EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, January 27, 1997

.1321

[English]

The Chairman: I'd like to reconvene the subcommittee looking into the regulations under the Firearms Act.

Our first witness this afternoon is Mr. Allan Adam, vice-chief of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians. Mr. Adam is going to be speaking with us from Saskatoon. We'll be with Mr. Adam for an hour. He'll make his presentation and then we'll be able to ask him questions.

Mr. Adam.

Vice-Chief Allan Adam (Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations): Good afternoon.

We're having some feedback here. I'll have someone in here right away to clear this up.

[Technical Difficulty - Editor]

The Chairman: Can you hear us now, Mr. Adam?

Vice-Chief Adam: Yes, I can. Can you hear me okay on that end?

The Chairman: Yes, we can.

Vice-Chief Adam: I guess the problem is I'm watching you and I'm trying to listen to you at the same time. I'm used to watching people's mouths move and hearing them at the same time. There's a bit of a delay, so there's a bit of a problem with that.

.1325

Good afternoon, members of the committee. I'm Allan Adam. I'm here in Saskatoon, and ready to go ahead with my presentation. I know you've allotted an hour for this. All I have is about 25 minutes. I have to be out of here by the top of the hour, because I have to get on the road right away.

I will get on with our portion of the presentation and leave some room for questions. I won't take up too much time. Our position is pretty well the same as it was when I appeared in front of the committee almost a year ago.

The Chairman: Before you start, Mr. Adam, would you introduce your associate, please?

Vice-Chief Adam: With me is Terry Keewatin. Terry is one of the technicians who works with me on matters such as this.

I'd like to speak a bit in my language, if you don't mind, more in a formal sense, I guess. That's the way I usually open my comments.

My language is Dene, Chipewyan language from northern Saskatchewan in northwestern Canada.

[Witness speaks in his native language]

Briefly, the presentation in my language just said that the information I present to you is clear and concise and honest, and I usually ask the Creator for guidance to help me do that. I usually open my presentations in my language just to respect my language.

The FSIN, Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, through a resolution on February 8, 1995, still opposes the gun legislation. Our position is still the same. We still remain firm in our position that a piece of legislation of this nature impinges upon our treaty and aboriginal rights. We're going to continue to oppose the bill until we feel that first nations in our traditional lands are in a better position to accept the legislation.

So that still requires a lot of work - and a lot of work before consultation can proceed. As we already let the Department of Justice officials know at a recent meeting in Saskatoon in September, I believe, when Heather Cole and some of the other members of the committee came to visit with us, we basically reaffirmed our position with relation to our objection as well as our opposition to the legislation. Our position pretty well remains the same today.

We believe, because this affects treaty obligation, that the federal government has to do its part to protect our first nations traditional lifestyle and that they're working against each other here. We need to affirm to ourselves, and to be affirmed by the federal government through treaty and arrangements such as these, that these traditional lifestyles will not be altered or hindered in any way, shape or form.

Our experience to date has been that the court system is a government tool, but we do hope that the government tool, the court system, as an arm of the government, will recognize the importance of the first nations way of life and the treaty obligations of our treaty signed with the Crown.

Again, we realize that this is going to have a very drastic effect on our way of life and that the bill will impose on our people the drastic effect that it could have. We're foreseeing a more drastic rather than more positive effect right now.

.1330

Again, the FSIN is against the bill, as I say, but we are not against the increase in firearms crimes in Canada. We do know that, we do respect that, we do recognize that, and we do recognize that something has to be done about that.

Again, based on safety issues, from what we're gathering, even though statistically you could say there is an increase in firearms violations and charges within first nations communities in Canada, when it comes to the more dangerous firearms, the use of firearms for robberies and murders and so on, it's still relatively an urban issue. That could be based on crime rates in urban centres. We're basing our information on that. We do recognize that first nations people are not exempt from crimes involving firearms and so on, but from what I can gather we do know the bill can and may deter some crime, but by the same token it will directly affect our first nations ability to carry on our avocation, to live off the land and to utilize firearms for sustenance purposes.

In a nutshell, Mr. MacLellan, that is the gist of our presentation and our position. Basically we are reaffirming our opposition to the legislation. I do have information, a fact sheet, on adaptations for aboriginal hunters, as was submitted to us by the federal justice department on this matter.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Adam.

I now invite members of our subcommittee to ask questions, beginning with Mr. de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Adam, I listened carefully to you and I do appreciate your concerns.

[English]

Mr. Adam, obviously we share a common second language. You speak Dene and I speak French, but we both speak English. Since translation doesn't seem to be available, let's continue this conversation in English, if you don't mind. If you see me staring down, it's because the monitor I'm seeing you on is right at my feet.

Mr. Adam, you mention that your traditional ways of life will be adversely affected by the legislation. However, you do understand the legislation has passed and at this point this subcommittee is interested in how the regulations could be modified to be better suited to certain instances, certain people, without affecting the intent of the law. On that specific issue, do you have any specific comments you would like to share with the subcommittee on measures that could at least render this legislation more tolerable to your people?

Vice-Chief Adam: The legislation itself I do know is going into the regulations component and the adoption of the regulations to regulate the legislation. There are components which I believe are common areas. A good example is the chief firearms officer, for example. We do know that in a certain component of our communities...and I myself, having gone up to the north of the province just this past week.... English is not a common first language. First nations still utilize the language. I'm proud to say the language is still strong in our communities.

That's the area this legislation is weak in. I know provisions are being developed to ensure easy movement in terms of application processes and so on, but what we're proposing, and what we've proposed all along, is first nations leadership as well as first nations firearms officers. If we have our own firearms officers to set out our own permitting system, as is already outlined and being proposed by the federal legislation, we would like to attain or achieve more control in this area.

.1335

We will have the ability soon, I hope, to proceed with our own testing, if we need to, with our own safety courses, if we need to. We do need those things. We do recognize that there is a definite need to carry on promoting our way of life, but we do recognize that we have to be more greatly involved in the other end of the process, where we do train our own people.

For example, if a person needs to carry on his own way of life and to hunt to sustain his family, but he has run into a firearms violation, we would look at a committee of elders to determine, through discussions as well as a round-table discussion, whether or not this person can continue to use a firearm. If he or she does have the capability to utilize a firearm under certain conditions, and if those conditions are broken, we will look at either making sure the person follows it or giving penalties, if penalties need to be devised.

Mr. de Savoye: I am very sensitive to the traditional way of rendering justice in your communities. However, would you have the resources to administer the implementation and the operation of the law and its regulations, or would you need specific assistance to put into place those resources?

Vice-Chief Adam: Right now the federal government has the capability to administer the regulations and the legislation. We would look at trying to attain some of those resources to be able to do that, as in other initiatives involving joint initiatives between the federal government and first nations. We'd have to look at everything.

Once we know what the scenario is going to look like, the overall schematic scene, I guess, of what we'd like to do with this project, then we would have to look more specifically at what resources are going to be needed.

Mr. de Savoye: Just as a point of information for this subcommittee, and specifically for myself, how many people are there in your community?

Vice-Chief Adam: In Saskatchewan alone we're talking about 90,000-plus first nations people. With the population increases in the province we're looking at a projected increase of first nations people to triple or almost go to half of the population of Saskatchewan within 50 years. So what we have to develop here today is very important in terms of the way the future is going to look when first nations people are eventually a majority within the province of Saskatchewan.

Mr. de Savoye: How many firearms do you believe those 90,000-plus people would own at this point in time?

Vice-Chief Adam: It's a hard figure to bounce around right now. Firearms are utilized for different components of sustenance gathering. You need shotguns for birds and so on, .22 rifles for smaller game, and higher-powered rifles for bigger game.

On average, just from my experience in the north of the province - that's where I come from - most people own an average of about three firearms per household. That's the lower end. Some have more.

Mr. de Savoye: They really are all using these firearms for their sustenance.

Vice-Chief Adam: Right. That's why they have them.

Mr. de Savoye: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. de Savoye, I want to apologize, on behalf of the committee, for the lack of interpreters this afternoon. We'll try to rectify that as soon as possible.

.1340

Mr. de Savoye: Well, Mr. Chairman, the way I understand it is that I was no more privileged than my friend from the Dene. We both lacked interpreters, but we could understand each other pretty well.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your forbearance.

Mr. Ramsay.

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

Mr. Adam, thank you for your presentation. During the examination of Bill C-68 itself, we did have significant representation from the aboriginal community, including Chief Ovide Mercredi. We also had the Quebec Cree, as well as representation from the Yukon. Of course, they opposed the bill.

I wonder if I could ask you this: Are the aboriginal communities and leadership, those who are opposed to the bill, considering a constitutional challenge on the basis of treaty rights?

Vice-Chief Adam: Yes. We're just waiting for the first opportunity to look at that. There are some potential court cases. I believe we're still looking at one from the Yukon and one from Alberta.

Mr. Ramsay: As an aboriginal leader, you're as interested in and concerned about public safety as any of us are, and perhaps more so, because you're closer to your people more often than officials from the Department of Justice. Do you see anything in Bill C-68 that would enhance public safety in the aboriginal communities?

Vice-Chief Adam: Right now, I guess we'd still require a lot of work in that area. The safety component in Bill C-68 would be the training component, not the questionnaire allowing people to qualify for a firearms certificate and so on. In terms of the training area, enhancing that area is where I see us benefiting from the legislation itself.

Mr. Ramsay: Of course you know that under section 5 of the act there has to be a criminal background check, a mental background check, and a neighbourhood background check to determine whether or not a person is eligible to be licensed to hold a firearm. Do you see this as an imposition upon some of the members of the community that you represent? Is it going to cause a problem in terms of qualifying to obtain a licence to own a firearm? Are there concerns there, Mr. Adam?

Vice-Chief Adam: There are great concerns, such as the point I made about the courts in Canada as a government tool.

Right now, if you go into any of the federal or provincial correctional systems, over half - 60% to 75% - of those people who are incarcerated are first nations people. Under that section, any one of those people would not qualify unless there are certain provisions attached to their qualifications. That worries us a lot, because an extreme number of our first nations people, some of whom rely on firearms for food to sustain themselves, for hunting, trapping and so on, would not qualify under that.

Mr. Ramsay: The primary objective of the bill, of course, is to enhance the safety of society. This morning, in dealing with the regulations, we have heard witnesses - as we heard witnesses who appeared when we were examining the bill itself - who are going to be affected by the bill and by these regulations. Of course their participation in society with their use of firearms has not proven to be a threat to society. Do you feel that your community falls into that same category? I'm referring specifically to the sporting industry, where there are all sorts of groups: handgun clubs, long-gun clubs, the Olympic teams and World Cup shooting teams. Their record is almost exemplary when it comes to the safe use of firearms.

.1345

We've heard from the armoured truck groups and the armoured industry that delivers money from bank to bank and from place to place. They too have a very good record of public safety.

In other words, the use of firearms by these groups does not pose a threat to the safety of society. To what extent would that same statement apply to aboriginal communities?

Vice-Chief Adam: Of course safety is of great concern to anybody when it comes to utilizing potentially dangerous and lethal weapons such as firearms. Safety is taught. Safety is the most important component in utilization of firearms, because you do know one mistake could be fatal.

