Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and
Constitutional Affairs
Issue 45 - Evidence - Afternoon sitting
OTTAWA, Thursday, January 30, 1997
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met this day at 1:00 p.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: Senators, continuing with the consideration of the regulations pursuant to section 118 of the Firearms Act, our first witness this afternoon is Mr. Dale Blue, President of the Provost and District Fish and Game Association.
Welcome, Mr. Blue. As I explained earlier today, we are not discussing the bill today but focusing on the regulations which flow from that bill. Your presentation, which I have read, does just that, and I welcome a continuation of that discussion this afternoon.
Please begin your presentation.
Mr. Dale Blue, President, Provost and District Fish and Game Association: Madam Chairman, on behalf of our small club and small community, I appreciate the opportunity to be here for two reasons. The first is that we realize this is the last chance we will have to consider these regulations. They need not appear before Parliament again after they are considered this time. The second reason is that I will know that our recommendations are on record.
When leaving my hotel this morning, I saw a brochure from a group called MADD. In some of our high schools at home we have groups called SADD. MADD and SADD stand for Mothers Against Drunk Driving and Students Against Drunk Driving. There is a problem with people getting drunk, getting into vehicles and killing other people. These groups do not propose as a solution strict regulation of alcohol or vehicles. They do, however, try to educate people that this behaviour is not socially correct. They always advocate stronger penalties.
I have distributed some pictures. I want to talk a bit about my world view, based on past experience. My world view of firearms is related to what you see in the pictures. I see firearms that have a utility value. They can be used for hunting and casual target shooting. There is a high ownership of firearms in our area. In my brief, I suggest that between 70 and 90 per cent of homes have firearms and that there may be more firearms than people. Firearms have been part of my experience as long as I can remember.
Those who do not own guns will have a different view of firearms, perhaps influenced mainly by media and entertainment. One of the realities with which we deal is risk management. My personal experience with firearms leads me to believe that my risk from firearms is very small. My risk from motor vehicles is quite high, because of the area in which I live. My risk of being injured by a machine is relatively high. My risk of not having a fast response to an emergency is fairly high.
I wish to talk briefly about the effects of the legislation, including these regulations and how they are influencing firearms owners.
Some firearms owners are getting rid of their guns. They are selling them at fire-sale prices or giving them away. They do not understand what is happening, but they do not want to take the chance of being charged with an offence. Some people are following the law. I am sure that people are currently contacting local police detachments to find out how to register their firearms. It bothers me that people who do not break the law or regard themselves as criminals are actually making a decision about whether or not to follow the regulations. It is tragic that people would even consider this.
The regulations will affect community policing. In 1989, the RCMP were given a mandate of community policing. This is gradually working. If the RCMP are put in charge of administering and enforcing a law which is unpopular in my area, it will certainly not enhance the gains they have made in community policing.
I must state that this brief is not an endorsement of chapter 39 of the Statutes of Canada.
I should like to make some general comments about regulations. One function of a bureaucracy and regulations should be to make it easy for people to understand and obey a law, not to set up roadblocks. When we are considering the regulations on which I have made recommendations, we must ask ourselves whether they really have to do with public safety or whether they have to do with making it more difficult to legally own firearms.
I have a long list of recommendations. I would like to go through some of them and pick out specific regulations about which you may not have information.
My first recommendation is that the regulations be rewritten in plain language. That is a very important recommendation which this committee could make. I found it very difficult to read these regulations, as did my friends who helped me prepare this brief. The regulations are very confusing, perhaps because of the amount of material they cover. This past weekend, I obtained a copy of a document containing the draft regulations of gun control tabled in the House of Commons in June, 1992. The committee's first recommendation was that the proposed regulations be redrafted to the greatest possible extent in plain language. This is a challenge for whoever drafts regulations.
The second recommendation is that there be a massive public education campaign regarding the bill itself and the regulations. It must be asked: What are the regulations and how can I follow them? That is so for two reasons. The first is so that owners of firearms will know what they are dealing with. The second is so that the general public can be assured of the safety features of the legislation. Opportunities in this regard were lost in the past.
The storage and transport regulations that we have before us are not a great deal different from the ones proposed in 1993. I am a Canadian Firearms Safety Course instructor. I instruct people who are taking the course because they are interested. I am teaching this as new information four years after its introduction. This should not happen again.
I should like to move on to the fifth recommendation. Perhaps we can return later to some of the ones I have skipped over. If you wish to interrupt me and ask questions on any of them, that would be fine.
The fifth recommendation is one that would affect only a small number of people. It concerns authorizations to transport restricted weapons, I assume to and from ranges. If the information I have is correct, there are approximately 60,000 people in Canada at present who have these permits. There are at the most 20 in our little club. The regulation suggests that all firearms to which the authorization to transport applies be identified. It misses the fact that firearms are bought and sold. A form like this would have to be updated constantly. A person may own restricted firearms for different shooting disciplines and may not always be transporting the same firearms. This recommendation might eliminate a lot of unnecessary paper work.
In Appendix 1, I have provided an example of a permit to carry. It states "for the carrying of restricted weapons as described on the attached copy of Restricted Weapons Certificate Form 306." I believe this system works. It is satisfactory. It says that you have a permit to carry a restricted weapon and, if you have a restricted weapon with you, then you should have a registration certificate for it. To list all firearms is unnecessary.
Recommendation 6 has given us some concerns. I believe the wording "a direct route to and from a range" was first introduced in about 1992. It must be clarified. Our members are uneasy. What does "direct route" mean? Does it mean a straight line route? Does it mean that if I am driving through a major city I cannot drive a kilometer out of the way to visit a relative? Does it mean that if I am with my family I cannot go shopping? There needs to be some clarification here.
Recommendations 8 and 13 respond to a local situation, even though the Alberta Fish and Game Association has requested the same. It falls under "additional authorizations to carry". It would be for the purpose of big game hunting as regulated by a provincial government. It would allow increased opportunities for hunting and increased interest.
At present, hunting is suffering. The number of hunters is down. Anything we can do to increase hunter numbers and opportunities would be great.
Our specific resolution at the convention applied to a military camp that is enclosed. It is a controlled environment and would not be a problem. However, we were told that present federal law does not allow for that kind of arrangement. Here is an opportunity for the law to be changed to accommodate people's wishes for the recreational use of firearms without having a negative impact.
I should like to talk about Recommendation 14 next which concerns storage of non-restricted firearms. We recommend that a further exemption be made to the storage regulations if a person is residing at a wilderness camp. This would not affect too many people. People at wilderness camps may have various reasons for having loaded firearms. People at wilderness camps are responsible. This recommendation would make it a lot easier for the aboriginal community to deal with these regulations.
Recommendations 15, 16, 17 and 20 concern another way to store a firearm safely, that is, by the removal of an essential part. On reflection, I am not sure that this is a good recommendation since, as I mentioned in my opening, the storage regulations are somewhat complicated and confusing. This would give people another option.
Recommendation 19 addresses the hunting situation. I have suggested rewriting Alberta's regulations to state that, when hunting, a loaded firearm be defined as one in which there is no cartridge in the chamber or breech. In other words, it would be acceptable to have the magazine loaded. There are then some remarks concerning muzzle loaders. We appreciate the changes regarding muzzle loaders being put in these regulations when they were redrafted. The reason we suggest that change is the following: Imagine yourself this morning, when it was minus 26, out hunting for two or three hours and having to load and unload a firearm. Your fingers would be a little bit warmer than minus 26. I suggest that from a strict safety standpoint it would be better to leave the firearm magazine loaded. This is a safety consideration. As you see in one of the appendices, this was the consideration of the Alberta Wildlife Association when they had that regulation. Alberta is one of the few provinces in Canada that had that definition of "loaded firearm."
Recommendation 24 refers to chief firearms officers issuing licences only to residents of the province. There seems to be a bit of a contradiction between 2(1) and 2(3). A rationale for the Firearms Act was that it would be consistent across Canada. We have a mobile population. While I am teaching the firearms safety course mainly to people in my area, I have had people in the course from Ontario and from other parts of the province 300 or 400 miles away. I believe that this same thing would likely apply to people applying for a licence.
Recommendation 31 deals with a technical regulation which would not affect many people. It refers to people being able to obtain a possession certificate if they possessed certain firearms previously. It mentions non-restricted firearms and restricted firearms, but it does not mention prohibited firearms.
The bill transferred 50 percent of handguns into a prohibited category. Perhaps a person not being able to obtain a possession license, having previously owned a particular type of gun, is an oversight. Perhaps it means that that person needs to take the safety course and obtain a possession and acquisition license. Provision for that type of situation appears to me to have been left out.
Those are the recommendations I wished to cover. If you have any questions regarding the regulations to which I have referred or any of the other recommendations that I have made, I would be happy to answer them.
The Chair: Thank you for a thorough analysis both in your written and your oral presentation.
Senator Beaudoin: I am puzzled by the recommendation that the government should start to enact regulations in a different way. You said that those regulations should be in plain language. I cannot but agree with you that it should be as simple as possible; however, when we draft regulations to implement a statute, we must use certain legal terminology in order to be precise and accurate and in order to comply with the language of the statute. I have great admiration for Constitutions like that of the United States which are in plain language. However, it is sometimes difficult to do the same thing when dealing with certain statutes. For example, in the field of income tax or perhaps firearms, it is difficult to reach such a result.
What exactly do you mean by "plain language"? Do you mean a language that is quite different from the one that has been used?
