[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, February 3, 1997

.1533

[English]

The Chairman: Order, please. We are pleased to resume our hearings on the proposed regulations under the Firearms Act. We have this afternoon as our witnesses, from the Semi-Automatic Firearms Collectors Association of Quebec Inc., Mr. Steve Torino, vice-president.

Mr. Torino, I believe you have an associate with you. Would you introduce him, please.

Mr. Steve Torino (Vice-President, Association of Semi-Automatic Firearms Collectors of Quebec Inc.): My associates today are Jean-Claude Caron, director, and George Panagiotidis, co-vice-president.

The Chairman: Also, by video-teleconferencing from Toronto, we have Mr. William Bateman, director of the Ontario Arms Collectors' Association. Welcome, Mr. Bateman.

Mr. William Bateman (Director, Ontario Arms Collectors' Association): Thank you,Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: It's a pleasure to have you gentlemen here this afternoon. We would like to have any statements you may wish to present to the committee. Then we hope you will be open to questions from the members of the subcommittee.

Mr. Torino, please begin.

Mr. Torino: Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we would like to thank you for inviting us to present our members' positions and concerns about the draft regulations and to answer any questions you may have for us.

.1535

The purpose of our presentation is to give this committee an update of our position on the regulations, specifically as to how they affect collectors and target-shooters.

As a preamble to our comments and suggestions, we believe the regulations should be presented to the firearms community and the general public in a simple and comprehensive manner, lending itself to ready comprehension by any reader. The regulations under Bill C-17 were complicated enough, but they were at least understandable to the average citizen. In other words, a person who wishes to become involved with firearms should be able to read up on the responsibilities attached to firearms ownership.

We therefore recommend the following points to be considered and put into force before or at the time of the adoption of the new regulations to facilitate understanding and compliance by the firearms community and the general public: one, that the present method of continuous referrals to sections of the Firearms Act and other sections of the regulations be supplemented by a short title explanation, stating in summary form the meaning of these numbers; two, that any guide to the regulations or similar information package give specific references to the section numbers of the regulations to minimize any misunderstanding as to the meaning of a specific regulation by a firearms owner or other person who is unfamiliar with the method of reading legal text; three, that each known firearms owner, all known firearms associations, organizations, dealers, gun clubs, and others be sent a copy of the regulations along with a detailed summary thereof; and four, that all printed media should be asked to publish the regulations themselves, along with the summary, through advertisements taken out, and so on.

One of the major problems with understanding the provisions of Bill C-17 was a great lack of detailed publicity concerning its contents at the time. It can truly be said that by 1996 the average firearms owner was only then beginning to understand some of the provisions of Bill C-17, some four years after the fact. Safe storage transportation regulations are still being debated, for example, by firearms owners as to exactly what is required.

The same can be said for the provisions of Bill C-68, which were not truly publicized in any great detail. Properly presented information is the most important factor in ensuring compliance. It cannot be allowed to happen that Canadians cannot find out what their responsibilities are, related to firearms. It must be stated again that any law or regulation that cannot be understood by the average person will most likely be disregarded out of frustration, which leads to probable non-compliance with any other related laws, simply because if a person cannot clearly understand a particular section, that person tends to disregard that and any other related sections. For the benefit of all, these situations should not be acceptable to anyone.

At this point we'd like to comment on some specific areas of the proposed regulations.

In the firearms licences regulations, part I, ``Individuals'', the first area that was brought to our attention by many of our members is the temporary licences for non-residents. The conditions for issuing a licence and the related fees for non-residents who would come to Canada to attend firearms exhibitions or shooting competitions will result in fewer non-residents coming to Canada. Much of the participation at these affairs is from U.S. residents, who would apparently have to obtain a 60-day licence at a fee of $50 for each 60-day continuous period. Apparently there is an exemption under section 14 of the firearms fees regulations for one renewal.

Firearms exhibitions and tournaments take place continually throughout the year, and U.S. residents come to participate on a regular basis in any given year. This represents somewhere between 20% and 50% of paid attendance at these events. It's a considerable portion of the revenue generated by these events, the loss of which will further reduce the already declining amount of funds pumped into the Canadian economy by these visitors. We have been pointedly informed by many of our present non-resident members and participants that they will cut down or completely eliminate the number of visits to Canada when these fees become law due to the prohibitively high cost of merely helping to support the Canadian firearms community. Consequently, the money spent for travelling to and staying in Canada will also be lost to the suffering Canadian economy, as well as to the firearms community.

