Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 4, 1995

.1525

[English]

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

This afternoon we're pleased to have with us the Canadian Association of Police Boards, represented by Mike Badham, the vice-president, and Frederick Biro, the executive director.

Gentlemen, we have a copy of your brief. It doesn't seem to be too long, so you can read your brief into the record. Then we'll have the usual rounds of questioning.

.1530

Mr. Mike Badham (Vice-President, Canadian Association of Police Boards): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.

[English]

I would like to thank the committee members for providing this opportunity for the Canadian Association of Police Boards to comment on Bill C-68.

My name is Mike Badham. I'm vice-president of the Canadian Association of Police Boards, CAPB. I'm also a city councillor from Regina, Saskatchewan, vice-chairman of the Regina Board of Police Commissioners, and chairman of the Saskatchewan Association of Police Boards. With me is Frederick Biro, who is the executive director of CAPB. Mr. Biro is also executive director of the Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board, which is located in Brampton, Ontario. Therefore, in making our presentations we can speak from both a national and a local point of view.

I intend to be about 10 or 12 minutes. I will introduce the CAPB to you and define our interest in this legislation. I will comment on several aspects of the proposed legislation, make a number of recommendations, and end with a statement on how our association views effective firearm control.

You may be pleased to hear that what I will not do is suggest exact wording by way of amendments to this proposed legislation. We believe that's the role of this committee based on the submissions you have received and will be receiving.

The Canadian Association of Police Boards is the only national organization representing civilian governors of local police services. Our membership includes police boards from every province that provides for such bodies and also includes a number of first nations police-governing authorities established under tripartite agreements. Our smallest board represents a police service of one, and our largest governs a police service that has 7,700 employees.

Our members, in conjunction with their chiefs of police, are responsible for establishing police priorities, reviewing and approving police budgets, and ensuring that community concerns and interests are addressed. Boards act as an oversight body for any number of functions to do with the performance of the police, including monitoring the performance of its executive officer and monitoring public complaints.

Our members see themselves as a bridge between the police and the community being policed. As such, they have been very strong and early advocates for community-based policing and crime prevention.

The role of our organization is best captured by our mission statement:

It is within this context of acting in a preventive way to ensure Canadians live and work in safe and secure communities that I wish to express our support for Bill C-68. The CAPB sees Bill C-68 as supplying much-needed components that were previously missing in the umbrella of responsible firearm controls.

As you heard yesterday from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, many of the provisions of Bill C-68 have been on the police agenda for years. They do not represent a radical departure from past recommendations. Instead, the bill represents a logical step in regulating the use of firearms in a manner so as to protect the public interest.

The most controversial aspect of the bill appears to be and is the mandatory firearm registry. The CAPB supports universal registration, and it does so for three main reasons. These are officer safety, enforcement of prohibition orders, and effective investigation and prosecution of illegal firearms.

Police boards have two primary constituents: the community at large and the women and men we employ. In conjunction with our executive officers, we work to ensure every reasonable step is taken to maintain the safety of our police officers. We supply them with ongoing training, up-to-date equipment, modern voice radio communication systems, and access to a national computer system so that they have the most current information available on an individual or on a vehicle they might be approaching.

.1535

The CAPB believes a universal firearm registry would be of significant assistance in officer safety by adding to that information. Foreknowledge of the type of situation an officer is being called into can make a difference in response. For instance, in a jurisdiction such as Peel, a call to a violent incident at a home would normally result in two patrol units responding. If it were known that firearms were located in the residence, a tactical unit would automatically be called to respond as well. Without over-dramatizing it, that type of differentiated response can save lives.

Enforcement of prohibition orders: More than 13,000 prohibition orders are issued every year to individuals who pose a risk to public safety, forbidding them from having any firearms in their possession. These are critical preventive measures that need to be taken seriously and acted upon with dispatch.

Prohibition orders may be issued in a wide range of circumstances, including situations involving domestic violence, individuals who are temporarily mentally unbalanced or depressed, and individuals convicted of violent crimes. Without accurate knowledge of what firearms are in the possession of these individuals, the police and the justice system cannot effectively perform their function in ensuring compliance with an order. A universal registry is a needed and effective preventive measure to address this shortcoming.

On investigation and prosecution, Chief MacDonald, president of the CACP, put it best on February 24, 1995. He stated, and I repeat:

I realize that some legitimate firearm owners view that type of statement as undue interference in their rights to own and use firearms.

It has been a popular position to state that the problem of criminal use of firearms is largely because of firearms being smuggled into Canada. It may be a popular position, but recent studies have also demonstrated it's a clear misconception.

As you heard yesterday, the chiefs found in a recent study that half of all firearms used in crimes are long guns. Forty percent of handguns used in crimes were once legally registered. I would repeat and support the statement of Chief MacDonald: ``Without information about who owns guns, there is no effective gun control...''.

The CAPB recognizes, accepts, and supports that there are other legitimate reasons for calling for more effective firearm controls. I anticipate these will be, or have been, fully presented by health groups appearing before this committee.

I'll now turn to two key areas of concern about the universal registry: inclusion of criminal sanctions for non-compliance and the cost of the system.

CAPB supports the proposed legislation calling for potential criminal sanctions for non-compliance. It believes discretion exists in the criminal justice system at several steps to ensure that involuntary non-compliance does not result in criminal sanctions. In plain language, and based on my years as a police commissioner and citizen, I doubt if there's a police officer in Canada who would lay charges if say a pensioner forgot to register a shotgun or the family .22 rifle. If there were, I doubt if there would be a crown attorney who would waste the court's time and damage his or her own credibility by attempting to prosecute the charges. Finally, even if it got that far, I doubt if a court would act in any other way except to throw the charge out or grant an absolute discharge.

In support of that statement I would point to the following. Many organizations, including some represented in this room, have complained about the lack of strict penalties for criminal activities. Again, bluntly put, the argument has been made that the courts let the bad guys get off too lightly. As a result, the past years have seen a demand for strict penalties through the imposition of minimum sentencing guidelines, as opposed to maximum sentences, as well as demands for reduced access to parole.

.1540

To have many of these same groups now argue that the courts would do a U-turn in attitude and treat legitimate firearm owners in a totally harsh and narrow interpretation of the law, unlike how it is perceived they treat criminals, we would suggest, with respect, is an abandonment of logic.

The CAPB firmly believes adequate discretion does exist in the justice system to contend with the criminal sanctions proposed in Bill C-68. We also firmly believe that the same police officer who would not lay a charge against the pensioner that was mentioned would take a far different approach with an individual who wilfully and with forethought refuses to comply with the law of the land.

We believe the crown prosecutor and the judiciary would also take a far different view of an individual who wilfully and with forethought preaches and practises active defiance. It is for that reason we support a strong and compelling commitment to compliance.

About cost, as I stated earlier, police boards with their chiefs of police are responsible for establishing the local police budgets. We have to determine how best to spend limited local tax dollars to deal with the policing priorities in our communities.

I return to this point because it will be primarily up to local police services, through their firearm officers and offices, to support the bulk of the universal registration system, similar to the existing system now in place with FACs. Much of the cost mentioned in studies has to do with that local investment of human resources, which would be based on the state-of-the-art technology being proposed by the justice ministry.

I want to ensure my message on this point is absolutely clear. We are willing to absorb the cost and make the commitment, even in this day of limited financial resources. We are willing to make that commitment because as an association we believe the universal firearm registry, as proposed, will save lives and assist investigations, and ultimately, because it is first and foremost a preventive measure, we believe in the long run it will also save tax dollars.

It was this committee that released a report two years ago that stated that every dollar spent on crime prevention saves $5 in future costs to the justice system. We anticipate an equal return because of the implementation of the registry. This would not be immediately, but certainly in the future.

Before my summation I'd like to make several recommendations for the committee to consider. The first deals with the phase-in periods. We would recommend the implementation date of January 1, 1996, for the new possession permits be delayed for one year. This is simply to allow for adequate time for the new system to be designed, tested, and implemented. It will also allow for the necessary training to take place for the administration of the system.

As I stated earlier, we view Bill C-68 as fitting needed components into an effective firearm control package. It's therefore essential that we do it right the first time.

While we support a delay in the implementation system for the permits, we are adamant that the key dates be maintained for concluding the phase-in periods - namely 2001 for possession permits, and 2003 for registration of firearms.

