[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, May 10, 1995

.1930

[English]

The Chair: I'd like to call the meeting to order. We will continue with our examination of Bill C-68, An Act respecting firearms and other weapons.

.1930

[English]

Tonight we're pleased to have with us three ministers from the Government of Manitoba, plus a deputy minister. We have with us the Honourable Rosemary Vodrey, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for Manitoba; Jim Downey, Deputy Premier and Minister of Industry; the Honourable Darren Praznik, Minister of Labour; and Bruce MacFarlane, Q.C., Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General.

Mrs. Vodrey and gentlemen, it's the rule of this committee that we try to have our opening statements for approximately fifteen minutes. We've just received the brief you prepared and we've distributed that to members of the committee.

We'll give you the floor for your opening remarks, which could be either reading the brief or simply addressing the committee, whatever way you wish. Then we'll proceed with the usual rounds of questioning according to the rules of the committee.

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Manitoba): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and good evening everyone.

Let me begin by introducing my colleagues who are here with me this evening from the Province of Manitoba. They are the Honourable Jim Downey, who is Deputy Premier of Manitoba and the MLA for Arthur - Virden, which is in western Manitoba, and my colleague the Honourable Darren Praznik, who is the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs and the MLA for Lac du Bonnet, in eastern Manitoba. I'm the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Manitoba and the MLA for Fort Garry, which is a constituency within the City of Winnipeg, Manitoba.

It is truly a pleasure for us to be here this evening, representing the Province of Manitoba, to present our government's position on Bill C-68. Our government has a new, clear, strong mandate from the people of Manitoba. The issue of gun registration in particular, and opposition to that registration, were major issues in our last election.

Our government has made protection of the safety of the public a high priority. We will support measures which enhance the safety and security of citizens. With this in mind, there are aspects of Bill C-68 that have the support of our government.

For example, Manitoba supports the proposed new Criminal Code offences and penalties that will be created to suppress the illegal importation of and trafficking in firearms. These measures clearly address the issue of public safety and the deterrence of crime.

Manitoba also agrees that certain firearms should be banned where it can be demonstrated that this will deter criminal activity.

I would also like to express Manitoba's support for those parts of the bill that require the courts to take away firearms and firearm documents from anyone charged with the offence of criminal harassment, often referred to as ``stalking''. I advanced this potential law reform at two successive meetings of Ministers of Justice, and at a meeting of the Ministers Responsible for the Status of Women. I am pleased to see that the Government of Canada agrees that victims of stalking require protection of this nature.

Although the amendments in this bill do not go quite as far as I had proposed, they are not, in our view, an unreasonable response to the very real problems posed by stalking in our society.

Manitoba also believes there should be additional and significant penalties for anyone who uses a firearm in the commission of an offence. In fact, we want to go further than that. We have asked the federal government to broaden proposed section 85 in its scope, and increase the penalties for the use of all weapons defined by the Criminal Code - not just firearms - in the commission of a violent crime.

There are illustrations to show the federal government is not addressing the very real issue of violent crimes in our country. The Manitoba Spousal Abuse Tracking Project, compiled by Prairie Research Associates Inc., spanning two years, is one example. Their research showed knives are the predominant weapon in violent crimes, used in 33% of cases in Manitoba. Bottles and glass were used in 13% of the cases. Baseball bats and sticks were used in 11%. Telephones were used in 5%, automobiles in 4%, and other weapons, including footwear, tools and keys, in 24%. Firearms were used in 11% of the violent crimes in our province; which is consistent with the national average.

.1935

[English]

I would not want to suggest that addressing these crimes is unimportant. As I stated earlier, our government believes there should be strengthened penalties for violent crime where firearms are used. We also believe the victims of other weapons assaults deserve a voice. Firearms are one of the many weapons used in the commission of violent crimes.

Our analysis shows that close to 90% of the violent crimes involving weapons will not be addressed in any fashion by Bill C-68. Manitoba takes the position that penalties of this nature ought not to be confined to the use of firearms only. It should, in our view, be extended, in proposed section 85, to the use of any weapon which is intended to facilitate a violent crime. In this way all victims of weapons and of violent crime will be treated equally under the Criminal Code of Canada.

Registration.

For Manitobans, the most controversial aspect of Bill C-68 is the establishment of universal gun registration. The Government of Manitoba has, on several occasions, requested hard evidence which demonstrates a correlation between the establishment of universal gun registration and increased public safety or a decline in the criminal use of firearms. We in Manitoba have taken a strong stand against crime, and to protect victims and potential victims of crime.

This proposed legislation is asking a great deal of the province and our citizens when the federal government has been unwilling to prove its effectiveness to us. The federal government has not shown how this proposal will enhance personal and community security.

Policing.

It's now clear that police will be administering the gun registration scheme. Our government is concerned about the potential administrative burden this system will have on our provincial police force. We are very concerned the burden that gun registration may impose on the RCMP will compromise their ability to undertake the more traditional functions of police officers. We in Manitoba have recently budgeted more money to increase the number of RCMP officers on patrol on our highways and in our communities. We have also recently pledged to fund up to 40 more police officers on the streets of Winnipeg. We are very concerned that this proposal will have a detrimental effect on the number of officers available to protect our citizens.

The Canadian Police Association has concerns as well. They have said they cannot support the legislation unless there is a guarantee from the federal government any implementation costs will not come from existing operational police budgets. The association goes on to say, and I quote: ``the benefits of a full registration system, although many, do not justify removing police officers from Canadian streets''.

Cost.

The cost, both direct and indirect, of universal registration remains an issue. We have heard a wide range of estimates, from $85 million to over $500 million. This is an expensive administrative system whose effectiveness remains in doubt. Manitoba feels there is a better way to spend this money. If crime prevention is the federal government's main issue, then the money could be better spent getting at the root causes of crime. It would also be better spent funding more officers on the streets, which is a proven crime deterrent.

Our ultimate objective is to enhance public safety and to deter the criminal use of firearms. It is the view of our government that these moneys are better spent on increasing resources to our police, implementing crime prevention programs, or providing better education and training on the use of firearms.

Finally, it is our view that registration unduly targets and regulates the lawful gun owner, the law-abiding citizen, who is acting carefully and responsibly, and it could penalize him or her through criminal charges. The Government of Manitoba believes the federal government should deal with the real culprits of our society: those who use weapons in criminal activity. The system the federal government intends to impose sweeps all law-abiding gun owners into the net, rather than focusing on criminals. It is time to target the criminals on behalf of law-abiding citizens, not penalize the law-abiding citizens under the guise of gun registration.

We believe one of the first initiatives the federal government should undertake is an evaluation of the amendments to gun laws brought in just a few months ago, to ascertain their effectiveness in deterring crime and enhancing public safety. In the light of all the factors discussed here this evening, Manitoba takes the position that the federal government should not proceed with further legislation that would have the effect of interfering with the legitimate rights of gun owners who are acting carefully and responsibly.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of our province.

I'll just ask my colleage, the deputy premier, if he has a couple of comments and also, my colleague, the Minister of Northern Affairs.

.1940

[English]

Mr. Jim Downey (Deputy Premier, Minister of Industry): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee and colleagues.

First of all, let me acknowledge and thank the committee for the opportunity to reflect to the committee some of the things that I've had the opportunity to hear directly from the people of Manitoba in the last short while. I believe that is extremely important in a democratic society.

I guess one of the other things I find in coming to this committee is it's a little unlike the committees we have when we prepare legislation in the Province of Manitoba, where it is the responsibility of the minister who is piloting legislation to sit at committee and hear what the people of Manitoba have to say. I find it interesting that the minister is not here this evening, although I know how busy the minister can be. But I understand the importance of this type of legislation to the minister and to the Government of Canada.

I think it's also important to note, as my colleague has indicated and I want to reinforce on behalf of the people of Manitoba, that we have just received a mandate, not only in numbers as they relate to the governing party...but the main opposition party also took the position in opposition to the registration portion of the billt. This was part of the election campaign...two parties of which now make up 54 seats in a 57-seat legislature. In fact, the gun control bill was an issue across the width and breadth of Manitoba. So if members are sitting here thinking this is not a reflection of what happened in the past few weeks, I would suggest they consider talking to their constituents.

I think it's important to put to the committee tonight that we believe we have a mandate on behalf of the people of Manitoba, having just won the most recent election, and make it clear that the one party, as many of you are familiar with, that espoused the parts of Bill C-68 - they are clearly on the record of the legislature as supporting this bill - lost official party status in the province of Manitoba, being reduced to some three seats. So I don't think the Government of Canada should take the message that is sent lightly.

I can tell you as well - and I'll try to be fair to the members of Parliament who are in the region in which I campaigned - it wasn't uncommon to run into petitions asking those members either to change their position on the bill or to step aside because they were not reflecting the interests of those constituents. I say that with the greatest of kindness, because I think it's important that they do - and should - reflect the wishes of their constituents in a democratic society.

