[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, May 16, 1995
.1530 
[English]
The Chair: Order.
We are continuing our consideration of Bill C-68, An Act respecting firearms and other weapons.
We're pleased to have with us this afternoon the national organization for the YWCA, represented by Sandra Essex, in charge of government relations, and Gael MacLeod, a board member with the YWCA from Calgary, Alberta.
We also have with us the Canadian Federation of University Women, represented by Betty Bayless, the chair of the legislation committee, and Marilyn Letts, a member of the national committee.
I should let you know that these two groups this afternoon are the 62nd and 63rd groups appearing before the committee on this bill since April 2.
We have a brief from the Canadian Federation of University Women. We don't have one from the YWCA. However, it's our custom to call on the groups as they appear on the notice of meeting. Consequently I will first call on the YWCA to give their opening remarks.
If you can read your brief in fifteen minutes, that will be fine. If you can't, then we ask you to read parts of it or refer to it, and we will table the entire brief. I'm willing to be flexible to a certain extent, but we don't want the briefs to go on for a long time. That won't leave any time for members of the committee to dialogue with you or to ask questions.
I give the floor to Sandra Essex from the YWCA.
Ms Sandra Essex (Government Relations, YWCA): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
The YWCA of Canada is a voluntary charitable women's organization established in 1893 to serve as a national coordinating body for YWCA and YM-YWCA member associations in Canada. The YWCA provides high-quality community-based programs and services, is a source of public education on women's issues and advocates responsible social, political and economic change. Our core mission is to seek equity and equality for all women.
In Canada, the YWCA has worked with women and their families for over 100 years -
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): I have a point of order.
[Translation]
The Chair: Yes, Mr. Langlois.
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Chairman, if the witness had an additional copy for the interpreters, they could then probably follow more easily.
[English]
The Chair: It would be better if we had a copy of what you're saying so the interpreters could read it as well and help translate what you're saying. I understand from the clerk that this is being done right now. In the meantime, it would be helpful if you would read a little bit slower so they can follow you and translate more easily.
Ms Essex: Okay, sure.
In Canada the YWCA has worked with women and their families for over 100 years and continues to work in 200 communities. Of the 850,000 people who participated in our programs and services, over 400,000 were members.
The YWCA is a worldwide movement, operating in 91 countries. We speak for 5 million women, making us the largest and oldest membership-based women's organization in the world.
Some of the services offered by YWCAs include programs to end violence against women, long-term supportive housing, emergency and short-term housing and non-profit housing. We are the largest single provider of housing services for women in Canada.
Our grass-roots involvement with programs to end violence against women and the provision of emergency housing services have shaped the YWCA's perspective on Bill C-68 as it relates to women's and children's safety. We have therefore limited our review primarily to the area of domestic homicide.
The YWCA has been involved in a wide range of activities to end violence against women and make their lives safer. The following are only a few of the examples.
.1535
In 1991 the YWCA's commitment to ending women abuse was recognized in the long-term funding by Health and Welfare Canada of our Community Action on Violence Against Women, CAVAW.
CAVAW develops strategies to eradicate violence against women. The project builds partnerships within communities that seek to increase awareness of and promote action on the issue.
In 1982 the Peterborough YWCA published the first edition of Fresh Start. This is a self-help guide for women who are in abusive relationships and others who want to understand the issue. It is a sad statement about our society that we have sold tens of thousands of copies across Canada.
Over the years the YWCA has participated in a wide range of formal and informal consultations on domestic violence. Recent consultations include the drafting of Canada's new sexual assault legislation and our participation on the Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women.
Last year over 12,000 women and children stayed in our emergency shelters across Canada. This does not include the 170,000 other women who used our residences, many of whom were fleeing domestic abuse. Shelters operate in twelve of our member associations in such places as Winnipeg, Calgary, Peterborough, Brandon, Regina, Lethbridge, Kamloops and Yellowknife, to name a few.
Our position on the impact of Bill C-68 on the public safety of women and children was prepared in consultation with our diversified membership base. In addition, we have consulted with many other shelters and women's organizations across Canada.
I am here today with the support of organizations such as the National Council of Women, the Provincial Association of Transition Houses in Saskatchewan, the Ontario Association of Interval Space and Transition Houses, the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario, the Saskatchewan Action Committee on the Status of Women, the Alberta Council of Women's Shelters, and the Manitoba Action Committee on the Status of Women, to name a few.
Through our work in all of these areas, we have advocated tougher laws against men who abuse their spouses and stronger gun control legislation. It is our work that has shaped our opinion that gun control is an important measure in addressing violence against women and children. Although it doesn't address the root cause of violence in our society, it will save lives. Gun control is a women's safety issue.
In homes where violence occurs, if guns are present, they become part of the abusive use of power, control and intimidation, whether implicitly or explicitly. Statistics Canada's landmark study in 1993 on violence against women showed that 51%, or half, of the women over the age of sixteen in Canada had been victims of physical or sexual assault as defined by the Criminal Code. This means over 5 million women experienced violence. Also, 25%, or one in four, experienced violence in a current or past marriage.
Estimates have put the numbers of guns in Canada between 5 million and 7 million. When you look at these stats together, it isn't a great leap to assume that many more women are being intimidated with guns than are being reported to the police. Our shelter workers support this theory. The presence of a gun in an abusive home increases the likelihood of a domestic homicide.
Death at the hands of an intimate partner represented more than three-quarters of the total homicides of women. We call this ``intimate femicide''. In almost half of domestic homicides, guns are the weapon of choice when men kill their spouses. For the last twenty years research has consistently supported this fact. The statistics may vary slightly, but the trend does not.
Investigation of all female homicides shows that the victim usually knows her assailant. Most frequently the murder takes place in her home. The research on all homicides, including men, women and children, indicates that in over 70% of the murders the victims knew their assailants.
The guns used in over 70% of all homicides were legally owned rifles and shotguns. The use of rifles to kill women is slightly higher. Although more homicides occur in urban areas, more domestic homicides occur in rural areas.
The gun lobby has focused the debate on criminals. They have presented briefs with the position that Bill C-68 will have little effect on violent crime, the criminal element and homicides caused by random acts of violence or smuggled guns. They may be right as far as random acts of violence and smuggled guns are concerned. Criminals determined to bring in or purchase illegal guns will find a way.
.1540
Has the gun lobby not read the statistics? Most homicides are not random acts of violence and most guns used to commit murder are not smuggled or illegally owned. In fact, in most cases they are owned by legitimate gun owners.
Does the gun lobby not realize that domestic abuse and domestic homicide are criminal acts? The men who commit these crimes are usually perceived by their friends and neighbours as law-abiding, responsible people, and many of them own guns legally. But when a man abuses his spouse, he commits a crime, whether he is prosecuted or not. Bill C-68 won't eliminate violence against women, but it will help save lives.
The YWCA supports the legitimate use of firearms for hunting, sporting activities and law enforcement. It is the misuse of firearms in domestic violence that poses the greatest threat to women and children. We believe the key elements of the legislation will have a significant impact on domestic homicide and women's and children's safety.
We believe mandatory registration of all firearms is linked to the safety of women. A woman's experience with violence is different from a man's. Domestic homicide is not usually premeditated. It is an impulsive act that follows an assault or a perceived loss of control, such as when the woman threatens to leave.
Women are killed by legally acquired, easily accessible rifles and shotguns. We register handguns. Is there an assumption that rifles and shotguns are less lethal? Registration will ensure gun owners are held accountable for their weapons. It will encourage safe storage and eliminate many impulsive domestic homicides. The three or four extra minutes it takes to unlock the gun and load it will determine life or death for women in many situations.
We have seen from experience, such as the anti-smoking and seat-belt campaigns, that education alone is not enough to ensure compliance. The police need to be able to enforce inspection of safe storage. Mandatory registration will provide this option.
A registry would provide the police answering a domestic dispute with information on whether or not the home had firearms. In addition to saving the officer's life, this information would enable the police to remove a registered firearm from a volatile situation, likely preventing a future assault from escalating into a domestic homicide. Firearms are not the only weapons used for killing a spouse, but they are the most lethal.
A registry may encourage more women whose partners own guns to report their abuse sooner. Knowing the gun would be removed by police during a domestic dispute provides an incentive to report the abuse earlier and get rid of the firearm. It is important to have the gun removed as soon as possible. Our research shows a woman will return to an abusive partner over thirty times before she leaves permanently. Each time she returns she risks her death from the firearm.
This additional reporting of abuse and a registry of guns will provide us with valuable statistics on the relationship between guns and domestic violence.
A registry could prevent an abusive partner with a record of violence against his spouse from obtaining a firearm easily. This of course doesn't prevent him from obtaining one illegally. However, it would deter some - perhaps those men who are usually responsible, law-abiding citizens but occasionally deviate from their law-abiding character to shoot their spouses.
A registry will enable prohibition orders to be enforced. Over 13,000 orders are issued every year to individuals who pose a risk to public safety, forbidding them from having any firearms. Many of these prohibition orders are against men convicted of assaulting their wives or others.
Front-line workers in our shelters tell us that women are often threatened with guns. The ability to issue and enforce prohibition orders contributes to the protection and safety of these women. Statistics on domestic homicide indicate that 50% of the accused had a criminal record. With registration, access to firearms could have been enforced in these cases. Without accurate knowledge of where the firearms are, the police cannot enforce the orders.
