[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 9, 1995

.0904

[English]

The Chair: I'd like to call the meeting to order.

We're five minutes late. We have Alberta following at 11 a.m. I want to remind members of the committee that as per yesterday we have to adjourn this meeting at 10:55 to reconvene at 11 o'clock for the Alberta meeting.

.0905

We're pleased to continue our work with Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons. This morning we're pleased to have with us the Hon. Robert Mitchell, Q.C., the Minister of Justice for Saskatchewan. He's accompanied by several members of the legislature of Saskatchewan - Dan D'Autremont, the MLA for Souris - Cannington and member of the Conservative caucus; Lynda Haverstock, leader of the Liberal Party in Saskatchewan; Bill Boyd, the leader of the opposition and MLA for Kindersley; Pat Lorje, MLA for Saskatoon Wildwood and member of the NDP caucus; and Lorne Scott, the MLA for Indian Head - Wolseley, also a member of the NDP caucus. Have I forgotten anybody?

I want to bring to the attention of the members that we're also pleased to have in the audience two groups from Saskatchewan. We have Janice Gingell from the Provincial Association of Transition Houses of Saskatchewan, and Ms Randi Arnot from the Provincial Council of Women from Saskatchewan.

Mr. Mitchell, we will ask you to lead off. We have your very complete brief and it will be attached to the record. But we would like you to give us maybe fifteen minutes of introduction. Then I understand the leaders of the two opposition parties want to address the committee as well, maybe for about five minutes each. That would be acceptable.

Then we'll have our usual rounds of questioning. I bring to the attention of the members that we may not have as many rounds of questioning today as we usually have, because we have three provincial ministers today and tonight we have the Grand Council of the Cree and the Council of Yukon Indians. It's a pretty full day.

Mr. Mitchell, it's your turn.

Hon. Robert W. Mitchell (Minister of Justice, Province of Saskatchewan): Thank you, Mr. Allmand and members of the committee. It's a very healthy process for our democracy that there is a standing committee to which people can come and express their views about legislation that is before Parliament. We appreciate the opportunity of coming to the committee.

As you have observed, Mr. Chairman, we present to you a committee of our legislature, consisting of representatives of all the political parties in our legislature. The matter of Bill C-68 is not a matter of political controversy at the provincial level. All parties are agreed in their opposition to certain features of this bill.

I want to say at the outset that there are parts of the bill we support very strongly. It is our reading that the population of Saskatchewan is supportive of some of the features. For example, the provisions in the bill dealing with smuggling are very strongly supported. Mr. Chairman, anything Parliament can do to cut off the flow of illegal arms from the United States or elsewhere into Canada would be supported by the people of our province.

We also support very strongly the improved provisions with respect to proposed section 85. The use of firearms in the commission of a crime ought to be punished rigorously. We support the provisions in Bill C-68 in that respect. As we have said in our brief, we would suggest these provisions be extended to cover the crimes of stalking and unlawful confinement. We leave that for the committee to consider.

Mr. Chairman, the gun-owning population of Saskatchewan consists probably of just over 50% of the homes in Saskatchewan; just slightly more than half of the homes in Saskatchewan have guns, and in some cases a number of guns. This population has had two rounds of gun control legislation that has affected them directly - the first was in 1977 and the second was in 1991. These are law-abiding people. I don't think there's any question about that. The people of the prairies are noted for their law-abiding nature.

.0910

They have accepted the previous rounds of gun control legislation in 1977 and again in 1991. The 1991 package was difficult for many people on the prairies to accept, but they have accepted it. Of course it has only recently been fully implemented. We are still adjusting to it and to its requirements.

In the province of Saskatchewan, we are very proud of the approach we have taken to the use of firearms. For the past 30 years we have had firearm safety courses given by a large group of volunteer trainers to people who are planning to hunt. This course has to be taken; it's been in effect for 30 years. Mr. Chairman, we have 1,400 volunteers in Saskatchewan who provide this training, which is quite a remarkable thing when you think about it. It's their own time and energy that's going into this. To this point, almost 150,000 people have taken that course, graduated, and have a certificate of firearm safety. The results with respect to our hunting accidents and hunting fatalities have been really quite dramatic - they have dropped very significantly. We're very proud of that. Of course, that continues.

With the requirements of the 1991 law, we have folded those training requirements into our own training courses. We are delivering the training required under the 1991 law, using the same volunteers who have given that course over so many years.

Mr. Chairman, the problem with Bill C-68 in Saskatchewan is that the gun-owning population simply does not accept that there is justification for this legislation. They don't see the point of it. They don't consider themselves to be any part of the problem and they resent mightily the fact that again Parliament is looking to them to observe yet further requirements as an apparent solution to a problem of which they are not a part.

It's difficult to measure the depth of their outrage. But we would ask the committee to take it from all of us at this table, who have been all around Saskatchewan meeting with people, talking to them in different circumstances and obtaining their reaction. We say to the committee in all sincerity that the degree of resentment and anger is really quite pronounced and quite serious.

I want to cite a personal experience I had recently. My colleagues will have them as well. We are in the process of nominating candidates in Saskatchewan for a provincial election that will happen one of these days or months, certainly within the next year. I have been invited as the guest speaker at about a dozen NDP nominations in the past two months. I have spoken in the last six or seven such meetings on the subject of gun control and have limited my remarks to that.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not talking to any right-wingers; I'm talking to long-time members of my political party. In the past, they have been very supportive of gun control legislation. They have accepted the laws in 1977 and again in 1991 with barely a murmur. But that is not the situation now.

Mr. Chairman, I cite that because I think it's important for the committee to understand that we are not here reflecting some right-wing groups or the views of any extremists. We're here reflecting the views of what we in Saskatchewan would regard as the progressive part of the population.

.0915

I mean that with no offence to my colleagues, but the NDP generally occupies the left spectrum in Saskatchewan and I wanted to bring to this committee my experience with respect to these meetings I have been attending where the attendees are all long-time members of my political party. They are angered, appalled, and deeply puzzled by why Parliament comes after them in this bill to register their shotguns and their rifles.

Mr. Rock, the federal minister, has on numerous occasions attempted to explain this bill and has advanced a number of reasons for it being proposed. I want to tell you that the gun-owning population of Saskatchewan simply does not accept Mr. Rock's arguments. They do not regard them as being valid. They mightily resent the fact that the bill imposes significant obligations upon them.

Now, what to do about it. I want to make this point to the committee and I want to make it as strongly as I can. The gun-owning population in Saskatchewan is not persuaded that this legislation has any valid purpose. They don't think it will produce any results. They don't think it will help with respect to any of the matters that the minister has argued are the reasons for proposing the bill.

I can't imagine what Mr. Rock could say that would be persuasive to our population. I don't think there's anything he could say that would be persuasive to our population. Something more is required.

The reason I say something more is required is that we're talking here about Parliament exercising its power to enact criminal law. The criminal law of our country has always been a special piece of legislation. We have been at great pains in this country to ensure that the criminal law has integrity, has the respect of the population, and enjoys a broad consensus among our people that this is valid criminal law.

We all know what's at stake here. The criminal law of our country defines conduct that is such a departure from the norm that Parliament has declared it to be a crime and it is punished as a crime. The people accept that this conduct is so far from the norm that it is criminal, and so it is, I think, with all of the crimes in the Criminal Code. It is conduct that is such a departure from the norm it must be punished in a special way.

Mr. Chairman, the people of Saskatchewan who will be affected by this legislation simply do not accept that the registration and licensing requirements in Bill C-68 reflect that kind of conduct. They are not accepting that this ought to be part of the criminal law.

We're really at a loss to know what to do about that. It will fall to us in the provinces to enforce this law. We will therefore be enforcing it upon a population that does not regard the law as being appropriate or as having a purpose. That spells great difficulty. There is no question about that. We are very, very concerned that this law will be the part of our Criminal Code that the public will not respect and that they will not accord it the same respect as other parts of the code. This spells trouble for our police and for our courts. We have been searching around for some way to deal with this.