One thing we won't be categorized in is in the same category as hunters who hunt for sport, because first nations people, from what I've experienced, are insulted when we are categorized in that category. We believe that the animals provide for us, that Mother Earth provides for us, and that all due respect must be shown at all times when harvesting animals. This is the component that some of our first nations people have lost, and it's one that we would like to introduce.

On the point about attainability of our permission to utilize firearms, over half of our first nations people, especially young men but also older men, are either incarcerated or in the process of going through the court systems. With a criminal record of any kind, that will basically eliminate this half. As I said, this already is going to create a problem. The solution is one we have to work on and it's one we have to discuss. If we don't talk about it together and you don't hear our end and you keep pushing things down our throats...[Technical Difficulty - Editor].

The Winter Olympics, whenever they utilize firearms as part of sport, must be commended for their ability to promote safety and all these other facets of making the sport safer for these people to carry on whatever it is they enjoy doing. For us, from a first nations perspective, we will look for the answers, we have begun looking for the answers, to how to make sustenance gathering a safer avocation for first nations people, but we have to be allowed the space and ability to do that.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Mr. Adam.

I have one final question. When the aboriginal justice minister from the Northwest Territories appeared with his delegation before the standing committee examining Bill C-68, he pointed out that the application and abiding with the law contained within Bill C-68 might endanger some communities rather than provide greater safety. He gave the example of a polar bear that had come into one of the isolated communities and attacked a man and was dragging him off, and his little boy, who knew he kept a loaded firearm just inside the door, ran and got that rifle and shot and killed the bear and saved the life of his dad. That apparently was a real-life story.

Do you share some of those concerns, that if the storage requirements, which require the firearm to be stored in one room and the ammunition in another when it's not being used...that regulation and some other regulations may pose a threat to society, a greater danger to society, than perhaps providing protection to society? Do you have any thoughts on that, Mr. Adam?

Vice-Chief Adam: I guess both sides.... The real-life situation you just portrayed to me happens in rare situations. In our instance it could be a black bear, but then most of the communities don't experience the type of situation you have described to me for north of the province.

.1350

Safety is a concern. Having worked in the media and having talked to people about gun safety and so on, I do remember from past experience instances where children have been shot or have shot each other through unsafe storage practices by their parents.

Just last week one of the elders was talking to me about an incident where he forgot that he left a shell in the chamber of his gun. Somebody had been handling it but no one had pulled the trigger. He looked at me afterwards and said, gee, that was not a smart thing for me to do; I could have shot my wife or somebody could have shot me.

So safety is first, safety for other people as well as for protective measures. If it is needed, sometimes it can be utilized. These are rare instances we're talking about, but you hear more about people hurting each other unintentionally with firearms because they haven't been stored safely.

That's my side of the story. I want safety first. I want to make sure that people are not harmed unintentionally or intentionally and that we find measures, or institute our own measures, through education, to ensure that these type of things don't happen. If we do have situations in communities where firearms are used excessively for violence, maybe the first nations people themselves, in their own communities, will institute their own measures to lock away the firearms.

These are all things we have to look at, and look at more seriously. Again, safety is first.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.

The Chairman: We're going to go to Mr. Maloney now.

Mr. Maloney (Erie): Mr. Adam, I'd like your opinion on some of the regulations as they apply specifically to aboriginals. I refer you to section 3 of the proposed regulations, where it deals with the definition of an aboriginal individual. They set out there that an aboriginal individual is one who is a member of the aboriginal peoples of Canada, is a member of an aboriginal community, and is engaged in the traditional hunting practices of that individual's aboriginal community.

Do you have any comments on these? Are these sufficient? Are they adequate or too restrictive? How do you feel about them?

Vice-Chief Adam: My comment to that is that we ourselves will determine who our brothers and sisters are.

Mr. Maloney: So you don't agree with those criteria at all?

Vice-Chief Adam: It's hard for us to follow along with regulations when other people tell us who our people should be. A good case in point is Bill C-31 and the problems it's creating now. It creates short-term Indians. A piece of legislation like that we just can't support.

Mr. Maloney: How would you determine an aboriginal, then?

Vice-Chief Adam: For me, anyway, I would look at what their genealogical line looks like, who they are, whether or not they speak the languages, and look at the communities themselves determining, through consultation and discussion with these people, how they feel and what they feel like inside. Based on that we determine whether or not they are a first nations person. We don't want anyone else to tell us who our brothers and sisters should be and are.

Mr. Maloney: Is that a little bit of a loose way to do it?

Vice-Chief Adam: It's the way we can look at it. We ourselves will determine who our brothers and sisters are. We do know that. We see dissension within our communities where brothers and sisters are spread apart because of the government telling them who they are through a piece of paper and a piece of legislation, splitting families. We don't want to see that any more. In fact, I'm sick and tired of seeing that. I'm sick and tired of other people telling me who I should be and who my brothers and sisters should be, or if they are going to be my brothers and sisters.

.1355

Mr. Maloney: As the regulation exists - and I refer you now to section 6 of the regulations as they pertain to aboriginals - in order to qualify as an individual who is an aboriginal, they would like a declaration from an individual that he is a member of the aboriginal people of Canada, he is a member of the aboriginal community, he engages in traditional hunting practices, and all of that is confirmed by a leader of the individual's aboriginal community. What do you feel about that? Is that sufficient? How do you think the leader's confirmation should be: by another statement, another declaration, or otherwise?

Vice-Chief Adam: The declaration itself is a useful tool in keeping track of who the hunters are and what kind of firearms they have. As I said, it should be up to us to determine our membership.

Mr. Maloney: But you agree with the confirmation of the leader of the band.

Vice-Chief Adam: [Inaudible - Editor].

Mr. Maloney: You have no concerns; you're in agreement with the confirmation statement or declaration from the leader of the individual's aboriginal community that in fact he is a member of that community and practises aboriginal hunting practices.

Vice-Chief Adam: As long as the community agrees with it. I would leave it up to the community itself to determine who its membership should be.

Mr. Maloney: One last question. Sections 14 and 17 of the proposed regulations are similar. They set out the criteria an individual must satisfy in order to qualify for an alternative certification. If you don't have it in front of you, I just might read it:

(a) basic knowledge of the safe storage, display, handling, transportation and use of firearms by individuals, including the operation of common hunting firearms; and

(b) knowledge of the laws that relate to the use of firearms and to the storage, display, handling and transportation of firearms by individuals.

Do you feel these criteria are strong enough? Too strong? What are your comments? Are any safety concerns raised by this?

Vice-Chief Adam: Again, safety is of the utmost concern. The person who utilizes the firearms for sustenance purposes and so on has to know all these things: safety, line of fire, identifying the object before firing, and so on. These are all things that are being taught in our communities right now.

I can't really add more to it. It's just that again the ability of our own people to take on those tasks and teach our own people is what we're asking for.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: I don't have any more questions.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: I wanted to ask Mr. Adam one further question.

It refers, Mr. Adam, to the percentage of aboriginal people who are in custody perhaps through a conviction on what would be termed a violent offence. Do you feel a large portion or a small portion of those aboriginal people who have gone through that process and now have a criminal conviction for assault or some other violent offence would still be responsible firearm owners and users? I ask this because of course section 5 of this new act, which I have a great many concerns about and oppose, by and large would rule those individuals out of having a licence to own a firearm. From your experience and your knowledge, do you feel some of these people who have over the years obtained a conviction for what might be termed a violent offence would still be safe users and owners of firearms?

Vice-Chief Adam: All I can say is yes.

Mr. Ramsay: That answers my question. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Adam, Mr. Keewatin. We appreciate the time you've taken in agreeing to speak with us today. We know you have to leave and we want to thank you once again for your cooperation. Your testimony has been very helpful. Thank you very much.

.1400

We will now take a 15-minute break while we prepare for the next witnesses.

.1401

.1417

The Chairman: We are ready to reconvene with our next witnesses. I'm very pleased to have with us this afternoon Ms Leona Heillig, who works in pubic relations and fund-raising for the Montreal Assault Prevention Centre.

Welcome, Ms Heillig. I'd like to also welcome your associate, Betty Bayless, president of the Canadian Federation of University Women, from Saskatoon. It is a pleasure to have here with us this afternoon.

We want to welcome as well, from Vancouver - and I wonder if she can hear us - Jill Hightower.

Ms Jill Hightower (Executive Director, B.C. Institute on Family Violence): I can hear you.

The Chairman: I want to thank you for being with us this afternoon. We're going to ask Ms Heillig to make a presentation. Then when she's finished, we'll ask Jill Hightower to make her presentation. Following that, we hope both witnesses will entertain questions from members of the subcommittee.

That being said, I want to now begin and ask Ms Heillig to make her presentation.

Ms Leona Heillig (Director, Public Relations and Fund-Raising, Montreal Assault Prevention Centre): Thank you.

The Montreal Assault Prevention Centre is a charitable community organization that works to reduce violence against women, children and people with disabilities. Since 1982 the centre has been offering prevention education programming to the groups of people who are the most vulnerable to assault - that is, women, children, adolescents, older people and people with disabilities. We advocate a community approach to prevention. As such, we offer workshops to parents and school personnel and promote public awareness of issues relating to the prevention of violence.

Like other groups that represent women and parents, and like many Quebeckers, we have always taken a strong stand in support of stricter controls over firearms as one component in a comprehensive strategy of assault prevention. We are therefore very pleased by the passing of Bill C-68. I would like to state from the start that we're in favour of the proposed regulations to the Firearms Act as they stand.

We were involved in the consultation process, we feel that we were listened to and we're satisfied that our concerns were heard and mostly incorporated into the proposed regulations.

.1420

I would like to talk specifically about the spousal notification regulation of the licensing. We believe the regulations on spousal notification, which are on pages 1 and 2, are of particular importance in the prevention of violence against women. A Statistics Canada study in 1989 tells us that almost half of Canadian women who were murdered by their husbands in 1989 were shot, and most often with a rifle or shotgun. These statistics refer only to women who are actually killed with a firearm and do not cover the countless women and children who are threatened with firearms in their own homes by violent spouses or family members.

A 1993 Statistics Canada survey on violence against women found one in six women currently living with a man had been assaulted by him at least once. Fully half of women who had lived with a man in the past stated that they had been assaulted by their ex-partner. More than one in ten women who had been assaulted by their current spouse stated that they had feared for their life at one time during the relationship. I heard on television last night a Health Canada statistic which said one in three women had feared for their life from their spouse. That's one in three women in Canada. When a firearm is present in the household, this fear will increase, and rightly so.

We also know that even when a woman gathers the courage to leave an abusive relationship, the danger to her and her children is not necessarily over. Many of the women killed every year in Canada are shot by their ex-husbands. As we learned after the tragedy in Vernon, B.C., often the man in question has a history of violence.

We fervently hope the proposed regulations on licensing acquisition will help to prevent more such killings. We're in agreement with paragraph 3.(c), which states that the spouse of the applicant should not be one of the references. This will prevent a violent person from coercing his or her spouse into signing the form against her or his better judgment.

