EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 4, 1995

.0930

[English]

The Chair: I would like to call the meeting to order. We are continuing with our examination of Bill C-68, An Act respecting Firearms and Other Weapons. We are pleased to have with us Barbara Hall, the mayor of Toronto, representing the City of Toronto, and Robert Côté, city councillor for the City of Montreal, representing the mayor and the City of Montreal.

We had also invited the mayor of Vancouver, who lent his support to the same position as the cities of Toronto and Montreal, but he couldn't come. But a letter, you will note, is attached to the brief of the City of Toronto, signed by the mayor of Vancouver and supporting that position.

I will call first on Mrs. Hall and then on Mr. Côté. We have briefs from both the City of Toronto and the City of Montreal. They might read their briefs or they may simply address the main points in them, if they wish. All members have the briefs but I leave that to them.

After the presentation of their briefs, their opening remarks, we will have the usual rounds of questioning by the members of the committee from the different political parties.

Mayor Hall.

.0935

Her Worship Mayor Barbara Hall (City of Toronto): It's a great pleasure to be here to address you on a major national issue. I appear before the committee to support Bill C-68 in its present form, and I congratulate Minister Allan Rock and the Government of Canada for bringing this legislation forward.

I'm the mayor of Toronto, a city with a population of approximately 650,000. The position in support of Bill C-68 is supported by all the mayors of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. Together we represent 2.2 million Canadians in the Toronto area. In addition, a motion in support of Bill C-68 and effective gun control was unanimously adopted at a meeting of the big city mayors caucus of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities last week in Montreal.

My submission to the committee includes a joint declaration from the big city mayors meeting as well as the joint proclamation signed two days ago by all Metro Toronto mayors and the chief of police of Metro Toronto, David Boothby. As the chairman indicated, a letter from Mayor Philip Owen of Vancouver is also included.

In addition to appearing before you as a municipal leader, I bring some other perspectives. I've worked for many years as a street worker, a youth worker and a community worker. As well, I practised criminal law in the City of Toronto. I worked as a probation officer in a large American city.

As a city councillor I was one of the creators of the City of Toronto Safe City Committee, an organization that has become a world-wide model for community safety initiatives in the urban environment. Building safe urban communities is one of the reasons I became involved in politics. Perhaps my activism was galvanized by personal experience - two personal experiences of being robbed at gunpoint several years ago.

The federal government fundamentally concerns itself with the well-being of the nation. The institution I represent fundamentally concerns itself with health and well-being at the local community level. With the support of my colleagues from across the country, I appear before you to deliver a strong message. This proposed firearms control legislation must be passed in its present form to increase the health and safety of our communities.

Among the numerous issues we deal with at the municipal level are two areas directly connected to the issue of gun control: policing and public health. You have heard from organizations that represent both these areas. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Public Health Association strongly support the legislation in its present form. I hope you are impressed that the two professional organizations in our society that are responsible for the health and safety of communities across Canada have told you that this legislation would be valuable to them in meeting their objectives. It's obvious from their positions that Bill C-68 will make our country safer and healthier.

I wish to be clear that I'm not here as a voice from the front lines of urban decay. My position in support of Bill C-68 is not based on the notion that we've lost control of our inner cities to armed criminal elements. In fact the contrary is true. The city of Toronto is one of the safest communities in North America. But the fact is that firearms death rates tend to parallel firearms ownership rates. Provinces with higher rates of gun ownership - Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta - have higher gun deaths and injury rates than Ontario. There's also evidence that shows that northern Ontario has a higher gun death and injury rate than the more urban and populated regions of southern Ontario.

However, this is not to imply that Toronto is without problems. Even though the per capita rates of crime and violence are relatively low in our city, there is more random violence. This has led to a growing fear that has become prevalent.

.0940

Crime and violence were two of the most important issues in last year's municipal campaign in our city and an issue constantly on the minds of people in the city and right across the country. I consistently approach this issue by outlining two ways to control urban crime and violence. One way is often called the law-and-order approach. The other way is to address the root causes of the issue.

The first approach, law and order, is often heard advanced in the wake of a crisis or by politicians at election time. I agree that strong law enforcement is vital to the safety of a community. As mayor of Toronto, I also sit on the regional council, where we recently went through our budget process - a tough process, as you well know. Despite declining revenues, which all levels of government are experiencing, we increased the police budget. I felt it was important to show support and give real support to our police force and our new chief, who has just initiated a progressive community policing program. Police and law enforcement are one of the vital components to maintaining safe and healthy communities.

However, to consider stricter enforcement as all that is required to combat violence and crime is a narrow view. Another vital component is to target root causes of crime and violence: systemic disadvantage, illiteracy, blocked opportunities to education, neglect, discrimination, drugs, and access to weapons of violence. Measures that restrict the availability of firearms must be seen as part of a comprehensive violence prevention strategy.

Although Toronto is a very safe city, there has been a significant rise in the fear of crime in our city. The eroding confidence in our city's safety is developing into a self-fulfilling prophecy. As less people venture onto our streets because of fear, our streets become less inhabited and less safe. Our low crime rate and relatively safe urban environment are a large contributor to the consistent ranking of Toronto by the UN, publications such as Forbes Magazine, and a Geneva-based institute, as one of the best cities in the world in which to live and work. Toronto is an attraction for investment from around the world that benefits this nation. I intend to see that we maintain the high quality of life that makes us a world centre for growth and opportunity.

Firearms restrictions as outlined in Bill C-68, along with other investments in our community, will ensure a more sustainable, safer urban environment.

Clearly, access to firearms is only part of the problem. Restrictions alone on firearms will not solve the problem of crime and violence in our communities. But it is a significant part of the solution.

This committee has been told by law-enforcement professionals that this legislation will make our country safer. This committee has been told by public health officials that this legislation will make our country healthier. I am telling you today that this legislation will improve the well-being of communities across the country.

To oppose Bill C-68, in light of the opinion of experts, seems to defy any rational consideration of the issue and the legislation. The moderate inconvenience that will occur as a result of this legislation is small in comparison to the overwhelming benefits that will be derived.

.0945

Any group or individual that attempts to equate the inconvenience with the benefits, or even tries to claim they outweigh the benefits, is distorting the facts. The provisions of this legislation do not unreasonably infringe upon any rights of private property, nor do they curtail any of the fundamental rights we all enjoy under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I am aware that the majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens. I wish to impress upon the committee that the $12 per year registration fee anticipated by this legislation is a fair and necessary trade-off to preserve the high quality of life in Canada.

As mayor of one of the largest communities in the country, I ask that you support Bill C-68 in its present form. As a Canadian who feels passionately about maintaining the high quality of life we are privileged to have in this country, and as an individual who has devoted a great deal of her life to building safe and healthy communities, I implore you to take this opportunity to make our lives better, to support Bill C-68 in its present form.

The Chair: Thank you, Mayor Hall.

[Translation]

Now I'd like to ask Mr. Côté, city councillor for the City of Montreal, where I hail from, to make his introductory comments on behalf of the mayor of Montreal. Mr. Côté.

Mr. Robert Côté (City councillor, City of Montreal): Ladies and gentlemen, members of the Committee, on behalf of the City of Montreal, I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for this opportunity to lend our support to the gun control legislation introduced by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Mr. Allan Rock. As was pointed out again, last Friday, April 28 at the Big City Mayors' Caucus, safety in Canada depends on how safe its cities are.

More and more nowadays, we are witness to senseless shooting in our cities. The victims suffer greatly and also, many ordinary people are left quite frightened and with the feeling they are not safe. This sense of fear is not just a matter of public safety, but also of public health.

The proliferation of firearms threatens the health and safety of our cities. Crime, violence and a sense of insecurity are good indicators of how a city is doing. Its development is affected as is its economic and social well-being, with the result that people are afraid to walk outside in their own neighbourhood, public areas are deserted and the elderly are isolated.

If we are to have safer cities, we need an effective strategy to prevent violence which means we need to limit and control firearms in this country. It is the responsibility of municipal governments to do all they can to ensure that their cities are safe to live in.

Supporting Bill C-68 is above all a societal choice: the choice we make to live safely in our cities and to make safety a right rather than a privilege. Owning a gun is a privilege and as such, it entails responsibility.

Easy access to firearms is a threat to individual and collective safety.

In Quebec, at least one person is shot to death every day, for a total of 420 deaths each year.

.0950

In comparitive terms, there are about 211 million firearms in the United States, about 1 per person. It costs $1 billion a year to treat the victims of gunshot wounds and $14 billion to deal with their disabilities.

Clearly, this is something Canadians want to avoid. However, relatively speaking, if we are not careful, we might one day end up in the same situation. It is estimated that there are about 7 million firearms in Canada. As the mayor of Toronto, Mrs. Barbara Hall, so rightly put it when she addressed the Big City Mayors' Caucus last Friday in Montreal, the mere fact that we know there are 7 million guns in this country is reason enough to bring in better controls.

While many people think they are safer if they own a gun, the public is becoming less and less tolerant of violence. The provisions of Bill C-68 provide us with a balance between the legitimate needs of those who use firearms - I'm thinking in particular of farmers, hunters and native communities - and the protection of the general public.

The City of Montreal supports the proposed firearms and ownership registration system. There can be no prevention without the proper controls and no proper controls without information. Firearms registration is the cornerstone of any effective crime prevention strategy and thus, of the proposed legislation.

The new system will make gun owners more aware of their responsibilities. The City of Montreal believes that many murders, suicides and accidents could be prevented if gun owners were made responsible for proper storage and use of their weapons. Right now, we have no way of knowing how many guns a person owns or where or how these firearms are kept.

