JUSTICE MINISTER ALAN ROCK'S BAD DAY

By David A. Tomlinson

On 22 Sep 94, Alan Rock addressed 10,000 angry firearms owners
who had rallied on Parliament Hill.  His speech did not go over
well.

His audience was, perhaps, not one he would have chosen.  Its
members were angry and hostile before he began, and made their
disagreement with his ideas quite clear throughout--often by
booing and heckling him for his gun control plans.

That evening, he was interviewed on TV by the CBC's Pamela
Wallin.  I'm afraid he didn't do very well there, either.  As one
lady who was watching it with me remarked, "It's rather like
watching a battle between a terrier and a rat, isn't it?"

IN what follows, PW is Pamela Warren and AR is Alan Rock.

PW: The gun owners have been saying to you, Mr. Rock, that
they have been living with restriction and regulation and in fact
social stigma in an increasing way; that now the time has come
for you to turn your attention to controlling crime, not guns. 
Do you agree?

AR: I agree that gun control is part of the agenda for dealing
with crime, in fact, along with the Young Offenders Act changes,
the comprehensive changes to sentencing... [and] the creation of a
National Crime Prevention Council.  We see gun control as one of
the ways to deal with crime in society.  And I want to make clear
that a lot of what we're gonna propose is not controversial at
all.  The gun enthusiasts support it very much.  Doing a better
job with respect to illegal firearms in the country,
strengthening the criminal justice response to those who use
firearms in the commission of offences, those will have broad
support.

Note how Mr. Rock deftly evaded the question that was asked.

PW: But just let me go back to the issue of gun control.  Do
we need more, in your view, or do we simply need stricter
enforcement of what we've got?

AR: Oh, no, I think we have to do a better and more effective
job with respect to illegal firearms getting in to Canada.  We're
putting together proposals to achieve that.  I so think that the
criminal justice system should have a sterner response to those
who use firearms in the commission of offences--

Note the evasion of the question asked.

PW: Like what? What have you got in mind on that one? If you use
a gun in the commission of a crime, what do you think should
happen to you?

AR: Well, at the moment there's a mandatory minimum of one year
consecutive to the time you're given for the underlying offence. 
But those cases often get plea bargained away.  In a study just
done at my request, we found that over 60 per cent are
discontinued by the prosecutor for one reason or another...

Actually, that is an considerable understatement.  On 20 Sep 94,
Reform MP Garry Breitkreuz told Parliament [Hansard, p 5906]:

"In 1991-92 the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics
completed a study of the sentencing of adult criminal[s]... in 6
provinces, using a data base of over 600,000 convictions.

"There were only... 52 convictions [under section 85 for
possessing or using a firearm during a crime] out of 12,287
convictions for violent crimes[:]... manslaughter, 73
convictions; robbery, 2,181 convictions; sexual assault with a
weapon, 94 convictions; assault with a weapon, 5,787 convictions;
careless use of a firearm, 2,130 convictions.  

"Section 85 is not being used... In 100 per cent of the 52
convictions for using a gun during the commission of a crime the
criminals received the minimum one-year sentence."

But Mr. Rock said, "over 60 per cent [of s. 85 charges] are
discontinued by the prosecution for one reason or another..."  
He was not lying.  In most cases, that charge was never laid, so
the percentage of discontinuation is relatively low.

PW: Let's just go through a couple of the other changes
quickly, if we could.  A registration requirement for all
firearms [including all rifles and shotguns]?

AR: Well, you know, we've moved now from borders and criminals to
the third element, which is the regulation of firearms in the
hands of so- so-, as we call them, legitimate or law-abiding
Canadians.  One of the points is... that 3800 firearms are lost
or stolen every year...

That "so- so-" is interesting.  Was he starting to say,
"so-called legitimate or law abiding Canadians?

PW: All right, but how does registering guns owned by
law-abiding Canadians help reduce crime and death?

AR: Police have been calling for registration of all firearms for
years, and one of the reasons they give is that registration of
all firearms, first, will create a sense of accountability on the
part of the firearms owner to comply with some of the safe
storage laws that are in effect, and second, will permit them to
trace back to the person who last took legal responsibility for
it--a firearm used either in an accident or a crime.  The police
have been asking for it for years.