In this regard, I have one primary point to make to the committee. I believe what is crucial here is to be able to prove to the population that we're on the right track and that there is some real, substantial purpose to our gun laws. We have a lot of gun law in this country, going back over a hundred years. We have extensive requirements with respect to the registration of handguns. We've had that law for more than sixty years.

.0920

There's lots of law out there. We should pause for a moment - for a few months - and evaluate what we're doing to try to establish whether or not we're on the right track, to try to establish what parts of our law contribute something to safety and security in our society and whether there are any parts of our law that do not do so.

I want to say this plainly to the committee: If the people of Saskatchewan could be satisfied that there is a valid purpose to this law, that it will result in better safety and better security, then they would support it and so would the government. The problem right now is that nobody is certain that we're on the right path. In my province the population that owns guns does not accept that we're on the right path when we consider Bill C-68.

Mr. Chairman, that would require an evaluation. The encouraging part of this situation is that such an evaluation has already begun. I think the committee is aware that the evaluation people in the Department of Justice have begun an evaluation as suggested by the Auditor General. That evaluation could easily encompass other aspects of the gun law of Canada to try to determine whether or not we're on the right path. If the people of Saskatchewan could be satisfied from that evaluation that we are on the right path, that there is some purpose to all of this, they may have a different view. But as matters stand now, they are not persuaded.

It is in that same spirit of trying to find a way to deal with the problem that I've tried to outline to the committee that we have suggested this legislation be implemented first in those in provinces that see a purpose in it. For example, I understand that the provinces of Quebec and Ontario see this legislation as being positive. That's fine, they understand their provinces better than I do. But I understand my province better than they do.

It was in that spirit that Saskatchewan suggested the idea of implementing this legislation in those provinces. We would then observe how the law works in those provinces, and if it proved to be a positive force, if it proved to be something that had some sense to it and produces a result, then I know - and I tell the committee - that the province of Saskatchewan's view of this legislation would change.

With respect to the time lines, I should probably stop at this point and allow my colleagues to address the committee.

The Chair: That's fine. I'd like permission from the committee to attach the all-party brief from Saskatchewan as an appendix to the record of today.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: All right. The leader of the opposition, Mr. Boyd.

Mr. Bill Boyd (Member of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan): Thank you, Mr. Allmand and committee members.

First of all I'd like to thank the members of the committee and their staff for allowing and hearing our presentation. I've been on your side of the table on many occasions and certainly understand the frustrations and uneasiness all of you feel from time to time. I want you to know that we appreciate your efforts and hope you will be able to use these consultations to improve this bill that is now before you.

Our justice minister and countless others have shown you reams of information, data and statistics that demonstrate how unfair, unnecessary and costly portions of this bill are in the province of Saskatchewan. As your time and my time are precious, I will not dwell on nor repeat this self-evident material other than to say that we support it wholeheartedly.

I'm here to express the views of the Saskatchewan people and to voice their concerns. It has been said that if one really wishes to know how justice is administered in a country, one does not question the police, the lawyers, or judges; one goes to the unprotected and listens to their testimony. For many months the people of Saskatchewan have been speaking out against this federal legislation, and their testimony is unmistakable. I am here to deliver that message: The people of Saskatchewan do not need nor do they want a firearm registry.

.0925

The geography, climate and economics of our province have instilled an internationally renowned spirit of cooperation and volunteerism in our people. As with any character, it's best displayed when it gets dark. When crisis looms or tragedy befalls, Saskatchewan binds together tighter and tighter. This was certainly evident when people began to learn of the gun registry and the red tape, bureaucracy, costs and heavy hand of government that go along with it. As in years gone by, when faced with a serious concern, Saskatchewan people began rallying around their town halls to muster support for those who are prepared to fight this ill-advised law.

I attended a rally in Carlyle, a small town in the southeast corner of Saskatchewan. One hour before the meeting, the lower half of the town hall was full of people, so the organizers rigged a closed-circuit television system for the upstairs of that hall as people began to flood into the hall, which also doubled as a local movie theatre. Soon this area was full and they began turning people away at the door. It was an interesting scenario, to say the least. Whenever a good point was made by the speaker, the people upstairs stomped their feet so hard that we thought the ceiling was going to cave in on us.

Perhaps more amazing than the size of the crowd was the make-up of the crowd. There were men, women, seniors, children, farmers, shopkeepers, employers, union people, Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats, and Reformers. They were all law-abiding citizens who fully supported the need for stricter penalties for those who commit crime but could not for the life of them figure out why we should be forced into a federal gun registry.

These are intelligent people who have heard both sides of the argument and have read all of the statistics. Yet a gun registry doesn't make sense to these knowledgeable people - not in our province, at the very least. We understand and sympathize with those who must face violent crime in large urban centres, but we do not have those same problems and we do not want the solutions that are being prescribed here because in our case the medicine is worse than what little ailment there is.

Justice is many things to many people. It has been said that justice is simply the expression of the will of the strongest for the time being. As such, one region's perception of justice may be another's injustice. Saskatchewan fails to see the usefulness of a federal gun registry and sees only the burden. We see a lack of application of the principles of fairness and equality of opportunity.

In closing, I would just like to say that if this bill remains as is, it is our intention not to just lie down and give up. We in Saskatchewan will continue to fight.

While not supported by the provincial government, our party believes that the firearms registries are under provincial jurisdiction as it pertains to property rights. Regardless of where one stands on this issue - and goodness knows, everyone will have their own legal interpretation - we believe the next battle should be on our own turf in Saskatchewan. We will ask our federal representatives to come to Saskatchewan to lay their claim before the people of Saskatchewan whom we represent and they will have to defend their case.

We are a small province in a large country. We simply ask that you recognize our differences and respect our requests.

Thank you, Mr. Allmand, for the committee's time.

The Chair: I will call on Lynda Haverstock, leader of the Liberal Party, to say a few words.

Ms Lynda Haverstock (Member of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan): Thank you very much. I appreciate being able to address you for five minutes this morning.

I am here in several capacities, the first being as a member of the all-party delegation of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, who have had numerous occasions to debate the House of Commons Bill C-68 and its implications for our province. On every single occasion, all three parties have unequivocally opposed Bill C-68.

.0930

Secondly, I'm here in my capacity as the leader of the Saskatchewan Liberal Party. Last fall, the delegates at our policy convention passed a resolution in opposition to Bill C-68. As well, over fifty of our presently nominated candidates are opposed to Bill C-68. As party leader, I've travelled from northern parts of Saskatchewan to the American border, from east to west, and I've met thousands of Saskatchewan people who are overwhelmingly opposed to Bill C-68.

Thirdly, I am here as an individual with a doctorate in clinical psychology who is particularly concerned about aberrant behaviour that can cause harm not only to others but to oneself.

Lastly, I am here as a citizen of Canada, a taxpayer, a woman, a mother and a grandmother, who wants a safe, secure and healthy society for all who live in our country.

I believe the primary goal of government is law and order. It is a laudable goal for the federal government to want to address the serious issue of crime. The challenge is to know what must be done in order to reduce crime, prevent crime, and increase safety for Canadians.

Here is my question to each of you as members of this committee. Will this bill accomplish its desired objectives? Can each of you answer yes unequivocally? I think not. The reason you cannot say yes is because it would be impossible to do so without a full evaluation of, first, how the current laws are or are not working; second, an objective evaluation of the root causes of crime in Canada; and third, a determination as to whether the current and proposed legislation will address the causes of crime in the most cost-beneficial way possible.

I have a grave concern that many people in this country are being given an impression. They are being given the impression that their lives and their properties will be more protected and that universal firearms registration will mean less family violence, less suicide, less accidental death and injury, and less crime committed with firearms.

