Legislative Assembly of Ontario

CONTROL OF AMMUNITION AND COMMUNITY-BASED CRIME PREVENTION INITIATIVES

CANADIAN POLICE ASSOCIATION

TOM WHITEHEAD

ONTARIO FEDERATION OF ANGLERS AND HUNTERS

CANADIANS AGAINST VIOLENCE EVERYWHERE ADVOCATING ITS TERMINATION

CONTENTS

Wednesday 8 June 1994

Control of ammunition and community-based crime prevention initiatives

Canadian Police Association

Scott Newark, general counsel

Tom Whitehead

Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters

Rick Morgan, executive vice-president

Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination

Priscilla de Villiers, president

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

*Chair / Président: Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)

*Acting Chair / Présidente suppléante: Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)

*Akande, Zanana L. (St Andrew-St Patrick ND)

Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South/-Sud ND)

*Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest L)

*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)

*Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)

Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)

*Murphy, Tim (St George-St David L)

Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC)

*Winninger, David (London South/-Sud ND)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:

Mills, Gordon (Durham East/-Est ND) for Mr Bisson and Ms Harrington

Clerk / Greffière: Bryce, Donna

Staff / Personnel: McNaught, Andrew, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1537 in room 228.

CONTROL OF AMMUNITION AND COMMUNITY-BASED CRIME PREVENTION INITIATIVES

Consideration of a matter designated pursuant to standing order 108 relating to control of ammunition and community-based crime prevention initiatives.

CANADIAN POLICE ASSOCIATION

The Chair (Mr Rosario Marchese): I welcome Mr Scott Newark from the Canadian Police Association. You have half an hour for your presentation.

Mr Scott Newark: Thank you very much for the invitation. Our association deals primarily in federal matters, as a national organization. For example, I'm a registered lobbyist in Ottawa. Almost all our analysis, as well as presentations on this general subject matter, have been with the federal government. As I'm sure you, Mr Chairman, and this committee are aware, the constitutional reality in this country is that the feds may pass the laws but it is the provinces that have to enforce them. Therefore, the overlap of jurisdiction is extremely important.

My background, by the way, is that I was a provincial crown prosecutor in Alberta before taking up the position with the Canadian Police Association.

There have been a number of cases, it seems to us, that have prompted some of the recent suggestions in terms of legislative initiatives. Although our original suggestions to the Minister of Justice were in December 1993, the essence of them that I think has relevance for this committee is that whatever level of government it is -- in that instance obviously it was the federal government -- there should be a two-track approach in pursuit of what we refer to as firearms and public safety; namely, first of all, that it was appropriate to deal in restriction of otherwise lawful firearms held by people who have essentially obeyed the laws, including restrictions on ammunition.

In reality that comes down in many ways to harm reduction, or it could be viewed as harm reduction. What you're talking about doing is, for example, reducing likelihood of suicides or accidental death or injury by access to firearms or ammunition, access by individuals who may be irrational at a point, particularly in relation to domestic violence. Fourth, specifically in terms of firearms, probably the large one is theft of weapons that end up in the hands of people who don't obey the laws.

That is the second part of our recommendations, that deal with the people who are not interested in obeying the laws in the first place, and in many ways it's their activities that have prompted much of the discussion and the debate. The case in relation to ammunition, it's fair to say, at least from my observations, became acute in a case arising in Ottawa where it became apparent that, first of all, the weapons apparently used in a drive-by shooting were stolen weapons and that the ammunition was simply obtained by walking into a department store. It was a manifestation to all of us that in effect we had greater restrictions on the opportunity to potentially buy products like cigarettes than we did on ammunition.

There are some ramifications, though, about the way we either enforce or, in our opinion, don't particularly enforce existing provisions of the Criminal Code that are completely within provincial jurisdiction. As I mentioned, I was a crown prosecutor and I was as guilty of this as anybody else. I'll use the example, if I might, of section 85 of the Criminal Code, which has the mandatory one-year minimum consecutive penalty for a person using a firearm during the commission of an indictable offence. It is almost always in relation to people who are armed robbers, who tend to be the, shall we say, career-choice criminals. Very often, we only catch them after they have done several of these.

After we catch them, you would find, if you looked statistically, that they essentially run the course a lot more: They'll go through as far as they possibly can in relation to trying to get bail, and when they realize they're not getting bail, because the courts also have a greater appreciation that you're dealing with a much more professional kind of criminal, they tend to usually make the best deal they can, which includes getting a plea on as few of the robberies as they can. What happens -- as I say, this is my experience, and I've checked with people in Alberta and British Columbia as well as in this province, and I have the same sense that this is a general practice -- is that very often those section 85 charges are withdrawn by the crown in exchange for the guilty plea.

If we are really serious about making a statement that if in our society you commit a crime and you arm yourself in the process, we take it seriously, I'd suggest there are two things that can be done. One, in particular, is federal jurisdiction. We've recommended an increase of the minimum mandatory penalty to five years instead of one. Second, though, and this is provincial jurisdiction, I would suggest that in whatever form or fashion you can through your Attorney General's department you attempt to give guidance to the crown prosecutors to not withdraw the section 85 charge in the same volume that they may currently.

I intend to pursue this, because I want to make the point -- it was something I was discussing with the Justice minister -- and it would be very easy to ascertain, I would think: My guess would be that if you looked at the number of charges laid and the number of charges withdrawn, you would find that section 85 has one of the highest incidences of being withdrawn. That's a policy choice, quite literally, the department can make. We did it, for example, years ago in relation to prosecution on impaired drivers. We made a policy decision in terms of when we would submit the second offender notices. That is something within the jurisdiction of the province that you could do that I suggest would have a large impact on the people using weapons in this province.

The other thing I would suggest you consider as well is in relation to what happens with firearms once they are seized. I'm not sure of the practice in this province, but I can tell you that in at least some provinces there's not a particularly stringent attitude taken in relation to requesting forfeiture of the weapons for destruction. I'm probably bringing a personal bias when I say I think we have enough weapons, and once we get them in the consequence of a criminal investigation, we should, unless there is a very good reason, have them destroyed.

In terms of restrictions on ammunition, we had recommended originally to the federal minister -- maybe I can answer a question about this or give you an opinion -- and it probably applies equally to provincial legislation under subsection 92(13) in regulation of a trade, literally, or a transaction in trade. Our recommendation was that what we do is put some regulatory hurdle, I suppose, in the way of people acquiring ammunition.

It's not going to make it impossible, by any means, because we have people who, as long as we have lawful firearms, are going to lawfully want to possess ammunition, but it may make it more difficult for 15-, 16-, 17-, 18- or 19-year-olds who have stolen weapons, who don't have an FAC, a firearms acquisition certificate, because they couldn't get an FAC, who don't have a hunting license because they haven't got the wherewithal and, frankly, they don't hunt. It strikes me that anything can be done that would interfere with that process of getting it may be quite productive.

Bullets, in that sense -- I'm not a hunter -- are unique. I don't think they have any other particular value. I don't think they're used as fashion statements or anything else. They're used to make the weapons more deadly. As such, I think it's appropriate that we attempt to put some restrictions on how people get that.

You're going to have to balance that with people's otherwise lawful right to acquire ammunition, and I suspect, from the list you have here on the agenda, that there's another group that has a specific interest in acquiring that. That's why we made the suggestion about production, for example, of hunting licences and things like that.

It strikes me that if the federal government does not act in relation to dealing with ammunition -- and there may be some reasons it might not. I was trying to think of some of the circumstances. We'd have to consider how broad the net's going to be cast if it's turned into a federal criminal offence which would create a criminal record. Would we also make it an offence to possess ammunition without having obtained it in the way authorized? I think there would well have to be exceptions precisely for groups like the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, or the hunters. I mean, if they're out in a field somewhere and somebody runs out of ammunition, do we really want to make it a criminal offence that hunter A would give hunter B some ammunition? I suspect not.

You would have, in my opinion, ample authorization under subsection 92(13) of the British North America Act in relation to property and civil rights to regulate the trade -- the ammunition sales act, for example -- that dealt with documentation that had to be produced before individuals could obtain ammunition. If the federal government does not act, I would urge you to do that. You may just get them into doing it that way themselves.

In so far as you may have the ability to influence the federal government in some of what it does and some of the items that it moves on, just in closing I would like to suggest a couple of the following.

You might well consider an amendment to section 100 of the Criminal Code that deals with a court's ability to in effect disallow individuals to have firearms. It should be based on whom the individuals choose to associate with, and the specifics of that include people with criminal records. The example I've given you specifically involves bike gangs. I accidently developed a speciality in dealing with that. Right now that's not contained within the legislation. There's some appellate authority that says we can't do that.

The other thing, finally, I'd suggest that you may want to urge on the government is that we don't really have a very good handle, it seems to me, on the amount of guns flowing into this country across our borders. While that's not a provincial area of jurisdiction, those guns, if they are entering -- and our information, by the way, from the customs union people is that our border is quite literally a sieve in so far as it applies to interdiction of goods. I have with me, if you'd like, testimony from the Senate when I was there a couple of weeks ago that lays that out from the president of their union, and from one of your later witnesses, Mrs de Villiers, who was with me that day as well. My point simply is that that's a federal matter, what happens at our borders, but when those guns come in, they come into a province, they come into cities, and we have to deal with them.

So anything you could do to urge the federal government as a component part of its strategy to make sure we have what we've recommended, which is a national border protection service with full peace officer status, would be most helpful in dealing with the issue.