So I say genuinely, thank you for the opportunity to bring that reflection to this House of Commons committee on a piece of legislation that I believe, as my colleague has said, has some positive parts to it but has some very negative parts, relating to the whole registration portion of the bill.

Thank you.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour and Northern and Native Affairs): It is a pleasure to join my two colleagues here tonight to address this committee.

As Minister of Northern Affairs for the Province of Manitoba, I must reiterate the comments of my colleagues, particularly for the northern part of our province. Over and over again during the election campaign, and otherwise, the people living in those communities expressed their grave concern over universal gun registration, particularly the point they have yet to see: a valid reason for such a move on the part of the Government of Canada. Like my colleagues, who are fresh from election campaigning where among us we've knocked on thousands of doors, I can tell you in my constituency in an election where health care and education were also very much in the forefront, at the doors of the voters, our position on gun registration was asked about probably four to one over any other issue.

So if members of this committee, members of the government, who are sponsoring and supporting this bill believe the citizens of Manitoba, of other parts of Canada, are supportive of it, they should go and meet with those citizens, because it became a very important issue in our election campaign on the part of many people. They wanted that view of opposition expressed here to the Government of Canada on this particular piece of legislation, and of course that's one of the reasons we're here today.

.1945

[English]

The Chair: Have you completed your presentation, Mrs. Vodrey?

Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. We would now be happy to hear your comments.

The Chair: Good. This is not a forum for debate. We're here to listen to you. We have an initial round of ten minutes for each of the three political parties that are with this committee. Then we have five-minute rounds where we alternate between the opposition and the government.

[Translation]

First of all, I will give the floor to Mrs. Venne, for ten minutes.

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

Madam Minister, gentlemen, I would like to ask a few questions on data relating to injuries and death in Manitoba as compared to other provinces.

First of all, you know probably that the average of accidental death caused by firearms in your province is two and a half the national average. Also, your rate of suicides, of about 5%, is higher than the national average. As for people sent to hospitals because of injuries caused by firearms, the average in your province is twice the national average.

Considering those statistics, which you probably know, how can you be opposed to firearms control?

[English]

Mrs. Vodrey: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I would like to ask the member if she could tell the committee and those of us here from Manitoba the source of the statistics she has brought forward this evening.

I would like to comment, however, in a more general sense, that Manitoba is extremely concerned about criminal activity and public safety. We've asked for information from the federal government that has not been forthcoming, which tells us that somehow the registration of firearms will reduce the incidence of accidental death, suicide, or violent crimes. We would be very interested in reviewing that.

However, we have never had provided to us in Manitoba any information from the federal government. We have asked for that information. I have asked for that information in person from the federal minister at the Ministers of Justice conference. I have also asked for that information in writing. That information has not been forthcoming. A link has not been provided that will indicate firearms registration will reduce any of the very tragic incidents the member has brought forward this evening.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: I can tell you that the statistics I have just provided come from the Federal Department of Justice. If you wish, I could send you a copy.

As far as your answer is concerned, I am afraid that we are beginning a dialogue of the deaf, which will be very unfortunate.

My point is that the average number of people sent to hospitals because of injuries caused by a firearm in Manitoba is twice the national average. This comes from the Department of Justice of Canada, and I hope you believe me. This is why I wonder if you should not take another position.

However, you have chosen not to answer me on this, by raising another issue. This is your right.

.1950

[Translation]

I will continue with another question. This relates to the chiefs of police in Winnipeg and Brandon, as well as the Manitoba Police Association. All of them have stated that they agree with our attempt to control the firearms, and they have sent the minister letters expressing their support for the bill.

We have also received letters from various health groups expressing their support for the bill. Before expressing your own position tonight, did you consult any community groups, police association or health organizations, since your position is quite at odds with the letters that we have received from such groups?

Mr. Praznik: General consultations.

[English]

Mrs. Vodrey: I'm very happy to speak about the consultation I and my colleagues have recently undertaken.

It is the very best poll. I believe it is the very best consultation can be undertaken in any part of Canada, and that is a general election. My colleagues and I, for 35 days, have consulted directly with the people of Manitoba. We have knocked on doors. We have met in community halls. We have met in senior citizens' homes. We have spoken with Manitobans across our whole province.

I am here with colleagues who represent other parts of the province. I represent the city. I can tell you very clearly, our government was returned with a significant and increased majority and those who are elected also increased their majorities. The people of Manitoba spoke very, very clearly to us over 35 days. We got the message. My colleagues may also have some comments to add to this.

The Chair: Mr. Praznik, I apologize for introducing you as the Minister of Labour. I presume that was your former portfolio.

Mr. Praznik: Let me just say that at noon yesterday I was the Minister of Labour. Today I am the Minister of Energy, Mines and Northern Affairs.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would add to that as well the official opposition party in Manitoba, which represents northern Manitoba and a good deal of the central belt - Swan River, Dauphin and Interlake constituencies - had a position similar to ours in that campaign and the voters spoke as well. They elected 23 members to the legislature. I think the voters of the province of Manitoba, where this was a very significant issue, spoke very loudly as to what they want. The last time I looked, in a democracy that's what it's about.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Your position is at odds with the one I have had expressed to me in meetings and through letters. For instance, I have letters from a Community Health Centre, from the Portage Women's Shelter, the Manitoba Women's Advisory Council and the Manitoba Child Care Association expressing support for the bill. And I could give you a long list of groups that do not share your position. They are in complete disagreement with you.

I think it is important to let the people know about that. Here is my final question: Do you believe that the people of Manitoba have enough information on the bill? Do you think that the bill has been well understood by Manitobans?

I am asking this question because we have heard various comments, since the beginning of these hearings, leading us to believe that people do not really understand the bill. We think that the bill may not have been properly explained. I wonder if this could apply to your province.

[English]

Mrs. Vodrey: I'd like to go back to the member's question about letters received from Manitoba.

.1955

[English]

I would like to say again that perhaps there has been an assumption that there is a link. But I can tell you no hard information has ever been presented to those groups or to others in Manitoba that there is a link between registration and the reduction of violent crime or criminal activity. I ask this committee again, as I have asked the federal minister previously, please provide us with that information.

Secondly, women who make use of shelters, people who are very concerned about issues as they relate to the safety of women, also want to make sure there are police officers on the streets of Manitoba, available to respond in the event of domestic assault.

I'd like to speak now about how well informed the people of Manitoba are on Bill C-68. I believe the people of Manitoba are well informed and I would never suggest, at this committee or at any other time, one underestimate how well informed the people of our province are.

However, if there were any questions, certainly in the last 35 days, members have been at the door, at community meetings and have been responding to questions by phone and in person to make sure the people of Manitoba do understand what the impact of this bill is. People have made their concerns very clear to us. We have developed our position in consultation with the people of Manitoba, who have expressed their concerns to us based on what I believe my colleagues and I can say very clearly is a well-informed position. I would never underestimate how well informed the people of our province are in making their decision.

The Chair: Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mrs. Vodrey and gentlemen, I want to welcome you to Ottawa. I thank you for your presentation.

I don't know whether your presentation tonight is finally going to put to rest the claim by the justice minister and those who support this bill that 90% of Canadians support a universal registration system. I am hoping at least they will step back from that assertion and take a second look at it.

I have travelled all across this country and I have met with people seeking information about this bill. At last count, I'm drawing close to having addressed 38,000 people. It doesn't matter what part of the country I'm in - I'm going to Newfoundland on Saturday to address another group. I was in Manitoba and I didn't find the feeling any different from in any other part of the country I've been in. I don't think the phenomenon that was expressed during your election is isolated to Manitoba. I don't think that or believe it for a minute.

Nevertheless, what I'd like to do is cover a couple of other issues. Preston Manning, our leader, and I have sent a letter to the premiers of the provinces. We have asked them to examine certain aspects of Bill C-68 with regard to their viewpoint on the constitutionality of the bill; in particular that of clause 100, dealing with ending the right to remain silent; clauses 99 and 101, the requirement to cooperate with the police; the presumption of guilt until proven innocent, clauses 99, 103 and 107; the assignment of guilt by association; the continued allowing of confiscation of private property without compensation; and of course the provisions for search and seizure without a warrant. That doesn't refer to a dwelling-house, where they need a warrant or consent.

We have urged the premiers and obviously the justice ministers as well, of the provinces, if they have concerns about the constitutionality of any aspects of this bill, if they would urge the justice minister to initiate a court reference to ascertain the constitutionality of these areas of the bill prior to its passing.

That having been said, do you have any concerns about the constitutionality of this bill, if there are any aspects that might infringe upon any sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

.2000

[English]

Mrs. Vodrey: I've seen the letter. I have seen the letter that was sent and I have a copy of the letter.

Our position from Manitoba is this. First of all, we are here because this is an issue of policy. At this point we wish to present Manitoba's position to influence the policy direction of the federal government, because we believe this policy direction is not the correct one on behalf of Canadian people and in the interests of public safety.