To do it right the first time means we will need complete and timely training for police officers and civilian staff who will make the system work. We support the need for adequate funds and timeframes to be built into the implementation plan to provide this training.

I also believe it's fair to say many legitimate firearm owners in Canada are unclear as to existing provisions to do with firearm control. They are likely equally unclear about what is contained in Bill C-68. Some of this is because of the difficulty in getting clear and accurate information into their hands. I believe it also is fair to say a great deal of misinformation has been presented about the bill, especially as it relates to the registry system.

We strongly urge the government to embark upon a comprehensive information campaign to present a clear and concise picture about Bill C-68, and about firearm control in general. It is our experience from two different communities - Regina and Peel - that most legitimate firearm owners, when presented with the facts, may still not like the legislation, but would be ready to comply when they understand the underlying rationale and the merits of the registration system.

.1545

We believe an information campaign outlining the facts is an essential component of firearm control. We recommend the committee make specific mention of the need for such a campaign in its final report.

I would like to close my comments by returning briefly to the role of police boards in Canada. I said we represent the daily link between the activities of the police and our communities. As a result, we are in a unique position to hear first-hand from members of the community about what they believe is needed to ensure their right to live in safe and secure neighbourhoods.

I use the word ``right'' as provided in our charter. Canadians believe universally that it is their right to live and work in an environment that does not pose undue risk to themselves or their families. They look to you as the lawmakers and to us who are responsible for their daily protection to help maintain that right.

I would like to contrast that right with the privilege of owning firearms in this country. It should be absolutely clear that what we hear from our communities is entirely reflective of every poll I am aware of that has been taken on the issue. Ownership of firearms in Canada is a privilege, not a right. With that privilege comes responsibility. We believe Bill C-68 is a reasonable compromise in protecting the rights of all Canadians while accommodating the interests of Canadians who pursue legitimate activities involving the use of firearms.

We support this legislation and would urge its quick passage into law.

Thank you for your attention this afternoon.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Badham.

[Translation]

Mr. Caron, you have 10 minutes on the first round.

Mr. Caron (Jonquière): Thank you for appearing before this Committee and I want to congratulate you on a very clear presentation. I would like to ask for your expert opinion on a few proposed amendments.

Some say that we should exempt certain people in remote Northern areas or farmers from compulsory registration and licensing. What is your opinion and do you believe that arms control would be as effective if some groups of people were exempted from the application of this legislation?

[English]

Mr. Badham: It could be, I suppose, when we talk about an exemption from the rules. But if we talk about registry, it would be our opinion that universal registry should occur.

[Translation]

As far as the deadline given to register all weapons is concerned, don't you think, given your experience, that the delay could be shorter so that the registration process may be over more quickly?

.1550

[English]

Mr. Badham: We think the timelines would be sufficient, because there are a lot to be registered, though you will note we did say we would wait for that training period prior to the full implementation of that deadline.

Mr. Frederick Biro (Executive Director, Canadian Association of Police Boards): I simply would add that we see the timelines as built in very much as a compromise. From the point of view of officer safety, the prohibition orders and the other points that were raised for the merits of the system, in a perfect world it would be wonderful if it could happen today. The reality is it can't.

We see this as a compromise between installing a system that will be state of the art and will accomplish a needed goal down the road yet at the same time will allow it to be done in a manner that is cost-effective, both for the federal government and for ourselves locally.

The short answer is yes, it would be wonderful if we could do it today. The long answer is that it's a compromise we certainly can live with.

[Translation]

Mr. Caron: That will do for me.

[English]

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Gentlemen, thank you very much for your presentation.

Have you taken your presentation to the Attorney General or the Premier of Saskatchewan?

Mr. Badham: Personally, I have not taken this presentation. But I will certainly be seeing that they have a copy of this. I have had a personal discussion with the Minister of Justice, Mr. Mitchell, and he and I have agreed to disagree on our positions.

Mr. Ramsay: Have you taken your position on Bill C-68 to Constable Obst? He's a representative of the Saskatchewan Police Association.

Mr. Badham: Yes. He doesn't live in Regina, where I live, but I've had discussions on this with members of the Regina Police Association. I can tell you we see very much eye to eye in some of the discussions we have had. But I am aware of the position of the Saskatchewan Police Association, which changed after they had a different vote on it.

I am the first to admit I'm quite well aware that in Saskatchewan there is a difference of opinion, which probably seems to be at odds with some other parts of the country. I'm certainly clear on my position.

Mr. Ramsay: Of course the governments of Manitoba, Alberta, and the two territories share Saskatchewan's position on Bill C-68. I've got over 200 resolutions from municipalities across Canada that also share that position.

In your brief on the third-last paragraph of page 2 you state:

Would this apply to jurisdictions outside of Peel as well?

Mr. Badham: I can't comment. Perhaps we can have the comment for Peel, but of course it depends upon what kind of community we're talking about. It's a one-man or two-man police force in some very small communities, versus those that do have the power. Perhaps you would mention that....

Mr. Ramsay: I'm talking about places such as Saskatoon and Regina in your own province.

.1555

Mr. Badham: If there were a situation where guns were known to be there, yes, a tactical team would be called in.

Mr. Ramsay: That's for domestic disputes. If there were a call to a domestic -

Mr. Badham: It's my understanding that if there were evidence guns were there, then the tactical team would go. They're very cautious, of course, even when they do go to any domestic dispute, but if a place were known to have, as I say, weapons such as that, you're going to see that extra caution.

Mr. Ramsay: We have a handgun registration system that has been around for about 60 years. When a complaint of a domestic dispute is received, do the police run the name of the complainant of the domestic dispute through the handgun registration system to determine if a handgun is in that home before they go to the home?

Mr. Biro: Perhaps I could respond to that. The situation as it exists is dependent upon the size of the police service, how computerized they are, and how good the communication system is.

You asked a question about Peel. The reality is that in Peel we have the capability certainly for our own local jurisdiction to have an understanding of what may or may not be in that domicile.

In the present system, however, you don't have a full merging of the CPIC system and a registry system for firearms. Certainly in some rural jurisdictions you're not going to have that.

The concept behind what's being proposed is to put that in place so that as we advance along with the communication systems, not just in the area of firearms but certainly in the area of officer safety, that capability of knowing that piece of knowledge along with other pieces of knowledge will be available. That's certainly the goal, and I think that's where we're going.

Mr. Ramsay: We have a registration system in place.

Mr. Biro: That's correct.

Mr. Ramsay: What I'm asking is if you know of any police forces that use that registration system to determine if a handgun is in that home prior to going to the home in response to a complaint.

Mr. Biro: My response is that the interface currently doesn't exist to make that information readily available for a lot of police services. Instead of drawing upon that particular source of information - and again I'll relate to Peel as being a jurisdiction - as much information as we have will be made available to the officer prior to the officer responding to the call.

Perhaps I can give a personal example. I was out on a ride-along last week. There was a domestic situation, and the officers were told by the communications centre that it was our understanding a weapon might be in that domicile. As a consequence, it wasn't just two patrol units that responded, it was four patrol units and a tactical unit, on the supposition there might be a loaded firearm in that house.

Now, that's not drawing from the registry system, necessarily. We're large enough to have our own bank of information. The goal is to make the bank of information we have access to because of our size available to every police officer, because we believe it can effectively help with officer safety.

Mr. Ramsay: Okay. Thank you for that answer.

A portion of your presentation had to do with the cost. Under clause 5 of this bill a procedure is set out for the chief provincial firearms officer to follow when issuing a licence. It requires a fairly extensive criminal record check, a mental health check, and what I understand would be a neighbourhood check to determine if that individual had a history of violence. Using the FAC perhaps as a guide in terms of the necessary time, energy, and resources required, have you estimated what it would cost to perform that series of tests?

Mr. Biro: I can respond from the point of view of Peel, and I think again you can extrapolate from our size and apply it to other jurisdictions. Peel has its own firearms office, and we have dedicated staff. The annual cost of running that office, including human resources, is approximately $100,000.

Mr. Ramsay: Do you know what it costs to process an FAC?

Mr. Biro: I can't respond regarding an individual FAC because it depends on the individual coming in and the documentation that comes forward. I can simply give you the global amount, as I have. I think the rider to that would be that certainly from our point of view it's money well spent. It's about $100,000.