Section 4, which refers to the notification by the chief firearms officer for any current or former spouse up to two years past that their spouse or ex-spouse has applied for a firearm, is extremely important to the safety of women who are in or who have been in a violent relationship. The knowledge that their spouse or ex-spouse, whom they have reason to fear, will now be armed will allow them to prepare themselves for an eventual attack. They could move. They could go to a shelter. They could take a self-defence course or stay with a friend. They could take action.

Some women in this situation might choose to notify the authorities that they do not believe their spouse should have possession of a firearm, but we must not put the onus on the victims of violence to do the work of the chief firearms officers and the local authorities. Many women have legitimate reason to fear for their lives if they report their spouse or ex-spouse to the authorities and they may choose not to disclose their abuse for this reason, or for other reasons.

As you know, the spousal notification regulation is just that, notification only. The spouse will not have the power to veto an application.

Having expressed my support for the regulations as they stand, I would like to take this opportunity to address some concerns we have about the eventual implementation of these regulations. It's in the implementation that we believe the ramifications of the legislation will be felt by women.

The regulations confer a great deal of power on the chief firearms officer and his deputies. In the case of paragraph 4.(3)(a), for example, if the applicant is unable to provide the names or addresses of his former spouses, the chief firearms officer has some leeway. And I would just like to point out that sometimes if the person does not know where his ex-spouse is, it's because the ex-spouse does not want him to know where she is. The chief firearms officer may judge that it is not practicable to give notice to the person. In that case he has a few steps to take. He must require the applicant to submit information referred to in subsection 55(1) of the act, which states that he ``may require...such information, in addition to that included in the application, as may reasonably be regarded as relevant for the purpose of determining whether the applicant is eligible to hold the licence...''

The vague wording of this subsection is designed to allow the CFO freedom to investigate further the applicant's eligibility. However, in the case of a CFO who is not familiar with the specific issues of domestic violence, he might not know what kind of information to ask for.

Similarly, the CFO must also conduct an investigation referred to in section 55(2):

...an investigation...may consist of interviews with neighbours, community workers, social workers, individuals who live or work with the applicant, spouse, former spouse dependants or whomever in the opinion of the chief firearms officer may provide information pertaining to whether the applicant is eligible...

.1425

We're in agreement with the large scope of such an investigation. We believe it was written as a result of consultations with women's groups that pointed out that there is often no official record of domestic violence. Most cases are never reported, and many cases that are reported do not lead to arrest or to records being kept. Therefore, it's vital that any investigation conducted into the eligibility of the applicant must include interviews with neighbours and others who would be in a position to voice their knowledge or even their suspicion of domestic violence. This is also consistent with the recommendations that were made after the Vernon massacre - and I believe you will be getting those if you don't already have them.

We hope the CFO will not restrict his denial of firearms licences only to cases where charges have been laid for conjugal violence because we know that, on average, a woman will suffer thirty beatings before calling the police. For this reason, the police are not always the best providers of this sort of information.

While we are in favour of the scope of this subsection, we reiterate that much depends on the knowledge and zeal of the CFO. For this reason we hope that much effort will go into a coherent, country-wide training program for firearms officers and other people who will be enforcing Bill C-68.

The problem of domestic violence is extremely complex. It's difficult to understand for those who have not lived through it. Any training program should involve local women's groups and agencies that work regularly with victims of conjugal violence. I'd like to point out that the issue of training is very strongly stressed in the Vernon recommendations.

In conclusion, I would like to repeat my hope that this committee will pass the regulations with no major changes, as we believe they go a long way towards the reduction and prevention of violence against women in Canada.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms Heillig.

Now we would like to hear from Ms Jill Hightower, please.

Ms Hightower: First of all, I'd like to express my appreciation for the opportunity to make some comments. Also, I really have a very bad cold, so my voice may crack up a little bit.

The B.C. Institute on Family Violence is a non-profit society. The focus of our work is research, education and training around issues of family violence, and that includes domestic violence, child abuse and elder abuse. Our work covers just about every aspect of interpersonal violence.

I am very supportive of the regulations. In drafting the regulations and in the implementation of the law, it's really critical that the safety of individuals in the communities continues to be of paramount concern. I think that has come to pass. As domestic violence is a very serious issue for all of us, it's gratifying to see the regulations support the seriousness of this problem. However, it's important that the new regulations ensure a solid standard of screening, with particular emphasis on restricted weapons.

The following comments are intended to really support the regulations - we would like to see them passed - and to suggest some ways of maybe strengthening the screening process. I'm limiting my comments to the possession and acquisition licence for firearms, and to permits for restricted weapons.

Guns, we know, are often a part of the cycle of intimidation and violence that many victims face in their homes. The boundaries we refer to between law-abiding citizens and the criminal element have really very little meaning in the context of wife-battering.

A study that we did in 1984 on homicide in the family in and around the lower mainland of British Columbia, identified 148 victims and 122 perpetrators. One-quarter of those victims were shot, and 23 of the perpetrators who committed suicide following the murders shot themselves. While we found that some of the perpetrators took very definite steps to obtain a gun, many already owned a gun, and in some instances had more than one. There's very little question that some of the murders would not have occurred had it been more difficult for the family member to obtain a gun. So we really welcome the work in terms of drafting the regulations and including these issues.

.1430

Since the passage of Bill C-68 we've had two major cases of death related to domestic violence in British Columbia involving the use of firearms. I refer to the death of the Gakhal family at the hands of Mark Chahal, and his subsequent suicide, and the death of Larry Scott as a result of a self-inflicted gunshot wound after stalking, shooting and wounding his former girlfriend.

The coroner's report, as I'm sure you are familiar, on the death of the Gakhal family and Mark Chahal included recommendations about the process of obtaining firearms and about use and acquisition of restricted weapons.

The process of community checks on individuals applying for a licence to acquire and possess a firearm is time-consuming and somewhat costly - and we do understand that - but it's such a critical part of the process. The Minister of Justice has stated that a major goal of the new legislation is to prevent escalation of violence in what he terms already difficult or abusive domestic situations. This will not be achieved without good community checks.

Criminal record checks, along with checks of other police and court registry databases, are really important elements in this process, but more is needed. The requirement in the draft regulations that the name, current address and telephone number of every former or current spouse or common-law partner of the applicant with whom the applicant is cohabiting or did cohabit in the last two years prior to making an application is a very important part of the protection of victims of domestic violence. I think the speaker prior to me really laid that out very clearly.

This process may disclose instances during the prior relationships of violence or mental instability exhibited by the individual now seeking to acquire a firearm.

In the case of Rajwar Gakhal, there were domestic violence complaints on file. Unfortunately, those were not utilized. But we know that some women are assaulted by their partners many times before they seek any help. Some women in fact will leave a relationship without ever disclosing their victimization. That's not uncommon.

The Vernon case illustrates the fact that separation or termination of a relationship is a very dangerous time. I think we have to emphasize that.

A process of notification to former partners will give them the opportunity to voice any concerns they might have about their safety. If the applicant for the firearms acquisition certificate makes a written statement to the effect that the whereabouts of a former partner is unknown, the fact that the applicant is a source of this information makes it crucial that some secondary checks be made to verify the information provided and minimize the potential risk.

Subsection 4(3) of the regulations states that ``A chief firearms officer may issue the licence without giving notice to a current or former spouse or common law partner referred to in paragraph 3(1)(d)'' who has signed the application. I must say, I was a little unsure of this section. The way I read it, I would suggest that situations and circumstances change, and not knowing the condition in which the signature was obtained means that an attempt should be made to notify the former partner.

In terms of restricted weapons, the process followed in regard to issuing a permit for restricted weapons has varied widely across jurisdictions in Canada. Given the known risks of firearms in general, restricted weapons and restricted weapons in particular, and the role of legally acquired guns in domestic violence, it's hoped that the regulations will encourage and include some further direction in this area to ensure some basic continuity of process across all jurisdictions.

.1435

As an example, direction for community checks similar to those for the firearms acquisition application would assist in ensuring the correction of some basic information, given the added risk that handguns pose by virtue of their easy concealment and the fact that gun collecting and target shooting are discretionary activities. I believe this was a strong recommendation from the coroner's jury in Vernon.

One can't argue that this legislation and these regulations will necessarily prevent any one particular tragedy, but as we review the tragedy in Vernon and other such tragedies, we do know certain requirements set out in the legislation requiring a firearms acquisition certificate and the permit for a restricted weapon process can really help to reduce family-based homicides. On the other hand, I think it's important that we as community members must also strive to understand better the additional risks guns pose to victims of family violence. Legislation and regulations can help reduce the incidence and seriousness of family violence, but we can't rely on the law alone. As community members, we should report to the police any information we may have about potential problems and difficulties. I think likewise we must not accept the idea that gun violence and domestic murders are somehow inevitable.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: I appreciated the fact that you were satisfied with the bill and with its passage into law. You also approve of the proposed regulations as they stand now and also, as far as you are concerned, Mrs. Heillig, insofar as the officers who will implement the regulation and the act have the appropriate training and purpose, which leads me to ask you a question.

Of course, the regulations will be put in place and will be adequately implemented. It's the firearms officer, the contrôleur des armes à feu, that will have to see to the implementation of the regulations. It is quite clear that cases of domestic violence often remain hidden below the surface. In that context, what specific training or approach do you recommend for the firearms officer?

Mrs. Heillig: It would be useful to have training at various levels. Many people are bound to be aware of the problem. I'm sure that in some areas, the person in charge is fully aware of the situation. I hope that is the case in British Columbia. What has to be done is to involve groups that have been working for a long time in each region with abused women and with the families. They are the real experts.

A large volume of information has been compiled on the subject. For the last 20 or 25 years, we have been learning about it, talking about it, compiling statistics about it. Whatever the form of training that is developed, it will have to involve the real experts.

Anyone in charge of implementation must understand that an abused women is not necessarily willing to lay a charge. I know that it is very frustrating for the police. I have heard it mentioned many times. The police say: "How are we going to find out if the women don't tell us anything?" It is true, but you have to understand why women do not reveal that they have been abused.

.1440

Fear comes into the picture. The husband says: "If you tell them anything, I will kill you." As I was saying before, one woman out of three believes the threat. Shame also plays a large part, especially in small rural communities in Canada where everybody knows everybody, where the husband, who may be a respected member of the community, is known by everyone.

A woman will not necessarily want to lay charges. There will not necessarily be a shelter in which she will be safe, etc. So, the whole issue has to be studied in detail with the people in charge. The whole thing is far from obvious.

Members of the community, neighbours, must be interviewed. They must be asked if they heard anything that lead them to think that there may have been some domestic violence. Neighbours may be aware of the situation, but they may also be afraid of complaining. That's the kind of thing that has to be examined.

Mr. de Savoye: What you are telling us is that the law and the regulations do not ensure the safety of these women. What should be considered is a community effort, a system whereby the implementation officers will have to keep in close contact with the other players of the community in order to guide their efforts and make them more efficient.

Mrs. Heillig: That's right.