Mr. Blue: I mean language that is easier for the average citizen to understand. Some of this appears to be written by lawyers for lawyers; yet it applies to the average firearms user. Rather than have all the storage regulations, why not have two simple rules: A firearm, when it is stored, must be unloaded and inoperable.
Senator Beaudoin: I have nothing against plain language. On the contrary, I think we should strive towards the use of plain language. Some legal texts use plain language. However, when it is in plain language, it is usually quite general, and the courts construe the language, whether it be in the Constitution or the statutes, and this is the way it should be.
However, the regulations cannot be too general if the act itself was adopted with a certain language. The regulation must comply with the act. You cannot be simple in the regulations if the act itself is complex. You cannot go against the act; you must follow the act and implement it. If the act is technical, it is no surprise that the regulations are technical as well.
It is one thing to say that it should be in plain language, but the fact is that we must cover every aspect of a particular problem. In practice, it is not an easy task. I agree with the concept, but it is not always possible to avoid technical language, especially in this field. I am not saying that it cannot be improved upon since everything can be improved in one fashion or another, but to re-draft the entire regulations is quite a recommendation.
Senator Gigantès: English and French are two very noble languages. They have examples of clarity in the most obtuse subjects. It is quite possible to take anything lawyers have garbled and render it into plain language. In fact, after I retire in 19 months, I shall offer my services at $45 an hour to the government to do just that -- write things in language that people can understand without the use of a lawyer. It will cause a loss of income for some of you, but it offends me deeply when I see a legal text. It is possible to say the same thing in plain English or French and be precise and in complete accordance with the law and leave no doubt in the mind of the judges as to what it means.
The Chair: As you can tell, Mr. Blue, this is an ongoing discussion in this particular committee.
Senator Gigantès: Thank you for mentioning it.
The Chair: Theoretically, I agree with Senator Gigantès and you that everything should be as plain as possible; on the other hand, I have empathy with Senator Beaudoin when he says that one cannot take a complicated piece of legislation and not reflect that complexity in the regulations. You are looking for a balance, as are we, so that the greatest number of people can understand the regulations.
Senator Beaudoin: It is true that it is possible to have better language, but it would take two things: time and genius. When drafting regulations, the first draft is probably not too good. If you have time and talent -- and many lawyers have talent -- it is possible to have plain language. However, you require both.
The Chair: Your second observation referred to the need for a public education campaign. All senators at this table are in full agreement with you there. If these regulations are to be effective and if the public is to understand that they can obey the law with a certain ease, there must be education programs which clearly enunciate what the law is. They will not have to give up their weapons if they do not want to give up their weapons simply because they do not understand the regulations.
I can indicate to you that one of the recommendations from our committee will be that a public education program is essential to make this legislation and, therefore, these regulations work.
Mr. Blue: I appreciate that because not only should people who are dealing with the regulations know what they are, but the general public as well. The general public does not realize what is involved now. When the general public is aware of these regulations and the protection that they really can and do have, they will be much more content with legal firearms use.
The Chair: There was another question which you did not address. I should like to get more clarification on the regulations which have not yet been drafted.
Mr. Blue: I missed that. I am glad you brought that up. One of the things which we anticipate with a great deal of misapprehension are regulations regarding shooting ranges. Our own little club has three shooting ranges. They are basically for members' use but are available to the public also. They are set up to operate based on common sense. There are very few rules. They are designed to be in safe places. People use them safely. There have been no instances of misuse. Yet we are afraid that we will see a set of range regulations which will be so complex and so complicated that they will shut us down.
An example would be a procedure where someone must be at the club to sign people in and out for the use of restricted firearms in order to prove that the person is using the restricted firearm. Now it is quite casual. As I said, we might have 20 people in our club using two ranges which we use for restricted firearms. People go to competitions but people also appreciate the ability to practice on their own, undisturbed. We can see all kinds of problems here. The further suggestion is that we will know where the regulations are headed when we see how stringent they are.
The Chair: Yes. I wanted to be clear on that. There seems to be some confusion, perhaps not with you but with others. We have this set of regulations before us now. Once this set of regulations is proclaimed, it will go into force, but before any new set can be proclaimed, it must also be reviewed by this committee.
Mr. Blue: I appreciate that. I put that in because I appreciate being here but I do not expect to be back.
The Chair: Perhaps you will have to come back if there are regulations on shooting ranges which cause you some difficulties.
Senator Petten: In your brief, you mentioned your insurance rates are very low. Would you just elaborate on that one point, please?
Mr. Blue: It is difficult to get insurance for ranges. We get our insurance through the Alberta Fish and Game Association. It is difficult to get insurance rates or even insurance for two reasons. First, there is an anti-gun thing going on and insurance companies are backing off a bit. Also, insurance companies have no real record of claims. They do not know what to anticipate in terms of pay-outs because they have not paid in the past.
Senator Petten: How long have you had your insurance now for your range?
Mr. Blue: Our range has been in operation for over 25 years.
Senator Petten: And you have had insurance for how long?
Mr. Blue: We were insured for each year. Our liability insurance through our association is $150 per year.
Senator Petten: You have a fairly good safety record, then?
Mr. Blue: In my mind, we have a 100 per cent safety record.
Senator Beaudoin: Madam Chairman, I have a question about public education. Of course, I believe strongly in public education and it is a good thing to recommend it. Do you feel it is within our mandate to recommend such a thing?
The Chair: It certainly is.
Senator Beaudoin: We may do that for most of the statutes that are adopted by the Parliament of Canada.
The Chair: As you know, Senator Beaudoin, we have a limited mandate here. We can only study these regulations and make recommendations. We cannot pass or reject them. All we can do is make recommendations about them. Therefore, it is perfectly within our mandate to say, "We have studied the regulations and have some recommendations for the government." One of those recommendations would be that the government enter into a massive education program to inform citizens not only of the legislation but of the regulations which go with it.
Senator Beaudoin: This case is certainly a clear-cut one for public education.
The Chair: That is right.
Senator Jessiman: Recommendation 15 is to add the words, "the removal of an essential part which would prevent the firearm from being discharged." Did you ever appear before the committee on these regulations? Is this the first time you have seen the regulations?
Mr. Blue: Yes.
Senator Jessiman: Do you know if, in the United States or anywhere else in the world, they have used words such as you have used? Is it not the usual thing to render firearms unusable by the removal of the bolt? Is that not the usual thing?
Mr. Blue: Yes, it may be. Here we get into firearms technology. There might be other essential parts. One essential part that might be removed would be a firing pin. Unfortunately, you would not be able to inspect the firearm visually to see if that part had been removed but it certainly would be safe. Other firearms might have the trigger assembly removed, which is easy to do. The bolt is not always easy to remove, but this recommendation would allow for other options.
Senator Jessiman: Have you talked to anyone else in the government about these regulations?
Mr. Blue: No, I have not. If we have time, I would like to mention some other regulations. One example is fees. We are coming from different places with regard to fees.
We did not refer to the possession and acquisition fees. We have an FAC which is somewhat acceptable now in terms of fees, but our other recommendation on fees would be that the government waive all fees in the interest of encouraging people to buy into this plan.
Sections 6 and 7 refer to the waiving of fees if people require firearms to hunt or trap in order to sustain themselves or their families. We recommend that that word "sustain" be considered in very broad terms, rather than very narrow terms. The whole area of sustenance hunting will be a sensitive one and somewhat divisive among firearms owners. I hunt extensively. Wild game is a big part of my diet.
Senator Jessiman: Would you not be opening the floodgates, though, if you said that no fees are to be charged? People do things other than shooting and they are charged fees for them.
Mr. Blue: Yes. On the other hand, I am sure I can think of things to which I contribute as a taxpayer which do not affect me personally.
Senator Jessiman: Did someone get something for free? It will cost a lot of money to implement this recommendation. Someone this morning expressed the hope that perhaps some flexibility would be given to aboriginal people with regard to the fees. However, to lose control of fees would affect our income tax across the board.
Mr. Blue: This is why I was suggesting eliminating specific fees. For example, why not eliminate a minor's fee?
I am coming from the point of view that we need to encourage people to become responsible firearms holders and users. Hunters need to be encouraged to become responsible for wildlife management purposes. I should like to see the use of firearms encouraged through the law by eliminating some fees, such as the minor's fees.
There are two options for a firearms owner: to be a firearms owner within the system or outside of the system. I would much rather see people own firearms within the system.
Senator Gigantès: Did you say you want to encourage people to own firearms?
Mr. Blue: Yes.
Senator Gigantès: Why?
Mr. Blue: So I can encourage people to appreciate some of my culture and tradition, which I have demonstrated by some of the pictures that I have shared with you.
Senator Gigantès: I am not a firearms owner and have not held one in my hands since the war, but am I missing something important here?
Mr. Blue: You might be. That would have to be your decision. There is an opportunity for recreational activity, just as there are opportunities for all kinds of recreational activities.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Blue. We certainly appreciate your presentation.
Mr. Blue: I appreciate being here. I appreciate having what I have recommended on the record and that these recommendations will also go on to the people in the Canadian Firearms Centre. They may choose to look at them, regardless of whether or not you make specific recommendations.
The Chair: We will now hear from Mr. Robert Paddon, chairman of the firearms committee of the B.C. Wildlife Federation.
You were not here as we began this afternoon's session, so I want you to know that we are concentrating our discussions not on the legislation per se but on the regulations that are a result of the legislation.