Thank you very much, sir. Those were my opening remarks. I'd be pleased to answer any questions if I can.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): Thank you very much for your presentation. It's good to see you again; as always, an excellent presentation. I want to talk a bit about the section 85 charges. The manual for crown attorneys in this province in fact now has a no-withdrawal instruction. That being said, we find we have difficulty actually getting the numbers. We hear anecdotal evidence about it none the less happening, as you quite rightly point out, as a tradeoff for guilty pleas on robbery charges or whatever.

The other tradeoff that we find happens is that they don't actually withdraw it, but what they'll do on joint sentence submissions and other things is that they will then basically take the one-year minimum on the section 85 and count that as kind of what they serve regardless of what else happens. The result is that you just get one year no matter what else you're doing, and it doesn't count on top of it. I'm wondering if you could comment on your experience and your organization's experience with things like that happening.

Mr Newark: In effect, not cancelling the legislation, just neutering it: That would be a common sentiment among the people I speak with, that this is so. I suppose that is an example literally of why there is still that connection between the Attorney General's department and the political leadership that's implicit in a person being an elected minister.

Where there is -- I would suggest, appropriately -- political responsibility, and by that I mean elected, and a decision is made that we wish to pursue this policy, what's called for there is some leadership from the people running the department to say: "Listen, we don't want this to occur. We in fact wish to make the point that these are, as the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld, to be consecutive sentences in addition to it."

If we run into something, and this could also be the case, that the courts are going to then water down the front-end sentence on the armed robbery charges, my recommendation would be to appeal it. If you think you're getting inadequate sentences out of the courts, and I don't say that's so, but if that is the sense, that the sentences imposed are inadequate, then appeal them. If it turns out that the Court of Appeal for Ontario wants to say that's what it is, then that's what it is. But I rather suspect that's not the case.

1550

Mr Murphy: The statistics show, and I can't remember the exact number, that over 80%, approaching 90%, of section 85 offences get -- big surprise here -- the minimum and no more. I asked the Solicitor General yesterday about the ammunition bill, which is in part before us here. He had expressed a concern about, "Oh, Ontario shouldn't do this alone," that we don't want a patchwork enforcement -- a series of excuses, as far as I was concerned.

I think it's fair to say that having a federal government impose these things from the top would be a good thing. But do you think it is worthwhile for the province, in the absence of federal action, to show leadership by enacting this bill and using that as an example for the federal government to then act?

Mr Newark: Yes, sir. That's right in the brief as well, that if the federal government does not pursue the matter with the vigour we think it requires, yes, Ontario should take a leadership role. My guess is that you will find other provinces with a similar view.

I noticed the second part of the discussion is in relation to crime prevention initiatives -- Mrs de Villiers and I were both on the Minister of Justice's last national crime prevention council -- and how important we think it is that such a crime prevention council go ahead, in part to consider not only the long-run initiatives, which are probably the most important, but also some of the short-run things we can do to deal with the preventable kinds of situations and reduce the kinds of harm.

If we are talking about developing some kind of national consensus from around the provinces, this is exactly the kind of forum it can take place in. I understand there are some delays in the naming of the crime prevention council, and I just suggest that I hope in that area alone, Ontario would take a leadership role in trying to see that the council (1) is named as a national council and (2) that it participates fully.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): One of the concerns I have with the province enacting an ammunition bill is that effectively that bill becomes operative under the Provincial Offences Act. The problem with dealing with it under the Provincial Offences Act is that it's dealt with in a court that traditionally looks after the Highway Traffic Act, bylaw offences, that kind of court.

It almost relegates the control of the sale of ammunition into a bylaw item. I have some concern about trying to deal with what is in effect gun control in such a really summary type of way. It really doesn't matter how much the fine is, because most of these cases are dealt with by justices of the peace, and justices of the peace don't feel comfortable handing out $5,000 fines.

I really think the bill, to have any teeth, must be a federal bill. If the best you can do is have a provincial bill, what I want to know from you is how the bill can be structured so it does mean something.

Mr Newark: To answer the first part, my preference would probably be for federal legislation. The difficulty for me is that I am quite sure that we're going to want to have some exceptions to it in the federal Criminal Code; we probably would want to have exceptions even in provincial legislation. Maybe it's because I've been out of the courtroom for 18 months, but I'm developing a degree of apprehension about creating new criminal offences. I was up yesterday testifying about killer cards in Ottawa.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but do you not also, in this province, have, for example, an upper-end driving offence like careless driving? The province I come from has got a $2,000 fine, and default of payment is six months in jail. In other words, we do have some provincial legislation with some teeth in it.

Mr Harnick: I don't think I've ever in 18 years seen a careless driving offence on a conviction receive (a) a jail sentence or (b) a $2,000 fine. What I've seen is a fine of several hundred dollars and maybe a licence suspension, but in all likelihood you lose your six points as part of it and that's the end of the day.

I've been involved personally with careless driving offences where, because there's a fatality, the Attorney General has said, "We have to go before a provincial court judge on a fatality." If there's a way to structure this bill to indicate that it has to be heard before a provincial court judge, maybe that would be something, if we can do those kinds of things.

Mr Newark: I would think you can; it's your own internal procedure. It was not that long ago, I believe, in this province that those kinds of offences did go before provincial court judges. You retain the constitutional jurisdiction to do that. I suppose it's a question -- and maybe this is at the bottom of your question -- of what priority you assign to it as a government. That being so, I happen to agree with you, as measured by the fact that my preference is to have it in federal legislation.

My point, though, and I think what Mr Murphy was getting at, is what does the province of Ontario do if the federal government is a little slow in responding to this? By the way, my best estimate is that you will see legislation out of the federal government dealing with some of these issues by September.

Mr David Winninger (London South): In relation to the withdrawal of the section 85 offences, my information is that the crown attorneys are instructed not to withdraw those section 85 charges in a plea bargain situation but frequently, for fear of offending the totality principle, sometimes that gets rolled in with an appropriate sentence for all the crimes put together.

You recommend the creation of a national border protection service to attempt interdiction of illegal weapons. That's a marvellous idea, but at the same time, yesterday we had a presenter, if I recall correctly, who in her document showed that you can bring a whole arsenal of ammunition and weapons legally into Canada. I'm just wondering whether you're aware from your extensive experience why that is. Also, if you can bring it in, what's to prevent you from leaving some of it here?

Mr Newark: I didn't get into it, sir, but we have a lot of other recommendations that we think are appropriate in terms of banning of other weapons. I spent a lot of time on the Prairies, and I understand fully the reason some people want to have long rifles when you live out in the country. I don't understand the same requirement when you live in Metro Toronto. We've got recommendations in relation to restrictions on ability to get restricted weapons -- handguns, basically -- in metropolitan areas. We have recommendations in relation to full registration, from this point forward, of all weapons sold. I didn't get into it because it is mostly federal jurisdiction.

I'd be happy to send a copy of the evidence, because it was extremely disturbing to hear the president of the customs union talking about the state, from the operational perspective, of what their inability is in relation to our borders.

Mr Winninger: I was talking about legal importation of weapons.

Mr Newark: What we're saying is that a lot of the weapons we shouldn't be able to legally import.

Let me go to the other point, your comment about totality. Totality is in the eyes of the beholder. The point I was trying to make with Mr Murphy is that if as a province we have the perspective that, understanding what the totality principle is, Parliament has actually said it's worth an extra year consecutive minimum, and if a sentencing court's view of totality is such as to render that meaningless -- in other words, as he was getting at, deducted down for the total package -- my suggestion is that you appeal that and take it to the Court of Appeal and see whether that is exactly what the highest court in this province happens to think. There is that mix between judicial interpretation, but, with respect, you people are the ones who are elected by your constituents to listen to them and make the determination about their views about the prevalence of the use of firearms in committing crimes.

Mr Winninger: I take your point.

1600

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): You're a lobbyist in Ottawa, so I imagine you're pretty close to the pulse of what's going on there. I thought you answered this, but I wasn't quite sure if you did: Do you feel the federal government is going to move very shortly on ammunition control?

Mr Newark: Yes, actually. I'm only giving you an insight from conversations with people in the Department of Justice, as well as members of the Liberal caucus and actually with the minister from time to time on different things. I think the difficulty they face is probably the one that every elected body faces: They have a very large caucus that's very diverse.

I can tell you that on Monday nights I'm going with a group of other people to speak to rural members of the Liberal caucus, to try to get some of the ideas across about what we think is possible on this double-track approach, that it doesn't need to be a zero sum game where you're either regulating in relation to lawful owners or you're on the other side. We think we can accomplish both things.

There's a lot of division, as I'm sure you know better than I. It's an issue that triggers a lot of emotion in people. But my sense in dealing with them is that they are going to introduce further restrictions in relation to what I would call otherwise lawfully held guns, and that will include something in relation to ammunition. I try to be as precise as I can on what I think is coming. God knows, I've been wrong several times about it, but my sense is that is still very much on the agenda.

Mr Mills: September?

Mr Newark: I'm just guessing at that, because Parliament is adjourning at the end of June and it's taking so long to get everything else out.

The Chair: Mr Newark, we appreciate your taking the time to make this presentation to this committee.

Mr Newark: My pleasure, sir.

TOM WHITEHEAD

The Chair: We invite Constable Tom Whitehead, Metropolitan Toronto Police, 33 Division. Welcome, Mr Whitehead. Please begin.