About reviewing the bill for constitutionality, the bill hasn't yet passed, as you said. We haven't seen the bill in a final form. We haven't even received any of the regulations. I'm not sure even at what stage the regulations are. I can say if the bill is passed in its current form, we will certainly be reviewing it. We will be reviewing it to see if it is constitutional. At that time, if we believe it is not constitutional, then we will certainly be proceeding to take action.

Mr. Ramsay: I want to ask you another question about the consultation process that occurred between the Government of Manitoba and the federal government. Some time ago - in fact it was December 7 - I asked the justice minister in the House of Commons about the extent to which he had consulted with the provincial Attorneys General on Bill C-68. In response he said this:

Consultation was engaged continuously with officials in the offices of every provincial and territorial Attorneys General, every one of them.

Could you comment on the degree of consultation that occurred between the justice minister of Canada and your government?

Mrs. Vodrey: The consultation has been extremely minimal. In fact, I believe the consultation has shown a direct slight to the people of Manitoba. The issues were raised with the federal Minister of Justice by letter, by me as Attorney General, in person at the Ministers of Justice conference and again by letter. In response, the federal minister came to a closed-door meeting in the western part of our province, which not all of the public was able to attend. He spoke to a hand-picked group of individuals; no consultation occurred.

He then came to the Legislature of Manitoba, walked in the door and went to the Liberal caucus room. When he emerged from his consultation with elected Liberal members, he said he had had a meeting with the next premier of Manitoba. That individual has since lost his seat.

He did not at any time approach the Attorney General of Manitoba. I was asked by the media whether the federal Minister of Justice was going to meet with me as Attorney General. I said the federal Minister of Justice didn't even tell me he was in the province.

The consultation has been extremely minimal. It has been confined, by and large, between him and me directly, to our letter-writing and to a face-to-face meeting at the Ministers of Justice conference. Otherwise the minister has avoided contact with the Attorney General from Manitoba.

Mr. Praznik: And the people.

Mr. Ramsay: Would you comment on the federal-provincial funding agreement between your government and the federal government for the FAC administration?

The Chair: You can refer to other members, including Mr. MacFarlane, if you wish.

Mrs. Vodrey: I thank the member for the question. I will have to seek some additional information from officials who are here, and we will be able to provide you with more of that additional information.

I will say we are continually concerned about steps taken by the federal government which do end up being an administrative cost in the province of Manitoba. The additional requirements do require a greater administrative burden in the province of Manitoba. We are quite concerned that this bill in its current format, Bill C-68, will add additional administrative burdens and costs.

We continue to be concerned because we are aware that the federal government is reducing its transfer payments to our province. We will be getting along with less money, with an increased burden placed upon us by the federal government.

.2005

[English]

Mr. Ramsay: Okay, thank you. The reason I asked was that the latest information I had was that the federal-provincial funding agreement for financing the FAC administration expired over a year ago and I wondered if anything had changed since I received that information. I understand nothing has changed.

The Chair: If you wish, we could come back to this on a further round of questioning,Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: Yes.

Mrs. Vodrey: I can provide you with an update that is perhaps not in the detail required, other than to say that it's under negotiation. Our concern was what was going to happen with this current bill which is before Parliament. So I can just give you that level of detail at this time.

Mr. Ramsay: All right. Thank you.

Mrs. Barnes (London West): Welcome. It's always interesting to hear other viewpoints on this bill.

I understand from your brief that you have been concerned with proposed section 85 of the Criminal Code, which basically is about weapons charges.

Mrs. Vodrey: Yes.

Mrs. Barnes: Before, as well as it is now, your position was Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Province of Manitoba. In your capacity of Attorney General, did you ever consider, or did you ever deal with, the possibility of directing your crown attorneys not to plea-bargain these weapons charges away? That was something you could have done, if you had wished.

Mrs. Vodrey: Most certainly that is the case and I am pleased, in terms of proposed section 85, with some of the changes - that the evidentiary burden may in fact allow us to proceed without having to stay. So there is some improvement in the area of proposed section 85. However, the improvement does not go to the level that we in Manitoba believe it should; that is, to include weapons, not only firearms.

Mrs. Barnes: My question to you, though, was did you every consider directing your crown attorneys, which would have been in your power as Attorney General...if you were concerned with this issue, why did you not deal with it?

Mrs. Vodrey: As I answered in my last answer, most certainly there is a directive.

Mrs. Barnes: So all of your crown attorneys have shown -

Mrs. Vodrey: There has been an evidentiary difficulty, however. We are pleased that some of that may be reduced now.

Mrs. Barnes: Okay, that's good.

The Chair: Is there no plea-bargaining on these defences? Has there not been since you were Attorney General? Is there no plea-bargaining in Manitoba?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, the issue is one of evidence. If there is no evidence, then we can't proceed. But the direction is to proceed vigorously.

The Chair: So there is plea-bargaining?

Mrs. Barnes: There is plea-bargaining. So you have not directed all crown attorneys not to plea-bargain away these charges. I just want to know whether you issued a directive to your crown attorneys to say you did not want them to plea-bargain away weapons offences.

Mrs. Vodrey: The issue is, again, not plea-bargaining. The issue is an evidentiary one. If there is not the evidence, then we can't proceed.

The Chairman: Mrs. Barnes, carry on.

Mrs. Barnes: I'll move to another question. Maybe I'll get a fuller answer.

Again in your capacity as Attorney General, I'm aware that you have received a letter from the Manitoba Police Association. They're telling you they strongly support this bill. That's the Manitoba Police Association. You're the Attorney General of the province. On the question you were just wanting answered, what do you say to them? This is your own police association. What discussions have you had about why they're supporting this bill?

Mrs. Vodrey: Certainly I'm aware that the chiefs have taken a united position. However, I would say that within the rank and file there is not necessarily total support for this bill. I refer the member to the Canadian Police Association's position on crime and gun control. They have expressed a very specific concern about the effect of this bill of taking police officers from the street. We support that. We're very concerned about that particular point too.

.2010

[English]

Mrs. Barnes: But did you receive a letter from the Manitoba Police Association saying they support the legislation?

All right. I've seen a letter, so we'll just move on. I don't want to spend all my time on this.

In the last government in your province you were also the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. I don't know if you still have that position.

Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, I do.

Mrs. Barnes: I receive a lot of correspondence from all across the country from various women's organizations, and not one women's organization has written me to say go against this bill, backtrack on the bill, change this. I haven't heard from REAL Women of Canada. That's the only organization that probably hasn't written me, and I don't know what their position is. But other than that, every women's organization tells me they're strongly behind us. I'd just like to ask you, in your responsibilities as Minister responsible for the Status of Women for the Province of Manitoba, whether you believe the women's organizations within your province are fully supportive of your stand.

Mrs. Vodrey: The women's organizations, I am quite sure, are looking to see if there is some link between the registration of firearms and a reduction in criminal activity. But I can tell you that as Minister of Justice and Minister for the Status of Women, I have not received that information. We have not received that in the Province of Manitoba.

Now, about the women's groups in Manitoba, yes, I am Minister for the Status of Women, and I have advanced to this federal government a number of proposals to increase the safety of women and children, one of which is one within our own area of jurisdiction: that is, more police officers on the street.

Mrs. Barnes: That's not the question.

Mrs. Vodrey: I have asked the federal minister to deal with anti-stalking. I have asked the federal minister to deal with putting dollars into the hands of parents and children with maintenance enforcement; and I have yet to have any action. I can tell you, as Minister for the Status of Women, women's groups in Manitoba are extremely unhappy with the lack of action from the federal government.

Mrs. Barnes: My question to you, though, was about the women's groups; are they supportive of your stand? Have you heard? Are you getting correspondence from your own groups different from what I'm getting?

Mrs. Vodrey: I can tell you we just had a general election in Manitoba. At that general election in Manitoba on 25 April, 1955, which is causing great laughs around this table -

The Chairman: Order.

Mrs. Vodrey: The people of Manitoba aren't laughing. They made their choice.

Mrs. Barnes: I would hope their choice could answer whether or not you received correspondence from women's groups supporting your position in your province. Don't they count?

Mrs. Vodrey: Certainly I wouldn't want any member around this table to diminish how important the group is in Manitoba. Certainly we as the government and I as minister pay direct attention.

Our election was on 25 April, 1995. We received a very large mandate from the people of Manitoba. Since that time, to my knowledge, no, I have not received a letter from any of the women's groups -

Mrs. Barnes: Since your last election?

Mrs. Vodrey: - though our position, as I can tell, was made very clear during the course of our campaign, during the course of 35 days. I don't believe anyone could be more clear and more straightforward.

Mrs. Barnes: Have you received -

The Chair: Mrs. Barnes, please don't interrupt the minister. When you ask a question of the minister, let the minister or the witness answer.

.2015

[English]

Mrs. Barnes: I apologize.