It must be stated that the duration of any such event rarely exceeds a few days, so the non-resident will normally never spend more than 50 or 60 days, because that basically exceeds the number of days available each weekend.

.1540

We are suggesting that the committee consider changing the word ``continuous'' in the act or regulations to a cumulative or total period not exceeding -

If a person comes to Canada five or six times throughout the year to attend a competition or event, he's rarely going to exceed 15 or 20 days, or whatever it happens to be, and to ask him to renew three or four times over a period of a year...you're looking at a fee of $200, or whatever the area happens to be. Alternatively, we would recommend a maximum fee for one year to cover these situations.

On the mandatory notification of spouse or partner, we're very aware that events in the past, especially in 1996, have been a major factor for the inclusion of regulations to inform spouses and partners. Our members have voiced two concerns.

Care should be taken to avoid the situation where a spouse or partner is forced into not giving a negative opinion by the fact that the applicant, knowing the spouse will automatically be informed, could and would cause bodily harm to obtain approval. It is the mandatory notification part that could cause problems. Other than that word ``mandatory,'' the members don't seem to have any problem with that. They think it's a very good idea.

The second situation where it is believed care should be taken is where a spouse does not want firearms in the couple's residence and would give a negative opinion in order to keep the applicant from acquiring a licence. We would recommend that the wording of section 41 be changed, allowing the chief firearms office to decide if notification is required, based on any information or facts known or determined during the investigation for the issuing of the firearms licence.

On continuous ownership referral, we have been informed by our members that such a restriction would preclude a person from disposing of at least one firearm, whether or not that person wanted to do so for whatever reason, such as temporarily leaving the country. Reacquiring these firearms after disposal of the last owned firearm would be impossible. That person would have to apply for a possession acquisition licence at a cost of $60, versus $10 to reacquire the very same firearms. Getting around this would require storage of the firearms with a friend, dealer, or the local police, all of whom may or may not wish to be responsible for these items when the owner is not around. The point must be made that proving continuous ownership of a non-restricted firearm that was never registered would be almost impossible for a registrar.

Insofar as restricted firearms are concerned, any break in continuous ownership would apparently forever prevent a person from continuing to possess only such firearms again. Cost and the requirements of section 7 of the Firearms Act would become an important consideration. We would recommend that the continuous ownership rule be amended to provide for these situations.

As to revocation, the chief firearms officer ``shall consider revoking'' a firearms licence by becoming aware that the individual has been involved in an act of domestic violence. The problem seems to be with the words ``involved in an act of domestic violence''. We believe these words must be further defined to include at least police reports, or something, whatever might be received that would be an actual fact, versus ``has been involved''.

We are very aware that protection from domestic violence is of paramount importance for public safety. We must also point out that broad, ill-defined Draconian laws and powers are usually counterproductive and lead to misinterpretation. We would therefore recommend that the above word, ``involved,'' should be changed to ``convicted'' or something similar, unless there is a clear definition of the phrase ``has been involved'' in the firearms regulations.

On part II, ``Businesses - Conditions'', since many of our members are involved in their own firearms businesses, we have been asked to address the conditions a chief firearms officer shall attach to each licence under section 23 of these regulations, specifically the types of goods to be inventoried at the location of the business.

Section 23, requiring the inventorying of all components or parts that are designed exclusively for automatic firearms, we believe, should be changed to include only component parts that are integral in the automatic firing mechanism, such as auto hammers, auto sears, and so on. These make the firearm an automatic, as distinguished from all other types.

Items such as furniture - stocks, fore-ends, butt plates, and so on - and retaining pins are identical to those found on other firearms, and specific items such as retaining pins, springs, and so on, can be found in just about any hardware store. To have them excluded, in our opinion, would be a large problem for the average dealer.

.1545

We would recommend that the words ``components or parts'' be defined or specified to include only those parts that are directly in or an integral part of the firing mechanism on storage display, transportation, and handling of firearms by individuals.

On storage, since the requirements of these regulations are very much like those of Bill C-17, which most persons are just now becoming aware of and are used to, we believe there should not be any changes to these provisions of safe storage. People are beginning to understand what is involved with this and their responsibilities in this area, and to make any major changes now would be counterproductive. The regulations for storage, as tabled, in the opinion of this association are perfectly all right and people are just getting used to them.