This kind of deception is unacceptable to me. It is unacceptable to deceive the public. Indeed, I think it is cruel to do so. I fear that the longer-term repercussions will be greater cynicism, anger and resentment when crime is not reduced, when streets are not safer, and when yet another bureaucracy has been created at considerable expense. All of this while the thing that leads to crime is not even addressed - family dysfunction due to poverty, to alcohol and drug abuse, and yes, even to gambling addiction.

Ladies and gentlemen of this committee, I submit to you that it is in the best interests of Canadians if you pause and provide the time necessary to evaluate the issue of crime, the present laws on the books and their effectiveness, and what the next step should be in accomplishing the goal of a better Canada.

Governing is about choices, and we implore you, as the leadership of our country, to make the correct choice on this issue on behalf of Canadians.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

Now we'll proceed with the usual rounds of questioning. According to our rules, we have three ten-minute rounds, one for each of the three political parties that are members of the committee, and then we have five-minute rounds, exchanging between the government members and the opposition members.

[Translation]

I will give the floor to Mr. de Savoye for the first ten-minute round. He will be followed by members of the Reform Party and of the Liberal Party.

Mr. de Savoye (Portneuf): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies, gentlemen, your brief is extremely interesting. It contains some good arguments and it echoes some of my own concerns.

As a member from Quebec, I have a lot of respect for any province that states its opposition to a federal measure that does not suit it. I should however warn you that experience has taught me that one shouldn't be too optimistic about the results.

.0935

I have a question for you. You state several times in your brief that you would be favourable to gun registration if it were obvious that it was going to have positive results. You also state that a pilot project should be put in place in order to prove the effectiveness of this measure in reducing violence.

Now, for the past 60 years, handguns have been registered and statistics show that violence due to the use of handguns - accidents, deaths, or crimes - is considerably lower than violence due to the use of shotguns and rifles, long guns. Is that not a 60-year pilot project the results of which tend to show that gun registration does indeed have an impact in that it reduces violence? You have the floor.

The Chair: Mr. de Savoye: You may address your question to Mr. Mitchell, or to the other witnesses; would you prefer that Mr. Mitchell answer it?

Mr. de Savoye: I think I will follow your example, Mr. Chairman, and ask Mr. Mitchell to answer first. Then, we can hear from the Opposition, and finally from anyone who has anything to say, according to protocol.

[English]

Mr. Mitchell: Thank you for that question. We think there are lessons to be learned in the registration system for handguns. It is interesting that Canadians generally, at least in the west, don't have a keen appreciation of the degree to which handguns are regulated. That regime goes far beyond what is proposed for long rifles and shotguns. I know the committee is aware of that, but let me briefly summarize it.

First of all you need a permit to buy it, then you need a permit to take the handgun from the shop to the police station, another permit to take it home, and then another permit to take it to the shooting range, which is the only place where you can validly use it unless you fall within a very narrow class of people who are entitled to use it, such as police officers. So the regime is a different regime, but we still think there is value in evaluating that law. We also believe there is value in evaluating the other aspects of Canada's gun legislation as proposed by the Auditor General.

None of us can accept the logic that Bill C-68 will result in any decrease in crime or in any improvement with regard to the other situations, such as domestic violence and suicide. A registered gun will do the same amount of damage as an unregistered gun, and that's axiomatic.

I think that responds generally to the thrust of your question. I do admit quite freely that there is value in examining the various aspects of the regime respecting handguns, and we can learn lessons from that to apply to the long rifle situation. However, we should make no quick assumptions about it. The technology exists to do this on a scientific and objective basis, and we should try to do that rather than apply our own instinctive feelings about it.

Mr. de Savoye: Does anyone else wish to add anything?

Mr. Boyd: Certainly I would be of the view that a pilot project is a possible way of seeing any benefit from this. I do not support your argument that we've had a pilot project for 60 years. There are significantly different uses of handguns, at least in Saskatchewan, from what there are for long rifles. Handguns would be used mostly for target shooting, whereas, generally speaking, in Saskatchewan the long rifles would be used for hunting. So there are far different uses. I don't support the argument that there have been 60 years of regulations on handguns.

.0940

Ms Haverstock: I'm inclined to feel about this issue as I do most: the way in which one makes the best decisions is to have the most information.

There is no empirical evidence that substantiates what is being presented in Bill C-68. If we wish to have the best decision made regarding the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars on things that are going to address the objective of crime prevention and of reducing crime in the country and in ensuring greater security and safety of people and property, then we must ensure that those dollars are going to be spent in the most efficient and effective manner possible. I remain unconvinced that there has been proper study done of this issue.

I have grave concern about the number of suicides in Canada and in my own province. I believe I have access to research that helps me understand that particular issue. The fact that the minister has indicated in some way that this bill will do something to reduce the number of suicides I think is extraordinarily misleading and not based on any fact at all.

Similarly, if we're talking about family violence, I think there have been undertakings through legislation in different parts of the country, including the province of Saskatchewan, where there has been the concurrence of all three parties, which will be far more effective in addressing the issue of domestic violence than this particular bill will be.

This is about people, and it's about ensuring that each and every dollar is spent in the most effective way possible.

I do not agree that one can make comparisons between what has transpired with handguns over the last 60 years and the use of long guns in our particular province, where firearms have been used as tools for decades. We have a disproportionate number of farm families as well as aboriginal people in our province relative to most places in the country. We have a disproportionate number of firearms that have been used for a wide variety of purposes.

I think it's important for us to understand that, as you mentioned earlier, all parts of Canada are not the same. We are different. We have similarities, but we also have uniqueness. When it comes to this particular bill, I would very much like for there to be, on the part of this committee and the House of Commons, an appreciation of those differences and a wish to base all decisions on full and accurate information.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: You mentioned that opting for registration would be making a choice in how the taxpayers' money is spent in order to attain an objective. You are of the opinion that registration is not the best way of spending that money. Other measures could be taken. In your brief, you mention, among others, education and other more social approaches.

But education and other social initiatives are matters of provincial jurisdiction, are they not? Since all of the parties in your legislative assembly are in agreement, what have you done at the provincial level to reduce the violence associated with the use of firearms? What empirical evidence do you have to demonstrate that those measures are effective?

[English]

Mr. Mitchell: We have very plain and very convincing evidence. As I believe I mentioned earlier, for the last 30 years we have been providing extensive firearm safety courses, which people must take before they can get a hunting licence. That training has been provided by now 1,400 volunteers. It is a compulsory course, and almost 150,000 of our population of one million have graduated from that course. As a direct result, our firearm accidents have just plunged.

.0945

I've just been handed the numbers. In 1960 there were 100 firearm accidents connected with hunting. In 1994 there were three. So we have, I think, established clearly the value of education, and we're very proud of that record.

Mr. Boyd: Certainly I would agree with Mr. Mitchell on that. The evidence is quite clear with regard to the effectiveness of hunter safety courses. Other programs in Saskatchewan dealing with violence in the family and violence against women have also been quite effective over the years. So I would certainly be of the view that there are better uses for tax dollars than something like a firearm registry. Better policing is another good example of that, I think.

Ms Haverstock: Again, I mention choices. I'd like to talk about one particular aspect, if I may, and that is with regard to suicide, since there have been some comments made about that.

One should understand one uniqueness in the prairie provinces. Research was done between 1981 and 1985, when the farm crisis first hit the prairie provinces. Data collected from that research, which was very similar to that done in the midwestern United States as well as in Kentucky, indicated that suicides in the farming community were three times greater than in the general population in Canada. The reasons for the suicides had nothing to do with access to firearms. It had everything to do with the stressful situation in which people found themselves.

Similarly, as you know, there are statistics that indicate high suicide rates in the aboriginal population throughout Canada. Of course that has little to do with access to firearms, ropes, or anything else. It has to do with the situations in which people find themselves that leave them feeling extremely at risk, vulnerable, and hopeless about the future.