Mr. de Savoye: You are obviously aware of the fact that other groups have asked this subcommittee to amend certain aspects of the regulations. I assume that you are going to monitor our work, so that if you object to some changes that seem appropriate to us, you will point them out to us.

I would like to have your opinion on something that was mentioned earlier today. There are people whose job is to transport money. The names of Brink's, Loomis, or SECUR in Quebec, come to mind. Their employees' job is to escort valuables and they carry weapons. We were told that they could exchange their weapons if they worked part time. We were asked whether the weapons could be registered in the name of the company rather than in the name of the individual.

What do you think of this type of change to the regulations? Would there be any implications for you?

Mrs. Heillig: I have not thought much about it. If the security officer doesn't keep his weapon at home, there is no risk for his family. All aspects of safety should be considered. I recognize that it is not very convenient to be restricted by regulations, but safety and security come first. Often, the people who are most at risk are the members of family of the firearm holder and the holder himself.

Mr. de Savoye: So, if that person doesn't bring his firearm home, there is less risk; in fact, there may be no risk at all. We could even use that as a sort of guidepost to assess how dangerous it is.

Mrs. Heillig: I'm thinking aloud; that could indeed be used for that.

Mr. de Savoye: Thank you, Mrs. Heillig.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank our witnesses for coming and providing testimony today.

I would like to ask this question of our witnesses. Would you support the removal of all firearms from the hands of civilians in Canada?

Ms Heillig: No.

Mr. Ramsay: Then of the three million to six million individuals who own firearms -

The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Ramsay. I wonder if Ms Hightower would want to comment on that.

Ms Hightower: No, I wouldn't do that. I think we can work to ensure safety for everybody in the community and maintain the rights of those people who wish to use guns for legitimate purposes. I certainly am not saying to take them away from everybody, no.

.1445

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.

Here's my next question. And of course I'm referring to the three million to six million or seven million Canadians who have firearms in their homes, firearms that are lawfully held and legally acquired. If a husband intends to assault his wife with a firearm, how will Bill C-68 or the regulations prevent it from happening?

Ms Heillig: Are you talking about people who already have firearms in their homes?

Mr. Ramsay: Yes. I'm talking about the three million to six million Canadians who already have firearms.

Ms Heillig: My comments specifically addressed the new applicants, because that's very much where the law has been strengthened. This is where the community approach is really important. The more aware of the dangers of firearms people responsible for the safety of their communities are - and that includes everybody in the community - and the more education there is, the better our safety will be.

Mr. Ramsay: Okay.

Ms Hightower: I'm sure you're aware that we have just had a case today of a three-year-old who shot himself with his father's handgun, in their house. The handgun wasn't stored properly. For instances like this, I think the new regulations and the awareness will certainly help.

And yes, I have some concerns. I've looked at the regulations and I do have some concerns about those people who already possess weapons. We know that guns are used to intimidate people. Unfortunately, we have to start somewhere and I think the new process for obtaining weapons will certainly help.

We're hopeful that education, among other things, will be helpful to those who already possess weapons and will certainly encourage women in such situations to maybe report it and to do something about it. It's a really difficult area.

Mr. Ramsay: With respect to the safe storage requirements, I don't think there's too much opposition except perhaps in remote areas under circumstances where the safe storage requirements would pose a threat rather than a protection. The requirements are already there. This bill does not provide for them. They're in Bill C-17.

However, here's my point. My concern is that we have to deal with the irrationality of the individual who uses a weapon of any kind to assault anyone, including the spouse. Once that irrationality develops, whether it's through anger or hatred or whatever, just because the firearm is registered, even if it's locked away, which the owner of a firearm would have a key to.... I do not see where this bill contains the potential to reduce the unlawful use of firearms among the three million to six million Canadians who now own firearms.

In addition to that, we saw in the B.C. case that this lady did report her concerns to the police and this individual still obtained a firearm at that very same detachment. That did not prevent him from obtaining a firearm.

Neal Jessop of the Canadian Police Association appeared before the committee and pointed out that the success of this bill will be based upon the ability of the government to deal with the smuggling of firearms into Canada. I think he's right.

In the case of this individual from B.C., if he was intent on injuring those people, he could have gotten a firearm off the black market very easily. The MacKenzie Institute submitted a report on the smuggling of firearms into Canada and concluded that if Bill C-68 goes through there will be an explosion - and that's the word they used - of firearms smuggling into Canada.

We're all concerned about domestic violence and we would all support measures that would reduce domestic violence. I do not see within this bill the potential to do so, particularly among the three million to six million firearm owners now.

.1450

Would you care to comment on that, perhaps starting with Ms Hightower?

Ms Hightower: I think I already said I agree with you there is a concern, certainly in terms of current ownership. But I do think this bill and these regulations can help to prevent some instances of domestic violence. In the case of Mark Chahal, we know he found it very easy to get a gun the way the process was. If he had had to go to a larger effort to obtain a gun, maybe it would not have happened. We really don't know. But I do feel very strongly the emphasis on new registration will be really helpful.

I hope through the various education processes that are going to go on and that are going on now around the legislation and the regulations we will be able to raise awareness about the use of guns in instances of domestic violence. Obviously you can't stop every single incident. I know that's true, but I do see this process as being really helpful in helping to reduce - and I only say ``reduce''.

Ms Heillig: I would like to say a couple of things about your statement and your question, first of all, about the irrationality of violent men. I think the safe storage regulations, which we already have, go a long way towards making it more difficult just to pick up a gun and use it in the middle of a fight. It means you would have to think twice. You would have to get your key, unlock the case, and everything.

You have made the exact same point as I made. The problem is in the enforcing. We now have a law that says there must be safe storage. As you pointed out very rightly in the Vernon case, we have seen that law is not being enforced now. So when I say we have concerns about the implementation, we think any law which makes it more difficult to obtain and use firearms against someone is a good law. The thing that's really important is that it has to be enforced. We really need to make sure that our police forces across Canada are going to be really enforcing the safe storage law, that we have people going and checking - not just saying you need to store safely, but checking.

The other thing is about the smuggling. It's an interesting point you make. As a society we have laws. We make laws because we believe certain things are wrong. When you make something illegal, it's true there might be a secondary effect and all of a sudden people start to do a lot more illegal activity - that's true in any issue - but I don't think that's a reason for not making the law in the first place.

Mr. Ramsay: The point I'm making is that it's the accessibility of firearms that's in question when people wish to obtain a firearm for illegal purposes. The MacKenzie Institute report showed very clearly that because of the smuggling problem and the difficulty we have along a 4,500-mile border, the firearms are going to be accessible. I would suggest this gentleman in B.C. went through a more onerous process of obtaining a firearm through the police detachment than going downtown and buying one off the black market. It's going to be much easier to obtain a firearm off the black market than it is now.

Also, section 104 of the Criminal Code currently empowers the police to obtain a warrant to seize firearms from anyone they believe poses a threat to any member in society. We're piling law upon law. If it's not being enforced, what is the purpose of it?

With the greatest respect, I do not see the implementation of Bill C-68 as providing any safeguard in the homes of the three million to six million gun owners now if someone goes berserk or if someone loses their rationality. If they plan to get the gun, they have the key and they can simply go get it. They have to go somewhere now to get that firearm and get the ammunition and so on. They're doing it now.

.1455

What we have to look at are ways and means of getting at the causes of domestic violence. The bill doesn't contain anything that addresses the causes of domestic violence, and I wish it did.

Thank you.

Mr. Heillig: Actually, I agree with you somewhat. As I said earlier, I work for the Montreal Assault Prevention Centre, and our entire reason for existence is to look at the causes and to try to prevent violence in our society at many levels at the same time.

Gun control legislation is one aspect of the prevention of violence. We believe it's a very important aspect because it sends a message. Enforcement is going to send a very strong message as well. I think that's one aspect.

Yes, we do have to make sure the laws are enforced. We do have to have education. We have to all work together to reduce violence, absolutely.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms Heillig.

Ms Hightower, would you like to comment on that as well?

Ms Hightower: Yes.

I agree with that. It is but one piece of our work to reduce or to bring to an end domestic violence. There are many pieces that fit together, and this is one. But it is an important one.

The Chairman: Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Maloney: Mr. Chairman, perhaps a partial answer to Mr. Ramsay's line of questioning may lie in section 15 of the proposed regulations, which allows the chief firearms officer to consider revoking a licence if he or she becomes aware that the licenceholder has been involved in an act of domestic violence. The question then, perhaps, is what do you feel constitutes involvement in an act of domestic violence?

Ms Heillig: That's a very good question. When we went to consultations this summer with the Department of Justice and we discussed this issue, I suggested that one possibility would be similar to our laws on youth protection. The law we have in Quebec is that we're required to report any case to the youth protection agency if we suspect there's violence. In practice, of course, it often has to become quite serious before people do report it, but I think that might be a starting point. If somebody who knows this person suspects that this person has been involved in violence....

We know there's an escalation in all, or almost all, cases of violence. Things start off small and they build. So we don't want to wait until there's a gun involved before we do something, before we intervene.

As a community member, if I know a man is beating his wife - I hear it through the walls or I see the woman with a black eye, not one black eye but over a period of time - and I know there's a gun in that house, I hope that I would report that to the firearms officer and that the firearms officer would take this into consideration.

Every case is different. You can't just say, two black eyes and you take away the gun, but that's where education comes into play. There is a pattern in domestic violence. It does tend to really build up over time. The first assault will probably not involve the gun. It could be years. There's lots of time to intervene before things get really serious.

Mr. Maloney: Ms Hightower, do you have any comments?

Ms Hightower: I agree with that. I think at the end of my brief I pointed out that we really do all have a responsibility, if we know of or suspect anything, to take that step and to report it to the police whereby the police can then check and see if there are firearms in the house.

But we don't have a real process right now, as we do with child protection, in this province in which we can do this. It's extremely difficult for people. People don't want to get involved. They're very cautious about it. This is all part of the education and all part of the work we have to do to end domestic violence.

Mr. Maloney: It was interesting to note that one of the recommendations put forward this morning by an individual from the armoured car industry - this was the Brink's and Loomis people - was to add:

or if the chief firearms officer becomes aware that the individual's physical or mental state has deteriorated to an extent that may affect the safety of the individual or any other person.

Do you have any comments on that suggestion or recommendation?

Ms Heillig: My first thought is I wonder how you would go about enforcing that. It's a very subjective thing sometimes.

.1500

But yes, people do deteriorate, certainly. As I say, there are usually many signs before a person gets to the point of actually injuring or killing someone.

Ms Hightower: I think it would be awfully useful if the employee of Brink's and those people in management positions also watched their own employees to see if they themselves can see whether there is any sort of deterioration or difficulties, because they have a great responsibility for the people who are out doing the work. Those people may themselves be involved in domestic violence.

People who are involved in domestic violence go across all sorts of categories, all boundaries, all professions. Certainly those whose professions mean they need to carry a gun.... Their employees should be looking at and maybe using some of their suggestions in their own work.

Mr. Maloney: Another interesting point is that in getting a licence for a crossbow there is not the requirement to notify the spouse or common law spouse. What are your feelings on that? Do you think we should be enforcing that same requirement with crossbows?