Every year, 3,000 firearms are lost or stolen in this country and many end up in the hands of criminals. In Quebec alone, 12,850 thefts were reported in 1992, 4,329 of which involved a gun. In 1993, 2,221 armed robberies were reported in the Montreal Urban Community.

Since 1988, Century International Arms of Saint-Laurent, a firearms and ammunitions import and export business has notified the Montreal Police Department of 26 incidents involving the loss or theft of 1,545 firearms.

Just as with car registration, a firearms registration system will help control theft. As we have already stated, owning a gun is a privilege which entails responsibilities. We believe that gun owners must become more aware of their responsibilities and more accountable, if we are to have an effective gun control system.

.0955

Firearms will not be as readily accessible once gun owners are made responsible for their safe storage.

But this responsibility implies a legal link between owners and their firearms for as long as they have them. Without a registration system it is impossible to keep track of guns been passed from one owner to the next.

The link is the proposed registration system which will also make gun owners more accountable. As a result, public health and safety will improve in our cities.

We also feel that the public will be better protected. Protection depends on prevention and prevention on tighter controls.

Easy access to a firearm is often a determining factor in many murders as well as crimes of passion or committed on impulse, accidents and suicides.

In Canada, firearms are responsible for the death of 1,400 people every year. Eighty percent commit suicide, 15% are murdered and 5% of deaths are accidental.

The City of Montreal believes that gun registration will help prevent these deaths. Our streets will be safer, just as our highways became safer when speed limits were imposed.

Registration will mean better control of the circulation of guns in Canada and will help reduce the illegal sale of guns and ammunition. The enforcement and prosecution process will improve. There will be fewer guns in our homes.

Recommendation number 1.

The City of Montreal supports a national registration system for all firearms and gun owners and recommends that the federal government bring in a comprehensive system by the end of its mandate. Non-compliance should remain a criminal offence. The registration system should be self-financing through fees paid by gun owners. The cost should not be shifted onto municipal police forces.

The criminal use of firearms cannot be tolerated. Stiff minimum sentences are necessary to ensure compliance and should reflect the notion that our society condemns violence and violence with firearms. No one convicted of committing a crime with a gun should ever be allowed to carry one again.

Recommendation number 2.

We support compulsory minimum sentences for serious crimes and for a series of new offences. We also recommend that the federal government amend the bill to ensure that lifetime prohibition orders are issued against individuals convicted of committing a crime with a firearm.

We also support the government's plan to prohibit certain categories of paramilitary and assault weapons.

.1000

As clearly stated in the joint statement on firearms by the Big City Mayors' Caucus held in Montreal last Friday, many firearms currently sold legally in Canada were designed for military use.

However, as long as other countries continue to authorize the sale and possession of these weapons, Canada will be vulnerable to illegal imports.

Recommendation number 3.

We recommend to the federal government that anti-smuggling measures be part of an international effort. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Côté. We will now proceed with the first round of questions, 10 minutes per party. After that, members will have 5 minutes each. I will begin with Mrs. Venne.

Mrs. Venne (Saint-Hubert): Mr. Chairman, I'll let Mr. de Savoye and Mr. Daviault use my time.

The Chair: Fine. Mr. de Savoye, you have 10 minutes.

Mr. de Savoye (Portneuf): Thank you, Mrs. Hall and Mr. Côté, for you excellent presentation.

You have discussed important issues which for several years now, have become foremost in the minds of people living in large cities. Obviously, we all hope that this legislation will bring down violence, accidents, loss of life and crimes committed with firearms.

My concern - shared, I'm sure, by my colleagues here today - is to make sure that this bill will indeed be effective and that its provisions are appropriate and well balanced.

I will preface my questions with a few thoughts about which I'm sure you will have something to say.

Even ordinary people who register their guns can go crazy. In Beauce, there was recently the terrible case of a man who killed his daughter and then committed suicide. He shot the police officer who came to calm him down. The officer new the man had a gun since he had returned it to him five years earlier, after the man had received a suspension.

You say that a firearms registration system will reduce domestic violence and also crime rates, in general. However, we all know that criminals don't bother registering their guns. Let me ask you a few questions.

My questions are for Mrs. Hall and Mr. Côté. You may answer them in the order you choose.

Mrs. Hall, you say:

[English]

that Bill C-68 will improve the well-being of communities across the country.

[Translation]

Can you tell me just how this will reduce domestic violence and crime, given what I have just said.

Mr. Côté, you said that registration will reduce the number of guns in our homes. How so? I do not really see the cause-effect relationship here.

Mr. Côté, you conclude, in your first recommendation, that failure to register guns should be a criminal offence. Earlier you argued that speed limits on our highways have reduced accidents. However, I'm sure you would agree with me that it would be pushing it somewhat to say that anyone who has gone over the speed limit is a criminal. Those are my thoughts, and I'm sure you'll have some comments for me.

.1005

[English]

The Chair: Mr. de Savoye has put several questions to both of you. I hope he leaves enough time for his colleague Mr. Daviault. So you can answer the questions in turn.

Ms Hall: Firstly, you referred to the tragic situation of a few days ago where the police chief was aware that the individual had owned guns in the past. Clearly, this legislation will not solve every problem related to guns. How will it reduce the safety in neighbourhoods? I think there are a number of ways.

First, I believe this will reduce the number of guns in our communities. People who own guns, but aren't using them - they've inherited them or they bought them and used them some time ago and no longer do, and they're just lying around. I believe many of those people will turn in their guns or get rid of them. If the guns are not important to them, they'll take them out of circulation.

I believe other people will take a greater level of responsibility for their guns. Just the conscious process of going through the registering and knowing that the world knows officially that they own a gun will cause people to think more carefully about them.

I think guns laying around often end up being used in violent situations just because of their mere availability. In domestic situations, in other situations, often involving alcohol, where people might have, in other days, received a black eye or a broken nose, if there's a gun available, people end up being killed. Guns laying around houses, not being properly stored, end up being stolen in break-and-enter incidents...and end up committing offences.

So those are a number of ways that I believe this legislation and the requirement for registration will make a difference. Police will know in more situations when they answer calls that there is a good probability of certain weapons being there.

The issue of sentencing, which is included in this legislation, will ensure and certainly send a very strong message to those involved in criminal activity that if they are involved in an offence with a gun, they will get a mandatory sentence. That's a very unusual provision in our criminal legislation. There are very few crimes with mandatory sentences. I think we've seen the impact that it has had in areas such as impaired driving, and I think we will see an impact in this area with the criminals, who, I agree, will not go and register their guns. We need to find other ways to address the issue of them.

[Translation]

Mr. Côté: In response to the member's first question, regarding how crime could be reduced through gun control, I should say that, before I entered municipal politics, I had been a policeman in Montreal for 31 years, and that I had been in charge for 14 of those years of the technical section, the SWAT team. I think therefore I have probably seen more bodies than all of the people here today in the course of my 30 years in the police force. The saddest situations were those involving domestic violence or children getting hold of a gun with tragic results.

It is clear that, in many homes in Canada, there are weapons which no longer serve any purpose. People who will not be using them or have not used them for a very long time might, under the new legislation, be encouraged to get rid of them.

In response to your question on criminalization, I am convinced that the bill must have teeth if it is adopted. I believe in the justice system and I trust the judgement of the police.

Earlier on, you were drawing a parallel with speeding. I made the trip from Montreal this morning in two and a half hours. Maybe I was driving over the speed limit at times, but we can make allowances for this sort of thing.

.1010

The Chair: [Inaudible]

Mr. Côté: The police, however, have some discretionary powers, and it is often quite common as well for judges, in particular instances, to impose a suspended sentence, parole or even no sentence. Personally, I think that we must proceed with the recommendation, however harsh it may appear, that possession be criminalized and leave it up to the judges to do their job.

The Chair: You only have a minute left, unless you would prefer to wait for the second round.

Mr. Daviault (Ahuntsic): I will try to be brief. Ms Hall, Mr. Côté... I am pleased to seeMr. Côté, who represents my city.

With regard to registration, your brief mentions gun control in terms of criminality. Currently, in the course of the debate, we are talking about the sporting aspect of guns. There is opposition from hunters, who may be found in large numbers as well in our major cities. I am wondering how much your brief reflects their concerns, particularly with regard to registration.

You were talking earlier about speeding - and you said you are guilty yourself - and of the fact that registration would lead to greater compliance with the law. To my knowledge, speeding is not a criminal offence. I think we should direct the legal system. You want us to leave that decision up to the legal system, but we think it would be preferable, in the case of a first offence, to indicate a penalty that is less harsh than criminalization. In any case, I hope you have taken the many hunters in the City of Montreal into account in your recommendations.

Mr. Côté: Yes, but I don't see how gun control would affect the sport of hunting, if it may be called a sport. Guns or rifles would be registered. Nobody wants to stop hunters from hunting, but they would be using registered weapons and it would be up to them to ensure that their weapons were registered. The more the law is applied severely, the more effective the encouragement will be.

[English]

The Chair: Mayor Hall, did you have something to add?

Ms Hall: Yes, just briefly.

The fact that somebody is just charged for the first time is no guarantee they are going to use the gun for legal purposes. Of course we could think of situations where somebody owns a gun and intends to use it in a totally legal way and has not registered it. But we could also have situations of people who own guns who intend to use them in totally illegal ways. I think if you say the first time, you don't distinguish between those two situations.

I agree with Mr. Côté that there is a discretionary aspect in the laying of charges with respect to every offence in the Criminal Code. I believe in the vast majority of situations that we're well served by the men and women in our police forces across the country in exercising that jurisdiction in appropriate ways. They have with other legislation and they would in this.