Section 7 requires that the bolt or bolt carrier of an automatic firearm be stored in a separate, specially constructed room from where the firearm is displayed. This is too repressive a requirement since many collectors may not be able to remove such parts. Also, many such firearms do not lend themselves to such removal, assuming these items exist on some of them.

Considering that there were only about 4,300 fully automatic firearms registered at the end of 1995, we begin to question the purpose of this provision. We would recommend that the requirements to remove the bolt carrier itself be taken out of the display regulations.

On transportation, we are asking that the committee consider the same suggestion that this requirement be removed.

On transportation by businesses, sections 9 and 10 of these regulations specifically require a container to be of a certain strength so it cannot be readily broken open. This imposes an unnecessary and expensive requirement on all wholesalers and retailers that would certainly be very difficult to comply with by Canadian businesses since there are almost no Canadian manufacturers of firearms.

Almost all containers for new firearms are manufactured in exporting countries such as the United States, Germany, etc. These containers are sturdy cardboard boxes to keep costs reasonable, except for the most expensive presentation or target-grade firearms, which have hard injection-moulded plastic cases or better. The cardboard boxes are sufficiently strong for the dangers of transportation.

We believe that theft cannot be deterred by a stronger case. Only additional security by the transport company can save a shipment. Forcing Canadian firearms vendors to transport such firearms individually in opaque containers of the strength of an injection-moulded case would cost more and result in basically no increase in the safety factor for Canadians, since the container could really be stolen and opened with a crowbar at someone's convenience.

We would recommend that this requirement for individual transport in strong containers be removed as per the recommendation - from our understanding - that has been made by other groups.

On the issue of authorization to transport restricted or prohibited firearms, the ``shall revoke'' power to revoke a transport permit if the CFO becomes aware that an individual's physical or mental state has deteriorated so much that it may affect the safety of the individual or other persons leaves a very large amount of room for interpretation by any registrar, and it may also differ from person to person. This would include everyone who is injured and therefore confined for convalescence, persons in for operations who have little mobility, etc., and any handicapped person whose only possible recreational activity is the use of firearms for collection or target-shooting. It seems obvious to our members that a person so affected could not pose a threat to society since that person's recovery from this medical condition would be of paramount importance.

In addition, if a person poses a real threat to society, that person's registration certificates or firearms licences could be revoked under other sections of the act, thereby removing the firearm from a potentially harmful person. We would recommend that at the very least the words ``become aware'' should be changed to ``receives proof that the individual has become a safety risk to society'', or something along those general lines.

On authorizations to carry restricted firearms, revocation, we realize there are very few carry permits issued in Canada for protection of life, but we believe that revoking such a permit under the conditions stated above under authorizations to transport fully apply here. We would again recommend that at the very least the words ``become aware'' should be changed to ``receives proof'' or some similar words.

.1550

Section 3, conditions before transfer, requires determination by the CFO if the transfer of a firearm would not be contrary to the safety of any person. We believe this is covered in other sections of the regulations - as an example, section 5 of the Firearms Act.

Again, this is such a broad power with absolutely no defining parameters that it implies possible use to block any transfers of firearms. We would recommend the words ``must determine'' be changed to something else, and exactly what is meant by the safety of the persons should be defined. Effectively, we would recommend that this section be removed.

On firearms fees regulations, it must be stressed that excessive fees will not encourage compliance, but rather the opposite.

We cannot locate in the regulations where it is stated, for example, that the $80 fee for possession and acquisition licences for restricted or prohibited firearms includes all categories equal to or below these highest categories of investigation.

While we have been assured by the Department of Justice and others that the highest fees include all of the categories, even though unstated, we believe this fact should be specified in the fee schedules and the regulations. Our comments also apply to business fee schedules, where the highest fee, as in the past, includes all categories.

We strongly recommend, for clarity's sake, that the fee schedules include specific notes for each category, stating exactly what is included in that category.

We have also been asked to address the $25 fee for each newly acquired or transferred firearm. It is excessive, especially in the cases where several firearms are purchased or transferred. The investigation costs will be the same for the individuals involved in the transactions, and the computerized systems of transfer will not cost that much more, whether it is one firearm or ten firearms.

