Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and
Constitutional Affairs
Issue 45 - Evidence - Morning sitting
OTTAWA, Thursday, January 30, 1997
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met this day at 10:08 a.m. to consider its order of reference pursuant to subsection 18(3) of the Firearms Act, to examine the regulations drafted in accordance with section 118 of that act.
Senator Sharon Carstairs (Chair) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chair: We are continuing our consideration of the regulations pursuant to section 118 of the Firearms Act. Please remember that all we can do on these regulations is make recommendations. We cannot accept or reject them.
I will ask the witnesses to make their presentations as briefly as possible this morning and to focus on the regulations themselves, not on the original bill. That is a problem that occurred to some degree in the other place. We do not wish to reconsider the legislation. We want to focus our time and attention on the regulations that have resulted from the legislation.
Our first witnesses this morning, from the Coalition for Gun Control, are Professor Wendy Cukier, from Ryerson Polytechnic University; Ms Marylou McPhedran, Chairman of METRAC; and Mr. Arn Snyder, a member of the Canadian Criminal Justice Association. Welcome to all three of you.
Professor Cukier, we will begin with you first.
Professor Wendy Cukier, (Ryerson Polytechnic University), President, Coalition for Gun Control: I appreciate having an opportunity to meet with the committee yet again on the issue of the regulations.
I do not think anyone around the table needs too much introduction to the Coalition for Gun Control. I wish to remind you that our position is endorsed by 350 organizations from across the country. I believe you will be hearing from a number of our other members regarding some specific health care and policing concerns surrounding the legislation. We will provide some general comments as to why these regulations are important and, bearing your comments in mind, we will try to focus on the regulations themselves and why we support them more or less as written.
I will ask Arn Snyder to begin our presentation.
Mr. Arn Snyder, Canadian Criminal Justice Association, Coalition for Gun Control: I am chairman of the Policy Review Committee for the Canadian Criminal Justice Association. I think you are all familiar with the aims of the Canadian Criminal Justice Association.
We support the coalition's position on the gun legislation and the gun regulations as they exist now. The Canadian Criminal Justice Association sees these regulations as a crime-prevention initiative, which we support.
I will not say anything else at this point but, as the hearing goes on, I may have further comments.
Ms Marylou McPhedran, Chair, METRAC, Coalition for Gun Control: I am here wearing the hat of a volunteer and a citizen. I chair an organization called the Metro Action Committee on Violence Against Women and Children which was established over 12 years ago and has both a national and an international reputation for the work it has done in creating a far greater understanding of both the prevalence of violence within our society and the many subtle and sometimes invisible ways in which violence is tolerated, with the end result landing squarely, harshly and often fatally on women and children.
METRAC is one of the organizations that strongly support the Coalition for Gun Control. This morning I feel quite strongly my Manitoban roots. I grew up in rural Manitoba in a gun-owning, hunting family. I spent a number of years as a member of the local rifle club. I have no problem with people in our society owning guns, using them responsibly and appropriately and taking proper care of them.
The research available to us underscores the need for the regulations to be implemented in their details.
As a lawyer who has worked in policy and legislative reform for over 20 years, I have seen again and again the problems that can be created when a bill is passed and the regulations do not provide the necessary detail.
I am generally supportive of the regulations. I am here to urge greater clarity in the areas which have been specified in the coalition's brief. Ms Cukier will speak to those details.
Last month I was in Geneva at the headquarters of the World Health Organization as a temporary advisor to the newly established task force on violence and health. This was established by the World Health Organization which is, as you know, a United Nations agency. This was the first-ever global consultation on violence and health. I was one of two Canadians there. It was a very interesting meeting. There were about 50 people there and about 20 countries represented. Since it was the first meeting, we spent much of our time just trying to find a way to deal with violence as a global issue.
Colleagues from the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were there, as were colleagues from the collaborating centres on injury prevention. It was the first time that many of these people, who work primarily in the health field and have regularly seen the results of violence, had come together with their different perspectives.
I brought two key points away from that experience. First, Canada continues to be viewed in the world as a very important and influential leader. Canada's gun control legislation was raised at the meeting by a woman from South Africa. What we do with the details of the regulations will be viewed with great interest and perhaps followed around the world.
