EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, May 1, 1995

.1000

[English]

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

We're pleased to have with us this morning the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, represented by Jack Wilkinson, their president; Sally Rutherford, the executive director; and Roger George, who is the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and I presume a part of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.

By the way, we want to thank you for cooperating with us and coming on so quickly after your request. We've had a lot of requests and it's been difficult to slot people in. We appreciate the fact that you're not only ready to appear before us this morning but also have your written brief.

As the committee knows, we only agreed to call this group of witnesses on having their request last Thursday, and we were only able to get in touch with them on Friday. Consequently, the staff of the committee hasn't had time to translate their brief. But we anticipated that and we passed a resolution that the briefs could be distributed in one language or the other with the understanding that it would be translated and put in the hands of the members as quickly as possible thereafter.

In any case, Mr. Wilkinson, if you want to make your opening comments, we'll then proceed to the usual rounds of questioning and discussion later.

Mr. Jack Wilkinson (President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture): Thank you very much for having us.

We have a number of points we would like to make. As you can appreciate, with the time period we don't have a lengthy brief. We may very well not need the full required time period, as I think was indicated to the clerk. So it will depend, I guess, on the questions and answers that will follow.

I would like to do a very brief summary of a number of points that are in our presentation and highlight what we're suggesting and proposing without going through each one of the paragraphs. At that time period, I think it would probably be best to respond to any questions that may exist.

Since we normally do not come in front of the justice committee, for those who are not aware, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is made up of 19 different organizations in Canada. In each one of the provinces it has provincial general farm organizations that belong to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture as well as a number of national commodity groups and some major cooperatives both in the prairies and Quebec.

Obviously our main focus is on agriculture and agri-related issues, but from time to time we do receive resolutions and ask to participate in those issues that affect the farm community and our members in a somewhat broader base. Through our membership organizations we represent around 200,000 farmers. Therefore, we feel that we have quite a large cross-section of the farm community who have membership in the CFA.

The point we would like to make here is that as the CFA we have no problems. I'll be quoting from the fourth paragraph on the first page concerning the stringent restrictions on acquisition and possession of handguns and assault rifles. We support the restrictions on these weapons and we have no quarrel with the parts of the bill that strengthen the provisions in the Criminal Code to penalize criminals who use firearms in the commission of crimes. However, it's important for the committee to draw a distinction between this type of firearm and the rifle and shotgun used by farmers for predator control and crop and livestock protection.

.1005

As I'm sure everybody on the committee is fully aware, there is quite a restrictive licensing process in place. With the introduction of the legislation for the firearms acquisition certificate, there is quite a degree of control on people purchasing numerous types of weapons and some prohibitions in that. The firearm protection certificate being renewed for every firearm is where we start to have some concerns. We also have some concerns with the degree of penalty - a two-year time period - that is allowed within the legislation if a person fails to register.

I think it's best to make the point that because of their location, a large number of our members, as livestock and crop producers, do have firearms, have had them for quite some time, and they are used basically for predator control.

There are circumstances in which livestock can get hurt or can be diseased and there are times when the most humane way of dealing with a downed animal that has been injured and is suffering is in fact to have access to a firearm to put them out of their misery. It doesn't happen often, but there are circumstances in which it does happen, as I'm sure you can imagine, if you think through the type of business we have and the large livestock volumes we as producers may have on our farms.

The current situation with the FAC started off not as a relatively onerous task when the legislation was brought into being. As I understand it, it was to check one's criminal record when a request was made for the certificate. After that checked out, then in fact the permit would have been given to an individual to be renewed every five years. Since that time there have been substantive changes in that. A course is required, after each five-year time period there's a renewal required, and just to make the point here - as in other points we'll be making later on - the fee of course has continued to escalate during that time period.

We talk further in the presentation about the cost of both licensing and the maintenance of the FPC. Even though the fee is not overly large at this time, with the mode of cost recovery that exists within government these days I think it's fair to extrapolate that there could very easily be some substantial increases in costs on these items down the road. That obviously is a concern for people who use them for other than hunting purposes.

When we move into the registration - that section of the brief on page 2 - we would like to point out that in the event that the government chooses to go ahead with the type of registration system in place, it's fair to assume we are requesting special treatment for the farm community. It's in bold text there, that the bare minimum acceptable would be to permit farmers to register their weapons - shotguns and rifles used for farm purposes - once at the introduction if the government moves ahead with registration, and that there would be no charge to renew.

We are clearly defining that would be for farmers who register and use these for purposes on the farm. We are making a distinction very clearly there between farmers and those people who may be collectors or hunters or what not and may have multiple weapons in their possession. So we'd like to make that clear at this time.

There are two other points that are part of this proposed legislation that are excessive, in our opinion. One is the criminal offence for those people who may require the five-year renewal. As you can well imagine, for people who are possibly hunting on a yearly basis or are avid collectors or what not, the guns may play a larger role in their lives than in the lives of farmers who in fact have them locked up in a gun cabinet for the purpose of dealing with a predator that may be on the farm.

I used to be a sheep farmer, so I can attest from personal experience to numerous occasions when we had wolves attacking sheep right on the farm, right in the barn, right in the barnyard. The sheep are penned right beside the house. So it's not just a mythical statement I'm making here; it's absolutely required to in fact safeguard your livestock investment.

.1010

The point we would like to make is that those individuals who don't use them on a regular basis may not, at the time of renewal, automatically assume re-registration when the five-year time period is up. It's not a particular item they're using on a daily basis, like a driver's licence or other types of registration.

This is further explanation of the desire to have one-time registration and to in fact allow that for those long rifles or shotguns designated for part of the trade of farming. They would be exempt from further renewals.

We're also making it clear that we are very supportive of.... In the cases of any weapons that may be involved in a criminal activity, again if the legislation goes forward, we think the full force of the law should deal with the issue. Our membership believes very clearly that it's the people who are the problem in relationship to weapons and guns and that the firearm per se is not. In those cases where it's involved in a criminal offence at any time, the situation would be different.

Also, on the purchase of ammunition, what is suggested in the legislation seems again, from our point of view, to be an overly onerous requirement for the group of individuals and the types of weapons to which we're referring. For example, we have available, if you would like to see it to pass around, what has been in place in Ontario since I believe July 1994. In fact, the tracking of ammunition seems to be an appropriate approach to the ammunition situation. It effectively would require, at time of purchase, that an individual would show photo identification and be of legal age - eighteen years of age, I believe, is in the legislation. Then that registry would be kept within the seller's place of business and would be on record for two years. So at any time period, if that ammunition were to find its way into any criminal activity there would be a tracking method in place.

For example, if I am the only individual who has the FPC on my farm it would allow me, if there were some reason - such as a downed animal on my farm - to call my spouse in town to bring home a carton of ammunition, and she would be able to do that by showing proof of age and not have to require an FPC. Then I wouldn't have to be driving in to purchase that ammunition for those circumstances that we are listing here. I know there are a lot of people from rural Canada who do live some distance from towns, and it can be a problem in certain circumstances to be unable to have another member of the family acquire the ammunition.

As well, we think there has been a precedent set - or at least implied - by the minister when it comes to the registration issue. We have that listed in the paragraph following the bold print under registration. This recommendation was made in a speech given on April 24 by the minister: ``for those who use firearms for subsistence purposes there will be no fees'' for registration.

One could flippantly say that would classify almost all farmers, when you look at our net income, but I'm not trying to be trite here. But we think there has been an exception made for certain types of weapons under certain circumstances. We feel that the approach we're taking would fall within the broader intent of what the minister has suggested for some groups of people.

With that, I would like Roger George, Ontario Federation of Agriculture president, to make any further comments, and then I'll ask Sally Rutherford if she has any closing remarks.

Mr. Roger George (President, Ontario Federation of Agriculture): Thank you, Jack.

.1015

Mr. Chairman, in addition to what Mr. Wilkinson says, I want to say, speaking on behalf of Ontario farmers, that our members were particularly proud of the Liberal backbenchers, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Steckle, and Mr. Serré, for their bold, courageous action in voting against the government on second reading. My organization did send official recognition to those three gentlemen for that particular action because we do indeed believe they were voting the way their constituents and their rural community directed them to. Their statements have certainly been supported by my members and I think by farmers across the country, who do indeed agree with many aspects of the legislation, especially dealing with crime prevention, but when it comes to the issue of registering what amounts to be the tools of our trade, there is tremendous concern in the rural community.

Mr. Wilkinson has touched on the fact that there are undoubtedly going to be many farmers who, inadvertently or otherwise, fail to register long arms, which they may only use once, or on rare occasions, and to subject those farmers to possible prosecution and the title of criminal is causing tremendous concern in the farm community. We don't believe there's any evidence to show that registering these guns is going to reduce the number of times they are used in the commission of a crime, and on the occasion that farm guns are stolen they may not be easily tracked down.

I think we are concerned in some respects with the draconian nature of the legislation. Indeed, some of our member organizations in other provinces - Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba - have asked their governments to opt out of the various provisions of this legislation.

I would like to conclude by confirming Mr. Wilkinson's comment, particularly on the ammunition purchase aspect. As he said, we believe the legislation that was passed in Ontario in 1994 more than covers the need for the tracking of ammunition.

I would again heartily concur with Mr. Wilkinson when he speaks about the tremendous imposition this would put on farmers across the entire country if they, their spouses, or even adult children are precluded from purchasing ammunition during the course of business. It isn't always possible for the farmer or the holder of the acquisition certificate or the firearm possession certificate to immediately drop what he's doing in order to go into town and purchase this. Surely to goodness, in a responsible society we can better document the ammunition purchase than by this draconian measure.

With that, I conclude my statement, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Wilkinson: I think it is important for individuals who do not know the way the Canadian Federal of Agriculture works to know just how a resolution would get through our system, and our policy does come from resolution format.

It would start off in most cases at a county level or district level. It would have to pass at the board of directors. As an example, in the case of Ontario, where the resolution came from, it would have to pass at an Ontario Federation of Agriculture convention, whose delegate body would be approximately 400. It would then have to go to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture's annual meeting, which is a breakdown of all of the member organizations. It would have to pass there again with a majority.

It does come with quite a degree of support from our farm community and our members. I think that deserves to be weighed when people make statements that there is a wide base of support, for example, in rural Canada for this sort of legislation that is being proposed.

Thank you. We are available for questions.

The Chair: Before I go to the Bloc Québécois for the first round, I want to refer to the top of your brief on page 2. You say ``if Bill C-68 is passed people who owned guns before the FAC system came into being will have to take a safety course''.

.1020

That is not correct. I refer you to clause 7 of the bill, which starts on page 6 and finishes on page 8. It refers to exemptions on page 7. Among the exemptions it says in paragraph 7(4)(c), anyone who ``possessed one or more firearms and does not require a licence to acquire other firearms'' and you don't have to take the safety course. That's at the bottom of page 7 of the bill.