The Chair: Mr. Ramsay, for 10 minutes.

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

Mayor Côté and Mayor Hall, thank you very much for your presentations.

.1015

Mayor Hall, in your presentation you stated that the moderate inconvenience that will occur as a result of this legislation is small in comparison to the overwhelming benefits that will be derived. Any group or individual that attempts to equate the inconvenience with the benefits or even try to claim that they outweigh the benefits is distorting the facts.

I have some resolutions from some of your colleagues. I have a list here and on that list, there is the Township of Christie, which opposes this bill, the Township of North Shore, the Township of Walford, the Township of Thorold -

The Chair: Mr. Ramsay, what province are these in in, since I am not familiar with -

Mr. Ramsay: I believe these are all in Ontario.

There is another list - there is a note on the top here, ``Twenty-four Ontario townships against Bill C-68'' and there they are: the Township of Crosby, the Township of Malden, Township of Ernestown and on it goes.

In this package, there are approximately 200 resolutions from municipalities across Canada that are opposed to Bill C-68, in whole or in part. In addition to that, we have had at least six groups appear before our committee that have indicated an economic impact, wishing exemptions from this bill because of it. The Northwest Territories' justice minister appeared with his colleagues and gave, I think, a very common-sense presentation to this committee as to why the registration features of this bill, the licensing of owners of guns and other aspects of the bill, are simply inappropriate for people living in the vast regions of northern Canada.

We had representatives from the agricultural community, representing farmers and ranchers. It was a national organization; they want exemption. We had the guides and outfitters in, who are telling us that if this bill goes through, it could destroy their business. If they have a 20% reduction in their business, it means that some of them will have to close down.

The guides and outfitters organization is found all across Canada, from British Columbia right across to the eastern coast, where they are in the flyways for the ducks and the geese and the Americans come north to participate in that. They rely upon this business in order to exist.

We had representation from the museums, who are asking for exemptions, that everything is working fine now with them and they don't want the imposition of this bill upon them.

We had the collectors of firearms in here expressing concerns similar to those of the museum people; people representing the re-enactors, those people who re-enact historical events. One chap was horrified to think that he might have to insert a serial number on these old and ancient muskets. If I remember right, he equated that to putting some sort of mark at the bottom of the Mona Lisa.

We had manufacturers of firearms, two companies in Canada -

Mr. Lee (Scarborough - Rouge River): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, what I'm hearing is a recap of the witness list and some of their presentations from Mr. Ramsay. Our witnesses have come to offer some evidence. They will have an opportunity to read the submissions of those witnesses, but I'm wondering if we're getting to questions or whether this is a nine-minute question.

The Chair: That's not a legitimate point of order. Mr. Ramsay can use his time as he sees fit.

Mr. Lee: Mr. Chairman, I make the point for the benefit of the witnesses.

The Chair: I realize that, but Mr. Ramsay - I think he has the right -

Mr. Lee: To ask a long question.

The Chair: I think he wants to get the opinion of the witnesses with respect to these other witnesses and that's legitimate.

Mr. Ramsay: So, in view of your statement that any group or individual that attempts to equate the inconvenience of Bill C-68 with the benefits - or even tries to claim that they outweigh the benefits - is distorting the facts. In light of the presentations that we've heard from these groups, I don't know if that's a fair comment. Do you feel that's fair?

.1020

Ms Hall: I do. I believe to say those two things balance is a distortion of, one, inconvenience, and, two, the benefit. I believe that strongly.

I'm aware that in the many municipalities in this country there are those who are in opposition to this legislation. I'm involved, and have been for many years, in the issue of violence against women and the provision of services and facilities for women who have experienced violence in their homes. At national meetings around this issue, I've heard that women from rural areas and the north experience violence frequently within their homes, and it often involves guns.

You've spoken of the economic impact. The belief that this would destroy people coming to this country to hunt...although in some cases some people may not come, I believe that many people enjoy coming to this country. They choose to come to this country for a whole range of activities because of the safety in this country. I know many people on vacation come here as a refuge from other places because they like to be able to move around our country without the danger that's associated with the proliferation of guns to the south of here.

Mona Lisa does not kill people. Guns do. I think to equate the registration of guns with putting a line across the bottom of the Mona Lisa...I view that as a distortion of facts.

Mr. Ramsay: Before I was cut off by Mr. Lee on his point of order, I was going to add that the two manufacturers of firearms in Canada that appeared before the committee indicate that if this bill goes through, all their employees will have to obtain a licence to handle those firearms or parts of those firearms, which are all defined as firearms. Even a part of a firearm is defined as a firearm under the code. These manufacturers will have to shut down. So we're looking at job losses. We're looking at putting people out of work, not only in the guiding and outfitting business but in this particular area as well.

Are you aware of those ramifications contained within Bill C-68?

Ms Hall: Personally, I believe there are many requirements - of a whole range of jobs - that one would be required to obtain registration. I do not see the necessity of obtaining a registration as being something that would require a business to be shut down. There are many situations in which people, such as truck drivers, have to obtain a certain kind of licence to drive a certain vehicle. There are other health and safety requirements of various jobs that require licences, registration or training programs.

.1025

I understand that many people would prefer not to have to register things. I ride a bicycle and like to ride without a helmet. There will soon be legislation in Ontario that will require me to wear a helmet. I know that for my health it's better for me to wear a helmet. I'll grumble a bit, yes, but I will put the helmet on when I ride my bike. There are many things within our society that require us to do that.

I believe that when people say they are going to close our industry, they're saying that because they don't wish to do it. But I would be happy to talk with you after the legislation is in place. I am sure, Mr. Ramsay, that we would see that those industries would continue and they in fact would have their employees meet the requirements of the legislation.

Mr. Lee: Mayor Hall and Councillor Côté, you've had an opportunity to review the bill in some depth before coming here, and I think you speak for other municipalities - certainly not all, but the large cities in Canada. I'd like to probe a bit deeper the ways in which you think the current bill will make your cities safer. You've mentioned that the bill may take some orphan or unwanted guns out of attics, out of basements, off the street, etc. In what other ways do you see the bill enhancing safety in your cities?

Mr. Côté: In the transfer of ownership of firearms, which is not really controlled, although there are some forms to be filled out at this time, but as a former policeman I know that it is not completely foolproof. With this legislation it would be much more difficult to illegally give or sell or transfer a firearm. This is one major aspect of the legislation.

The disagreements this will cause, in my view, will only be temporary. I like to associate these with what we went through when seat-belts were introduced in Quebec or when breathalyser tests became more frequent. The industry was up in arms because the bars said they were going to go bankrupt, and so on. It was just a temporary period after which we realized that the seat-belts made driving safer and that the breathalyser tests made the roads safer.

Ms Hall: A number of ways...the whole issue of mandatory minimum sentencing, the ban on certain guns, handguns, I think better storage or more responsible use of guns by legal users, which then means they're not lying around to be stolen, the lack of availability in domestic violent situations, the lack of availability for youth who too often use them for suicide.

Mr. Lee: That's a good list. Is it the intention of either of you, speaking for your municipalities, to take guns that are legally owned by law-abiding, legal owners now? Is it your intention to remove guns from those owners in your cities?

Ms Hall: Absolutely not. I think that is a myth. I have received letters and phone calls from people objecting to my position on this legislation. When possible I try to phone them back or talk with them personally. I often find that it's a misconception they have been given that somebody is going to come and take their guns. In fact, that's not the intent of the legislation. For collectors, the provision of the grandfathering clause and the permission to trade and things like that would say very clearly this is not about seizing.

.1030

Mr. Lee: In each of your cities and in other cities across Canada there are institutions like museums that have firearms, a lot of them pretty old, but some of them not so old. Do you view these museums as being part of the existing urban firearm problem?

Ms Hall: No.

Mr. Lee: Councillor Côté?

Mr. Côté: In Montreal, we certainly have no intention whatsoever of taking away legally owned weapons, firearms, registered under Bill C-68.

As for museums, I have belonged to the Lower Canada Gun Collectors Association for many years. I belong to two officers messes, where we have a nice collection of military weapons safely stored according to National Defence regulations. I don't see Bill C-68 as an undue pressure on museums or a group of collectors. It will only be a change of habit. We would conform to the law and, after a certain time, it will be simply routine. There is no intention whatsoever of taking any weapons from collectors or museums in Montreal.

Mr. Lee: If we had submissions from museums or collectors or businesses, all legal and carrying on their businesses and museum operations carefully and properly now, and if we had submissions that said this bill is going to make it economically more difficult, sometimes impossible, would you accept modifications to this legislation to facilitate that, provided it was in keeping with the spirit of the bill?

Mr. Côté: In my experience as a collector, I don't see what added cost this represents, except of course for the locks, which is already in law -

Mr. Lee: As an example, Councillor Côté, the museums pointed out that the way the bill is currently worded, everybody who hangs out in the room in the museum where the firearms are is going to have to be licensed - the glass cleaner, the locksmith, whatever, the employees of the institution. You have fees and registrations running into the thousands of dollars and training courses for the cleaner who comes in at night. It gets a little absurd, but those are the kinds of things they were thinking of.

Mr. Côté: It will be a temporary inconvenience, I agree, but it has to be done.

Mr. Lee: To licence the cleaner?

Mr. Côté: No, maybe not go that far, but the added security already exists in the military museum. It will be nothing new for them.

Mr. Lee: Mayor Hall.

Ms Hall: I would think that those items might be dealt with through regulations or a narrowly drafted amendment. I certainly think it is an example of something taken to an extreme that nobody would have expected the legislation to do.