Mr Tom Whitehead: Honourable Chair, honourable members of provincial Parliament, other guests, my name is Tom Whitehead and I'm a police constable with Metropolitan Toronto Police. I've been a constable with the police department for 20 years, and I guess I've done what most of the officers do in a 20-year career. I was in the criminal investigation bureau for a period, I was in the youth bureau for a period, the major crime unit for a period of time, and for the last three years and a bit, I've been the crime prevention officer, which gives me a chance to go to groups and talk about such things as personal safety, robbery prevention and things of that nature.

I was invited here to talk about a twofold question. Actually, the first part was already addressed, I believe on Monday: ammunition and the sale of ammunition. I believe one of the detectives from our police force answered that part of the question.

The issue I'd like to deal with is the second part of the question, which was community-based policing initiatives. If I go back better than 100 years, there was an early police officer who made some rules, and one of the rules was, "The people are the police and the police are the people." In fact, what he was talking about that long ago was community-based policing.

In Metropolitan Toronto, we have been a community-based police force for many years. Certainly we are very proactive in our nature as opposed to reactive. We try not to wait for things to come to us. We try to get into the communities and resolve problems before they start.

A good example of what we've done over the last two or three years is that we've purchased bicycles, which enables us to get right back into the communities. Members of the communities like the appeal of the bicycles and the community officers who are riding them.

What we rely on, though, to help us reduce crime in the future is a partnership with the communities. A good partnership, a good working relationship with the communities, is going to result in less crime. This has been proven. We have proven programs right now that are in effect and very, very successful. It's helped to keep crime down to a minimum.

One of the programs probably on the top of my list, that I can't say enough good about, is Neighbourhood Watch. Neighbourhood Watch in essence is a community program, that the police certainly support, but it's all done through the community. Basically, it's the community being the eyes and ears for the police, the community being vigilant but certainly not vigilante, and if they see something, knowing how to react, knowing when to call the police; if they see somebody walking between two houses, for example, to know whether it's something we should be contacted on. It's a good communication network. It keeps the community together, it keeps the community strong and it keeps that relationship between the police and the community strong. The result: We get a lot of information that normally we wouldn't get. In 33 Division I am the liaison for our Neighbourhood Watch groups, of which we have 56, which have been quite successful.

Some of the other watch programs we have that are equally as successful are Vertical Watch, which is a high-rise Neighbourhood Watch; Hospital Watch, which is very successful in many of the larger hospitals that we have in Metropolitan Toronto. In Scarborough a new watch program has recently been introduced, this year actually, titled School Watch. Basically, we're trying to get students to be the eyes and ears for the police. They're forming a group, and they want to reduce crime in their schools. Nursing Home Watch is a brand-new program we started last year, very successful. Business Watch, Mall Watch -- it all keeps the good communication between the communities and the police force.

Another proven program that once again I can't say enough good about is the Block Parent program. Basically, what the Block Parent program is, it's homes that offer a safe haven for our children. People apply to be Block Parents. They're screened by the police department and they're given a sign, and in the event that you have a child in need of protection or a safe haven or something isn't right, that child can go to that house and be offered safety.

Taxis On Patrol is another program we offer, and this once again is a program where we are relying on the eyes and ears of the taxis. They're running 24 hours a day, and they're seeing a lot of things out there. We're getting good results from that program.

The STEP program, Seniors Taking Extra Precaution, is a program where the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force hires university students, and these university students put on skits for our seniors in the city. These skits include such things as proper areas on a bus to sit, or if somebody comes to your door, what you should do. It's very well received by the seniors' groups in our communities.

PC COPS has been around now about four or five years. It's an auto-dialler computer. It's something we've been using to get our messages out to the community. About half the divisions in the city of Metropolitan Toronto now have this computer. How it works is we would get information where we have, for example, a description of somebody who's breaking into houses or a description of somebody who just robbed somebody. We'd put it into the computer, and the auto-dialler starts calling all the people who are registered in the computer.

1610

Once again, it's a community-based program wherein the community has to get the money. Originally, when we started this program, the computers were $23,000, a lot of money for the communities to come up with for one computer. A lot of the officers were going door-to-door and collecting $1 from each household, so it took a lot of door-to-door to get the program up and running. But once again, it was the community money, and how the police department fits into it is that the computers are lodged at the divisions and we feed the information into them.

Schools: We have programs in the schools that have been really well received. We have the safety program that's been around for a lot of years, Elmer the Safety Elephant, and that is still going. We have a drug awareness program. This is in the elementary schools, the primary grades. We have what we call a VIP program, VIP standing for Values, Influences and Peers. Once again, it's a good program. It gets the message to the young children of what life is all about and what some of the laws are out there. Then there's the patroller program, which of course is some of the safety patrol people, children who will help others across the street.

We have a unit that goes into the secondary schools. We call it our street crime unit. What they talk about to the kids -- we're talking grades 9 to 13 -- they have a personal safety talk, they talk about drugs, and the big thing they talk about is weapons. They talk about zero tolerance in the school system. Weapons are a concern in the schools. We're trying to get the message across that it won't be tolerated and the school board won't tolerate it.

Some of the other programs we have going: As far as personal safety is concerned, we in Metropolitan Toronto promote the call-police signs, which maybe I've seen from some of your offices, that's very effective and we're getting good success with that. We have engraving tools that we lend out free of charge to anybody in the community. We have breakfast clubs which we sponsor through money we get donated. The breakfast clubs are set up in areas where there are less-advantaged children, and it gives us a chance to get in there and we actually cook breakfast for them, and we try to get the dialogue going and good communication between the police and the children at a very early stage.

Where is all this going in terms of the future? I heard of an interesting program that comes from England, and I don't know if it will be adopted here. It's certainly something I've always thought about. The one in England is called adopt-a-block or adopt-a-mile, something similar to that. You take an area, a downtown block, downtown Toronto where the blocks are small, a residential block, and you go the community and say: "This is your block. You're going to be responsible" -- or you want them to say this, that they're going to take responsibility for that city block. That's everything from picking up a chocolate bar wrapper to dealing with a crack house that's opened up on the far side of the block.

The results that they had in England on this program were terrific, even to the point where, for the children who lived on that block, there were rewards for a certain area that was cleaned up to the point where it was noticed. These awards in England took the form of T-shirts and things of that nature. It might be something we'll be looking at down the road in Toronto. I thought I heard somewhere that on the 400 series highways there was the adopt-a-mile program going.

Chief William McCormack has introduced a process that he's called Beyond 2000. It's the direction we are going in Metropolitan Toronto. It is community-based policing totally, with maybe a little bit added, and that's what we call the neighbourhood officer. The whole idea with the neighbourhood officer is that these are going to be dedicated officers we are going to be able to get into neighbourhoods.

That's my presentation.

The Acting Chair (Ms Christel Haeck): Thank you, Constable Whitehead. I think all members appreciate the various good-news items you're bringing of what the force is doing. Mr Harnick, any questions?

Mr Harnick: I do. I was actually at the breakfast club flipping pancakes this morning and they weren't impressed with my performance at all.

I wonder if you could give the committee some idea, and this may be an unfair question, of what the greatest frustrations are today in the life of a police officer trying to maintain community safety.

Mr Whitehead: I'd like to take a minute to think before I answer that directly.

Mr Mills: It's your time. Periods of silence are not rewarded with extra time.

Mr Whitehead: My personal answer to that, the frustrations I would feel are, say, that people are arrested and are back out on the streets in a shorter length of time than one would expect. That's a totally personal view.

Mr Harnick: It's interesting, because I have held crime forums almost all over the province and one of the things people repeatedly said to me is that if someone is convicted of an offence and they're sent to jail for three years, why does three years not mean three years? Why are violent criminals back on the streets in about a third of the time that the courts are deeming they should be spending? Aren't we, by doing that, really saying to criminals, "No matter what you do, it's not so bad. You'll be out quickly," and that we've totally killed the deterrent effect of sentencing? That's what people think and that's certainly the answer I got all across the province consistently. So I'm glad you gave that answer.

Are there any comments you can make in terms of resources available for community policing?

Mr Whitehead: I can't quote directly on figures that are available through the police department or through the government.

Mr Harnick: In terms of adequacy, then.

Mr Whitehead: I would say inadequate, because a lot of the things we are going after are donated; we have to go into the community to get them. For example, I talked earlier about bicycles that are very well received in the community. The bicycles in fact have been donated to us, and that goes along with a lot of the extra equipment we're getting to properly get out into the communities and give them the support they need.

1620

Mr Mills: Thank you, Constable, for coming here today. I was brought up in an environment where the men were on the beat, and that's the best form of policing there is in the world. When I came to Canada nearly 40 years ago, I said to myself: "What are people doing running around in cars? They're never going to see anything."

You speak from the perspective of community-based programs, and there's one there, if I've got time, I'm going to ask you about. How are these working? Are they preventing crime? Can you tell us about it? Is it working? What specifically is working?

Mr Whitehead: When we have a Neighbourhood Watch that is set up and is functioning 100%, clearly our stats in those areas are dramatically down, and I'm talking stats on break-ins, thefts and things of that nature. I have to distinguish between a Neighbourhood Watch and a Neighbourhood Watch that's actually working properly.

Mr Mills: It's effective, okay. You mentioned Taxis on Patrol. I've heard of everything else you said except that. If I'm a taxi driver, how do I become involved in that plan? Do I contact you at 33 Division and say, "I want to be in that?" How does that work?

Mr Whitehead: It's actually a program that is done through the companies. The program is very simple for them. It's just that they are the eyes and ears. It's important when we talk to these people who are going to help us that they realize vigilance is what we're looking for, not that they have to start grabbing people or being vigilantes or anything like that.