Ms Heillig: Yes, I do. I happened to know the woman who was killed in Ottawa a few years ago by her husband with a crossbow. Yes, I do think that.

Ms Hightower: I would agree with that.

Mr. Maloney: In that same area, perhaps we should be notifying anyone other than perhaps a spouse or a former common law spouse, or do you think that's sufficient?

Ms Heillig: I'm very glad you asked me that question. It's also something we talked about in the consultations this summer.

We believe anyone who lives in the household - children, room-mates, anyone who lives in the house with the person - is going to be in danger if that person gets violent with a gun. The other thing I would hope would be included would be same-sex spouses and ex-spouses.

Mr. Maloney: Ms Hightower, would you like to comment on whether people other than common law spouses or spouses should be notified when an individual is applying for a licence?

Ms Hightower: I agree that for anybody who lives within the same household that's important, and again, in any type of relationship, such as same-sex partners. In some cases other members of the family actually have been been shot, certainly in the Gakhal case. Yes, family members are very often at risk: grandparents.... We've had at least one case in which grandparents were shot in a case of domestic dispute. So it is important that other members of a family be considered and be informed, if possible.

Mr. Maloney: I suppose it's a question of how far you go. That may be the difficulty.

Do you feel the two-year limit is adequate? Should it be less? Should it be more?

Ms Heillig: It should be at least two years. I know the Department of Justice did research on this and found the two years seem to be the biggest danger period. More than two years and it's very hard to find that person. People move around. Ideally it could be three years, but I think two years would be acceptable.

Mr. Maloney: Just as a matter of interest, if an applicant has no idea where the spouse or common law spouse was or is, what directives would you give the chief firearms officer in trying to make ultimate considerations or inquiries?

Ms Heillig: The first thing I would say is if the person has no idea where their ex-spouse is after two years, that's an alarm bell that should be going off. Why do they have no contact? As I said earlier, it may be because the spouse doesn't want them to know and is hiding, or it may be because things were so bad between them that they've just completely lost contact. It's not in every case that it would be an indication of danger, but I think it could be, and it should be something that sets off the alarm. Then in the regulations, that's when the chief firearms officer is supposed to do the community investigation. I think a very thorough investigation of other people who would know whether there is or was violence is very important.

The Chairman: Mr. de Savoye.

.1505

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: The implementation of the act and of its regulations affect two groups: first, those who want to acquire a firearm, but perhaps even more so the people who already own a firearm. When someone wants to acquire a firearm, it is important to make sure that the individual is not prone to violence, but it is just as important to make sure that the people who have owned a firearm for several years do not become prone to violence.

Thus, the effectiveness expected from the implementation of the act will depend on whether one can make sure that the owners of a firearm do not misuse it. As you said earlier, it requires a collective effort. You even said that in the case of abused children in Quebec, members of the community are encouraged to report the incidents. The same thing could be done in the case of firearms.

How can we make sure - should we do it through the regulations - that the appropriate measures could be used to take away a firearm from someone who is becoming dangerous, without becoming overly paranoid? It will be extremely difficult and touchy. How could that be implemented? In the subcommittee, we have the opportunity to see beyond the document itself, to see what the effects will be in real life. How do you see that implemented in practice?

Mrs. Heillig: I do not know whether it will be done through the wording of the regulations themselves or later, in the implementation. I think that an awareness campaign should be launched in the general public.

I would like to add something to what you said. In Quebec, when you suspect that a child is being abused, you're not simply encouraged to report it, you're compelled to do it. That is an important distinction.

As far as education is concerned, the government can use posters and public announcements to say: If you know of someone who should not have a gun, report him. At that time, the person in charge, the chief firearms officer, has to initiate the inquiry. It does not mean that because someone said that a particular person should not have a gun, the gun should be taken from him. Far from it. It simply indicates that one should perhaps look more closely into the situation. The first thing to do, before going any further is to check whether the regulations concerning the safe storage of the weapon, under lock, have been observed.

Mr. de Savoye: You mentioned quite rightly a moment ago that in Quebec, the law requires that people report any case of violence against children. However, where there is an obligation, there is also a counterpart. When your forfeit your obligation, there is a penalty. Where would the responsibility lie? Do you think it should be included in the regulation? Or would the responsibility lie with the person who did not report the fact that a particular individual should perhaps not be allowed to keep his firearm?

Mrs. Heillig: It's a good question. I'm smiling because currently, in Quebec, even for the children, this particular disposition is not implemented. Everybody knows that reporting this type of situation is a duty, that people are rarely prosecuted for failing to report. It happened once, recently, in the case of school principal who obviously was held responsible because he had known of the obligation for a long time. He was not fined. He was ordered to organize an awareness campaign in his own school. It's a rather difficult matter. I think that we can use our awareness campaign to explain why it is important and why everybody has a share of responsibility. As to sanctions, forfeit, etc., I believe there is still a long way to go.

.1510

Mr. de Savoye: Mrs. Hightower, would you like to add some comments?

[English]

Ms Hightower: I agree. In B.C. we have the same legislation. You have the responsibility to report. I can't think of any instance in which anybody has received any form of penalty. But knowing we do have that obligation makes us very conscious, very aware, that we do have the responsibility. Again, it's education and a means of making us focus on this issue. So basically I agree with the last speaker.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: After listening to both of you I conclude that the act and its regulations are inherently an effort in favour of the education of the public, aiming at emphasizing the appropriate values in order to promote the appropriate behaviour. Thank you very much.

Mrs. Heillig: That's what most Canadians wish.

[English]

Ms Hightower: I would agree. If you look backwards, it's to when we all had to register our cars and get driver's licences - all these things. We accept these things. Sometimes people misuse their cars and accidents happen, but it's a framework and we all learn from this responsibility. The legislation and the regulations are doing a very good job in that way.

The Chairman: Ms Whelan.

Ms Whelan (Essex - Windsor): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to pick up on what my colleagues have been talking about, in particular what Mr. Maloney was talking about.

One of our presenters early this morning talked about the different requirements on business: if a business holds a licence the things they are required to report if something happens to one of their employees, for example if the employee was involved in an act of domestic violence, if there was a charge or conviction for an offence, if they were under treatment for mental illness, and whether or not there was involvement in behaviour that would be seen to be violent. He suggested those conditions also be put into paragraph 14, which would require an individual to report not only the changes in his name and address but any of those things which may have happened to him as someone who holds a licence for a firearm. I am just wondering what your opinion is on that. We obviously know some wouldn't, but do you think it would be of any benefit or any effect?

Ms Heillig: Once again, I wasn't here this morning when he was talking about it and I haven't thought about it. In the cases where the person would come forward with that information it would certainly be useful to have.

Ms Hightower: I agree with that. There are some individuals who very well might do that. It certainly wouldn't hurt to do that.

Ms Whelan: Perhaps there's a possibility or there's a way, especially when you're talking about a charge or conviction or some type of court proceeding, that somehow the justice system eventually will get to it, so it's very fine-tuned and firearms licences will be matched to their criminal record. I'm not sure that's going to happen exactly overnight, but I guess that's where we're going.

I have one other question on your statement about the way it shows. You felt the two-year timeframe was based on evidence or justice requirements; that was pretty much the period for acts of domestic violence or that was the rockiest time in some type of break-up.

Ms Heillig: That was what we were told by the Department of Justice. I haven't seen statistics on that myself personally.

Ms Whelan: You wouldn't have anything different to that effect?

Ms Heillig: No.

Ms Whelan: Ms Hightower?

.1515

Ms Hightower: No, I don't. We do know there are exceptional cases in which women are stalked over long periods of time after a break-up, but I don't really have any statistics that would support increasing the length. In general, I think the first two years is a reasonable approach.

Ms Whelan: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Ramsay, do you have any further questions?

Mr. Ramsay: Yes, I have just a couple.

I was interested in your comment about a husband who is applying for a firearm licence who does not know where his spouse is. If the husband does not know where the former spouse is I think this would be the safest condition. How can he harm her if he doesn't know where she is? You can comment on that.

My question relates to the statement you made regarding possibly denying all civilians the use of firearms, the ownership of firearms. You disagreed with that. I was glad to hear you say that. However, Bill C-68 bans 58% of handguns legally purchased and lawfully held by law-abiding Canadians. Do you support this part of the bill? Do you support the banning of these firearms?

Ms Heillig: We know that most women who are killed by their husbands are killed with rifles or shotguns, not with handguns, so that's really where we've really focused our effort. I don't want to comment any further about that.

But with respect to what you said before about the husband not knowing where his spouse is, it would be great, if we believed all the husbands who say they don't know where their spouses are. Of course if he doesn't know where she is now, that means he can't go and get her. I venture to say there's a possibility that someone might lie. There's also the possibility that he may not know where she is right now, but once he gets the gun he may go and find her.

Mr. Ramsay: Okay. I don't mean to insist, but one of the most obnoxious portions of this bill for the people who have written to me, talked to me, and phoned me is that 58% of the handguns that have been lawfully acquired and legally held for years is being banned by this bill. Inasmuch as you feel it is not necessary to remove all firearms from the hands of civilians, how do you feel about a bill that would deny or that would prohibit that number of firearms, which is over 500,000 according to my statistics?

You're supporting a bill that contains some overtones and some application that you're not responding to. And I say this with respect.

We see the economic ramifications for a host of people, whether it's the gun clubs, the museums, the outfitters and guides, the firearms manufacturers and the re-enactment people. This bill is negatively affecting them. They're opposing it because of the impositions it places on them. There's also this other huge group of people that owns 58% of firearms, the handguns that are now being banned.

When you support this bill, are you aware of the other ramifications of the bill, both economic and otherwise? I think we should take that into consideration. Yes, the safety of society is important, but we must look at the other ramifications of the bill.

Ms Heillig: I've been involved in the process since 1990 when I came here and spoke about Bill C-17. One thing I've learned is that politics involves compromise.

We've been consulted. When I speak I speak about prevention of violence against women and about the safety of women and children and of men. I think that is the most important thing any of us can possibly care about.

Of course I'm concerned about other people's inconvenience. As Jill Hightower said, any kind of regulations and any kind of restrictions cause inconvenience, like licences for cars and things like that. I think there are ways around it. I think the justice department has taken many different groups' concerns into account. I know that you've been hearing from all kinds of different groups, groups for the bill and groups against the bill.

I support the bill because I believe in safety. That's my primary concern. This bill, while it may not be perfect, really addresses those safety concerns.

.1520

Mr. Ramsay: Then do you support only parts of this bill? As much as you have indicated today that rifles and shotguns are the main weapons used against spouses, and not handguns, how is the banning of 58% of the handguns, particularly when they're going to lead -

The Chairman: Excuse me. Before she answers, Mr. Ramsay, I have to tell her that what she thinks about the act isn't going to make any difference anyway, because the act isn't before us. The regulations are.

Please feel free to answer if you like, but it's not going to make any difference.

Mr. Ramsay: Well, all right. With the intervention by the chairman, I would direct my questions elsewhere then, if you don't wish to comment on that.