Where a person wishes to dispose of an entire collection, the purchaser must pay $25 times the number of firearms acquired. If the average cost is $100, or whatever the fee happens to be, and 30 firearms are acquired, which is not at all unusual these days with massive transfers occurring, a $750 fee must be paid for this schedule, plus the costs of verifying the items by an intermediary such as a gunsmith. As a result, the transaction would probably not take place. The danger is that if the vendor wanted to absolutely dispose of these items, the excessive tax would and could cancel the transaction. The person would therefore be stuck with unwanted firearms. This is a very dangerous situation that could result in underground sales of firearms not registered during the initial phase-in period.

We would therefore recommend a sliding scale for transactions involving more than one firearm. The level we envisage would revolve around the present cost of registering a restricted firearm, or about $100 as a maximum.

In conclusion, we have attempted to bring to the attention of the members of this committee what are believed to be issues of major concern to our members. The items covered are not all-inclusive. We believe other witnesses involved in specific areas will have covered all of the remaining ones.

On the final page, we have listed the summary of points and recommendations that I have already gone through.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, sir.

We'll now go to Mr. Bateman in Toronto.

Mr. Bateman.

Mr. Bateman: Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I would like to thank you on behalf of the Ontario Arms Collectors' Association for the opportunity to present comments with respect to the draft regulations.

I apologize for the fact that the brief submitted on behalf of the association was only available for transmission to the clerk of the subcommittee by telecopier this morning. The association must rely on its volunteer members for assistance and the notice for preparation of material for the hearing was relatively short.

My remarks this afternoon will be based upon the contents of the submission made on behalf of the association. Since time is limited, the association has focused upon certain narrow, specific points, which it believes should be and can be the subject of amendment of the draft regulations.

Members of the association continue to feel strongly that the regime imposed under the Firearms Act and the regulations is both unnecessary and unduly restrictive and costly. However, this is not the forum to carry forward with that dialogue.

I would now deal with the specific aspects of the regulations, which the association considers to be particularly worthy of change. I'd like to begin by turning to the proposed regulations relating to storage, display, transportation, and handling of firearms, and specifically to subsection 2(3), which provides certain exemptions to the storage and handling regulations. It is submitted that careful consideration should be given to extending the scope of the exemptions.

.1555

I assume that a number of persons who have appeared before this subcommittee have voiced similar concerns. I would like to mention just two for the committee's consideration.

Paragraph 2(3)(d) refers specifically to an exemption relating to historical re-enactments. It is submitted that this is a significantly narrow exemption and should be expanded to take into account demonstrations, pageants or parades.

The extremely restricted definition of antique firearms will mean that a great many firearms previously included in that class will now not be. It is therefore suggested that the words ``parades, demonstrations or pageants'' be added to the language of paragraph 2(3)(d).

In addition, no provision appears to be made in the regulations for the use of firearms in the entertainment industry. No exemption is provided for the handling of firearms in that specific circumstance. It is therefore suggested that a further exemption be inserted relating to use in connection with participation in an organized stage, television or motion picture production.

I would now like to turn to subsection 7(1) of the proposed regulation related to display of restricted and prohibited firearms. Paragraph 7(3)(b) of that regulation recognizes that a firearm may be rendered inoperable by removal of the bolt or bolt carrier. It is submitted that it would be appropriate to provide for a similar alternative in the case of the display of a restricted firearm or a prohibited firearm, and that the language of paragraphs 7(1)(a) and 7(3)(a) be amended accordingly.

It is difficult to understand the reasoning behind paragraph 7(1)(b), which requires that a restricted or prohibited firearm be attached to a non-portable structure within a dwelling house when such a firearm has already been inoperable. It is suggested that such represents excessive regulation in the context of a dwelling house.

Collectors are particularly interested in display of the items in their collection, either in their dwelling or at other venues. In many cases, collectors have acquired portable display cases, which typically would be a wooden structure approximately three to four feet square, eight to ten inches deep, with a hinged lid incorporating a sheet of glass or plexiglas. The lid is locked, and viewers may examine the contents through the glass lid.

It is suggested that it would be appropriate to provide for a circumstance in which firearms might be displayed in a locked case such as the one described. It is submitted that language based on that contained in paragraph 7(2)(c), relating to the display of ammunition, would be appropriate in that a restricted firearm or a prohibited firearm might be displayed in a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into.