When we're looking at what firearms registration will do to improve these circumstances...it will do nothing to improve these circumstances. So what we would like to do is ensure that if there are going to be dollars directed at anything in a province such as our own, they would be directed at the root causes of something as devastating as family violence, suicide, and so forth, rather than purely through firearms registration, which we think would be superficial treatment at best.

Ms Pat Lorje (Member of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan): The other thing we've done in Saskatchewan - unfortunately, it's still too early to see a measurable effect, although we have anecdotal evidence this is working - is have all-party support for an act called the Victims of Domestic Violence Act, which basically allows for the perpetrator of the violence to be removed from the home, rather than forcing the woman and her children, or the victims, to have to leave the home. We also expect this act will allow us to promote and provide early intervention in order to avoid the escalation of domestic violence.

As we work to reduce domestic violence in the province of Saskatchewan, we would like the federal government also to join us in that struggle. We're suggesting that when there are restraining orders or prohibition orders, you should be making it a criminal offence if the perpetrator fails to disclose any firearms that he or she may possess, own, or have access to. We feel that this direct measure will be much more effective than a universal registration system. The money that would have been spent on that universal registration system could be redirected by the federal government into strong educational and attitudinal change programs, which will then reduce violence against women and children.

.0950

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): I'd like to welcome the delegation from the Saskatchewan legislature and to thank you for your presentation.

I was born and raised in Saskatchewan. We farmed out north and east of Biggar, Saskatchewan, and my brother still farms out there. My mother lives in Saskatoon. So you're all friends to me.

I have three areas I'd like to get to, but I don't know if I can in the ten minutes I'm allotted.

My leader and I have just recently sent a letter to all of the premiers of the provinces asking them to examine the bill from the viewpoint of its constitutionality. We have heard many concerns expressed regarding the possible violation of the Constitution, in particular sections 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We've asked the premiers, if they have concerns, whether they would consider asking the federal Minister of Justice to initiate a court reference to ascertain the constitutionality of some of these questionable areas of Bill C-68. I'd just like to touch on several of them.

Under proposed section 100, there is a suggestion that we may be ending the right to remain silent. Proposed sections 99 and 101 are the requirement to cooperate with the police. Proposed sections 99, 103 and 107 appear to touch upon the presumption of guilt until proven innocent. Proposed section 111 is the assignment of guilt by association. And of course allowing for the continued confiscation of private property without compensation falls under the grandfathering clauses as touched upon in clause 12.

In view of that, I would like to ask Mr. Mitchell, and of course the others who would like to comment on this, do you have any concerns about the constitutionality of Bill C-68?

Mr. Mitchell: We have noted some of the matters you've referred to in our examination of the bill, but we have not yet had time to consider the constitutionality in any definitive way or to form an opinion with respect to constitutionality from that point of view.

I have also said publicly that we want to consider the whole package from the point of view of whether, in enacting such detailed regulation and laying down such a complex regime with respect to long rifles, Parliament has moved beyond its powers with respect to criminal law and has infringed upon property and civil rights. We have not done that research either. But I have said on previous occasions, and I should say again, that we plan to take a look at it from that point of view.

Mr. Boyd: Certainly as people in Saskatchewan become more acquainted with all of the provisions within this bill they become more and more alarmed about those types of issues you have just raised.

With respect to the availability of information, a lot of people in Saskatchewan - and certainly myself - were absolutely shocked at the Government of Canada not allowing people to have access to the information about Bill C-68 itself. Even in the opposition, we had difficulty getting a copy of it. We were surprised that the Government of Canada wanted to go that far. But the more information that comes out, the less support there is for it in Saskatchewan.

Ms Haverstock: We have had some discussions, and in fact what you will find in our brief on page 28 is that there different references regarding concerns about infringement on the charter - in particular, subclause 99(1), which we have seen in possible violation of section 8 of the charter. That is of great concern and has been discussed among all of us here as well as in the legislature that there could be warrantless searches by the police on the mere belief that a firearm is present. That very much flies in the face of what has been in the Criminal Code in the past, and we see the potential for great abuses in this as well as the associated costs to individuals where this might take place as well.

.0955

I'll leave it at that, but in some of the discussions we have concurred very much with your concerns.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you very much. I want to add that the unity of the Saskatchewan legislature on this issue is a rare thing and it is impressive to me. I hope it's impressive to the committee as well as to the justice minister.

I want to touch on the second issue, which is that of consultation. We see that the Minister of Justice has consulted widely, and yet at the same time it seems that he has failed to gain the support of the most important bodies, certainly in western Canada: the elected representatives of the people of the provinces who have to administer this program. To what extent has the justice minister or his officials consulted with not only the Government of Saskatchewan but the legislative assembly and those members?

Mr. Mitchell: As far as the government is concerned, the consultation process didn't really happen. Sometime late last summer or early fall we received a letter from Mr. Rock, outlining his thinking. That was pretty much it. We never had an opportunity to sit down and discuss these questions before the proposal took shape. Our first chance to discuss the provisions in any detail was at the justice ministers' conference in January 1995, and it was done by that time. The package had been formed and we were reacting to the package rather than consulting as to the contents of the package.

As it concerns my colleagues, I'll leave it to them to answer.

Mr. Dan D'Autremont (Member of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan): I can respond on behalf of the official opposition.

I attended a meeting with Allan Rock last summer at which approximately 50 people from various shooting organizations and some of the tribal councils were invited. At that meeting we had an hour's time with Mr. Rock. The way the meeting was set up, it took the first 20 or 25 minutes to introduce everybody. By the time we got around to actually having a discussion with Mr. Rock, it was simply a matter of making a few comments. Mr. Rock thanked us. We presented some ideas. I don't believe Mr. Rock considered any of them, or listened to them. It was more of a public relations effort than it was an actual consultation.

Ms Haverstock: You asked to what extent has the Minister of Justice consulted with the Liberal Party in Saskatchewan. The answer is that he has not consulted at all and any attempts for discussion on this matter have been done at my initiation.

Mr. Ramsay: I'll hurriedly move on to my last point. Under clause 110 of this bill, the federal government is going to encroach upon territory that was traditionally and formerly regulated by the provinces, and that is with respect to the establishment and operation of shooting clubs and shooting ranges, the activities that may be carried on at those shooting clubs and shooting ranges, the possession and use of firearms at those ranges, the keeping and destruction of records in relation to shooting clubs and so on, and over in paragraph 110(g), respecting the operation of gun shows. There is no crime or health and safety problem in these areas, and yet we see the federal government encroaching upon these areas. As one witness said last night, they're attempting to fix something that's not broken.

.1000

I see this as unnecessary. I see it as wrong. I see it as an incursion by the federal government into the jurisdiction of the provinces, certainly the jurisdiction that has been formerly held and regulated by the provinces and the territories of this country.

I'd like you to comment on that, please.

Mr. Mitchell: Yes, we've certainly got a good deal of concern about clause 110, for the reasons you mentioned, and also for the fact that there's obviously so much legislation yet to come in the form of regulations. No one has seen those regulations, and there's a great deal of unease about it.

I accept your categorization that we're fixing something that's not broken. These matters are working very, very well in our province without any difficulty at all. I agree with your remarks.

Mr. Boyd: I certainly would agree as well. In a lot of cases in Saskatchewan the hunting clubs are as much social clubs as anything. They're meeting places. People with similar interests go to meet and sit down and talk about various issues. It's a hobby of sorts, rather than anything that needs any kind of regulation at all. It strikes me as going way across the line when the government wants to start regulating something of this nature.

Ms Haverstock: I think one of the primary concerns is that not only is there encroachment into this area, but also there has been very, very little disclosed regarding what this means at this time. One of the things we had discussed was that all the important detail respecting how this system is going to work, how it's intended to work, has not been disclosed, and it would simply leave us more insecure about what might be forthcoming.

Mr. Bodnar (Saskatoon - Dundurn): Welcome.