Mr. Wilkinson: Thank you very much for bringing that to our attention. Possibly there was some confusion in the way -

The Chair: I don't blame you. It's a complicated bill and you appeared quickly, and we appreciate your cooperation. I just thought I'd point that out.

Mr. Wilkinson: I appreciate that.

The Chair: The other thing is that during your brief you were speaking about the renewal of registration permits. Once renewed, no new registration has to be in the hands of the same person.

Mr. Wilkinson: But would not the licensing requirement require renewal? I'm sorry, we meant registration in the broader context of having to keep it updated.

The Chair: Yes, you have to renew your licence, which is to the person, every five years, but your registration doesn't have to be renewed.

We have three rounds of questioning of ten minutes each with each party and then we go from government to opposition exchange for five-minute rounds.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne (Saint-Hubert): Ladies and gentlemen, I am a bit surprised to see Mr. George congratulate those who voted against the whole legislation when basically, your union or your federation is asking for exemptions and even says that, in some cases, the provisions prohibiting some handguns are very good, and even commendable. I'm a bit surprised by this illogical stand and I wanted to mention it to you.

I also wanted to tell you that you some what give the impression that you support the "not in my own backyard" syndrome, which translates as follows: yes, we agree that the legislation should apply to others but not to us. And here again, I refer to handguns.

As far as I know, the ``Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec'' belongs to your federation. You should also know that there are 46,000 members of the ``Cercle des fermières du Québec'' who have been fighting for stricter gun control since 1991 and that those women - the majority are women - ask for the universal registration of all firearms and the prohibition of handguns. This is documented in a letter that you should have received. They sent to all stokeholders a copy of the letter they wrote to Minister Allan Rock. I think that you certainly represent part of the rural community, but not all of it.

This being said, I'd like to hear your comments.

[English]

Mr. Wilkinson: Concerning the question around people voting against the legislation, I think it's fair to say that if amendments to adopt the concerns that exist within either their riding or in ours are not made to a piece of legislation that comes forward, you have no choice but to be vocal against the entirety. Everything in life is not black and white. I don't think there's any hypocrisy in what we're stating.

In fact, we're identifying where the concerns are viewed within our membership base. When it comes to items such as long rifles or shotguns that are required on the farm for the uses we've specified, if the government is going to move ahead with the legislation, we feel that needs to be dealt with.

.1025

We're not, for example, requesting in this presentation that there be different treatment for hunters if in fact the legislation goes forward. In fact we were quite explicit in saying that those people who may have numerous guns, or who may be collectors or whatever, would obviously fall under other parameters of the legislation, if the legislation goes ahead. We're making a request for an exemption for a very narrow group of people.

I don't accept your notion at all that it's a ``not in my back yard'' syndrome. That's not the case, and I think it was clear in what we were stating. If not, we can state it again.

The question of the letter from the women of UPA - that very well may be the case. UPA is, of course, one of our members. They are one of nineteen members. The fact is that we never did say that unanimously every single rural resident in Canada supported this brief. What we said was that it passed with a majority, and a majority of the CFA is a resolution we have to act on, and we do act on. So there will be people who may not have voted for that resolution at our annual meeting. But when a majority passes, we deal with that.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: I am not saying that l'``Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec'' disagrees with you. I am only talking of the ``Cercle des fermières du Québec'' representing 46,000 members, 99.9% of which are women. That is the group I am talking about.

[English]

Mr. Wilkinson: Just as a point of clarification, it is the UPA itself that is a member of the CFA, and many of our member provincial organizations are made up of various groups. But it is the UPA that is a member of CFA.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: I am not talking about members of your association but about the ``Cercle des fermières du Québec'', which is an organization of rural women and which does not agree with your position. Don't forget that we make up 52% of the Canadian population! Those are the persons I am talking about.

[English]

Mr. Wilkinson: I'm not sure what we're debating about. All we can respond to is what comes in front of our group.

As you well know, there is no degree of unanimity across Canada as to where the government should go in this piece of legislation. And to point out that there are differences in rural Canada on this particular topic area is interesting, but I don't, quite frankly, think it's germane to the brief we've put in front of you.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: It is still interesting to underline that your views are shared only by part of the rural population, not all of it.

You probably know that the death rate through firearms is much higher in rural areas than in urban centres. Are you aware of that and what do you think about it?

[English]

Mr. Wilkinson: Yes, we are aware of that fact. I think it's fair to assume that there are many contributing factors as to the degree of accidents and fatalities that occur with firearms.

The fact that we do most of the hunting in Canada in rural parts of Canada would indicate why hunting accidents occur in rural Canada instead of in downtown Toronto. I mean, we're not making light of the fact that there is a problem in relationship to the statistics for rural Canada, but I think it's unreasonable to assume that by registering a firearm there is a direct correlation to solving that question. That is the same thing as drawing an equation by saying that if a firearm is registered, it in fact then will no longer commit a crime.

In our opinion, firearms in themselves do not commit crimes, and the act of registration is information that would be available to police officers or whatever. As we've indicated, if the bill moves ahead - and that will be the government's decision - we have not asked to be exempted. If the government legislation moves ahead, we've asked for treatment that we think would still deal with the issue in an appropriate manner.

Roger, did you have some comments?

Mr. George: I would just concur that all the registration in the world is not going to stop a crime of passion, nor is all the legislation in the world going to be any replacement for hunter safety courses and those types of things, which are already happening. I think all citizens in rural Canada who have access to firearms need to have safety. Safe storage of those firearms is a paramount part of the privilege of holding those weapons. But I fail to see how registering those weapons is going to stop a single act of passion.

.1030

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: At least, registration will help to make people aware of the situation and realize that firearms are made to kill. So, anybody who has a firearm at home should take care of it and register it. In that sense, I think our objective would be reached.

[English]

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

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): I welcome our witnesses this morning and I thank them for their presentation.

As we go into this further discussion on flushing out all aspects of the bill, before I get into your presentation I'd just like to point out that the Minister of Justice has linked, or attempted to link, this gun control bill with the disastrous occurrence in Oklahoma. Perhaps you'd like to comment on it. I'd point out that immediately following the Oklahoma bombing the United States Attorney General pledged that she would seek the death penalty for those responsible. Unfortunately, in this country a police chief was shot to death just within the last few days while our Attorney General rejects public and police requests and calls for the return of capital punishment and promises instead gun registration to solve at least portions of that problem.

Anyway, as we look at this problem, particularly from an agricultural point of view or from the point of view of those people who live in a rural area involved in agriculture, I'd like to ask you this. Possession of a firearm is not defined in this bill. In other words, say a farmer under this bill has a licence to own a firearm and has his firearm registered and takes it with him out into the field for legitimate reasons. Later on his wife, who is not licensed, is operating their vehicle - perhaps taking lunch to the field or whatever - and is stopped by the police. She is technically in possession of that firearm and could technically be charged under this bill because she is not licensed. She could be deemed to be in possession of a firearm that, although registered, she doesn't have a licence to be in possession of. Do you have any comments on that?

Mr. George: We have great concern about that, because on many occasions the farmer will carry that rifle in his pick-up truck, and if, for whatever reason, he doesn't happen to be driving it but his spouse or hired person or whoever is caught in it, they are technically in contravention of the law. So we do have concerns about that part and I think that's something that needs to be more clearly defined.

Concerning your original comment about the tragedy in Oklahoma, I think it's unfortunate that the Minister of Justice is making any analogy here. As I understand it, it's thought that fertilizer and diesel fuel were used in that explosion. Farmers have ample access to that also, but nobody is yet suggesting that we turn around and start to register our fertilizer and diesel fuel in case we start making bombs on the farm.

I think this is the point we're getting at now. Having the criminal element pointed at them is what has really got the rural community quite up in arms, when the rural people and legitimate owners of firearms need those for the running of their business, as a part of their business. It's this whole thought that we could have a finger pointed at us and be treated as common criminals for doing normal things and going about our business, as we have for the last fifty years, that's causing the emotion and the concern in the farm community.

.1035

Mr. Ramsay: Does this not indicate a lack of understanding on the part of the justice minister as to the rural life and requirements of the people in agriculture?

Mr. George: That's what we contend. We contend that, yes, we understand why we would need to register handguns. There's no argument about that. There's no argument about most of the bill. But when it comes down to the question of what do we do with the shotgun, what do we do with the rifle the farmer needs to shoot those predators that chase his sheep or his cattle or maybe to deal with a down animal, the fact is that we have to have those because there are no other options. What are we going to do, leave that animal to suffer and have the humane society on our back? That would be wrong too. It would be more wrong in my mind than having an unregistered firearm in my possession.

Mr. Ramsay: I'd like to move to another question.

Under the proposed registration system, it has been suggested by the justice minister that all the owners of firearms will have to do is fill out a card with the identifying features of the firearm - make, model, serial number and whatever other identifying features are required - and send it in. I have some concern about that, because some of the forensic scientists I've talked to, both in the police forces today and those who have retired recently, tell me that it takes a trained firearms individual to properly identify those features and transfer them from the firearm into the system.

Do you feel that your people, the farmers and ranchers and so on who you represent, have the adequate training to properly identify those features, find them on the firearm and transfer them adequately onto a document and then forward it in? Do you feel they have that training, bearing in mind that if they put down a nine instead of a seven on a serial number or a one instead of a seven or whatever it might be, then the registration certificate that's issued for that firearm will not be an accurate registration certificate?

Mr. George: I don't think that farmers are less or more competent than any other sector of society when it comes to transferring that sort of information. To the extent that the numbers are clearly there on the weapon, I think a farmer would be very capable of transferring a seven. If the insinuation there is that rural people or farmers have a little less intellect than the rest of society, then I would resent that comment very much.

Mr. Ramsay: That's not my suggestion at all.

The Chair: Nobody suggested that.

Mr. Ramsay: The problem is that I've been advised by forensic scientists that even trained individuals who have to register a handgun.... And a handgun has to be brought in to a peace officer who is trained in firearms identification. In spite of that fact, so much inaccurate information has been transferred from the firearm itself into the system that many portions of the system are wrong.

An example that was given was that a firearm turned up in the hands of a forensic scientist and they ran it through the firearms registration system and it indicated that the owner was a gentleman in Toronto. So they phoned him and said that they had his handgun, and he said they didn't, that his was safely locked up in his safe. The identifying features within the system identified two different firearms. It's because of the transfer of information from the firearm onto the card.

Of course, the point I'm making is if we're looking at a registration system and the integrity of it, aren't we looking at getting into deep difficulty if we do not have trained people transferring the identifying features from that firearm into the system itself, which they are going to use to issue a registration certificate. If you're issued with a registration certificate and if there's one number that's different, it identifies a different firearm when it comes to a serial number. Do you see any difficulties in that?