Subsection 7(4) provides that a restricted or prohibited firearm may be handled by a person under the direct and immediate supervision of the individual displaying it outside a dwelling house. For some reason, such an exemption is not provided for in subsection 7(1), relating to display in a dwelling house. It is submitted that it would be appropriate to modify the language in subsection 7(4) to provide for that circumstance.

In addition, if the suggestion relating to use of a display case is adopted, it would be appropriate to include wording in subsection 7(4) that made it clear that the firearm in question could be detached from the structure or removed from the display case while under the supervision of the person displaying it.

I'll now turn to the provisions relating to transport of replica firearms in section 11. It is clear that the government's philosophy is one that is attempting to make the use and possession of firearms more difficult. It is a consequence of that position that persons with an interest in firearms generally will turn to replicas of one type or another in order to satisfy their curiosity from a historical perspective.

A replica firearm is essentially defined as any device designed or intended to exactly resemble a firearm. A plastic model kit or any other representation would fall within this category.

.1600

The definition of ``replica firearm'' appears because of the language of subsection 85(2) of the Criminal Code, which provides that it is an offence to use an imitation firearm in the commission of an indictable offence. A replica firearm is included in the definition of ``imitation firearm''.

I would draw the committee's attention to the impact statement produced in connection with the regulations, and specifically to that portion dealing with the anticipated impact of the replica transportation requirements. The impact statement does not appear to take into account that a regulation such as section 11 affects all Canadians, whether firearms owners or not. It is one thing to regulate those Canadians who are firearms owners but quite another to regulate all Canadians and to provide potential criminal sanctions for an individual who merely transports a replica.

It is submitted that section 11 of the transportation regulations represents regulation gone wild. We would invite any member of the committee to consider how they would explain to a constituent that such an individual might be exposed to criminal sanctions for the transport of a model. It is submitted that no useful social purpose can be filled by section 11 and that such section, together with section 14, which constitutes improper transport of a replica firearm as an offence, be deleted.

Finally, I would like to turn to the firearms fees regulations, and specifically the third part of section 10, which deals with fees payable on registration. The significantly narrow definition of ``antique firearm'' and the consequent widening of the definition of a restricted and prohibited firearm have created a circumstance in which collectors may find that items contained in their collections and previously not subject to registration require registration as restricted or prohibited firearms. Under the act and the regulations it is recognized that a considerable period will be required to provide individuals with an opportunity to become aware of the new requirements and to act in compliance. It is submitted that there may well be a sizeable number of collectors who find themselves in the position of needing to register a number of restricted or prohibited firearms that did not previously require registration and that in fact may have been specifically de-registered under previous legislation.

It is therefore submitted that it would be appropriate for the language of section 10 to be revised to reflect that in the event of an application for registration of multiple restricted and/or prohibited firearms the registration fee would be the same regardless of how many firearms were the subject of that registration. This is directly analogous to the provision currently contained in subsection 10(3) and would require the addition of a subsection (4), which would provide for multiple registrations.

The foregoing have been certain specific recommendations based on a review of the proposed regulations. The members of the Ontario Arms Collectors' Association and I believe collectors and firearms owners generally continue to consider that the legislation is unnecessary and unduly restrictive. That being said, I would ask the committee to take into account the remarks made by myself and more specifically outlined in the brief forwarded early today and also the remarks of all other firearms owners and users who may appear before the subcommittee.

Thank you for your attention.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Bateman.

Gentlemen, we'll now go to questions. First I would like to go to Madam Venne.

[Translation]

Ms Venne (Saint-Hubert): First of all I'd like to put a question to Mr. Torino about the comments made by the Association of Semi-Automatic Firearms Collectors of Quebec, of which he is a member of the executive committee.

In your brief you deal with Part I of the Firearms Regulations dealing with individuals and you refer to section 10, relating to 60-day permits for non-residents. You seem to confuse, although it certainly is not deliberate, people attending an exhibition and those involved in target shooting.

.1605

For me it is obvious that section 10 certainly does not apply to a person visiting an exhibition. It clearly states that it applies to persons using firearms for the purposes set out in subsection 10 (4).

Throughout your comments you lumped together target shooters using a firearm, who do indeed require a permit, and people who are simply attending an exhibition. It's important for your members to make a distinction between these two categories. I'd like to hear your comments on this.