The second point I took away from the conference was the way in which the Canadian initiatives on violence, generally and specifically, have merged with discussion on gun control legislation. The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention focuses so strongly on gun control because of what they see and what their research has demonstrated. They see the need to reduce access to guns, the flow and use of illegal guns, as well as to have the legislation create an impact around the world with regard to the tolerance of violence. These are very powerful and dangerous weapons and we must treat them very seriously, as does this legislation.
Ms Cukier: I will bear in mind Senator Carstairs' request that we not talk about the rationale for the legislation. I would, however, like to reiterate three fundamental points and direct you to where they are discussed in the brief.
The first point we made in our previous brief on the legislation is that the research shows, on an international basis, the link between access to firearms and death and injury. That link very strongly supported, not only by the international research but also by statistics within Canada. I remind you of the table which shows clearly that the provinces with the highest rates of firearms access also have the highest rates of death.
The second point I want to reiterate is that in Canada the guns most commonly recovered in crimes are not handguns but rifles and shotguns. Again, I refer you to the table which shows the results of the Firearms Smuggling Work Group and the prevalence of rifles and shotguns recovered in crime. Rifles and shotguns comprise 47 per cent of the guns recovered in crime. Handguns comprise 20 per cent. Even among handguns, 40 per cent were at one time legally owned. Therefore, the claim that smuggled handguns are the principal problem in Canada is not supported by the available evidence. I do not think we can put that on the record often enough.
That brings me to why these regulations are important. If you accept the fact that there is a link between access to firearms and their misuse, that legal firearms fall into the hands of people who should not have access to them and that they are also misused by their owners, it becomes clear that in giving the legislation life the government must focus much attention on how they control legal access to those firearms through the licensing requirements and how they control access by individuals to those firearms once they are legally possessed. That is why the licensing and the safe storage regulations are fundamental to the impact of the law.
Our brief goes through many of the arguments around safe storage, which I will not reiterate because you have heard them before and because my colleagues in public health will revisit them.
The only point I wish to make is that safe storage regulations are key. They are key not only to preventing the misuse and impulsive use of firearms by their owners, but to preventing unauthorized access by other members of the family; most notably young people. There are many cases of young people gaining access to firearms which were not stored properly. There is also the problem of firearms theft.
In our opinion, the regulations initially tabled in May, which responded to Coroner David's inquest recommendations, and required that firearms have trigger locks as well as be stored in secure containers, were a strong and effective response to the problem of firearms misuse. We recognize that the regulations which have been tabled are compromised in some respects, but we think they can be effective. They are not significantly different from the regulations currently in place. We have asked -- and we would like to put our request on the record again -- that the Department of Justice put some energy into education and other initiatives to support these regulations.
The one small change we would request this committee to consider seriously is to specify in the regulations that the key or combination to the lock be inaccessible. We make this recommendation based on the fact that the problem with safe storage is often a problem which exists within a family. A firearms owner may store his guns with the thought that he is protecting them from a stranger breaking in and removing them when, in fact, the biggest risk is that a teenager in the household will take those guns and misuse them or take them and commit suicide. To say that safe storage is important and yet not to specify that the key or the lock should only be accessible by the person who is authorized to have access to those firearms is not consistent. That is the change we are asking the committee to consider.
When it comes to the licensing of firearms, it is important to understand that there are two levels of licensing, one for people who currently possess guns and one for people who acquire guns for the first time. Given the resource constraints we face, we accept that it is necessary to have different standards for people who are obtaining possession-only licences as opposed to acquisition licences. It is important to emphasize the difference between those two licences because it goes very much to the argument that this regime will be too expensive. The fact is that the possession-only licence process is streamlined, simple and low-cost. That will allow resources to be devoted to the people who are acquiring guns for the first time. We think that this a legitimate strategy to take in the current environment of constraints.
We also want to draw your attention to the fact that these proposed licensing regulations respond directly not only to recommendations that we have brought forward but recommendations which were brought forward based on consultation with a very wide range of women's organizations across the country. Some of those are documented in the brief.
A concern has been raised that if spousal notification is mandatory, women may be put at risk because if they are identified as not supporting an application, they may then become targets of violence. That is a legitimate concern. However, in our consultation process, women's organizations and front-line domestic violence workers have made the argument that, on balance, the risk of not notifying spouses is far greater than the risk that may come when spouses are notified. We therefore support spousal notification, as it is contemplated under the legislation.