It will cost $2 billion to register all rifles and shotguns.  Is
it a cost-effective burden on the police and way to spend tax
dollars?  No.  Our 60-year trial of handgun registration proved
that it could not reduce handgun crime or even track handguns
that are registered, let alone those that are not.  Or is he just
planning to charge everyone who has a firearm stolen?

PW: One of the raps against you, Mr. Rock, of course, is that
you're a city boy.  What do you know about guns?  That you had to
sign up for the government's gun course, because you'd never even
held one before.  Do you think we can have 2 sets of rules, one
for gun owners that live in the rural parts of this country and
one for city dwellers?

AR: My experience has been urban, and I'm not a firearms user. 
I've spent the last 3-1/2 months going across this country,
speaking to dozens and dozens of firearms groups, sport shooters,
hunters clubs.  I have immersed myself in their perspective on
the issue.  I spoke at the rally today, and met afterwards with
the leaders of the rally, the organizers.  I think I understand
the points that they make, and I accept many of them.  But... the
bottom line for this government is safety in the community, and I
don't think we're going to organize our legislation on the basis
of head counts.  We're gonna do it on the basis of what's best
for the community.  The Prime Minister asked me in May to put
together proposals to to achieve a safer society in terms of gun
control.  I share his commitment to it, and I'm putting together
proposals that I think are going to do that...

As the Auditor General pointed out, his office has not done
research on the effects of the laws we have, let alone what to
expect from new ones.  He apparently intends to experiment, using
Canada as if it were a laboratory rat, hoping for a good effect.
Using the same bureaucracy for advice in 1978, the laws changed a
downward trend in violent crime into an increase in violent crime
every year for the next 15 years.  Maybe they're smarter now?

PW: But the people in rural areas will also say to you, Mr.
Rock, that life is different.  If you choose to live in a city,
where there are illegal guns and crimes are committed, you choose
to live by a different set of rules.

AR: ...The approach we're taking is to... do a better job with
illegal firearms, second to strengthen the criminal justice
system, and third look at ways we can enhance public safety and
prevent crime by regulating the use of firearms in private
hands... Registration is on the list, but there are other
proposals as well, all of them designed working with the police
to make it a safer country.

Eliminating or even locking away all firearms in all homes may
make life marginally safer for the police--but what if it makes
life more dangerous for everyone homeowner, because the
government is guaranteeing the safety of every home invasion
criminal and that encourages him?  That is a known and real
effect--as Mr. Rock would know, if his office did realistic
research.

PW:  ...You have suggested... that you might be considering
some changes to the existing gun laws--all the rules, the
regulations, the bureaucracy--in order to buy yourself some room,
some favor from gun owners--to tighten up other kinds of rules
and regulations in this country.  Is that what you're looking
for?

AR: I'm confident... that when we have the proposals developed...
which deal with the whole of the issue, we're gonna have support
in caucus, we're gonna have a government committed to these
changes.

Just WHAT changes is he talking about?  He never says.

PW: ...Would you be prepared to make some changes in existing
gun laws--in C-17--to buy yourself some room on the other end? 
In fighting crime?

AR: I have asked the department to look at all of C-17, and
determine, now that it has been on the books for this period of
time, whether there's anything there which constitutes a nuisance
to the firearms community and doesn't have an offsetting
advantage in terms of community safety.  If there are such
things, then we will change them.  I don't regard that as a quid
pro quo, or a purchase of support.  I regard it as common sense. 
We want laws that work.  We want laws that are fair.  And that's
what this is about.

Now that's interesting.  If you have any comments about parts of
the "existing law" which are a "nuisance" to you, and don't have
a genuine good effect "in terms of community safety," please
write to him [no stamp required] and tell him about it, at:

Hon. Alan Rock, House of Commons, OTTAWA ON K1A 0A6

With a copy to:  Jack Ramsay, MP, at the same address.

Mr. Ramsay is the Reform MP dealing with gun control, and your
letters will help him ask questions of Mr. Rock in the House.
Perhaps Mr. Rock's answers will be more responsive than those he
gave Pamela Wallin; he deftly evaded virtually all her questions.