If we move, as we hope, to the new registry system, we don't anticipate a huge increase in that amount. There may be a start-up cost, but beyond that we don't anticipate -

Mr. Ramsay: Do you know how many FACs you processed for that $100,000?

.1600

Mr. Biro: We certainly processed a lot before Bill C-17 took effect. I can't give you the exact annual amount, but I can certainly tell you that according to our firearms officers it was approximately 90,000 firearms in Peel.

Mr. Ramsay: In what period of time?

I'm trying to get the initial cost. I'm looking at the cost it's going to incur in order to register an individual who wishes to get a licence, not to register his firearm. That comes later.

Mr. Biro: You're talking about the FACs now.

Mr. Ramsay: Yes.

Mr. Biro: FACs versus the possession, the current system.

Mr. Ramsay: Yes.

Let me run this by you. Apparently the Metro Toronto Police Board has done an estimation of the cost for an FAC, and it's somewhere around $185. That doesn't include the $50 application fee the applicant has to pay. If that is a reasonable figure to translate to this process under clause 5, which I've described, then it means the cost just to register the 3 million gun owners is going to be $555 million.

Mr. Biro: I understand where you're going now. Metro Toronto has taken the position that it's $185. My understanding of the Metro Toronto position is that they're including a lot of items that perhaps aren't included by other police services, so it's a bit of an apple-and-orange situation. However, let's use the Metro Toronto number of $185. The bulk of that is human resources. The bulk of the numbers that are tossed around in various studies are local human resources.

Mr. Ramsay: What do you mean by that?

Mr. Biro: That's the officer time.

Even if you accept the amount of $185, which I would suggest is at the high end, Metro Toronto has been one of the first police boards in terms of jurisdiction that has said they support the registry and think it's money well worth spending because it is going to save us lives, time, and money down the road. So if it's an investment, as Metro Toronto seems to indicate it is, as an association we are suggesting it's an investment that's well worth while. It's preventive in its effect, and it will save us lives and money.

Mr. Bodnar (Saskatoon - Dundurn): Thank you for the report today. Mr. Badham, the report you presented succinctly puts in perspectve many items I agree with and says it perhaps better than I could ever say it. However, there are matters in the legislation I do have concerns with.

If we have legislation that is put in place to protect people and to save lives, this being a system of some gun control and a registry, there may perhaps be aspects of the legislation that maybe go a little too far. I would like your comments as to whether you believe some of these things maybe do go a little too far.

The inspection provisions of the act itself, which start out at clause 98 on page 41, indicate the basis for the inspection of premises. Of course the premises can be inspected if the peace officer believes there is a gun on the premises: he or she have no belief an offence is being committed but just reasonably believe a gun is there. If it's a residence, he has to believe that there is a gun and that the person won't let him in or else has refused to let him in, and he then can get a warrant. This seems to be an intrusion on one's rights, whereas the home should be one's castle. Do you agree?

Mr. Badham: A person's home is a person's castle, and that's fine. However, I think that if there's evidence of wrongdoing of any kind....

Why the police would want to go into the house I guess is the question. I don't think anyone would suggest that they would randomly go down the street, pick every other house, and search for weapons or find warrants, but that there would be cause. I can't see why a person would go there for any other reason than cause.

Mr. Bodnar: That's the concern I have. If the police officer believes an offence is being committed, fine, enter without a warrant, if it's in the process of being committed. However, under the legislation as it's being proposed, the police officer doesn't have to believe an offence is being committed.

.1605

You referred to random checks, and I'm suggesting those are exactly what would be allowed under this legislation. A police officer could park in front of my home and could check and know I have a gun in my home. If he comes to my door and I say no, he cannot come in and inspect, he could get a warrant and come in and inspect my home even though he has no basis whatsoever for believing I'm committing an offence.

Mr. Badham: I just heard you say, Mr. Bodnar, he knows there is a gun there.

Mr. Bodnar: Yes.

Mr. Badham: How does this differ from such things as illegal drugs, stolen property, or that there may be some other illegal activity going on?

Mr. Bodnar: The difference, Mr. Badham, is that possessing a gun is legal. Possessing drugs is not legal, and possessing stolen property is not legal. Do you see my distinction? A concern I have with this legislation is that maybe it goes a little too far in this area. I'm not saying police should maybe not be able to inspect. Do you think it goes a little too far? Maybe Mr. Biro has a comment as well.

Mr. Badham: I guess it would go too far if you are going to try to find people who are going to push it too far, but there watchdogs over what does occur, I think, and those are the lawmakers, the enforcers, and those who oversee policing services.

Mr. Bodnar: I raise this in particular because you have three main reasons for supporting this legislation: officer safety, enforcement of prohibition orders, and effective investigation and prosecution of illegal firearms. These particular clauses don't fit within any one of those three reasons for your supporting the legislation.

Mr. Biro: If I could respond to that, the legislation as it reads mentions ``reasonable''. ``Reasonable'' is built in a number of times, as you're aware. It also talks about inspection, not search and seizure. So I think safeguards are put in there as judicial signposts that would be taken into consideration by any justice to whom we're looking to swear a search warrant. That's the first point.

The second point I would make is to talk very much about the real world as opposed to potential hypothetical situations.

I'm aware you had the Canadian Police Association here yesterday. I'm aware there are some very legitimate concerns about front-line officers being unduly burdened. I think you can have confidence that there isn't a board or a police executive who would place as a policing priority the need to swear out search warrants to look for legitimate gun owners who may not have brought a weapon forward to be registered.

The provisions as they exist largely duplicate what occurs now in various jurisdictions. If I were to find a restricted handgun in my basement that I hadn't brought in and I took it down, they wouldn't ask me where that came from and say they're going to slap this fine on me and take me to court. That doesn't happen.

If you accept the premise that you don't want front-line officers overly burdened, and they already are, I would guarantee you that there isn't a board or an executive who would then turn around and say forget all the important stuff you're doing, because you're already overburdened, let's go chase these people over here. It simply wouldn't happen, and there's not a JP who would accept that as being legitimate.

Mr. Bodnar: If that's the case, sir, that means the clause is too wide. If you don't want police officers chasing these people, then that clause is perhaps too broad. It should be looked at again by this committee.

Mr. Biro: That's the committee's job. I would suggest to you that the clause is as broad as it needs to be to allow for discretion. There's no way an officer would go after a legitimate owner. If they felt someone was stockpiling, they would need that discretion to go after that particular individual. However, that's certainly your job.

Mr. Bodnar: All right. I won't discuss discretion with you, because I only have a few minutes left to deal with this.

One of the other aspects is that once a police officer is inspecting, there is a duty on a person who is present - not just the owner but any person present - to give the police officer reasonable assistance to help him carry out the inspection and to provide the officer with information relevant to enforcing the act.

.1610

I used this example this morning. If I am visiting my brother-in-law who lives on the farm, is it proper for a police officer to ask me to help him in the inspection of all the buildings on the farm, just because I am present? I don't know whether there is a gun or not. Is that reasonable?

Mr. Biro: If I can respond, I think that parallels the current situation if a police officer shows up at your door. Reasonable assistance is that broad, discretionary point of view. As a committee, I don't think you necessarily want to say that's something that doesn't exist now.

Mr. Bodnar: Excuse me. Under search warrants, there is no obligation on the part of anyone to help a police officer in the conducting of any search whatsoever under the Criminal Code.

Mr. Biro: I thought you were talking about the inspection part, sir.

Mr. Bodnar: I'm talking about the inspection clause here.

Mr. Biro: Exactly - that's what I was responding to.

Mr. Bodnar: I'm suggesting this goes too far.

Mr. Biro: I'm suggesting in a search warrant you don't have to have that clause. I was responding to the inspection clause. In essence, in the real world police officers have to deal with, reasonable assistance means you don't interfere. That's what it boils down to. If you're a guest, how could an officer anticipate that he would know what's going on in that household?

Mr. Bodnar: Maybe that clause shouldn't be there if it refers to people such as guests who are not owners.

I've got one other question, Mr. Chairman, dealing with a person who is an occupant of a motor vehicle. This is section 94 on page 70. It says that everyone commits an offence who is an occupant of a motor vehicle in which the person knows there is a firearm, unless certain conditions are met. In other words, if I'm in your vehicle and you own a firearm, I have to look into whether you have an FAC and whether you have the proper registration of that gun. Otherwise, as simply an occupant of that car, I am committing an offence.