.1040

Mr. Wilkinson: I would like to comment. I think from our point of view, if you have forensic scientists who say it's a problem, they'd be more expert witnesses in this vein than we are.

We don't pretend to know, first of all, the details in totality of exactly what will be in the registration form that will come forward. I mean, registering is talked about. Clearly, I know that if it's serial numbers, similar to anything else, when they're stamped on the steel rifle barrel there may very well be problems in that regard. I think it's beyond our expertise to get into that degree of detail.

We hear the comments you're making, but I don't feel competent to be an expert witness.

The Chair: The time is up. We are calling further forensic scientists on these very points. So far, there seems to be a division of opinion. We're going to have more witnesses and we'll probe that particular point still further.

Mr. Bodnar, your question, please.

Mr. Bodnar (Saskatoon - Dundurn): First, in light of the comments made about technical possession, there's no such thing as technical possession. You're either in possession of something or you're not. Possession means knowledge and the exercise of control over an item. It doesn't mean seeing an item and not exercising control over it. That is possession.

With respect to registration, you've mentioned that it's so important on the farm to be able to put down an animal when it's ill, and I agree with you. It's important when you have predators to be able to deal with predators. Can you perhaps explain to me how registration is going to affect this? Why would it be harder to deal with a predator if your gun is registered?

Mr. Wilkinson: But it's the same issue as.... To track what happened when the FAC was introduced, after a very short time there were additional costs on many items. For example, it is implicit when things are introduced that they tend to be relatively low in cost, because of concern from a public outcry as to the type of system and what not. It's always explained in its simplest format. It's always introduced then. It'll be no problem. The intent is to try to belittle people's concerns over it, but invariably, as time goes on, the requirements on it become more and more onerous.

So I think it's fair for people who have just recently gone through those sorts of scenarios to extrapolate. I'm not saying it's valid, but it's fair to make some extrapolations of what will happen in the future.

I guess I would like to put the question back to you in reverse. If in fact the intent of the legislation is to deal with crime, we're asking you this question. What is the reason for requiring someone who keeps a firearm locked up in his house in a steel cabinet with a key to register if it's there for the purposes we've listed? If you could point out to me where that is in fact causing the problem, then maybe we could have a discussion around it. But I think mine is just as logical a discussion point as is yours.

Mr. Bodnar: Well, you haven't answered the question.

It's in your brief. You say ``Registration of all firearms will be an unnecessary and cumbersome administrative burden on farmers.'' How so? It's not.

Mr. Wilkinson: You are saying today with the proposal that it is not.

Mr. Bodnar: How does registration become an administrative burden on a farmer?

Mr. Wilkinson: Let's say, for example, after you've had your evidence from forensic scientists, who will know what the registration process will be if in fact -

Mr. Bodnar: The question is how registration becomes an administrative burden on a farmer.

Mr. Wilkinson: I am giving an example of how it could be. You choose not to wish to accept that example. We have a difference of opinion.

.1045

The Chair: That's exactly what I was going to say. On some of these issues there's a difference of opinion. You're free to give the answer you wish to the questions.

Mr. Bodnar: I'd still like an answer to that, but it's obvious I'm not going to get one today.

The question here of the bare minimum acceptable would be to permit farmers to register weapons once at no cost. You're aware the registration will be once. You register a gun once. You don't renew it, ever. The cost will be minimal in the sense of approximately $10 or $20 for all your guns - not just one gun. Is that a burden that cannot be borne by farmers now?

Mr. Wilkinson: I don't think we should draw the linkage between what we suggested and ``burden''. I think what we should say is that if the government moves ahead with the legislation, we would like this to be the treatment of identified guns that are used by individuals for the purposes we've explained in the brief.

Mr. Bodnar: If a farmer has a gun stolen from him, or her, and if the gun is not registered, how does the farmer get that gun back if the police find it some 100 or 200 miles away in the possession of some other individual or at a crime scene? How does the farmer get that gun back if it's not registered?

Mr. Wilkinson: I have no idea how he's going to get it back. What makes you think this gun that you're proposing may be stolen will not have the serial number damaged, and how will that person get that gun back then? It is not very complicated to damage a serial number. There are a lot of hot cars around. People don't seem to have very good luck in recovering stolen Porsches that have serial numbers on them.

Mr. Bodnar: Are you assuming that all serial numbers will be altered on guns that are stolen?

Mr. Wilkinson: I'm giving you an example. You're implying that by this registration system you would be able to track stolen weapons back to the original owner. I'm saying there's no reason.... I'm not a very adept mechanic, but with a very basic knowledge of a hammer hitting a serial number, or a grinder, or a file, or a host of very basic tools, one can alter a serial number past the point of being read.

Mr. Bodnar: You're aware that the alteration of serial numbers on guns could be an offence if this legislation passes.

Mr. Wilkinson: I'm assuming that the criminal who's altering it is not really overly concerned at that point, having stolen and committed a crime, that the damaging of a serial number is really bothering him a great deal.

Mr. Bodnar: Precisely. That's why the criminal will probably not be that concerned about even affecting the serial number on the gun.

Mr. Wilkinson: You're making an assumption that you have no evidence to back up.

Ms Torsney (Burlington): Oh, and you have evidence?

The Chair: Order.

Mr. Wilkinson: On that point that was just made? I would like to see your evidence. You can send it over to the CFA office. I would enjoy reading it.

The Chair: We've invited the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to be our witnesses this morning. They are entitled to their point of view, whether we agree with them or not, and I think we shouldn't make remarks from the sidelines when they're giving their answers.

Mr. Bodnar: You've indicated that there could be a substantial increase in fees down the road. Could you indicate where you came up with this? How do you determine that there may be a substantial increase in fees down the road, or is this merely speculation on your part?

Mr. Wilkinson: There is substantial increasing of licensing fees to drive cars. There are substantial fees in the FAC cost since it was brought in during the mid-1970s. There are substantial fees for inspecting and grading services as they apply to agriculture. There are substantial fees and an indication, from a policy point of view, from government that they're moving to full fee recovery. So there's no reason to assume that there won't be an increase in fees.

Mr. Bodnar: That's right, that's when you register or renew on an annual basis. But the registration of the firearms will be a one-time registration with no renewal. Where would the increase costs be?

Mr. Wilkinson: My understanding was that the licensing of a particular gun would have a renewal time period.

Mr. Bodnar: That's similar to the FACs that we have now, which have to be renewed every five years.

Mr. Wilkinson: I'm not arguing that.

Mr. Bodnar: Right. But I'm talking about the registration of the firearms themselves.

Mr. Wilkinson: For example, I don't need to renew my FAC if I don't wish to ever purchase another gun. But under this legislation you're proposing, I would have a fee into the future.

Mr. Bodnar: Now, it's been indicated that the incidence of use of firearms in the cause of death in rural communities is greater than in urban communities. I believe there's no argument in that you don't feel that the legislation will help in that respect. Can you maybe help this committee and tell us how we can deal with that problem and reduce the incidence of death caused by firearms in rural communities?

.1050

Mr. Wilkinson: Unless Roger would like to go further, in answering the previous question he pointed out a number of examples that could help to deal with that question.

Mr. George: It was stated earlier that there is probably a higher rate of firearm possession in the rural community inasmuch as that's where they tend to get used for hunting and, in the case of agriculture, for going about part of our business in protecting our livestock and so on and so forth. While we accept the fact that there is a high incidence of injury in the rural areas per capita, short of eliminating those weapons from the countryside, I'm not sure how you're going to deal with that.

I come back to my original points about the need to continually stress safety. We, as an organization, certainly recommend to our members that not only do they go on safety courses but they also keep their weapons locked up. I think it's important that there are mechanisms to prevent in-the-heat-of-the-moment incidents when you just feel like grabbing something, that it be a pillow rather than a shotgun. If the shotgun was locked up and chained up and God knows what, then I think that's the type of legislation that we would be more interested in pursuing rather than some of the aspects of this particular bill.

The Chair: We will now go to question period for five minutes. Mrs. Venne.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Not now. I may take the floor towards the end.

[English]

Mr. Thompson (Wild Rose): I come from a rather large rural riding with lots of farmers, and many of the people who have visited with me have expressed exactly the views you have placed here. They also talk about the incidence, rural versus city. I don't know if we have any statistics to say, out of every 100,000 rural people, how many own guns as compared to every 100,000 in the city. I would think you'd find there's a larger number of guns in the rural areas than there are in the city. That's probably why there are maybe more gun incidents, if that be the case. In the same way, they have more cars in the city than they do in the rural areas, which is why you have more wrecks in the city. I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to figure these kinds of things out, and I wouldn't make a great deal about it.

A lot of people in my riding - all the farmers - strongly believe that if you are a gun owner and if you are negligent in any way to your responsibility of owning a gun, you should be penalized in a strong and severe manner. I think you people agree with that, from what I see.

One of the things they are concerned about, however, is the danger they're going to put themselves in with the law in respect of - which has happened on a number of occasions, and you probably know of some as well in the rural area - the stealing of property. Gas is a big one - gas thieves, fuel, other property on a farm. I know of farmers who have stepped out and blasted a couple of shots in the air to frighten them away, which works. Some predators have two legs.

I believe that presently and under this new legislation the farmer could be in serious trouble for taking that kind of action. Do you believe that to be true?

Mr. George: I wouldn't recommend to any of our members that they use a firearm to scare off anybody who is stealing gas. I would rather lose 50 gallons of gas than take a shotgun and even point it in the air. So I'm not prepared to go much beyond that, quite frankly.

Mr. Thompson: True, except on one occasion that I know of. When they stole the gas, they also used it to burn down the barn and a few other things. It was a bad situation. Many of them don't feel they should be in trouble if they choose to defend their property, and in some cases even their lives.

One mother in Wild Rose was walking her children down the lane quite a few hundred yards to the road where the school bus picked up her children. On her way back, she was faced with a grizzly. She always carried a gun with her when she took the kids along. She killed the grizzly, fifteen feet away from her, on a charge. They charged the woman because of that incident. After a lengthy trial the charges were dismissed, mainly because of public pressure.

.1055

Do you believe that those kinds of charges are legitimate, that they should be brought to court?

Ms Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): What was the charge?

Mr. Thompson: Possession of an unregistered....

Ms Phinney: It wouldn't be that because you didn't have to register them before.

Mr. Thompson: It dealt with two things. It dealt with shooting the bear, for one thing, or wildlife -

The Chair: A handgun?

Mr. Thompson: No, it was a high-powered rifle.

The Chair: Until now, you could carry high-powered rifles.

Mr. Wilkinson: Quite frankly, I don't feel competent answering that type of question for the CFA without -

Mr. Thompson: But you see those kinds of uses as legitimate?

Mr. Wilkinson: What I think we've said, and said fairly clearly, is that there are a number of circumstances in which farmers feel they need those particular weapons on their farm for protecting livestock as well as protecting against crop damage or putting down an injured animal.