In Appendix 4 I have included the recommendations of the Chief Coroner of British Columbia in the inquest into the Gakhal murders. You will see that under number 19, he recommends spousal notification. These regulations respond directly to that recommendation.
The other thing about these regulations which we think is a significant improvement over the previous FAC regulations which supported Bill C-17 is the heightened level of accountability. They have made the classes of references much broader so that now you do not have to be a doctor or a lawyer to sign an FAC application. At the same time, you will have to certify that you have no reason to think that the applicant represents a risk to themselves or to any other person. Given the risks of violence and suicide, we think that that is appropriate. It is important to remember that this is tied not just to domestic violence but to suicide prevention as well.
We also think it is appropriate that the firearms officers have a heightened level of accountability. Without accountability built into these regulations, they would not be strong enough.
We also comment in our brief on a number of other issues which I will not go into in detail.
With regard to the fee regulations, while you will no doubt hear complaints from people who say the fees are too high, you will have to balance that against the costs of access to firearms and the privileges that are being conferred through the licensing of firearms. In our opinion, the fees are reasonable.
The last point is with respect to the aboriginal people's adaptation regulation. There is no question that there are people living in aboriginal communities who use firearms in a very different way from people who live in other communities. We believe that the non-derogation clause written into the legislation was intended to recognize the legitimate concerns of aboriginal peoples. We are not experts in this area. However, we have consulted with a number of people. Our view is that the adaptations contained in the regulations seem to be reasonable. There seems to be sufficient flexibility to accommodate legitimate concerns.
At the same time, it is important to state that where there are demands for self-government, it is not clear to me that anything can be done in the regulations which will satisfy those demands.
Should anyone recommend that fees be waived for aboriginal peoples under these regulations, we would support that. That is based on consulting with a wide variety of groups.
Madam Chair, that is our position on the regulations. We would be happy to answer any questions.
Senator Beaudoin: If I understand your position, you support the regulations as they are, with one small amendment. Your small amendment has to do with safe storage. What do you want exactly? We will have to make recommendations. I would like to have your own wording with regard to your recommendation concerning safe storage.
Ms Cukier: I can send you something in writing. Essentially, it would be a simple addition to the requirement under the rubrics "Storage of Non-restricted Firearms" and "Storage of Restricted Firearms". The first presently states:
An individual may store a non-restricted firearm only if
(a) it is unloaded;
(b) it is
(i) rendered inoperable...
We need an addition to the clause which would state "and the key or combination to the lock is accessible only to the authorized owner." It is a simple addition to section 3 of that part of the regulations.
To be perfectly clear, if this committee were to decide that it would be too much trouble to make any modifications to the regulations and we were asked to support them without any changes, we would say "yes". We are not making our support of the regulations contingent on this change. However, we think it would be a valuable addition to the regulations.
Senator Beaudoin: You agree entirely with the principles set out in the regulations.
Senator Jessiman: Are you suggesting that the key or the combination be in a locked place?
Ms Cukier: No. However, if you lock up your guns in a case and merely put the key to the case on the bureau, then it defeats the purpose of locking them up.
The Chair: I would like to go into this a bit further. Having had teenagers in my house, I do not think there was anything in my house which was inaccessible to them. They knew where mom's jewellery was if they wanted to take mom's jewellery. How practical is it to require that this combination or this lock be inaccessible? What exactly will that mean?
Ms Cukier: It is the same principle that already exists in the regulations where they use language such as "not readily accessible " and "not reasonably accessible".
There is no question that you could have the key on a chain hidden somewhere and that a resourceful teenager could find it. Reasonable people would agree that you had taken appropriate precautions. However, it is not reasonable when the key is sitting on the bureau, where the combination is written on the wall, or where guns are locked in the room which also serves as a broom closet to which all members of the family have access, even though as the regulations are currently written, those things might count as safe storage. If you apply a standard of making them not reasonably accessible, it would be clear that those situations would fail the test.
You are a lawyer, and I am not, so there may be some --
The Chair: I am not a lawyer.
Ms Cukier: You are not a lawyer?