Mr Mills: That program, I read in the paper, is bringing success because people say they got the tip from the taxi driver. You're to be commended on that. It doesn't work in a one-taxi town perhaps, but certainly in Metro.

Ms Zanana L. Akande (St Andrew-St Patrick): Your point of view is interesting, Constable Whitehead, in that Professor Doob, who is a professor of criminology, was here yesterday and he shares your interest and your feeling that the primary solutions have to begin in the community. But I carry you back to this piece of legislation about the control of the sale of ammunition. I'm going to ask you to speculate about what you think the real effect of this piece of legislation might be in achieving some significant difference in the crime rate. I ask that, given that the police report that many of the guns used in crimes are brought here illegally or stolen.

Mr Whitehead: The legislation being talked about and considered is going to make a difference -- my personal view. I feel it's a step in the right direction to help myself as a police officer and to help the citizens of this country.

Ms Akande: I can't tell you how much it's going to cost; I don't know that. I don't know if anyone else has speculations on the cost of the implementation of this legislation. I want to ask you, though, do you believe the money would be better spent in promoting and furthering the kinds of activities about which you spoke that occur in the community?

Mr Whitehead: Can we do both?

Ms Akande: I don't mean to put you on the spot. I just wanted to gauge whether you had an opinion about that. That's fine. You may not have considered it. I just think it's a question worth considering.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Constable Whitehead, I personally -- I don't know about the other elected officials -- operate at a bit of a disadvantage. We see and hear about statistics, we read reports in the media, we hear our fellow politicians debating the issue of crime, safety in the streets etc, and I appreciate the opportunity to get some feedback from somebody who has had both feet planted firmly on the ground for -- was it 25 years you mentioned?

Mr Whitehead: Twenty years.

Mr Chiarelli: Over those 20 years, firstly with respect to streets and neighbourhoods, and secondly with respect to schools, do you think they are safer today than they were 15 or 20 years ago, are they less safe, or what is the status of safety over that time period? Has it deteriorated? Are we maintaining the status quo? What's your opinion on that?

Mr Whitehead: If we look at a basic crime such as break and enter, 20 years ago maybe we all had milk boxes in the side of our houses, yet our homes did not get broken into, or even at that period we didn't lock our doors at night and our homes weren't broken into. Now I would dare say that if you had either/or, if you had a milk box or an unlocked door, chances are you would be broken into. In fact, I would recommend you buy bars and alarms and so on and so forth. In that light, I've seen that particular crime go up quite considerably.

As far as in the schools is concerned, I think that in the 20 years I've been a police officer, people have changed too. Weapons in schools was not there 20 years ago. Now it is there, and it's a real cause of concern for us, and I'm sure for the people of the school board and those who work in the school. They've adopted a policy, as a result, of a zero tolerance.

Mr Chiarelli: Partly the reason why I asked the question was that we had another presenter here who was a criminologist from one of the universities and his brief stated quite clearly that the crime situation is not worse. Of course, he's looking at statistics and so on and so forth. Sitting from where I am, you kind of get a double message sometimes, and that's why I basically wanted to get a perspective on what's happening on the ground.

You mentioned a lot of programs that are working. You talked about the different watch programs, the Block Parents etc. Do you think any of those programs are being threatened now by either the social contract or government funding cutbacks? Secondly, do you think there are any specific programs the provincial government could get involved in that would make a difference?

Mr Whitehead: All these programs could probably use assistance from the provincial government. I think they're all, at some point, scrambling for funds to keep themselves going.

For example, Neighbourhood Watch. It's a community program, yet it's something we're encouraging, something we want them to do. There's no money for paper. There's no money for any supplies. There's no money for any phone calls they have to make. There's no money for any faxes they have to do. This is all generated from within, from money they come up with from within.

Maybe a program where we had a universal system where we had information going out to all residents in Ontario, something like that. Of course, the information would change city to city.

Mr Chiarelli: Crime prevention information?

Mr Whitehead: Exactly.

Mr Chiarelli: In other words, a door-to-door, province-wide program?

Mr Whitehead: An awareness program, yes.

1630

Mr Murphy: I represent a riding that includes most of 51, a bit of 52 and 53. What I've heard from the police officers in those divisions is that across Metro they're more than 500 officers down from what they think would be the optimum service level. For example, in 51 Division, there's a 33% drop in the number of officers dedicated to foot patrol. Have you found that to be true in your division and other divisions, and do you have concerns that the social contract cuts in policing are affecting public safety? A $1-million question.

Mr Whitehead: To answer that, my own opinion is that yes, we are down police officers in the division I work out of and, yes, there is potential risk to other officers because of the shortfall in the numbers.

Mr Murphy: Because of that, a potential risk to public safety?

Mr Whitehead: Yes.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, Constable Whitehead, for your time and comments. Your input is definitely important to us.

ONTARIO FEDERATION OF ANGLERS AND HUNTERS

The Acting Chair: The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, Mr Rick Morgan, executive vice-president.

Mr Rick Morgan: It is a pleasure to be here and particularly to have been invited to represent many law-abiding firearms owners across Ontario. I will stick as closely as possible to the prepared text that we have delivered to you, and I hope you'll bear with me. I think many of the things we are saying are worth repeating.

My name is Rick Morgan. I'm the executive vice-president of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, and that's a position I've held for some 20 years. I've had extensive involvement in firearms legislation and education over that period of time and indeed throughout my whole life. I was one of the early hunter education instructors in this province. I've used firearms personally since I was 10 years old.

A bit of background on the federation: We represent some 70,000 dues-paying members across this province and 490 member clubs. They are, of course, spread throughout every community in the province, north, south, east and west.

Many of our member clubs and members are involved in firearms education and have been for many years. It was our federation which brought hunter safety education to this province in the 1950s. We remain partners with the Ministry of Natural Resources in the delivery of that program. There are currently some 800 to 1,000 instructors in the field instructing people in that course.

I want to comment on Bill 151, which I believe Mr Chiarelli introduced on April 18 of this year. We appreciated the opportunity to comment to various MPPs who contacted us at that time. It was very kind of them to do so and we appreciated them wanting to hear our concerns. I understand that some of the wording in the legislation may at least have been tempered or modified as a result of the kind of input we provided, and we thank you for that opportunity.

To reiterate our concerns, however, we're concerned about the placing of provincial restrictions on the sale of ammunition. The bill, as drafted, would restrict and penalize law-abiding citizens, law-abiding firearms owners and users, but we believe, have little or no effect on the criminal misuse of firearms or ammunition.

The community of firearms owners of course covers a wide spectrum, and I won't go through the list but depending on the activity of the various users, they may use several hundred rounds of ammunition in the course of a year or they may use only one or two rounds.

The bill, as written, would penalize those who do not maintain a current FAC, firearms acquisition certificate, or a valid Ontario Outdoors Card, hunting version. These people, who I expect number in the hundreds of thousands in Ontario, would be forced to acquire either the FAC, at a total cost of between $75 and $250, or to obtain an Outdoors Card through taking a hunter safety training course at a cost of up to $100. Additionally, these permits would be required to be kept current, at $25 to $50 every five years for an FAC or $6 every three years for an Outdoors Card.

Related to the discussion is the lack of grandfathering in Ontario of the FAC safety course exam. Although the majority of hunters in this province have gone through a hunter safety training course and passed an examination, Ontario has not grandfathered them into that system and they will now have to pass an examination again at some cost and at some additional time. We think that provides an incentive, unfortunately, to law-abiding citizens to circumvent a law which they consider to be unreasonable. The people in this room know better than I that the citizens of Ontario have to perceive a law to be fair before they will deem it necessary and appropriate to obey.

In this case, the fact that they have been using firearms for many years, have been highly safety conscious, have passed examinations and have invested a lot of time and money and now have to do that sort of thing again is deemed to be inappropriate. That is why the federal government allowed grandfathering by the provinces. That's the very reason they put that in the legislation in the first place.

Recent estimates range between six and 21 million legally owned firearms in Canada, yet the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics reports that only 5% of violent crime in Canada involved the use of firearms. Of course, the federal Justice department statistics do not record which segment of this 5% was legally owned or illegally possessed firearms.

Given what we do know of the illegal trade and traffic of firearms, coupled with the recent legislated requirements for safe storage, the incidence of the use of legally owned firearms in violent crime is bound to be immeasurably small.

In looking at the rate of homicide in Canada from 1926 to 1992, it's apparent that there was a jump, in roughly 1970, in the use of firearms in homicide. The homicide rate doubled to 2.5 deaths per 100,000 and has remained relatively constant since then, notwithstanding the abolishment of capital punishment in 1976 or previous rounds of federal gun control regulations in 1978 or 1991. The proportion of homicides involving firearms has been relatively constant at about 35%.

Two thirds of all accused murderers in 1991 were known to have criminal records, the majority for previous violent offences, and they were already prohibited from legally acquiring or possessing firearms. These people are not eligible for FACs and yet they had firearms and used them in crime. Clearly, requiring them to have FACs for the purchase of ammunition will have no impact whatsoever on those people.

The legal firearms owner is not the source of firearms for the criminal element in society. A recent police operation conducted by regional police forces stretching from Hamilton to Durham found the overwhelming majority of firearms used in crime were smuggled into Ontario from the United States and sold on urban streets. The Solicitor General could provide you with further information on Project Gunrunner, if you do not already have that.