I see an inconsistency here, and inconsistencies always bother me. I therefore try to reconcile them to my questioning. If you don't want to address that issue, that's fine.

Ms Heillig: It's not my area of expertise.

Mr. Ramsay: Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, yes, the concern that the witnesses now appearing before the committee have with regards to domestic violence is one that we all share. But both the bill itself and the regulations pertain to a far wider scope than that. It's depriving individuals of maintaining or acquiring.... It simply has prohibited 58% of firearms that the witnesses themselves have indicated are not their prime concern in terms of domestic violence, whereas rifles and shotguns are the prime concern.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

Ms Heillig: Any gun in the home is a threat.

The Chairman: Ms Hightower.

Ms Hightower: I do have a comment that handguns are used in domestic violence. Certainly a lot of our cases B.C. have involved the use of handguns.

I would also like to say that I have been involved in this process and understand that there are many groups who have been involved. I agree. I think one part of the special nature of being Canadian is our ability to compromise over issues. I think this bill and the regulations are, in a sense, a compromise. Most victims groups would look for a lot more in an ideal world because I think you can work around inconvenience. But it's very inconvenient to be dead when you know you don't come back. You can't work around that, and I think that's one of our primary concerns: the protection of all people in the community. I do say that respectfully. It is a major issue.

Mr. Ramsay: I just point out that if 58% of those handguns are a threat to society, why is the justice minister leaving them in the hands of their owners? In the Alberta case in which a handgun was used, in which this lady shot her husband four or five times in the back, I might note that she smuggled that firearm in. It was unregistered. But for some reason the Attorney General of Alberta has not proceeded with charges that violate the very types of regulations and laws that we're talking about here today.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Maloney mentioned the ability of the chief firearms officer to withdraw the right to license a firearm. Courts also have the ability to withdraw a person's privilege to own a firearm. That is something that is going to be more prevalent as time goes along, I think. But there has to be a charge brought against the offender, of course. As has been stated here today, that's quite often not the case with the reluctance of the victim to press charges in view of the fact that she may be the recipient of further abuse, as is a certainty in almost all the cases.

The importance of the police being able to lay charges when they feel the victim is intimidated has been pressed upon the crown prosecutors and the attorneys general of the various provinces. I think that is very important in a lot of instances.

.1525

Ms Heillig, do you see that as something that is being done more and more? Do you see a positive future there? Do you think the police are doing that, laying the charges? Do you think we've made the point with the attorneys general and the crown prosecutors?

Ms Heillig: We have that in Montreal. The police can and do lay charges, even when the victim doesn't want them to or hasn't laid charges herself. It's a very slow process but I think we're certainly heading in the right direction.

There's also the new legislation in P.E.I., which is very interesting. There are special justices of the peace who can take action even before charges are laid, and so on.

I think as a society we're heading generally in the right direction. We're becoming more and more aware because of the work groups like ours, the women's groups, have been doing for 20 years. I agree that it's definitely the direction to be going in.

The Chairman: Ms Hightower, do you see any positive results in that direction?

Ms Hightower: In British Columbia the Ministry of the Attorney General has a policy, and the police are doing that. Again, as I think was demonstrated at the inquest in the Gakhal case, there's a lot of work to be done. There's a lot of education to be done.

In terms of this legislation and the regulations, education will be part of, an element in, our work. I think we will see more of that.

In courts, magistrates certainly will need a lot of education around issues of guns and the regulations. I hope that will be part of the process.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

If there are no further questions from members, I would like to thank all of you very much for being here this afternoon, for speaking to us and entertaining our questions. We appreciate it.

We'll now take a short break.

.1528

.1539

The Chairman: We have with us now our final witness of the day, Mr. Robert McNamara, vice-president, Victims of Violence International.

Welcome, Mr. McNamara. If you have a presentation, we would certainly enjoy hearing it, and we hope following that you will be available to respond to questions from members of the subcommittee. Please, sir, begin.

Mr. Robert McNamara (Vice-President, Victims of Violence Canadian Centre for Missing Children): Thank you. I'm vice-president of the Victims of Violence Canadian Centre for Missing Children.

Priscilla de Villiers, who is the president of CAVEAT, was to appear with me today. Unfortunately she couldn't make it, and unfortunately for the committee it's not going to get the benefit of her words, but she has told me she is in full support of these regulations.

.1540

I will begin by apologizing for not getting my brief in on time for it to be translated. Time did not permit obtaining it in time for this presentation.

I'm not a lawyer, a criminologist, a police officer, or an expert on these regulations. My expertise comes from having lost a brother to a handgun murder and from dealing with families and survivors of firearms violence.

You will be hearing a great deal, no doubt, about the cost of firearms regulations, about the inconvenience they present to gun-owners, and about the imposition on their liberties. I want to be sure that in your deliberations you remember the other costs: the costs of doing nothing or of doing too little. These are costs measured in the loss of human life and in human pain and suffering, costs that never end for the survivors of firearms violence.

For every firearms death there are many more lives that will never be the same. There are costs to our communities, who live in fear of firearms violence and crime. There are many people you will not be hearing from, people who have been silenced by firearms murders, suicides, and accidents.

I will try to confine my comments to the regulations before you rather than revisit the arguments in favour of stricter gun control, which no doubt many of your expert witnesses will present.

In my view, the principle that should guide your deliberations is concern for public safety. I wish once again to emphasize that rifles and shotguns as well as handguns, which were at one time legally owned, figure prominently in crime, in murder, in suicides, and in accidents in Canada.

The claim that gun control is not crime control is, in my opinion, false. Without gun control there is no crime control.

Strong screening of applicants for firearms licences is critical to ensuring that individuals who present a risk to themselves or to others do not have easy access to firearms. Strong licensing regulations must be supported by training and effective implementation.

I will focus on two types of licences.

Possession-only licences are for individuals who already possess a firearm. They must apply before January 1, 2001. Possession-only applications will be subject to minimal screening. Although we would prefer strict screening for all firearms licences, the proposed approach seems a reasonable compromise, given that they're individuals who currently have firearms and a major objective is to identify them. This way offers a significant improvement over the current situation, where many people possess firearms and are not known to do so.

Possession and acquisition licences allow the holder to possess and acquire firearms. We support an increased level of explicit accountability for references who must review the information provided by the applicant, in order to ensure that references do not take their task lightly.

In our view, these requirements are reasonable and not unduly onerous given the risks that firearms represent. The classes of references are sufficiently flexible to allow an applicant to comply and in fact are broader than the previous class of references.

In our view, the separate requirement that the spouse be notified is reasonable given the problems of domestic violence. We will support the recommendation that the signature of the spouse must be provided on a form that is sent separately to reduce the chances of intimidation.

Opponents of these regulations will try to represent this as spousal approval and will no doubt raise the image of a vengeful former spouse who prevents the applicant from obtaining a firearm out of spite. It is important to emphasize that spousal notification is not spousal consent and that the concern expressed by a spouse will trigger an investigation to determine whether or not the concerns are well founded.

As Mr. Maloney pointed out, we would also like this, from the Victims of Violence point of view, put on the crossbows. We see basically no difference between a crossbow and a firearm when it comes to killing people.

I must also remind the committee of the recommendations of the inquest into the Vernon massacre. Given the risks, this is an appropriate requirement.

In our view, these regulations provide only a minimum standard of screening. In many of our other jurisdictions there are even more rigorous standards. We will support a more proactive approach by the authorities to refusals and revocations of licences where risk is identified. Again, public safety should be a priority.

.1545

We expect many police sources will continue to provide more rigorous screening, and we would encourage that. As well, the contents of the application form will be critical to the effective implementation of these regulations and we will attempt to ensure the questions asked will support the objectives of the law and the regulations. Therefore we support the licensing regulations as written.

Safe storage regulations are critical to reduce unauthorized access to firearms, to prevent death, and to reduce impulsive use. They are also key to discouraging individuals from arming for self-protection, a wrong-headed notion which only escalates violence.

The proposed regulations for Bill C-68 are virtually identical to the safe storage regulations currently in place and introduced with Bill C-17. They provide separate standards for non-restricted and restricted firearms. Non-restricted firearms must be stored unloaded and separate from ammunition and must be locked with a trigger lock or a secure locking device or deactivated or locked in a room or container. Restricted firearms must be stored unloaded and separate from ammunition and must be locked with a trigger lock or other secure locking device and locked in a case, cupboard, or room unless stored in a vault.

There are accommodations in the safe storage regulations for individuals who reasonably need ready access to their firearm, for example for pest control. During the consultations with the firearms people at the justice department I guess I went in there a little pig-headed, thinking ``keep these guns locked up, keep them safely stored''. From my talking with people on farms for pest control, it came to be known to me as the ``coyote clause''. There is sometimes a reasonable need for people in rural areas to have access to their firearms, and this is included.

Mr. Ramsay's polar bear story I think is covered with these accommodations which are built into these regulations. I have no problems with that. That's a horrific story about the polar bear. I haven't heard it anywhere before, but I would hate for that to happen.

While trigger locks may help to prevent impulsive or unauthorized use, they are no protection against theft. In addition, the existing definition of a storage container or a room is somewhat vague. In our opinion sufficient evidence has been presented on the need to strengthen existing safe storage regulations that we support a single standard for both restricted and unrestricted firearms. The regulations tabled in May require that unrestricted firearms be stored with a trigger lock and in a secure container or room. In our opinion these regulations were more consistent with the objectives of public safety. Therefore we recommend the proposed safe storage regulations be replaced with those which were tabled on May 2, 1996.

Fees. The fees for the new licences, registration, and other services are very low, given the cost to society of access to firearms. At the same time we recognize the importance of ensuring compliance. A differential fee between non-restricted and restricted firearms, $60 and $80, is appropriate. Given that handgun possession is more likely to be discretionary, we would have supported an even greater differential. The annual cost of these licences is less than one pays for any privilege, including owning a dog in most large cities. Given the problems with illegal importation of firearms by individuals and the cost of maintaining secure borders, the $50 fee for visitors does not seem unreasonable. The proposed one-time registration fees, beginning at $10 in 1998 and rising to $18 in 2001, for as many firearms as are registered at one time, are also nominal.

We believe much of the opposition to the provisions of the new firearms control measures is the result of misinformation. We would encourage the federal government to do everything in its power to ensure firearm owners are aware of the facts.

In conclusion, I've appeared before many parliamentary and Senate committees to urge the strengthening of gun control. It has been seven years since the Montreal massacre, and it will be seven more before Bill C-68 is fully implemented. The implementation of licensing has already been delayed twice. We cannot afford more delays.

.1550

We applaud the federal government's work on firearms control and I urge you to proceed with these regulations quickly so that the new law can be implemented.

I would like to thank the federal government for the consultations they had with Victims of Violence, with Priscilla de Villiers's group, CAVEAT, and with other victims groups from across Canada and for the ongoing consultations they've had with our groups.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. McNamara.

I'll begin questioning with Mr. de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Mr. McNamara, page 2 of your submission, you indicate

[English]

that you would support an increased level of explicit accountability for references.

[Translation]

Do you mean that this regulation should be strengthened?