I've heard the comments you've made today about the gun-owning population of Saskatchewan not accepting this legislation. I can tell you, Mr. Mitchell, that I've had a lot of correspondence from people in Saskatchewan who say they own guns and are asking what the problem is with registration, unless you have something to hide.

I find it interesting that this legislation is being supported by the federal Liberal Party and is not supported by the Reform Party or the federal NDP. It is not supported by any of the provincial parties in Saskatchewan. The Environics poll shows that the majority of people in Saskatchewan support registration. Is or is not the federal Liberal Party the only party that represents the majority of people in Saskatchewan?

The Chair: Who do you want to answer that question?

Mr. Mitchell: Who do you want to answer that question? I don't know the science of polling, so I can't comment on it.

What I know, and what my colleagues know, is what we run into every day as we move about the province. And we're moving about the province a lot, because we've got a provincial election on the horizon. The premier may pull the plug any day now, so we're working hard. We're out there talking all the time.

I have described to you, personally and again today, the kind of reception I get at NDP meetings. My God, it's the party that's backed most gun control measures in this country for as long as there has been such a party. These people are long-time activist party members coming to these meetings who just don't buy it.

This is the experience we have in the coffee shops, the service stations, and all across the province again and again. I don't know who's writing you those letters. I've had hundreds of letters, maybe even thousands, on this issue and they run against the bill by some huge margin, Mr. Bodnar. I think maybe they're 90% to 95% against it. Now, maybe only the opponents write to me and the proponents write to you, but I get very little mail supporting your position.

Ms Lorje: Mr. Bodnar, I represent an area of the city of Saskatoon that overlaps a lot of your area. As Mr. Mitchell says, we are on the move in Saskatchewan because we're expecting an election. In the last couple of months I've knocked on over 1,500 doors of your constituents and my constituents. I have to tell you that after balanced budget and taxation, the third most common issue people bring up spontaneously on the doorstep is opposition to the federal proposals for Bill C-68. I have had only one woman say that she agrees with this federal legislation.

.1005

Mr. Bodnar: I'm surprised. I thought one of the main issues in Saskatchewan would be health care rather than gun control.

Ms Lorje: A balanced budget is the top issue.

Mr. Bodnar: With respect to a number of gun lobbyists, our information is that a number of them have been actively discouraging American sportsmen from coming to Canada if this legislation passes. This certainly would have an economic impact on our province and of course would probably be of some concern to Minister Lingenfelter in our province.

Mr. Mitchell, how do you feel about such activities by gun lobbyists in discouraging hunters from coming to Canada?

Mr. Mitchell: I've been asked that question quite a few times by the media, as you can appreciate, Mr. Bodnar. I have always answered it by saying it's nothing to do with me. I didn't initiate it or encourage it or do anything with it. I just observe in passing that it has more impact on the province than it does on the federal government. The Wildlife Federation makes its own decisions in this - not me.

Mr. Boyd: As well, Mr. Bodnar, the gun lobbyists in Saskatchewan of course have their own view on how to put any kind of pressure they would like on the federal government with regard to this. That was their decision about a view of that nature.

With respect to your last question, we certainly have been meeting with people all over the province as well. We've presented a petition to the legislature. I believe at last count it was some 10,000 names. We provided a coupon system where people write back to us. We've had literally hundreds, if not thousands, of those. I think when it comes to polling, years and years ago Mr. Diefenbaker, a Conservative of ours from the past, certainly stated what I would say would be the official position of the Conservatives with respect to polling.

Ms Haverstock: I appreciate being able to comment on your initial question. I remind you of a gentleman called Brian Mulroney, who had Canada polled regarding whether or not Canadians would like to see the GST transparent if it were implemented. A massive majority of Canadians said yes.

I was initially asked about my feelings on gun control following the national convention in Ottawa. My initial reaction, before I was familiar with the Criminal Code and before information had come my way, was like the majority of Canadians who don't own firearms. If this means we would have a safer society, of course I would support it.

The more information I obtained - and that took probably two days before people were bringing information my way - I changed position. I've changed my position because of looking at this issue in a much more detailed way. I happen to believe that the more information people have, the more opposed they are to this particular proposed legislation, because they believe that it will not in fact meet the objectives it's laid out to meet.

Mr. Bodnar: Some of the information disseminated in Saskatchewan is that registration will cost in the range of $100 per gun. Some of the information indicates as well - and these are ads that have been in local newspapers, the Western Producer being one of them - that there will be warrantless searches of residences in this legislation. This is the type of information that's been disseminated in Saskatchewan. In fact, I would prefer to refer to it as misinformation that's been going out to the public.

Is it surprising that you may have some reaction against this legislation in light of this misinformation that's been spread by some of the gun lobbyists? I'd like all three of you to comment on that.

.1010

Mr. Mitchell: Can I lead off on that? I don't think so. We don't know how much it's going to cost to register. We hear different numbers.

Mr. Bodnar: It's $10.

Mr. Mitchell: That's the most recent number we hear. I say the most recent number because earlier information was very vague. I make no apologies for putting it the way I did. We have the experience of how much it cost to register a handgun and how much it cost to process an FAC. I think some of these estimates you've seen have been based upon that. But that's not the point as far as we're concerned. It may be the point with some people, but it's not the point with the people in the legislature. That's not where we're coming from on this thing.

Mr. Boyd: Yes, I certainly would agree. Whatever the cost is, there are all kinds of estimates, ranging from, as you say, $10 all the way up to $100 plus. But I think the view of the people of Saskatchewan is that whatever the cost, it isn't needed or wanted.

Ms Haverstock: I happen to think there is a legitimate basis upon which people should be opposed to Bill C-68, without any sort of extremist information or misinformation being given, regardless of whether or not some people are under the impression that this will be exorbitantly expensive, whether they think there will be warrantless seizures and searches of their property. All of those things aside, I think there's been an equal amount of misinformation given on the other side. Somehow this is going to have an impact on the number of suicides and on family violence, and this is going to provide safer homes and more secure communities in which to live. I happen to think we should be approaching this in a much more open-minded way. We should be talking about facts on both ends of this issue.

Mr. Bodnar: All right. I won't get into an argument on this, because our information is that it will have an effect on suicides. The medical people did appear last week and we've had information from them.

My last question is to Mr. Mitchell. You made a comment some time ago that you were a gun owner and that you've misplaced your own gun. Have you found it? Would registration have helped you find it in any way, Mr. Mitchell?

Mr. Mitchell: No. Mr. Bodnar, I grew up with guns. Everyone in rural Saskatchewan born and raised on a farm grew up with guns. They're as common as can be. The comment I made very early on in a radio interview was that I thought I had a couple of guns at home somewhere. But, Mr. Bodnar, I haven't shot a gun for 20 years. I hadn't seen a gun in my house for 10 years. It turns out I haven't had a gun in my house for 10 years. I never think about guns; it never crosses my mind. I answered the question from that perspective.

Sandra, who is well known to you, told me immediately after the show that we had given away the one gun and she never recalled seeing the other. It turns out I never had the other; I assumed I had my father's .22 rabbit gun and I didn't. Somebody else has it. Registration would not have helped me because I never had anything to register.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: You said earlier - and we had a discussion about that - that it is a question of choice, that registration is not the best way, according to you, of curbing violence, that our money would be better spent otherwise.

You also say in your brief that registration is a costly choice. Have you done calculations to estimate the cost of registration, for example, in your province?

[English]

Mr. Mitchell: As I mentioned, we have the experience of the FACs to go on. I think now we are spending a total of about $525,000 in real costs on FACs. In addition to that, we maintain the office of the firearms protection officer and we licence businesses. We estimate our total program costs at about $900,000.

.1015

One of the parts we are concerned about is that we have been in negotiation with the federal government for two years with respect to those costs. We are unable to get agreement to cover them. Their current offer would cover about two-thirds of those costs.

As to what happens if we move into possession licences and the registration of all firearms, we are only able to guess. So much depends on the regime that finally is established. My officials provide the total figure of about $4 million. But I re-emphasize that it is not something we have researched carefully, because we don't feel we have enough information to do that.