While the theft of legally owned firearms and subsequent criminal misuse has always been extremely rare, the 1991 amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada, known as C-17, allowed Parliament to pass regulations to define Canadian standards of firearms storage. As a result, all firearms must be stored either disassembled or locked, so that they cannot be used readily. Additionally, restricted firearms, such as handguns and some long guns, must always be stored inside a secure, locked vault or container. Privately owned ammunition must always be stored in a separate location unless both the firearm and the ammunition are stored inside a locked vault or a secure container.

Safety training for Ontario hunters began in 1957 and became mandatory in 1960 for all first-time hunters under 20, and since then, that has gradually been phased in and become mandatory for all first-time hunters. Handgun target shooting also trains people every year, in addition to the 20,000 to 35,000 hunters who are also trained.

1640

The results of those efforts have been outstanding. In 1960 there were 154 hunting accidents, with 36 fatalities. Now, with the majority of hunters afield having successfully completed hunter safety training, fatalities and injuries have been reduced by more than 80%. In the last few years, there have been only one or two fatalities in hunting.

Legal firearm use in Ontario has remained relatively constant over the last 20 years. Annually, between 600,000 and 700,000 provincial hunting licences are sold, and Ontario hunters spend between five million and six million days in the field hunting annually.

An important point to bear in mind is that the majority of Ontario farmers also own and use firearms for predator control and nuisance animal control. Little information is available on the use of firearms by farmers, but it is expected to be substantial, and these are people who primarily have no FACs and no hunting licences and see no need to acquire either. They have their tool, the firearm, and use it as an implement of farming.

Likewise, little information is available on the number of days target shooters, both handgun and long gun, and other people, such as skeet and trap shooters, off-duty police officers, the members of the military etc, spend on provincially approved shooting ranges. The chief provincial firearms office can only document two accidents in the last 14 years at Ontario-approved ranges.

All told, firearms are used legally and safely tens of millions of times annually in Ontario.

Our recommendations: It is not the legal firearm owner and user who is involved in crime, nor is the legal owner a source of firearms or ammunition that are used in crime. Yet violent crime that involves firearms still occurs in Ontario. The very nature of firearms and ammunition that makes them useful to legal owners and users makes them attractive to criminals, and the criminal misuse of firearms is often lethal. Further restrictions on the legal owner will not prevent or reduce criminal activity.

In the debate during the second reading of Bill 151, the member for St George-St David, Mr Murphy, noted that in 51 Division, an area that between July and December of last year had 460 weapons offences, the division was forced to reduce its foot patrols by 33% due to the social contract. Policing services should not only be exempted from the social contract, in our opinion; the province of Ontario should seek ways to increase the funding to policing services.

The recent creation of the provincial weapons unit announced by the Solicitor General is an appropriate and welcome addition to the existing law enforcement regime in Ontario.

The subject of plea bargaining was discussed during the debate on Bill 151 in the Legislature, and it was noted that the crown policy manual stipulates that criminal offences under section 85 of the Criminal Code should not be plea-bargained. They certainly have been over the years. The question remains: What about the other firearms offences under the code? In our opinion, none of them should be plea-bargained.

Yet the criminal element will still function in Ontario and further amendments to the Criminal Code are desperately needed. While the Criminal Code of Canada is beyond the purview of this committee or the Legislative Assembly, this committee and the Legislative Assembly can send a strong voice to the Parliament of Canada requesting amendments to the code, and we would encourage you to do so.

Needed amendments to the code that the OFAH requested during discussions surrounding Bill C-17 were a substantial increase in the mandatory imprisonment of criminals who use firearms in the commission of an indictable offence. The current one-year sentence is insufficient and should be increased to a minimum of three and five years for first and subsequent offences, respectively.

Mandatory sentencing of three and five years is needed for section 87 offences, possession of a firearm for the purpose of committing an offence, and for section 89 offences, carrying a concealed weapon, for first and subsequent offences.

Tough mandatory sentencing is also required for the intentional possession of a prohibited weapon and possession of either a firearm or ammunition while prohibited by order, wrongful delivery of a firearm, importing a prohibited weapon and delivery of a restricted weapon to a person without a permit.

Further, these changes must be well publicized by all levels of government in Canada after enactment. We must send criminals a clear message that the criminal misuse and possession of firearms in Ontario will be strictly and harshly dealt with.

The major source of firearms that are used in crime is the United States, where most types of firearms can be purchased relatively easily and smuggled across the border. While Canada Customs is a federal department, the province of Ontario can encourage and support calls for increased surveillance and border crossing checks to help stop the flow of firearms from south of the border.

In summary, the issue of ammunition control is a difficult subject. Legal firearms owners and users are not the cause nor the source of criminal activity, but the proposal contained in Bill 151 to restrict the sale of ammunition unfairly targets these law-abiding citizens and will not reduce the criminal misuse of firearms or ammunition.

Bill 151, as it currently stands, with the inclusion of the Outdoors Card, hunting version, is much more preferable than a sole requirement for the possession of an FAC in order to purchase ammunition. The inclusion of the possession of a restricted weapon certificate and a minor's permit would further improve the bill, but I would remind you that even the inclusion of these four forms of identification will miss a good number of Ontario citizens who have a legitimate requirement for ammunition. Therefore, the current situation is certainly preferable to all legitimate firearms owners.

I would further remind the committee that legal owners and users of firearms in Ontario are already heavily regulated and controlled at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. There's no need to further restrict the legitimate firearms owner. Further restrictions on the purchase of ammunition are unwarranted and would not affect criminals. If a criminal is able to illegally acquire a firearm, it would be naïve to believe that ammunition will not be available similarly and make the criminal traffic in firearms and ammunition even more profitable.

Control of the criminal's access to firearms is the only method of crime control that will have any effect on reducing the incidence of firearms-related crime. It is on this basis, and on behalf of the legal owners and users of firearms in Ontario, that I urge the committee not to allow Bill 151 to proceed to third reading. As well intentioned as it is, we believe it is overkill.

Likewise, I would urge this committee to send a strong message back to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, the federal Justice minister, Allan Rock, and the Canadian Parliament that criminals must be targeted with increased penalties and enforcement efforts, and not the legal owner and user with increased restrictions.

I thank you for your time and I would be pleased to answer any questions which may come forward.

Mr Winninger: I should point out at the outset that almost all other provinces also disallow grandparenting under Bill C-17, so we're not really out of step with the majority of other provinces.

Mr Morgan: There's good reason for that. Ontario has always been the leader in the training of hunters and in the hunter education program. Some provinces in Canada have never had mandatory hunter education, and of course they won't allow grandfathering. That's exactly why the federal government, in passing the legislation, included grandfathering, so that provinces such as Ontario that have always been leaders in safety training could take care of their citizens who've spent the time, effort and money to pass an exam and take a course, while those who haven't would not allow grandfathering.

Mr Winninger: That background is certainly helpful. As you know, on this committee we get a variety of points of view. Yesterday the Coalition for Gun Control presented very capably and left with us some statistics indicating that most Canadians killed with guns are killed with legally acquired rifles and shotguns, which appears to conflict. While the evidence and the statistics are somewhat scarce, they do quote a couple of studies, one by the Department of Justice, which indicated that most of those who are shot in domestic violence situations are killed with rifles and shotguns, and that most of the guns used are legally acquired. They show 78% of all guns used in fatal domestic assault situations are legally acquired, and they offer some additional statistics as well.

I'm just wondering how you reconcile that kind of information with what's alleged on page 3, that most fatal shootings don't involve legally acquired guns. How can you know that?

Mr Morgan: Clearly, our sources come from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. I can't comment on the coalition's presentation because I haven't seen its statistics, but I'd be happy to.

Mr Chair, if I could, I'd be pleased to forward to all the members of the committee, through the clerk, the reports backing up the statistics that I've provided, and I would encourage you each to read those.

1650

Mr Winninger: It's just that at the bottom of page 3 you say the federal Justice department statistics did not record which segment of the 5% involved a legally owned firearm.

Mr Morgan: Correct. That is the information we have from those reports, and I will forward them for your perusal.

Mr Winninger: I just wanted you to know there is a contrary point of view.

Mr Morgan: We'll be glad to table the statistics, and you can decide their veracity.

The Chair: Mr Mills, there's time for one question. There's one minute. I don't know how much you can squeeze into that.

Mr Mills: One minute? That's pretty limited. Thank you, Mr Morgan, for coming.

I just want to tell you that about a month ago I was in Port Perry, where I attended a massive meeting -- and I believe the gentleman over there was there; I may be wrong -- of the anglers and hunters association. All the statistics that you spoke of were presented. The meeting was on a Saturday night. It went on way late in the night, I think half past 10 or 11 o'clock, such were the emotions in that meeting. I can tell you that I share the view of your organization that somehow I think the wrong people are being targeted with this legislation. That may be contrary to what the Solicitor General's position is, but that's how I felt about it.

I'd just like to say that when I was given the opportunity to speak to them, they were on about locking people up and all this and the policemen etc. I send out a postcard to my riding and they write back what you're doing wrong, and everyone says, "Less taxes, less taxes."

So in deference to my colleague over there, you get one policeman on the street, you've got to hire three, because that's the way it works. So there's an enormous cost to that. They were most surprised to learn that you can lock a person up, but it costs $70,000 a year. So you can't have your cake and eat it too. You've got to say to yourself: "What do I want? Do I want this level enforced, do I want this program or do I want less taxes?" I think it's a very difficult line to balance.

Thank you for coming. I enjoyed my meeting up there. I thought I was going to be eaten alive, but they were very friendly.