Mr. Robert Paddon, Chair, Firearms Committee, B.C. Wildlife Federation: Thank you. Linda Thom is joining me at the table. Ms Thom is a member of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, she is also a member of the Association of Women Shooters of Canada.
The Chair: Welcome, Ms Thom.
Ms Linda Thom, President, Association of Women Shooters of Canada: Thank you.
Mr. Paddon: I have given the clerk of the committee three documents that you should have before you. One is our response to the proposed firearms legislation. I sent you a draft copy by fax earlier, I have here an official copy. I have my oral presentation notes, as well. The third item is a pamphlet on gun safety for children that we have recently developed to show the types and means of education to improve safety for everyone.
The B.C. Wildlife Federation is the largest and oldest province-wide voluntary conservation organization representing British Columbians. Founded in 1956, the BCWF currently has 32,000 members and 147 associated fish and game clubs. We are also a member and an active participant in the National Coalition of Provincial and Territorial Wildlife Federations. This national federation represents over a half million members across Canada.
The BCWF and the national federation last made known its opposition to Bill C-68 through presentations to the Minister of Justice and the House of Commons and Senate committees, as well as through policy statements and other fora.
Our presentation today to your committee should not be construed as support for Bill C-68. We are providing this presentation so that you can better understand our perspective, the impact these draft firearms regulations will have on firearms users and owners, police, bureaucracy and the general public.
We have made 31 recommendations for changes to 8 of the 11 draft firearms regulations. These recommendations are not to be construed as support for the regulations but, rather, as alternatives to offset the regulations' impact on the firearms community, to reduce the unnecessary red tape for the benefit of the police, bureaucracy and the firearms community and to reduce the expense for the Canadian taxpayers to implement Bill C-68. These regulations are poorly written and vague. They do not pass our test of being fair, effective, enforceable or affordable for all Canadians. Major changes are needed.
Partisan politics should not enter into the discussion and recommendations for change to the draft regulations. It is our hope that the Parliament of Canada will take the time to look seriously at major amendments to these draft regulations and even consider a total rewrite.
The difficulty in the whole process is the Minister of Justice. Allan Rock must be persuaded by the standing committees, members of Parliament and senators to accept major amendments to these draft firearms regulations. There is no emergency requirement to pass these regulations in 1997. Full debate, effective research and testing must be done before the regulations are passed. We need regulations tuned to public needs not public policy for political purposes.
When we read these draft regulations, more questions were raised than answered -- such as: What benefit will be achieved for Canadian society, public safety, crime control, health issues and gun control? What is the intent and the application of these regulations? Where are the definitions for the key words and vague statements? What is the cost and who will pay for these regulations? How will these regulations contribute to the erosion of support of the police and the firearms community? Our concern is that these regulations were designed to make firearms ownership too complicated and will drive ordinary Canadians away from hunting, target-shooting and firearms collecting.
After reading these draft regulations, our concerns are well founded. Some may say, "Great, let us get rid of firearms and hunting." However, what will be the impact on this near-sighted action? It will mean the loss of jobs, closure of businesses -- which is already happening -- decline of tourism, loss of Canadian heritage and culture.
An aspect that is seldom discussed in this debate is the impact these regulations will have on the firearms community and the law enforcement agencies of Canada. The firearms community is part of the law enforcement infrastructure in Canada. We provide the facilities for safe use of firearms for our members, public and the law enforcement community. The local police, provincial police, conservation officers, customs and military forces use our ranges. We teach the hunter safety and the firearm safety courses to the community. We instruct on the safe handling of firearms and firearm owners ethics and legal requirements.
Many potential law enforcement applicants come through our course and are members of the BCWF. With continued regulation of the firearms community will come fewer members and the closure of clubs. Where will the police do their training and qualification shoots if our facilities are not available? Are the various levels of government prepared to buy land, develop ranges, build training facilities, and so on to cover that shortfall?
Having no hunters would mean the destruction of our effective wildlife management programs. Hunters contribute through hunting licences and club projects to habitat conservation programs. Wilderness Watch, a BCWF initiative to stop poaching and to assist conservation officers, would be seriously affected if our members were not in the field.
The firearms community is part of the public. Without public support, the police cannot do their job. The gun control legislation of these past years has put up a wall between the firearms community and the police. Seeds of suspicion and mistrust have been planted and are growing. We have witnessed the start of erosion of support for the police by the firearms community. Front-line clerks and police officers see it every day when they deal with firearms owners and the present registration system. Club members in some cases do not want to rent club facilities to law enforcement agencies because the RCMP, the chiefs of police and police associations supported Bill C-68.
The gun control initiatives of Bill C-17 and Bill C-68 do not have the support of the firearms community. Court cases are in progress regarding both laws. How do we ever expect these initiatives to work if the provinces and the firearms community have not agreed to participate?
With these thoughts in mind, we would ask you to look at the regulatory impact analysis statement provided by the Department of Justice. We do not agree that some of these regulations will have only limited impact on individuals and businesses. It is our position that the Department of Justice has again underestimated the impact of Bill C-68 and these regulations. It is time to stop and reflect on the real benefits and costs of Bill C-68 and these regulations. Will we save just one life? Yes. Could we save more lives by reducing the administration workload on the police and the bureaucracy? Yes, but not with these draft regulations.
I should like to ask Ms Thom to say a few words now.
Ms Thom: When Mr. Rock brought forward this legislation, he promised members of the shooting sports and hunters that there would be no impact on their sports. Already we have seen a tremendous impact on these sports. Club memberships have dropped drastically. Hunters' associations have lost memberships as well. Even worse, jobs have been lost because of this legislation. What we see is one more promise broken. It does not seem that the legislators realized the impact of this legislation and these regulations. They are poorly understood and poorly administered. We have already seen a tremendous resistance, in that members are just melting away.
I should like to underscore what Mr. Paddon said in his opening remarks. These things are happening now. There is no question. Jobs have been lost and whole industries have been affected by this change. It affects more than just straight ownership of guns.
The legislation seems to be based on the notion that registration will increase public safety. In fact, it does not. It may even do the reverse. If registration increased safety, our roads and highways would be the safest place in Canada because all vehicles are registered. There has never been put forward by this government a shred of evidence to indicate that registration saves lives. It does not. It puts in place a large bureaucracy and causes great expense not only to gun owners but to the taxpayer. I do not think taxpayers realize the extent to which they will have to pay for a system that will not bring them the results that they have been told to expect.
However, in the gun community, responsible firearms owners do know how to save lives, and that is through education and enforcement of reasonable legislation. We have proven over the decades that education in the use of, proper conduct with, respect for, and transportation and storage of firearms can save lives. Just take a look at the hunter safety record in all of our provinces. It is tremendous.
The same is true of the courses that are given and developed by the clubs. I should like to point out that, despite the efforts of people who are against gun ownership, it is the gun owners and hunters in Canada who have developed these safety programs and have saved these lives, and who help police and conservation officers in the carrying out of the law. Unfortunately, this new law is creating in ordinary Canadians a great deal of disrespect for those in authority. It is also creating a great deal of fear. We used to work in close conjunction with the police. We had understandings with them. All of that has now been broken and has gone by the way side.
It is very much like the overproliferation of stop signs in our community. No one would ever advocate getting rid of stop signs. No responsible firearm owner advocates that there should be no gun control. That would be foolish. We have been practising gun control all of our lives. However, the proliferation of stop signs breeds contempt for them. People now are not only going through stop signs, they are going through red lights as well. The same type of atmosphere is bred by legislation which does not go to the subject, and by regulations which are onerous, vague, and impossible to interpret, where you constantly have to refer to overburdened courts for interpretation. It is really foolish.
I should like to thank you for the opportunity to appear here today and to add my support to the B.C. Wildlife Federation's brief.
Mr. Paddon: I should like to add that this brief has been given to the Historical Arms Collectors Society of B.C. and the Vancouver Arms Collectors Society, both of which endorse it as well.
Senator Gigantès: Thank you for your presentation. We have heard statistics from other witnesses which indicate that where there are more guns, there are more instances of domestic violence involving the use of guns. The statistics seem to be a fact; we have checked. It is something of concern to us.
I am prepared to agree that hunters and the people that you have been discussing do not want to encourage domestic violence resulting in homicide through the use of firearms.However, the fact is that those types of incidents occur most where there are a lot of guns, which might lead to a conclusion that you consider superficial, that discouraging some people from having firearms is not such a bad thing.
I have encountered cases which still horrify me. In the 1960s the publisher of a major Canadian newspaper had a son who was an absolute wonder, the best student, the best athlete. He was good looking, the girls were chasing him. One day he was at the cottage with his parents. He picked up his father's double-barrelled shotgun and blew his head off. If that shotgun had not been there, he might not have blown his head off. There are studies that show that where there is a gun available, it is the chosen form of suicide and it is irreversible, whereas suicide attempts with pills are often reversible.
I should like you to speak to those points, and another one. You said that these regulations engender fear in gun owners. I find this particularly puzzling.
Mr. Paddon: I would like to deal first with the issue of access to firearms and domestic violence. We had a situation in Abbotsford, British Columbia, where I come from. Divorce separations, of course, are never friendly separations. Friendly separations do not happen too often. The husband in this case kept going after the wife. He kept bugging her and persisting. One day he showed up with a shotgun. They drove around town. She was driving and he had the shotgun to her head. He took her up into the hills and was going to shoot her and commit suicide himself. He broke down and could not do it. Luckily the woman got away. The police came in and they confiscated the firearms -- right on. They took the guy's FAC -- right on. They put him in jail. When they let him out, they did not make him go to a drug awareness or an alcohol rehabilitation program. He said he was suffering from those addictions. Two months later, this man took a knife and stabbed his wife eight times. It was an act of domestic violence. Surprisingly, she survived the eight stab wounds. They were very vicious wounds. The system did not deal with the issue of domestic violence.