Mr. Lee: I have a sense that long guns have never been the real problem in the urban centres, that it is really the handguns. Would you agree with that, Mayor Hall?

Ms Hall: Well, two days ago at a meeting where this joint proclamation was signed by the Chief of Police of Metro Toronto, he said very strongly that long guns are a problem, either sawed-off shotguns or other long guns. I don't have those statistics, but I would be happy to send them to the committee. In fact, they are a significant problem within Metropolitan Toronto, and it was the chief who indicated that.

.1035

Mr. Côté: Handguns are more often used in bank hold-ups, dépanneur hold-ups, crimes committed by young criminals, and very likely because handguns are quite easy to obtain on the black market. In the Journal de Montréal this morning there's a picture of four or five handguns that were seized just last night in a motorcycle gang war. Handguns are already the object of some regulation, but we are considering more. At this time, the consideration is of licensing of long or shoulder weapons, rifles and shotguns, which at this time are not tightly enough controlled.

The Chair: I just want to point out that according to Stats Canada justice statistics, in Canada long guns are used in homicides to a much greater percentage than handguns, even in the big cities. We have those statistics available.

Before I go to the Bloc Québécois again, I want a clarification. Would you tell us who are the members of the big city caucus of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities? Mr. Ramsay gave you a list of a number of municipalities who oppose the bill. You have a resolution attached to your brief from the big city mayors' caucus. If it's not going to take too much time, could you tell us who are in the big city mayors' caucus as part of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities?

Ms Hall: It is mayors of cities with populations over 100,000. The meeting in Montreal at which this resolution was adopted - and I'm going from memory, so I may leave some out, but I can send you a listing. The mayors were from the cities of Quebec City, Montreal, Toronto, London, Hamilton, Mississauga, Vancouver, Chilliwack, B.C., Surrey, B.C., Regina, and a representative of the mayor of Calgary.

The Chair: I think you've given us an idea. It's cities over 100,000. But I think we'd be pleased to receive that list, so we know what we're talking about. Obviously there are some mayors in some other smaller municipalities who are opposed. So if you would send that to the clerk, we'll distribute it.

Ms Hall: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mrs. Venne or Mr. de Savoye. Mrs. Venne you have five minutes.

Mrs. Venne: Good morning, Ms Hall, Mr. Côté. First, I would like to mention that I participated, last year, in the enquiry of Coroner Anne-Marie David on the safe storage of firearms and we realized at that time, that police officers admit being poorly informed about the current regulations on the safe storage of firearms.

This situation prevailed all over Quebec and I suppose it is the same in other provinces.

Given what we found, the fact that police officers were not aware of the regulations that should be implemented, I would like to know if, this time, you intend to give a proper training to these officers? What steps will you take to make sure they really know the new legislation and the new related regulations? We can pass all the legislation we want, if police officers cannot implement it, no progress whatsoever has been made.

.1040

I ask our two witnesses.

Mr. Côté: I know about the inquest of coroner Anne-Marie David on one specific aspect of the regulations, that is the storage and transportation of firearms.

Her inquest covered all of Quebec and it is a fact that overall, police officers had some difficulty understanding the regulations. I must say, however, that these regulations have been modified on several occasions and maybe the officers have not been properly informed of the amendments.

Obviously, I can only speak for the region of Montreal, the CUM, the Communauté urbaine de Montréal where training programs give us the opportunity to quickly and efficiently inform police officers of any modification or amendment to the law, through the use of videos or printed documents or through any other means.

I can tell you, Mrs. Venne, that the Chief of Police of the CUM, my good friendMr. Duchesneau, firmly believes in Bill C-68. He assured the City of Montreal that he would take all necessary steps to properly inform police officers of any change in the legislation.

[English]

Ms Hall: In terms of the specific steps that I would take, partially - and I thank you for the question because it has just flagged some things for me that I need to do when I go home - first, I would ask for a report from the police services board and the chief of police within Metropolitan Toronto on the steps that they will take to ensure the education of officers with respect to this legislation. As a result of your having raised the issue, I will put a motion at the national conference of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which does have representation from all municipalities, big and small, across the country, at the conference this June, recommending that every council in the country do something similar in terms of following up on the training related to this legislation with their police departments.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: I have a question on crossbows. I would like to know if they present a problem, according to you. This question may seem a bit naive but the bill deals with the use of crossbows. From now on, to own a crossbow, one will have to obtain a license and I also think the crossbow will have to be registered. Am I right?

The Chair: No.

Mrs. Venne: O.K. So, only the license will be required. A mandatory license for the possession of a crossbow is something akin to harassment, according to me. I would like to know if you think this is important or meaningless.

Mr. Côté: I agree that crimes committed with a crossbow are rare enough. I witnessed two or three cases only during my 31 years as a police officer, and I must add that I was part of the special section in charge of all incidents related to the use of weapons.

However, I do think it would be wise to include crossbows in the bill because, if crossbow shooting as a sport becomes more popular, we will not have to amend the legislation to deal with a new situation in two or three years. It is better to include right away in the bill all types of weapons that have been used in the past and could once again be used, even though the number of cases involving such weapons was very low.

.1045

[English]

Ms Hall: I believe they should be included.

I don't understand the strong objection to registration. In terms of the negative things these weapons can do, registration to me, compared to death, seems like such a small response. I know that in the city of Ottawa a year or so ago a young woman lawyer was murdered with a crossbow.

I used to fence, as a sport, and if somebody had said that I had to register the sabres I used in that sport because that weapon could or had been used to kill people, I would have thought it was a reasonable and minor price to pay for the privilege of being able to use that weapon in a legal manner.

Ms Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): We've had a lot of suggestions from different parties that registration could be done regionally, that we could have the Cities of Toronto and Montreal do registration, and if other places don't want to do it they don't have to do it. What do you think about that?

Ms Hall: I think that would be a major mistake. I said that I spoke to you as a Canadian. I'm somebody who was born in Ottawa. Because my father was a career military person, I moved back and forth across this country. Many Canadians move around this country, and I think we have a tradition of safety throughout the country. I would not like to see that we attempted to create a safe zone within the city of Toronto but that when I left those boundaries, although still in a part of this country, I would be moving into an area where there was no control over guns.

I think, however, there are ways, through the implementation of a registration system, to deal with regional differences. I know that in the city of Toronto, if we're implementing something in a part of the city where another language is predominantly spoken or there's a cultural group other than the mainstream, we tailor our education programs, and particularly initially with new legislation we go out in the evenings or on weekends and find ways to educate and facilitate the registration. I felt the same way reading about the north, that it could be done there.

Mr. Côté: In my view there can only be one law that applies all across our great country. For a question of efficiency, if we consider the high rate of travel from one province to another, it would be administratively difficult to apply the law if it were not on a national scale.

Ms Phinney: On page 7, the last paragraph of your presentation, you suggested that there be a lifetime prohibition order.

Mr. Côté: Yes, and we're very serious about how serious a recommendation this is. There have been so many incidents in our area. Earlier there was a reference to the tragic incident in Sainte-Marie-Beauce. If there had been a lifetime prohibition order, that might not have happened. I think last week's event simply strengthens our position on prohibition orders.

[Translation]

Ms Phinney: Mr. Côté, on page 7, in the last paragraph of your presentation, you suggested that there be a lifetime prohibition order.

Mr. Côté: Yes. We are very much aware of the serious nature of that suggestion. There again, so many incidents happened in our area. Earlier, there was a reference to the tragic incident that happened in Sainte-Marie-de-Beauce. If there had been a lifetime prohibition order, that might not have happened. I think last week's incident simply strengthens our position in that regard.

Ms Phinney: Thank you.

The Chair: Ms Meredith, you have five minutes.

[English]

Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): I'm please to see that you are talking somewhat on part III of this bill, but I guess it concerns me, as it has in many of our other discussions, that part III, which is the sentencing and penalties for the criminal use of firearms seems to get lost in the discussion of registration.

.1050

You both mentioned domestic situations and conjugal violence. I find that this bill separated the 10 most serious offences and the lesser offences. Looking at this, I don't feel this is sending any kind of message to the criminals that they don't have already. I don't see that this is going to make any difference, that there aren't any significant changes in how we deal with the criminal use of firearms in this particular piece of legislation.

You mentioned domestic violence. In my part of the country the average sentence for manslaughter in domestic situations is four years. With the use of a gun it's going to be four years. I don't see that as sending any strong message. Do you feel that sentencing is going to send a strong message when you are giving for the lesser offences a summary conviction as an option, where a person can get a fine? It's not a consecutive four-year sentence. For that kind of an offence, the 10 most serious - a sexual assault using a firearm - it's not an additional four years; it's a four-year minimum sentence. Do you feel that this bill deals strongly enough with the criminal use of firearms, or do you feel that there should be some amendments?

I want to ask a second question. With the addition of replica in this particular piece of legislation, in my discussions with the chiefs of police and the police association yesterday, I got an acknowledgement that this piece of legislation will not change the situation. It is still up to the Crown to prove that it was an actual firearm or that it was an actual replica. So it is only if the Crown chooses to do something with this legislation, which is the way it is today.

In my community there was a shoot-out on a busy street between the police and an assailant. There were 34 charges laid, most of them firearm charges. Only two made it into the court and neither of those were firearm charges.

Under our present legislation we can do more than we are. I don't feel this legislation, even including replica, is going to make a difference. Would you please comment.

Mr. Côté: On page 7 of our brief we insist on having more severe minimal sentencing. Of course, it will be up to the judge to consider the circumstances, but it is a fact that we want more severe minimal sentences.