To be fair, if the legislation is to address crime, we do not see where this particular aspect of what we're suggesting is in fact taking away from that. We see that it's a more onerous part of the legislation concerning ammunition, as we've said. The registration of guns for the purposes we've listed reaches beyond the arguments that are being made by the proponents of the legislation.

Mr. Thompson: Would your organization support regionalizing the registration of firearms? For example, if the City of Calgary and its residents and municipalities said they wanted all their guns in the city registered, would you support that?

Mr. Wilkinson: At this time the resolution or policy statement we have - and we try not to speculate on it in committee hearings - is the opposition to the legislation as it applies to farmers, sir. We have not gone into that other question.

Mr. Speller (Haldimand - Norfolk): Thank you, Mr. Wilkinson and Mr. George, for coming and representing farmers here today.

I read your brief with interest. I agree with some of it. I think some of it you need to clear up a bit more in the brief. I know the brief was done fairly quickly. The section about the FAC and the safety course is one part.

To go on from where Mr. Bodnar questioned you, on the question of registration of all firearms - a cumbersome administrative burden - I understood what you said, but I think you have to flush that out a little bit more to show this committee how it would be cumbersome and an administrative burden for a particular farmer.

I also noted that you said you had a resolution that came forward. Do you have a copy of that? What exactly was the point of the resolution?

Mr. Wilkinson: I don't think we have it with us, but we can certainly get a copy to the committee. There'd be no problem in sending a copy over to you.

The question gets down to the fact that individuals feel that what is being proposed and the reason behind the legislation.... In many points we've indicated - even though we're not proponents of the bill, we're commenting on it - that parts of it are appropriate but that parts of it go too far in its reach to making a case or trying to make a case that all sorts of things are going wrong in society because guns aren't registered in rural Canada. People have trouble with that logic.

We have never opposed aggressive policing in relationship to crimes committed with guns. We have never opposed a host of the elements that we've already gone over, Mr. Speller.

The point people have trouble with is if the legislation goes ahead, why does someone who may have a particular long rifle that is locked in their home for one sole reason.... They may not be a hunter, they may not be a collector, they may use the gun on very rare occasions. But they feel, for certain reasons - because of either the location of their farm, or livestock or predator problems - that they want to have it. What is the logic of requiring them to register? They feel this will in no way reduce what the intent of the bill is, as described, in relation to the crime rate.

.1100

Mr. Speller: I understand that, but the cost and the administrative burden aside, I take it you'll flesh it out a bit more and perhaps send it to this committee.

Mr. Wilkinson: We can. I believe it's on the premise that these issues tend to become increasingly onerous in the future. I can give examples and find more. There was a very minor fee when I first got my FAC for a purchase of a firearm a number of years ago. It is substantially more now. There are substantially more parts to it now. People draw those examples to assume and extrapolate - whether fair or unfair - that there'll be additional cost and licensing fees down the road. This is just one more -

Mr. Speller: It's more anticipation of what may come in the future rather than exactly what's there in the bill now. I think that's your point.

Mr. Wilkinson: As I said, it's the inability to draw that logic, to try to define.

Mr. Speller: Unfortunately, I have just a short period of time. I want to get in a couple of questions.

Mr. George, you talked about the Liberals who voted against this piece of legislation. You said they were representing their constituents. For a number of members in our party, and especially in the Reform Party, I know a number of the polls show across the country, in urban and rural areas, that Canadians support this legislation and in fact support registration.

How do you justify or how do you break down the amount of people against this? I would think through the federation that probably at these meetings you wouldn't get 50% women and 50% men, even though in farming there is a 50-50 gender breakdown. We're finding when we look at the polls that even in Alberta there is in fact a gender difference. An overwhelming majority of women support this legislation, and if you look at the male breakdown it's not as high, although it is still a majority.

Do you think that perhaps some of the views put forward by the Canadian Federation and the Ontario Federation may be somewhat skewed because at these meetings you're seeing a lot more men than women?

Mr. George: I can certainly stand here today and say that I believe both Jack and I fairly represent the view we have heard from the members of our respective organizations.

Certainly while I've travelled across Ontario in the last two or three months, whatever issue I'm speaking on, the issue of gun control comes up. The farmers of Ontario expect me to be here today saying the things I've said.

Indeed, when Mr. Wilkinson and I were in Saskatchewan a couple of weeks ago, we had a number of questions about gun control. The farmers in Saskatchewan wanted to know what we, as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, were going to be saying, and we told them what we were going to be saying.

As far as whether or not that particular poll that farm leaders take when they go out there and test the air with their constituents is scientific, no, it isn't. It's a gut feeling. I know I can go to my electorate in the next election and say I did my best carrying forward the view that I believe to be held by the farmers of Ontario.

Mr. Speller: As with any member, when you go into these things you always have to take into account that there's no scientific evidence on any of this. You can take a poll. It may not necessarily totally reflect the views of your constituents, but as a member you have to reflect all the views of your constituents. Even if the people who are against this bill are in the minority.... In rural areas, you're right, they do represent a significant minority. I'm glad you've come here today to put forward that point of view.

My final question is to get clear what exactly the points are these people have a problem with. When you came today you said generally they don't like registration because it's cumbersome and an administrative burden. That's fair. What other points are they specifically saying will hurt a farmer? And how will it affect the lifestyle or how a farmer operates?

.1105

Mr. Wilkinson: When we were giving the presentation we tried to summarize it. As listed in the bold print on page two, we indicated how we felt those farm families who have possession of firearms, long rifles and shotguns for the purposes listed should be treated. That obviously is an objection they see with the current legislation being proposed. As well, they object to the degree of penalty in the proposed legislation for someone - not dealing with the criminal element - who may not relicense, if that's the proper term, at the end of the five-year time period, and to the proposal regarding acquisition of ammunition.

We have suggested as an option - and we have this fact sheet we can give around - legislation that exists to track ammunition for a two-year time period for those people. We feel that's a more appropriate way of dealing with the ammunition question. So that's what we've put forward.

In fairness to the comment of taking polls and where people are, you know as well as I do that polls, when listed, don't necessarily deal with the detail of things like legislation. So you can walk into a lot of rooms, go down to the street corner, into the bar and ask are people in here against gun control, and I would hazard a guess that probably the majority in that particular bar are, because what they hear on the radio by news commentators is about the automatic weapons and on and on - the linkage between everything that happens and how registration will fix it.

However, I also have had conversations with many people who start off by talking about gun control legislation, how they're in favour of it. When I talk about the ramifications on the farm community and why would we register, what is the reason it's that broad-based, more often than not they come around to the same conclusion as I do. They say it beats the hell out of them why we're expecting them to do that. Should a rifle that's in a locked cabinet for the ability to deal with a wolf that's attacking my sheep be registered? They seem to have a linkage problem there as well.

So I'm just suggesting that a lot of these issues we hear on polls is a problem all of us have of identifying what that really means, how much people understand of the totality of it, and are they accepting 90% as right and 10% as wrong. I would hazard a guess, as we suggested, that the way to deal with the 10% is as has been done in the brief.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Concerning search and seizure, some witnesses feel that the recommended measures are excessive and should not apply to legitimate firearms owners.

I would ask them to be more specific. If we look at paragraphs 117.04(2) and the following concerning seizure, it is clear that search and seizure without warrants would only be used in situations of urgency, and I quote:

by reason of the possible danger to the safety of that person or any other person...

The search must be justified.

Also, when there is no warrant, a peace officer must have reasonable grounds to believe that a weapon, whether real or fake, has been used to commit an offence. In that case he may search without warrant a vehicle or any place other than a dwelling. This must be stressed because it has often been said that he would be allowed to search a dwelling at any time of day or night.

Some grounds may justify a search without warrant but in general, a warrant must first be obtained to do a search anywhere, except in a dwelling.

I would like to know whether you still think that these sections are somewhat frivolous.

.1110

[English]

Mr. Wilkinson: It is my sense that you do not in fact require a warrant in all cases. I think you just got finished saying that you do require a warrant in all cases to search a house.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: This section states that a warrant must first be obtained. But if it can't be obtained, the search can certainly take place. If the peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a weapon, an imitation firearm, etc... I'm quoting the section... he may search, any place other than a dwelling, according to section 117.02.

[English]

Mr. Wilkinson: We'll have to reserve judgment and comment later. We would have to go over this in some detail before we'd want to make a response.

The sense when we prepared the brief was that the breadth of what is available to a particular officer - especially if this legislation is passed - as to what would constitute a criminal offence is very broad. My understanding is that having an unregistered gun would be a criminal offence. If this legislation goes through, it would not be hard, in my opinion, to say that a criminal offence is being committed because the fact that it's there has made it, if the police officer, for whatever reason, believes it's not registered.

I think we'd like to get back in more detail on that particular item so that we have something more thoroughly thought out as to the details of that proposed section. As you can appreciate, it's a relatively lengthy bill and we do not pretend to be lawyers. We'll reserve judgment and get back to you in detail. Thank you.

Mr. Ramsay: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we do have our legal counsel here, who I would ask to give the committee her legal opinion on this particular question that Mrs. Venne has raised.

The Chair: I'll allow Mrs. Venne to complete her questioning time, and if the committee wishes, we can. We actually have two or three lawyers here who advise the committee. We'll do that as soon as Mrs. Venne finishes her five minutes. She has time for one more question.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: No, in any case, my primary question was about search and seizure.

However, if our witnesses did not have enough time to complete their research, I would have appreciated their refraining from making comments on the matter since it is not as simple and straightforward as they indicate in their brief.

Now, we could certainly hear comments on the subject.

[English]

The Chair: We can hear from our advisers to the committee now on these various questions as we go through things or we can hear from them as we usually do as we approach clause-by-clause or beforehand. I'm in the hands of the committee. One might refer on almost every question to the legal advisers who are advising the committee. There will be a chance to do that. But the witnesses today are the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and I'm thinking that perhaps we should hear from them. I'm totally in your hands.

Ms Phinney, on the same point of order.

Ms Phinney: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that if some comment comes up or an obvious misunderstanding by witnesses, where they're not understanding the bill or they're interpreting it incorrectly, it might be a good idea to clarify, after they have made their statements, whatever item in the bill they think is one thing and in reality is another, such as where they thought registration was every five years and it's once in a lifetime. I think that kind of thing should be cleared up after they make the statement so that they understand what the truth is and the public who are listening also understand what the truth is - not to go into further explanation but just to clear up an error they have made.

The Chair: In this case, do you want to hear from our legal advisers?

Mr. Ramsay: Yes.

Mr. Thompson: On the same point of order, this isn't the first time we've heard this argument that you don't need a warrant, that you can just go in and do as you wish. You hear that as an open-ended statement. I think it needs to be clarified because we'll probably hear it again.