Mr. Biro: I would draw your attention to the person who knows there is a firearm. Let me go back to some real situations. If you're an officer and you're involved in a high-risk take-down, for your own personal safety as an occupant of that vehicle you certainly may want to get the knowledge out that there isn't or there is a firearm. I don't think you want to leave any degree of uncertainty about that fact. As you know, if you're a legitimate firearm owner and it is locked away in your vehicle for transportation, separate from the ammunition, you're not going to run into a risk. But if you're going along at night and there may be a firearm, and you know that fact, as an occupant of that vehicle, I would suggest you may want to tell the officers as soon as possible. I think that's a safety issue for the officer and for yourself.

Mr. Bodnar: I don't see it that way. I see it as a person being an occupant in a vehicle. If I'm an occupant in your vehicle and you're the person who illegally has that gun, and I have nothing to do with the gun - I do not control the vehicle - I see it as rather strange that I can be charged with an offence when I've had nothing to do with that gun in the vehicle.

There is a further obligation in that particular proposed section that I must exit that vehicle or take what steps there are to get out of that vehicle. I find that quite unreasonable.

Mr. Biro: As Mr. Badham said earlier about his conversation with the Saskatchewan justice minister, I think we have to agree to disagree on this point. I put myself in the shoes of the police officer. If you're in a vehicle and you know there's an illegal firearm in that vehicle, and the police officer pulls that car over, and you say I'm just going to be quiet and see what happens, I don't think you're particularly assisting the police officer and you may not be assisting your own personal safety. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

Mr. Bodnar: But in law there is no obligation on that occupant to assist the police officer.

Mr. Biro: You may feel that way, but maybe there is morally.

Mr. Bodnar: Thank you. I agree with your presentation, except there are a few sections that cause me concern.

Mr. Badham: When we get into some of the details, we are dealing on a conceptual basis, which we favour. Of course, it's your responsibility as a lawmaker to refine those laws as you see fit. But we're providing you with our opinions on this, and would hope for a reasonable approach in all of these things. I think you used the term ``discretion''; I think police officers do that in the interest of public safety.

[Translation]

Mr. Caron: Just a short question. You recommend to delay for one year the installation of new licenses to give us the time to implement the new system.

What reason do you have to believe that the implementation of the new system could take one year and why do you think the date of January 1996 is not adequate?

.1615

[English]

Mr. Badham: In the presentation, we indicated to advance it for one year. If an effective training program were available, perhaps that time could be shortened. I think the significant part of what we have said this afternoon is that there is adequate information training for those people who would administer the registry. But also run it through the works and be sure the processes and the technology to be used are adequate.

It would be our opinion that it's a short period of time to have that ready for January 1, 1996. Therefore we need some extra time. Maybe it could be done by summertime, but we've just suggested a year for that particular training time. It could mean, though, that some jurisdictions may be doing some of the registration at that time. But to have that final deadline, we've suggested it be advanced for a year.

Mr. Biro: I would add that the training is an important component. In a sense, we're also quite selfish, as local police service boards. We're hoping, I think with some foreknowledge, that the justice department and the Solicitor General of Canada will invest the time for the technology. The training is important; allied with the technology, it is even more important. The better the technology is, the more cost-effective it is.

We're cognizant of concerns of legitimate firearm owners who don't want to be overburdened with paper. Hence, we want to make it as easy as possible for the registry because we want compliance. We think that one year makes sense and is a compromise we're willing to suggest for this committee to consider.

[Translation]

Mr. Caron: I see.

[English]

Ms Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): You stated in your brief that you are willing to absorb the costs. The Canadian Police Association has stated they are concerned that the registry system might take officers off the street. Do you share this concern? Do you have any suggestions on how this might be avoided? I know you don't have an unlimited budget.

Mr. Badham: We know. Mr. Biro has been dealing with the budget most recently.

Mr. Biro: I think it's a legitimate concern of all police boards at all times that the maximum amount of resources go on the front lines. If you take a look at what's happening in police services across Canada, they're restructuring and re-engineering just like everybody else. They're putting more and more into the front lines.

Is there an additional cost? There might be for local police services in terms of the start-up of the system. Mike can certainly speak from the point of view of the political side of it, but I think our association has stated time and time again that our first commitment is to the front-line troops. We think this is part of that commitment, because if we can arm our officers with knowledge and information before they get into a situation, we're doing them a great service.

As my local chief keeps telling me, yes, you've got the officer here; what you've got to visualize is that behind the officer there's a communicator, a CPIC system, a tactical unit, and a command structure. The officer doesn't go out there and act independently. You need the system in place to make sure the officer does the job safely, and to the best of his or her ability. We think this is part of that system. Yes, it's a concern; it's always a concern for all of us. But we think this is an important part of the package.

Ms Phinney: There have been some suggestions with this bill that the first offence for non-compliance with registration be decriminalized. Do you agree that it should be decriminalized? Do you have any suggestions what the penalty could be?

Mr. Badham: I think the circumstances will dictate, as they do so often in many situations. I don't have an opinion on what the punishment should be. I just can't respond on that one.

Ms Phinney: Some suggestions are that the gun be taken away until it is registered -

Mr. Badham: There is that, but I'm talking about whether or not to get to the individual.

Ms Phinney: - or they could be fined.

.1620

Mr. Badham: There shouldn't be incarceration, but yes, the gun could be put away. The whole idea is to try to register the guns. We're saying there are legitimate reasons for being able to have a firearm. If a person has a legitimate reason for it, you want them to abide by that and register it. It's like owning a car: if you speed, the first objective is not to try to get rid of the person's car; I think the objective is to have the person travel at the appropriate rate of speed.

Ms Phinney: Mr. Biro, do you have any comments?

Mr. Biro: I go back to the question of discretion. You see it every day, especially if you come from Ontario: the question of discretion weighs heavily on the individual officer. They have a lot of it. There are six oversight bodies in Ontario to ensure effective and legitimate use of discretion and to prevent abuse.

I think the criminalization sanction has to be there. If you take it out and say on the first offence we won't do this, but we'll confiscate the weapon, you're in essence putting almost a more onerous type of situation in place for the legitimate firearm owner.

I think if you believe there is an effective use of discretion now by the judicial system, crown attorneys and officers, I don't see why anything in the legislation would prevent them from that same effective use of discretion.

Ms Phinney: What you're suggesting is to leave in the criminalization. The police officer would decide, if somebody who was 79 years old who just forgot to register it, that he shouldn't be charged. But somebody else should be charged.

Mr. Badham: I think that is the discretion.

By the way, I discovered my mother, who is 84, has a pistol. As a kid, I seem to remember that. My father was an immigrant from Wales, and as an Anglican minister he was out in the countryside. He supposedly got this for personal protection. It's never been used, to my knowledge. It was still among some of my father's things. He's been gone for 22 years. But my mother, when she discovered it...for whatever reason she has now made certain that she has registered this pistol. There is no ammunition; she doesn't know what to do with it. I think there are a number of people who are like that, and those who have even forgotten there are such things around. If she hadn't done this, she would definitely have been a criminal. In that instance, if someone had discovered that, I do not think the intent of the police or the judicial system would be to haul her off as a criminal.

Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): I must admit I was at first quite excited when I saw this sub-heading ``Criminal Sanctions''. But as I got into it, I was very disappointed to see that an organization representing the police community, when it talks about criminal sanctions, is talking only about the registration element of this piece of legislation.

I don't find any mention in your brief or in what you have said about part III of this legislation that deals with the criminal use of firearms and the sanctions against that. Did you read part III? Do you not have any comments on the criminal use of firearms?

Mr. Biro: Yes, I did read part III. The association is aware of it. Along with the police associations of the past, I would suggest our association has taken some very strong and vigorous positions on criminal sanctions. I apologize on behalf of Mr. Badham if it's not in the brief, but we clearly stated we'd be focusing on the more controversial aspects. I think there is universal agreement on the penalty aspects that are written into the proposed law.

Ms Meredith: What is your understanding of the criminal penalties, the sanctions under this legislation?

Mr. Biro: As presented to the committee by Mr. Rock and by others, my understanding is there is a strengthened need for criminal sanctions, including a mandatory four years for the use of a firearm in violent crimes. This is one of the points we raised earlier.

Ms Meredith: Is this a four-year consecutive sanction, or is it instead a four-year sanction for those ten most serious crimes?