Registration will not eliminate violence, but reducing access to firearms by men who are violent may decrease the extent of the injury to the women and prevent an assault from becoming a homicide.
.1545
The requirement for a gun owner to renew the certificate every five years at a cost will encourage many owners to re-evaluate the value of keeping guns that are not being used. It is estimated that over half of the guns in Canadian households have not been used in the past year. Given the risk of misuse of firearms against women, we would support any measure, such as renewable certificates, that removes firearms from the community.
The screening required to obtain a firearms possession certificate should apply to all Canadian firearms owners. Statistics on domestic homicide indicate that 50% of the accused abused alcohol, 24% were drug users and 50% were negotiating a separation agreement. Current FAC process examines these issues but has only applied to individuals acquiring firearms since January 1993.
In 70% of the domestic homicides there was third-party knowledge of previous violent encounters. The police were aware of disputes in only 23% of the cases. Most often it was family members, neighbours and friends. Many of these examples alone could be the basis for denying a certificate and are available through community checks. A call to a co-habitating spouse may reveal information on any abuse in the home.
The mandatory minimum sentence of four years in prison for any of the ten violent offences is an appropriate response. Fifty-one percent of women are physically and sexually assaulted at some time in their lives. Many of these will be with firearms. Women often fear reprisal if charges are laid. Many times firearms offences are plea-bargained away. These events discourage women from reporting violent incidents with firearms.
Abusive men will be less likely to violate prohibition orders if they must serve a mandatory jail term. Any measure that removes the presence of firearms in an abusive situation reduces the risk of a domestic homicide.
People will be less likely to violate licensing and registration requirements. We have already indicated the importance of registration on domestic homicide.
The prohibiting of certain handguns and military and paramilitary rifles makes a positive statement against violence in our society. The YWCA supports the ban on any firearm that is not legitimately used in hunting or sport. A firearm that serves no purpose other than to kill people should not be tolerated in our society.
Women's experience with violence is different from men's. It is rooted in the male values of dominance, aggressiveness and competitiveness. Violence against women is about power and control by the man over the woman. It continues to happen and will continue until women achieve equality.
Boys are taught early to resolve conflict with violence. They are given toy guns to shoot each other with. The heroes in the movies, books and media are the ones who use the largest guns to shoot the most people. The perception is that guns are used to resolve conflict.
We believe romantic attachment to guns is behind the desire of many people to allow access to paramilitary and military rifles. We have become desensitized to violence in our society and have therefore allowed an acceptance of these guns.
The measures to prohibit certain weapons will help change the values that precipitate a culture of violence.
Our brief has been limited to the area of domestic homicide and the link between guns and the number of women who are killed each year by their spouses. However, we are also the mothers, sisters, grandmothers, wives, daughters and friends of the 1,100 people who killed themselves and the 200 children who were accidentally shot by firearms last year.
It is predominantly men who commit suicide with firearms. In almost half of the domestic homicides, a suicide or attempted suicide followed the murder of the spouse. Research done by the YWCA in cooperation with the Ontario Women's Directorate and the Ministry of Community and Social Services supports these results.
In 1990 we did an analysis on intimate femicide between 1974 and 1990. The killing of 551 women by their partners resulted in the deaths of 767 people. Most of the additional victims were offenders who committed suicide, but 62 children were also killed.
We know you've heard testimony from experts in the public health and safety fields that clearly shows a link between the availability and careless storage of firearms and suicides and accidental deaths. On women, this has an immeasurable economic, social, psychological and personal cost. We ask you to implement Bill C-68 to avoid many of these unnecessary deaths.
.1550
In conclusion, the YWCA appreciates the opportunity to present to the committee on behalf of many women. As women are generally under-represented in Canada's political institutions and public service, laws and policies do not always reflect women's priorities or meet their needs or concerns.
Gun control legislation has not been tough enough in the past. It is an example of legislation that has failed to meet the needs of women because of their lack of involvement in the consultations.
Women in our member associations and from other major women's groups have told us they support the measures to strengthen gun control. Polls done by Environics showed that 90% of Canadians supported mandatory registration of all firearms. Women showed even higher levels of support; is it any wonder? Also, 96% of Canadians supported increased penalties for the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime.
An Angus Reid poll in September 1993 found similar results: 81% of men supported registration of all firearms, and again, women showed higher levels of support at 92%. Another poll conducted in August 1994 found consistent results: 86% of Canadians favour registration of all guns.
Women have consistently told you through their MPs, research polls and organizations like the YWCA that we want mandatory registration of firearms, a ban on military assault rifles and stiffer penalties for people who use firearms in the commission of a crime. Women represent 52% of the population. We are not a special interest group.
We hope the committee will listen to the voices of women, as represented through this brief, who support the implementation of Bill C-68.
If I have time, I'd like to read a very brief story. This is a story from a woman who was in our YWCA shelter in Oshawa.
Denise was born in Alberta in 1953, her mother's first child. In 1961 Denise's family moved to England, her mother's homeland. At school Denise proved to be a very intelligent child. Her school marks were high and her love of books was passionate.
Denise made friends easily, but there was a quality to her friendship that suggested permanence and intensity. She was selfless, often seeking the best for others with little thought for her own needs.
When Denise was twenty she met Ron Penny, her future husband. Ron offered her adventure. He was fifteen years her senior and a truck driver, well travelled and well respected in his work. In 1975 or 1976 they came to Canada. Their life was erratic. They moved from apartment to apartment, from trailer to cottage between Alberta and Ontario. Ron worked infrequently, preferring to fish. Denise worked to support them, but often had little say in how the money was spent. Ron was subtle in his control and abuse of Denise.
In 1984 their daughter, Sarah Dawn, was born. Her birth changed the relationship irreparably. The sense of resentment and abandonment Ron felt with the birth of his daughter grew as Denise gave Sarah her undivided attention, reading to her, playing with her, teaching her. Together Denise and Sarah formed a bond that supported them in a lifestyle that lacked stability.
As his dependence on Denise was undermined, Ron expressed his anger and frustration through ever more extreme expressions of psychological abuse. At one point he grabbed the family's kitten and threw it against the wall. At another point near Christmas, Ron came up behind Denise as she was washing dishes and pointed a gun at her head.
Denise arrived at the YWCA shelter in Oshawa in a red pick-up truck, wearing a kerchief and carrying a garbage bag of belongings. She held Sarah's hand. Sarah seemed older than her three and a half years. Denise also struggled with Ron's problem: his claim of having had a stroke and his inability to take responsibility. She worried over his right to have access to Sarah, a child he had resented and disregarded, a child who referred to her father by his first name.
Finally Denise decided to return to St. Albert, Alberta, outside of Edmonton. On the advice of a judge who claimed she couldn't hide from him forever, Denise informed Ron where they were so that he could have reasonable access to Sarah. Ron followed Denise to St. Albert, angry and insecure, but vulnerable in the face of Denise's independence and vitality.
On a Friday evening Ron picked up Sarah for what was to be an overnight visit. In his preoccupation with Denise, however, he ended up watching her house all night. He saw Denise arrive home early the next morning, perhaps confirming his presumptions about her new life.
.1555
On the pretence of needing to discuss custody issues, Ron entered her home with a .22-calibre firearm. Denise was making breakfast for them all when Ron began shooting at random. Denise protested, pushing her way to the front door with Sarah in her arms.
Denise was hit with nine bullets, which made twelve wounds, and died when a bullet entered her brain at the left temple. She finally fell, just outside the front door, with Sarah still in her arms, miraculously spared. Later Sarah remembered ``I couldn't make my mommy alive no more''.
With a strong intuition, Denise's mother awoke that morning sensing something was wrong. She began calling Denise's home every fifteen minutes until Ron finally answered. He told her to come quickly and to take Sarah, for Denise was dead.
The RCMP were contacted and went to the house. After observation and talking with Sarah over the phone, they entered the house and found Ron. He had killed himself. Sarah, having removed her dirty clothing, was bundled in a blanket and taken to the police station, where her grandparents waited.
I'd like to say I think that story emphasizes the need for Bill C-68.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Now I call on Betty Bayless of the Canadian Federation of University Women.
Ms Betty Bayless (Chair, Legislation Committee, Canadian Federation of University Women): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
We really appreciate the opportunity to share the policy of the Canadian Federation of University Women regarding Bill C-68, the firearms act.
Founded in 1919, the Canadian Federation of University Women, CFUW, is a voluntary, non-partisan, non-profit, self-funded, bilingual organization of 10,750 women university graduates. CFUW members are active in public affairs, working to improve the social, economic and legal status of women as well as to improve education, the environment, peace, justice and human rights. Representatives of 131 clubs in every province in Canada vote on CFUW policy at annual general meetings.
In 1990 the Canadian Federation of University Women urged the Canadian government to build on the initial success of existing gun control legislation by passing laws to ban automatic and semi-automatic rifles and to make the requirements for obtaining a firearms acquisition certificate more stringent. The government has moved to implement these ideas.
Gun control returned to the public agenda in 1994. As a result, CFUW members reiterated and refined their support of gun control at the annual general meeting in Winnipeg. They also voted to support regulation of the sale of ammunition.