The Chair: Did you hear the question?

Ms Diane McMurray (Legislative Counsel to the Committee): Yes, I did. I think perhaps it's sometimes difficult to know who should be answering a question, but I think in this case it might be more appropriate for Mr. Bartlett to answer the question. I would of course be happy to defer to him if he so wishes.

The Chair: Mr. Bartlett is also a lawyer who advises us. He's from the research branch of the Library of Parliament. Our legislative counsel is also an adviser on legal questions. Mr. Bartlett.

.1115

Mr. William Bartlett (Committee Researcher): The provision the witnesses appear to be referring to in the bill is proposed section 117.04. It's not a new provision. It's in the existing legislation. It is reproduced in the bill virtually the same as it is in the existing legislation. It provides for a justice to issue a warrant where he believes there are reasonable grounds to believe it is not desirable, in the interests of the safety of the person or any other person, to possess a weapon. This is a preventive power. It hasn't been tested before the courts.

In particular, Attorney General of Canada v. Pattison, of the Alberta Court of Appeal, found that this was an appropriate power. Proposed subsection 117.04.(2) then allows search and seizure without a warrant where the grounds for a warrant exists but by reason of a possible danger to the safety of that person or any other person it would not be practical to obtain a warrant. Under those circumstances the police officer may then search for and seize firearms and ammunition.

So it's either a warrant issued by a justice on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds to believe there's a danger to safety, or a policeman would have the power to do that where the same grounds existed and it would be tested later by a justice. The whole matter would then have to be referred to a justice, but exigent circumstances would exist that meant there was an immediate danger that didn't allow enough time to get a warrant.

The Chair: All right. We'll move on with the questioning.

Ms Torsney: Witnesses, particularly Mr. George, you mentioned that guns are a tool of your trade in the farm community. I suppose, from your example of other members of the family having to go into town and get provisions for the farm, that cars and other vehicles would be tools of the trade in a farm community. Is that correct?

Mr. George: That's correct.

Ms Torsney: In most farming families, is there just one licence for the male farmer and then the rest of the family shares the driver's licence?

Mr. George: I think you know the answer to that question as well as I do. Yes, it's true that there's more than one licence.

Ms Torsney: So each person is able to follow the law. They don't inadvertently forget or anything like that when it comes to other provisions such as taking courses and passing certain standards on drivers' licences. Yet they wouldn't want to do that with anything to do with guns?

Mr. Wilkinson: That's not what we're saying. We were not referring to a gun. We were referring to ammunition.

Mr. Chairman, I do find the critical tightness of the question particularly offensive. This individual group has explained from the time we walked into the meeting that we are a group that normally represents agriculture issues in great detail, but that there are from time to time broader issues that come in front of us. We tried to respond with a reasonable brief only to have people playing legal games, snarking at the heels and not really appreciating the general points we have tried to make.

Surely we are not moving towards the point where anybody who comes before a justice committee has to have $100,000 to have a lawyer on staff to comment in very general terms, as we have, on a proposed piece of legislation.

Ms Torsney: Excuse me, Mr. Wilkinson, you're representing -

The Chair: Order. I'll go to you in a minute, Ms Torsney.

Mr. Wilkinson, I fully support you in the fact that I think all witnesses who come before this committee or any other parliamentary committee, having been invited, should be treated with respect and we should listen to their views and accept them as their views. You have promised to send us the resolution that led to your brief, so we should be respectful.

On the other hand, the members of the committee have the right to put their questions to try to draw out the positions you've taken. They can do that. Of course they should do it with politeness and with respect, but they have the right to do it strongly - on both sides. There may be another group here tomorrow who takes the exact opposite position from the one you're taking and I think we want to apply the same rules to them as to you.

.1120

I ask the members of the committee to be respectful of the witnesses. On the other hand, they have the right to put questions. The question Ms Torsney is now putting has been put to other witnesses to try to find out why people would oppose the licensing or the registration of guns when the same thing applies to automobiles -

Mr. Wilkinson: We've already answered the question, sir, respectfully. We answered that question beforehand as to the imposition it puts on people. We feel that the current legislation that was proposed and is in place in Ontario is an adequate way to deal with monitoring the sale of ammunition. We've put that forward as a suggestion - a current piece of legislation. An equation is drawn with someone who has a licence to drive a car or a licence to fly an airplane, maybe a licence to apply herbicides. Why do people not have to have a licence to buy Round-up if they live in the city but I have to buy one to apply that herbicide on my farm?

The Chair: The members can ask any question relating to the bill. I would just ask that they ask their questions in a respectful manner and that the witnesses do the same.

Ms Torsney.

Ms Torsney: Back to you, Mr. George, I was asking the question of you to get some idea of what farming life is like. What percentage of your members would you believe have FACs currently?

Mr. George: I have no idea. We have no record of that in our organization at all.

Ms Torsney: But surely that would have an impact on the decision that it would be a huge burden for your members. If they have current FACs then it's not a burden. If they don't have FACs.... It's clearly in your brief that these individuals would have to take safety courses and pass FACs. In fact you asked the question whether there is a demonstrated need for this. I would suggest to you that the statistics on accidents and deaths in rural communities clearly demonstrate that there is a need for this.

You must have some idea what percentage of your members have FACs.

Mr. George: If we can make the extrapolation back to the average age of the farm community, which is probably over 50, I would make the estimate that the majority of those farmers acquired their firearms before there was any type of legislative authority whatsoever.

Ms Torsney: Great. I'm glad we'll have the opportunity to reduce the number of deaths in rural communities by making sure people do have firearm safety courses.

You suggest that the legislation is draconian. You've painted an interesting picture of farming in Canada. There are threats all the time and people stealing gas on a regular basis, according to the opposition members, and people firing into the air at all times of the day and night. I really have been amazed by some of the -

Mr. George: It certainly wasn't representatives of the farm community who said that. I don't believe that to be true.

Ms Torsney: You're right. I said the opposition members had said that.

To try to get this down, then, how many times a week, a month, or a day would you need to take out a firearm to deal with predators on your particular farm?

Mr. George: I don't own a firearm on my particular farm. In other cases it would depend on circumstances. There could be a time of year - and we've had it on our farm - when predators are particularly common. Certainly on our farm there was an instance back eight or nine years ago when probably eight or ten times a day we sighted wolves attempting to attack our sheep. After that we had a major hunt and cleared a bunch of them out, using licensed choppers and so on and so forth.

There's no way of telling that. It may be dozens of times a year, it may be once a year, or not at all.

Mr. Wilkinson: I went out of sheep production because where I live we were losing 50 to 60 animals a year to wolf kills. It depends to a great extent where you live, the type of terrain, how close it is to wolf runs, etc.

Ms Torsney: That would be roughly every seven days there would be a wolf that would come into your farm, assuming they get one -

Mr. Wilkinson: It tends to occur in very large block periods, when they are teaching their cubs how to hunt and when they're feeding their cubs. That tends to be when the bulk of the killing is done. There would be occasions when every night I would be up trying to keep them out. We put high-voltage electric fences in, etc., and this is within a hundred yards of the house.

Ms Torsney: Okay. Are you aware of legislation that exists in other countries?

.1125

Recently I was on a farm in England. They have very strict provisions on the storage and use of guns. They have a very strict registration and licensing system. You have to identify what predators are on your farm before you get the licence. Are you aware of this? They do not seem to be very much of a burden for farmers in England.

Mr. George: I came from England in 1972, when I immigrated. Prior to leaving, I think it was in 1971, I surrendered my shotgun, which was the last time I ever owned a weapon, to the British police because of that exact type of legislation. There was too much authority in there, and I wasn't prepared to go through all the hoops in order to keep a 12-gauge shotgun on my farm, which I probably used once or twice a year. So I surrendered my weapon and I thought I'd take my chances. In fact, I left the country.

Ms Torsney: We'd better move to the next questioner.

The Chair: Mr. Penson, for five minutes.

Mr. Penson (Peace River): Gentlemen - and lady, I'm sorry - I welcome you here today.

I represent a constituency in northwestern Alberta, the Peace River riding, which is about half small towns and cities and the other half rural. The comment I'm getting generally is that people would see this proposed legislation as being an added burden in terms of costs and going through the regulatory process of registering, that it would be an added workload, but that they probably would be prepared to accept that, because we have these types of things all the time, if they felt it was going to be effective in controlling crime in Canada. They don't see these two as being directly related, and I think I heard you say earlier that's what your members are saying as well.

Now, your organization deals with government almost on a daily basis, doesn't it? There are programs for agriculture producers -

Mr. Wilkinson: There are a couple still left.

Mr. Penson: Yes, there are some still left. But in the past there has been a lot of close association, and when you say that these programs tend to become more onerous, you've seen some direct relationship there, I would suggest. Is that not true?

Mr. Wilkinson: Yes, but I also want to make it clear that I tried to encapsulate the comments around that - Whether legitimately or not, people are seeing, from examples around them, that as time goes on the degree of onus for responding to a lot of regulations tends to be more. I think there are a number of examples.

Mr. Penson: The issue of ammunition is one concern I'm hearing in the riding, but I don't think people will have to worry about it for a while, because - if you have any of the types of things happening generally across your organization that are happening in my riding - people have stocked up with about a ten-year supply of ammunition. So they won't have to worry about buying it for a while. You can't buy loading equipment anywhere in the riding. It simply has been bought up, and people are generally stocking up as a precaution. That's what I'm finding. Do you hear the same kinds of things?

Mr. Wilkinson: I have no comment on that. It becomes anecdotal and it's too hard to qualify.

Mr. Penson: I just wanted to touch on one other area, and that is in your brief. I missed whether this was as a result of a resolution that came forward from your convention where you say that the bare minimum acceptable would be to permit farmers to register their weapons once at no cost. Did that come from your convention?

Mr. Wilkinson: That specific recommendation, coming out of the preparation of the brief that we sent around to people, did not. The whole issue of the CFA getting involved in this broad policy topic came from a resolution formula. The way the normal process works - and it varies in detail depending on what issues come forward - is that we will then write it up as we see the issue at our end, recirculate it, get comment from our members, and carry on as we move further and further to detail. So we sometimes have general resolutions, sometimes very specific. This one was more of a general nature.

Mr. Penson: I was surprised, because that's not what I'm hearing. I am hearing that people are opposed to both aspects of it because it's an onerous -

Mr. Wilkinson: I believe, though, that we have stated clearly there are some provinces that have indicated that they are absolutely against the legislation.

.1130

We qualified it as well. If the government was going to move ahead with this legislation, then, at minimum, we wanted to have this treatment. So we're certainly not advocating for the legislation. We're saying if in fact with the majority government they move ahead, we want this treatment, and also, we're naming the provinces opposed to the legislation in general.

Mr. Penson: I have one further comment. I have family in livestock production in western Canada who lose some of their production animals to wolves and bears every year. There are large areas of this country that are not southwestern Ontario, where there is very little concern with that type of activity.