[English]

Mr. McNamara: We support what is there, but one of our concerns is that dealing with references there is a broad scope of references, and that two buddies just don't sign as favours to each other. We want the wording to be clear and concise. We haven't seen the final form yet that would be going out to be signed.

We want to make it clear that when you're giving a reference for somebody you've thought it over, and have thought it through carefully. You're not just scratching your name to scratch your name....

I know, for example, in this city, down on Elgin Street, if anybody needs two signatures for their passport they go into this bar...all my friends say, oh, I'll sign that. So we want to make it perfectly clear that this is a public safety issue and that thought should be going into it if you're going to sign as a reference.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: I'm surprised by your remarks concerning requests for a passport. I thought it was a little bit more complicated than that. If my memory serves me, it was much more difficult for me.

That being said, in the case of firearms, when someone is asked if a specific individual deserves to be allowed to buy a firearm, he is not simply called to express an opinion. Because his own safety may be at stake, I think that he will consider the question very seriously. Don't you think so, Mr. McNamara?

[English]

Mr. McNamara: I hope so. I very much hope so. But that's why we have to look at the wording there. We don't want it just to be a check-off. Nobody wants that.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: According to your recommendation, we should keep the regulation concerning the storage of firearms which was supposedly submitted on May 2. Could you elaborate on the reasons why you think that this regulation was better than the one you have in front of you?

[English]

Mr. McNamara: Before these, the regulations with Bill C-17, I know in the past it's come to our attention that when a police officer.... For example, if you leave your weapon in your house, walk out of your house, lock your door and leave, and somebody breaks into your house and the gun or rifle wasn't actually stored in a container, the police take it that when you locked your door it counted as safe storage. It gets to be very vague.

It's been proven, I guess.... And you'll have suicide prevention people. I was very saddened to hear Jill Hightower today talk about the three-year-old who killed himself with a gun. There was a situation in Winnipeg a couple of months back where a young child shot his babysitter with a shotgun through the bathroom door. I think this speak volumes: these deadly weapons have to be safely secured.

.1555

The regulations of May 2 were tougher. They were more defined. But through the consultation process we're willing to concede to what is there now, to what has been changed. I would like it to have been the May 2 regulations, but I realize not everybody wants to pay for trigger locks or for secure cases. While we do support this bill, that's what I would have liked to see. We have compromised through the consultation, but we would really rather have trigger locks and secure cases.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: I understand your point of view. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Monsieur de Savoye. Monsieur Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you. And I'd like to thank our witness for appearing before the committee. He's appeared before our committee and is no stranger to us.

I just want to follow up on something. I don't know whether it's an oversight on your part, Mr. McNamara, but you just can't go into a bar and get anyone to sign for a passport. It is very specific.

Mr. McNamara: I realize that, Mr. Ramsay. I was saying that a little bit in jest. I was just using it as an example, as the opposite of how tough I would like these references to be.

Mr. Ramsay: Are you aware of the passport requirements for a co-sponsor?

Mr. McNamara: Yes. I believe it has to be a professional, like a lawyer, for example -

Mr. Ramsay: A police officer, a priest, or someone in that category.

Mr. McNamara: Yes.

Mr. Ramsay: In your brief, which I appreciate, at the bottom of the second paragraph you say ``Without gun control there is no crime control.'' Yet we haven't had the registration of rifles and shotguns in this country since 1945. Are you suggesting that we've had no crime control from that time until now because there has been no registration of rifles and shotguns?

Mr. McNamara: I think that statement would be a little bit ridiculous.

But with respect to dealing with shotguns and long-barrelled weapons, no, we have no idea what's going on in this country. We don't know how many rifles and shotguns are out there. You hear all the time.... I'm thinking in particular of Bill C-68 when we brought the young lady from Sudbury here to testify. Her twelve-year-old was blown away by a shotgun that nobody even knew existed. We have to start somewhere. To have controls you have to know what you're controlling, what's out there. Right now nobody knows what's going on. This is a start.

Mr. Ramsay: Is knowledge of the number of firearms in the country crime control? If the police and the authorities know where the firearms are, is that crime control?

Mr. McNamara: That's part of it.

I'll use an example. A police officer comes to a house where there's been a call for a domestic dispute. The police officer comes to the door and hears that the wife has been threatened. The man is standing there talking to the police officer. The police officer asks if he would mind handing over his rifle. The man hands over the rifle. It turns out he has two rifles, but the police officer doesn't know that. If we started with a registration of these long rifles, when the police go to that door they would know how many weapons were inside and it would be reasonable enough to presume that they would be there. And if they went there to take two rifles away, they would walk out with two. They would know how many there are.

Mr. Ramsay: But that's not the case.

Mr. McNamara: That's not the case.

Mr. Ramsay: That's not the case because -

Mr. McNamara: And also, knowing that the registration...we'd start talking about our borders and the guns coming over our border. How do we know what's coming in when we don't even know what we've got here?

Mr. Ramsay: Just to get back to that point that you're making - and I was a peace officer for fourteen years - just because a computer check does not indicate that there's a firearm or a handgun in that house, that's not to say there are no firearms in that house.

Even after the proclamation of this bill, no peace officer will rely upon a computer printout to determine how many firearms are in a house or whether there are any there at all. If two firearms are registered and they say, well, look, we want you to turn these over, that doesn't mean all the firearms have been taken from that house.

.1600

Mr. McNamara: But Mr. Ramsay, if you as a police officer knew before you went to that house that there were four firearms in that house and you go into that house and he presents three to you, would you not start looking for the fourth?

Mr. Ramsay: I'm saying to you even if four were registered and he handed over the four, I would not stop there.

Mr. McNamara: Good.

Mr. Ramsay: When the police believe the owner of a firearm may be at risk to himself or others through the use of those firearms, they have the authority under section 104 now to obtain a search warrant and search the home for every firearm that's there. The law is there now. The problem is it's not being enforced. We heard eloquent testimony this afternoon from the people who are very concerned about domestic violence.

We have sixty pages in the Criminal Code providing the police with tools to make sure those people who may become irresponsible with the use of firearms.... Under the law they have the tools to take those firearms out of their possession.

Mr. McNamara: But what happens now.... I don't actually know the number out there, because it has been.... Let's say there are six million rifles out there. There should be some effort to find out where they are and who has them. If somebody is mentally deranged or if somebody in the community or the police know he has a weapon, I think that's very important.

Mr. Ramsay: But the police have that authority now if they have evidence that someone is mentally deranged.

Mr. McNamara: But how can they evidence if they're not registered; if nobody knows he has them? At least this would bring it to the attention -

Mr. Ramsay: But they have the authority to obtain a search warrant. They have that now. Even if the firearms are registered, that is not assurance that you're taking all the firearms out of that person's possession, because an unregistered firearm, a stolen firearm, or simply a borrowed firearm may be there. If the police are going to rely on that information and go no further than that....

What I'm pointing out, Mr. McNamara, is that the authority is there now. The authority is there now for the police to remove every firearm from those who are acting in an irresponsible way.

Mr. McNamara: Another point there is that now there is a sense of accountability to the people who own these firearms. If you know your rifle is registered, and if it's stolen and somebody commits a crime with it, if somebody is murdered with that rifle and it's your fault because you didn't lock it up, the police can come back to you because it is registered in your name. If your gun is stolen, you now have a greater responsibility to report that weapon stolen. Do you not see that as helping?

Mr. Ramsay: Yes, I grant that point.

The question is this. Are this bill and the regulations going to enhance public safety? If they will, then they should be supported.

Mr. McNamara: Thank you.

Mr. Ramsay: The fact of the matter is that four provinces and two territories are joined in a constitutional challenge against the act. We just heard from the aboriginal spokesperson today, Mr. Adam, that the aboriginal people have a forthcoming constitutional challenge to the act -

Mr. McNamara: I was here for Mr. Adam. I also heard him say he supports the bill for what it's doing to help public safety. Did he not say that?

Mr. Ramsay: Again I see an inconsistency. If there is a court challenge on the basis of the constitutionality of the act, then they oppose the act. The fact that we all support public safety doesn't mean we support the means to arrive at it. I don't see the potential within this act to create a reduction in domestic violence. If I did I would support the act. I don't see it. As witnesses come before us, as you are, I explore your viewpoints, because you do have a sincere viewpoint on this.

.1605

Mr. McNamara: I have my viewpoint as dealing with victims, and in a lot of circumstances victims would tell me ``I wish they had taken that weapon away from him''. But like yourself, I don't know because I'm not an expert on it. I listen to the experts. The Canadian chiefs of police, the Canadian Police Association, suicide prevention physicians, trauma surgeons, and the National Crime Prevention Council all support this. I think it would be illogical for me to go against it when the people that deal with public safety support it.

Mr. Ramsay: Of course I would ask you, as I ask them, how these regulations and the bill would reduce the criminal use of rifles and shotguns.

Mr. McNamara: Again, I think one of the most important things we have to look at is that of safe storage.

Mr. Ramsay: But the safe storage is already there. This bill doesn't bring in safe storage. It deals with the -

Mr. McNamara: Okay, but it's responsibility and accountability for that. I think that's one thing.

We have to know what's out there. For example, when you start talking about.... I'll go back to smuggling. How can you start talking about whether or not guns are being smuggled into this country, and how many are smuggled into this country - rifles, for example - when you don't even know how many are in this country, or where they came from because people have had them for twenty or thirty years? You don't know where they come from. I think this would give our police - Neal Jessop and those people - another tool in their toolbox for helping to prevent crime.

Mr. Ramsay: Of course you know what Mr. Jessop said about the bill: the value of it will be dependent upon the ability of the government to prevent smuggling of firearms into Canada. What is being smuggled into Canada is not the firearms that are legally owned and purchased and held. It's those prohibited firearms, including handguns, that are being smuggled into Canada, those that people do not want to register and want to use for illegal purposes.

Mr. McNamara: Earlier this afternoon you were talking about the MacKenzie Institute and the paper that John Thompson - I believe that's his name - wrote dealing with smuggling. I met the gentlemen a number of years ago. He's a former corporal in the infantry, I believe. The night before I met him, he'd been sneaking around the bush down by the St. Lawrence. It was a one-man paper. I don't believe he has the credentials to write a paper, but he expressed his views at the CAVEAT's crime prevention conference - they hold it once a year - when there was a panel on firearms. Val Meredith from your party was there, and she seemed to see a lot of wisdom in some of these recommendations that are in this bill. She didn't totally object to registration at the time - I guess because it hadn't been introduced - but she saw a lot of good potential for saving lives in this.

Mr. Ramsay: My time is up. I have a couple of other questions, but I'll come back.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Maloney: If you were here a little earlier, I'm still struggling with the term ``revocation by a CFO'' if an individual has become involved in acts of domestic violence. How would you interpret that involvement? At what point has a domestic violence situation become serious enough that it would result in the revocation of someone's...?

Mr. McNamara: I see that it can come from the chief firearms officer, but I'm looking at the courts doing that more than the chief firearms officer. I think that will happen more there, where people go to get restraining orders and the like before a justice of the peace.