CFUW's newest resolution supports further limitation on the use and possession of guns. Our members are lobbying local members of Parliament on the firearms act, Bill C-68. We encourage the justice and legal affairs committee to pass Bill C-68 without major amendments.
Our 1994 policy, which is contained in attachment 1 on the last sheet in the hand-out you have, states:
Resolved that the Canadian Federation of University Women urge the Government of Canada
1. to establish a cost-effective national registry of all firearms and of firearms acquisition certificates,
2. to require periodic renewal of all Firearms Acquisition Certificates,
3. to seize firearms and FACs from any person under a restraining order or peace bond,
4. to amend the Criminal Code to create a total ban on assault weapons, large-capacity magazine and handguns,
5. to diligently enforce the ban on the importation of prohibited weapons and to increase border checks on the entry of all firearms into Canada; and
Resolved that the Canadian Federation of University Women urges the federal, provincial and territorial governments to strictly enforce regulations under the firearms control law regarding the safe storage, display, handling and transportation of firearms and decrease the number of weapons in Canadian homes by sponsoring gun amnesty days for the disposal of unwanted weapons.
Our resolution on the regulation of ammunition simply states:
Resolved that the Canadian Federation of University Women urges the provincial and territorial governments of Canada to develop controls on the sale of ammunition.
I am now going to ask Marilyn Letts, one of my committee members, to continue our presentation.
.1600
Ms Marilyn Letts (Member of the National Committee, Canadian Federation of University Women): Thank you.
When CFUW members discussed policy on gun control last year at the annual meeting, concerns were expressed that Canada was adopting the American attitude of the right to bear arms. Easy access to firearms contributes to the increase in violence in our society.
Much of the debate over the gun control issue focuses on crime and crime prevention. Violence is a public health and safety issue. Unintentional firearms deaths most commonly occur in homes, not as the act of a criminal, or at least not before the act. Irresponsible handling and storage of firearms contributes to unintentional injury and death.
Part of the government's responsibility in prevention is to strictly enforce the regulations under the firearms control law regarding storage, handling and transportation of firearms and ammunition. Evidence in various polls has shown that storage of firearms and ammunition is not carried out according to the regulations that exist right now.
The Quebec Association on Suicide and the Canadian Society for the Prevention of Suicide have documented the relationship between the numbers of households with firearms and the incidents of suicides and homicides. Again, ready access to a firearm increases the risk of suicide, and the storage of those firearms also increases the risk.
Gun ownership is not part of Canadian culture, as it is part of the culture in the United States. It is not the norm. In 1994 CFUW clubs expressed support for policy requiring further limitation of access to firearms, reinforcing a difference from the American right-to-bear-arms culture.
The myth of guns as self-protection is false. An American study of 398 firearms deaths in homes indicates that only two involved an intruder shot during entry. The others were household members, relatives and acquaintances, whose risk of firearms death was 43 times more likely than the death of an intruder.
Many of these deaths are preventable. On a recent weekend, April 29 to 30, a woman in Gloucester, Ontario was shot by her husband. A man shot his daughter and a police chief in Quebec. In Canada, 40% of women killed by their partners were shot.
How many of these deaths could have been prevented if firearm ownership were treated as a privilege, not as a right; if the privilege of owning a firearm had been withdrawn or the firearm had been removed from easy access? It's absolutely necessary that the privilege of owning a firearm be removed from individuals who are involved in domestic violence and from any person subject to a restraining order or peace bond.
In the United States, firearms are second only to motor vehicles among consumer products in the ability to injure. Many medical associations in the United States and in Canada are actively calling for strong gun control measures. In the Unites States, where two-thirds of households have firearms - and that's a 50% increase since 1980 - firearms violence has reached epidemic proportion.
At the present rate, firearms deaths will be the leading cause of trauma by the year 2003. American trauma physicians are recommending that the collective right of society to be protected from unrestricted, unregulated and negligent proliferation of firearms must take precedence over the rights of individual firearms owners.
The Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians has expressed strong support for Bill C-68. As I mentioned, CFUW does not want Canada to become like the American scene.
It's not just the adults who are at risk of death and injury due to firearms. In North America, pediatricians must be as knowledgeable about firearms injuries as they were about polio a generation ago. After reviewing the epidemiology of pediatric firearms injuries prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics is working toward removing handguns from private homes.
.1605
We like to see Canada as safer than what we would term a dangerous urban United States. However, if you look at the medical literature, one of the first papers published on children's gunshot injuries, entitled ``Gunshot Wounds in the Extremities of Children'', was written in 1976 by a Winnipeg doctor. Statistics Canada indicates that Manitoba also has the highest annual average number and rate of hospitalization for firearms injuries.
In Canada the death toll from firearms is approximately 1,400 per year. Of these, about 1,100 are suicides and 200 are homicides. The same circumstances that lead to violent acts - the same emotional situations - are likely to be less lethal in the absence of firearms. Sixty percent of gun assaults are fatal, compared to 4% of assaults with knives and less than 1% of assaults with blunt weapons. How many deaths and injuries could be prevented by strong legislation for responsible gun ownership?
CFUW has urged the government to strictly enforce the regulations under the firearms control law regarding storage, display, handling and transportation. We have supported the establishment of a cost-effective national registry of all guns.
Violence due to firearms is not just a result of criminal activity. It's not just a concern of the courts. It's a public health concern and a safety concern in Canadian homes. The costs in lives, disability and health care dollars must be part of the debate on gun control.
Ms Bayless: The police list of persons who own legal handguns fails to give an accurate picture of where these guns are. There is no registry of firearms, and the use of prohibited weapons is increasing.
A national registry would make gun owners accountable, assist police in solving crimes, make police aware of guns in homes, help police enforce court-ordered firearms prohibition and aid police in tracking missing and stolen firearms.
Unknown numbers of illegal weapons, including handguns, cross the border. Many firearms are stolen from their legal owners within Canada. Some are in the possession of criminals. In 1993, Canada Customs seized 2,220 illegal weapons, of which 1,680 were handguns.
Revenue Canada agrees with the need to increase border checks on the entry of all firearms into Canada. It implemented the anti-smuggling initiative, or ASI, in February 1994 and plans an expanded firearms commercial permit system by the end of 1995. This system involves Revenue Canada, the Department of Justice, the Solicitor General, the RCMP and Foreign Affairs. CFUW applauds these efforts.
Increased police vigilance attempts to rid our streets of illegal firearms. The public has responded to the call to dispose of firearms through public amnesties. With polls showing that over half of gun owners have not used their weapons in the previous year, we would expect that many will turn in their firearms rather than face the inconvenience and expense, in their minds, of registration. Fewer guns mean safer households.
Guns have also become a symbol of adolescent rebellion, independence and toughness. This has spawned a fascination with gun imagery in the form of rings, pendants or earrings..AA guns, which are marketed as starter guns, are not subject to the Product Safety Bureau standard as toys and are not regulated as guns.
Guns are making their entry into schools. In a discussion of our resolutions, CFUW members expressed serious concerns, especially over the introduction of metal detectors in schools.
CFUW supports the communication between all levels of the justice system dealing with restraining orders and the departments issuing FPCs and FRCs. The availability of a national registry will assist in solving this problem.
CFUW members are also speaking to territorial and provincial governments about regulating the sale of ammunition. We note that the Ontario government's program has an ongoing problem because there is no proper method available to gather required information.
.1610
In closing, CFUW urges the federal government to work closely with provincial and territorial governments to improve gun control legislation and to strictly enforce existing regulations. It is vital that Bill C-68 be passed and implemented as proposed.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Bayless.
We will now proceed with our questioning. According to the rules of the committee, we start with three rounds of ten minutes each, one ten-minute round for each political party officially with the committee. Then we have five-minute rounds of questioning in which we alternate between the government and opposition members.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois.
Mr. Langlois: Thank you, ladies, for this substantive presentation on the position that you are defending. I share your views regarding the basic issues of under-representation of women in decision-making bodies, particularly in the Parliament of Canada and in provincial legislatures, where the number of women is much too low compared to the real importance of women in society. I think that awareness must be constantly promoted within each and every political party so that the role of women in politics becomes more and more important at all levels. We realize that at the municipal level, women are much more involved, as well as in school boards. However, when you reach the provincial or federal level, there is a dramatic drop. I believe that each and every political party should make amends on that.
Traditionally, in politics, political parties have given women, at the provincial and federal level, secondary roles. Women are generally confined to roles such as general meeting secretaries, stuffing enveloppes or sticking stamps during election campaigns, handing out brochures, etc, but when more serious issues were at hand, they were completely shunted aside from the debate. I share your views on that.
I think that this ill-famed vicious circle is being broken. In every political party, we are witnessing the emergence of a very strong feminine presence which will no doubt have a ripling effect that should be reflected in the coming legislatures. In a world which was officially dominated by men for so many generations, that will not be done through magic, and I appreciate the feeling of impatience that can be felt by women's groups which are, in many respects in our society, treated as special interest groups and even, in other regards, as minority groups, while women make up the majority of the population.
I myself have a daughter who will turn 16 on the 29th of this month, and I wish her a different future as a women, a future which will give her a much better life as a citizen of the country which we will chose to build. I hope it will be much easier for her than for all those who proceded her, that is to say our partners, our mothers and our grandmothers who had to wage incredible fights.