You cannot look at the tool and say, "If we get rid of the tool, we will eliminate domestic violence." You have to look at the cause of domestic violence, deal with that issue and resolve that issue. Restraining orders are often issued but not enforced, and the domestic violence continues.
Ms Thom: With respect to complaints about domestic violence where guns are in the home, a few years ago a study was done regarding violence against women in Canada. I know you all received copies of it. Very seldom was the presence of guns in the home cited as a source of fear, concern or threat by the women involved in the study. Curiously, when the gun legislation came forward and more comments were elicited from women, suddenly these citations came up about, "Oh, yes, that is right; I was afraid because he owned guns." I think a lot of that is suspect because it did not appear in that first report, which is not all that old.
As well, I think you must look at economic circumstances. You are saying that there seems to be an association between more guns and more violence. What about the economic circumstances and backgrounds of those people? In other words, what about the root causes of violence, both domestic and in society generally? If you look at the overall statistics over a long period of time, you will see that the number of suicides and domestic violence, from whatever cause and whatever instrument, definitely relate to the business cycle and the economic cycle.
I have heard the same as you have heard with respect to suicides by other means being reversible, but not so reversible. There have been reversible cases with firearms, but when you go a little deeper and analyze the motives behind the people and the methods they choose, they choose firearms because it is a definitive method. They choose jumping off a tall bridge or building because it is definitive. They want to die. It is very sad and I am certainly not condoning it, but they choose these means when they want to put an end to their lives. It also seems to be gender related. More men do away with themselves by violent methods than women.
When I was on the firearms committee advising the Minister of Justice in the previous administration, I learned that the number of deaths by firearms are overwhelmingly suicide. I learned that 75 per cent to 80 per cent of deaths by firearms are suicides. I thought, "Here is a golden opportunity to save lives; let us really look at this and put together a set of laws and regulations so we can minimize deaths by suicide, domestic violence and accident."
There were many experts at the table. There were psychologists, psychiatrists and epidemiologists, some of whom I believe have also appeared before this committee. The more we dove into the issue, the more we realized the sad fact that people who really want to do away with themselves, want to do away with themselves. There will be a tremendous transfer effect to other means. That is sad.
In the previous legislation known as Bill C-17, many specific measures were included to address the very fact you are concerned about. The sad fact is that that legislation was never given a chance. Even now, we do not know whether the Minister of Justice has any intention of doing extended studies to determine the effects of that legislation. We cannot know the effects of Bill C-17 now because another piece of legislation completely smothers it.
The reason the owners of firearms fear this legislation is because they have seen instances in the past of people who have been harassed and have been unduly delayed along the process. Road blocks and barriers have been put in front of them. People have misinterpreted or taken a narrow interpretation of the regulations, and this is in the past. People have a history and they see what has happened.
They also see something that frightens me about Canadian society today, quite apart from firearms' enforcement: Police will appear just before dawn at the door, dressed in black or dark clothing with no badges or identification, and they gain admittance to your home. This is extremely frightening. People, up and down the country, have been talking about such incidents. It frightens them and it frightens me. It really does. I do not want to wake up in the middle of the night to see a gang of policemen -- if they are indeed policemen -- answering a complaint laid by a neighbour and rushing into my house because their register shows that I have guns. Yes, I am afraid.
Mr. Paddon: If I can add one example to that, Canada Customs got search warrants to conduct a document search of a company called Marstar. When they came to do the search, instead of knocking on the door and coming into the business, they brought an OPP swat team and a helicopter with them to look for documents. The lucky thing was that they first stopped off at the local OPP detachment, and the sergeant said, "Why don't we just knock on the door and John will let us in?" Their initial plan was to assault the building.
Ms Thom: They had a battering ram. They were going to knock down the door.
Mr. Paddon: This will happen and it is happening. When you hear stories of this type of abuse of authority, you shudder to think what the future holds.
Senator Gigantès: If you have complied with all the regulations and if the weapons in your home are properly stored and inoperable, if you have done all of this, what have you to be afraid of?
Ms Thom: You have to be afraid of exactly what I was describing. I will give you another example: A gentleman in Mississauga was a gun collector. He was in his seventies. He and his neighbour had a property dispute about the placement of a fence, I believe, although I am unsure of the details. It was a minor property dispute. His next door neighbour laid a complaint to the police that this gentleman had threatened her life. The swat team arrived. They brought the man out and laid him down on the ground. I do not know if you have ever seen these swat teams in operation, but they point a very powerful weapon at you while you are lying on the ground. The police went in and took all of his guns away. Later on, the neighbour thought better of her complaint and confessed to the police that she had made it up. Her life had not been threatened by this person. The last I heard was that this gentleman still had not received his guns back. I also understand that no complaints were laid about the way he stored his guns.
The point is that anyone can lay a complaint, whether justified or not. Whether my guns are properly stored or not, senator, will not stop a SWAT team from entering my house or my place of business. That is a tremendously traumatic experience.
Senator Gigantès: You can actually sue them if they do that and there was no cause. I do not drink. I have been stopped in my car by the police at Christmas time and New Year's. I was asked by the police to step out of my car. They had campaigns in Quebec to ensure that we were not driving under the influence. They checked me and they let me go. Should I say that because they checked someone who was totally innocent, like me, it is a bad thing to check to see whether there are any guilty parties?
Ms Thom: Certainly, I have no objections to that kind of stop. I have been stopped myself. However, that, and a visit by the SWAT team at dawn, are very different things. I submit that it could cause people health problems. It could cause you to have a heart attack or a stroke. It is not pleasant. Yes, you can take them to court afterwards, but our court systems are jammed as it is. What large satisfaction will you have out of dragging something through the courts when you have been shaken up like that? You may very well lay a complaint, but it should not happen in the first place.
Senator Gigantès: You get the satisfaction of getting your own back and having them rapped on the knuckles for having done something that had no justification. There is no way of avoiding such a situation.
Ms Thom: Yes, there is. In the previous legislation, there was indeed prevision for the police to contact firearms owners to ensure that their guns were properly stored. I do not have any objection to that kind of thing where it was specifically pointed out and an appointment would be made. It would not be a visit by the SWAT team. It would be contact duly made and an appointment set.
I think that is a positive approach. However, that has not been happening. Mr. Paddon can speak to this as well.
Senator Gigantès: Do you mean that under the previous regulations there were SWAT team visits?
Ms Thom: No, sir.
Senator Gigantès: These regulations are not yet in effect.
Ms Thom: But there have been SWAT team visits.
Senator Gigantès: Under the previous regulations?
Ms Thom: Under the laws that exist. Why use a jackhammer when you do not need a jackhammer? These cases to which I have referred demonstrate that you do not need that kind of heavy enforcement. In all jurisdictions in Canada, we are used to policemen coming to the door, but in a much more benign and reasonable way. It was never SWAT teams. If we accept this process in Canada, then it will be a very different Canada we will be living in.
Senator Gigantès: You are not getting my point.
The Chair: Senator Gigantès, there are a number of senators who want to ask questions. Again, I must emphasize that we must stick with the regulations. Bill C-68 is legislation. You have made 31 recommendations for changes to those draft regulations. If possible, I should like to focus on those changes which you have recommended.
Mr. Paddon: We are prepared to answer them.
The Chair: Your first recommendation, for example, is that only one of either the possession licence or the possession and acquisition licence be required. In fact, that is what the regulations say.
Your second recommendation is that the spouse be allowed to be the reference. I question that. Quite frankly, if you are in a situation where you have a spouse who is the reference and who has been threatened -- which I think is more a rarity than the norm, let us be honest about that -- you put that spouse, male or female, in a very dangerous situation. They can then be threatened by the very weapon we are trying to avoid.
Your third recommendation is that the firearms officer or the reference be authorized to confirm that the photograph accurately identifies the applicant. That is in these regulations. The regulations state that the reference be signed by a person who has known the applicant for at least three years and that their name be printed legibly on it, confirming that the photograph accurately identifies the applicant.
Mr. Paddon: If you read our brief, senator, you will see that we have indicated that reference is being done by the firearms officer at present. We believe that the firearms officer should be entitled to do that as well as the reference. If I use a reference who is out of province or out of town and I have not seen him for two years, then I have to send him a new photograph, telling him, "By the way, I coloured my hair, I changed it," or they have to see me physically. We are saying that either option works. You either allow the reference or the firearms officer to do it. We want the police officer to have that ability. Under these draft regulations, the officer does not have that option. It is the reference that has to do that work.
With regard to our second recommendation, section 3(1)(c) is in conflict with section 4(2). Section 3(1)(c) states that a spouse cannot be a reference. Section 4(2) states that notification is not required, if the spouse is a reference. We are asking: Is or is not the spouse a reference? We believe the spouse should have the option to be a reference, if they so desire.
Concerning the issue of possession licences and the possession and acquisition licences, the fees indicate there are three separate PALs. Our concern is that if I own prohibited firearms and I apply for a prohibited PAL, does that automatically give me the non-restricted and restricted licence? Our initial reading of the bill raised questions as to that point. We have since talked to representatives of the Department of Justice who have said, "If you get a prohibited PAL you will automatically be qualified for restricted and non-restricted." We did not see that when we read these regulations. We saw three licences and three fees. I am saying that with a FAC which costs me $50, I could buy all of them. Now I need three and it will cost me $220. The intent and the application is confusing in the way the regulations were drafted. That is why we have put forward this recommendation.