If Priscilla were here she'd be able to tell you about her particular case. There are so many murderers in Canada that I forget his name, but he was charged and was in court. They didn't prohibit his weapon, and he went on to kill two more women. I think that with today's society, and with education from the justice department and the government about how this bill will help prevent this, yes, the chief firearms officer.... I think, however, that it's our courts that have to look into this and treat it more seriously.

Mr. Maloney: Earlier this morning we had representations from Universal ATM Services Incorporated. They suggested that perhaps we should widen this to when an individual's mental capacity deteriorates such that he could be a risk to himself or to others. Would you be supportive of something of this nature? Do you have any comments on this?

.1610

Mr. McNamara: As a layman, I think any madman shouldn't have a gun. That's painfully obvious. Don't give a crazy a gun. You're asking for trouble.

Mr. Maloney: Do you feel there should be an onus on an individual? Now he has to give notification of change of address and things like that. Is that going too far? Is it not practical to require an individual to report himself?

Mr. McNamara: On?

Mr. Maloney: On his mental deterioration.

Mr. McNamara: Actually, I don't know if it's in here that a medical doctor can report. There's the patient-doctor confidentiality, but I see no reason that if a doctor knows one of his patients is in possession of a firearm and he's a threat to himself or anybody else, he cannot report that to a chief firearms officer or a police officer. Unfortunately sometimes I get confused between the law and common sense.

Mr. Ramsay: So do I.

Mr. Maloney: Was the comment that you feel perhaps there should be an onus on the medical profession, as in the abuse of children, to report such situations?

Mr. McNamara: I don't know if I want to put it down as ``a doctor must'' do this. A doctor should have the opportunity, if he thinks the person's a danger. I'm not quite up on this - I'm not a lawyer - but a doctor who thinks somebody can seriously harm himself or someone else should have the ability to tell the police. I don't know whether that's there or not.

Mr. Maloney: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Maloney. Ms Whelan.

Ms Whelan: I have a couple of points I want to make and then a quick question.

There's been some speculation here today that there's been no type of firearms control whatsoever for long arms since man's time, I guess, but with all due respect to Mr. Ramsay's statement, there has been a system in Canada since 1977, and I look at what's happening in 1997 as an updating of that system.

The system hasn't kept up with the times. That's the reality of it. In 1977 we didn't have the technology that we have today, nor did we foresee the possibility of someone with a valid FAC selling a firearm to someone without a valid FAC. These are things that are being corrected by this legislation. So when we say there are no statistics in regard to crime control....

He was asking you a somewhat unfair question. There has been a system of identification since 1977. It hasn't been perfect. It hasn't kept to date with the times, and the evidence of that is the driver's licence. My driver's licence has changed five times in the way it looks, in the format, and in the cost of it, for sure, in the last 15 years that I've had a driver's licence.

I think we all recognize that things have to stay updated and keep to date with the times. That's what we're doing here today with the regulations: ensuring that the legislation that's passed is enacted properly and meets the times.

I have one concern with something you said, Mr. McNamara, with regard to crossing the border. You say:

Given the problems with illegal importation of firearms by individuals and the costs of maintaining secure borders, the $50 fee for visitors does not seem unreasonable.

Coming from a border community, I have difficulty with a couple of things here. The $50 is not necessarily going to go towards customs cost of enforcement. Nothing goes into direct pools, but everything goes into general funds. It's really not where this comes from, because right now there's an obligation on anyone coming from the United States to stop at the border and report that they have a firearm in their vehicle.

They have two possibilities when they come into Canada. You're not allowed to bring handguns into Canada. The border I live on is the Windsor-Detroit border. Often when people see the signs, they're afraid to come and confess that they have a handgun in their car, especially if they have it legally in the States, because they don't realize they can report it and pick it up on the way out. So often they're confiscated. We've just had a tremendous increase in the number of handguns that have been confiscated because of the casino in Windsor, but that's another situation.

.1615

My concern is that the $50 fee could cause great hardships, especially to the shooting clubs, which have legitimate reasons...as well as hunting in other border communities and historical re-enactments. I understand we're working toward a solution for historical re-enactments.

As it stands right now I have historical Fort Malden in my riding, where the re-enactment takes place of the War of 1812 between Canadian and Americans. These people are volunteers. They cross our border, come into our country on their own time and their own service. We want to encourage them to do that because we've asked our historical parks to become more self-sufficient. They're making some money through entrance admissions. This is one of the attractions. So to say to these visitors that we want them to come and do us this service or this favour, and on top of it want them to pay $50, I'm just not sure is reasonable in certain circumstances.

Mr. McNamara: That doesn't seem reasonable at all. Actually, I would think there would be some way that could be waived, and maybe keep the $50 fee there. One of the things is that we don't want all these guys going to the casino in Windsor with handguns. But maybe there's some way you can get the fee waived.

Ms Whelan: I admire the fact that you recognize in your comments that there are these certain circumstances.

Mr. McNamara: Oh, definitely.

Ms Whelan: I wanted to point that out to you, because I know you made that specific example. Coming from a different perspective, I try to look at this on all avenues.

Mr. McNamara: You see, on a lot of this stuff, there's so much that happens...the way crime is evolving in this country. If you had brought Bill C-68 four years ago, I never would have thought of having an FAC to get ammunition until the Battersby shooting here, when the punks, the young offenders, went to the Canadian Tire and bought the ammunition to put in a stolen gun. I would never have thought of maybe some type of ID to buy bullets.

I guess that's why I have to applaud this committee and the government for the consultations that have been going on. I've learned a lot, for example, from yourself and from gun clubs. The best one, to me - and I was so stuck on the fact that everything should be locked up, because I believe in it so much - was when I started hearing from the farmers about the coyote problems, and what it actually means to them. That's why this consultation and the balancing out of each others' wants has made this not exactly what I want and not exactly what a lot of people want, but it's a good compromise, done with a lot of fair and equal consultation.

Ms Whelan: I think one of the witnesses ahead of you said that exactly, that it's negotiation, and in the end it's a negotiated solution. I appreciate your comments. I think it's very important that victims are part of the consultation process. We do hear all sides so that we can analyse everything.

I thank you for your presentation.

The Chairman: Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: To follow up on that point, I too am pleased at your response to Ms Whelan's question to you. You see, there's no discernible threat to the public safety from museums or shooting clubs or -

Mr. McNamara: I don't know about museums buying powder, but last time I was here, if you remember, Mark Hogben was with me. Valery Fabrikant was with a shooting club, and he killed his father. So....

Mr. Ramsay: Yes, but he acquired a firearm through a shooting club. Then, of course, for an ulterior purpose the man had a mind-set at that time....

The point I'm making is that those people involved in that sport, because of their history, pose no threat. They are very responsible people. They take care of their firearms and so on. In fact, the insurance they can get, $5 million for $4 a year, tells you the story.

.1620

When we look at the lack of a threat from museums, shooting clubs, armoured truck industries, which appeared here before, the re-enactment people, would you be in favour of reasonable exemptions in those areas, exemptions that would not place an economic or financial burden on the re-enactment group coming across the border or the shooting clubs, the museums, or the armoured truck industry, which have indicated a significant financial burden may be imposed on them when they have been conducting their affairs in a very safe manner for years and do not pose a threat to anyone through the use of their firearms?

Mr. McNamara: If you will give me your list again.... Probably half of them yes, half of them no. I can see perhaps there would be something to be done to help out museums. Shooting clubs, no. That's your choice. If you want to take up a hobby of shooting guns, shooting targets, you're going to have to pay for your hobby. That's part of being licensed. Stock car drivers pay for the licence on their car.

The other groups.... I think, for example, things are being done to help out aboriginals in this situation, things dealing with costs. But when it comes to the Brink's people, I don't know what their safety record is exactly, but I know the union here is asking for them to have at least three people in the truck so there would be safety. I hear they have two people and they try to make them part-time and they give them guns. They are out to make a buck. That's what they do. I think it would be very foolish of the government to put too much responsibility on the owners of armoured car companies in dealing with their weapons. They should be in the hands of the firearms centre.

Mr. Ramsay: The point I make is there's no evidence there's even a potential public threat from the use of firearms by those groups, including -

Mr. McNamara: Potential threat! Valery Fabrikant killed killed Mark Hogben's dad! He's dead.

Mr. Ramsay: We're talking about the armoured vehicle.

Anyway, the question I want to ask you is this. In the final page of your presentation you say this:

We believe that much of the opposition to the provisions of the new firearms control measures are the result of misinformation and we would encourage the federal government to do everything in its power to ensure that firearms owners are aware of the facts.

We have four provinces and two territories, and now the aboriginal people, who are launching a constitutional challenge against the act and the regulations. Are you suggesting they are doing so on the basis of misinformation?

Mr. McNamara: I never said that. Where does it say that? I said there's a lot of misinformation out there. I remember last summer CKBY in the city of Ottawa was running ads put out by one of these responsible gun ownership clubs or something, ads saying people would be able to break into the government computer and steal the list of whoever owns a weapon. To me that's misinformation. That won't happen.

Mr. Ramsay: Let's look at your statement: ``We believe that much of the opposition to the provision of the new firearms control measures are the result of misinformation...''

The greatest opposition to this bill is the four governments and the two territories, and now the aboriginal people, who are launching a constitutional challenge to the bill. Not only that, there are the three provinces and one territory who are simply saying they're so opposed to it that they're not going to enforce the registration and licensing portion of the bill. The justice minister said that in view of that he would do it himself. I'm asking you as a result of this statement, are these people acting on misinformation?

Mr. McNamara: I don't know, but that's not what I say there. If you look, it says there's misinformation out there. I believe the majority of the citizens in the province of Alberta, where my brother actually was murdered, support these laws and these regulations. The Government of Ontario, for example, wants to change the Young Offenders Act. They might want to try to take that to court. Politicians can play all the power games they want. The Province of Alberta and the Yukon Territory can play power games.

Mr. Ramsay: Is this what you call that, a power game?

Mr. McNamara: Yes, I do.

Mr. Ramsay: And with the aboriginal people it's a power game?

.1625

Mr. McNamara: No. They have treaties that have to be respected. They have a way of life that is different. And I think through this act and through the regulations that respect is shown.

Mr. Ramsay: Should the aboriginal people be exempted from the act?

Mr. McNamara: No, because I think this act takes into account the needs of the aboriginals. They can speak to it better than I ever could. They know their situation. If they have problems with it.... As far as I know, so far it's Alberta and the Yukon that have taken this to court. The gentleman who was down here from Saskatchewan...I don't think he has yet. He saw some positive aspects in this act. Until he does, I don't think you should be grouping him in with the Province of Alberta.

Mr. Ramsay: The Attorneys General from Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta appeared before the committee on the bill and they all opposed it.

The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Ramsay. He has some opinions, but I don't think that's an area of expertise -

Mr. Ramsay: Right; and I think he's made the point that he does not believe the challenges are as a result of misinformation, and that's what I was asking.

The Chairman: Mr. McNamara, I would like to thank you very much for appearing before us this afternoon. It has been very helpful. You've done so at inconvenience to yourself and we appreciate it. Thank you very much.

We'll now adjourn the subcommittee.

Return to Committee Home Page