reaction of the school was very neat; they immediately called the police and seized the weapons, and then the police proceeded to check what was going on at home. They discovered the child had a .12-gauge hunting gun and he had a pistol under his pillow.

At that time, if I recall, the regulations on safe storage had been put into effect. This was in 1994. To my knowledge - and we followed through on this - in November no charges had been brought against the father for his storage practises.

That's perhaps where the accountability, the responsibility, has to be followed through all along the way.

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, it has probably been said somewhere, and I've missed it, but I'd like to know something.

There are 25 members; that's the only information I have about the group. I was wondering if you could tell me when you were incorporated and how long you have been in existence and how you support yourselves. We have all that information on the other groups.

The Chair: Actually, when they were set up, we had a special meeting to examine just the National Crime Prevention Council. We spent an entire meeting examining the way they were set up, how they operate, their board of directors.

That was on the record. I don't know if you were on the committee then, Mr. Thompson. I think you were, and were away that day.

We spent an entire meeting on that. I don't think we should do that tonight.

Mr. Thompson: Okay.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, that was done with Mr. Tomlinson, from yourself. Those very questions were asked to Mr. Tomlinson concerning his membership and financing.

So there was some information we were able to get at that meeting, but not all of that information that you inquired about and Mr. Thompson -

The Chair: You mean from the National Crime Prevention Council?

Mr. Ramsay: No. I don't know what information was on the record with regard to that.

I'm saying that when Mr. Tomlinson from his organization was here, you made similar inquiries about information that we were not able to get at the time we had the meeting you referred to.

.2145

The Chair: Wait a minute. There's some confusion here. I thought Mr. Thompson wanted information about the National Crime Prevention Council.

Mr. Ramsay: Yes.

The Chair: I said we had a meeting with respect to the National Crime Prevention Council when they were set up last November, and we thoroughly examined their entire mandate, their financing -

Mr. Ramsay: Okay. That would all be on the record, then.

The Chair: It's all on the record.

With all respect, I don't blame you; maybe it was when your predecessor was in your position, Mr....

Mr. Thompson: Forseth.

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Forseth. He and Ms Meredith were both there.

When they were set up, we had an entire meeting dedicated to probing into who they were, where they came from, where they get their money, and how they work. It's all on the record.

At any rate, I want to thank you. You are now an institution in the criminal justice field we will be consulting with from time to time, and hopefully you'll have many unanimous reports that can help us in our work.

I want to remind the committee that tomorrow afternoon we have the Canadian Bar Association and the Barreau du Québec, who will deal with constitutional issues, civil rights issues and other legal questions with respect to the legislation.

The meeting is adjourned.