The Chair: And I ask the witnesses not to interrupt the questioner. They haven't done that yet. We put everything on a written record so people can read it. If everybody talks at once, you won't be able to read the record.

Mrs. Barnes: For instance, have you received a letter supportive of this legislation from the Portage Women's Shelter in Portage la Prairie? I'll just use one that I think I'm aware of.

Mrs. Vodrey: If the member is asking if that letter's been received since April 25, 1995 - I'm not sure if that's her question -

Mrs. Barnes: No.

Mrs. Vodrey: - to my knowledge, I'm not aware of that letter since April 25, 1995.

Mrs. Barnes: I don't think it came since April 25, 1995. I guess not everything revolves around the provincial election date.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Mr. Chairman, I have only one question. I would like the Manitoba ministers to tell us whether the provincial Minister of Justice was going to look at the constitutionality of the legislation once it had been promulgated, as she said earlier.

I would like to know whether your government was going to give this priority over helping the population to understand and obey the law. In my opinion, this might be your first duty.

[English]

Mrs. Vodrey: Obviously, it will be the first duty of the federal government to make sure people understand this bill, in whatever form in which it is finally passed. That will be the duty of the federal government. What I have said is that we are here this evening on a matter of policy. We believe there is still an opportunity to deal with the policy which is contained in this bill. We are here to say that on a matter of policy, we have four areas that we have major concerns with. Those four areas are the lack of information which ties the registration of firearms to a decrease in criminal activity...second, it will remove police officers from the street...third, the cost in the implementation and the administration, which is to this point uncalculated...last, it puts law-abiding citizens into the same net as criminals.

If the bill is passed over those objections, in its current form, then I will be looking at the constitutionality of the bill. We will be looking at the bill very carefully at that time. If the bill is passed in its current form, we will be, of course, looking at it constitutionally. We're here this evening to raise our concerns about the policy which is contained in this bill, and I refer to the four points which contain our objections.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: You have just said that one of your concerns is the lack of information concerning firearm registration. Earlier, you told me that Manitobans were very well informed indeed and that the whole population was well informed. It seems that you have different answers according to whatever question is asked.

That was my only comment. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Do you wish to respond?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I would like to comment. I believe the member has misunderstood. My comments are quite consistent.

What I have said is that Manitobans are well informed about the bill as it is currently put forward. What Manitobans are saying is please provide us with information which gives a link between the registration of firearms and decreased criminal activity and increased public safety. That information has not been forthcoming from the federal government. We have asked for that. The people of Manitoba are, however, informed about the bill in its current form, which does not provide that information.

Mrs. Cowling (Dauphin - Swan River): Madam Minister, I have a number of questions. I'll outline them quickly so you may respond.

I must say I am surprised for a number of reasons at the position you have taken. First of all, I am surprised you, as the Minister for Justice and as the daughter of a retired Toronto police officer, would choose to ignore the support this initiative has received from the Canadian Police Association, the Manitoba Police Association, and the chiefs of police in both Brandon and Winnipeg. Registration will provide police officers with crucial information about the firearms they may face when responding to calls. And for the safety of our police officers and the public, Bill C-68 must be passed immediately.

.2020

[English]

I would ask that the minister justify her position, when police services are sending a clear message that they support tougher gun control and registration as ways to prevent crime.

Second, I am surprised that you, as a woman and the minister responsible for the status of women, choose to ignore the support this bill is receiving from women's groups from across the country, including the Portage Women's Shelter and the Manitoba Women's Advisory Council. I'd like to know how many women's shelters and women's groups you consulted prior to developing your position.

A constituent of mine, a man from rural Manitoba, called my office to say he could not understand, after the Montreal massacre, how any woman in Canada could not support this bill.

I understand the minister is concerned about the costs of implementing the legislation. First, I'd like to indicate that the registration is to be operated on a cost-recovery basis. If this legislation prevents just one death, it will be worth it.

Third, your government supported registration in 1991, when the former justice minister, Jim McRae, fully endorsed the Pedlar report, which recommended stricter gun control and registration. Madam Minister, can you tell me why the Filmon government firmly endorsed registration in 1991 and then totally changed that position in 1994?

In a letter to the former justice minister Kim Campbell, registration was also endorsed by Senator Nate Nurgitz, who ran one of Premier Filmon's campaigns.

Madam Minister, in taking your position, who exactly have you been listening to? It's not law enforcement officials, not doctors, not nurses, not churches, not women's organizations, and not community organizations. Who is it? Can you tell this committee, in a constructive way, who you've been listening to?

The Chair: There are a lot of questions there, Minister. I'll give you a bit of time to answer them.

Mrs. Vodrey: Thank you very much.

Yes, I am the daughter of a retired senior police officer from the city of Toronto. I believe my father is the most decorated police officer in Canada.

An hon. member: Hear, hear!

Mrs. Vodrey: He and I have certainly had a number of talks on this issue. Let me say, first of all, we certainly respect the leadership of the chiefs of police.

However, there is still no evidence that has been presented to chiefs of police, or to governments across this country, showing there is a link between registration and a reduction in criminal activity. If that information has been presented, if it has been available, I ask the question, why have we not had it? Why have we not seen it? We would certainly like to see it.

We are here today because we have a mandate from the people of Manitoba with our position. Respectfully, that's why we are here. We have seen the position presented by others. We are here with a mandate from the people of Manitoba.

As minister for the status of women, I would also like to say, for consultation with women's groups, I participated on behalf of our government in the women's debate during the course of the election. I can tell you the issue wasn't raised with me as one I should come forward with...and be supportive of Bill C-68. It didn't occur. I can tell you as a participant with the two other members in that debate on that evening, that information wasn't given to me as a position to bring forward.

However, I can say we do continue to consult. Let me remind the member that women vote. Women vote, and women voted in this last election. And women have told us on a regular basis they are concerned with their public safety. Support is founded on a premise that there is a link. We ask for that link to be presented to the people of Manitoba and to the people of Canada.

.2025

[English]

But women, in the interests of their public safety, have asked for other things. They have asked for police on the street, available to respond in times of domestic violence and domestic assault. They have asked for assistance and a message to come through the Parliament of Canada on anti-stalking. They have asked for the federal minister to act on a registry system that will help provide money to women and children across this country. So women across Manitoba, and I, as Minister for Status of Women, have in fact consulted, and I have taken that information forward to the federal minister, and I haven't yet received an answer.

It seems to me an impression is being sold by the federal Liberals that there is somehow a link and that this will increase public safety. We can't operate on that impression alone. We ask you to give us the evidence. That's a simple question. It has been asked several times.

The member then speaks about the cost. I'd like to take a moment to speak about the cost, because to my knowledge, we started at a cost of about $85 million and we have now moved up to $118 million. That's what I heard from the federal minister. In a short time the cost continued to increase.

We as a province ask you, as the federal government, how much will this cost? What will the direct costs be? But the member has said the cost is incidental if it saves one life. I ask you today, can you make the commitment to the people of Canada that in passing this legislation not one more death will occur? I don't believe you can make that commitment. I asked you to provide us with a link. We haven't received it yet.

Then the member references the Pedlar report, a very comprehensive report within our province which dealt with issues of domestic violence and on which our government is acting. We are supportive of measures in relation to gun control which deal with public safety. That's why we have come forward on this bill and supported clauses of this bill, which we believe will in fact deal with criminal activity. But we have not had information that says registration - which is the point we appear to be debating at the moment - will in fact make the country and our province safer.

Your final question was who we have listened to. I can only repeat, as my colleagues and I have said all evening, we have listened to the people of Manitoba. We are here representing the people of Manitoba, who gave us a clear message.

I believe my colleague, the Minister of Labour and Northern and Native Affairs, also has a comment he'd like to add.

Mr. Praznik: In answer to that same question from the member from Dauphin - Swan River who talked about police officers, I can tell you, having been at the door of many, and having had many work in my campaign, gun registration was an issue with them and they opposed what your government is bringing forward.

If you don't believe us because we're in different political parties, let me just quote the Liberal candidate in the riding neighbouring mine, who said it infuriated him to hear justice minister Allan Rock say after the election that gun control had nothing to do with the Manitoba Liberals' poor showing. I quote: ``He's got his head in the sand''. I just suggest to members of this committee that democracy is ultimately about the people making a decision on how much of government or regulation they want. Manitoba sent a signal. I just hope members of this committee don't have their heads in the sand also.

The Chairman: Because you asked, on April 24, 1995, the minister filed this document with us called Financial Framework for Bill C-68, which goes into the financial implications of the bill. If you do not have it, I'll ask the minister's office to send it to you.

The other thing I just wanted to say is I've been in this Parliament quite a long while and dealt with many justice issues and I don't know of one that ever completely eliminated crime. You asked whether we can prove that by passing this law we will totally eliminate murder with weapons. If anybody ever came up with any law that would totally eliminate crime, we'd all be pleased to look at it.

.2030

[English]

Mr. Thompson (Wild Rose): Thank you, folks. Welcome.