The Chair: With respect to the spouse, it is the notification. The spouse is not a reference.
Mr. Paddon: Let me check my rules here.
The Chair: To make recommendations to the Minister of Justice, you have to be clear about what it is you are recommending.
Senator Pearson: I have a specific question about the individual licences being valid throughout Canada. That is the kind of question people raise with respect to car licences. Anyone who knows the problems of moving from Ontario to Quebec knows that you have to change your licence when you move to another province.
Mr. Paddon: I should like to point out that the Criminal Code indicates that an FAC is valid throughout Canada. That is the current law. We want to see that continued.
I live in British Columbia, but I travel to Ontario and Saskatchewan. When I am at those locations, I go to gun shows and I visit gun shops. I should like to buy a firearm but would a B.C. licence entitle me to buy one in Ontario? It is not clear. This is federal legislation. It should be applied federally across the board. Drivers licences come under the Motor Vehicle Act and are a provincial issue. You can use the existing licence for 30 to 60 days after you have become a resident in another province. We are saying that it should be clarified.
I wish to return to the chairman's position. Section 4.(2) of the Firearms Licence Regulations says:
A chief firearms officer may issue the licence without giving notice to a current or former spouse or common law partner referred to in paragraph...who has signed the application.
The Chair: The spouse is not a reference there. That means that she has received notification that her spouse or his spouse has made an application. That is a different section entirely.
Mr. Paddon: I am asking for clarification on who has signed the application. Is that the applicant's signature or the reference signature? It was not clear to us when we read it. That is why we are leaving the question up to you.
The Chair: The spouse has signed the application saying that she knows that her spouse or, conversely, his spouse has made an application for a possessions licence or a firearms acquisition certificate. The spouse is not the reference.
Mr. Paddon: Our position is that the spouse should have the option to become the reference. We see no difficulty with that. I will relate a situation that happened to me. When I submitted my last FAC, my wife did not sign it. I took it into the police department and they said, "Your wife did not sign it. She must be a reference." I said, "She does not have to be a reference. It is her option." They then said, "Why did she not become a reference?" I said, "The honest fact is that she hates government and she hates bureaucracy and paperwork even more. She does not want to be involved with the process. That was her option." They then said, "We are going to phone her up." I said, "Go right ahead. I am a firearms instructor. I have over 100 firearms in the house. I think my wife knows I own guns and I think she supports me."
The issue here is the option. The way it is under the present FAC procedure, a lot of elderly people have difficulty getting references because everyone they know is dying off. It is the same case for younger people. They must look to their spouse as a reference because of the limited number of people that they know in the community. That is why that option should remain there for them.
Senator Gigantès: Should there be an age limit or a health limit attached to the ownership of a gun?
Mr. Paddon: How does that relate to the issue here of a spouse's signature?
Senator Gigantès: I am not sure that an elderly person for whom there are no contemporaries, and so on, should have a gun. I have stopped driving because I woke up at the wheel of my car. I said, "That is it. I will not drive again. I might kill another good, federalist Liberal -- that is, apart from myself." So I stopped driving.
The Chair: For your interest, Senator Pearson, section 63.(1) of the act, which is now law, says that:
Subject to subsection (2), licences, registration certificates, authorizations to transport, authorizations to export and authorizations to import are valid throughout Canada.
Mr. Paddon: What section was that? Section 63?
The Chair: Yes, 63.(1).
Senator Beaudoin: I understand that you were satisfied with the previous legislation and that you do not like the act that is now in force. Consequently, you do not like the regulations made under that act. Of course, those regulations are consequential to the legislation that has been adopted. If that is the case, it is difficult to have a debate on the regulations that are before us. If you disagree with the legislation that is now in force, you agreed entirely with the previous legislation and you do not find any need to change the previous legislation, how can we deal with the proposed regulations? The proposed regulations are consequential to the new statute that has been adopted by the Parliament of Canada.
Is it true that you were quite satisfied with the previous legislation, you do not see any need for this new legislation and, consequently, for these regulations under the new legislation?
Mr. Paddon: The position of the B.C. Wildlife Federation is that we do not totally support Bill C-17. Certain provisions of Bill C-17 were not acceptable to us. Some of those provisions were carried forward into this act, such as the storage regulations. They are convoluted and they are difficult to understand for the firearms community. That is why we say that we agree with the concept of the storage regulations in Bill C-17, but the application is poor. Basically, they have taken the same application and carried it forward.
As a firearms instructor, I have found that people, even though they have studied for the tests, will still get it wrong on the storage law requirements between a non-restricted and restricted firearm. There are members of the public who do not even know that storage laws exist. We are saying that the storage laws should be simplified. As long as the firearm is unloaded and rendered inoperable, that is fine. The courts have said that the regulations say that you must do "A" "B" and "C", but methods "D" and "E" are reasonable and prudent. That is to say, "They work, so we will not convict you because you did not follow "A", "B" and "C"." For example, it is easy to take the slide off a semi-automatic handgun or remove the barrel. Put that somewhere else in the house and you have made it inoperable. In essence, the way the regulations are drafted, you are in violation of the law; you have not met the legal requirements. We are saying that if it is unloaded and inoperable, provide suggestions of ways of doing it, such as removing the bolt, the bolt carrier and the barrel. In other words, put all firearms on the same basis.
I have an example of a member whose house had been robbed. The police came to his house and said, "Did you have a secured locking device on the firearm?" The owner said, "Yes, I did. It was a rifle. I had a trigger lock on it. Here is the key." The constable then said, "I must charge you for violation of the storage laws because you did not have it in a locked container." This man had to be very firm with the constable. He said, "You better go back to the Crown prosecutor because this was a non-restricted firearm and it did not require a locked container." The police officer does not know the storage laws. I have had police come off the street and do the firearms exam. Where did they go wrong on the test? The storage laws -- that is, the things they are intended to enforce. They are convoluted, difficult to understand, and the education factor has not been promoted to the general public.
I have given you a brochure today. Basically, it is entitled: "Gun Safety for Children". The message is: Never touch a gun unless your parent says it is safe. And what do you do if you find a gun? The same thing that you would do if you were to find a needle in a playground. Stop. Do not touch it. Leave the area and tell an adult. The last page of the brochure contains a message to parents.
The storage laws are in existence. I did a safety exposition last week at my daughter's school. I had parents ask, "Are there storage laws in existence?" I said, "What do you own, a non-restricted or a restricted firearm?" They asked, "What is that? We do not know." I had to explain the legal class to them. They then said, "All right." I said, "Is that a non-restricted firearm?" They sort of said, "Rifles and shot guns." I said, "No. That is not how it is done. It is non-restricted, restricted. A rifle can be either/or. Do you know the Order in Council? Is that gun a restricted gun?" The reply was, "I do not know." The way these provisions are written is very confusing to the firearms community and to the public at large. They need to be simplified.
Senator Beaudoin: Witnesses this morning spoke about safe storage, and your recommendations 18 and 19 are on storage, display, et cetera. However, you do not suggest anything precise. You discuss general principles.
We are dealing here with regulations made under a statute. The regulations must be precise and within the ambit of the legislation. If you want us to make a recommendation about safe storage, you must appear with a recommendation which deals precisely with safe storage. As I see it, this is more in the nature of a principle or philosophy, not of regulations. Do you have something precise to suggest in respect of safe storage?
Mr. Paddon: You are asking for precise methods. However, firearms are not identical. They work in different manners. There are 106 different variants. We cannot prescribe 106 variants. You can say, "You should remove the bolt or the bolt carrier," or "You should apply a secured locking device," or "You should put in a locking container," or suggest any other method which would render the firearm unloaded and inoperable. That sort of general statement would be your fifth option.
Someone could say, "I have taken the barrel out of my handgun." The response would be, "Well, it doesn't prescribe that method," and the reply to that is, "But it does meet the principle of unloaded and inoperable." You could add to the regulation a general statement to cover all options.
Ms Thom: For example, the B.C. Wildlife Federation is doing what you have requested -- examining the regulations and asking for clarification, or making recommendations. When I asked about wording for recommendations -- not pertaining to this brief, but to another -- I was told not to try to put it in specific language but to let the people who write the regulations and legislation in the Department of Justice do that. I was told to put forward as clearly as I could my objections and recommendations. I believe this brief does that.
Senator Beaudoin: That may be, but my first reaction is that it is quite general. In other words, you cannot say everything in a statute. The statute gives powers to the Governor in Council to make regulations to implement the statute. In practice, the regulations could be much more precise than the general statute. The general statute enacts principles of law; the regulations go to the facts and to implementing those principles in practice. If that is what you want, it is there; however, I have some concerns about the precision of the recommendations.
Mr. Paddon: Senator, we meet your concern. You could say, "Method A is this; Method B is this; Method C is this; and Method D will be any other method which makes the firearm inoperable." You have the three or four specified ones and then a general broad statement to help people understand it.
Senator Beaudoin: If you are prosecuted, and if, in defence, you invoke the principle of imprecision of the law, you would win. We must be precise. When something is prohibited, it must be as clear as possible. If it is not clear, the courts of justice will construe the statute or the regulations made under the statute.
We must have the best possible legislation. The best possible legislation will have clear principles, and the resulting regulations will have clear language applying or implementing the law. We may agree or disagree with the regulations, but if we wish to make corrections to the regulations, we must suggest something which is more adequate than what is there.