Mr Morgan: If I may comment in return, it's interesting that the whole taxation question often comes up when we have these discussions. One of the things I've made a point of doing is asking people who are always after more enforcement and greater penalties if they would be prepared to pay more for it. They say, "Yes, if the money was earmarked for that." I'm not sure how you as the decision-makers accomplish that, but yes, we all want fewer taxes, but I think if we were able to earmark it for increased enforcement and to make the world a safer place, we'd be glad to pay more for that. I suppose, give us the opportunity for a checkoff and the money will come forward.

Mr Chiarelli: Mr Morgan, thank you very much for your submission. I think it's very balanced and will be very useful to us. Quite apart from Bill 151, you indicated that this is a complicated type of issue.

I just wanted to very briefly explain to you what happened to me in my riding. I received a phone call from the owner-proprietor of a hunting-fishing store which sold guns and ammunition. He indicated to me, of course, that he took great exception to this bill. I asked him very clearly and specifically if he had any hesitation about selling ammunition over the counter to a 13-year-old, 14-year-old, 15-year-old or 16-year-old. He said he saw nothing wrong with that. If that young person came in and put the money on the counter, he would think it would be okay to sell that young person ammunition, lethal ammunition that will go into pistols or whatever.

So I guess my question to you is, do you think that's appropriate, particularly given the fact that, for example, in the case of the Ottawa drive-by shooting there were illegal guns which were used by young offenders but it was legally purchased, store-bought ammunition? Is there an area there for government to deal specifically with ammunition, or are you saying we've got to solve the problem through other means?

Mr Morgan: I don't think there's any question that when you hear of, in this example, a 13-year-old purchasing ammunition, we all shudder a little bit at that. The world has changed from the days when I bought it at the age of 13 and went to the local target range and target-shot legally and there was no problem. But the fact of the matter is that if that 13-year-old has a firearm, he or she acquired that firearm illegally, and the source of ammunition will be exactly the same. If you put in place a system that requires some sort of certification, as abhorrent as it may sound, that person is still going to get that ammunition. It isn't going to change. In fact, I could argue that we may increase the black market in firearms and ammunition because we will force more people into that system and it will become even more profitable. That's terrible, but it is, I suggest, a fact.

Mr Chiarelli: You mentioned the cost of the FAC and hunting courses etc. If a type of identification could be created which would be useful for controlling the sale of ammunition at nominal fee or cost, do you think that would ameliorate the concerns of a lot of your members?

Mr Morgan: It's a matter of degrees. We would argue, I think fairly, that fee or no fee, since we're so regulated at the firearms end of things, the regulation at the ammunition end is unnecessary.

Having said that, to your credit, you've tried to address part of the problem by going beyond the FAC and including the Outdoors Card. We've suggested a couple of more ways that it could be made more acceptable. We believe they're all unnecessary, but having said that, if the decision is made to proceed, if you can include the hunting licence, the minor's permit, the restricted weapon certification and the FAC all as options within that, and ideally grandfather the FAC, then you will have gone a long way to addressing the concern. You will not have eliminated it, but you will have gone a long way to addressing it.

Mr Murphy: One quick question. I have received a number of phone calls from chiefs of police in Brant, Sturgeon Falls, Toronto and a few other places indicating a general support for 151. I represent a downtown riding, so obviously I'm speaking from that perspective. They've expressed to me two things they would like to see in here, and how it gets done they don't really care.

They would want a photo identification of some sort -- some said the driver's licence might be sufficient -- and they wanted a log of purchase filled out by the seller as a way of tracing, to assist them in investigations. If it was only a driver's licence but there was a log of purchases, what would your reaction be?

Mr Morgan: The driver's licence would add a whole bunch more people to the list that would be covered by the things we've already talked about, but it would still miss some people. In terms of the log, that's not something we've discussed. As we sit here, I don't see a problem with that.

Incidentally, the police chiefs have been very forthcoming in making their opinions known. We have a large number of members who are not police chiefs but are policemen. What they're saying to me, is a little different than what they've said to the previous speaker, but what they've said is that the regulation in terms of the sale of ammunition isn't going to do anything. They have said we need to put people in jail and keep them there, because they're tired of having charges dropped when they lay them; they're tired of having people let out early. Their message, that man-on-the-street message, certainly has been different as it's been presented to me than I hear reported from various police chiefs.

Mr Murphy: On what you've said, they clearly say that to me too.

Mr Harnick: One of the very difficult aspects about this bill is very much the difference in culture when it comes to the use of firearms within a metropolitan area, a built-up urban area, and a rural area. We have those kinds of discussions in this Legislature regularly, where metropolitan members will take a very strong position on certain things and it's just totally abhorrent to the rural member who says the use of firearms and ammunition is a way of life in many respects for sportsmen, for hunters, for anglers, for target shooters.

1700

We really, I think, have to try to strike a balance so that those who lawfully possess firearms are not facing the brunt of gun control, because they're not the ones who are in breach of the law. How do you do that? How do you strike that balance so that you do have realistic controls without penalizing people who, lawfully and with great knowledge, possess and use firearms?

Mr Morgan: I'm a person who has lived in both environments, the rural Ontario environment and the Metropolitan Toronto environment. I spent over half my life living in this city and I think I have some understanding of the differences in attitudes, but I can also tell you that the real attitude towards crime doesn't change. The attitude towards firearms changes a little bit but the attitude towards crime does not. I hear the same thing everywhere I go, and that is, "Crack down on crime."

When we ask people about, should there be more gun laws, the initial reaction by the uninformed is, "Yes, there should be." But then when you ask them, should there be this control or that control, controls that are already in place, they say: "Yes, that would be a good idea. Let's put that in place."

People don't understand how restrictive Canada's gun laws already are, but they do understand that our crime laws and our system and our enforcement are lax. The common ground right across Ontario and across Canada is that we have to start directing the laws against the criminals and we have to increase the penalties against the criminals, and we've addressed that in this paper. I suggest that if Ontario and Canada were to do more in addressing those things, a lot of the problems that surround the misuse of firearms would disappear.

Mr Harnick: Do you believe that this ammunition control bill will, in any way, deter criminals?

Mr Morgan: No.

Mr Harnick: Okay. I appreciate that.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Morgan, for your presentation and for taking the time to depute today.

CANADIANS AGAINST VIOLENCE EVERYWHERE ADVOCATING ITS TERMINATION

The Chair: Mrs Priscilla de Villiers, we welcome you to this committee again -- on a different matter, of course.

Mrs Priscilla de Villiers: Mr Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to appear before you today. I am Priscilla de Villiers, president of CAVEAT, a national incorporated not-for-profit organization. Our mission is to contribute to the creation and maintenance of a safe, just and peaceful society. There is an information appendix at the back of the brief.

It is our submission that the government of Ontario can and should play a significant role in the control of the sale of ammunition, which is just one facet in addressing gun control in our province.

The sale of ammunition can be divided into three areas:

(A) The retail sale of ammunition: In a province where great concern is expressed about the use of weapons in the commission of crime, as well as the alarming rise in illegal weapons smuggling, there's a contradictory message in the uncontrolled sale of ammunition. This should be an easily controlled commodity:

(1) No person under the age of 18 should be allowed to purchase ammunition.

(2) No sale of ammunition should be completed without the relevant identification to show proof of age, FAC and/or hunter's licence etc.

(3) All sales of gunpowder should be prohibited. We see no reason for private citizens to have access to such a potentially lethal substance for any purpose, especially for making ammunition.

Ideally, the government of Ontario should institute a progressive plan of registering all guns to specific owners. This could be quite easily done if one used the technology which is in place to register motor vehicles. In the same way that one receives an ownership number for each vehicle one possesses, on a similar document one could receive a number for each firearm one possesses. In addition, your photograph and ID are built in. This would control the cost, which has been brought up a number of times.

It would then become increasingly possible to control the sales of ammunition so that only the legal owner of that particular make of firearm would be able to purchase the appropriate ammunition. All retail sales of ammunition should be registered, together with a number of the weapon in the name of the owner, so that you have the same way that pharmaceuticals are registered. If there's an abuse, it becomes obvious.

For this to be effective, there would have to be stringent penalties for buying ammunition for another person with no legal right to that ammunition. An effective way to monitor the system would be to make the owner of a weapon responsible and liable in addition to the perpetrator if there were a crime, accident or fatality committed with the weapon. Furthermore, the owner would never be allowed a gun permit again. This would do away with policing and all the rest of it. If there is safe handling, the matter would not come up.

Public confidence in the courts' ability to uphold legislation is eroding. To restore confidence, there should be an automatic penalty for the illegal purchase of ammunition as well as an automatic penalty for carrying a weapon in the commission of a crime. I said earlier that we would probably only know that ammunition had been purchased illegally if there were a fatality or a crime, so that this would not overload the court system. The importance in this paragraph is that there's a clearly understood penalty.

Although this is an enormous task which would have to tackled over some years, it's essential that we start monitoring the number of guns which are legally circulating in our society because of the huge proliferation of smuggled weapons. If a smuggled weapon is discovered, it should be destroyed. It's been brought to our attention that a large number of hunters' rifles have been sold in this country which have no registration number. The problem could be tackled in two ways: either to note the make and year on a registration certificate or indeed to assign a number arbitrarily for administration purposes.

The registration of all weapons legally in circulation would have a number of advantages.

(1) A stolen weapon could be more easily traced and returned to its owner.

(2) It would assist police in responding to the scene of a crime where violence is involved if they had an idea of how many guns that were there. This is specifically true in the case of domestic violence.

(3) People who used illegal weapons could not casually obtain ammunition, as seems to be the case in many youth crimes, and you mentioned the Ottawa shootings earlier.