Mr. Speller: No, that's not true.

Mr. Penson: In any case, I know this happens and guns are necessary to protect the livestock, just as you have already mentioned, wherever it may be. But I know that's the case specifically in the Peace River country. When the talk is of the tools of the trade, we would still see the need to have guns to put animals down, as you've already suggested, and to control predators as necessary, regardless of whether you're required to register or not.

Mr. Wilkinson: Yes, we've indicated that if the legislation's going to go ahead that's the way we want them treated. But we're asking the open question of what the linkage is between the proposed intent of the legislation and this particular aspect, as it relates - and clearly, only as it relates - to a named weapon dedicated for use. It doesn't relate across the board to the general citizenry in rural Canada. We've never made that -

Mr. Penson: You're not trying to speak for anybody beyond your group.

Mr. Wilkinson: No.

Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): Thank you for coming this morning.

I can appreciate the confusion around any piece of legislation. It sometimes becomes very confusing, especially when lawyers are involved.

You've made a statement in your brief regarding crime prevention. You believe the vast majority of firearms used in the commission of a crime are illegal, smuggled into Canada, and that there is no indication that by registering legal firearms this issue will be addressed.

At the same time, I have numbers from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics indicating that the rate of firearm homicide in rural Canada is 1.28 per 100,000, yet in large cities of over 500,000 people it's 0.87. I wonder how you can account for that difference. I'm talking about homicide.

The Chair: That's homicide with guns.

Mr. Gallaway: I'm sorry, yes.

Mr. Wilkinson: I would like to see the numbers of all deaths of a violent nature, and secondly, the rate of ownership and distribution of urban areas versus rural, since it appears that the sitting member at the end of the table has all sorts of statistics. I can't imagine that this legislation would be proposed without those two pieces of evidence being available to anybody who would like them.

Mr. Gallaway: I can appreciate, too, that someone spouting statistics that you haven't seen - I understand that.

Let's just assume for a moment that the homicide rate with guns - I'm assuming with long arms in rural Canada - is higher than in urban Canada. I'll give you an example in terms of prohibition orders.

Mr. George made the statement that he believed all the registration in the world would not prevent a crime of passion. In terms of crimes of passion, if there is a prohibition order against a person in a rural area, or in an urban area, and that person has registered his gun and all the guns are removed, do you not then see some type of linkage - that the person would be less prone to commit a crime of passion?

Mr. Wilkinson: Is that the intent of the legislation - to remove all guns from Canada?

Mr. Gallaway: No, no. I'm talking about prohibition orders.

Mr. Wilkinson: Are you saying they cannot be issued in any circumstances now?

Mr. Gallaway: No, I'm talking about a person who - let's assume it's a marital breakdown, that the marriage is going on the rocks - for whatever reason, has shown signs to a judge that he's prone to violence. That judge can then order a prohibition order and say to remove all the guns from that home.

.1135

Mr. Wilkinson: Maybe we should go back to the legal opinion, because as I was listening to the legal opinion I got the impression that part of that legislation is already on the books and is being married into this suggested legislation.

Mr. Gallaway: But the problem with prohibition orders today is that there's no way of knowing if there is one gun or fourteen guns in that home. I'm talking about a person who, prior to a given date, has been a legal, law-abiding gun owner, but due to events in that couple's life circumstances change. Suddenly there's a love-hate relationship. Can you not see a connection between the removal of all of the guns as opposed to some of the guns in the prevention of crimes of passion?

Mr. Wilkinson: Sir, to be honest, my sense is that if under the current circumstances you're going to issue a warrant to a police officer who's concerned about people's health, I assume that after the warrant is issued he would search the place, and I assume that if they came in unannounced they would probably find most of the weapons. I'm having a lot of trouble drawing the linkage that registering these firearms, as we're suggesting, for use by farm people involved in downed livestock and crop protection falls into the category you're talking about.

Mr. Gallaway: Would you not agree that there are marital breakdowns in farm communities?

Mr. Wilkinson: There are marital breakdowns.

Mr. Gallaway: All right. Would you not agree also that guns can be used in crimes of passion in farm communities?

Mr. Wilkinson: Anything can be used, as you've already given some statistics on.

Mr. Gallaway: Are you aware that the rate of homicide is much greater with guns?

Mr. Wilkinson: I'm only aware that the rate of homicide is greater as it relates to firearms, as clarified by your chairperson. We asked for the rate of homicide across the countryside for both breakdowns, and you suggested - I hope you suggested, anyway - that you would make that information available to us.

Mr. Gallaway: Yes, we will.

My final question will be to Mr. George. I believe Mr. Wilkinson mentioned it, but I know that in Ontario - and I can only speak with respect to Ontario - over a period of years the provincial government has enacted legislation with respect to the handling of pesticides. Is that correct?

Mr. George: That's correct.

Mr. Gallaway: With respect to handling of pesticides in a rural community, is it not true that a person must take a safety course and register?

Mr. George: I can make it clear: it was the farm community that led that initiative and not the government. So yes, one person on that farming operation needs to be in possession of a pesticide users certificate in order to purchase certain chemicals.

Mr. Gallaway: Thank you.

The Chair: Mrs. Venne.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: I'll pass.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: I want to put some statistics on the record so that perhaps it will help us. There are three million gun owners in Canada, as claimed by the justice department. Of course it ranges from that figure to six million, according to other organizations whose correspondence I have read. But if we take the three million as the number of individuals owning firearms in Canada, and if we take the 1,400 figure of individual deaths resulting from gunshot wounds, which represents the improper use by these owners of firearms - and that includes the criminal element as well - the percentage of improper use by gun owners on a yearly basis, or certainly for that year, is 0.046%. In other words, well over 99.9% of all gun owners have not been involved in those statistics. If we go to the six million owner figure, that drops to 0.023%.

So when we talk about this whole violent situation where people are dying as a result of gunshot wounds, if we examine it from this point of view, the gun owners have an excellent record in obeying the law and using their firearms correctly. Do you want to make a comment on that?

.1140

Mr. Wilkinson: I think it's very difficult to take any number and say what is an acceptable number or a non-acceptable. They are very low percentages. I think to compare one homicide figure as it relates rural to urban, as we've said over and over again, is making an argument to support a case versus looking at what is the issue, what is the problem - homicide rates in general, I assume, are viewed as the problem - and what needs to be done to deal with that.

As we've said over and over again, the concern from our members on these shotguns and rifles is that they have not posed a problem that has been proven by anybody. Therefore, why would we be under the net of the legislation? I'm not trying to evade the question, I just think it's an impossible question to say what is an acceptable fatality rate. I don't know how to answer that.

Mr. Ramsay: All right. I thank you for that.

I was a peace officer for 14 years. When you execute a search warrant in a home for whatever is identified in that search warrant, you don't leave items behind. The suggestion has been made, not only today but on other days before this committee and elsewhere outside this committee, that for some reason or other if a prohibition order is levied against an individual to remove all firearms from that person's residence a search warrant is somehow going to leave firearms in that home because they don't know the number that are there if they are not registered. That is just beyond me.

Whenever we executed a search warrant we went through the home stem to stern, whether it was an excise search or a drug search, and we did a meticulous job. To suggest that the police will not do that I think isn't fair.

Getting to the cost, under clause 5 we see where the chief firearms officer of a province, when a person comes forward to license - this is not to register a firearm, just to license to hold a firearm - has to do a criminal background check of the individual under all of these subparagraphs as listed under paragraph (a). They have to then do a mental illness check, check the hospital records of this individual. Then they have to do what appears to be a neighbourhood check to determine if there's a history of violent behaviour on the part of the applicant. This is quite a bit of work that has to be done and it's not unlike the FAC process. I think it's probably a little bit more extensive but nevertheless in that area.

I have information that comes from the Metropolitan Toronto Police Board that indicates their assessment of the cost to process an FAC for the year 1994 was $185.14. That means that if there are three million gun owners in Canada, in order just to license them before a gun is registered at all, that's going to be approximately $555 million.

If you take the higher figure of six million gun owners, then you're looking at a figure of $1.11 billion just to license the gun owners, and that has nothing whatever to do with the further costs that might be incurred in order to register the six million to twenty million guns reported to be in the country.

Do you have any concern about that type of administrative cost that will have to be paid directly by the gun owner or certainly indirectly through the taxation process?

Mr. Wilkinson: If your figures are correct, sir, it does appear to be onerous and a burden. I think that was the point we made, especially if it goes to full cost recovery.

Ms Phinney: Thank you very much for coming today. I myself have a background in the farm community and my father's side of the family is still farming, so I understand a lot of the particular problems you come up against.

I just want to be sure you clearly understand now that registration of the firearm will be a once in a lifetime activity and the first ten will be under $10 for that once in a lifetime. Is that clear now?

.1145

Mr. Wilkinson: Yes. Would you like to state what the licensing requirements are?

Ms Phinney: I just wanted to make sure that part of it's clear, that you're registering your guns once in a lifetime.

Mr. Wilkinson: We're taking a holistic picture of it, and I appreciate your pointing out that -

Ms Phinney: But you're clear now, that it's once in a lifetime? Okay.

The minister has in the bill that the first offence it would be a criminal offence, but he's suggested that he's willing to change this. The police associations suggested that the penalty on the first offence should be removing the gun until it was registered. There's also the possibility of having a fine, or we could go back to what was originally suggested, having a criminal offence if you don't register your gun and it's the first time you're caught.

What would your suggestions be in this area?

Mr. Wilkinson: As we have said, this is not what we are advocating as far as a piece of legislation goes. It is a piece of legislation that's being advocated by the government. We've indicated that only if the government moves ahead in this area would we like.... The charge for failing to either license or register within the time period is more onerous than it should be.

We have not made a particular recommendation. All we've said is a two-year criminal offence seems to be way more than what would be appropriate for a first-time offence. We've made a clear distinction between whether the weapon was involved in any criminal activity versus non-criminal activity, and we've never implied at any point that if it's involved in criminal activity the penalty should be less. It's only for, as I've indicated, the non-criminal offence.

Ms Phinney: So you wouldn't want to comment on whether you agree with the police that the gun should be taken away and then returned once the registration is done, or whether you think a fine would be better and allowing the person to keep the gun?

Mr. George: I don't think a fine is appropriate at all. I think we have to face the fact that ifMr. Ramsay is correct that there are indeed three million Canadians who hold firearms, it's reasonable to expect that a good percentage of those are not going to register, for whatever reason. They either forget, they don't know the law, they misunderstand the law, or whatever. We see this in the farm community.

We actually find this when we are issuing support payments to producers, that some of them don't know, even though you put it in the paper and so on. There's a goodly percentage who fail, upon the first go-round, to conform with new legislation or new regulation because of ignorance or whatever. So the thought of having whatever percentage it is of three million Canadians facing either criminal charges or fines I just think is going a little bit too far. In fact, it's going a lot too far.