That being said, my first question will for Ms Essex. You said earlier, in the course of your presentation, that firearms control would reduce violence, but that we would not get to the root of the evil solely by controlling firearms.
.1615
I will ask you to elaborate further on the root of this evil. I would like you to explain to us how is it that in 1995, with all the possible means of public education that were used, not only by government but also by local communities, an important segment of the masculine population still considers women as second rate citizens, if not as objects purely and simply, that women, in many cases, are the target of tasteless jokes and are considered, in many respects, as sexual objects. This failure of public education, how do you explain it? That is my more specific question, but I would like you to elaborate a little further on the root of evil.
[English]
Ms Essex: Education, I believe, is what's required. In our organization we do a lot of that.
At the conclusion, when I spoke about gun legislation not getting to the root of the cause of violence against women, what I was talking about was attitudes - the portrayal of women in our media, the way women are used to sell things, the portrayal of women in television shows - the way we are socialized differently. Men are encouraged to be aggressive and to deal with conflict violently, whereas women aren't.
All those areas have an impact on shaping our experiences and attitudes about violence in society, in particular violence against women.
Women's organizations have tried for years to educate and educate and educate, and we often find ourselves asking ``Why aren't attitudes changing?'' You're absolutely right; the attitudes take a long time to change. I wonder sometimes how much progress we have really made when we see the incredible statistics of violence against women.
Violence against women is an abuse of power. It is not the same as violence that men experience. When men are violent, it's often a fight in a bar, a fight over somebody's girlfriend or any number of things. It's not the same when men are violent towards women.
I'd like to point out that it's men who are violent. It's men killing men. It's men killing women. The violence is different. It's rooted in a belief that women do not have power.
And they don't have power. Until we have equality, there won't be that balance.
Violence against women is a power issue. It will change only when we have economic, political and social equality.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Ms Essex, I share your views on this. Somewhere, we must break that vicious circle. A little boy who is born normally, without prejudice, and who sees his father beating his mother, and sees her treated like an animal and leaving home, will nurture these values, probably in his subconscious, and will replicate them at one given moment in his life. They will come to the fore again.
It is rather difficult to make a homogenous mix. Whatever values we instill at school later, we have to undo an education which was, in many respects, curtailed or very badly managed during the first four or five years. Most psychologists will tell you that everything is decided before you are five or six years old.
How can we, at the school level, undo an education which, for five years, from birth until school age, was badly managed and where youngster were taught feelings of aversion for women, feelings which, later, will make them men who will use violence, if not contempt, towards women, contempt being for me a kind of violence?
[English]
Ms Essex: I'm sorry; what was your question? It was a wonderful preamble. I just lost track of the question.
.1620
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: How can we conceive that the schooling or the socialization of the child who was raised in an environment of real or potential violence, in an environment of contempt for women, can rehabilitate the youngster and even modify his identification to the system as we know it now? Do you see a potential remedy in schooling?
[English]
Ms Essex: Absolutely. In fact, in our organization we try to work with the schools in partnerships to do precisely that: to re-educate and to teach appropriate means of dealing with conflict, to teach children that violence is not an acceptable way of dealing with conflict.
In our shelters, part of the time we spend with mothers and children is informing them about the culture of violence. Hopefully that's a piece of the education.
But there is so much more that organizations need to do to educate and to undo all those patterns of behaviour that are learned in cases where a child is witnessing abuse in the home.
Can my colleagues add a bit more?
Ms Letts: On the matter of education on violence in the home, we just have to look in this very building. It's not that many years ago that when wife abuse was mentioned, there was laughter. That would never happen today.
Ms Essex: I'd like to point out as well that when we talk about violence against women, when we hear all these numerous stories of women who are being abused all the time, often we hear ``Well, what did she do? What did she do to cause the abuse? Did she cook the meal the wrong way? Did she not dress appropriately? Is it something she did in the home?''
The woman is not to blame for her abuse, and we have to work really hard to change those attitudes that blame the victim. We hear the same thing from children. ``Well, if I had behaved better or if I had picked up my toys, maybe I wouldn't have been abused.''
Part of the education process we do is to educate that men are responsible for the violence against women. It's not because he was drinking. It's not because he was doing drugs. It's not because he has mental illness. Violence is a chosen response. Men who abuse their wives tend not to abuse their neighbours, their co-workers or their mothers. They abuse an intimate partner, which is usually the woman.
The Chair: Mr. Reynolds. Sorry; Mr. Ramsay.
Excuse me; I was too taken up with the evidence.
Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Welcome, ladies. I appreciated your presentation.
As the chairman indicated, we have had over sixty witnesses from various groups. I have some concern about some of the things I've heard from you today - for example, that firearms are not the norm in Canada. I hope I noted the comment accurately.
We had the justice minister from the Northwest Territories here. He told an accurate account of how a little boy was able to save his father's life from a polar bear. It was dragging his father away. He knew where a loaded rifle was inside the home. He was able to run and get it, shoot that polar bear and save his father's life.
At a meeting in Kamloops some time ago, a lady stood in the crowd and told about a little boy who had been mauled to death by a bear while the parents were frantically trying to get the closet open where their rifles were locked up.
We hear from people like the justice minister from the Northwest Territories, who describe how firearms are a way of life with their people and that even the FAC requirement is impractical in many areas of that vast region where facilities for having photographs taken for the FACs are not available and where, when they go out on the hunt, the loaded firearm is kept next to them because of marauding bears and wolves and animals.
.1625
He told a story, and his delegation told a story that I interpreted, at least in part, as indicating that perhaps we are not aware of the practicalities of the life that they face in the northern regions of the country. I recommended that the committee travel to the territories so that we would gain a greater understanding of the practicality of the challenges they face.
I should ask this to lead off, and I'll ask Ms Essex. Do you support Bill C-68 in its entirety?
Ms Essex: Yes, I would say we do.
Mr. Ramsay: Are there any parts of it that you have concerns about supporting?
Ms Essex: We're not lawyers. We have supported the thrust of the bill, which we believe will save women's lives. If you're going to ask me about a specific area -
Mr. Ramsay: We've had witnesses appear and they have answered that, yes, they understand the bill and they support it in total. Yet when I ask them about the ramifications of some portions of the bill, they weren't aware of them. It's not fair to expect that we're going to understand the ramifications of a document like this, in all its manifestations. Nevertheless, the consequence of this bill goes far wider than just the registration of rifles and shotguns.
I asked a criminologist last night, who made a very good presentation, how the registration of rifles and shotguns would reduce the criminal use of those firearms. My understanding of what he said was that he did not expect to see positive results from the registration system for approximately 15 years. If I asked you that same question - and I will ask you that same question - how do you feel the registration of rifles and shotguns will reduce the criminal use of those firearms?
I asked that question because we've had three provincial Attorneys General appear before the committee and two Ministers of Justice from the territories and they all opposed the bill, basically because they could not see the linkage between the registration of firearms, and the kind of enhanced safety that we all want within society. Perhaps you'd like to respond to that.
Ms Essex: I assume, Mr. Ramsay, when you talk about criminal use, that you are including wife abuse?
Mr. Ramsay: Yes.
Ms Essex: We've supported that in our brief, that registration of firearms will go a long way toward reducing the number of women who die by firearms.
Mr. Ramsay: How will it do that?
Ms Gael MacLeod (Board Member, YWCA, Calgary): Your story about the Inuit is very interesting. Whenever we're telling stories we can go on forever, but maybe I'll just share a little bit of my story with you, and some of the reasons why I'm here, and why I support this legislation - to respond directly to your question on how it would make a difference.
I was about 12 years old at the time. There were six children in the family. My father was violent. He had a history of violence. The police had been out many times. There was a shotgun in the house. In one of many incidents, the gun was pulled out.
Although there was no death in that situation, there is in many others.
This legislation would have enabled the police officers to remove that firearm long before.
.1630
At my younger sister's birthday party, there were ten six-year-old children in the house. It could have been disastrous.
When we're talking about an Inuit child saving his father's life and we're talking about women and violence, we have to look at, on balance, is this good legislation and what is it supporting? If the committee wants to go to the territories, you might consider talking to some of the women in shelters, as well.
Ms Essex: We believe the registration will encourage safe storage. In a volatile issue of domestic violence, where women are usually killed in a burst of anger - it's not premeditated, one, two or three minutes, or however long it takes to unlock the gun, will a difference in saving her life. It will give her time to get out of the house.
Mr. Ramsay: Are you aware that the present legislation allows a peace officer to remove a firearm from the possession of anyone who they feel may create a danger to anyone else?
Ms Essex: Could you repeat that?
Mr. Ramsay: Are you aware that the present legislation dealing with ownership and the use of firearms allows the police to take a firearm from an individual who they have reasonable grounds to believe may be dangerous?
Ms Essex: Yes.
Mr. Ramsay: Ms MacLeod, I refer to your situation, that the police would have had authority, depending on when that occurred. If that occurred today, then the police would have the power, under, I think, section 103 of the Criminal Code, to remove the firearm from that home.
Ms MacLeod: If they knew that the firearm was there. Under this legislation they would go into the home and know the firearm is there.
I might add that we're talking about law-abiding citizens. We're talking about a man who has been a public school board trustee for his entire career. We're not necessarily talking about uneducated, low-income, fringe people. This affects everybody.