(B) The private sale of ammunition is extremely difficult to control. But here, again, if the onus is placed on both the seller and the buyer for any crime, accident or death which resulted from the transaction, there would be a double onus and it would be self-monitoring. You wouldn't be hounding most of the legal gun owners; only if there was in fact a transgression.

We recognize that in both the retail and private sale of ammunition we're controlling the access of the registered gun owner to ammunition. "Gun control is a highly divisive issue that pits the citizens who believe that the right to own guns for legitimate purposes is constitutionally guaranteed against those who want to sharply reduce the number of guns in circulation." That's from Business Weekly, which of course is a United States publication.

Such control would serve two purposes.

(1) Ammunition is a controlled substance, as it were, and not readily available on the open market.

(2) It underscores the current thinking of our society that the right to own a gun is a privilege and not a right, that strong measures must be taken to protect society and that personal liability is involved in owning or carrying a gun.

I might say at this point that the previous speaker spoke very passionately. I've heard those arguments before. Our concern is that many people who legally own guns do not belong to responsible gun clubs and so on. Many people buy them and use them casually and do not have the same controls and the same training.

(C) Ammunition purchased outside the province or the country: We recognize that one of the dangers of strict control of any substance, including weapons, is that it will force both the sale of guns and ammunition underground. This is generally agreed on. However, we call on our provincial government to give a strong message in Ontario that illegal trading in weapons and ammunition is a criminal act and will not be condoned. Any ammunition or weapons seized in the commission of a crime which were purchased outside the province or the country could automatically be destroyed if they were not legally registered here. The key to effective control of illegal weapons and ammunition entering this country is the border protection that the federal government provides. In our opinion, this alone makes for effective control of ammunition and indeed weapons which are manufactured outside the country and brought in illegally.

1710

In a submission made by CAVEAT to the standing committee on justice and legal affairs on killer cards and board games, Bill C-80 -- that's the federal government -- we stated that: "In enacting amendments to legislation, it is essential to look at the possibilities of practical enforcement if this is not to be a paper service which pays lipservice to the issues but has little practical validity. We in CAVEAT have been concerned about the glaring omissions in Canada's border protection. This was one of the main areas of examination in the Yeo inquest.

"In a recent report card that CAVEAT presented at Queen's Park, we graded the response of the Minister of Revenue to the recommendations of the coroner's jury which clearly identified grave concerns about the effectiveness of Customs and Immigration at protecting our borders as an F for fail. These recommendations were validated in the Ekos report which was commissioned by the Department of Immigration in 1992 to study the effectiveness of the primary line of inspection" -- that means customs.

"It cited the critical need for customs officers to have a clear mandate, better tools and more training. A study period of six weeks showed that over 50,000 people who should have been referred for secondary questioning were missed entirely" -- and that is in two airports. "The customs union itself estimates their success rate in stopping contraband goods at between 1% and 10%." I've got a transcript of evidence which I've put in for the Chairman.

The government of Ontario must urge the federal government to:

(1) Assist in and promote the registration of weapons and control of ammunition sales in all provinces.

(2) Look into the questions of border protection. The conclusion of the standing Senate committee on banking, trade and commerce stated that the committee "felt there were legitimate concerns raised about the safety of our borders," and made four recommendations to the Department of Revenue. See our appendix 2. In addition, the Senate committee urged the Senate to refer the issue of illegal importation of weapons into Canada to an appropriate committee for study. This was in response to CAVEAT's submission on the lack of protection of our borders, and those recommendations are included. The full transcript of that I have given to the Chairman for your information.

The Attorney General of Ontario must report back to the Legislature within six months to report progress on this extremely serious issue. I might add that we can, by extension, add drugs etc quite happily into this list.

If anybody would like a copy of the Ekos report, it's obtainable from the Department of Immigration. It's a 1992 report.

CAVEAT's mission is to contribute to the creation and maintenance of a just, safe and peaceful society by public education, advocating changes to the justice system and ensuring the rights of victims. We will do this by assisting in the creation of a system in which all participants are both responsible and accountable in ammunition and gun matters, as in every other matter, for their actions and for providing public forums for education and for public input with respect to violence in our society. Since our inception, we, as a community-based group, have taken a supporting role in many public initiatives already in place. In a small way we have formed partnerships with other community-based projects.

In a submission to the standing committee on justice and the Solicitor General on crime prevention in 1992, we stated:

"A brief on crime prevention is a daunting task, akin to solving the problem of world hunger. Its complexity mirrors most of the facets inherent in the human condition," and we have heard some of them today: the plea of victims to be kept safe, particularly in domestic violence, and the plea of legitimate gun owners to practise their hobby or their craft. "While our focus is clearly on violent crime, it is reasonable to assume that those measures which might reduce or prevent violent crime would likely be effective in reducing all forms of crime. While we may not be able to eliminate crime, we might conceivably create an atmosphere inimical to violent offences."

That is part of the reason that we need to make a clear stand on our attitude to weapons in our society.

"We feel that CAVEAT could help raise public awareness of the role that our society has played in fostering a tolerance of the violence which is now increasingly being acted out against the...members of our community."

To this end, I just put in a small part of a submission to the Royal Commission on Learning. It's there for your information. This is the work that we're doing in schools.

We have addressed some of these concerns we're raising today in a youth challenge, and we will be holding a second one. We catered to 850 students, I think, this year from about 80 schools, and the ripple effect has been remarkable. So we are trying to raise awareness in youth about the problems of weapons in school, of danger and various other problems such as youth suicide, which, I'm sad to say, is still top of the list of any youth study about what concerns them most.

Once again, I won't read this whole thing. Weapons unfortunately are the leading factor still in suicide, possibly because they're handy and possibly because they're immediate, and very often, if not fatal, cause extreme injury.

I represented CAVEAT on the Ad Hoc Committee on Crime Prevention and Community Safety in 1993. Representatives of that community group and justice departments from across Canada discussed these issues for several months last year. The hard-won consensus -- and it really was hard won; there were people representing every conceivable area of interest -- is synthesized in a report the federal Justice department released in 1993.

Please find enclosed some of the recommendations pertinent to that committee on community action and crime prevention so that you could start some discussion there. I didn't want to take up your whole time with that, but a few of the relevant parts I've photocopied for you. If you'd like the whole document, it is available from the Department of Justice. Thank you very much.

Mr Chiarelli: Thank you, Mrs de Villiers, first of all, for your leadership on the issue generally and with CAVEAT and for the work you're doing in the community on these issues. I think it is making a difference.

My first question to you is not too specific, but it's to try to get from you, understanding the work you've been doing in the community, what you feel the public mood is on these issues. Is there a sense of frustration and cynicism because there seems to be a consensus in the public and governments just aren't responding specifically? What do you sense is out there with the public on these issues you're addressing in your paper?

Mrs de Villiers: I think the reason CAVEAT started was exactly because there was an enormous frustration and a feeling generally expressed right across this country to us, when my daughter was murdered -- not only did we receive cards and phone calls and so on, many thousands, expressing concern and great care and in fact sending us incredible gifts to assist us to get through that time -- but the consistent theme throughout was: "We are so frightened. What can we do? Can't you help us?" I thought that was a most inappropriate time for people to ask me to help them, because it really started right when Nina hadn't even been found.

1720

But what was borne on me -- in fact, I said it one day very irritatedly: "Don't tell me, tell your government." Suddenly I realized that generally people did not feel they could tell their government. That is the bottom line. That petition CAVEAT started was really that, a vehicle for ordinary citizens to speak to the federal government. It was never meant to run for more than five weeks; it was meant to be a small gesture.

Since then, as I travel across the country, I'm deeply concerned at the level of anger. It's reaching proportions which I think are quite dangerous. I personally have an absolute terror of vigilante behaviour because I come from South Africa. I've seen what happens in riots. I've experienced it. In fact, there was open vigilantism in Burlington when my daughter was missing. Over 1,000 people came to a meeting where the police chief had to say to them in very clear terms, "We will not tolerate this sort of mood." We were desperately afraid, my family and I, that somebody, just because they looked odd, would in fact be torn limb from limb. I'm hearing this message across the country.

From the point of view of guns, the Alberta Mother's Day rally that I attended in Edmonton, which was a radio link between Edmonton and Calgary, was the biggest rally ever held in either city in the history of Alberta, I believe. The level of anger there was enormous at the Young Offenders Act. I could go on. There are any number of these.

I suggest that the whole question of guns is polarizing this society. I understand that it can be perceived by the legitimate gun owners and people who belong to gun clubs and take every precaution that they are bearing the brunt yet again, and I sympathize with that.

Mr Chiarelli: I think most elected officials at all levels of government, in all parties, have come to an appreciation of the anger and the frustration of the public and are looking for ways to act.

It's obvious from your paper that you have an understanding of the divided jurisdiction between federal and provincial governments in this area. It's with our more limited jurisdiction in mind that we introduced Bill 151, which was the bill to control the purchase and sale of ammunition. We've heard that it's probably constitutional for us to pass that type of bill, perhaps with a couple of changes to it. We also heard from officials of the Solicitor General that they would prefer the federal government to get involved, for a number of reasons, and to let the provincial government step aside from getting involved in this issue.

We also heard Scott Newark today, from the Canadian Police Association. I wrote down a quote of his: "Ontario should pass this bill and be a model for the federal government and other provinces. Ontario should take a leadership role."

Do you think we should get on with Bill 151 and pass it or do you think we should just recommend, separate from that, for the federal government to take some action in this area?