I want to restate that we believe in any of these areas - whether it's domestic violence, suicides or the safe storage of firearms - there is so much more we can do if we attack the problem directly. Go right after the problem and do not try to affect it through the back door of a registration system, which we think would have little or no impact on the actual problems.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: You must understand that we have heard other witnesses as credible as you in their area of expertise and they told us that registration will help to reduce violence, accidents, and crime.

If those experts proved to be right, would you think that registration is justified?

[English]

Mr. Mitchell: The essence of my presentation to the committee this morning was that the Saskatchewan people who will be affected by this legislation are unconvinced that there is any point to this. The expert opinion you talk about has got to address that problem.

Mr. Rock has attempted, in various ways, to justify this legislation with Saskatchewan people - through national mailings, media statements and speeches. He has fallen far short of it. I don't know what anyone can say, what opinion they could offer that would change this deeply held view. I believe it's going to require something more fundamental, more objective.

I've made this point before and I want to make it again. It is so important that we handle the criminal law of this country in an appropriate way. One of the essentials is that the population to be affected in these circumstances accepts it as a valid law, as we all accept the law with respect to sexual assault, murder, treason, or anything. If it's in the Criminal Code, that consensus exists. That's why we've pressed so hard for an evaluation before we move into this new layer of control or regulation. We need to make it very clear to people why we're doing what we're doing, rather than just rely on people's instincts.

The police chiefs and police officers comprise one of the groups that have assured you this law has validity and will contribute a good deal. Yet in Saskatchewan the officers on the beat have just overwhelmingly rejected the notion of registration as contributing anything to what they do. In my city of Saskatoon I think there were nearly 300 officers voting and one officer voted in favour of Bill C-68, the registration provisions. The rest of them said no, that they don't support it. That's the situation we've got on our hands in the province of Saskatchewan. I think it will take some objective evidence, like an evaluation or a pilot project, to convince our citizens otherwise.

The Chair: Your time is up, Mr. de Savoye.

.1020

I want to advise the committee that the bells are ringing for an unexpected vote on a motion by the Reform Party to have one of their members speak instead of somebody else. I've been informed by our whip's office that it's not necessary for us to adjourn the meeting; we should carry on as long as it seems the Bloc Québécois are not supporting the Reform Party on this one. As long as we have enough votes in the House to defeat the motion, we can carry on the meeting.

Mr. Mitchell: With respect to that last point, Mr. Chair, may I say just one other thing? We have a letter from the Saskatchewan Association of Police Officers, which we would like to file with the clerk for the committee's information.

The Chair: Very good; you may.

Mrs. Barnes, for five minutes.

Mrs. Barnes (London West): Welcome, and thank you for attending today. I think you'll realize that in the course of this debate we're going to hear and listen to many different viewpoints. Yours is one of those, and we do listen.

I am concerned that a lot of misinformation is getting into your province. Mr. Boyd, I presume the public libraries all over your province, just like in my province, have every bill that ever comes out of this legislature. If they can't get them from their members of Parliament, for whatever reason, certainly the public libraries have copies of this bill.

The concern I have is really a fundamental one, though. We have situations across this country. I'm a federally elected person who sits in this justice committee with all parties. I believe we're here to enact changes and work on legislation for the Criminal Code of Canada - not of my province, or your province, but of Canada. We're a unified country.

I am concerned and I want to hear from all three of you, one of whom, I presume, is going to end up forming a government in Saskatchewan in the next couple of months, be it the same one or a different one. I'm a little bit concerned about your saying let's opt out of this piece of criminal legislation. At the end of the day, there's going to be a decision here.

I hear what you're saying. One of the gists of what you're saying is you'd like a little pilot project somewhere else, not in your backyard. Maybe it should be in your backyard. From the polling, it looks as if most of your constituents are saying that they like this legislation. Whether or not you agree with that, you're certainly not saying it here today.

Let's go a little bit into the future. I want to hear, from each of the parties in your province, whether you feel that as a provincial government you can pick and choose federal Criminal Code legislation to enact - ``I want this and I want that''. At the end of the day, somebody's going to be the minister of justice and the attorney general in your province.

If this does become the law, in this form or in some other varied form - and I think there can be fine-tuning on this legislation - we have a situation different from that in the United States. The States tend to have priority over the central government. In Canada we have a central government that has jurisdiction in criminal law. It's uniform and we want it to be uniform across this country.

You're not the first delegation to say ``Let's not make this one apply to us''. The Northwest Territories was here before you. ``Let's pick and choose'', or ``Let's delay in our area''. That concerns me, because I don't want to see what happens between a gun enforcement in Washington, D.C., and I think it's West Virginia that's right next door. One has very loose laws and one has very strict laws. We don't want to see that.

In my head, this applies to not only the gun law. We just finished the Young Offenders Act, for instance. I want to see consistency throughout Canada. I'm here as a representative of my riding and my province, but I'm also here as a federally elected, democratically elected person working on a federal government piece of legislation.

I want to hear from all three of the parties. At the end of the day, if this becomes law, do you think you can pick and choose criminal legislation for your province?

Mr. Mitchell: We know we can't. That's one of the reasons for our deeply held concern. We know that whatever you pass we're going to have to administer at the provincial level. That's our obligation and we have no alternative to that.

It may be that the federal government doesn't want the provinces to administer it. I don't know. Some pieces of legislation are administered directly. But my understanding is that we will be expected to administer this, as we administer the other parts of the Criminal Code.

That's why we're here: because, for all you've been told about polling and the views in Saskatchewan, among the people who will be affected by this legislation there is enormous resentment and resistance. We shudder at the prospect of trying to enforce, by the means available to us, this legislation on an unwilling population.

.1025

That was the thrust of my earlier remarks. In one way or another, if you're going to go ahead with this, then you have to do something to - I say this respectfully - to change the attitude of the people who will be affected in Saskatchewan, more than just the opinions of the chiefs of police or well-meaning people who are desperately concerned that something should be done. Find some objective way for people to look at it and say ``Oh yes, I didn't know that, but I see now'' - that kind of an ``Aha!'' remark.

Mrs. Barnes: Aha, $100 per gun! That might help.

Mr. Mitchell: If that's the issue, yes. But, with respect, it's not.

It's not a question of picking and choosing, and it's really not a question of opting out. That's not the right phrase. We want to see how it works, and if it works, include us, if it doesn't work, don't. That's my opinion.

Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton - Melville): Thank you very much for coming before the committee. I appreciate the time and effort you've already spent on this issue, and I also appreciate the fact that you're speaking up on behalf of the rank and file, the grassroots people of Saskatchewan. You are to be commended for that. If you have looked at this issue as long as I have, you'll see that it seems to be something that's dreamed up by the élites here, who seem to be out of touch with reality.

I want to bring up two matters. Because of my time and the constraints we have within this committee, I would like you to comment on both of those.

One ties in with the constitutionality, and this is something you may not have yet considered. I don't know whether you are aware that the justice minister cannot provide statistical evidence to prove that the previous, current, or proposed gun control measures have reduced violent crime, improved public safety or saved lives. He's also unwilling to conduct a comprehensive evaluation regarding the effectiveness of existing gun control legislation, as recommended by the Auditor General in his 1993 report, before he goes ahead with this.

The whole legal premise giving the federal government constitutional authority over gun control is that gun control somehow improves public safety and is therefore a criminal matter. This ties in with the whole discussion we've had here this morning. But I'll argue that if the government cannot provide statistical evidence proving that each specific gun control measure - such as FACs, registration, prohibition of certain types of guns - in fact improves public safety, then it is not appropriate for the measure to be part of the Criminal Code, and it is then regulation of private property, which appropriately falls under provincial jurisdiction.

The onus is on the government to demonstrate clearly that public safety is improved by any existing or proposed measure. The onus is on them to prove it. This they have not done.