Mr. Ramsay: I don't know the circumstances, but was there some reluctance on the part of the people who were threatened when he pulled that firearm out? Was there some reluctance to notify the police of that situation?
Ms MacLeod: The neighbours called the police, but there was a lot of reluctance on the family, I can assure you.
Mr. Ramsay: But were the police not aware that he had used the firearm?
Ms MacLeod: He hadn't used it at that point.
Mr. Ramsay: I understood you to say that he had pulled it out on a number of occasions.
Ms MacLeod: After a lot of violence without the firearm. It was at a future point. There were years of violence. The gun was used in the later years.
We're getting into an individual situation. I used it to offset the example you gave us of the eight-year-old being able to save his father's life. There are just as many situations in family violence, on balance.
Mr. Ramsay: I recognize that.
Ms Essex: It's important to add that the threat of abuse or the power that an abusive male has over his partner is incredible. Statistics have shown that women will return to the abuse over 30 times, and often many of those incidents haven't been reported to the police.
I'm sorry; I've lost track of your question.
A lot of women do not call the police all the time. If she happens to call, let's say, on the second time, if there's registration the police officer can then find out that there is a gun, or guns, in that home. If he's called to the house on a domestic abuse call, she likely will not even tell him because she's terrified of her father. So she may not say, ``Oh, by the way, he's got guns''. The police officer would know through the registration system, and in a case of domestic abuse he would confiscate them.
The other 30 times that she's been abused, and leaves and comes back, and leaves and comes back, which is the pattern of abuse that we have seen, it could save her life. On the fifth time or the sixth time, if the gun wasn't removed, he might pull it out on any of those occasions. He might not pull it out until the last time. In situations of domestic violence, the firearm has to be removed as soon as possible.
.1635
The Chair: Before I go to Mrs. Barnes I have to put something on the record again, because it will help clarify. This has been done before. This is apropos the story of the northern child who saved the father.
The present regulations with respect to firearms, after setting out the requirements for safe storage, say in subsection 4(2) that paragraph 1(b) does not apply to any person who stores a non-restricted firearm temporarily if the person reasonably requires a non-restricted firearm for the control of predators or other animals in a place where the firearm may be discharged, etc.
Unfortunately, there's a lot of either misinformation or lack of information.
In other words, in that situation in the north where they are threatened by polar bears or grizzly bears or by wolves, this article allows an exception for storage where you have to combat the animals. It is not only against human beings, but even if your dogs or domestic animals were to be attacked by wolves, you could have your gun there to protect them. It's an exception to the rule on a temporary basis.
This is in regulations 4(1) and 4(2) under the present law, and under the bill that's before you there will be grounds for regulations of a similar nature.
Mr. Ramsay: I hope that you weren't suggesting that I was casting misinformation.
The Chair: No.
Mr. Ramsay: This had to do with an entirely different statement that the ladies had brought.
The Chair: I understand, Mr. Ramsay. I think on that very day we attempted to bring this regulation. Unfortunately, in many of those cases the witnesses aren't even aware of the exceptions in the regulations. They thought they were in violation of the law when they went out and shot the bear on that occasion. But they weren't, because there is an exception in those cases.
Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.
The Chair: I just feel that if we're going to discuss things and ask questions, we should have all the information before the committee. I'm just reading from the law.
Mrs. Barnes (London West): I listened with attention to what you had to say. In my riding I have researchers working on domestic violence. They have been given funding to investigate this area and the escalation of violence that occurs in what we would call law-abiding homes, up to the point that the violence escalates to the point where there are a lot of victims around. Usually those victims are women and children. We haven't heard from a lot of children here and there are groups that have to speak up for them.
You are saying that for most women gun control is a women's safety issue. Have you had women coming to you saying, ``As part of my safety and prevention I want to arm in self-defence''. Is that what they're saying to you?
Ms Essex: No.
Mrs. Barnes: Can I get that answer from the other group?
Ms Letts: No. When we were discussing policy, the discussion was that self-defence is not protection. We're quite realistic about that.
Mrs. Barnes: Okay. I haven't heard that said to me either, except one time. Interestingly enough, it was in Kamloops when I met with a gun club last summer.
Ms Letts: If we look at the police, who have to take extensive training with guns and even then their own guns can be used on them, then how would a woman train to be protected?
Mrs. Barnes: I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, because I have only ten minutes and I have a lot of areas to cover.
The YWCA has basically confined its brief to the issues of domestic violence. I know that this is one aspect of the bill, but it is a misunderstood aspect of violence. I think you've been very clear on differentiating to what a lot of people would characterize as violence in different.... It's not the bar-room brawl or the competitive type of fight that might see in a school yard; it's a very different type of violence and it's very real in Canada.
The most important aspect of domestic violence in my reading and in my information is the fact that it occurs over a lengthy time period and it escalates to the point where there's an explosion and - in Canada, every six days - someone loses their life.
.1640
I want to know because I come from Ontario, and in the polling that's been done in Ontario, nearly 8 out of 10 men, and nearly 9 out of 10 women supported this legislation in our recent poll within the last month.
But this is a federal piece of legislation, and many people say to us that their culture is different, that we don't understand their culture with respect to guns. Again next week, on our parliamentary break, I'm going to be travelling to B.C. and talking to different communities in B.C. and people from the west on this issue.
In your experience with domestic violence and in the shelters you run across this country, is it your experience that there is less domestic violence in urban versus rural settings?
Ms MacLeod: Maybe I can start answering that question. As part of my volunteer work with the YWCA, I represent Sheriff King Home for Battered Women in Calgary on the Alberta Council of Women's Shelters. I believe there are 29 in the province, of which 7 or 8 are in the Calgary-Edmonton area The issue of gun control was raised at the Alberta Council of Women's Shelters and was supported unanimously. Most of those shelters supported gun control, as it was presented to them.
Some of those shelters are also native women's shelters on reserves, and they also supported that resolution.
Mrs. Barnes: I would like to follow that point up. In your experience, is domestic violence any less on reserves, or with respect to native communities?
Ms Essex: I don't know; I don't have the statistics right in front of me. I could certainly get them for you.
You mentioned that the presence and the use of firearms, rifles or whatever, vary across the country, and I certainly believe you when you say that. It's important to note that domestic violence doesn't.
Mrs. Barnes: It doesn't?
Ms Essex: No.
Mrs. Barnes: Anywhere in this country, from sea to sea to sea, is there an absence of domestic violence?
Ms Essex: No. We find the same attitudes right across the country: it's her fault; what did she do to cause it? There is consistency right across the country.
Mrs. Barnes: Do those attitudes vary between urban and rural settings?
Ms Essex: No, not at all.
Mrs. Barnes: Is anybody aware of any research that shows that it's a materially lesser problem in any area of this country with respect to domestic violence? I haven't found it - and we've looked for it.
Ms Letts: The only geographical difference is that in the rural area there is greater isolation for the person who is at risk, for the wife.
Mrs. Barnes: You touched on domestic violence, but it needs to be stressed. Does this domestic violence problem cross, or is it contained in, certain socio-economic classes? If you earn less than $10,000, or $20,000, or over $100,000.... What can you say about domestic violence and socio-economics?
Ms Essex: There are no bounds at all. It is across all socio-economic statuses. It doesn't make any difference. Any of us are susceptible to it. I think the statistics show that. In the most recent landmark survey done by Statistics Canada...51% of women will be abused or assaulted at some point in their lives. I think that certainly shows where we stand on violence in our society.
Mrs. Barnes: Are your organizations, in any way, advocating stopping sportsmen from hunting or target shooting, or any native people from gathering their food or sustenance?
Ms Essex: No, absolutely not. We support hunting. We know that it's a means of subsistence for people. We support legitimate uses of firearms.
Mrs. Barnes: The other group, please.
Ms Bayless: In looking at the clauses of the bill applying to this, we agree with the need for people to hunt and fish for their livelihood. We also agree that in many situations the sport is very valid. It's useful. It is not part of the problem.
My husband is an avid hunter. He's convinced that registration is just fine. He's also appalled at the number of experienced hunters and people who train people in firearms use who do not understand safe storage and the implications that has for family members. But as far as our organization goes, as far as what we see in this bill, as far as it impacts on native peoples, we certainly agree with and support what's being said.
.1645
Mrs. Barnes: Do you see any reason for some of the provinces and territories that have been coming before this committee saying that we should delay implementation in their areas? Do you see any justification for that?
Ms Essex: Certainly not as far as women are concerned. That's the position that we're representing.
Mrs. Barnes: I really do think it's important to get this on the record, not only from my point of view but also maybe from yours. It sounds as if the only people who you think care about violence issues are women. It's very important to state emphatically that both men and women care about these issues in this country. I would hate it if you left this room giving the impression that you think that only women care. I might just allow you a minute to clarify your position there.
Ms Essex: No - and thank you, certainly, for making that clarification. We're here representing women because the YWCA is a women's organization that is committed to changing the lives of women. But we have many men who work very actively to help us in our work of eradicating violence against women. Thank you very much emphasizing that.
Ms Letts: Mr. Ramsay had stories of how to take into account the ramifications on specific people in the north and so on. Our message is: look at public safety, look at safety in the home, look at women, look at children. So I hope that the members of this committee will certainly take into account the ramifications of firearms on safety in that regard.