The Chair: No, I am not.
Ms Cukier: I apologize. Well, some people are lawyers.
Senator Beaudoin: Why do you apologize? There is nothing wrong with being a lawyer.
Ms Cukier: Some people are lawyers, and I am not, and they may see other implications.
Senator Beaudoin: We realize that the act is as it is now. It has been adopted by Parliament, and the regulations are adopted under the act. We cannot change the act. However, we can recommend changes in the regulations.
I understand that you are satisfied with the regulations, generally speaking, and you are also satisfied with the act. You are not asking for an amendment with a new text on safe storage; you are simply recommending that we look at the question of safe storage, which is quite logical.
Ms Cukier: We are recommending, though, if there are any changes, that they do add a sentence to the regulation which specifies that.
Senator Beaudoin: It is an addition for better storage.
Ms Cukier: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you for attending today.
Ms Cukier: Thank you, and good luck with the rest of your work.
The Chair: I welcome the representatives from la Conférence des Régies régionales de la Santé et des Services sociaux du Québec. Please begin your presentation.
[Translation]
Dr. Robert Maguire, President, Injury Prevention committee, Réseau de la santé publique du Québec, Public Health Director in the Lower St. Lawrence Region: First of all, Mr. Florian Saint-Onge, the President of the Conférence des régies régionales, sends his regrets as he cannot be here with us this morning. Before Dr. Chapdelaine presents our brief, I would like to say a few words to you about the Conférence des régies régionales and share with you our concerns about the firearms regulations.
The Conférence des régies régionales represents regional health and social services boards in the province of Quebec. The government has divided the province into 16 regional boards, plus a Cree council. As a general rule, approximately 20 people sit on the boards' executives which are responsible for ensuring health and social services within a particular area. For example, the board in Rimouski oversees an area with a population of close to 200,000. Located within this area are six hospitals, eight local community service centres or CLSCs and a number of reception centres. The board of directors reflects the make-up of the population and ensures that health care services are available to everyone.
Since 1913, a public health director has been appointed for each regional board. One of my duties as Public Health Director, that is one of the legal responsibilities I have, is to inform the public of major health problems and also to identify ways of resolving these problems.
When I started working in Rimouski several years ago, one issue of major concern to us was the number of motor vehicle injuries that we were seeing. Our region is a rural one and there are not many highways. We began to look at ways of improving our roads; for example, we focused on dangerous curves. It was recently reported on the news that in the Dorval region, one curve in the roadway had caused a number of deaths. A number of options were explored and it was ultimately decided some years later to improve the layout of the roadway. It is hoped that this will likely resolve the problem.
When I was a young man living in the Gaspé region, one curve in the road was the scene of several deadly accidents. I know of four people who died at this spot before a decision was made to cut down a tree and realign the road. The problem was ultimately resolved by improving the environment.
As Public Health Director and as a member of the regional board, I have a responsibility to try and identify problems and find solutions to them. In the health care field, we often consider ourselves at one end of the illness chain, so to speak. Basically, we are left to deal with the consequences of a number of problems. We are here today to convince you that you can play an important role in addressing a problem of growing concern to us, namely suicide, a tragedy which affects all age groups, but more particularly young people.
We have already met with Senator Beaudoin and with several other people to discuss this subject. We are here to support you in your efforts to bring in legislative measures and regulations which will address a serious problem among Canadians.
I would now like to turn the floor over to Dr. Chapdelaine who has been working for many years in the field of injury prevention, both intentional and unintentional. Dr. Chapdelaine works at the Centre de santé de la région de Québec, which is affiliated with the Centre universitaire de la région de Québec. He will speak to you about certain issues that we have already outlined to you in our brief.
Dr. Antoine Chapdelaine, Director, Centre de Santé publique de Québec, Past Member, Canadian Advisory Council on Firearms: On behalf of the groups we represent, I want to thank you. As Dr. Maguire mentioned, this is not the first time that we have appeared before the committee. In fact, this is our fourth appearance. I will not bother going over again the many problems linked to firearms. No doubt you are well aware of them.
One statistic worth remembering is that between 1,300 and 1,400 deaths every year in Canada can be attributed to firearms. In Quebec, firearms are responsible for 400 deaths. This means that in Quebec, guns are responsible on average for one death per day. In the rest of Canada, the figure is three deaths per day.