.1625

Mr. Biro: It really depends, I suppose, on what this committee suggests to Mr. Rock, how he takes it, and then how the judiciary takes it. Usually it runs concurrently. That's my understanding of the justice system.

Ms Meredith: According to this bill and the changes that have been made to it, it's not concurrent, it's not consecutive; that is the sentence. If a person violently and sexually assaults an individual and uses a gun to do that, they get the minimum of four years.

I would suggest to you that this bill falls far short of what the Canadian public is looking for. Right now, in my community and in my area of this country the standard sentence for a domestic manslaughter charge is four years. Now, it certainly is not going to deter them to know it's going to be the same whether they use a gun or their hands. I would suggest you take a closer look and tell me whether the four-year minimum sentence, which will become a standard sentence unless there are aggravating factors, is sufficient.

With the less serious crimes, those that are not included in the ten most serious crimes, that part of the sanction is not only a criminal conviction but a summary conviction, which means that if somebody is found to possess an illegal firearm, they may only get a fine.

So I would urge you to go back and take a very close look and decide whether you feel this piece of legislation is treating the criminal use of firearms in a serious way.

Mr. Badham: Perhaps we will and shall and could continue to make representations regarding that. Today we viewed it on this other basis, but we'd be prepared to do that.

Perhaps Mr. Biro has another observation on that.

Mr. Biro: Again to assist the member - and I apologize if we hadn't forwarded this to her office previously - in Montreal in 1994 the CAPB took the position of a minimum of five years to be added on to any other sentence. So the issue has already been looked at. The focus today was certainly different.

In terms of the comments you made, it's certainly something the CAPB is mindful of. AsMr. Badham said, the CAPB is very much the link between the community and the police. We get it from both sides. We get it from the community members who are not satisfied with the sentences that are being handed out by the justice system. We also get it from the police officers, who are even more frustrated because they're the ones who do the investigation.

From our point of view, we believe we can effect positive change by some of our comments. We had to focus our comments to meet the timelines of this committee, but I would not want to leave you with the impression that the other aspect of punishment, if you will, for a violent crime was left unnoticed by the association. It did deal with it last year. I'd be happy to send you a copy of the resolution.

Ms Meredith: When you send this information, could you also please provide to this committee through the clerk the studies you referred to and that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police also used last night, indicating the use of long guns in criminal activity?

Mr. Biro: My understanding is that they've undertaken to do that, but I'll certainly communicate with them and pass that on to them. They're the ones who have them.

Ms Meredith: You also mentioned you had used recent studies, and I would appreciate it if you would provide those recent studies, plural, to the clerk so we can see them.

Mr. Badham: The chiefs used those.

Ms Meredith: So we will get copies of those studies whether you get them through the Association of Chiefs of Police or -

Mr. Biro: We'll certainly pass that on to the chiefs.

Ms Meredith: Thank you.

Mr. Iftody (Provencher): Thank you very much for your presentation. I have a couple of questions. One has to do with the provisions in the bill that include the Criminal Code as a way of enforcement and punishment.

I'd like you to speak a little, Mr. Badham, about the hypothetical situation you gave about the pensioner. You wanted us to allow the Criminal Code provision and allow the officer the discretion, for example. I'd like to know a little more clearly how you would operationalize that.

.1630

I represent a rural area, and I'm disappointed you don't have anyone from the rural areas making these presentations on behalf of your association. But that having been said, how would you make a distinction between a 65-year-old pensioner who is just saying he's not going to register his firearm and he's going to hide it in the barn and somebody who forgot, other than the same person saying sorry, I forgot? How is an officer supposed to make that determination?

I want you to provide that example in terms of a rural context and the relationships with the police officers in the rural areas, which I would argue are certainly different from the ones in the city. Would you expand on the notion of discretion?

Mr. Badham: The area of discretion is used with police officers in many instances. Sometimes they trust their instincts and use some discretion. If they are involved in that community-based policing that we encourage, they know their community a bit, so some of the persons may be known to them. Therefore that would help.

Generally, in the rural communities of which you speak, there are not as many people. Perhaps that is where they really do know, and I would suggest that is where more discretion would likely take place.

The reason we're not really commenting about what you would refer to as rural communities is that the Canadian Association of Police Boards is an organization of boards where there are municipal police forces and they have, as such, a board that oversees it. So it is only with municipal policing, rather than with a provincial police force. In my home province of Saskatchewan, most if not nearly all of rural Saskatchewan is policed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, except for, I believe, one rural municipality.

Mr. Iftody: Thank you. You are from Toronto and Regina respectively, I believe?

Mr. Badham: No, there's also the smaller communities. Notice I say if they have a municipal police force. So, yes, they don't represent rural policing.

Mr. Iftody: I would like to pursue this. Did you say you are a link between the community and the police?

Mr. Badham: Yes.

Mr. Iftody: Okay. So you believe you're representing your community of Regina, where you're from?

Mr. Badham: Yes.

Mr. Iftody: You are in touch with that community, and when you're speaking to this committee and giving testimony you're representing their beliefs and values on this particular question. Am I clear on that?

Mr. Badham: As an individual I listen, and in my responsibility as a police commissioner, that's my responsibility. I am here today representing the viewpoint of the association of those boards, first of all through the board of directors of that organization. Secondly, a couple of comments have been made about some of the resolutions and so on that would be made by them.

Mr. Iftody: Okay.

Mr. Badham: But in the instance of being within my home community, yes. I am a member of the community who first of all was elected by the community -

Mr. Iftody: I have only one minute left. The point I'm driving at here is that I also represent a community and I have some concerns about the legislation and many of my constituents in rural Manitoba have indicated to me they have some problems with it. In particular, many of my constituents find the notion of the Criminal Code provisions deeply troubling, and I do as well. I want to try to represent them and you're representing your constituents. I believe there is a notion of community value and belief and there are some differences on this. I think within that whole notion of the Criminal Code aspect, we can make some progress.

I wanted to ask a second quick question.

The Chair: You're going two minutes over your time and I don't allow that. So put your question.

Mr. Iftody: I appreciate the arguments you've made, and your association has made them well. If and when the bill is passed and registration is there, do you believe that would make an operational and visible difference on the streets of Canada and could that be demonstrated by some sort of data? In other words, would you be willing to argue for an audit of this program in say three or four or five years, perhaps an independent audit by the Auditor General, in conjunction with police departments, to give evidence to Parliament that this policy is in fact having the intended outcomes that you are suggesting and arguing, and further, if it didn't, that we should make some adjustments to that policy?

.1635

Mr. Badham: One of the things we want to make sure happens is that it is effective. This is a proposal, and that's where we said a bit of a delay in making sure on the registration procedures and testing - along that particular area. But yes, as one who believes in the audit procedure I think any process and intentions determined by lawmakers are subject to audit. I personally would have no difficulty with it.

The Chair: Before I go back to Mr. Caron, I think we should clarify the points raised byMr. Iftody.

How many police boards belong to the Canadian Association of Police Boards? If I understand correctly, not all police forces in Canada have police boards. There may be certain areas of Canada where the police forces do not have a board.

Mr. Badham: That's correct.

The Chair: Are all police boards in municipal areas, or are there some in rural communities as well?

Mr. Biro: If I could respond - certainly I want to answer all your questions - currently there are 51 members of the Canadian Association of Police Boards.

The Chair: There are 51 boards.

Mr. Biro: Our members represent half of all the sworn officers in Canada.

In terms of rural versus municipal, not to leave a mistaken impression, we have a lot of municipalities in rural areas that have police boards. There's no rhyme or reason to it. For instance, our smallest board has a police service of one. That's in Churchbridge, Saskatchewan. Many of our boards represent jurisdictions that would have populations of under 5,000. So the way in which it works is really open to provincial vagary.

About which provinces don't have boards, Quebec largely has committees of council, largely, though we do have a member from the province of Quebec. Manitoba tends to have committees of council, though we do have a first nations police-governing authority from Manitoba. The other anomalies are Newfoundland, which does not have boards, and Prince Edward Island, which does not have boards as they're constituted. All other provinces have boards, and all other provinces are represented.

As I said, we also have first nations police-governing authorities, which operate under tripartite agreements. They would have authorities that act like boards.

In addition, the RCMP has committees that advise the RCMP local detachment as to the OPP. They also have a link, if you want, with the Canadian Association in terms of governance.