First I wanted to let you know I had the honour of tabling a petition on behalf of Manitobans - over 2,000 of them. Approximately 1,600 were men, who signed blue sheets. Over 400 were women, who signed pink sheets. They wanted me to turn them in that way. I had that pleasure, and I appreciated having the opportunity to lobby about...against opposing this bill. Thank you. I haven't seen any other petitions.

I'd like to make a statement. I'd like each of you to respond, if you would.

I wanted to go back to what my colleague started on when he mentioned several items regarding civil liberties. When I look at this document, I realize there are 117 pages dealing with the law-abiding citizen vs. 6 dealing with the criminal aspect. Mr. Ramsay mentioned several of these liberties. In addition to the ones he mentioned, I would like to talk about the Orders in Council; the regulations.

When you look at proposed section 110 of the bill, the Governor in Council may make regulations...and then it goes on for four or five pages, paragraphs lettered 110.(a)...and then they have subparagraphs 110.(a)(i), 110.(a)(ii), 110.(a)(iii). There are many different things in here the Governor in Council may do, if this bill is passed, including such things as establishment and operation of shooting clubs and ranges, and the operation of gun shows.

Each one of these particular clauses starts with the word ``respecting'', and my lawyer friends have told me that the word ``respecting'', in a law of this nature, means an all-encompassing thing - full limit, full power. I look at it and that concerns me. Then I go to the back of the legislation, to page 98, proposed subsection 117.15(2)...and I'll read that to you. It says:

In making regulations, the Governor in Council may not prescribe any thing to be a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or prohibited ammunition if, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, the thing to be prescribed is reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes.

So in the opinion of the Governor in Council...he could decide that any gun of any nature would not be reasonable for use in Canada. In fact, he or she has the power to determine that all guns in Canada are not reasonable for use. And many people have expressed their concern to me.

I share the concern that this kind of documentation, this kind of law, would virtually set up a system that could be referred to as autocratic, dictatorial, and everything but democratic. That is a major concern to all Canadians. It should be. That, in my view, is enough in this law to say never should any Canadian vote for a piece of legislation that dares set up that kind of a system.

I would like your comments on that.

Mrs. Vodrey: Thank you very much. I'd like to begin. I know each of my colleagues would like to comment on this very serious issue you have raised. I can tell you we are concerned about the scope of regulations, the large range of important issues in this bill which will be left to regulations set by Governor in Council and not dealt with in the Parliament of Canada.

I come back to saying again we are very concerned that the intent of this bill, the effect of this bill, is one which deals with criminal conduct that will have some effect in the interests of public safety for Canada. We are concerned when regulations, to the extent you have described, and as described in here, are going to be made without full debate and without an opportunity to have the Parliament of Canada scrutinize and look at them.

I know my colleague, Mr. Downey, had some comments he would like to make.

Mr. Downey: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to respond. I think it's extremely important in the type of democratic system in which we live that the principles of law passed in legislation be debated and brought to the public's attention and go through this whole public hearing system, committee system, in which people are quite free and open to be able to debate.

.2035

[English]

The concern you raise is a very legitimate one; what happens in a cabinet room when the Prime Minister the Minister of Justice, and the Department of Justice decide it is time to make a change? It does not go through the open public debate of any democratic system. It is done in a cabinet room with consultation, I'm sure, with the bureaucracy that has prepared it on behalf of that government, and it becomes law.

You, sir, have clearly pointed out some of the concerns you have that can flow from this bill. It can be to the worst of their fears about what in fact could flow from this again; the whole question of confiscation of personal rights, property rights. Because it's deemed by the people who drafted the regulations that any type of sporting weapon of a kind which, quite frankly, the majority of Canadians...if I can reflect my own constituency, who are people who are hunters, to what extent would they proceed to bring forward limitations on these individuals?

Again, I can assure this committee and the people I represent that anything we can do to reduce crime, to protect individuals from crime and those people who want to perpetrate their wishes, or whatever they want, on an another individual...we want to be part of stopping it. We don't want to be part of a system that accuses the average citizen of Canada of being guilty without some form of ability to protect oneself. That's what can happen from the regulations.

Again, I say to the members of this committee, do not take lightly what is being proposed, particularly as the regulatory strength or capability that's going to be in this law, as has been pointed out, has tremendous reaching impact on the people of Canada.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, as Minister of Northern Affairs, of course I reiterate the comments of my colleagues about the general principle of regulation. There's one particular provision I flag with this committee as being of grave concern in various parts of the country. That's paragraph 110.(t) on page 48 of the bill. It deals with the power to make regulations on any matter or provision of the bill for aboriginal people.

I flag this issue, of course, because in Manitoba we have many communities - Cross Lake comes to mind - where we have a first nation community, we have a Northern Affairs community which is made up of non-status, Métis and other people living in a nice, relatively isolated area where you really have two communities right next door to one another. This is repeated over and over in Manitoba. When you give the Governor in Council the power to make these regulations on any aspect of this bill, the question of course is what kind of regime are we going to see, where it is going to apply to one citizen living in one house, and literally the neighbour next door potentially having another regime govern them in an isolated community. I flag this as a great concern.

We wish the minister would come forward with at least draft regulations. In Manitoba, particularly in areas of controversy, or where there's great concern, it's a tradition that we brought draft regulations forward, on occasion, to come forward with the bill for consideration to give us some sense of what we're talking about.

When a minister, as Mr. Rock has done here, brings forward legislation with such a wide-ranging power - in this one particular area, for example - with no sense of draft regulations, no sense of where they're going, we can see, as this issue becomes more known in those communities, it is going to raise a great deal of questions - particularly in northern Manitoba - about how this bill is going to operate for certain people, particularly when those people are living - literally, in the case of Cross Lake - side by side, as neighbours. The first nations community and the Northern Affairs community intersperse with one another. You literally have one house on one side of the line and the house next door on another. Yet potentially you could have totally different regimes operate for those people in a northern isolated community.

It raises a whole host of questions. We would hope Mr. Rock would have at least put forward draft regulations to give us a sense of where he's coming from in this very important area.

That's just one example.

.2040

[English]

Mr. Iftody (Provencher): I have just a couple of questions.

I'm surprised at the statement, now that the Conservative government of Manitoba has been elected, on gun control. I would say Darren Praznik is the MLA because of hard work, and I would hardly think the people of Pinawa...Atomic Energy of Canada voted 80% for him on gun control. I think he won his seat because of good, hard work...for many, many years.

I think, Mrs. Vodrey, I share some of the concerns expressed about the punishments in the bill...and you use the term ``law-abiding citizens'' frequently. I am concerned, for example, that if someone chose not to register their firearm, they could get a criminal record, a year in jail, a $50,000 fine, or have somebody seize their $800 or $1,000 rifle. I was wondering whether you share that concern.

Mrs. Vodrey: I believe I understand your question, that registration leads to a criminal record for law-abiding citizens. Let me step back from that, though, and reiterate -

The Chair: It's only if they don't register their weapons.

Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, excuse me, if they don't register their weapons. But let me step back and give Manitoba's position again.

Manitoba is opposed to registration. If you are asking me to speculate beyond that point, I would have to ask the federal government what other ideas it has. Manitoba is opposed to registration.

Mr. Iftody: In the package...I thought you were familar with it, because one of the concerns I've heard from my people, the primary concern, is the notion of criminalization, if you will, of those who choose not to.... I find that a bit problematic.

I was looking at some recent information and consulting with people from Pine Falls and Lac du Bonnet just last week. A number of them brought to my attention that there are current measures, for example in the wildlife act as amended.... They asked me to go fishing with them this weekend at Pine Falls, but they cautioned me to get a fishing licence. If I don't, I could be fined up to $10,000 or have my 4 x 4 truck taken away.

They faxed me some information today, which I also found quite interesting. Under the wildlife act and the amendments that were passed recently by your government, I believe voted on in October 1994, if I discharge my shotgun half an hour after sunset, you are prepared as attorney general to fine me $50,000. If I get caught with my truck lights on while I'm hunting at night, the amendment says you are prepared to put me in jail for a year or fine me $50,000.

It says here a person who contravenes or fails to observe this provision is guilty of an offence, and it goes on to say that when an accused is convicted of any of the following offences, anything seized under the proposed act in respect of the offence is forfeited to the Crown, the province, and shall be disposed of as the minister or officer directs.

Basically you're saying you can take everything I have - if there's a Skidoo on it, a gun in it, a fishing rod in it or my snowshoes in it, you can take them away and sell them as crown assets. That's pretty serious, tough stuff.

The Chair: [Inaudible] with Bill C-80 or C-68 or....

Mrs. Vodrey: The member is asking about these issues. They're all criminal offences, and yes, we will be tough on crime. That is exactly the position this government has always taken. Where there is criminal activity, where there is crime, we will be tough. We will be tough on crime.

The Chair: I thought Mr. Iftody said he needed a licence and if he didn't have the licence he would be criminalized.