Mr. Paddon: There was a case in Vancouver, and I am not sure of the name of it, in which the person was charged with improper storage procedure. The judge ruled that, technically, he was in violation of the regulations because he had not followed either method. However, the judge also said that he would not convict him because he had followed due diligence and had done something that a reasonable man would have done.
Ms Thom: To render the gun inoperable and unloaded.
Mr. Paddon: They have further clarified the regulation by setting that precedent. The prescribed method as well as the general statement gives the court the ability to say that the intent is to safely store your gun. Basically the question is: Was it due diligence? Yes. It meets the intent of the regulations, and we will allow it.
Senator Gigantès: Put yourself in our shoes for a moment. You made the statement that the gun should be unloaded and rendered inoperable. I have not handled a gun since World War II when I was hunting other people who had guns, so I do not know about modern guns. You say you have 100 of them.
Mr. Paddon: Yes.
Senator Gigantès: Is there any possibility of disagreement on whether a particular firearm is rendered inoperable? In other words, could you say, "This particular gun, in my view, is inoperable," and might someone else say, "Well, you may think it is inoperable, but I think I could still fire it at very close range and it would not necessarily be inoperable"?
Mr. Paddon: The test applied to the term "inoperable" is whether you could chamber a round and, if you were able to chamber a round, would it go "bang" if you pulled the trigger. If it does not go "bang", it is inoperable.
Senator Gigantès: I have a problem imagining a judge saying, "Try this on me and see if it goes 'bang'."
Mr. Paddon: The forensic labs would go through the firearm. They make the decision as to whether it was inoperable or operable at the time. They have been quite clear in that decision. It is not a great issue of debate.
Senator Gigantès: What you are saying seems reasonable to me. It must not be loaded, and it must be inoperable. The question then is, have you locked the barrel away somewhere, or can a kid find it and put it in the gun?
Mr. Paddon: The difficulty with storage regulations -- and this is why we have the concern about the double lock requirement for restricted firearms -- is that if the person can get past the one lock, they will get past the second lock in nine out of ten cases.
Senator Gigantès: Are you speaking of a ten-year-old child? Children have shot themselves and others accidentally. You could remove the barrel and put it on a top shelf somewhere and the charger and put it on another top shelf. My grandson is only 20 months old, and already he is climbing the shelves of my library. A little child can find these two pieces which he has seen daddy put together, put them together, and bang; whereas if the things are locked up, it is a little harder. The idea is to make it harder for someone to accidentally kill themselves or someone else.
Mr. Paddon: We have found that, for many people, to put a bolt in a Lee-Enfield rifle, the one you carried in the war, would be difficult.
Senator Gigantès: I carried a Sten gun, actually.
Mr. Paddon: That was unfortunate for you.
Senator Gigantès: It sprays well.
Mr. Paddon: Yes. We found that just putting the gun back together requires training and knowledge and experience. To put a cylinder back in a revolver is not an easy step. It requires a screwdriver or other tools and expertise. It can be put together wrongly.
For example, I can put a secured locking device on my rifle, and that is fine. However, all I need do is take a screwdriver and unscrew the trigger guard. The trigger guard falls off and so does the trigger lock. Now the firearm is operable. We had it in a locked container to start with.
Senator Gigantès: You just said that a kid cannot use a screwdriver to put the barrel in, but he can use a screwdriver to take off the trigger guard. Let us be consistent. Can a kid use a screwdriver or not?
Ms Thom: We are addressing the point that you cannot legislate for all cases. I have heard this stated to me by lawyers and other court people: You cannot legislate for all cases. Circumstances alter cases. Obviously the individual circumstances in the case must be examined. The judge or the people in the court must try to examine whether someone was simply going through the motions, or were they really taking due diligence to ensure that that gun was unloaded and inoperable.
Senator Gigantès: Should the parts be locked away or should they just be put anywhere? That is the point.
The Chair: This is the root of the issue here. We have three categories of weapons. We have the non-restricted firearm, the restricted firearm, and the prohibited firearm. The storage requirements, as I read them in the regulations, become more complex as you go from the non-restricted to the restricted to the prohibited. You are saying there should be one requirement. Should that requirement be the prohibited, the restricted or the non-restricted?
Mr. Paddon: It should be the level of the non-restricted.
The Chair: Would that not do away with the thrust of the act that a prohibited weapon is more serious and more potentially dangerous weapon than the non-restricted weapon?
Mr. Paddon: Any firearm is capable of killing someone. It does not matter if it is "full-auto" or "semi-auto." My point is that by putting a double lock on it, you are saying it is more secure. In fact it is not. We have witnessed this time and again when firearms have been stolen from a residence. They may be securely stored with the bolt removed. The bolt can be somewhere else in the house. It does not have to be under lock and key. It could be under a pillow or in a dresser drawer or wherever, but the bolt is removed from the gun.
Because of the design of some guns, it is difficult to remove the bolts. An owner can take option B or C, apply a secured locking device or put them in a locked container. In one case, a thief broke into the container, saw the guns with the bolts missing and left those guns behind because he knew they were inoperable. He looked at the trigger locks or secure locking devices on the other guns and decided he could get by those, and he took the full firearm. Now, the thief has access to a fully operational firearm.
Senator Gigantès: You have not answered the contradiction about the child who can use a screwdriver to remove the guard but cannot use a screwdriver to replace a barrel. This is worrying.
Mr. Paddon: The difficulty is that you cannot necessarily replace a barrel. Some barrels do not require tools. You need a lot of hand dexterity. You have to know how it comes apart and goes together. In the military, when putting a 9-mm. Browning high-powered together, you can easily put the spring in backwards, unless you have been trained. The gun will not function. You must know the sequence to strip and assemble. The child would not necessarily have that knowledge. There are no tools required in many cases.
Senator Gigantès: You have not met the kids I have met.
Mr. Paddon: If they are intent on using it and they have the knowledge, they will bypass any security system that you put in place.
Senator Beaudoin: For the purposes of the record, if a person does not like a statute, a law of Parliament, you cannot amend that law of Parliament through the regulations. The regulations are subject to the legislation, not the reverse.
It is important. You cannot amend the act that is already adopted by Parliament by proposing a new regulation. If you suggest a new regulation, the new regulation should come within the ambit of the law. Of course, you have the right to agree or disagree with the law, although you must follow the law in practice, of course. You cannot correct the situation by regulations. Only Parliament may change the law.
Mr. Paddon: Senator, I agree that we cannot change Bill C-68. As the Chairman says, it is a fait accompli, a done deal. We can argue it for years. We are coming before you today to say there is a way to make this law work, not to make it more palatable or less palatable to us. We can provide alternate suggestions for methods to reduce the workload for the police and the bureaucracy and limit the impact on the firearms user. We know our guns will be registered; it is just when and how it will happen.
We are giving you alternatives to make the system work better and more user friendly. It will not tie up the police in excessive administration, so they can go out and do their real job.
Senator Beaudoin: I understand.
Ms Thom: If someone as knowledgeable as Mr. Paddon has difficulty understanding and interpreting the regulation, you can imagine how other members of the public will be totally at sea.
Senator Gigantès: Would you recommend an exam that says if you do not understand the regulations, you cannot have a firearm?
Ms Thom: There is already a test.
Mr. Paddon: There is already a test. There are questions about the regulations on the test already.
Senator Gigantès: If anyone fails, should they still be allowed to have a firearm?
Mr. Paddon: If you do not pass the criteria, including the exam, you do not get it under the present prescribed law.
Senator Gigantès: That is good.
The Chair: Thank you for your 31 recommendations which we will examine further before we make our final recommendations to the Minister of Justice on this particular set of regulations.
Honourable senators, we will continue our deliberations on the regulations pursuant to section 118 of the Firearms Act. We would welcome, from the Canadian Association for Adolescent Health and the Canadian Paediatric Society, Dr. Catherine Leonard and Dr. Danielle Grenier.
As I indicated to our other witnesses today, we are not discussing Bill C-68 but, rather, the regulations resulting from the passage Bill C-68 because that is the only thing about which we can make recommendations at this point. Bill C-68 has been passed and is now legislation. However, we are empowered to make suggestions and recommendations to the Minister of Justice, and that is what we are looking for help with this afternoon.
We look forward to your presentation.
[Translation]
Ms Danielle Grenier, Associate Executive Vice-president, Canadian Paediatric Society): I'm pleased to appear before the senate committee on behalf of the Canadian Paediatric Society. The Canadian Pediatric Society represents its 2,000 members throughout Canada and all families that we are able to contact. We at the Canadian Paediatric Society felt that it was important to come before your Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to tell you that we strongly support the firearms legislation.
This bill is a big step forward in the protection of Canadian children and teenagers as well as their families. On their behalf and on behalf of the Canadian Paediatric Society we want to personally thank you. We do not want to discuss the bill at this time but rather the regulations.
[English]
I am pleased to be with Dr. Leonard, a paediatrician, who is working with teenagers. She is a member of our adolescent section and she represents the Canadian Association for Adolescent Health. She is also the principal author of our statement on prevention of firearm deaths in Canadian children and adolescents. She has some good points in her presentation respecting rules and regulations.