Should this whole matter not be referred to some court or board for an interpretation or an evaluation to see whose jurisdiction this falls under before they go ahead with it? That's my first question.

My second question is not totally unrelated. It's a natural spin-off of this. The justice minister would like to ram this through Parliament before there is proper evaluation and consultation. You've already indicated that he has not done that evaluation or consultation. But it doesn't make any sense, because then he's going to string it out for eight years before it's implemented. There's an inconsistency there.

What would Mr. Rock have to do to get the cooperation of the provinces and the people in those provinces, and would the people of Saskatchewan accept this legislation even if it were amended - and amended substantially?

You have two questions there. I would really appreciate comments on them, because I think they are substantial questions.

.1030

Mr. Mitchell: I'll answer very briefly so that my colleagues can have a chance to respond also.

I indicated to the committee earlier that we plan to look at what Parliament passes, if and when something is passed, to consider its constitutionality and whether or not it has transgressed criminal law and moved into property and civil rights.

With respect to your second point, in my view, as a person from Saskatchewan, the evaluation is necessary in order for our population to know whether they should accept this or not. If the evaluation is positive, if there is some purpose to our federal regime of gun control, and that is shown to Saskatchewan people by an objective evaluation, which is what we would have here, then I tell the committee, without fear of contradiction, that we would accept it. If it doesn't have any purpose, then I know Parliament would not want to proceed with it, because the days when we regulate simply for the sake of regulating are long since gone. So an objective evaluation would answer the question and resolve the problem that now exists.

Mr. Boyd: We would certainly be supportive of the view of a court reference in looking at this to decide on the jurisdictional question with respect to property rights. You may or may not know that we advanced a private member's bill with respect to property rights in Saskatchewan. Unfortunately, we didn't gain the government's support at this point, although we're still trying to convince them of that. Nevertheless, we would support that view.

Again, as Mr. Mitchell has said with respect to an evaluation, if that were done and showed some positive benefit from it, I'm sure the people of Saskatchewan, having been objective in the past, as they certainly always will be in the future, would agree to look at that.

Quickly, with respect to Mrs. Barnes' question about misinformation, as has been said, there has been all kinds of misinformation on both sides of this issue. I can only say that as the information becomes available, there's less and less support in Saskatchewan for it.

It was only after the uproar that the Reform Party led here in Ottawa that the information started coming out in Saskatchewan. We were unable to get a copy of the legislation - simply unable to get it. We had to go through a Reform MP's office here to receive that information. It's that kind of tactic that people in Saskatchewan see as totally unacceptable when you're trying to consult with them or to gain their support.

Ms Haverstock: I'm sorry, I was watching Mr. Allmand. Are we ready to do this? Is there time?

The Chair: The questioner's time has expired, but you may answer the question.

Ms Haverstock: I'll make it short. We indeed would support an evaluation of the constitutionality.

At another time I will respond to Mrs. Barnes.

The Chair: The chair is taking a turn here because I want to make sure that certain things will be clarified before the meeting ends. Since I have a few questions for clarification, I'd prefer that maybe just Mr. Mitchell answer on behalf of the delegation.

It's very clear that you're against the registration system, but it's not so clear that you're opposed to the licensing system of the individuals. The licensing system for possession replaces the firearms acquisition certificate and it would seem as if the licensing proposal is just a logical extension of the FAC system. Are you as opposed to the licensing system as you are to the registration system?

Mr. Mitchell: We see them as being all of a piece. When we speak of registration, we speak of licensing and registration. They're equally rejected by our population.

The Chair: Okay, that's the answer to that question.

The second one is a follow-up on Mrs. Barnes' question and is with respect to regional exemptions for this kind of law, for a registration law. As she pointed out, tough legislation doesn't work in many American states because there are no border controls between states in the United States. Therefore you could have New York State with a tough law but neighbouring states with weak laws and therefore guns flow over the border.

Aren't you concerned that if we were to accept your provision - by the way, it's not just yours, it's probably the territories', maybe Alberta's - then, without any border control, we'd end up with guns being smuggled from one province to another and in effect no effective law at all in Canada?

.1035

Mr. Mitchell: Let me just explore that for a moment. Let's say that you chose to implement the law in the province of Quebec, as an accepting province that thought it would do some good. That means that everyone who has a firearm has to be licensed -

The Chair: And registered.

Mr. Mitchell: - and then you would register the firearms. That would apply whether they bought the gun at the store or whether they brought it in from Ontario or Saskatchewan. They would still have that same obligation. It's the same as though you bought the gun at a gun shop or got it in any of the ways you can get a gun now. So I don't see any problem with the open border and the flow of guns back and forth. The obligation would still be upon the Quebec citizen to register the gun, just as under Bill C-68 everyone would have the obligation to become licensed and become registered. Unless I'm missing something, I don't see a big problem.

The Chair: Okay. Most experts in registration systems say it won't work unless it's universal within a system that's closed by border control, and they give the United States as a prime example. Anyway, I have your answer on that.

I have one final question, and on this I return to Mr. de Savoye's original question. You've asked for pilot projects. It's my strong conviction that we've had a pilot project on handguns for 60 years with respect to registration.

As the former minister who introduced the bill in 1976, I've seen many studies to show that where there was registration there was a lower rate of crime with those guns. For example, in Canada over 53% of our crimes with guns are committed with long guns and only 17% with handguns. In the United States, where there's no registration and control of handguns, two-thirds of the crime with guns is committed with handguns. In Europe, where there is registration of handguns and long guns, there is a much lower rate of crime with guns. So I could point to many pilot projects that indicate that, including Canada, because the rate of crime with handguns is much lower than with long guns - contrary to the United States.

I put that on the record for your consideration, because all of you have said there's no proof, no evidence, but I've seen lots of evidence.

Mr. Mitchell: As I pointed out earlier, Mr. Allmand, it's like comparing apples and oranges, because the regime about handguns is very different from the proposed regime with respect to long guns and rifles. The mere fact of registration may not be nearly as important as the fact that you need a permit every time you take the gun out of the case or try to do anything with it. You know yourself that if you have a permit to take the gun from your home up onto the range, you look to be in breach of the permit if you stop for a cup of coffee along the way. That introduces a dynamic to the whole handgun situation that is different from that proposed in Bill C-68. So one doesn't necessarily follow from the other.

As I said earlier, and I want to repeat, the handgun experience is a relevant experience and ought to be evaluated for its own sake and for the sake of what can be learned from it as it applies to the long guns that are covered by Bill C-68. But I don't think we should just close our minds to it and say ``Here are the statistics on handguns; therefore this is a good idea.'' I make the point that it doesn't necessarily follow at all.

The Chair: Now my time has expired, and I'll have to be as tough on myself as on the others.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: In your paper, you say that you don't support criminalization of a lawful gun user.

If registration were to be implemented, what type of measure would you favour if we can't use a criminal offence? What alternative do you suggest?

.1040

[English]

Mr. Mitchell: I want my colleagues to participate in this answer, so I'll be very brief.

In Saskatchewan we have accepted the firearm acquisition certificates for the acquisition of weapons. Over the course of time, that will eventually cover everybody, as people get older and retire from using a gun, or die. Eventually the FAC system will provide the total regulation I think the groups who support this are propounding. I think that's sufficient.

You're dealing here with a population that is law-abiding and is not criminal. They are using their guns for the same purposes as those for which their parents and grandparents used guns. It's part of our way of life. As I mentioned earlier, I grew up in a home with guns everywhere - in the closet and all those things. We never had an accident. Everybody respected firearms, but understood them and didn't fear them.

When we in the prairies think about guns, we think about hunting. We think about shooting skunks and rabbits or gophers. I think when you think about guns you think about crime. I believe that's a very deep cultural difference that explains a lot of the problem.