I think we do need a moratorium or we certainly need some forgiveness in there. Let's take a farmer, for example, who has had that gun in his possession for 20 or 30 years and only uses it on very rare occasions, once or twice a year. The chances are that individual is not going to register that firearm. I certainly want to find, in the event that this law passes, that this farmer is given an outright pardon and then the process is explained to him. I don't want to see that gun confiscated, nor do I want to see any charges placed against him. But there has to be some other method for them to comply with the law, if indeed that's the way it is.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Twice now Mr. Wilkinson has stated that a person failing to possess a license or to register a firearm may be sentenced to two years imprisonment. This is not what the law presently says as it states that the imprisonment is for a term not exceeding five years or that it can be punishable on summary conviction by up to six months imprisonment or a $2,000 fine. I wanted to make things clear. It is not two years, it's up to five years, or six months...

[English]

The Chair: That's not really a point of order, but in order to bring some information to the committee it has been raised.

Madam Venne is correct. It's a maximum penalty. There are minimum penalties provided when you use a firearm in certain violent offences, so that there can be no plea-bargaining, etc., on these offences. But perhaps we can return later to the legal advisers.

.1150

Mr. Wilkinson: Did I not say ``could''? I believe that was the word she used, that it could just as easily, when the regulation is written, be two years.

The Chair: It could be, but in the law a crown prosecutor could ask for a non-jail sentence and the judge may agree or may not agree.

Ms Phinney: You bring up the fact that the minister said there will be no fees for registration for those who use firearms for sustenance purposes. That means they wouldn't have to pay $10 to register all their guns for a lifetime.

I talked to a number of farmers this weekend and one of the points they brought up was whether this would be for all farmers. There are some farmers, I'm presuming - say, wheat growers - who would not have predators on their farms. They've never had any need to have firearms for predators. Would you want to exempt them too? Were you thinking of a blanket exclusion for all farmers, even though maybe more than half - I'm just guessing at that figure - might never need a firearm? Why would they be excluded from registering their firearms in this case? If they do have firearms, they're using them for some other reason than sustenance.

Mr. Wilkinson: I think we've indicated in the presentation we gave that if there were some reason other than those listed in the presentation, what we recommend is that they would fall under whatever other limits the law will have when it's passed - if it is passed.

Ms Phinney: Right now you go to the post office and pick up a form and register your gun. You pay the $10 and mail it in. So there would have to be a registration person there who would decide with each farmer whether he would qualify or wouldn't qualify to be exempt from a $10 lifetime fee.

Mr. George: I think it's a mistake if you think livestock farmers are the only ones who need firearms. There are cash croppers, and they easily need them. We actually have damage from wildlife. You get hordes of Canadian geese or marauding herds of deer or bears or whatever. They can cause real havoc - thousands of dollars of damage to a crop.

Ms Phinney: I think you'll also agree there are farmers who don't need them. I talked to farmers this weekend who have never in their lives had guns to kill predators, etc.

Mr. Wilkinson: We've not advocated that every farmer should buy a gun.

Ms Phinney: No, I'm not suggesting that at all.

Mr. Wilkinson: You've given the suggestion that there are individuals who've chosen not to have a gun. I'm just saying there's nothing in what we're referring to that's about them. If they choose not to have a gun, that's fine.

Ms Phinney: But how would it be decided on registration? The way it's planned right now, they pick up a form, sign it, mail it in and put their own registration number on the gun. Who's going to decide which farmer is eligible and which one's not?

Mr. Wilkinson: We'll be quite happy to work with the justice committee when the regulations are drawn up if in fact the government moves ahead with this legislation and if in fact it gives, as the minister has indicated, different treatment to those people who are involved in using guns for their sustenance. Obviously there will have to be some sort of determination made for those people about how they would qualify. I'm assuming when that is done we, working with the regulations as well, can figure out a fairly simple way of dealing with farmers.

The Chair: It's 11:53 a.m. The meeting was originally scheduled to go until noon. I have a number of questions and then we have two members who have asked for a second round of five minutes. The two are Mr. Speller and Mr. Thompson. Do you ladies and gentlemen mind staying another ten minutes, until 12:10? Does that upset your program very much?

Mr. Wilkinson: Sure, that's no problem.

The Chair: Thank you. I'll put some questions in the first place.

You've raised the whole business of ammunition. I can understand what you're saying. One reason for provisions on ammunition, though, is that we are told by the police that approximately 3,000 guns a year are lost or stolen. When guns are lost or stolen, especially if they fall into the hands of certain individuals, they're not lethal unless they have the ammunition to go with the guns, if they want to use those stolen guns.

The example I would give is of the young man in Ottawa who did the drive-by shooting. He actually stole the gun. He was a minor who stole the gun from an adult. I think it was his father, as a matter of fact, or one of the parents. If it were simply a question of stealing a gun and he couldn't have found the ammunition, he couldn't have done the damage he did.

.1155

This is a crime prevention measure. As you know, until the law becomes fully applicable, drivers' licences with pictures will be allowed. You say that you support that. It would seem to me that you support the idea of some type of control on the access to ammunition for people who might have the gun and want to do damage with the gun. You say you support the Ontario program. Personally, I don't see a great deal of difference.

Now we have firearms acquisition certificates. If we said you had to produce a firearm acquisition certificate to buy ammunition or the driver's licence with a photo.... The only problem with the driver's licence with the photo is that person has not been tested as a safe risk for carrying firearms. It could be, as somebody raised, a dangerous individual.

You may not want to answer, but you've asked several times for the rationale. The rationale is to try to prevent harmful incidents from taking place where a person may have the gun but not the ammunition, and very often they cool down.

In the last legislation that came to us under the Conservative government, which many of us supported, they put in a 30-day waiting period in getting the FAC. That was because very often people will be in a state of mind and emotion where they may commit a crime today, but in five days' time they calm down and they are able to deal with their problems.

I don't know if you want to respond to that, but you've given your argument for not having the controls on ammunition that are in the bill. On the other hand, I'm just putting to you the concern of the police and others with respect to the easy access to ammunition. Right now it's easier to buy ammunition than it is a pack of cigarettes - not in Ontario, but in some provinces.

Mr. Wilkinson: If there is viewed to be a need for control of ammunition, we have suggested a piece of legislation that exists in Ontario other than this. I think we explained the reason. For example, if I have a cow that went down and hurt herself - broke her back, for example - and I do not have a .303 bullet in the house because I pull this out once a year, and I have to destroy that animal, I can call my wife on the phone and ask her to stop in and pick up some ammunition because I need it. That is a very distinct possibility, which under the Ontario legislation would be allowed and under the proposed legislation wouldn't be allowed.

The Chair: It's not my role as the chair to get into a debate with you. I was just explaining it to you.

The other question you asked quite frequently today was with respect to registration. You asked why, what will it accomplish? Again, I don't want to spend too much time on this, but the RCMP, when they were before us, argued very strongly in favour of the registration. The Canadian Police Association and the Association of Chiefs of Police are very strongly in favour of it. There could be members in their associations, as in yours, who don't support it. But just as you said with your federation, once you take a decision, that's a decision of your organization.

The reason they said they support it is that it helps them in preventing crime in that they know when they go to a home whether that individual in the home has one gun or twenty guns and what kinds of guns they are. Also, when they go to check, they know if the man has buried five or six in the backyard, as some people have said they are going to do if this legislation goes through. If they're registered, you know the person has so many guns. They also said that it helps them in the tracking of crimes, in the solving of crimes.

You can differ with them. I would invite you, if you wish, to read their testimony. They put the argument much better than I.

The other thing is that we've had handgun registration in this country for a long time, since 1934. As a result of that stringent control on handguns, Canada has had a very low percentage of homicides and crimes with handguns compared to the United States. Most of our crimes with guns in Canada - different from the United States - are with long guns because long guns have always been easily available.

I'm not the best representative of the police point of view, but if you wanted to read the police point of view it will be on the record.

.1200

I have this question. In your testimony you talked about how most farmers will safely store their guns in accordance with the law and will separate their ammunition from their guns according to the law. When we had the Northwest Territories people here the other night, they said that despite that law very few people in the territories comply. Most people do not separate the ammunition from the guns and do not store it as the law says, because they said it was impractical for them.

I wanted to ask you this. You may not have the information, and if you don't, that's fine. I understand. Do you have any information as to whether or not Canadian farmers or Ontario farmers do in fact comply with the present law on safe storage with respect to their guns and ammunition? You spoke as if they do comply. That would be important to know. I don't know whether or not you know.

Mr. George: We can't tell you the statistics, but what we can say is that as responsible farm organizations, we've certainly made the law known to our members through various articles in the farm press and in our various internal communications. We will continue to do that. Even if this law passes, we will continue to make sure our farmers do whatever is right by the law too. We don't want to see our members flung in jail or fined because of ignorance of the law.

Mr. Wilkinson: How do you make a statement like that, saying people may bury their guns but if they were registered we would know they had them? I mean, that really stretches my imagination. If somebody who's looking at registration coming in is going to say that he's going to refuse to register his gun because he's going to bury it so you don't know he's got it, how is the registration process going to help?

People talk about the individual case where someone stole a gun, couldn't get ammunition. But this may or may not fix it. That's assuming this person knows no other individual who's got....

There are a lot of assumptions here. You're talking about the percentages differing in handguns and long guns, etc. I would dearly love to see all of those percentages broken down in detail so they can be analysed, because on that kind of generalized statement a percentage point can be a 0.001 difference, and you can make a comment that it's higher, and it's because.... Not only is it higher, but you, as chair, drew a direct link to say it's because long guns are more available in Canada.

The Chair: Well, there are statistics on that, which we'd be pleased to -

Mr. Wilkinson: I'd love to see them.

The Chair: Yes. On the first point you make, it was the police themselves who said it. I was simply repeating what the police said.

The police here the other day pointed out that there were situations where they had to go back three times. They went the first time on a prohibition order. In other words, if there were registration and everything were peaceful in that home, the person would have registered all their guns. Maybe two or three years later, there are problems in the home, a lot of fighting and battering going on, and a lot of emotion. The judge orders a prohibition. The police go to the house to get the guns, ask the person how many guns he's got, and say give them over. The individual gives over three guns. I forget the number.

The police actually testified to this just a few days ago. This is without registration. They heard there were more. Oh, no, what he said was that the wife was standing behind the husband and she was shaking her head when he said three. But anyway, the policeman went away, took the guns, came back a few days later and said he understood the husband had more guns, that he didn't really give them all up. The husband gave them one more. The policeman came back a third time and got another one.

Now, the police argument - and I suggest that you can read this in the record - was that with registration they would have known in advance the guns this man had registered. If he had just offered two or three, they would have said no, on the registration it says you have six, or seven, or ten - we want them all.