Under the regulation, a firearm may not be stored close to ammunition. In your opinion, what does this regulation mean? How do you interpret this part of the regulation? Throughout the regulation, whether referring to the storage of restricted firearms or others, it always specifies: ``Provided they are not close to ammunition''.

I'll ask you some other questions if I have the time.

[English]

Mr. Torino: Thank you, Madame Venne.

In answer to your first question, I am referring to non-resident persons who come to participate in firearms exhibitions and gun shows, individuals who are not people who will simply come to look around. We're talking about members of the Lower Canada Arms Collectors' Association, the association in Quebec City, and other associations who bring their firearms into Canada and put them on the table for display, etc. These people, according to information received from our legal counsel, are stuck with the same regulations as persons coming up for target-shooting competitions. If they bring their firearms, they are subject to the same rules.

[Translation]

Ms Venne: Mr. Torino, in that case you will have to change the terms that you use in your brief and make a distinction between ``attending'' and ``participating'', otherwise you will give rise to confusion. The terms are totally different and you should make clear that you are not talking about people who are simply going to visit an exhibition but those who will be taking part in it. I think it is important to make this distinction, otherwise you will be misleading people.

I'd now like to turn to my second question.

[English]

Mr. Torino: I'm sorry, Madame Venne, but would you be so kind as to repeat the second question?

[Translation]

Ms Venne: Under the draft regulation, a firearm may not be stored close to ammunition. How do you interpret this?

[English]

Mr. Torino: Thank you.

Insofar as our association is concerned, specifically after numerous discussions with the Sûreté du Québec and the CFO's Inspector Pierre Vincent, ``proximity'' implies that you do not put ammunition in the same locale right next to the individual firearm when it is not stored in a solid container. If you have locked, secure containers, one of them contains the firearms and one of them contains the ammunition. They're both very difficult to get into.

This is one idea that has been brought forth by the Sûreté and that would be acceptable. However, to have the firearm stored in a room and the ammunition six feet away from it is not considered to be safe storage. Frankly, our association doesn't have any major problem with that, because the purpose of the rules is to keep them separate. Is three feet or six feet separate? It is open to interpretation, but the broad definition is to make sure they are not easily accessible for whatever reason, either to someone breaking in or to someone who, mentally, has a problem and decides that he may like to do something with his life.

.1610

The idea of the regulations is to keep these items apart in order to give the person a chance to think. If he has to open a cabinet to get his firearm out, then open another cabinet in another room or the same room in order to remove the ammunition, and then load the firearm, this takes several minutes.

I believe this is our answer to your question.

[Translation]

Ms Venne: Don't you think it would be simpler to clarify the wording of the regulation or do you think that your interpretation is satisfactory?

[English]

Mr. Torino: The problem with regulations of any kind is a question of interpretation in any particular area. As you go across the country from one province to the other, interpretations change. As I mentioned before, the Sûreté du Québec accepts certain things based on logic and reason. If we begin to put too many things in the regulations, we believe they become much too cumbersome and, after a while, people simply don't understand. To our knowledge, we have had no major problems with safe storage across Canada since these regulations were put into effect after C-17. To make them any more complicated would result in people simply giving up on the whole story.

From what we hear from our members and from across Canada, at this point people are beginning to understand what is meant by ``safe storage'', what exactly is required, and the actual purpose of safe storage. It's not merely to ensure that your firearm is protected; it's to keep them away from young children, from visitors who come into the house and decide they might want to play with them. Specifically, and more importantly, item number one is to keep the firearm unloaded and the ammunition readily out of the reach of young children or any individual who might decide to wander around your house while you're having a party.

[Translation]

Ms Venne: That's all for now, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms Venne.

[English]

Before I go on to Mr. Ramsay, I was wondering if Mr. Bateman in Toronto had any comments on any of the points raised.

Mr. Bateman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would comment that I think the regulations are relatively clear that ammunition is not to be readily accessible. That may be subject to some interpretation, but I think it's a relatively clear phrase. As Mr. Torino has said, I think it's one that people have learned to deal with.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Bateman.

Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank our witnesses for appearing today to provide the committee with their testimony.

I would like to ask the representatives from both the Ontario Arms Collectors' Association and the Association of Semi-Automatic Firearms Collectors of Quebec what instances in the past, if any, have occurred within your organization that have threatened individual or public safety through the use of firearms. Perhaps we could start with the witnesses present.