Mrs. Barnes: I notice in your briefs that you talked about the suicide aspect also. One of the illusions that has been shattered by the testimony of experts on suicide prevention is the fact that suicide is preventable in a large number of cases. The best prevention of suicide, when the urge is there, that there is a delay mechanism, whether it's having to go through the hoops to get the gun as a first-time acquisition or just not having the guns acceptable in the first place. So whether it's in the home or in the locked situation....
That argument was needed for someone such as me who had never studied the idea of suicide before because I had been told by the people who are pushing for this bill to be changed, or to be scrapped, that if you didn't have a gun, then you would do it by some other measure. Very clearly, that's not the evidence we've heard from the experts.
I just want to hear if, in your frontline situations, you have firsthand knowledge of suicide prevention and deal with this?
Ms Essex: I think what we can best speak on is just that the research supports that men, after they've shot or killed their wives, will often turn the gun on themselves. I think in almost half of the cases of domestic abuse the man turned the gun on himself.
Again, if we didn't have violence against women and if there weren't men who are killing their wives, those men might not then have the reason to turn the guns on themselves. But again, not having easy access to a gun would stop the suicide.
Ms Letts: I haven't done an in-depth study of suicide, but if you look at the statistics from the organizations that have put forward, in suicides the plan is to use a gun usually because it is accessible. So it comes to mind, and it's an option that's available to someone who is in distress. There's usually no second chance.
I think most of us know of people who have attempted suicide. Usually their attempt was not with a gun. It was with something else, and they've gone on to resolve the problem and live. But if the gun is there, and an option to be considered - easily accessible - for teenagers who may just be at that time in life, and in depression, it could be a parent's gun that they turn to. There won't be an attempt; it will be a fait accompli.
.1650
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I agree with what you said earlier, Ms Essex. Before being elected to the House of Commons, I was a law professor for 22 years and I taught my students, especially the women students, that they needed to work for their future.
I must say that there was some resistance to the idea. I often asked my women students: What will you do when you have your diploma? The traditional answer came back: I will get married, maybe buy a house and have children. I then asked them if they planned on working and they would say, maybe. I would ask: What will you do with your earnings? They would answer: It will be a second income. Every time I heard that, I was flabbergasted.
We were approaching the 1990s, and it was amazing to see how difficult it was to change attitudes. I had been seeing the same thing for about 20 years.
What I tried to tell the women students was that real freedom requires economic freedom. When you have your own cheque book, your own possessions and you are master of your own life, you can then associate freely with others. It is also true politically, as my colleague for Bonaventure - Îles-de-la-Madeleine was saying.
In your briefs, you say that you support the bill with a minimal mandatory sentence of four years for crimes of violence. Does this mean that you are dissatisfied with current sentencing practices? Judges would now seem to have all the necessary instruments to take into account aggravating circumstances in sentencing if the crime was committed with violence and if it is a crime specifically against women.
For my part, I find inadequate and even ridiculous the sentences imposed in cases of rape, sexual assault and incest. Lives have been broken and the offender gets away with a minimal sentence, as though he had simply commited a burglary or even done something less serious. There now seems to be a complete lack of proportion in sentencing between the crime committed and the sentence imposed. I am thinking specifically of rape and incest. There seems to be something wrong. My whole question was about sentencing, but I still wanted to make my preamble.
[English]
Ms Essex: I agree with all you've said. I think it tells us we have more work to do.
Regarding the sentences that aren't very strong in rape or where offenders get off after a year, I think it relates, again, to an attitude out there that this is not a serious offence. We still hear from men who say they didn't know they couldn't beat their wife. It wasn't that long ago that it wasn't illegal to hit your wife.
I think there is still a perception in the law community as well. Another piece of work we try to do in member associations is educate a whole variety of professionals. I certainly think it exists in the law community - lawyers, judges and the police - that crimes against women are not taken seriously. When a woman is raped, somehow she asked for it. I've mentioned this previously: when she's abused, somehow it's her fault, or he excuses his behaviour because he was drinking. Wife assault, wife abuse and rape are crimes, and they should be dealt with as such, and we support the mandatory four-year sentence.
Women are often frightened. They're frightened when they hear their their husband got only a year for a violent crime. She's very frustrated; she asks herself why she should press charges if he's going to get off or get out in a year.
.1655
This will go a long way toward encouraging women to prosecute their abusers.
Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): I don't want to get into a battle of trading anecdotes here. Rather, I'd like to talk about something that has been apparent in these hearings and something that one of the groups raised here today. It is the whole question of our beliefs, attitudes and values toward guns and weapons in our society versus those kinds of things south of us in the United States. Certainly there have been people at the University of Western Ontario and UCLA who have found ways of determining the core values in our society. They acknowledge that there are differences between Canadians and Americans on seven fundamental values.
At the same time, from our perspective, we seem to see regional disparities. I would refer to the appearance of the Attorney General of Saskatchewan, who cannot see any value in this legislation, who doesn't see that registration is going to do anything.
Because we have also heard from other witnesses who have talked about this in terms of fundamentally changing the way people think within society, much as we have done with impaired driving and seat-belt legislation, I would like to ask you what would you think if, for example, the registration provisions were removed from this bill but all other parts of it stood?
Ms Essex: For women, the registration is a key issue. I believe we've made a very strong case for support of the registration. That area is a key element to saving women's lives. That's the position we've looked at.
We have not found inconsistencies across the country. We have women who are supporting us in every single province and the territories.
Ms Letts: I grew up in Manitoba on a farm. There was a .303 that hung in the kitchen above the cupboards, and in the other room there was a .22. But times were very different when I grew up. Farms were different, but times were different too. Living in that community today, I think that home would not be safe without better storage and so on.
Registration carries with it a responsibility for the firearm you are licensed to have. It carries a personal responsibility that will carry over into better storage and better use, apart from the tracing of guns and the knowledge of police that the YWCA has referred to.
Mr. Gallaway: As you might imagine, we've heard a lot of statistics here over the past several weeks. I heard a new one today - that 200 children were shot last year. I found that quite astounding.
What do you think is the burden of proof, if I can put it in that way? I ask this because we have a bunch of people here who are saying, ``If it would save one life, I'd agree to it; but I'm not convinced it'll do anything; it's an imposition on law-abiding gun owners; it's a tax grab; it's'' - a number of things. It ultimately comes down to the fact that they say, ``If I was convinced it would save one life, I would agree to it''. What do you say to those people? How do you convince them?
Ms Letts: It would be very easy to give anecdotes of where intervention could have taken place had the police known there was a gun. That's a very simple matter. If all they need to know is that, then you could provide that by reading the papers in any given week.
Ms Essex: We also have examples with other pieces of legislation, such as seat-belts and bicycle helmets, where the education is not enough. There need to be regulations to enforce it.
.1700
I believe the powers of inspection and the awareness of law-abiding gun owners could be very real. I believe that will encourage more people to lock up their guns and store them safely.
In domestic violence situations and with accidental deaths by children, there's no doubt that if it's difficult to get to the gun, their lives are going to be saved. I would be very surprised if this didn't save a lot more than one life. We know it will save women's lives.
Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): Ms Essex, I want to follow up on a comment you made that you fully support the mandatory four-year minimum sentence. Are you aware that this is a minimum sentence that is most likely to be given by the courts? I say this because their tradition is to give minimum sentences unless there are aggravating factors. Do you really feel that's sufficient?
Ms Essex: It's better than what we have now.
Ms Meredith: I want to share with you that in my constituency we had a situation where a husband murdered his wife. He didn't murder her with a firearm. As is typical, it was downgraded to manslaughter. He got a five-year sentence and will be out in two and a half years.
I have a petition of over 9,000 signatures from women in my community and surrounding area who feel that is just an unnatural or an unreal sentence. They are asking for a ten-year minimum for spousal abuse and spousal murder. To me, that indicates a real concern with the existing provisions, where four is an average anyway. It's telling people that if you use a firearm, it's no worse than if you don't use a firearm. I don't see this four-year minimum for the ten most serious crimes - whether it's rape or assault with a firearm - as being a strong enough message.
It distresses me a little bit that you, representing women, would consider that a four-year minimum sentence for that, knowing they'll probably be out in two and a half years, is a sufficient penalty for somebody who has chosen to use a gun to kill another individual.
The Chair: Excuse me. For murder, the minimum sentence is life.
Ms Meredith: I preceded my comments by saying that, traditionally, spousal abuse or spousal murder is downgraded to manslaughter.
Can you substantiate that? Is that not the case?
Ms Essex: I can't answer your question.
Ms Meredith: Okay. It's been my experience that, in most cases - and you made a comment - it's usually done in a fit of anger. Usually they can't prove intent and they're downgraded. It's easier to convict on a manslaughter charge.
I'd like your comment on another concern I have. Taking away the ten most serious, each of which is a charge with a four-year minimum, the other sentences or the other criminal activity, for the lesser crimes, can have a summary conviction. This means they can have a fine or a one-day sentence.
We had a case in our community in the Vancouver area of a man who had an illegal handgun that wasn't registered - he had no permit to have it - in a cookie bag on a table at a kid's birthday party. His two-year old son got hold of it and ended up not only shooting himself but also shooting his four-year-old sister. The man got six months.