Mr. Iftody: With fishing as well. The fishing season opens in Lac du Bonnet during the May long weekend. I was told by people from Pine Falls and Lac du Bonnet that if I don't get a fishing licence and I'm caught with a couple of pickerel and a jackfish, we're in a lot of trouble.

.2045

[English]

I am wondering if the minister is aware of that. Comparatively, the punishments that currently exist for fishing and for hunters...whether this in fact far exceeds some of the provisions contemplated under Bill C-68. I would like a clarification from the minister on that.

Mrs. Vodrey: Shooting after dark, one of the issues you raised, is dangerous. It frankly is dangerous; and yes, we have been very tough on that area. When you speak of the licensing, that is regulatory; and yes, it is in a different category.

But I know my colleague from Lac du Bonnet would like to add some comments to your questions.

Mr. Praznik: I hope I can join my member of Parliament fishing, if we can get the time.

The Chair: I encourage it. I may go as well.

Mr. Praznik: I know the position my member of Parliament has taken so far. I have to respect his position in trying to find a way to convince his colleagues on some of the harsher aspects of this legislation. One always has to admire that courage in a member of a government caucus. I want to thank Mr. Iftody for his very kind remarks about the people of my constituency.

On this subject, I would like to point out, it is very important, first of all, what actual penalty is imposed on an individual who is charged under any of those regulatory statutes of the Province of Manitoba - not the Criminal Code of Canada. This is not a criminal matter we're talking about. This will not result in all the other sanctions that come with a criminal conviction. But it is ultimately a judge who makes that disposition, and in the history of that legislation I can't recall a particular case where we've seen those maximums.

But I will remind the member, my friend Mr. Iftody, that when those particular changes were made, particularly in amendments to the Canada Wildlife Act, they were supported very strongly by many of those joint constituents we have in Pine Falls. They had a broad base of support across the province of Manitoba and in no way had the level of opposition this does, because they were soundly based. They had a level of acceptance, a recognition that there was a need to regulate the discharge of a firearm for public safety. That's why they had the support. They haven't in any way met with the opposition this legislation has. In fact, many of those same constituents we share were very active supporters of that particular legislation and they are not of this bill now before the House of Commons.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mrs. Venne. You have five minutes.

Mrs. Venne: I have a brief question. Considering that the purpose of Bill C-68 is, among other things, to ensure public safety as far as firearms are concerned, what would you think of adding to it a clause which would force gunsmiths to provide locking devices at the time of the sale? A trigger lock or, depending on the type of arm, another locking system would be included in the global price at the time of delivery. What do you think of this in terms of public safety?

[English]

Mrs. Vodrey: To my knowledge, currently there are laws which deal with the safe storage of firearms,. So I'm not quite sure what the member's question is addressing. Is it that some safe storage should be sold along with the firearm at the time of purchase, or was there something else within the question that I should be aware of?

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: There are obviously regulations on safe storage.

.2050

[Translation]

We could add to Bill C-68 a clause saying that, from now on, those who retail firearms would have to build the cost of a locking system into the global price.

That way, people wouldn't be able to say that they forgot to buy one in order to comply with the current regulations. They would already have it when purchasing the weapon. It only costs $15. I myself own firearms and they all have triggers with a safety secur which only costs $15 per unit. People think that it costs a fortune and sometimes, they say that they don't have the time to buy them. I propose that the acquisition of locking systems be made mandatory at the time of sale.

Would such a clause be acceptable to your government?

[English]

Mrs. Vodrey: Thank you, Mr. Chair. To my knowledge, this is the first time this has been presented for our consideration, so my comments are perhaps brief. I've said from the beginning Manitoba is interested and will support any areas that will assist in the area of public safety. If such an amendment was put forward and there was information that indicated this in fact would enhance public safety, Manitoba would certainly look very seriously and closely at it.

But at the moment it has been presented as hypothetical. This is the first time, to my knowledge, we've had the opportunity to discuss it and to look at it. So we certainly would be happy to take another look at it should it appear as an amendment in the bill. Again, I stress for our province, we look at and are prepared to support anything that enhances public safety.

However, I would also just like to add about the current safe storage which has been put forward, we would like to see an evaluation of the effectiveness of the current law as well, which we haven't yet seen and would be interested in seeing on behalf of Manitoba.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mrs. Venne.

Mrs. Venne: In any case, such an amendment has already been put forward during consideration of Bill C-17. However, at that time, we had lots of hesitations and we didn't go so far. I think that it would be almost well perceived at this time.

[English]

Mr. MacLellan (Cape Breton - The Sydneys): Welcome, Madam Minister, gentlemen.

Madam Minister, today in Canada there are approximately 40,000 weapons prohibition orders. How successful has Manitoba been in enforcing these orders?

The Chair: If you don't have the information, you're not obliged to search for it all night.

Mrs. Vodrey: Thank you, Mr. Chair, I appreciate that. I just wanted to see what statistics we might have in the nature of the question. I wanted to comment very briefly, because I don't have details, to say that Manitoba does have a computer system right now in which we have each of these orders listed. They are immediately accessible to police officers. We have recently been speaking about this publicly again, and I understand we have had people from other provinces across Canada come to look at this. It's been a very helpful system.

About the precise question on statistics, I don't have that information available right now, this evening.

Mr. MacLellan: Madam Minister, you mentioned you wanted a link with public safety as far as the registry system is concerned. Do you not think a registry system would help in the enforcement of weapons prohibition orders?

.2055

[English]

The Chair: Russell MacLellan asks pretty tough questions. He's from Nova Scotia.

Mrs. Vodrey: Certainly important ones.

I say back to the member, if he has information on this, if he has information he believes will be helpful to the people of Canada and to the people of Manitoba, we would like to see that information. At this point we haven't received it.

Your questions ask our government to provide that information. This is legislation proposed on behalf of the federal government. We are looking forward to what you have available to help us.

Mr. MacLellan: Presumably the registry system would have the firearm registered, if the person has abided by the law, if the bill is passed. It would also have on it a decision, a record of a court order against that particular firearm, which would say whether the court had in fact ordered a weapons prohibition order. That would be of assistance.

I want to ask another question, if I might. As Attorney General and Minister responsible for the Status of Women, you mentioned that the Minister of Justice has not consulted, I wondered what consultation you had on this question of gun control with the women's groups in Manitoba.

Mrs. Vodrey: As I have responded in previous questions, I represented our government at the most recent debate of women's issues, and each one of us has spoken to both organized women's groups and individual women in our province during the 35 days of our most recent election.

We're certainly there for the people of Manitoba with our position on registration and those areas we support. The people of Manitoba spoke to us very openly, freely and frequently, giving us their information and their position. So our position is not one which was developed apart from the people. In fact, it was developed with the interests of the people of Manitoba in mind.

Mr. MacLellan: When you met with these women's groups, it was all during the election campaign. Were these meetings specifically called on the question of obtaining the opinion of these women on gun control, or were they regular campaign meetings that you attended?

Mrs. Vodrey: First of all, the debate I spoke about was not specifically on the issue of gun control. It was a debate on issues of importance to women. Each person had the opportunity to bring forward positions on issues which were given to us beforehand, then for approximately an hour people from the floor asked questions.

.2100

[English]

My personal discussions with women's groups have not focused on a single issue of gun control and, in fact, have been open-ended and certainly I have been available to speak with women's groups on any number of issues. These didn't occur all during the election.

I'd like to point out to the member that we had a conference of 750 women in Manitoba. That conference took place in early March, which was before our writ period. There were women from all parts of Manitoba and all interests in Manitoba, and I certainly had opportunities to talk with those women too. I believe the information I bring to you is representative of a large number of women in Manitoba.

Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton - Melville): Thank you very much for your presentation. I appreciate what you've had to say to the committee today.

Mr. MacLellan asks some pretty tough questions, but he doesn't have answers to some of the questions we have been asking him. As you know, we have a privileged position in this House that you don't have. They are required to answer our questions. They must do it within 45 days. One of the questions we asked is how many crimes have been solved as a result of the current handgun registration system, which has been in place for 60 years. I won't go through the whole question, but the answer may be very enlightening for you.

In essence, they don't have an answer. They say no data is available for the questions (a) through (e) that we have asked in this question. Then they go into the standard line you've heard: ``the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has recommended this; the registration system would allow us to collect data''.

We asked another question. Will the government please provide statistical evidence to show that violent crime has been or will be reduced and that public safety has been or will be improved because of each of the following measures? Then we go into the various things: prohibition of types of firearms that we have just been talking about, registration of handguns, inclusion of safe storage, and so on.

The answer is it's not possible for researchers and statisticians to determine precisely the extent to which specific control measures are or will be responsible for reduction in violent crimes and increases in public safety in Canada. That's all the answer you get.

The people of Saskatchewan have a concern. I'm from the province of Saskatchewan. We have the delegation from Saskatchewan raising almost the identical type of concerns you raised.