Mr. George Panagiotidis (Co-Vice-President, Association of Semi-Automatic Firearms Collectors of Quebec Inc.): To date, basically none of our members or collectors in our association, our gun owners of many years, have reported any situations of that nature occurring. It's only in the hands in need of experience that these may occur.

Mr. Ramsay: To how long a period of time are you referring?

Mr. Panagiotidis: Our association has been present now for five years. We are members of the Lower Canada Arms Collectors' Association. I have been for fifteen years. I presume Mr. Torino is in about the same statutory time limit. I can basically, confidently say that we have not had any situations occurring whatsoever up till now.

As for the ones who are members of those associations, and for outside people who do come in for shows and expositions, I basically cannot give an answer. As I said, to the individual who is experienced with the use of firearms, with safe storage, etc., there have not been any accidents whatsoever. I can confidently state that.

.1615

Mr. Ramsay: So if the members of your organization don't pose a threat to public or personal safety as a result of the use, handling, transportation, and storage of firearms, then this bill is regulating your organization but no regulation seems to be needed. Is that right?

Mr. Panagiotidis: I would agree with that. It's for the individuals who have no knowledge, the ones who are basically coming into the game right now as collectors, shooters, hunters, etc., and also for the John Does of society who would acquire or have acquired firearms, either by inheritance or for their entertainment, in the sense of taking up a sport such as target-shooting or hunting. These regulations would be of benefit to them, but to the collectors.... For target-shooters these rules have always been in effect, and these are the regulations that naturally come to mind. In my case, I've never had anything out in the open. For display purposes, my collection was basically taken out for a certain period of time, shown, and back it went into a safe storage area, either a vault, a safety deposit box or a closet that has been fairly secured.

Mr. Ramsay: Then your organization is self-regulated. You have regulations within your organization with regard to safety. Is that right?

Mr. Panagiotidis: We do. We have very stringent regulations.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Bateman, would you care to comment in this particular area?

Mr. Bateman: Yes, Mr. Ramsay. I've been a member of the Ontario Arms Collectors' Association for 20 years and a director for seven. I'm not aware of any incidents where public safety has been threatened in that time period. The OACA, in fact, requires that every new member take a safety course, either one that has been given by a third party, such as the hunters' safety course, or one given by the Ontario Arms Collectors' Association itself, before an individual can become a full member. So our association has been regulating itself, I think successfully, for a great many years.

Mr. Ramsay: Then would the activity of the members of your association have provided any motivation for this bill or its regulations?

Mr. Bateman: I don't believe so. I believe the motivation has come about through difficulties experienced with individuals who are not members of recognized clubs or associations and who may not have the proper background and the proper experience in dealing with firearms of one sort or another.

Mr. Ramsay: Does your organization conduct a background check, similar to section 5 of the act, where there is a criminal record or a criminal background check made, a check on mental health and a neighbourhood background check made to determine whether or not the individuals who join your organization are responsible individuals?

Mr. Bateman: No, sir. Our organization, in its membership application, requires each applicant to state whether he has been convicted of a criminal offence or not and, depending on the answer to that question, the severity of the offence and the time that may have elapsed since it was committed, his application is given careful scrutiny.

My organization did, for many years, conduct credit checks on potential members as an ad hoc idea of being able to get an idea of their responsibility. Unfortunately, all of that checking mechanism is relatively expensive and is not something that an amateur association can readily carry out.

Mr. Ramsay: But in spite of that you have a good record in regard to public safety.

Mr. Bateman: Yes, sir.

Mr. Ramsay: Okay.

I would like to ask this question. We'll start with Mr. Torino. My concern has been that we're spending an awful lot of time, energy, and money in dealing with what is seen as a public safety matter, with the three million to six million gun owners. In 1994, the year we have statistics for, approximately 1,400 people died as a result of gunshot wounds. If we take the 1,400, can you tell me what percentage 1,400 is of six million, to give us an idea of the scope of the problem we're looking at?

.1620

Mr. Torino: The mathematical calculation is relatively simple. What I would like to know,Mr. Ramsay, is where you're going with this question.

Mr. Ramsay: I'm looking at the focus or the magnitude of the problem and the money we're spending. It's a matter of priority. If that percentage is 10% or 15% or 25% of gun owners who need to be regulated in this way, then we have a problem. If you have that figure, then my next question will go on from there. If you don't have it, that's fine.