As you know, 80 per cent of these deaths are suicides, while 10 per cent to 15 per cent are homicides committed with firearms. The rest fall into the category of accidents, or what we called unintentional injuries.
For the past several years, the Conférence has been conducting a series of studies to identify the extent of the problem. Public health centres have been conducting similar studies since 1989. Public health experts in Quebec have focused primarily on the research that has been done throughout the world into the causes of firearms-related suicide in an effort to come up with reasonable and sensible proposals. Today, there are two issues that we would like to discuss with you. One is safe storage, and this is addressed in the regulations now before you, and the other is the screening process -- a term very much in vogue in the public health care field -- that persons wishing to obtain a permit or firearms acquisition certificate must undergo.
Rather than describe to you the process which led us to make these recommendations, I would like to identify for you the principles that guided us. We hope that these will be reflected in your recommendations.
With respect to storage, we have four objectives in mind. First, we want to prevent the impulsive use of firearms, primarily by young people. Second, we want to prevent the unauthorized use of firearms. Third, we want to address the issue of firearms theft. Close to 3,000 firearms are either lost or stolen or go missing in Canada every year.
Finally, the regulations must be enforceable and enforced. Our action is guided by these objectives.
Spurring us on is the extent of the problem. The most conclusive epidemiological studies repeatedly show that the mere presence of a firearm in the home increases the risk of suicide five-fold and the risk of homicide three-fold compared with homes with no guns.
Studies have also shown that the level of risk varies depending on the manner in which the firearm is stored. According to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, a loaded accessible firearm increases the risk of suicide nine-fold as compared to homes where there are no firearms, where the odds ratio is 1.0. Unlocked firearms in the home increases the risk of suicide five-fold.
When all firearms are kept locked up, the odds ratio is 2.4. This is still higher than in those homes without firearms, but the risk is reduced nevertheless.
Based on these findings and on several other studies, we are convinced that the crux of the problem is the immediate, ready access to a firearm during a suicidal crisis, particularly in the case of young people who tend to act on impulse when under the influence of alcohol, and alcohol is very frequently involved, and who often do stupid things with an object as dangerous as a firearm. Therefore, we encourage all measures aimed at reducing access to firearms.
That is why we support the licensing, possession and registration provisions set out in Bill C-68 because they form the basis of our regulatory proposals and endeavour to make owners more responsible and accountable for their firearms.
Putting it simply, if the owner's name is associated with the firearm, he will act in a much more responsible manner than if there was no direct link existed.
Of course, suicide, homicide, accidents, theft, and the criminal use of stolen firearms were also considerations. We also support registration and licensing practices because we have observed that in Quebec, and based on the surveys conducted, the same is true in the rest of Canada, half of all gun owners have not used their firearms in the last 12 months.
What this likely means, and I will get to the Coroner David report in just a moment, many people who own an old .22 calibre firearm purchased 15 years ago have never used it and this weapon will be used the first time when their son commits suicide. These are the types of situations we want to avoid.
Perhaps when the time comes for people to register their weapons or obtain a licence, they will stop and ask themselves if they really need that firearm. Perhaps they will find that this it is of no use to them and they will sell it to some other responsible person. All the better. The registration process and the regulations will make them more responsible. In the process, we are reducing the number of homes with guns and reducing the risk accordingly.
Before I go on to discuss the Anne-Marie David inquest conducted in Quebec, I would just like to talk for a minute about the apparent correlation between the death rate in Canada and the percentage of homes with guns.
[English]
It is quite surprising to realize that the lowest mortalities rates in Canada are in Ontario. The percentage of homes with firearms in Ontario is 15 per cent. The highest mortality rate in the Canadian provinces and territories, you probably know already but I just want to confirm, is in the Northwest Territories. The rate is about six times higher than in Ontario in terms of death rate by 100,000 population of the province. In the Yukon, it is about 2.5 times higher.
What is the percentage of homes with firearms in those two territories? It is not 15 per cent; it is 67 per cent. Accessibility and availability are key elements to our proposals.