Again, Mr. Wilkinson, I'm simply putting to you what the police have said, and what the police supported. We're here today to listen to you.

Mr. Wilkinson: A lot of police have also indicated they don't see that what's being proposed is an appropriate method of dealing with what appears to be the problem when it comes to rural Canada.

The Chair: Well, again, that goes to the same question.

You say when you testify here you're testifying on resolutions passed at your conventions. There may be individual farmers who don't agree. It's the same with the police. I'm just suggesting that you had asked us some questions, and I was attempting, in a dialogue, to respond to you. It's not my place to carry this on. I suggest that you could read their testimony.

.1205

By the way, we've only had the RCMP so far. We're going to have the Canadian Police Association and the chiefs of police very shortly and they will be dealing with some of these very questions.

Mr. Speller has five minutes and Mr. Thompson, then we'll adjourn.

Mr. Speller: I'd like to follow up on that point. The bottom line on that point and a question I have for you - and it's a question I ask my constituents - is how many spouses, do you feel, know how many guns their husbands have? That's the bottom line on this, because not a lot of spouses in rural areas know how many guns their husbands have.

Mr. Wilkinson: My spouse knows how many guns I have.

Mr. Speller: That's the whole problem in prohibition orders.

The Chair: Let Mr. Speller ask the question because we want to get on the record everything that's said.

Mr. Speller: I don't get a sense from my community that many spouses know how many guns their husbands have, and I think that's the bottom line on this point. If you're going to have a prohibition order, you want to know - I think that's Minister Rock's point - through registration how many guns are in that house.

Mr. Wilkinson: Was there a question, then?

Mr. Speller: No.

Mr. Wilkinson: Okay. I thought we extended the time period to ask questions. I'm sorry.

Mr. Speller: Okay, what percentage of spouses do you think -

The Chair: I should clarify that point. Just so everyone will know, in the five-minute period the member can make comments if he or she wishes, or ask questions, but we like to make the best use of witnesses when we have them before us, to pick their brains and get their best information.

Mr. Speller: Do you feel that in rural areas most spouses know how many guns are in the house?

Mr. Wilkinson: I'm saying we have no evidence to say, but I find it unusual.... My wife knows how many guns I have in our house. I think Roger's wife knows how many guns he has in his house. I'm unaware that there's any evidence -

Mr. George: She'd be very surprised to find a gun. She probably would phone the police if she found a gun.

Mr. Speller: How many guns do you have, Jack?

Mr. Wilkinson: I have two.

Mr. Speller: I take it your points are as follows. Farmers can't understand why we need to spend so much money on registering when they can't see any relationship between registration and the health and safety in their own communities. They see it as an urban problem. Mr. Gallaway suggested in terms of the actual percentage of homicides with the use of firearms that it's actually higher in rural areas.

You're fearful of a bureaucratic system, especially the costs that may be associated with that sort of system in the future. I think all of us know examples of that throughout Canadian history. Once a government bureaucracy takes place, it seems that costs go up and bureaucratic problems can extend beyond the actual intention of them in a piece of legislation.

You feel that registration should be taken out of the Criminal Code because you don't see why, for instance, a little old lady who forgets to register a gun should have a criminal record. I thinkMr. Rock has indicated he may be leaning that way. I've not seen any proof of it yet, but I think he has indicated that he wants to try to deal with that sort of problem.

You're concerned about the powers the minister will have, through Order in Council, in terms of setting regulations that may cause unforeseen problems that aren't actually there now.

Those seem to be your points, and many of those are valid points.

In terms of safe storage on a farm, you've indicated that you can't really tell how many people actually safe-store on farms, but the problems are there. When you have a predator coming into your barnyard, you can't go to a locked area, unlock it, go to another area and get ammunition and get out and deal with it before it's already killed all kinds of your livestock. I think that's a valid point.

Mr. Wilkinson: That's exactly right.

Mr. Speller: Have you been able to make that point?

Mr. Wilkinson: My guns and ammunition are locked in a cabinet with a key on a particular key ring that's out of reach of anyone. It is only used when it comes to unlocking a steel cabinet that keeps them both separate. It does not take very long. I know exactly where it is in the house. Usually you hear, if it's in the middle of the night, that you have predator problems in your livestock, or if it's in the daytime you see something. It's one of those circumstances.

No one has advocated in our brief that we walk around with a gun on us. We have not advocated that to deal with this problem.

.1210

Mr. Speller: No, I understand, but the problems do exist. Because of those provisions, you find that there is a lot of livestock killed because they don't have easy access.

Mr. Wilkinson: You've made an assumption, though, again, in your summation that it's impossible to keep them separate.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Point of Order, Mr. Chairman.

You have before you regulations exempting farmers, and that should at least be stated this time.

[English]

The Chair: Exactly. It says that paragraph 1(b), meaning storage, does not apply to any person who stores an unrestricted firearm temporarily if that person reasonably requires the firearm for the control of predators or other animals in a place where the firearm may be discharged in accordance with applicable federal and provincial acts, etc. In other words, where there is a problem with predators, you don't have to store the weapon so it will be readily available. That exists at the present time.

The problem with this law is it's very complex and there are many regulations. You'd have to be a lawyer. And - I don't blame you - we don't want to hear just from lawyers, we want to hear the grassroots opinion of the farming community. But there is an exception for that.

Mr. Wilkinson: I'd like to make it clear that we didn't ask for one.

Mr. Speller: You did last time under Bill C-17.

Mr. Wilkinson: That point that you just made?

Mr. Speller: Yes.

Mr. Wilkinson: In the brief?

Mr. Speller: No, I said the last time, under Bill C-17. That was the first one.

The Chair: It was the last gun control bill a few years ago under the previous government.

Mr. Speller: Outside of this form here, have you had any direct relationship or input with the justice department or the Minister of Justice on the problems farmers may face on this? Have you had any contact with the minister? I'm surprised Justice wouldn't have contacted you.

Mr. Wilkinson: No.

The Chair: I understand the minister tried to contact a lot of people, but maybe it's because of what you said at the beginning. Usually you don't get involved in justice matters. Maybe he didn't think you had a point of view. Anyway, we're pleased to have your views here this morning.

Mr. Thompson: This will be the last question. I'd just like your comments on some of these things - just a final point. Regarding freedoms, I've distributed about 300 of these throughout my riding.

The Chair: What have you distributed?

Mr. Thompson: Copies of Bill C-68. I'm getting requests for more. The people going through it are really objecting to the notion of guilty until proven innocent. That's a total opposite of anything else in the Criminal Code that we know of. Concerning the ability to search, it doesn't state reasonable and probable grounds, as it does in some legislation.

They're very concerned about legislation by regulation. The ones who are most concerned about this are those people who immigrated to Wild Rose many years back from Holland, Germany, Ukraine - from throughout eastern Europe. They immediately have noticed confiscation could be possible with no compensation. It's happening today and they're aware of that.

They are extremely concerned that legislation by regulation could quickly lead to a dictatorship of a dominant few. An appointed few could call all the shots. Regardless of whether you only have to register once, as Ms Phinney has pointed out, there isn't anything to say that will change, by Order in Council, two years down the road. Their major concern is the basic loss of freedoms. They are the people from the old communities of immigrants who refer to this legislation as familiar things they have seen from the past.

Have you heard those comments from any of your members?

Mr. George: Yes. I think you raise the issue of property rights. Even disregarding Bill C-68, as I go around Ontario, the farmers today don't talk about the price of soybeans and corn or the price of hogs, even though they're as bad as they may be; they talk about property rights. They are worrying that they have bureaucrats telling them what they can or cannot do with their own land, that they can't graze cattle near wetlands, they can't clean out a drainage ditch that they dug with their own money, and they're seeing the same thing with this. They're seeing Bill C-68 as one more imposition on behalf of society upon their rights and freedoms.

.1215

I think that's the fundamental issue. By itself, it may seem fairly innocuous if you look at it as a piece of firearms legislation. But on top of all these other things, that's what's really got the farm community up in arms.

Mr. Speller spoke about things starting off on a small scale and getting bigger - the regulating system. Just look in Ontario at the photo radar system. That was brought in supposedly to prevent accidents on the highway. It's no such thing at all. That is just a money-grabber there, a revenue-grabber for this particular government and maybe for the next government too.

So that's another thing where farmers and rural people are saying this is one more infringement upon our rights. While we can make arguments on both sides for various things that we've been talking about for the last two hours, the fundamental issue you raise is the fundamental argument of the rural community - rights and freedoms.

The Chair: Canadian Federation of Agriculture, I hope this won't discourage you from coming back before the justice committee again. There are probably many issues in which the farming community might be interested, and you'll want to give your views. We appreciate hearing your views because you said you represent several hundred thousand people.

As you can see, there are many views on these subjects on the committee. It's not a subject that is devoid of differing opinions. So I want to thank you.

I want to remind members of the committee that this afternoon our meeting starts at 2 o'clock, because we're having the Outfitters of Canada and various provincial outfitters. We have about five or six provincial outfitting organizations, so we're meeting during Question Period from 2 o'clock right until 5:30 or 6 o'clock. It's a long afternoon. Tonight we have the people who do official collecting of weapons in museums at 7:30. So it's a long day. If you can't come to any of these meetings, would you please make sure you have replacements.

Yes, Ms Rutherford.

Ms Sally Rutherford (Executive Director, Canadian Federation of Agriculture): I'd just like to make one comment in relation to a comment you made. It has nothing to do with gun control.

The Chair: All right.

Ms Rutherford: You made mention that we could read it in the record. Unfortunately, we can't.

The Chair: That wasn't proceeded with.

Ms Rutherford: I know, but I just want to take this opportunity to help you understand how important the printing of committee proceedings is to people across the country. Without that, there is no way for us to understand what testimony other people have made and what questions and concerns members of Parliament have. I think as a basic right as citizens of Canada, we need to be able to know or have access to the discussions that actually take place within Parliament.

The Chair: You're quite correct. I should tell you that the chairs of the parliamentary committees unanimously objected to that initiative by the Board of Internal Economy - all the chairs. We have a couple of other chairs of other committees here. So we protested that, and they came out with a decision, which was not their first proposal, to stop printing them. They're coming out with a cheaper version. So I can assure you that you can get them by addressing any member of Parliament or the committees branch. They will provide you with a print-out of today's proceedings or of any other meeting you wish.

At first there was a lot of concern about the proposal, and I just want you to know that those of us who work in committees a lot had the same concerns that you express.

Ms Rutherford: There is still the timeframe question. You could always get the ``blues'' in the past fairly quickly, to make a point.

The Chair: Yes. I hear it's two to three days now, but we never got the final version sometimes for weeks before, which I didn't particularly like. I support your arguments and I'm glad you put them on the record.

The meeting is adjourned.