The Chair: I should make clear as well that the two of you here this afternoon have presented a brief from the Canadian Association of Police Boards and not a brief of either the Regina police board or the Peel police board.

Mr. Biro: Absolutely. We're just drawing upon personal examples.

Mr. Badham: That's correct.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Caron, do you have any other questions?

Mr. Caron: Maybe a quick one, Mr. Chairman.

On page 2 of your brief, you stated that Bill C-68 represents a logical step in regulating the use of firearms. A step being a step, I suppose that is taken in the direction of a more effective regulatory system.

Do you have any suggestions to make for a further step so that arms control becomes even more effective than what this bill will allow?

[English]

Mr. Biro: I think the first suggestion we would make, in all sincerity, would be that to make the bill more effective you should make it as easy as possible to comply with. There is a legitimate constituency, and we recognize it, that's concerned about paperwork, about too much over-regulation. Certainly our goal would be to ensure that this constituency will come forward and comply, because the only way it's going to be effective is if you get as many people as possible voluntarily complying with the bill. That will put all the good guys over here, if you wish, and leave all the bad guys over there. As the point has been made by others, the bad guys aren't going to register their firearms, whether they're long guns, revolvers, or UZIs. They're simply not going to do it.

.1640

So really the best way, the most effective way to ensure the registry works, to ensure there's full compliance, to reduce the burden on legitimate gun owners.... We think the system proposed will do that. So before we go beyond this - if there is a ``beyond'' - certainly as we stand today that should be the goal of all the various police partners and the government.

The Chair: Mr. Culbert, you have five minutes.

Mr. Culbert (Carleton - Charlotte): Thank you very much, gentlemen, for being here this afternoon.

I certainly listened with great interest to your presentation and I thought it was well done. First I want to touch on a couple of components in your presentation.

On page 6, when you say you believe it's fair to say there has been a great deal of misinformation presented about the bill, especially as it relates to the registry system, I think that's understatement. I would concur with you tremendously.

I spend 90% of my time putting out fires that someone else has created through misinformation. It reminds me a lot of the period when we were in school at the elementary level, or you made a statement to the first person and listened to it when it came out at the other end. That's exactly what we're facing with this.

You've gone on, however, to indicate that you feel very strongly a campaign should be put forward to bring out factual information. I'm just wondering if, as an agency yourself, the association for police boards, you have done anything to date along this line to get out those facts through your area of expertise and your bodies or associations. If so, what has that done? Do you perhaps have plans to get out any additional factual information in the future?

Mr. Badham: Through our normal communications, through an analysis bulletin that goes to our member boards, we try to provide the information that is there. We try, if we can, to take that and synthesize a document like this. This, of course, is extremely difficult for a person to wade through, to find out every particular component and what is there.

As you say, the misinformation is the part where something is taken. It is extrapolated in such a manner that it provides particular confusion. A lot of this has to do with the fact that there are people who say they certainly support registration of guns and control, but this legislation is going to mean that people are going to kick in our doors and come and ransack our house - not only will they take our guns, but they will...whatever. It's a police state and all the rest of it. That's the misinformation that comes about where people look at that and extrapolate from that.

So yes, we try to present factual information as opposed to opinionated information.

Mr. Biro: About exact tools we've used, in Montreal, when we held our annual meeting in 1994, we had a seminar totally dedicated to the issue of firearm control. This was on both what had been achieved to date and what had been proposed. When the firearm control program was announced in November 1994 we immediately faxed a synopsis of all the different parts of the plan. We then made available to our members the background material that has been released by the justice department.

Following today's presentation we'll also take our submission as well as the other submissions that are put forward - these are primarily from our policing partners, the CPA and the CACP - and we will disseminate those to our members. So we are doing our utmost to make sure they get as objective a view as we can put into their hands for their own local communities.

Mr. Culbert: Okay, thank you. To follow up a little, I share some of the concerns about the criminality of the first-time offences, especially as they affect long rifles and shotguns. I don't have a lot of sympathy for handguns, because they've required registration for many, many years. You may want to comment on that, although you already have.

I certainly have some very serious concerns about the search and seizure component. You've touched on that somewhat. One of the points you haven't touched on in your brief, other than saying you would like to see a one-year delay.... But other than that, you'd like to see things proceed right along just for training. As I understand, training is for the police officers or the civilian staff required in the reporting system.

.1645

I guess one of the concerns I keep having is the cost: the cost of the registration system to the individual, the Canadian public, the taxpayer out there, the people we're supposed to be representing here day in and day out. Not only the direct cost of obtaining the certificates, your individual licence, the licence for your firearms individually, but in addition, in many cases the cost of the training programs must be taken as part and parcel of that before you're allowed that privilege.

The other thing you touched upon in one of your answers to one of my colleagues was legitimate reasons for owning a firearm. I thought you might want to give some examples of that.

To be very frank with you, in my rural riding it is a traditional way of life to have long rifles and shotguns for the hunting season, for the joy of the sport. It is also a tradition for people in my farming community to have a firearm in their residence to protect their livestock in many cases from varmints, animals, etc. I thought you might comment further on that legitimacy.

Mr. Biro: Responding to your point about your rural constituency, my understanding - and I'm sure the experts at this table will correct me if I'm wrong - is that there are already exemptions for farmers, in terms of protecting livestock, that exist now. Secondly, I think it's an important point that it is a way of life for many individuals, and we respect that. We do represent those jurisdictions where individuals such as those reside.

As we see it, however, the reality is that it's not an undue interference in that way of life. At present the fee structure as suggested by the government will be $10 for up to 10 weapons, and that's it. You don't have to bring them back; that's done. If that is seen as as unnecessary imposition, I'd ask those people to compare it with an annual fee for a dog licence, where they have to keep coming back and make sure they get the vaccination and everything else. Or if you want to get a reduction you neuter the dog, as I understand it.

So yes, it's a momentary imposition for that legitimate firearm owner who believes it is a way of life.

An hon. member: For the weekend.

Mr. Biro: But I don't see where the registry goes beyond that. I simply haven't seen a persuasive argument on that point.

Mr. Badham: So once it's registered, you may still maintain that way of life, using it for the purpose it's there for.

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

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): I guess I have a concern and I'd like to express it. You gentlemen can comment on it.

I spent 14 years as a police officer. We used to be accused of having a kind of narrow focus, a kind of police mentality. Rightly or wrongly, that was there. Yesterday I saw a little of that, or at least there was a twinge of memory about that. When I asked Chief Ford if he was prepared - Of course, he wanted the bill passed without any amendments. When I pointed out that we had groups appear before the committee who are going to experience severe economic ramifications if the bill does goes through, such as the guides and outfitters across the country - Some of them who appeared here said they're afraid it will shut down the American hunter from coming across the border. They said if they lose 20% of their business - Some of them have indications of cancellations that would put them out of business.

We had the only two firearms manufacturers in Canada here. Both of them said that for various reasons - and they explained the reasons - if this bill went through unamended they would be forced to leave. Now, I don't know if they're exaggerating or not, but I do know that companies have left Canada and moved to the States in quite large numbers in the last number of years.

The point I'm making is this: if we ask police bodies and those bodies such as yourself to do anything other than advise the creators of law, the parliamentarians, on anything more than technical matters, do we not run the risk of having the politicians, who create the law, and the police, who are part of the administration of law, become one body, something we do not want to happen? We must maintain the division of powers between those who create and those who administer the law and there must not be any interference between the two.

.1650

As a policeman, I had an NCO to whom I reported, but legally my boss was the law. I enforced the law. I had to know the authority for all that I did. I looked to the legislation created by the parliamentarians for that authority. If it wasn't there, I couldn't do it; if it was, I could.

We seem to be moving more and more towards uniting the politician with the police officers - certainly on Bill C-68 - in creating the law. Bearing in mind that sort of narrow focus we have as police officers - former police officers as well, sometimes - where we don't take into consideration all the ramifications of the bill, do you believe that is a healthy developing situation, or am I seeing something that doesn't exist?

Mr. Badham: I understand the purpose of this committee is to hear from all sources, from people who would like to provide opinions. I feel you are doing that. Once that is there, we said at the outset that we're not attempting to suggest amendments here today. That's up to this committee. It's up to the government. Once they have heard what the communities within our country say, whether it be the policing community, whether it be those who have a police board community, those who are in certain businesses, outfitters or whatever, it's that particular opportunity - I consider our lawmaking process means that those opinions are there and the responsibility is there for you.