I would advise you of this second element: We were very lucky in the province of Quebec to hold a coroner's inquest about two and a half years ago. It specifically investigated a series of deaths which were linked to storage practices. During that inquest, which was public, we seized the opportunity to do an extensive survey of storage practices in Quebec. We discovered that one in four Quebec homes has a firearm. One-third of those firearms are stored very poorly. In other words, their firearms are not stored in accordance with the storage rules which were put into force on January 1, 1993, under the previous legislation, Bill C-17.
To make a simple calculation, almost one home in ten in Quebec has a poorly stored firearm. If you look at an area where there are 30 homes, there is a probability that, in three of those homes, where your children may walk in to play with other children, where your family may visit friends, there is a firearm which is stored -- excuse the expression -- similarly to a fly swatter. However, it is not a fly swatter.
[Translation]
I first heard this expression in the Beauce region where I own a home. My neighbours all own firearms. They are all hunters. Most of them support the legislation. I know this for a fact because I conducted my own informal survey. They are all aware of the dangers associated with firearms. My neighbour, Mr. Lessard, was the one who said that firearms should not be stored like fly swatters. He is the one who coined this phrase.
Based on this inquest's findings, there is only one thing that we regret.
[English]
In this survey, we only regret one thing: The rest of Canada does not have a similar survey to provide a baseline with which to evaluate in three years whether the regulations have worked. Right now, you will have a baseline for Quebec but not for the rest of Canada. That is one of our recommendations: That this baseline study be done as soon as possible.
On the basis of these findings, as well as on the basis of the recommendations of the Coroner, Ms David, who did the inquest, we became convinced that the storage rules must be as simple as possible. They must be understandable and enforceable by authorities. They must increase the number of barriers, physical and space and time barriers, between an impulse to violence, under the influence of alcohol or otherwise, and access to a firearm.
As well, the rules must be written in such a way that they can prevent or delay theft. Too many guns are stolen. Many people in Quebec have followed the story of the young man of 14 who put his hands on a firearm in Longueuil, south of Montreal. He simply took it from the room of his 13-year-old buddy in another house and went home and killed his brother and his two parents. That firearm should have been stored properly. It should have been easy for the authorities to charge the owner of the firearm who had not stored it properly. That was never done because the law was not in force at the time and also because the law is very complicated.
Finally, on the basis of those premises and the recommendations of Coroner David, we recommended a long time ago that all firearms be made inoperable either with a trigger lock or by taking away the bolt.
Coroner David had a special interest in keeping things simple. That is why she recommended that all firearms be treated on the same basis. We support that recommendation.
Presently, the storage regulations before you are acceptable. They are quite similar to those under Bill C-17, except for some details of a legal nature. Obviously, from a public health perspective, we preferred the rules tabled in the House of Commons on May 2, 1996 and which were withdrawn a few days later.
We think Quebec is ready to have very strict rules even if the rest of Canada is not. Under the circumstances, our recommendation is to accept the rules as they are, and perhaps to add in a few "chicanes", as we say in French, barriers to immediate access.
Moving on to the screening process, in summary, we agree with the rules before you. We can explain why, if you like.
We had some recommendations concerning research. I gave you a flavour of them. As I said, we would like to have a baseline to be able to evaluate the effect of the regulations. However, we also humbly ask that you agree to re-examine the safe storage rules by the year 2001 or after an evaluation period. Perhaps by then the rest of Canada will be ready to accept and enforce the safe storage rules. We will then see if they work.
We also have a recommendation concerning the use of coroners' inquests. Across Canada every year, there are about 1,000 investigations done on firearms deaths. The material gathered by physicians, lawyers or notaries who are coroners is extremely precious but it is useless in an isolated form. It must be gathered in an aggregate way so that we can identify the risk factors on which we can make suggestions.
Finally, not because we are physicians but because we know how physicians work, we know how difficult these situations are for physicians. We are acutely aware of the fact that most people who commit suicide have told their physicians of their intent in the preceding weeks or months. Most spouses who are victims of violence have informed their physicians, a social worker or other members of the medical profession of the problems. That information does not translate into action in terms of getting guns out of homes which should not have them during the crisis period, or even recommending simple rules to patients.
We think there should be research on what is the current practice in physicians' offices, what they know, what they do, and what they could do to save more lives.