Ms Meredith: Do you feel amendments should be made to part III in this particular piece of legislation, that in its present form it doesn't go far enough?

Mr. Côté: We want some minimum sentences as part of the project.

Ms Meredith: Thank you.

Ms Hall: I think the inclusion of mandatory minimums in this legislation is extremely significant. I believe that will send a strong message. I think that excessive mandatory legislation can create problems. For example, I think of the previous only mandatory minimum, the seven years for importing drugs. Because that sentence was such a large one, judges spent a lot of time in the minor cases finding ways to get around it. I think a mandatory minimum of four years is a significant sentence and that judges will view that not as the upper limit but the minimum, and thus in cases where the facts are appropriate they will add on to that significantly.

Ms Meredith: So you feel -

The Chair: Your time is up. Are you finished your question?

Ms Meredith: Yes.

The Chair: You'll have a chance to come back, Ms Meredith. Mr. Bodnar.

.1055

Mr. Bodnar (Saskatoon - Dundurn): Mayor Hall, I don't disagree with your position on the fundamentals of the bill, but there's a portion in your presentation where you've indicated the provisions of the legislation do not infringe upon any rights with respect to private property, nor does it curtail any of the fundamental rights we all enjoy under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

That causes me some concern because we have the inspection provisions under the act, which state that the police officer can enter a premise other than a dwelling house just on reasonable grounds that there is a firearm - not reasonable and probable, no belief that there is an offence being committed, just to enter for inspection, and with a warrant for a dwelling house, but a warrant that doesn't indicate there are probable grounds of an offence being committed or any offence being committed in getting a warrant on minimal grounds.

As well, once the peace officer enters the premise, the peace officer can use any data processing system at the place to examine any data contained in or available to the system. It doesn't say related only to firearms. In other words, business and personal records can be looked at, and once those are taken, because a peace officer can take those records, then it says the peace officer, who takes a sample under that section, may dispose of it in any manner that he or she considers appropriate. This means throwing it in the garbage and making it available to anyone who picks up the garbage, or giving it to my competition.

As well, once in the premises, the owner or person in charge of the place that is inspected by the police officer and every person found in the place shall give the police officer all reasonable assistance to examine. So if I am visiting any person - I could be visiting my brother-in-law on the farm - and if the police officer comes to that premise, I have to help the police officer in fulfilling the requirements of this act when I don't know anything about that farm. Yet, there's a requirement of me as a citizen of this country to help that peace officer. Is that not infringing on my rights and the rights of people who are being searched?

Ms Hall: When I gave my presentation, I added the word ``unreasonable'', because clearly it does infringe. Any legislation that deals with private property infringes...so that should be added there.

In terms of the....

Mr. Bodnar: Clauses 98, 99, plus, and it goes on.

Ms Hall: The comment you made about an officer going in, subject to a warrant, and being able to inspect anything without it having to pertain to firearms....

Mr. Bodnar: That's paragraph 99(2)(a), ``use...any data processing system at the place to examine any data contained in''.

Ms Hall: It would not seem unreasonable to me to have some limit on that.

Mr. Bodnar: You would agree that there should be perhaps some limit placed on this?

Ms Hall: Related to the reason for which the search warrant had been obtained.

Mr. Bodnar: I see. Thank you.

.1100

The Chair: Mr. de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Judging by this piece of legislation and what you said this morning, we presume there is a cause-effect relationship between firearms registration and the reduction of accidents, deaths and crime related to firearms.

One may wonder if this cause-effect relationship is real or illusory. But let us presume that this relationship is basically true. Then, there should be no exception to registration. The various groups asking for such an exception should not get it. Madam Hall, you said:

[English]

I don't understand why there's strong resistance to registration.

[Translation]

Municipal police forces, among others, already enjoy such an exemption. Should I understand that they should not enjoy it? If they must be exempted, in what way are they different from firearm manufacturers, from museums, from organizations doing historical re-enactments and from natives using their firearms for their livelihood? I would like to understand what is your position. Should all the firearms be registered or not?

Mr. Côté: I think that all firearms should be registered. When you say that police forces already enjoy an exemption, you are no doubt talking about prohibited weapons, that is sub-machine-guns and tear gas. As far as I know, all the weapons used by the CUM police force are registered.

Mr. de Savoye: I am talking about the Firearms Registry provided for in Bill C-68.

Mr. Côté: When we say that all the weapons should be registered, we mean that all the weapons are registered.

[English]

Ms Hall: I agree.

Mr. de Savoye: What will be the cost of that registration to your city?

Ms Hall: I believe that the cost will be paid by a registration fee. Luckily, we live in an age of computerization that allows a system such as registration to occur without a lot of manual work. I believe the figures quoted by the minister of a cost of something in the neighbourhood of $60 over a five-year period are a cost that could be paid.

Mr. de Savoye: What I'm really addressing here is to the City of Toronto for its police force, what would be the cost of both registration and training for your police officers, if you do register under Bill C-68? Do you have to pay that registration fee?

Ms Hall: I believe the cost of that system would be recovered through the system itself, as we do with some other systems like a whole range of permitting and licensing provisions within the city of Toronto, where the registration fee is similar to the $60 that covers the cost of that registration.

Mr. de Savoye: I don't think you're understanding my question. Basically what I am asking is how many firearms do your police people have?

Ms Hall: Oh, I see.

Mr. de Savoye: Multiplying that by $10, what's the mass of money, plus the efforts to do that - fill in the form, check that everything is right - plus further training for your police people to comply under Bill C-68? If that doesn't apply, why should it apply to museums, which know their firearms much better than any trainer would, through the re-enactments people, who do have specific training and as a matter of fact are trainers themselves? I'm just trying to find out if you see yourself differently and why.

Ms Hall: I'm sorry, I misunderstood the question previously.

Mr. de Savoye: That's what I thought.

.1105

Ms Hall: I do not believe the cost to us would be significant, and overall I believe this legislation would save cities money. I believe within Metropolitan Toronto we already give extensive training on guns to police officers. I would not feel that adding this piece of legislation would significantly increase the cost of that.

The issue of safety of our police officers is an enormous issue to us. I believe that if there are fewer guns within our society, there will be fewer police officers, as well as citizens, being injured by guns, and there will be a saving for the local government as well as all levels of government, not to mention quality of life.

[Translation]

Mr. Wappel (Scarborough West): My first question is for Mr. Côté.

On page 7, first paragraph of your brief, you say:

People convicted of violent crimes committed with a firearm should be given a lifetime prohibition order.

In your second recommendation, you say:

...amend the provisions concerning the prohibition orders so that there is a lifetime prohibition order against any person guilty of committing a criminal offence with a firearm.

There is a big difference between ``violent crimes'' and ``a criminal offence''. What is exactly the position of the City of Montreal on that?

Mr. Côté: It might be a question of semantics. We want a lifetime prohibition order for any criminal offence committed with a firearm. I don't know of any offence of this type which is not violent. I think that the very fact of using a firearm is violent.

[English]

Mr. Wappel: There will be criminal offences provided for by this act involving firearms, which are technical in nature: failure to register, knowingly failing to register, unsafe storage. Are you suggesting that technical violations of the Criminal Code, which would result in a criminal conviction, should result in each and every case in a lifetime ban on the ownership of any firearm?

Mr. Côté: In the commission of a crime with that weapon, of course we'd argue on the possession. I admit -

Mr. Wappel: I don't wish to argue. I wish to know the position of the City of Montreal.

Mr. Côté: In this case I would prefer that we keep the word ``violent''.

Mr. Wappel: Mayor Hall, welcome. On page 10 of your submission, and I'm going to follow up a little on what Mr. Bodnar said, in the bottom paragraph you said:

The provisions of this legislation do not infringe upon any rights with respect to private property

And then he quoted about the Charter of Rights. Where do you wish us to insert the word ``unreasonable''?

Ms Hall: Do not unreasonably infringe upon....

Mr. Wappel: All right. Could you please turn to page 61 of Bill C-68. At the very top you will note that by the stroke of a pen this bill will prohibit, for the sake of argument, what we will call Saturday night specials.

There are many people in this country who currently own and legally and lawfully acquired handguns with a barrel length equal to or less than 105mm, firing .25 and .32 calibre cartridges. They've had them for many years; they're collectors, shooters, target shooters. They purchased them completely in good faith. They purchased them legally. They did everything required. Many of these people have never even had a parking ticket or a speeding ticket. At the stroke of a pen these firearms will be illegal. They will be prohibited. They will not be able to be used.

.1110

Forgetting for a moment any grandfathering provisions, this in effect takes away the private property of an individual without compensation. Do you consider that a reasonable infringement on private property?

Ms Hall: Yes, I do.

The Chair: For clarification, the law says they can be used for the purposes for which restricted arms can be used. So there is not a complete prohibition on their use.

Mr. Wappel: When it comes to grandfathering, when these people die, they will not be permitted to hand on any of these legally acquired and subsequently permitted pieces of their personal property by devolution to their heirs. Do you consider that a reasonable infringement on the right to private property?

Ms Hall: Yes, I do.

Mr. Wappel: You've already agreed that perhaps we should take another look at the search and seizure provisions because there may be something in there that might not be a reasonable infringement on fundamental rights. Is that correct? That's your evidence, isn't it?

Ms Hall: Yes.

Mr. Wappel: Thank you.

Mr. Thompson (Wild Rose): Mayor Hall, on page 7 you have a statement:

Another vital component is to target root causes of crime and violence:

I certainly agree with that and I think Canadians all across the country would agree with that. Violence is a serious problem. Around the city of Ottawa in the last year, in domestic disputes, there have been six women killed. Two were strangled, two were knifed, one was bludgeoned to death and one was shot. Probably even if that gun had been registered, they would have been shot anyway.