The question I have for you is the same one that was raised by the people of Saskatchewan, and it's possibly a difficult question for you to answer. What concerns do you have about this becoming law when the people cannot see how this will reduce crime? What concerns do you have in your province? Would they be similar to the concerns Saskatchewan would have about this whole issue?

Mrs. Vodrey: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Certainly the people of Manitoba have said they are very concerned with the bill as it stands, particularly in relation to registration if in fact it became law as it stands now. To the best of my understanding, Saskatchewan has suggested that where people simply can't understand it, where it simply doesn't make common sense to them, the law falls into disrepute. People become frustrated. They don't understand.

Certainly the expression from the people of Manitoba at this point is a similar frustration. The people of Manitoba have said they haven't been provided with the information required, the statistical information, the information that's common-sense information, information about cost and information about why law-abiding citizens should be caught in this same net. So they feel frustrated and concerned. That's one of the reasons we're here this evening: to look at this policy issue. Canadian people even at this point, people of Manitoba in particular, which is why we're here, are concerned and frustrated.

Mr. Breitkreuz: One of the concerns that have been raised in Saskatchewan is that it's difficult to draw a line on where you would implement this and where you wouldn't, because certain exemptions will possibly be built into Orders in Council for aboriginals and so on. You've already raised that concern. That's a concern.

There's also the concern about non-compliance. What are they going to do with all the people who are afraid to register their guns in the event that a criminal might have access to that information?

.2105

[English]

There's another concern the people of Saskatchewan have raised, and that's the whole rights issue; and it's the non-gun owner that's raising the concern. They are concerned about unreasonable search and seizure, as in proposed subsection 117.04(2); the right to remain silent if a policeman comes to your home; the right to be assumed innocent unless you're proven guilty; the right to legal counsel - you cannot consult your lawyer; the right to be equally treated under the law; the right to privacy. I could go through all these, but I have only five minutes. There are so many concerns that non-gun owners raise because of this bill and what it may mean to them because of the powers it gives the police and others.

Mrs. Vodrey: Certainly for search and seizure as it relates to crimes we are supportive.. But search and seizure in the area of regulation, regulatory...we have difficulty in that area, on behalf of the people in Manitoba.

Mr. McKinnon: As a Manitoban, I'm pleased, first, you have made it down to see us. Secondly, might I express that one of the reasons I'm sitting with the Liberal Party here today is that Mr. Downey defeated me in the previous Manitoba provincial election.

Mr. Downey, I have to thank you for that.

The Chair: He is a very good man in Ottawa.

Enough kudos here.

Mr. McKinnon: Let me comment that I have a concern, and I'm observing this of a number of friends I have in various communities throughout southwestern Manitoba. I don't believe Manitobans really know what the laws are today on safe storage regulations. First, I'd like your view of that situation.

Secondly, I'm going to give you a fact that may or may not be totally correct. The last time I looked at any statistics on the number of Manitobans who have had their right to possess ammunition or firearms, it was about 600 people. How recent those statistics were, Madam Minister, I'm not exactly sure.

The third question is do you feel registration would enhance the knowledge - not necessarily the compliance, but at least the knowledge - that it's easier to childproof a gun than it is to gunproof a child? Thank you.

Mrs. Vodrey: The member has suggested that Manitobans don't know the laws around safe storage. I believe Manitobans are well informed. However, if the member has an example or a concern he wishes to bring to my attention about this federal law, I certainly would like to know what issues he's able to provide me on behalf of the people of Manitoba on that particular issue.

I would have to ask him to repeat the question about ammunition. I'm sorry, I didn't get the question.

Mr. McKinnon: I was referring to the number of people who have had the right to own or possess both firearms and ammunition...has been revoked for various reasons. I just used that as a statistic in my discussion.

The Chair: He said there were 800 who had their rights to possess a firearm revoked for some reason or other.

Mr. McKinnon: Thirdly, do you go along with the view that it's easier to childproof a gun than it is to gunproof a child?

.2110

[English]

Mr. Downey: First of all, I'd like to set the record straight: I did not vote for Mr. McKinnon, to send him to Ottawa. It was because I made him available to the Liberal Party at the last provincial -

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Downey: I don't know whether or not he's throwing out a challenge for another time around.

On the whole safe storage issue, I would say yes, I believe the people of Manitoba do have a clear understanding of the safe storage that has to be carried out. Whether or not they all carry it out is the other question, but the point is, they do understand it. I think the majority - the people I know of - do in fact respect the law.

Secondly, as it relates to the whole question of registration and/or making sure children understand, I don't think you can purchase a gun today unless you have an FAC. I can tell you - and I say this on behalf of the volunteers throughout Manitoba - that a tremendous number of volunteers work with young people, through gun clubs and whatever, to make sure they truly do understand and appreciate and respect a gun, a rifle, or whatever they're expected to use.

So on the education side I think there's a tremendous bank of volunteer people, who, by the way, have spoken out with concern as well on the forced registration system.

I think there has been a tremendous educational program out there with our young people in Canada, particularly in Manitoba, with which I'm familiar. Because of the volunteers and the people there young people do understand the dangers and appreciate and respect the proper use of firearms.

You cannot purchase a firearm today without having an FAC. There are control mechanisms in place to make it a safer place.

Mr. McKinnon: Can I comment on some of the statistics Madam Venne raised a few moments ago? I don't know whether you've received these sheets.

Manitoba is leading the nation in total hospitalization for firearms injuries. We were number one in other firearm injuries; in accidental injuries with firearms; in injuries inflicted by others; and in self-inflicted injuries. We were number one.

The point I'm trying to make is that I don't know whether our record is that exemplary in terms of people who are not - and perhaps being involved with others who are not - handling firearms adequately.

Mrs. Vodrey: Those statistics haven't been circulated to us this evening, but if you are telling us you have concerns about people's knowledge in Manitoba about handling of firearms, let me say that's a point I made very early on this evening.

Registration is an expensive proposition, and we haven't had any information that this will in fact reduce things such as hospitalization or criminal activities. Our position from the beginning has been that where this money is available, give it to us in Manitoba. We will put it to use in Manitoba.

One of the areas on which I am on the record early on in my brief is that we are more than happy to put it to use in terms of education on safe firearms. That is certainly one of the ways we would be willing to look at it.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mrs. Venne. You have five minutes.

Ms Venne: I would like to ask the representatives of the Government of Manitoba what treatment should be given to military and para-military weapons. Are you satisfied with what is presently in the bill in this regard?

[English]

Mrs. Vodrey: I believe the member is asking if Manitoba has any concerns about how the firearms are divided up among prohibited and non-prohibited. I don't believe we have a major concern about the military and paramilitary at this time.

.2115

[Translation]

Ms Venne: So, you have no objection to these firearms continuing to be owned by Canadian citizens. You have no concern about that.

[English]

The Chair: You support the measures in the bill which prohibit military and paramilitary weapons?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, yes, you're correct. I was saying we don't have any problem with what the bill proposes in terms of the division.

[Translation]

Ms Venne: Okay. The bill prohibits military and paramilitary weapons. However, their owners can still keep them. This is why it can be said that Canadians are going to be able to continue to own and keep that type of arms. That was the gist of my question. I didn't want to know whether you agreed that they be prohibited.

[English]

Mrs. Vodrey: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the couple of moments we were able to take.

I believe the member is speaking about the grandfathering issue of some of these firearms. Certainly where any of these firearms are used in the commission of an offence we would obviously object. However, we see the bill has made some effort in its current form to deal with the grandfathering issue, because some of these firearms may be passed down within families. However, we would obviously have concerns if any of these firearms were used in the commission of an offence.

The original question, as I understood it, was whether we have a problem with the prohibited list and the non-prohibited list, for military and paramilitary. My answer was no, we don't at this time.

[Translation]

Ms Venne: No. What my question was really about was the grandfathering in respect of individuals who currently own military weapons and who are going to be able to keep them until they die. You are telling me that this doesn't concern you and that you agree with this provision. Thank you.

[English]

Ms Torsney (Burlington): Just a couple of quick questions and I hope quick answers. Does Manitoba enforce seat-belt legislation?

Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, we do.

Ms Torsney: Before enacting this legislation, what kind of proof did the people of Manitoba have? What kind of proven link was there, before the seat-belt law was brought in, that it would lead to safety?

Mrs. Vodrey: The member is trying to draw an analogy, I believe. I'm not sure.

Ms Torsney: No, it was a simple question.

Mrs. Vodrey: What we're here discussing tonight is legislation put forward by the federal government which deals with law-abiding citizens who may in fact be put into the same net as those who have committed criminal acts. That is the policy for which we are here tonight. We have asked for information from the federal government, on a federal piece of legislation being put forward by the federal government, which will in fact affect Manitobans financially, in terms of our police resources and also in terms of what happens to our citizens. We have asked you, the federal government, to provide us with that information. I believe that is reasonable -

Ms Torsney: Minister, can you -

Mrs. Vodrey: - in light of this being your -

Ms Torsney: Minister -

The Chair: Excuse me.