[Translation]
Senator Beaudoin: Yes, that is very interesting. You have divided your presentation in two parts, storage and the screening process. If I understand correctly, you find these regulations acceptable in principle. Your recommendation focuses on two areas: research and the review of these provisions after a period of four or five years.
I think we can go along with these recommendations. They do not have to do with the wording of the text as such but rather the administration of the firearms legislation. Am I correct?
We must come to a decision on these regulations. You have added two points for our consideration. You recommend that we do some research and perhaps also that we review the application of the legislation in four or five years' time.
I have no objection to this. I have always been, and continue to be, in favour of research. I have always felt that laws should be reviewed after they have been in force for a period of time. Is that indeed what you want?
Mr. Maguire: This is one of the recommendations that we are making. Of course, in past years, when I was more or less involved in this process, when we had to deal with the problem of a bacteria or virus, the ideal approach was to identify it under the microscope and decide on the proper course of treatment. That makes things easier.
We are progressing as a society and a number of problems are emerging. Over the years, suicide has become a growing problem. We do not understand why we were initially told that there was no problem.
Both the regulations and the legislation are a major step in the right direction. Yet, this is a problem that we do not fully understand. A young man is successful in school, tops in his class and shows leadership skills; he is well-liked by his friends. One day, he takes his father's gun, goes out behind the shed and takes his own life. Why?
Mechanisms must be put in place to collect data. To assist us in this endeavour, data could be collated from the coroner's office with a view to identifying similarities and patterns. This legislation is a step in the right direction. We have no other way of preventing these deaths and we are recommending that other avenues be explored to improve the situation.
I wanted to be clear on this point because since this legislation is indeed a major step forward, we do not want it to be called into question. We are recommending a way of improving it and surely, further research could only be beneficial.
Senator Beaudoin: In other words, the regulations are acceptable to you. The legislation has been passed and we must now move forward. You underscored the correlation between the accessibility of firearms and the suicide rate. We all saw what happened in Quebec recently. It made the headlines. Not only is this issue a federal concern, but to some degree, a provincial one as well. Health care and related fields are largely a matter of provincial jurisdiction. However, you are recommending an additional component, namely research.
Mr. Chapdelaine: We realize that our recommendations should normally have focused on the regulations. We are trying to look at this from another perspective and I am confident that if the opportunity arises and you feel it is warranted, you will find a way to carry out our recommendations.
However, in terms of reviewing the statute, this is not at all what we want. We consider this to be a sound piece of legislation for all sorts of reasons which we could list ad nauseam.
We would like the storage provisions in the regulations to be reviewed because of what happened in Quebec and in light of the coroner's inquest. It would be easier to bring in tougher regulations. They may or may not prove to be more effective, but that remains to be seen.
The rest of Canada did not have the benefit of this kind of survey or inquest and of the surrounding publicity. Perhaps this explains why the regulations which were totally acceptable to us on May 2 of this year were withdrawn six days later. This is the one area that we are asking you to review.
Senator Beaudoin: I will take note of your recommendation.
[English]
Senator Jessiman: I understood you to say that, in Quebec, three in 10 homes which have firearms do not have them stored in accordance with the law. Is that a correct statement?
Mr. Chapdelaine: Correct, at that time.
Senator Jessiman: Is that for all of Quebec or only certain parts of Quebec?
Mr. Chapdelaine: One in three households that possess at least one firearm do not store them in accordance with the regulations.
Senator Jessiman: With the present regulations.
Mr. Chapdelaine: The current ones, which are very similar to the ones you have before you. That is for all of Quebec. This was a poll conducted under our direction, and under our scientific supervision, by the firm Leger & Leger on approximately 500 households which had a firearm. It was conducted all over Quebec, taking into account rural and urban areas.
Senator Jessiman: Did it include the aboriginal people as well?
Mr. Chapdelaine: No, they were excluded.
Senator Jessiman: What are the authorities doing to get people to comply? Are they charging people? If there are three out of 10 households, as your poll indicates, why are the authorities not doing something about it, or are they?
Mr. Maguire: I will answer you with an example.
Many years ago it was the seatbelt issue which was on the agenda. For the first three to five years that the law was on the books in Quebec, it was not really enforced but the awareness of the people was rising all the time. Finally, the government decided that they would apply the law. When a sufficient number of people had heard about the law and had talked about it, 95 per cent of the people used their seatbelts. There is an adaptation period.