Mr. Ramsay: Well, then, perhaps I could ask you gentlemen how you feel about - These people are asking for exemptions. I asked Chief Ford, in view of the representation made by these groups, if he still thought this bill should be pushed through without any amendments. He said yes.

How do you feel about it? How do you feel about what these people are saying, that we're going to put people out of work, we're going to close down a couple of businesses that manufacture guns and probably many other businesses that are in guiding and outfitting? Should this bill take cognizance of the economic impact that will occur to these people?

Mr. Badham: I think there are two things. You have to look at one if you consider safety. I'm sure we would want to withdraw something that was an unsafe vehicle and something that was unsafe within the community, if that were to occur. The manufacture of it either has to adapt or there are some alternatives. If you look at the economic aspect, we have fishermen, farmers, and government gets involved in all aspects of that kind of production.

Maybe there is something you can do to phase in something, but if something is not needed any more, why would you want to support it?

Mr. Ramsay: Would you support the committee's consideration of the needs of these other groups? Would you support that?

Mr. Badham: I haven't analysed it to be able to give you a qualified yes or no.

Mr. Ramsay: I wish you would. See, you haven't, but I wish you would.

Mr. Badham: No, we haven't. We've brought our point of view to this table. As I say, I'm certain there are other groups within our nation that are coming and presenting their particular group opinion. But no, we haven't analysed that and that's not part of our presentation today.

The Chair: Ms Torsney, you have five minutes.

Mr. Ramsay: We haven't heard from the other witness on anything I've said. From his body language, I see he might want to respond.

The Chair: Well, if he wishes to, he can.

Mr. Biro: I apologize for my body language.

Mr. Ramsay: Well, your light came on.

The Chair: There's no requirement.

.1655

Mr. Biro: Obviously people on this side can see my eagerness.

The reason I want to respond is that when you asked the question about the legitimacy of the police organization coming in here and about the drawing together of politicians and the police you hit upon the raison d'être of police boards. Police boards were created to sever locally the control of politicians over police, to act as that buffer. So there's a recognition that there needs to be that buffer.

There's also recognition, however, that a corporate body such as this association or that of the chiefs or the CPA is different from the local influence they can portray. So I think, yes, you're coming to us for our expertise. It would be presumptuous of us then to tell you to take our expertise, disband everyone else's and throw it out. We're giving you the best knowledge we can so you can make the best decision you can.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.

The Chair: Ms Torsney, you have five minutes.

Ms Torsney (Burlington): I have two questions. The first one is directed strictly to you,Mr. Badham. You do come from Saskatchewan and certainly we're hearing conflicting messages about whether there's a problem with guns in Saskatchewan, whether there are homicides or what's really going on. I wanted to know your opinion. Is a registry needed for Saskatchewan, or are guns no problem whatsoever there?

Mr. Badham: Well, guns are a problem everywhere in the country. I would never suggest that one province be excluded from a registry or something that's being done on a national issue. True, provinces have the opportunity to have certain legislation, but not on an issue such as this when we're dealing with the issue of the Criminal Code.

When I talk about guns and you say is there a problem there, I guess one of the statements I've made publicly, to friends or to anyone who wants to hear, is that regulations are very necessary for the use and abuse of firearms. There's usually no problem with the users; it's the abusers. That's one of the issues that have to be looked at.

There are accidents, suicides, killings, true, but if you look at it on a per-capita basis, there are some statistics around - I don't have them in front of me right now - that would show if you were to look at injuries, abuse, accidents or premeditation, those numbers on a proportionate basis are likely higher than they are in some of the more heavily populated areas.

Ms Torsney: Okay, my question is to both of you. It deals with this whole issue of criminality and whether or not we should be charging people or giving them warnings, or whether their initial encounter with the police officer...whether or not there is discretion.

I have two scenarios for you. One is that there's a fellow and he has 20 guns in his home. The police have a rumour that he's trafficking. They've no evidence that he is in fact trafficking, but they could close this fellow down when they get to that house. None of those guns are registered. So they could close him down by giving him a criminal record for possessing 20 guns and thereby taking somebody who is not a desirable member of our community off the streets.

The second one is the instance of people such as Jonathon Yeo who are stopped with a gun. It's perfectly legitimate; they're allowed to have that gun. There are no laws to stop them currently, because you are allowed to go hunting and you are allowed to have guns. But the police have a hunch, they have an instinct that in fact that person is about to commit a crime. They're off either to get their boss, as people suggested yesterday, or to get their former spouse.

A ticket, a warning system, or some other kind of system that would take away the criminal element would be too lenient in that example. The police would not be able to detain that person for a time period so that there's a cooling off.

I'd suggest to you that there is enough discretion in the system, among police who lay charges, crown attorneys who choose to proceed with charges, and judges who choose to convict or not convict. There are enough stringent tests in the system to continue to leave it as a criminal charge, have the system work well and allow that discretion for those cases where it is a grandmother of 67 who won't register her guns and the other elements such as the Jonathon Yeos or the smugglers who we really do need to stop.

.1700

My second question relates to the concept that as part of the warning or the tickets or the decriminalization, a lot of people have suggested that the real way to do this is to give them their warning or ticket or some kind of a less criminal offence but to seize the weapon. I wonder what you think that would do to the misinformation channels out there. By seizing those weapons we would in fact bring in confiscation, which we don't want to do in Canada. How would that spread the rumours fast across the Internet, as they are spreading now? That's for both of you.

Mr. Biro: I'll respond to the scenarios you raised, and I'll let Mike speak to the confiscation issue.

I would suggest to you that if the legislation as it stands were passed - it would go back to 20 guns - unless the police had reasonable evidence that someone was trafficking, they would not be able to get access to that home. That's under this legislation as it's written. That's the real world, if you want, in terms of appearing before a JP and saying we think he's a bad guy, we think he has 20 guns. There isn't a JP around that I'm aware of who would say okay, fine, here's a warrant. It doesn't happen that way. You have to have some evidence.

Suppose you think a person is trafficking and has 20 firearms in their house. You knock on the door and ask to come in. Are they going to say come on in, have a cup of coffee, and take it easy? That's not going to happen either. Under your first scenario, as the legislation is written, through my experience I'm not sure they'd get entry.

Ms Torsney: You...[Inaudible - Editor]...registration.

Mr. Biro: They would have to have evidence to go and get the warrant.

As for the second scenario, Jonathon Yeo, I think that's a strong argument for registered. A prohibition order would have been likely, as you know. Had it been issued for Jonathon Yeo, they would have known what firearms he had, they could have gone down and seized them. Even under this system that's a good five to ten years down the road. We can only hope there won't be another tragedy like that.

Those are the answers to those. Mike, do you want to talk about the confiscation?

Mr. Badham: Perhaps you could restate the question about confiscation.

Ms Torsney: People have been suggesting that rather than making it a criminal offence, you somehow warn the person and then seize the guns. Of course once you start seizing guns everyone will say that the government was really out there to start confiscating guns. Then we have the rumour mill in....

Mr. Badham: Thank you. I have your -

The Chair: The member of Parliament could go beyond her time.

Ms Torsney: It's possible.

The Chair: You're allowed to answer the questions but not to ask her to ask more questions.

Mr. Badham: Mr. Chairman, I was seeking some clarification.

On the confiscation issue, I think we did allude to this before. Perhaps there is a way, if it is what we would call an honest oversight, to take it away, register it, and give it back.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Caron, have you any more questions?

Mr. Caron: No.

The Chair: I have a few I would like to ask.

[English]

Mr. Bodner isn't here now, but he exchanged some questions with you on inspection. Those provisions are on page 41 of the bill. In clause 99 it says:

At the top of page 43 it says:

About a warrant it says:

.1705

Those conditions for issuing the warrant aren't exactly the same as those for issuing a search warrant for a drug search, but they're still rather stringent.

As police boards, if you had police who were abusing these proposed sections and following the scenarios put forward by Mr. Bodnar, where they were using these sections to do other things, or using these sections to get into the house with no legitimate purpose, what action can you take, as police boards? You said that police boards also deal with complaints from the public. This has to deal with a dwelling house, if it was my dwelling house and the police came in with one of these warrants to look for prohibited weapons and so on. If I didn't have any, or all I had was a .22 calibre for hunting and it wasn't prohibited, could I lay a complaint, if I was in Peel or in Regina, if the police came in and went around looking for things?