People have been saying to me, and to us, for the last year and a half, please do something about these dangerous, violent offenders. If you have a dangerous, violent offender, you shouldn't own a gun, forever. I agree with Mr. Côté and so do most Canadians.

What Canadians are saying, what law-abiding Canadians are saying, is why is there a document with the biggest majority of pages addressing the law-abiding Canadian when we are not the problem? We want to be part of the solution and let us help in these areas that you mentioned on page 7. Let us help and do all we can, but do not make us part of the problem because we are not. That's what they're saying.

As a final thing - and then I'd like your comments - one sergeant yesterday from a big rural area stated, as have many policemen I've talked to, that 90% of the examinations he does in forensics on the criminal use of firearms are long guns in the rural area of Saskatchewan. It's mostly rural. When I asked him whether in his view registration would stop the violent criminal use, his answer was no.

That's what's wrong with this registration part. Law-abiding Canadians feel like they're being pressured, that they are part of the problem when they really want to be part of the solution.

The Chair: I recall last night that Veitch from Saskatchewan said it would stop some crime, but not all of them. He didn't say it would not stop any, and it's on the record, I believe. I take notes on what is said.

You can still answer the question.

Ms Hall: I guess we all think we're not part of the problem until we are. I think, for example, back to being a probation officer and being a lawyer, where I was involved, either as a probation officer or a lawyer, in a number of cases involving guns that had, prior to the offence, been owned legally by people who intended to use them for legal purposes. It was part of the availability that caused them to be before the court.

So in the domestic situation, or the situation with the brothers or best friends playing cards and drinking too much, getting into an argument and grabbing the gun because it's there.... I agree that in all those situations this legislation will not prevent those tragedies from occurring. But I believe in some of them they will, and that's good enough for me.

.1115

Mr. Thompson: Do you not believe that money would be targeted...? Let's use the $85 million. If that kind of money was targeted on these very areas you mentioned on page 7, don't you believe that would have more of a major impact on our society? After all, most of these weapons are smuggled.

Ms Hall: I think we need to be working on all these fronts. My council certainly spends an enormous amount of time on the whole range of issues that are here. But I believe the proliferation of guns is a major issue.

I moved to the United States in the early 1970s and I moved back to Canada. One of the major reasons was related to guns and what that does to a society. Yes, handguns are part of that and we need to address that issue, but the chiefs of police and the statistics indicate that so-called long guns are also a part of the problem. I think registration is a small price to pay for reducing the number of guns and for raising the level of responsibility that their owners must take.

The Chair: Before I go to Ms Torsney, I would simply ask all members of the committee - and I've had this out with Mr. Thompson and Ms Meredith before - that when they say ``Canadians are telling us'' or ``telling me'', it is some Canadians or the Canadians of Wild Rose. Every timeMr. Thompson says that, I feel like blurting out that the Canadians in my city, my riding, are not telling me that. I guess it differs across the country. I think it's fair, since we're being televised, that we should not misrepresent views. I think it's fair for Mr. Thompson or Ms Torsney, or whoever, to say that the people in their riding are saying this to them or the people they talk to, but I think to give a suggestion that the majority of Canadians are saying these things to us is a misrepresentation. Where I am they are not saying many of the things they are saying to Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Thompson, on a point of order.

Mr. Thompson: I'm referring to not only the conversations I've had with people all across the country; I'm thinking of the 2.5 million signatures that are tabled in petitions from the victims of violence. I am saying that violence is a Canadian concern, and I don't take that back.

The Chair: No, but Madam Venne and I tabled petitions with 500,000 names supporting registration of guns. I wouldn't suggest that they speak for your area. All I'm saying is let us be careful on that, because I don't think we should mislead Canadians. We wouldn't pretend that what we collected in the greater Montreal area represents your riding, and we're all Canadians.

Mr. Ramsay: I object to the intervention. I think we have the right to represent the people who contact us, whether it's from our constituency -

The Chair: I agree with you.

Mr. Ramsay: Well, please let me finish. I think each member of this committee has the right to do that. I don't think your intervention is appropriate, and I want that objection on the record,Mr. Chairman.

If I am going to have my questioning of witnesses and my presentation here intervened by the chair each time we make this kind of a presentation...I don't think that's right, because we do represent the people who've contacted us, who are concerned about this issue. I think everyone on both sides of this issue should have that right. Those over here - and I would not for a moment condemn them or intervene against them for presenting the views that have been represented to them, and I think it's wrong.

The Chair: Well, you misunderstand what I said. I said that you are quite in order to state to the committee the views that have been said to you. From time to time there have been suggestions from all sides that what's said to you represents the majority of the country, and that's -

Mr. Ramsay: I have never said that. I have not even implied it.

.1120

The Chair: When you simply say that people who have spoken to you or people who have -

Mr. Ramsay: I have held up these, and that is not -

The Chair: I never objected to that. As a matter of fact, I defended -

Mr. Ramsay: What are you objecting to?

The Chair: What I am objecting to is when some members of this committee, includingMr. Thompson, suggest that ``Canadians are saying this''.

Mr. Thompson: A point of order. These people who are telling me this are Canadians. What's wrong with that?

The Chair: The suggestion often is - I don't want to prolong this because I agree with what Mr. -

Mr. Thompson: You never said anything about it before.

The Chair: I agree with what you said, Mr. Ramsay, that you have the right to say that so many - but I find very often there's a suggestion from some members...and I am going to call it to order when it does happen. When you referred to those resolutions, you were quite in order. I don't think we should misrepresent on either side that this opinion or that opinion is a majority opinion of Canadians when it's not.

Mr. Ramsay: My point is that as far as my memory is concerned, there has been no such misrepresentation by either this side or the government side.

The Chair: We won't proceed with it any further. When it does happen, then I'll call it to order. If it's in accordance with what you say, there isn't a problem.

Ms Torsney (Burlington): Certainly that was an interesting exchange.

You are both here representing the big city mayors, which is a smaller group within the FCM, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Certainly we've heard that there are some municipalities that are standing in opposition to Bill C-68. Why do you think some of these cities or communities would be opposed? What is your sense? Certainly you are hearing from a lot of people on this issue. I have heard from a lot of people who've been misinformed and have been whipped into gear with information that's factually incorrect, perhaps bordering on paranoia. I would ask if you can comment as to why there's been some dissension that has been mentioned here and how FCM is organized and what kind of resolution has been put forward.

Ms Hall: I stated earlier that I don't understand the opposition to registration, and I know that the very loud opposition of many of the people I have spoken to has come from misinformation. I believe there is a significant amount of misinformation out there. In fact, one of the things the big city mayors supported at the meeting in Montreal last week was having FCM send factual information to counter the misinformation that has been sent to many municipalities.

The Internet is whizzing misinformation as well as correct information around the country and really whipping up hysteria.

So I think there is a lot of misinformation out there, and I think some opposition is, as Councillor Côté said, people being resistant, as we all often are, to a change in the way of operating.

Ms Torsney: Certainly, we've talked about the economic costs of this gun registration, but I think there's an economic cost that we are overlooking, and that is the cost of not registering guns, of allowing the violence to continue. There is a tourist cost whenever there's an issue. Certainly, Florida has been plagued by problems in Miami, where, and rightly so, as soon as there is a shooting of a tourist, there's a real fall in tourism. Tourism is a great part of the economy in Toronto and Montreal and many communities across Canada. Do you have any sense of what the economic costs are or could be if we don't enact this legislation?

.1125

Ms Hall: I know, for example, in terms of tourism and conventions, many people, particularly Americans, are now coming to Toronto as opposed to going to New York to see theatre or cultural activities. A significant reason for their change is because of the safety on the streets of Toronto. People love to come and stay in the downtown and be able to walk around, day or night. I often hear that from people coming for theatre. Why do they come to see the Blue Jays as opposed to going to Detroit or Chicago?

In terms of business, many companies that are downtown have come there because they want to be in the core of a large city. It's a good place for their employees to be able to move around.

The economic activity in the financial core in Toronto is a contributor to the economy of the whole province, as well as to the country. I believe it is there partially because of the quality of life, and safety is a significant part of that.

Mr. Côté: Tourism definitely is an important industry in Montreal. I have had the opportunity to guide dozens of groups of tourists at city hall during the Christmas holidays. Many were from the United States. During Christmas night they walked to city hall. They were surprised that they had not been mugged on their way to city hall at midnight. We are very proud to say that Montreal is a very safe city and we want it to remain as such. In fact, our criminality has been going down slightly in the past years. We aim at keeping that reduction in criminality, and the control of firearms is an important factor in the reduction of criminality.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Earlier, we could not finish our discussion. I was asking you a question about the fact that police services were already exempt from complying with the law. Since you said that everybody should register their firearms and get some training, I asked you what that would represent for the City of Toronto.

In response to my question, you essentially had two arguments. You said that this would not represent a significant cost because it would generate savings. In terms of training, you said that your police services already got adequate training. Am I to understand that if registering the firearms of the Toronto police forces represented a really significant cost for the city, your answer would have been different and you would have argued that the bill should not apply to police forces?

Since you say that your police forces are already well trained, do you think that those other organizations, besides the police services, whose members are already trained, should be dealt with the same way as police forces? I am trying to put your answers in context because we didn't have time to do so earlier.