Mrs de Villiers: I would urge you to take the leadership here. I have been extremely frustrated from the day my daughter disappeared. Where I learned this whole thing first hand was that I was told by the then Attorney General of this Legislature, "We don't make the laws, we just enforce them." I contacted the Justice department and they said, "We don't enforce the laws, we just make them." That, quite frankly, I find untenable.

I would only hope that each level of government would take responsibility for what it can do and then push really hard -- Ontario has a huge population and a big voice -- and assist us as we pound on the gates and say, "We have to do something." I urge you please to take the leadership role, and then at least we can go with one positive. Whereas if each person stands back politely and says, "Not me; it's you first," we're going to be here in five years' time. I can absolutely guarantee it.

Mr Chiarelli: You mean take a leadership role by passing this type of legislation?

Mrs de Villiers: And show that you are prepared to stand up for this, and then one can take that further.

Mr Harnick: I have some trouble with this debate, because I think we spend an awful lot of time focusing on the wrong things. When I listened to the presentation before yours and your presentation, there's a balanced reality in everything that's said. If we focus on this debate and try and find the perfect way to regulate guns and ammunition, I think we're missing the whole point about the real danger that continues to go on day after day, that our borders are unprotected, that thousands of guns and rounds of ammunition are coming across the border daily and nobody's doing anything about it.

We can sit here and pass an act that really is going to be under the rubric of the Provincial Offences Act, but it seems to me that the really important issue here is that if you want to control guns, particularly guns that are coming in illegally because those are in all likelihood the guns that are going to be used in committing crimes, why are we sitting here as a province, with border crossings in Cornwall and Niagara Falls and other locations, doing nothing about it?

Mrs de Villiers: I'll tell you, I have been beating my head against the Ottawa ramparts for the longest time, and this year I found myself having to go to a Senate committee on banking, trade and commerce. They looked as surprised to see me as I was to be there. The reason is that customs is now under their aegis. I said to the senators: "It's ridiculous that I should be speaking to you. I don't know where else to go."

Quite frankly, I've been everywhere, and I don't get replies to my letters. It is a very critical situation. It's borne out by the Ekos study, a government-commissioned study that was buried and then somehow surfaced and we were given it. It's extremely serious. You can ask the people in the field and you can look at independent studies. This is a huge problem.

The reason I think it's important to do something in the province is that we need to give a clear message, even if it's "only" -- and this is a big only -- to the youth of our province, that this is a very serious matter, that carrying ammunition to school to show off to the kids is not acceptable. It's to try and develop a standard in the province. I personally see it as that. Also, every now and again, possibly one could make a point about the responsibilities that are accrued by owning a weapon and by using it.

But in the long run, you're absolutely right. That's why I focus so much on that. If we don't get the support in our border control, we will not manage it. It's very, very serious.

Mr Harnick: I've looked at your jury summary notes and I've also looked at the standing Senate committee note.

Mrs de Villiers: Please feel free to see the full report.

Mr Harnick: It just seems to me that if this committee is going to do anything to significantly affect gun control in this province, it's not more regulation and telling more law-abiding citizens, "We're going to put more red tape in the way of you doing something that's not harmful to anybody," but it's really to get at the major source of where this problem is emanating from.

It seems to me that we as a provincial Legislature obviously can't enact laws that aren't within our jurisdiction, but we can sure start to use some of the methods we have to say to the federal government -- after all, we do have an Attorney General in this province; she obviously speaks to the Minister of Justice -- that this is just not acceptable.

Mrs de Villiers: I wish she would.

Mr Harnick: I can't conceive that after all the material you've produced, no one is doing anything.

Mrs de Villiers: Well, I've provided them.

Mr Harnick: I will tell you that every witness who has come here has recognized that the problem isn't really gun control or ammunition control. The problem is what's going on at our borders, because that's the source of most of the illegal weaponry, and nobody's doing anything about it.

Mrs de Villiers: I would agree, except in one issue. I do think it's absolutely unacceptable that a young person can walk in and buy ammunition. I feel we have to have some control on the sale of it.

Mr Harnick: No, I don't disagree with that at all.

1730

Mr Mills: Thank you, Mrs de Villiers, for coming here this afternoon. I want to take you to the first page of your presentation, under paragraph 3, and you say: "All sales of gunpowder should be prohibited. We see no reason for private citizens to have access to such a potentially lethal substance for any purpose, especially for making ammunition."

Canada recognizes skeet shooting as an Olympic sport. In my riding of Durham East there a are number of skeet shooting clubs. Through my association with the members of that club, I know they have the mechanism and the materials to make their own shots. This makes their participation in skeet shooting economically possible, because they buy the packages, they buy all these things, they've got a machine and they make them. Without being able to make that ammunition, I doubt very much if they would be able to engage in that sport. With all due respect, do you not see that recommendation as being somewhat draconian vis-à-vis the people who use this sport as a hobby and make their own ammunition?

Mrs de Villiers: You're absolutely right. I'm sorry, I didn't phrase it well. What I meant was in a domestic situation -- you know, at home. My father shot skeet for many years so I'm very familiar with it, and I grew up with guns, so this isn't a mystery to me. I have been appalled, however, at being shown huge tins of gunpowder in private homes. Certainly, within a registered club, in a controlled surrounding where there's proper control of the substance and where it can be locked away, I personally would have no objection to that.

However, I think there's a grave danger of it being in private homes and in private hands: (1) children experiment with it, (2) things like pipe bombs etc, and (3) I don't think it needs to be out in the public domain. Certainly, within that sort of setting, I quite agree with you. So read there "domestic," if you don't mind, "in a domestic site." In a controlled situation, I have no objection.

Mr Winninger: Just a brief clarification. On the next page you describe how an owner of a firearm could be made responsible and liable if there were a crime or an accident or a fatality committed with the weapon, in addition to the perpetrator. I think I know this model because it's the same one that applies to motor vehicles. There's always a caveat, if I can use that term, that it has to be with the owner's consent. I just wondered whether that was what you were contemplating here. If someone steals my firearm, should I still be held liable and responsible, or would the consent defence prevail?

Mrs de Villiers: You're absolutely right. If you properly secure and protect your firearm and it is stolen in spite of that, obviously you cannot help it. I was thinking totally of motor vehicles because I was trying to show that there is a precedent in our society, that I, as a law-abiding motorist, am continually hemmed in by all sorts of rules that shouldn't apply to me, I don't think.

The caveat here is that, obviously, if you fail to look after your gun and it's stolen, then I would suggest you're liable, if it's not properly secured. But really I was thinking of if you lend a gun to somebody. It's that whole idea of the private transfer. You don't need a policeman watching every hunter in the field. However, if you as the owner of one type of weapon lend it to another person and there is a fatality, I suggest there should be some sort of onus. Obviously, this would be taken under advisement by the court as well. No, certainly if it's stolen there's nothing you can do.

The Chair: Mrs de Villiers, we ran out of time. We thank you for appearing before this committee and we commend you for your ongoing community activism.

Mrs de Villiers: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Before the committee adjourns, we need to talk about report-writing.

Mr Chiarelli: I volunteer.

The Chair: We'll take suggestions from the members about how to proceed.

Mr Harnick: I think we should get a summary of all the evidence and spend some time reviewing it by way of what our priorities for recommendations are.

The Chair: Could we have that by Friday?

Mr Harnick: I move we have it on Monday.

Mr Andrew McNaught: For the meeting Monday. I don't know if it's going to be here on Friday.

Mr Chiarelli: I don't think we're mandated to restrict any suggestions or recommendations for action to what we've heard from people who have made submissions. We referred to it before when we were looking at organizing the committee, that indeed we're mandated to come up with a report to the Legislature for action within the mandate of the resolution.

I agree with the suggestion that we should have a summary of the submissions, perhaps a summary of specific recommendations coming out and assigning them to the presenters, but I think we should also be prepared to come to the report-writing stage with our own agendas, so to speak, to share with each other. I'm thinking in terms of your particular papers that you put out, our paper that we've put out, which is suggested is a complete plagiarism. But if that's the case, maybe we can come to some consensus on this side about what should be in it, and certainly from the point of view of the Solicitor General and the Attorney General's perspective, I'd like to see the government come to the table with specific recommendations and not just: "See what we're doing? Isn't it great?" I'd like to see next steps which can be taken from the government's perspective as well.

I'd like to see us throw it all into the hopper for a day and then perhaps come up with some consensus for action. We still have to decide how or if we're going to deal with Bill 151. As we can see, there's some mixed reaction to it, but certainly some significant support as well, and we may want to decide what we want to recommend to the Legislature with respect to Bill 151.

Mr Harnick: I agree.

Mr Winninger: I haven't had a lot of time to devote to this, but it would seem to me that the first step is to get the summary and to review it, as Mr Harnick said, and then to govern ourselves accordingly. There will have to be some discussion here at the committee, and that can't take place until we get the summary.

The Chair: I would urge Mr McNaught to finish the summary as quickly as possible, hopefully for Friday, to give time to the members to review that. We would then move to the next step, which is what Mr Chiarelli was suggesting, which is that with that summary, we would be prepared, based on our own thinking, to come to the committee on Monday and decide how to deal with that. That would be very useful in terms of the preparation for the Monday meeting, so we don't begin fresh on Monday as opposed to other pre-thought that should go into that, including inviting, as we said in item 6, the different ministers to attend and participate in the report-writing stage of the committee's considerations.

So hopefully for Monday all of us will be prepared to make an active contribution to the writing of the report.

Thanks very much. We adjourn until Monday at 3:30.

The committee adjourned at 1739.