Our existing laws haven't accepted the reality of the criminal use of firearms and that there has to be a deterrent by stiff penalties. I'm a little bit concerned that this legislation doesn't deal with that. It still is allowing that kind of sentence to happen with summary convictions, one-year minimums, and these sorts of things.
Does this concern you at all?
Ms Essex: I can say that we support the bill as it exists now. I'd have to go back to our member organizations and discuss it with them. I can't answer your question.
.1705
I think it speaks to the underrepresentation of women here. Maybe that's a different thing that you would hear from other groups.
We focused on a few issues. We didn't go into very detailed clause-by-clause review of the bill.
Ms Meredith: Did you look at part III of this, which is the sentencing and the criminal use of firearms? Or did you concentrate on just the registration element of the bill?
Ms Essex: We looked at all of them, but supported it the way it was.
Ms Meredith: You've made some comments about registration helping, because, from what I understand of your comments, of the knowledge that a home has a firearm in it. Is it not the reality that every time a police officer responds to a situation they make that assumption anyway? When they stop a car in the middle of the night with questionable plates, or what not, do they not assume that there might be somebody in that vehicle - or in a home situation, in a domestic fight - with a firearm? Is that not already an assumption?
Ms Essex: I don't know. It may very well be, but even if that is the assumption, the woman may not confirm that. I don't know if they ask the question when they go to a domestic dispute call.
With registration, they would know. If it was a domestic abuse call, then they would be able to take the weapon.
I'm not a police officer. I don't know if that's an assumption.
Ms Bayless: Not addressing this directly, I want to state that we had worked with the Association of Chiefs of Police and in my case I met with many of them in the Montreal area when we were discussing policing and race relations. In discussing the various ethnic communities and ideas within Montreal, in a discussion of guns and weapons that were acceptable and so on, the feeling we had was that, yes, they always had a concern of whether there was a weapon and what kind of weapon was in the house.
However, if on their computer screen as they were driving up they could look to see that indeed there were weapons, maybe more than one, it would be most helpful in how they approach the scene. That was made clear to us in other discussions. It was not dealing with this legislation, but it was the sense we had from the urban police in Montreal that this certainly was a concern: that, yes, they took every precaution, but, in how they dealt with the situation, it would certainly have been useful to know if indeed there was more than one weapon, how many weapons and what types of weapons there were in the house. They might not have just walked up and knocked on the front door. They might have approached it differently. They might have placed calls. They certainly would have approached it in a different situation.
Ms Torsney (Burlington): Thank you for confirming what the police also told us when they came here, that they bring a lot more extraordinary measures when they know that there are armaments in the home.
Thank you both very much for coming here. I've certainly been a member of CFUW locally, in my riding, and have voted, I think, on this resolution. So I was pleased to see it come before us. I certainly know, as well, of the fine work of the YWCA with their women of distinction awards and what have you.
Just for the record, there are 54 women in the House now. We're the second highest in the G-7. So we're getting there.
One of the issues that's been brought to the table is the whole issue of violence, and certainly you've done that. We are working in lots of other fora to deal with that issue. Women's voices at the table help, but guns certainly can exacerbate the problem.
One of the issues with prohibition orders that's been raised is that Bill C-68 would help enforce prohibition orders, but the other thing that we've been missing is that police have used their powers about 230 times a year, I understand, to place prohibition orders when there is a situation of domestic violence. That's not a very high number. If we had a registration system, they would know, because these are - as you made comment - law-abiding citizens until some moment when they cross some line. They would have this tool if these law-abiding citizens had registered their guns in the first place.
We've heard a lot of testimony. I don't know if you've had time to observe some of it on television on the weekend, or to be here, but we heard from the emergency physicians that they're no longer willing to be part of an experiment where we see if a registration system might work. They demanded that we act, and act quickly.
.1710
We've also heard from Attorneys General in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba that they're not supportive of this legislation. I wonder if your member groups in each of those provinces are supportive; if they voted on the resolution, in the case of CFUW; and if any of your member groups in those provinces were consulted by the Attorney General, especially in the case of Manitoba, where the minister is also the minister responsible for the status of women. I found it ironic that in fact your conference had been held in her province, and yet she didn't think that women were -
Ms Bayless: She attended.
Ms Torsney: Well, I guess she wasn't listening, because she thinks that 52% of the population -
Ms Bayless: She didn't attend all of it, but she was present for part of it.
Ms Torsney: She seemed to think that women in her province, by voting in a Conservative government, had voted against gun control, and that this was the prime issue in the campaign, and that it was the consultation period that was necessary and she had all the right in the world to make this representation without in fact having what I understand...because she couldn't supply us with a list. Perhaps you can tell us if in fact she met with other organizations of yours in those provinces and in the other provinces.
My final question concerns what you would say to those groups who say, ``Wait. Delay. We need more time''. Are you satisfied with that, or do you think we should be moving forward?
Ms MacLeod: I think we should be moving forward. I can speak a little bit about the Alberta presentation, and the Albertan views on Bill C-68; that is, the groups that were consulted by the provincial Attorney General. There are no women's groups there at all. There are 15 or so shooting clubs, 3 firearms dealers and a list of interest groups, including the National Firearms Association and Responsible Firearms Owners of Alberta. There are no women's groups or other groups that we know that don't support his position on this, that support the legislation presented. I think we should be moving forward.
Ms Essex: Our member associations - our YWCAs - certainly support our position. We've also spoken with a number of women's organizations in those provinces, and they support our position.
It's important to mention that on May 12 there was a news release. The Manitoba Action Committee on the Status of Women was appalled that Rosemary Vodrey, the minister responsible for the status of women, has made such an irresponsible decision to not support the registration of guns.
On your second question, I think we should move ahead right away with this, as it means saving the lives of women.
Ms Letts: I was going to add a few more things about the Manitoba Action Committee on the Status of Women news release, because she says that they were one of several groups who participated in a press conference, with the police department, on January 10. So there have been groups, including women's groups, who have spoken out in favour of gun control that were not, I gather.... I didn't see Ms Vodrey's presentation, only what was in the press. But she didn't consult with the women's groups, according to this. I'm sure you may want a copy of it.
Ms Torsney: [Inaudible]...in Manitoba get consulted?
Ms Bayless: Not to my knowledge. If anything, CFUW members have been putting forward their ideas, support and concerns to members of Parliament and to provincial officials. In general, we have not been consulted; if anything, we have taken separate action.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Your position is clear as to the general application of the legislation to the provinces. You are not in favour of opting out of this legislation for the provinces. Correct me if I have misunderstood you.
.1715
Earlier on, Mrs. Barnes mentioned a point on which I would also like to have some clarification. Under paragraph 110(t) of the bill, the government, that is the executive, may exempt any of the aboriginal peoples of Canada from any of the provisions of the act. Are you basically in favour of that provision or would you consider that your argument regarding the provinces also applies to each and every citizen of Canada, regardless of his or her ethnic origin?
[English]
Ms MacLeod: I think we need some clarification.
The Chair: There's a provision in the regulation-making power that would allow the government, by Order in Council, to exempt aboriginal peoples from certain parts of the law. For example, in the past, it did it for sustenance hunters. The fee for the licence was not charged if they hunted to put food onto the table. It also changed the way in which the past law was administered in aboriginal communities, and so on.
[Translation]
I think that was more or less the point Mr. Langlois was making.
Mr. Langlois: Yes, but let me put in my own way if I may. Is it sensible and acceptable in your opinion that the bill provides that the government may exempt an ethnic group in Canada from certain parts of the law? This is basically my question.
[English]
Ms Essex: We wouldn't support anybody being exempted from the law. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I understand that, in cases where people have to hunt for a livelihood, they are not going to have to pay the fees, and I think that's reasonable.
But I don't understand the request for anybody to be exempt from this law, and certainly not from the perspective of women. As I mentioned, women in all ethnic groups get killed, and exempting any one specific ethnic group would not be good for women in that population.
Ms Letts: Aren't the regulations there for the lifestyle in the rural areas - as you said, the storage of guns that Mr. Allmand referred to - rather than ethnicity? The reality is the need for hunting.
The Chair: Perhaps I should read the paragraph. It says that the government may make regulations
(t) respecting the manner in which any provision of this Act or the regulations applies to any of the aboriginal peoples of Canada, and adapting any such provision for the purposes of that application.
In other words, it's the manner in which any provision of the act applies to aboriginal peoples; it's not from the substance. For example, they could appoint chiefs as firearms officers, I suppose. They can exempt them from fees, but it's the manner of applying the law rather than the law itself. It allows the government to make exceptions in the application of the law to aboriginal peoples.
Ms MacLeod: I could add a further comment. Through the Alberta Council of Women's Shelters, there are many native women's shelters on reserves and they did support the legislation. Violence against women in those communities involving firearms is an issue. I guess what I can tell you is that we support the legislation and we support registration. If there needs to be an exception for administrative purposes and to accommodate a lifestyle, and it doesn't jeopardize the lives of women, I don't have an issue with that, but we didn't get into the details in our study of that.
The Chair: Ms Bayless, do you have any comment?
Ms Bayless: We're involved in the same situation.
.1720
Mr. Bodnar (Saskatoon - Dundurn): What I have is mostly a comment rather than a question. I come from the beautiful province of Saskatchewan. Many people have not gone there, but it is a nice province. I see that the chair has been there.