[English]

Ms Hall: Clearly, I think that more training would be required around the specifics of this legislation. But I believe there is not a significant cost to that if it's incorporated into existing training. For example, in Ontario right now there are a number of regular courses that police officers need to take on gun-related issues. So if this were to be added on, yes, I'm sure there's a small cost related to printing materials or extra time at the police college, or whatever. I do not see that as an enormous cost or a cost that would argue against this legislation.

.1130

In terms of others who should take training, there may be a cost. Without you being specific as to what you mean by that, it's hard for me to say.

Mr. de Savoye: On my last question you maintained registration of your firearms wouldn't represent a significant cost.

Ms Hall: Yes.

Mr. de Savoye: That is why you think the police forces of Toronto could register their guns under Bill C-68.

If it did represent a significant cost, would you still think the police force should not be exempted under Bill C-68 or that they could continue? Furthermore, for some organizations it does represent a significant cost. It would put them out of business. Contrary to what Mr. Côté mentioned earlier, the Canadian Museums Association indicated they were quite upset by the consequences of Bill C-68 on their operations. Historical re-enactment would vanish overnight. It represents for them a significant cost.

My point is, shouldn't there be exceptions as there are for police forces?

Ms Hall: Even if there was a cost for police forces, I would still think it was appropriate. The issue of who bore the cost would be something that would then be raised. Most museums in this country receive funding from the community, the corporate sector and government. It may be that added cost will be passed on to some or all of those groups.

Mr. de Savoye: I will leave this line of questioning. I'm finished with it.

[Translation]

How many firearms belonging to your police services have been stolen or lost in 1994 or in the previous years? What did you do? Were they used to commit crimes? What steps do you take to prevent these arms from being stolen or lost?

Mr. Côté: Let me tell you that the theft of a firearm belonging to the police services is a very rare event. In any given year, there may be one or two such cases. When a firearm belonging to the police is stolen, it's the end of the world.

Mr. de Savoye: What about last year?

Mr. Côté: I can't tell you about last year, but I was district director until 1990. Over the last five years I spent in this position, I never heard that a firearm belonging to the police forces of the CUM had been stolen. Every police officer has a revolver or a handgun which are already registered. Bill C-68 doesn't change anything because these arms are already registered. We are talking about long arms and about a dozen shotguns. In a large police force, you find mostly side arms and shotguns. They're all registered.

[English]

The Chair: We're going way over now. I don't mind you finishing the answer.

[Translation]

Mr. Côté: There are already very strict controls in place within police forces because it's really embarrassing to have one of your firearms stolen.

Mr. de Savoye: You don't know how many?

[English]

Ms Hall: I have no information on that matter.

The Chair: Mayor Hall, I want to ask you a number of questions. Maybe they deserve short answers.

Do you license dogs in Toronto?

Ms Hall: Yes.

The Chair: What's the fee?

Ms Hall: It's more than $12 a year, but....

The Chair: Per dog.

Ms Hall: Yes.

The Chair: Do you license bicycles?

Ms Hall: No.

The Chair: As far as you know, do any of the municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto license bicycles?

.1135

Ms Hall: I don't believe so.

The Chair: Do you license ski-doos?

Ms Hall: They would be licensed under the Highway Traffic Act, I believe. We don't license ski-doos within the City of Toronto.

The Chair: Do you have any controls on ski-doos within the city?

Ms Hall: No, it's never been an issue within the city.

The Chair: All right. What about skateboards and roller blades?

Ms Hall: We don't license them, but we're currently attempting to deal with the issue of skateboards and roller blades and how they are to be used and where they are to be used within the municipality.

The Chair: What other licensing systems do you have with respect to...? I don't want them all, but the ones that might be comparative to licensing individuals, not businesses, for various things, for which a fee is charged. Any other animals in addition to dogs?

Ms Hall: No, although we consider from time to time the licensing of cats as well, but we have rejected that. We license vendors, people who are musicians on the street.

The Chair: What would the fee be for that?

Ms Hall: Several hundred dollars a year.

The Chair: I'll move away from that one.

According to recent statistics, for 66% of those who committed murder in Canada, this was their first offence, not just their first offence of murder but their first criminal offence. Consequently, a great number of the 66% of those people who committed murder were not criminals before they committed that offence. By the way, these are with guns. Most of them are between spouses, family members, with their employees or employers, neighbours and so on - people they know.

Some people appearing before this committee suggest that we restrict our legislation to the criminal element. The conclusion is that we should wait until the crime is committed and then have tough penalties. We know Marc Lepine had no criminal record before he killed 14 women at the University of Montreal. Valery Fabrikant had no criminal record before he killed 4 professors at Concordia University.

What do you think of this argument that's put forward to us over and over again that we should limit our legislation to the criminal use of guns and not pass legislation that impacts on non-criminals? How do you respond to that?

Ms Hall: Well, I think that argument ignores the facts, and you've set out some of the facts. I also made the comment that many people believe they're legal owners of guns until they use them in a situation that they greatly regret afterwards, for an illegal purpose. It's because I believe that the availability of guns for a minority, but a significant minority, in terms of its impact, causes deaths in this country, and that's why we need legislation such as this.

The Chair: Mr. Côté.

Mr. Côté: Do you want me to go through the licensing process in Montreal?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Côté: We do license dogs and bicycles and so on.

[Translation]

The Chair: What is the fee for a bicycle?

Mr. Côté: Five dollars plus GST, of course.

The Chair: Don't talk about that!

Mr. Côté: If we say that we have to be tougher on the criminal...

.1140

[English]

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Côté, or Mayor Côté -

Mr. Côté: Councillor. That's my first mandate, you see.

Mr. Ramsay: Okay.

We have heard requests over the years from police officers and organizations for the return to capital punishment. Do you support that?

Mr. Côté: I have no comment on that, sir. It has nothing to do with Bill C-68.

Mr. Ramsay: So you don't want to comment on it.

Mayor Hall?

Ms Hall: Although it's not before us, I am not a supporter of capital punishment.

Mr. Ramsay: Okay.

Just to follow up on the chairman's question, 66% of the people who commit an offence with a firearm do it for the first time. In other words, they have no criminal record.

The Chair: [Inaudible - Editor]...a murder. It's their first offence when they do it. A man killing his wife -

Mr. Ramsay: So 66% of the murders committed with a firearm are committed by those who have never committed a criminal offence previously.

I have looked at this figure and have thought about the question, because I've heard it presented by Mr. Allmand quite a number of times.

I feel the registration will not address this issue. The only program that will address this issue is the elimination of firearms from the hands of people. It's happening, so how do we deal with it? Is registration the answer or is the complete elimination of firearms from citizens the answer?

Mr. Côté: I don't believe Bill C-68 aims at removing firearms. In Montreal we are not at all planning a campaign of withdrawing firearms from anyone.

The example you give of conjugal violence - somebody who murders his spouse and has not been a criminal - will continue to happen, unfortunately. Bill C-68 is one tool we are supporting, among quite a variety of other initiatives. This is just one of them.

Clearly this law or any other law will not solve criminality. That's a plague of our society.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.

I have one last question.

Yesterday I wrote down the comments of Mr. Jessop, I think it was, with the Canadian Police Association. They might not be accurate, but the intent is surely there. He indicated Bill C-68 is empty without assurance against smuggling.

In other words, from what he said, I gathered he feels if we cannot stop smuggling of firearms, particularly handguns, into Canada, then there is a large hole within the bill itself.

How do you feel about that?

Mr. Côté: It's a fact that many of the weapons used by criminals in our area come from outside of Canada, namely from the United States. They will continue to be smuggled, just like booze. We have put much effort into stopping illegal contraband of cigarettes and liquor, but it has still continued.

That is why in our third recommendation we say we want more strict measures to try to stop smuggling, among other things, of firearms.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.

Mayor Hall, would you like to respond as well?

Ms Hall: To your first question?

Mr. Ramsay: No, just -

Ms Hall: On the smuggling.

Mr. Ramsay: Yes, please.

Ms Hall: There are many things that need to be done in order to get rid of guns and create a safe community. I think this legislation is a good part of the solution to that, but it's not everything.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.

Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): Welcome this morning. It's been very enjoyable.

.1145

I want to ask questions about an issue that is often raised here, and that is costs. Certainly as municipal politicians you know and have heard about the talk of downloading, uploading, lateral transfers, costs, and all sorts of things.

Mayor Hall, you made reference to the Internet buzz. The Internet talks about the cost of this program, from the federal perspective, as being somewhere around $2 billion. Some people say $500 million. The justice minister has presented a plan that shows $85 million.

From the perspective of someone who is...you're the front-line politicians, if I can refer to you as being that. Have you some concerns in terms of the impact of this legislation on your municipal budgets? Ultimately, and I appreciate the way the act operates in Ontario, you are the tax collector for the police services board, or at least some portion of that, in Metropolitan Toronto. Do you see that any part of this bill is going to increase policing costs, or do you view the preventative nature of this as being a much more appropriate way of controlling costs within the municipality?

Ms Hall: I would answer yes to the second part. I see this as a significant contributor to the prevention of crime within the city, not as something that will have a significant impact on the costs of policing. If we're wrong on that, you'll hear from us - and not just from the City of Toronto, but I'm sure from every municipality across the country.

Mr. Côté: In our brief we insist that the legislation be self-financed. In other words, the costs would be recovered through the sale of the permits.

As for the costs to the police force, there may be a temporary implementation cost because of the need for new formulas and things of that sort, but that would not be very significant, in my view.

Mr. Gallaway: I have one final question. I'll direct this to Mayor Hall. I apologize, but I'm not certain of what the law is in Quebec.