What do you do in those kinds of cases? What powers do you have with your police force? Do people often complain when the police do inspect or try to get in without just cause?

Mr. Badham: We haven't had that many instances of that specific of trying to get in without just cause. But we often hear - and when I say often, there are complaints of say looking in a car, questioning why they were looking there and whether they really had a reason, asking what was happening - there are complaints that are then laid, some of them having to do....

The Chair: You do deal with complaints on this.

Mr. Badham: Yes. We have to do it on the following basis. If it has to do with service, in the type of service that is being provided in our community, then as a board of police commissioners - and I'm talking about Saskatchewan, because different provinces do operate differently - we also have a provincial police complaints investigator. Through the Saskatchewan Police Commission, they have that responsibility. There is a public complaints investigator, and all complaints that come to a police service go to that provincial source and are investigated.

Mr. Biro: If I could just respond to the broader question in terms of jurisdictions, almost every jurisdiction in Canada has a complaints system, whether it be local or provincial. The situation you raised was actually dealt with at our last board meeting in Peel, where an officer mistakenly thought he had consent for entry and found out that the individual complained to our local police service. It was investigated and the complaint was upheld. So there is a way in which individuals can come and complain and have it reviewed.

The Chair: Thank you. That completes my questions.

Excuse me for a minute. This is on another matter I want to ask of the committee, before everybody leaves. The date is wrong here, but we had arranged for an evening meeting next week with Women and the Law and the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. The National Action Committee on the Status of Women has advised us they don't want to appear. The YWCA has heard about this. They say they have YWCAs throughout the country and they widely represent women in this country. They want to know if they can replace the National Action Committee on that panel that evening. I ask for your direction and approval.

Mr. Ramsay: What date is that, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Next Tuesday evening, that would be May 9. It was May 16.

Mr. Ramsay: From 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.?

The Chair: Yes, it was an evening meeting.

Mr. Ramsay: Have they cancelled out?

The Chair: Yes, NAC have cancelled out.

Mr. Ramsay: I don't have NAC here.

The Chair: Excuse me, May 16 - and it's in the afternoon, not the evening, I apologize - from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and the National Association of Women and the Law. The National Action Committee on the Status of Women has withdrawn. The YWCA have asked if they can replace them. They say they have YWCAs in every province and the territories; they represent women. So I'm asking....

.1710

Ms Torsney: I would support that. The YWCA has done a lot of work right across the country on issues relating to women and would be a terrific spokesperson.

The Chair: I think at the beginning, Mr. Ramsay, you or Ms Meredith were suggesting that we have the YWCA in place of the National Action Committee.

Mr. Ramsay: I have no objection to them filling this position.

[Translation]

The Chair: Do you have any objections Mr. Caron?

Mr. Caron: I have no problem with it.

The Chair: Fine.

[English]

The Chair: Agreed. Now for our two witnesses.

Mr. Ramsay: Yes. I just want to follow up a little on where we left off, because it is very important to me that some of this stuff be placed on the record for at least future consideration.

As the police get more and more involved in making representations to the lawmakers - you said, I believe, that's the purpose for the creation of a body like yours, to separate the politicians from the policemen. Yet I just want to read the last two paragraphs of the justice minister's speech to the policemen. This was the police chiefs. He gave a very well-rounded presentation to them. This is prior to the bill being tabled. He says this:

Also, the Canadian Police Association, which represents the rank and file, met with him and he was prepared to make amendments; he was prepared, in other words, as he said, to do business. They wanted some changes and they made their representation here. That's on the record.

Back to my concern about the collapse of the division of powers between those who create the law and those who participate in the administration of the law, do you still feel there's no need for my concern or anyone else's concern in that area?

Mr. Biro: The short answer is I don't think there is that degree of concern. I would simply make the point that I think the CPA, given its mandate, the CACP, given its mandate, and our board, given its mandate - part of what we offer is our expertise, freely, not just to the government but to all legitimate parties of the government, and to anybody else who asks us, for that matter. We're not shy about that.

I do think the distinction I would draw.... I'll go back to the analogy of the local board being a buffer between the local council and the police officer. I think there would be an element of concern throughout society if you saw a police officer in uniform saying he's Constable Brown and he really likes these Audis because that's the kind of car he drives. This is a real situation in Halifax, because the person's using the prestige of the police officer to make the point.

The same distinction exists in Ontario. A police officer in Ontario can help an individual, but can't campaign using the office -

Mr. Ramsay: The question that we must ask ourselves is whether or not the police forces, those who represent them, are not only giving technical advice but are in fact participating in the creation of the law. Is that happening? If it is, do you not see areas for concern?

Mr. Biro: I think the checks and balances that exist in our particular system are very fair and more than adequate in dealing with that potential concern, to be perfectly honest.

Mr. Ramsay: I thank you for that answer. I have one other question.

.1715

The Chair: On this round you have one minute, but I can be a bit flexible, because we want to finish up here.

Mr. Ramsay: Okay.

My question has to do with the so-called misinformation. I believe there are probably hundreds and hundreds of complaints of domestic violence that police officers have to attend every day across this country. What do you think those who use the Internet and those who are prone to rumour would say when this information contained within your brief gets to them? If it were known firearms were located in the residence, not only would the two patrols be responding, but a tactical unit would automatically be called to respond as well.

As a police officer - and of course that was a long time ago - I'm sure there are many calls to residences where there are firearms and there has been some sort of violence. Can you not see, in the minds of these people, that whenever a complaint comes in of that nature, a SWAT team is going to move in - two patrol units and a tactical unit? Is this not adding to that kind of misinformation or concern about knocking down doors, as Mr. Badham mentioned earlier, and that kind of thing? This is what you're telling us; this is what's been submitted.

The bill itself is before the people. There should be no misinformation at all. We had a fight to get copies of this. Nevertheless, there should be no misinformation at all except in the manner in which this is interpreted.

Mr. Biro: I'll just respond briefly, because it's the example of Peel, in my home jurisdiction. I would say with great pride that our tactical unit is not a SWAT team. Our tactical unit responds to hundreds of calls a year. They have never once shot or killed anyone. What a tactical unit does is allow a situation to be defused in a way that's safe for the officers and for the occupants of that home. That's my first point.

Secondly, when you say the information goes on the Internet, to me, that's honest, objective information, and I would suggest to the potential individual who may view it as a threat that it just contains the truth. This is how we respond. It's to protect them as well as to protect us and to protect the occupants, who may be the victims of the violence as well.

I'm not ashamed of our record. In fact I'm quite proud of it. Nor am I ashamed of the response, which puts safety first. I'm not saying you said I said that; I'm just saying I do take pride in what we've achieved.

Mr. Ramsay: That's fine, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Before we adjourn, Mr. Ramsay and others, for good or for bad, I've been here in Parliament for almost thirty years, and we on this committee have always consulted with the police associations and the chiefs of police. We've only had this association in recent years. Over that period of time, in consultation with the police, sometimes they got a finished product they approved of for the most part, such as this time, but many times they did not approve of the final product.

Mr. Ramsay, we just had hearings on C-41, the sentencing bill, and although the police had been consulted on that, I think they recommended that we withdraw the bill. They were not happy at all with the bill, nor were they happy with C-37, on young offenders. They had many complaints.

Over all those years, I've seen that while they consult, give us their advice and sometimes agree, they just as often disagree. I can't see them being co-opted. The police associations, both the chiefs and the associations, seem very independent. I've been involved in three capital punishment bills, and they didn't agree with any of them - at least not the association.

So as to the fear you have, Mr. Ramsay, of their being co-opted or getting too cosy with the government, I don't see that happening, because they've always been consulted. Probably more often, after the consultation they've given us their views and haven't been happy with the final product.

By the way, there's always been a wide consultation. It hasn't been just the police, it hasn't been just the victims, it hasn't been just the citizens' groups or experts or criminologists. We try always to do a wide range of consultation. Then it's up to us, the elected members of Parliament, to sift through all this evidence and come to a final conclusion.

.1720

In any case, I want to thank you most sincerely for being here today, representing the other part of the police community - the boards, the chiefs and the men on the front line. We've had them all now. Thank you very much.

The meeting's adjourned until Monday morning.

;