.2120

[English]

Ms Torsney: We have a very short time.

The Chair: Yes, I know, but when you ask a question, we have a tradition and a rule -

Ms Torsney: I asked what kind of proof would -

The Chair: Please, don't interrupt the witness. I must be strict on that. I don't want them interrupting you, either.

Would you complete your answer, please.

Mrs. Vodrey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I believe I'm finished. I'm looking forward to that information from the federal government.

Ms Torsney: Thank you.

Could you indicate to us - and you don't have to do it now - what kind of proof would be appropriate? You've dealt in Manitoba with issues of safety in the past. Some of them may have been leaps of faith, some of them you may have known intuitively. I would suggest to you that perhaps after you leave and some time in the future, if you could identify what kind of proof would be satisfactory to Manitoba residents, we'd appreciate that.

The second question I have for you is more of a comment. You asked earlier for information from the federal government about the enforcement of prohibition orders. Madam Minister, it is the provincial government's responsibility to keep information on enforcement orders. They are supposed to know how many enforcement orders have been enforced, how many weapons have been collected, and what kind of weapons were taken. So perhaps you could provide us with the list, rather than us providing you with information you keep.

Secondly, you asked about consultation. I find it ironic the Minister of Justice had submitted a list of over 100 different groups he met with on this particular bill. You've talked about consulting women's groups, you've talked about 750 women, you talked about the 52% of women in Manitoba who apparently voted you in on April 25.

I ask you on this particular issue, will you submit the list of the women's groups in your province you consulted with? I have information from them suggesting that while you cast aspersions on the minister in terms of him not enforcing other things women's groups have recommended, in fact the Manitoba Women's Advisory Council asked you in October 1993 to establish an across-the-board ban on non-military use of large-capacity magazines...and that no exemptions be granted for legitimate competition, and in fact you have not implemented that.

I understand you have consultation or you have some plan on that, but you haven't implemented that. If you did implement it, I'd like to know the date when you implemented it.

So please provide us information on the 750 women who got together, how many agenda items dealt with gun control, how long they were on gun control, and what kind of information was presented, and further, what organizations you, as the Minister responsible for Women, specifically met with. We would like to have that list submitted to our committee.

Mrs. Vodrey: Let me remind the member, she appears to have forgotten this is your legislation and your requirement to provide us with consultation.

The question I answered earlier was what consultation had the federal Minister of Justice had with the Attorney General of Manitoba? I responded to that question.

Let me work my way through the four questions the member has raised. First of all, she asks about the seat-belt legislation. She describes a leap of faith. I'm assuming she is saying her view of this particular legislation, as presented, is a leap of faith for Canadian people. That was the phrase used. That, I believe, was in fact the way it was put forward. If Manitobans, in her view, accepted a leap of faith with seat-belts, then Canadian people should accept a leap of faith on behalf of the federal government with this federal gun control bill, particularly legislation.

Mr. Chair, to my knowledge, we are not here debating Manitoba's seat-belt legislation, though the member seems particularly interested in it, wanting in detail a great deal of information from Manitoba on how we enacted it. We are here, I believe, to speak about your proposed federal legislation on gun control and gun registration.

About the question raised by Mr. MacLellan and the keeping of records, what I said was that in fact we do have a computer system, I believe, to my knowledge the only one in Canada which registers these orders. However, my question was whether there is something further he is leading to or he wants us to know. My question was simply back to him: in the debate of the evening, was there something further he could tell us which would be helpful?

But I want to assure the member that most certainly in our jurisdiction, and to my knowledge, we are the furthest and most advanced in our computer accessibility of prohibition orders.

.2125

[English]

magazines came up, a question of whether or not Manitoba would provide an exemption. No, Manitoba has not provided that exemption. Manitoba has in fact continued, as other provinces have, and failed to allow shoots which deal with large magazines.

About the process of consultation, perhaps I have touched on that already in my answer. I have been clear to the member that we have in fact consulted. My colleague suggests perhaps we need to submit names of people from our constituencies, if that in fact would satisfy. Perhaps what the member would like is the voters' list.

Our consultation has been significant. Part of that consultation did take place most recently within a general election in our province. That is a very significant statement.

I believe I answered all four of the questions, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Ramsay: I want to ask you a question that goes beyond this bill. I always ask it late at night, but seldom. I want to ask it here tonight because you are a justice minister and you're steeped in the law, particularly the kind of law that allows a democracy to continue.

The concern I have about the process by which this bill has developed is simply this. To my knowledge, the justice minister has not obtained the cooperation of one of the governments of the provinces or the territories. Iif a premier has stood and publicly supported this, I'm not aware of it. I may be mistaken on that, but I'm not aware of it. I know of the four western provinces, who have taken a position opposite to that.

The point I'm making is the justice minister has had to go to groups in order to solicit support, and two of those groups have been the police chiefs association and the Canadian Police Association.

My concern here is this. I believe we must maintain a division between those who create the law and those who participate in the enforcement of the law. If the divisions between those two groups collapse, then we have in one body not only the legislative power to create laws but also the power to administer those laws.

When the division of powers collapses in a democracy, then something emerges which is not a democracy. I don't know whether that is happening here or not, but that is my concern and that is what I'd like you to comment on.

I want to give you background information on this. The justice minister has publicly stated that in his negotiations with those officials of the Canadian Police Association he is willing to do business with them or make a deal. The justice minister also spoke to the police chiefs' convention. I want to read the end of his speech. Speaking about the gun control package he was bringing forward - it wasn't tabled at the time - he said,

Now some parts of this package will be more easily sold than others. I do not expect much opposition, for example, for proposals that will lock away those who possess or use firearms for criminal purposes. Other parts of the proposals, perhaps as important in the long run to crime prevention and prosecution, will be tougher to sell. That is where I'm going to need your help. I will need the prestige of this association in supporting our proposals, I will need your credibility, your experience and your expertise.

Nowhere in there was there a request for a critical analysis of the bill, just for support. So I am saying this. I believe we must seek technical knowledge from our police departments. But we also must be aware not to allow the division between the two institutions to collapse, creating one body having the power not only to create but to enforce the law. I would like your comment on that, please.

.2130

[English]

Mr. Downey: I will try to be brief, but I think it's an extremely important point that has been raised, that the line becomes blurred between those people who are responsible in the public interest for the drawing of laws on behalf of those people of Canada who depend on the people they vote for to bring forward the responsible framework...we have to vote them in to live within the democratic system.

Again, I have a tremendous amount of respect for the law-enforcers of our country. They're the front-line people we depend upon.

I guess the concern is very legitimate. When that line becomes blurred and that responsibility...which I believe those people have to enforce the law, to bring criminals to justice, to take them through the court system...that's what their role is.

One should not deny people the opportunity to express themselves fully in a democratic system, to put the weight of moving legislation forward fully...which is what we are hearing here tonight. That's what we've heard the government say; that is their strongest position of support.... I guess that concern is legitimate, and I share that concern you have raised.

Mr. Pagtakhan: On a point of order.

The Chair: Mr. Pagtakhan, because you are not a member of the committee, I can't receive your point of order. I'm sorry.

Mr. MacLellan.

Mr. MacLellan: I was just wondering whether we could get unanimous consent to extend the meeting by five minutes so Mr. Pagtakhan can -

The Chair: There are other members, and I have a list of questions myself, but I'm going to have to cut myself off.

If you want to extend the meeting...I'm sorry. I had all sorts of information to answer the Manitoba delegation on, facts to link registration to a safer society, and now I can't ask the important questions that would put that on the record.

I'm sorry, but this has been a very long day. We scheduled the meeting until 9:30 p.m. I apologize to Mr. Pagtakhan, but I have to apply the rules of the committee.

By the way, we're going to have the minister back before us in a short time. We can put to him how many premiers support him and how many don't.

I want to thank you most sincerely for coming down and giving us the view of Manitoba. We invited you to get the view of Manitoba. Some of us might agree and some of us might not agree, but we at least know your view.

As chairman of this committee, I want you to know the thing that really disturbs me is that the Jets are going to Minnesota and I don't know what you people are doing about it.

You've just passed through an election. You have a mandate.

This is for the members of the committee. On Friday morning we are going to deal with Mr. Ramsay's motion, probably around noon. We'll have three hours of the meeting and we'll interrupt the meeting at noon.

If Mr. Ramsay's motion carries, we'll have to suspend work on this bill and set out a new schedule of meetings dealing with drunkenness as a defence. On the other hand, if the motion is defeated, we'll have to deal with a specific schedule of meetings for clause-by-clause. We'll also have to decide on the question of whether or not we shall meet in the room for clause-by-clause, with the television, and so on. I personally think it's good and is part of the educational process for the Canadian people to have that done in this room. But we'll decide those three issues on Friday morning.

This meeting is adjourned.