The Attorney General of my province is against me and my views on gun control, since I favour this bill with some changes. The other opposition parties are against me and the two major federal parties are against me in that province. Sometimes it becomes a bit difficult, and it's nice to know that the women of that province support me, as well as what I believe, from the one poll I have available, is the majority.
If he were alive, I believe I would also have the support of the late Tommy Douglas. On July 18, 1977, when dealing with a portion of gun control at that time, he said:
All this legislation will do is restrict the purchase of guns after it is passed. It will not do anything with regard to registering the millions of guns already around. However, half a loaf is better than none. I believe this legislation is a first step.
He then went on to say, because he was criticizing a government bill at the time:
This is weak legislation in terms of gun control. However, it is better than nothing. It will give us a chance to ensure that guns sold in the future will not be sold to people who should not have them. We will develop techniques for registration in the years ahead in the hope that this legislation will be strengthened even further.
That's what's being done now, eighteen years later.
I just wish I had had this when Mr. Mitchell was before the committee the other day. Unfortunately, some things come to your attention two days after and it just isn't good enough.
It's an evolutionary process that has taken place over a period of time. The evolutionary process involves people realizing what has happened by hearing about the effects of guns on people; hearing the medical people who have appeared before the committee who have indicated that the presence of guns greatly increases the incidence of the use of guns against people. I'm not going specifically to say women, because that isn't the sole issue; it's against people generally.
I'm please that you have supported this and that there is support elsewhere. It's just too bad the election in Saskatchewan is a mere month away and the parties are posturing rather than looking at the issues objectively.
Thank you very much for being here.
Ms McLeod: I appreciate your comments about the evolution of gun control. I was thinking as you were talking that we may be going back to some of the issues that were raised earlier. There has also been an evolution in attitudes toward women and family violence, and maybe on the bench as well, to allude to some of the comments you made that given time - maybe four years isn't enough now - maybe some of those attitudes will change as well.
Mr. Thompson (Wild Rose): I'm going to make some comments and I'd like you to jot down anything you'd like to respond to, because I have only five minutes.
I would encourage you, first, to have your people sit down and really get into the Orders in Council on this document. It's worth taking a serious look at. It was brought to my attention by two lady lawyers - that's where my first information came from - who really said that there is much to fear from that. I encourage you to check into that.
I have also travelled around with the police at night on many occasions in different cities, recently in Calgary. The major calls were always disputes. We talked a lot about how it would be nice to be able to type up and see. Strangely enough, most of the time they said they wouldn't want to depend on it, because it might come up saying there is nothing there and they would become too sure of themselves. They always approach it as if the worst thing possible could happen.
The first question they asked when they got into the house, on all occasions, was whether there were any guns or knives around. Two or three would move in and do a quick inspection of the area. They would have taken them if there had been any. So they assume the worst.
.1725
In my riding and area, in the last five years, we've had deaths: one child thrown up against the wall; one drowned in a tub; one smothered with plastic. Among the spouses, two were wives bludgeoned to death, two strangled, three knifed and one shot. That's within Wild Rose, which is just north of Calgary. A lot of these that I know about are within the city limits and into Red Deer, in that basic area.
The thing that concerns me, and the reason we have kept these on file, is alcohol was involved in 10 out of the 11 cases and in every case they were, as my colleague said, reduced to manslaughter. That was the most serious charge. In most cases, it was a two- to eight-year sentence, and out in three or four years. In my view, we ought to bring down an absolute zero tolerance for that kind of thing.
If we go into a registry, we're going to tie up police continually with the process, and we don't have many police now to do our work. So I object to the registry simply because it's going to take all our police time.
I say let's take this problem head on and let the whole country know we're not going to tolerate that kind of abuse any more. A registry just won't get that done.
Ms Essex: We believe it will.
Going back to one of your comments, I'm glad to hear that police assume there is a firearm or any weapon in the home. I need to emphasize that women don't always tell you there's a weapon in the home, because they fear reprisal from their spouse.
The registry, assuming that it would be used - and I'm making the assumption that the police would use it - would tell them that there is in fact a gun in the home, and it would be confiscated. We know that women do not tell police officers that those things exist.
Ms MacLeod: I guess I can make a further comment.
I don't know that it would take the energy of every police officer to do this registry, but I can say that there's a tremendous saving in health care costs if we can reduce the incidence of death and injury from firearms. I believe we can do that through gun control, through this registry system, and in that way quite possibly make more funding available for other things, as well - maybe support some social programs.
Ms Essex: YWCAs.
Ms MacLeod: YWCAs would be good.
Mr. Thompson: In your document you state that your members are lobbying local members of Parliament. Can I expect a lobby from your group?
I've had several lobbies from women, and they are all opposed to this bill. I've tabled petitions signed only by women. They wanted it on a pink slip, because they wanted it to be different, I guess to let the whole world know that they are against this legislation. There were 300 on one petition. I have thousands of letters, all signed by women. I'm waiting for a lobby from women's groups.
Ms Bayless: We'll have to speak to the Calgary members, because we have several.
Mr. Thompson: No one has lobbied me. I think it's only fair that I should hear that side.
Ms Bayless: It's a very valid point.
As you know, with volunteer organizations, you don't always mobilize the troops as well as you'd like. But certainly your point is well taken and there will be an alert. There will be an attitude session, as a matter of fact, about this.
Ms Essex: I would be very curious to know who those women were, because I would be very surprised if any of the women's groups who are supporting us would send you a petition on pink paper.
Ms Bayless: No way. Never.
The Chair: Opposing the legislation.
Mr. Thompson: They didn't come from your group.
.1730
Ms Essex: I'm sure they didn't either.
That is a very good example of the kind of education we need to do. It starts from the day a baby girl is born in the hospital and they wrap her in a pink blanket. I don't believe that happens any more. The way we treat girls starts that early. I can give you lots of examples. I'd love to take the time to do that.
I've heard the word ``lady'' mentioned here so many times that I'm stunned. It implies a stereotype and it's not acceptable. Our language and the way we are socialized start very early and contribute to the attitudes and the devaluing of women in our society, which contribute to violence against women.
Those are a few very small examples, but they're part of a much bigger piece.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. It may not be a point of order, and if it isn't you can shut me down.
The Chair: What's your point of order?
Mr. Thompson: I have tabled these petitions. I do have several letters. I've heard that several times: ``We represent 52% of the population''. I hear that from REAL Women and from NAC. I always have to question it. That 52% is all the women.
The Chair: That wasn't a point of order, but it goes on the record, like many other non-points of order.
Ms Essex: I would like to clarify. I did not come here saying that we represented 52% of the women. I said that women are 52% of the population and that we represent many women.
The Chair: A lot of people who come here attacking this legislation, and particularly attacking the registration provisions, have attacked it on the basis that it will not be cost-effective in reducing violence in the community, particularly even violence against women.
They have said that it would be better to spend that money on such things as more police, more alcohol rehabilitation programs and more prevention programs. Several even came and said that it's better to spend the money on attacking breast cancer, that we would save more women than we would with the registration system.
Those people who've said that have always presumed the moneys for the registration system would come out of general government revenues, whereas the government's thrust is that the gun owners should pay for the system and it should not come out of general tax revenue.
The Canadian Police Association said that the thing should be paid for 100% by the gun owners.
If that's the case, then you're not taking money away from breast cancer or alcohol programs or whatever. It means that the people who have guns, like the people who have cars, are paying for the registration system.
Do you believe that the entire system of registration and licensing should be paid for by the gun owners and gun users? Or should some of the costs come out of general tax revenue? What do you think of the arguments that try to attack the registration system by saying that it will not be cost-effective? I'd like to hear from both of you.
Ms Essex: We have no reason to believe that it wouldn't be cost-effective. I think that's what we would certainly support.
The Chair: When you talk about cost-effectiveness, you're talking about choices between spending general government revenues on fighting breast cancer or more police or more programs to help fight abuse in the home, if that comes out of general tax revenue.
If you're going to pay for the entire system through the people who buy the licences and register their guns - in other words, the gun users and owners - then the money for the registration system doesn't come out of general tax revenue.
Maybe you haven't taken a position. Do you think the system of registration and licensing should be paid for out of general tax revenue, or should it be paid entirely out of fees to be paid by the gun owners?
Ms MacLeod: You're correct; we haven't got an official position on that issue. We focused on registration with respect to family violence.
.1735
In my personal opinion, I don't think the registration of guns should be on the taxpayers' dollars. I think it should be done and fully funded by the gun owners.
Ms Letts: We don't have a position on that. I would hope the committee would look at other registration systems and see the percentage of the cost that is borne by the users.
You look at car registrations. I have a dog and I pay for dog registration. I would assume the dog owners in the city pay for what is necessary. A similar principle would apply in this case.
If eventually there are to be savings through health and a reduction in violence, then perhaps the government is actually saving money in those areas, and that would be taken into account as well. I think a yes or a no, black or white, is not an answer on which we have a policy. I think this committee would not recommend either. It would look at other options.
The Chair: I thank both groups for attending today. As you will recall, you first weren't appearing. We first heard from the National Association of Women and the Law. We said yes to them, but they couldn't appear. The National Action Committee on the Status of Women couldn't appear. So we are pleased that both of you could appear today and represent your organizations so well.
The meeting is adjourned until 7:30 p.m., when we shall hear from the National Crime Prevention Council.