In Ontario, Mayor Hall, you have within the municipality or within your regional government a building inspection department. Do you often receive complaints about inspectors entering for inspections at odd hours of the day and night, in a sense that you find personally offensive?

Ms Hall: No. In fact, what we hear more often is where is the inspector and why haven't they been there at a certain time of the day or night?

Mr. Gallaway: Are you aware that the Ontario Building Code includes an inspection provision that is very similar in scope to that included in Bill C-68?

Ms Hall: I know they have extensive powers. I have not compared the two in terms of -

Mr. Gallaway: But you've never received a complaint during your term as a municipal politician with respect to what one would assume to be an abuse of that inspection power?

Ms Hall: No. During my nine years in municipal politics, I have not.

Mr. Gallaway: Okay, thank you. That's all I have.

The Chair: Members of the committee, it's 11:50 a.m. and we've exhausted the list. I knowMr. Ramsay wants to make a proposal to the committee.

Do you have more questions?

An hon. member: Yes, I would like....

Mr. de Savoye: So do I.

The Chair: Okay. We'll go to Mr. de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: We know that when it comes to enforcing legislation, police forces take steps to insure that citizens comply with it. For example, in the case of drunk driving, the police will occasionally set up road blocks to insure that people comply with the legislation, and we recognize that as a powerful incentive for the population as a whole. In the case of speeding - we were talking about that earlier - the police also take steps so that some people realize, and by the same token make others realize, that if there is a law, it should be complied with.

.1150

In the case of Bill C-68, I assume that municipal police forces are going to have to do something to ensure that the law is adequately implemented. Did you identify which measures will be required by your police forces to ensure that people obey the law and comply with it in terms of the registration of their firearms and of the training of gun owners?

The first thing that comes to my mind is public information. I believe it's the first preventative measure. I also think about control mechanisms since, in your brief, you indicate yourself that prevention cannot exist without control. Could you elaborate on the measures you are going to take to enforce the legislation?

Mr. Côté: Clearly, the enforcement of the new legislation will be up to the CUM police forces. I cannot tell you exactly what operational standards the police will implement. You draw a comparison with the use of breathalyzers and other such occasional checks which are quite effective. I have every reason to believe that, based on their experience in other areas, the CUM police will take the necessary steps so that the deterrent effect in that case will be as strong as in those you mentioned, namely speeding and drunk driving.

Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Côté, I understand that at this time, your police forces as well as the municipality have not looked at appropriate measures, at the way to implement them, at the related costs, nor at the means at your disposal to do it. The reason I'm asking this question is this: we can pass laws, but then, they exist only on paper. At the other end, it is necessary to ensure that people's attitudes are going to change. Personally, as a member of this Committee, if I'm not convinced that this is truly going to change things, I may have some concern about the future of this legislation. I would have liked you to reassure me, but it's not what I hear and I'm disappointed.

Mr. Côté: I can't give you any details for the simple reason that I do not work for the police any longer. However, we know from experience that when a new legislation is passed, the police enforce it as strictly as required. It will be a very important tool for investigators. I can assure you that, as soon as this legislation is passed, investigators who are specifically in charge of homicides and violent crimes are going to consider this legislation as a very important tool.

Mr. de Savoye: Mayor Hall.

[English]

Ms Hall: I would see this piece of legislation necessitating, as do many, a significant public education program, and I would see that happening in a number of ways.

The police department currently has a budget for public information and education. Every year they select which items they're going to focus on. Through community policing, I'm sure this will be a component of that. Like ourselves, I'm sure that all of you - as you communicate with your constituents - will be drawing attention to the legislation and what's involved in it after it has passed.

I think it will involve action on the part of many citizens' groups. I think that once there is legislation passed, many of the groups you've heard from - whether they are in favour or opposed to the legislation - will be involved in educating their constituents on the issues of the legislation. The sporting groups will be communicating on the Internet and through publications about what people need to do in order to comply with the legislation, and the media will also be an important component of it.

I believe this is important for us as a community, and I think all parts of the community will be involved in educating the Canadian public on how to comply with it.

.1155

Ms Meredith: I want to continue the conversation that I ran out of time with. I'm a little concerned that you feel a minimum four-year sentence is adequate punishment or deterrent for the ten most serious crimes. My understanding is that unless there are aggravating factors, the minimum sentence becomes the norm. At least that appears to happen in my part of the country.

You keep talking about misinformation. You keep saying that this bill will get registration...will get less long guns. We already have registration of handguns and semi-automatic weapons. We have had registration of handguns since 1934.

I would like to know from you if you feel there are less handguns in our communities now than there were in 1934. I'd like to know from you whether you feel that registration process prevented people from keeping them or using them for whatever it is they use handguns, and whether that registration in 1934 has decreased the criminal use of firearms and the violent use of handguns - I want to restrict it to handguns - in today's society. Did registration of handguns actually serve the purpose that you are telling us the registration of long guns is going to do?

Ms Hall: I believe one of the reasons we have an increase of handguns - and clearly there has been an increase in the past few years - is because of our proximity to a country that does not control handguns in the way we have. Because of a long open border, one that's very difficult to police, the proliferation of guns to the south has had an impact in our community. That's an issue that we need to address in many ways. Having said that, this legislation deals with some things we can control.

Ms Meredith: I would like to respond. My riding is along the American border. I have the two busiest border crossings in western Canada and two of the busiest across Canada.

In talking to the people down there, the majority of guns they take away - because that's what happens now; if they have prohibited weapons they take them away - are from the Americans who come up for vacation, for holidays, and carrying guns has become a way of life. They're not smuggled into this country. The majority of what they find and take away are not for criminal purposes.

Ms Hall: That's right. That's why we need -

Ms Meredith: When we talk about this American society and the numbers of guns they're causing to be brought into this country, they're not the ones that are used for criminal purposes.

Ms Hall: When I was a probation officer in a large American city, I dealt with people who owned guns for protection, whose children ended up killing each other, who ended up in a whole range of things, and whose guns ended up being stolen and used in illegal activity, as they are in our country.

Ms Meredith: Did registration of handguns stop that from happening? In 1934, when we registered handguns, did the registration process stop the criminal use of handguns, stop the smuggling of handguns, and stop the accidents and those things that ended up in killings? Did the 1934 registration solve the problem?

Mr. Côté: Clearly it did not, because we are still facing the problem. Nevertheless, if there had been no such law, there would very likely be many more weapons than we have now. It has been a deterrent. When you have to register them - I'm talking about legally owned firearms - it's a deterrent. The fact that we will be enforcing more strict regulations on the registration of firearms will be of great help to the police, which would not have been possible without formal registration ever since 1934.

.1200

Ms Meredith: But was it a deterrent to the criminal use of handguns?

Mr. Côté: Yes, in that it has kept the number of firearms relatively low.

Ms Meredith: But did it stop criminals from using them?

Mr. Côté: Nothing will completely stop criminality, Madame. This is one way of attacking it - one form among others.

Ms Meredith: That's it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: The minister who put the bill forward doesn't expect it to be a panacea. It's a question of less rather than more.

By the way, traditionally in Canada we've had much fewer crimes with handguns than with long guns. I would argue - and I know Ms Meredith and others would disagree with me - the reason we have fewer crimes with handguns and more crimes with long guns is we've had registration of handguns. That doesn't mean there aren't crimes with handguns, but in my view it's probably better than it would have otherwise been if we didn't have the registration.

In Florida they have capital punishment, but they have the highest murder rate in the world. Some people think it's effective; some people don't think it's effective.

Are there any other questions?

I want to thank you most sincerely. The two witnesses can leave. Thank you very much.

Mr. Ramsay wants to make a proposal to the committee.

Mr. Ramsay, I'd ask if you'd simply make the proposal today and then give the members time to think about it. Then as early as possible next week we'll deal with it, if that's acceptable. We won't debate it today; we'll simply let you put it on the record.

Mr. Ramsay: We're going headlong and meeting practically morning, noon and night. We're going to hear the last witness on the nineteenth. Then we're going to have a week's recess.

Many of us will be required back in our constituencies during that week, Mr. Chairman. Then we have to be prepared to bring forward our amendments to this bill. We have to go through all of the testimony as it impacts upon the bill. We have to review all of the written presentations as well.

I have a concern that if we come back and immediately go into the clause-by-clause, we're not going to have time to do a proper job on this bill in terms of the amendments, and particularly give those who will be drafting the amendments time to do so and get them before the committee so we can all have a look at them.

I see a time problem here. I don't wish to extend it, but with the way it's been set up, it's going to create a problem, certainly for us.

The Chair: I think you've made a very legitimate point. It's been put on the record.

What I'll try to do for early next week is get some sort of reading from our research staff and the clerk as to how long it will take to get into your hands summaries and copies of all the evidence. Also there's the whole question of the preparation of amendments.

This is a serious matter. Mr. Ramsay has brought it to our attention and we'll try to respond to it. We'll discuss it next week.

I have one I want you to think about too. I find it annoying; maybe you don't. Several times this morning and at other meetings the cellular phones of various people, not of the committee, but sitting in the audience, have rung. I'd like you to consider whether or not we should adopt a resolution that when people come into the room, they turn off their cellular phones. If they wish to use them, they can go outside the doors.

I'm not influenced entirely by the judge in the O.J. Simpson case, but I find it annoying for these phones to be ringing off and on throughout the morning. Maybe you don't. I don't want to impose my will, but maybe think about that until next week.

Mr. Ramsay: I have one other point for the record.

The concern I expressed here today, Mr. Chairman, was expressed in a memo dated April 21, 1995, to you as well as to our clerk.

Thank you.

The Chair: I appreciate that.

The meeting is adjourned until this afternoon.