Mr. de Savoye: I'm not quite sure this is answering my question. Short of a criminal offence, what kind of measure would you use to enforce the registration? You cannot just say the people will do it and we don't need to have any sanction in case they don't. Short of criminal offence, what other measure would you suggest be used?

Mr. Mitchell: I can't imagine. I say that with respect. I don't know the answer to your question.

The problem is that I see no point in the registration scheme. I don't see it producing any result. I don't know why you would go ahead and do it in the first place.

Mr. de Savoye: If worse comes to worst....

Mr. Mitchell: If worse comes to worst, good heavens, I don't know. Can I ask my colleagues to suggest an answer? I simply don't have one.

Mr. Boyd: We don't necessarily have an answer to that question. It's difficult to get into the ``what-ifs'' of the future.

In our view, there is now adequate legislation dealing with firearms in Saskatchewan and across the country. We don't believe the registry will do what you people believe it might do. If it came to be, we'd have to cross that bridge at that point. Our view now is that it's simply unnecessary.

Ms Haverstock: I don't have any answers either. I think the best way for me to try to appeal to people here is to say that the massive majority of people who are firearms owners in our province are law-abiding citizens who believe this is becoming the last straw. They see all sorts of efforts being made to ensure the rights of criminals, the rights of everyone else. They see themselves as the individuals who foot the bill. They now believe they are being personally attacked. I think it comes to the point of them saying ``Enough already - I'm not going to take this any more''. It really is, to many of these individuals, a view that ``Big Brother'' has arrived.

In fact, if they believed this would in some way improve their safety and quality of life, they would be the first people out front. Instead, they see they are becoming victimized by that.

Fundamentally, we do not believe that registration is the way to go. It's very difficult to come up with options if we think the fundamental premise is wrong.

The Chair: We go to Mr. Gagnon for five minutes, and then to Mr. Thompson. Unfortunately, I have a long list of names. My only thought is that I'll give those names priority with the other witnesses - Alberta, Yukon and so on - during the day.

Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure - Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Mr. Mitchell, I come from a very rural area in Quebec that has many similarities with the beautiful province of Saskatchewan. I don't say that lightly. I'm very impressed by the province and by its people I've had the privilege of meeting over the past few months.

.1045

I should also say that I am a hunter myself. I've grown up with guns surrounding me. I've used them myself. I can recall skipping class just to go out hunting in the fall. If I'd had a principal like Mr. Thompson -

The Chair: Now he's parliamentary secretary to the Solicitor General.

Mr. Gagnon: - I'm sure I would have been severely reprimanded.

However, we're also told today that the more information that comes out, the less support there is in Saskatchewan. Well, to my dismay, you also have a number of things that are common to Quebec. We are always talking about la spécificité québécoise, but I must admit there are serious problems in your province, as there are in mine.

I found out here that firearm suicide in Saskatchewan is above the Canadian national average. We're talking about 134%. That's the average rate, per 100,000, of all firearm deaths between 1989 and 1992 by type of jurisdiction. I found out that firearm accidental deaths are 200% above the Canadian national average.

Earlier you were telling us about your inroads and the successes of your firearms courses. I'd like to hear what your reaction is to this statistic of 200% above the national average. It was the same thing for other firearms deaths - 100%. Total firearm deaths in your province are 124% above the national average. Self-inflicted firearm deaths are 181% above the national average, and accidental firearm deaths are 167% above the national average. Other injuries caused by firearms are 233% above the national average.

Sir, are your courses a success, or is there, in your opinion, a serious problem in your province that should be resolved by the province? In this case, I think national standards should apply. I am convinced that bringing down your provincial average to national standards would be a major accomplishment, especially in view of the social cost this represents to your province and to the victims.

The Chair: That was your question and now we'll let the witnesses answer.

Mr. Mitchell: I'm very glad you asked that question. I will have Lynda Haverstock answer it. She has enormous credentials, with her PhD and a lot of related experience in this field.

Ms Haverstock: What I'm going to respond to is your statement about the high numbers of suicides in the province of Saskatchewan. If you think that the registration of ropes or prescribed medications or the registration of other things that are used to cause suicide is going to make the difference, it will not.

We have a disproportionate number of individuals in Saskatchewan who are in farming, as well as of aboriginal people in our province, relative to other places in the country. Both of these groups are considered to be at high risk for suicide. The rate of suicide among those in the farming community since 1981 is three times greater than that of the general population of Canada. Similarly, as all of us know, from the unfortunate media coverage of suicides of aboriginal people, including Inuit, there are significant problems there as well. These are social issues. These are issues that are not related to, and will not be affected by, the registration of the means by which they commit suicide.

Mr. Gagnon: May I ask you another question?

The Chair: No, you won't.

Ms Haverstock: May I finish?

The Chair: Yes, you may finish.

Ms Haverstock: If I may, I will simply state again that this is about choices. As an individual who has worked with people who are at high risk, as others at this table have done, I would indicate to you that if I have to have choices in the ways in which tax dollars are going to be spent to address this very serious issue of suicide or accidental death or injury, then I would far rather have resources used in a different way from how I would say these resources are going to be used for the registration of firearms.

Mr. Thompson (Wild Rose): I find the comments regarding the loss of productivity and all this regarding suicide to be strange things to throw into this legislation. If we're going to talk about that, then we should talk about the thousands of abortions and the loss of productivity from that. So let's not limit it to one area.

.1050

I would like to relate to you one thing that I've heard in my community. A number of people have emigrated there from other parts of the world - mainly Holland and Germany - and settled. I have travelled pretty extensively, talking about this issue as well as others in other parts of the country. I'm going to ask you a question I've asked the responsible firearm owners from the provinces.

Mr. Ramsay covered many of the clauses they are concerned about regarding certain rights and freedoms, in particular clause 100, and the whole registration idea. I've distributed over 400 of these through my office in my own riding through these people. The response I get back is fear that this 124-page document has six pages dealing with the criminal and 117 pages dealing with the law-abiding citizens of the land. They are quite concerned about the possibility and the probability that through Orders in Council some awfully solid freedoms could be lost somewhere in the future.

Is that a genuine concern in the province of Saskatchewan?

Mr. Mitchell: It is very much the concern of the people who are affected by this legislation. We've tried to reflect that here today. My colleagues should also speak to this question.

Mr. Boyd: Yes, I believe it certainly is a very valid concern of the people we've talked to in Saskatchewan.

They view it in this way: if you're going to deal with crime, you address the criminals, not the law-abiding people who happen to have a hunting rifle or a shotgun. That is the view of the people I've spoken with. They simply do not see the necessity of something like this if your stated goal is to address crime.

Ms Haverstock: One of the things I've attempted to do is to ensure that there will be a commonsense approach to this in terms of discussion. So when people begin to talk about a hidden agenda in terms of this legislation, I don't believe there is a hidden agenda. I don't believe there is a hidden agenda for future confiscation, all those sorts of things.

I think that kind of discussion comes from fear in people. It comes from an overreaction because they feel they've been put upon. If we take a step back, people have made reference to misleading information regarding exorbitant costs and the like. There's also been misinformation about the so-called hidden agenda of confiscation.

I think people have very legitimate concerns, but I try to take it beyond the realm of what I consider to be the extreme and take it to the legitimate areas.

We are not attacking what needs to be addressed if we in fact wish to have less crime, to prevent crime, or to have safer communities in Canada. That's what I would like some reassurances about, which is what I hear from the people.

Show us that in fact this is going to deliver what it says it's going to deliver. At least begin with what we already have on the books and see either how we could be doing that better or what is already working well. That hasn't transpired.

The Chair: The time has expired. We have to adjourn to hear from the Attorney General of Alberta in five minutes.

I sincerely thank Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Boyd, Ms Haverstock, and all the other members of the legislature, who've come a great distance to give us their views. They surely will be seriously considered. We don't debate at these meetings. We listen to you and try to clarify what you say. We'll be debating on the various proposals that have been put on the table in the committee in a couple of weeks.

The meeting stands adjourned.