Senator Jessiman: I know that in Manitoba, they charge people for not wearing a seatbelt. I have not had a personal experience but someone close to me has. Are they doing that with firearms? Are they charging people?
Mr. Chapdelaine: We have not examined that in a scientific way.
The new rules, under Part III of the Criminal Code, following passage of Bill C-17, only went into force on January 1, 1993. So our experience is a bit short. However, one thing that Coroner David found is that the enforcers, the police officers, had some difficulty in understanding the rules clearly. I will give you an example.
There have been situations where police have been called in because of a break and enter, and they have found a .22 calibre rifle lying on the couch with no trigger lock, and perhaps even loaded. They could not lay a charge because the front door was locked, and there had been a break and enter. Under the rules, if the gun is in a room that is locked, the police can interpret that as being safely stored. That is one of the confusion factors.
Your role is unique, which is to recommend changes to the rules bearing in mind the four criteria we suggested to you: preventing impulsive use; preventing unauthorized use by children and others; preventing theft; and making the rules enforceable.
Senator Jessiman: Do you find in Quebec that the people in the cities support the law and adhere to it, whereas the people in the countryside are very much against it and do not abide by it?
Mr. Chapdelaine: I do not know where those who are against the law live, but we have been observing the polls which have been conducted in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada since 1990, and Quebec has always been higher than the rest of Canada.
Senator Jessiman: Even among the people farming in the countryside?
Mr. Chapdelaine: Yes. A question was posed on registration and licensing, and in Quebec, 94 per cent were in favour. Let us cut it down between people who do not have firearms and those who do. Those who did not were at 97.8 per cent, which is 98 per cent in favour, but those who had firearms were still at 82 per cent. There is a slight differential between the rural and urban areas of Quebec. There is also a differential between provinces that have more guns and those that do not. It is natural. There is more resistance in those places that have more guns.
Senator Jessiman: You are hoping in time that, just as seatbelts are now widely used, the safe storage of guns will follow the same pattern. Is that what you expect?
Mr. Chapdelaine: Yes.
The Chair: You did not make a specific recommendation, but it seems to me it was inherent in much of what you had to say. Do you also think there needs to be a massive education program to promote the regulations that are presently before us and eventually will in some form become the law?
Mr. Chapdelaine: Absolutely, but I think Dr. Maguire answered that question in another way. One of the guiding principles of public health is that you do not use just one strategy. You need a combination of strategies. Education alone just does not work. If you have good technology, such as trigger locks and other things that are easy to use, inexpensive to buy and are well-accepted by the population that needs protection, and if you have good laws with good rules that are easy to understand and enforce, then education has much more impact, such as for seatbelt laws.
We got some free publicity on education through the coroner's inquest. One of the roles of the coroner is to educate people. The inquest, along with the attention that the media paid to it -- the press review is very thick -- was probably very helpful in changing thinking. There is no doubt that the better the information, the better the quality of the education. That is where we recommend that more research be done to diffuse that information.
[Translation]
Senator Pearson: Thank you for your presentation which I found most interesting. I read the English version.
[English]
I do not always know the French word for what I want to say. You mentioned that you had a few questions about screening. You did not elaborate on them but said that you would if we asked, so I am asking.
Mr. Chapdelaine: Was there anything specific?
Senator Pearson: You said that you had some concerns about screening. I am asking you what they are.
Mr. Chapdelaine: We practise screening in public health, too. There are rules regarding screening. Obviously, the more information that we know about what we must pick up in the screening process, the better the link between that factor and the problem we want to avoid. The result is an improved screening process. For example, under the former law, there were questions that we think are very good because they inquired about personal problems -- financial problems, marital problems, and so on -- before the firearm could be delivered.
One factor is marital break-up. After a divorce or a separation, there is a long period where the spouse could be in danger. We prefer the rules as they are set because the provide for notification of the spouse or the former spouse.
In simple terms, we think that any firearm that enters a home involves an important family decision. If the spouse or former spouse is not to be told that this is to happen, it would be an enormous loophole and flaw in the regulations.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.
The committee recessed.