Dr. Katherine A. Leonard, MD, Advocacy Committee, Canadian Association for Adolescent Health, Member, Canadian Paediatric Society: Thank you very much for inviting us to your meeting. I should like to open with a brief discussion of the magnitude of the problem of firearm deaths in children and adolescents, keeping in mind that I talked about this about a year and a half ago before this committee. I do not want to bore anyone. There will not be a test at the end. I would then like to review some of those developmental issues which were important for the development of the law but which are also important in understanding why the regulations will have an impact on the safety of children and adolescents.
I have some slides to help illustrate a few points. In 1994, 95 teenagers between the ages of 15 and 19 died from gunshot wounds. The majority of the deaths were suicides, followed by a smaller number of homicides, and even fewer unintentional or accidental deaths and deaths of undetermined motives.
Of these deaths in teenagers, the overwhelming majority occur in males. The next slide shows that 96 per cent of the deaths in 15 to 19 year-olds occur in males. This problem is so overwhelmingly a male problem that it results in the fact that 11 per cent of all deaths in males in the 15 to 19 year-old age group are from firearm injuries.
The breakdown of deaths for younger children is somewhat different. In 1994, there were 25 deaths in this age group. There are still quite a few suicides in the younger teens, but there were more homicides and unintentional deaths in that age group.
These statistics indicate the numbers of young people who die from firearm injuries. It is important to remember that, in addition to those who are victims of firearms directly, many more children are affected by the loss or injury of a friend, sibling or parent.
I would now like to move on to a discussion of some of the developmental characteristics of children and adolescents that make them so vulnerable to the risks of firearm injury.
Young children lack the developmental ability to understand the permanence and severity of firearm injury. They believe they can expertly handle a firearm despite their lack of motor coordination and knowledge of firearm handling and safety. Typical of this type of thinking would be the belief that one could duck to avoid a bullet, or the belief that, once dead, one could come back to life again. Children also have a natural curiosity about objects in their environment, particularly forbidden ones. Regardless of rules or education about firearm safety, young children do not have the internalized self-control required to avoid playing with tempting forbidden objects. Everyone knows that the best way to have a child get hold of something is to hide it, for they are certain to find it.
Children are impulsive and act with no regard to the consequences of their actions.
The next slide shows a child engaging in fantasy play. Children immerse themselves in fantasy play, such as this little girl who believes she is the general of the army in her neighbourhood. For her, this is not a game. It is reality. When children are immersed in this type of fantasy play, they tend to forget learned safety messages, or they tend to not exercise good judgment if they are exposed to risks in their environment.
The next slide is a list of some of the developmental issues that are of importance with adolescents. First, with respect to independence issues, we all know that taking risks is a common way for teenagers to assert their independence. Unfortunately, the chance of harm from a firearm is clearly greater than from any other form of risk-taking.
Second, with respect to identity issues and peer pressure, as teens are trying to discover who they are, they often experiment with behaviours that they perceive as being adult. In addition to wanting to feel adult themselves, they also want to impress their peers and to be respected and admired by them. Using a gun may be a way to do that.
This next slide is a humorous illustration of that. This teenage boy is saying, "Dad, can I borrow the gun tonight?" This illustrates how the use of a gun may make a teenager feel older, more important, more like his dad and more likely to impress his peers.
With respect to impulsive behaviour and immaturity, younger teenagers may have an inadequate understanding of the consequences of their risky behaviour. While older teenagers may be able to link consequences to behaviour, they oftentimes continue to engage in risky behaviour because they have a feeling of invulnerability and a sense that "it won't happen to me".
In my practice, I do a lot of safer-sex counselling with teenagers. I am quite satisfied that my patients have a good understanding, in a sort of intellectual way, of what might happen if they have unprotected sexual intercourse. Yet, over and over again, I hear from them that, despite their knowledge of the dangers, they continue to practise risky behaviour sexually. It is because deep down they do not really believe that the bad consequences will happen to them personally.
Lastly on this slide, teenagers have increasing intellectual capabilities. They have more experience. They are more able to get around the kinds of barriers that parents may try to put in the way of them getting a hold of dangerous household objects.
Teens are also likely to be experimenting with substances or abusing substances such as alcohol and drugs. Many firearm deaths are associated with significant levels of alcohol and other substances. Alcohol and drugs may cause teenagers to be less inhibited in their behaviour and to display more dangerous behaviour than they would if they were sober.
This is probably a good time to talk briefly about adolescent suicide and to remind you that suicide is the second leading cause of death in Canadian teenagers. Firearms are a leading method used in suicides. Most adolescent suicides are not the result of chronic and severe mental illness. Many are committed impulsively under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
Turning to the regulations, the Canadian Paediatric Society and the Canadian Association for Adolescent Health are on record as strongly supporting the licensure and registration requirements of the bill. I will not go into the arguments we used at that time as to why that is so. However, I would like to comment in particular on the regulation that requires notification of all current and recent spouses of the applicant. This requirement will give those present or former spouses the opportunity to raise concerns about their own safety or the safety of others, for example, the safety of children in the family.
Our next slide is a clipping from The Toronto Star, and it relates to an incident that happened a couple of months ago in Toronto. A little eight-year-old girl was home with her mother, and the estranged spouse came over with a gun. The little girl ran upstairs and hid while her mother was shot once in the neck and once in the chest. After the spouse left, the child ran downstairs, saw her mother lying on the floor bleeding and ran across the street to grandmother's house to call 911. The little girl was felt to be a real hero, and of course she was.
What struck me the most about this case was that this little girl was not going to appear in any statistical accounting of the costs of firearm injuries. Yet, I imagined how she must have felt hiding probably under the bed -- that is where my kids tend to hide -- and hearing the gunshots downstairs. I imagined the kinds of psychological traumas that experience would cause and how much care and help she will need probably for the rest of her life to recover from such an experience.
These various fees for licensure and possession range from $10 to $80 for licences to own, acquire or register firearms. It is important to put these fees into perspective. If we compare guns to other consumer products such as cars, the fees seem quite small in comparison to licensure and registration fees for automobiles.
Later, Dr. Grenier will tell you how much it cost her to get her dog back when he got lost and was returned by the police. It was a lot of money.
A bicycle helmet costs at least $25, sometimes as much as $50. A child's car seat may cost between $40 to $100. Fencing to enclose a swimming pool can cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars.
Our next point deals with regulations surrounding the aboriginal communities. While the firearm may be a more ubiquitous and accepted feature of life in aboriginal and rural communities, it is important to remember that firearms are implicated in suicides, homicides and unintentional deaths in these communities as well. Homicide and suicide rates are higher in these communities than in the general Canadian population.
Lastly, I would like to make some comments about the proposed regulations for storage. I was pleased to hear Dr. Chapdelaine this morning explain in detail the recommendations of the Quebec coroner's inquest, as our recommendations have been influenced by this study and its recommendations. We were influenced particularly by the recommendation dealing with the fact that the different requirements for restricted and unrestricted weapons were confusing. That inquest recommended that there be a single requirement for safe storage of all types of firearms.
The inquest also recommended that requirements for locking firearms were too vague and could be interpreted broadly, and that fewer exemptions should be granted to those claiming to need instant access to the firearm for the purpose of controlling predators and animals.
Dr. Chapdelaine also addressed the issue of trigger locks, which we feel are a particularly effective and cost effective method for locking a gun. This device renders the firearm unable to be discharged, and the cost of the device is moderate.
I would like to tie all this back in with children and teenagers. Dr. Webster studied firearm owners in Maryland in 1991. He discovered that gun-owning parents had overly optimistic beliefs in the effectiveness of measures such as education or close supervision in keeping their kids safe.
Public health research and our knowledge of childhood and adolescent development has taught us that the most effective and preventive strategies are strategies which can be put in place and remain effective without constant attention or effort. Examples of this would be a fence around a swimming pool rather than watching your toddler every minute; or a trigger lock.
Some firearm owners will argue that these measures will cause inconvenience, but if the purpose of ownership of the weapon is for target shooting or hunting, a few moments to unlock the firearm and ammunition will not appreciably affect these pastimes.
The use of the firearm for self-protection is one use for which, arguably, one might need instant access to a loaded firearm.
However, this reason for the use of a firearm, in general, is not accepted, except in rare instances, as a legitimate reason for ownership of a firearm in Canada. Therefore, the inconvenience of safe storage of weapons must be seen as minor compared to the benefits of reducing unauthorized or impulsive use of the firearm.
Lastly, I would turn to our recommendations. First, the Canadian Paediatric Society and the Canadian Association for Adolescent Health strongly support the proposed regulations. In particular, those relating to the granting of a licence, registration, spousal notification, aboriginal communities and buying ammunition are seen as likely to result in improved safety for children, adolescents and their families. Any inconvenience or cost secondary to these measures is highly justifiable.
Second, there should be a universal, well-defined requirement for safe storage that applies to all firearms. Our view is that every firearm should be stored unloaded and with a trigger lock. Ideally, this firearm should then be kept in a locked container or room and be out of sight. The key or combination to the lock should be accessible only to the owner and to no one else. The ammunition should be stored in a separate location, also locked, and the safe storage requirements of the law should be vigorously enforced.
I should like to second Dr. Chapdelaine's call for improved or increased research efforts, particularly research on the effect of storage practices, and some of the other regulations on the safety of children and adolescents.
Last summer, the Canadian Association for Adolescent Health submitted recommendations to the Canadian Firearms Centre urging that both the firearms safety training program and the public education campaign that would accompany the implementation of Bill C-68 add some other areas of emphasis. On reviewing the previous firearm and safety training materials, we believe the main emphasis was on decreasing hunting accidents and decreasing accidents relating to gun handling and improper handling procedures.
We would like to see an increased emphasis, both in the firearms safety training program and in the public education campaign, on teaching people about the risks of having a firearm in the home; the importance of safe storage aspects of the regulations to safeguarding children and adolescents; and information about suicide, particularly the risk to adolescent males of having a firearm in the home.
We will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Dr. Grenier, do you have a few comments before we proceed to questions?
Dr. Grenier: The question that arose in the discussion this morning was : If someone does not store a weapon properly, should that person be fined? Dr. Leonard's dog ran away and she was fined $100 to get it back. She was at fault and she had to pay. We need a simple rule that can be reinforced. That would help everyone involved.
Senator Pearson: Thank you very much for your presentation. It is interesting that your data dates back to 1994. It will be interesting to use it to assess whether any changes occur over the next few years.
Have you broken down the statistics as they relate to adolescents into more specific groups so that you know where those suicides took place, what kind of family backgrounds these young people came from, and so on? I note you have they classified by gender.
Dr. Leonard: Certain studies look at different characteristics of adolescent suicide. Different studies have looked at different risk factors, for example, whether there is a history of mental illness or depression, as well as socio-economic factors. There is a large body of literature in the public health domain as well as medical literature that has considered risk factors for adolescent suicide. However, another area where we could benefit from increased research is the consequences of accessibility of firearms to young children and teenagers.
Senator Pearson: Where did you obtain your statistics?
Dr. Leonard: These are mortality statistics from Statistics Canada.
Senator Pearson: Are they not rather broad?
Dr. Leonard: Yes. They are nation-wide statistics.
Senator Pearson: Would you know whether these statistics relate in any way to families who had a gun in their home? To do long-term research, you need that type of information.
Dr. Leonard: That is true.
The coroner's inquest that Dr. Chapdelaine was talking about this morning had a wealth of information of that type. It looked at the different factors that increase the likelihood of the tragedies that were being studied. At least a couple of the victims who were studied in that inquest were adolescents. That kind of information is useful.
Senator Pearson: With some assistance, would the Canadian Association for Adolescent Health be prepared to assist with that kind of research if funding were made available?
Dr. Leonard: Yes, quite gladly.
[Translation]
Senator Beaudoin: Thank you for your presentation. As other witnesses have this morning, you have made the link between suicide amongst young people and firearms storage. Am I to understand that you are recommending that storage be safer, if I can put it that way? Do you have a specific text to propose? Your recommendation is rather general. You want to make access to firearms more difficult, obviously to eliminate the possibility of suicide. But do you have any new suggestions in this area?
I am convinced that there is a link between the two. There are surely young people who would not have committed suicide if these firearms had been stored more safely. But do you have any new suggestions to make with respect to what we already have in the current regulations?
[English]
Dr. Leonard: Are you asking me if we have recommendations other than the ones we made here? Our final recommendations are that every firearm be stored with a trigger lock; that the firearm be kept in a locked container or room, unloaded; that the key or the combination to the lock be available only to the owner; and that the ammunition be stored in a separate location, also locked.
There are probably a host of other types of measures which would be useful. Oftentimes, we have spoken among ourselves about a wish for some sort of technological innovation that could be built into the gun and sold along with the gun which would require no effort on the part of the owner, for example, something like an air bag. Something that you would not have to do anything with but which would work when required. That sort of technological innovation is not available to us right now. In the meantime, we feel that the specific recommendations we have made are the best way to reduce access to firearms in the home.
Senator Beaudoin: Suppose the firearm is used for protection and the owner is not there at the moment of the threat? He or she is the only one who knows how to activate that firearm. It may be a bad thing in that sense.
Dr. Leonard: You are making the assumption that a firearm in the home is a protective factor.
Senator Beaudoin: I am not too sure about that. What do you think?
Dr. Leonard: It is one of the important arguments we have been making for a long time. I believe Dr. Chapdelaine spoke briefly about Dr. Kellerman's study which looked at the usefulness of firearms for self-protection. That study discovered that, for every intruder who was killed by a firearm, there were many more suicides and homicides of family or acquaintances, and unintentional deaths.
It is like the seat belt argument. I may personally believe that in a one-in-a-million situation my seat belt may trap me in the car and be the cause of my death. However, for each time that that was likely to happen, there would be many more times when the seat belt would work as it should and prevent injury to me.
I would say it is much better not to have the gun available for self-protection, which is a very uncertain premise, but to have it locked and unavailable so that when the 15-year-old boy's girlfriend breaks up with him he does not use the gun to shoot himself because it is readily accessible to him.
Senator Beaudoin: You referred to certain statistics. How often are firearms used for defence compared to being used for suicide or homicide?
Dr. Leonard: The Kellerman study showed that for every one instance where the firearm was used to kill an intruder, there were 42 instances in which the firearm in the home was used either for a suicide, the killing of an acquaintance or family member, or caused an unintentional or accidental death. The use of the firearm for self-protection was far outweighed by unauthorized uses of the firearm to harm family members or acquaintances.
Senator Beaudoin: That is a convincing argument. Of course, the owner may, if he or she has to leave the house, pass the secret to someone else. There would then be, of course, no problem.
Dr. Leonard: I strongly believe that firearms, if not properly stored, and if made accessible to other family members, are much more likely to be used in a totally improper way than to repel an invader.
Senator Beaudoin: You say in paragraph 4 that the safe storage requirements of the law should be vigorously enforced. Do you suggest that because it is not enforced or it is poorly enforced in practice, or do you simply want strong enforcement of the law?
Dr. Leonard: I think there is a real problem with enforcing the law as it currently exists. I am not a lawyer or legal expert, but I believe that the current law is vague and confusing.
This morning, Dr. Chapdelaine gave the example of the police coming to a home where there had been a break and enter and finding that the front door was locked. There was a gun stored in the home, yet the police did not lay a charge for improper storage because the front door was locked and therefore it was felt that the firearm was in a locked area.
I believe that the current safe storage provisions are open to many different interpretations. If there were a simple and single requirement for storage that was the same for restricted and unrestricted firearms, it would be much easier to enforce the law. I do not suggest that police should break into homes to check on people's guns, but if a situation should arise in which there was a question about the storage of a gun, it would be easy to settle because the law would be simple and easy to understand. If the law were simple and easy to understand, firearm owners would be encouraged to follow it.
Senator Gigantès: Other witnesses have said that people who commit suicide or kill a family member with a gun do so for socio-economic or emotional reasons. We were given the example of someone who threatened his wife with a gun and, when the gun was taken away, he came back and stabbed her eight times with a knife. It was said, therefore, that we are looking at the wrong target, that the suicides or homicides would occur, gun or no gun. What is your response to that?
Dr. Leonard: We are certainly not arguing that reducing access to firearms will change people. Of course, it will not. There will still be marital problems. There will still be depressed teenagers, and all the developmental phases of childhood and adolescence about which we have spoken will continue.
However, it is important to remember that at issue here is how lethal the different methods are. The rate of suicide attempts by females is much higher than the rate of suicide attempts by males. However, females tend to choose less lethal methods of suicide and, therefore, their rate of completed suicides is lower than that of males.
Senator Gigantès: How much lower?
Dr. Leonard: It is less than one-half.
Senator Gigantès: Their stomachs can be pumped.
Dr. Leonard: Every day I see a female in my office who has made a suicide gesture of some kind. We have patients in the hospital who have taken Tylenol overdoses. These patients can be treated. The lethality of firearms is such that attempts with guns are overwhelmingly effective.
As was mentioned, this sort of study has also been done with regard to family disputes. It has been shown that the likelihood of death resulting from a family dispute in which guns were used is much higher than the likelihood of death resulting if a knife or blunt object is used.
The Chair: One presenter this afternoon suggested that the reason young men choose guns for their suicide attempts is that they are very serious. They have chosen the weapon because of its lethality, as opposed to a young woman who may choose pills more as a cry for help. What evidence do you have on that?
Dr. Leonard: The person who made that comment is making the assumption that the suicide attempts are all the result of a long-term and very well-thought-out plan. Certainly, some suicide attempts are like that, and there is certainly a portion of suicides which may not be affected by removal of one lethal method. That person, if really determined, may find another lethal method.
A percentage of those who attempt suicide, faced with a lack of access to a lethal method, will choose either a less lethal method and survive or choose not to attempt to suicide at all.
I wish to tell you about a study on suicide rates in Vancouver and Seattle, Washington. They considered two demographically and socio-economically similar cities which had similar crime rates. They studied suicide rates from all methods including suicide rates from firearms in those two cities. They looked at the 15 to 24 age group particularly, in addition to the general population. In the 15 to 24 year old age group, the suicide rate was different between the two cities. The suicide rate in Seattle, which has less strict gun control laws than does Vancouver, was higher. The difference was due to a much higher rate of firearms suicide in Seattle. The rate of non-firearm suicide in the two cities was similar. This study strongly indicated that accessibility to firearms was increasing the total suicide rate in Seattle.
The Chair: Why do young men choose guns instead of alternative methods?
Dr. Leonard: There are several reasons for that. Probably the main reason is that guns are part of our society. The media, books, magazines, and movies portray firearms as either cool and empowering objects or, on the other hand, as normal household objects which one can find if one opens a drawer. Guns are portrayed as easy to handle and easy to shoot, and the messy characteristics of firearms and the difficult aspects of handling them are not portrayed. The answer to your question is not a simple one, but one of the reasons is a sense of a gun culture and guns being attractive objects because of that.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation this afternoon. We were delighted to have you with us.
The committee adjourned.