I think it's somewhere around 0.067%. Although we would like to reduce that further, we would like to move that figure further away from the decimal point, it's a matter of priority. We're spending at least $85 million, maybe $100 million in this area, and certainly from your testimony and from the testimony of Mr. Bateman and others who have appeared before the committee the activity of the vast majority of gun owners is not motivating this legislation. In other words, it's a relatively safe group of people, responsible in the manner in which they use and handle firearms.

Let me ask you this question, then. What will be the impact on your organization if the bill and the regulations go through as presented?

Mr. Torino: The impact on our organization has already been felt. The problem is not with current members. The problem with any new regulations or any new laws of any sort is the new members we wish to attract. The purpose of the regulations is normally to provide a clearer definition of what you would find in the Criminal Code, or in this case the Firearms Act. We believe when laws are in place they should be clear enough for anyone to understand, especially the people who are coming in.

As for the money that has been spent, it has already been spent. I believe the money is aimed more towards new people entering the firearms community, people who are not involved at all, setting up some kind of safety standards or whatever we should call it. The money has already been spent. I don't know what we can do about that.

As far as we are concerned, the regulations should at least specify what the responsibilities are of each person, whether or not we have 0.06% or whatever it is. We would all like to see that percentage go down to zero, as we discussed the last time we spoke before this committee, but for the last thirty years the percentages have stayed around the same number. The government has spent the money, or is spending the money at this point. As far as we are concerned, we would like to see everything made clear so at least it is spent in a way such that the average Canadian citizen, whether he be a gun owner or not, would be able to understand clearly what the law requires of him.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Bateman, would you like to respond?

Mr. Bateman: The regulations will make it more difficult to be a collector in the sense that it will be more difficult to transfer a collection. The maintenance of a collection will be far more costly because of the regulations and the cost of licensing and also the increased storage requirements and transport requirements.

I think from the point of view of the association the major problem is that the regulations will work to make it more difficult for new blood to come into the collecting fraternity. Therefore the number of collectors will dwindle and the sport will lose a certain amount of momentum and impetus that way.

.1625

Our other major concern is that the regulations be as clear as possible and that information relating to them be as widely disseminated as possible, because I believe it is inevitable - not so much from my association because we make a real effort to keep our members abreast of the developments in a newsletter - that the regulations, being relatively complex, and in some cases not terribly clear, are going to catch perfectly innocent people in their net. These people may not be properly aware of the regulations or may inadvertently contravene the regulations, not for any improper purposes, but simply out of ignorance.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Ramsay.

Our next questioner is Ms Whelan.

Ms Whelan, I think Mr. McCormick wants to ask a couple of questions. Do you have time for that?

Ms Whelan (Essex - Windsor): I just have one quick question.

The Chairman: Okay, then, you can share your time.

Ms Whelan, please.

Ms Whelan: My question is directed to Mr. Bateman. I'm not sure if the others would like to reply to this as well.

With regard to the proposed fees, I'm assuming that your organization has had some discussion with the Department of Justice about the cumulative effects of the fees. Are you not satisfied with the fact that only one fee will be charged to collectors to register all of their firearms in their possession? Do you think it's necessary to put this right in the legislation?

Mr. Bateman: Ms Whelan, there is a paragraph now in the legislation that relates to an omnibus registration of non-restricted firearms. The point being made was about the widened definition of restricted and prohibited firearms. In effect, a great many firearms were taken out of the antique category and placed in those other two. I don't believe there is any specific provision in the regulations that would allow a collector who found himself with a significant number of firearms in that non-non-restricted category, if I can put it that way, to register all of them in one omnibus registration.

Ms Whelan: Have you had any discussions with the Department of Justice about this?

Mr. Bateman: No, not specifically on that point. It simply does not appear to be addressed in the regulations.

Ms Whelan: Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. McCormick.

Mr. McCormick (Hastings - Frontenac - Lennox and Addington): Thank you,Mr. Chairman.

And thank you to the witnesses for appearing today, both in Toronto and here.

Gentlemen, in regard to my honourable Reform Party colleague's carefully worded questions, I just have a comment. I certainly respect Mr. Ramsay's knowledge.

I want to say that I do recognize the expertise and knowledge and extreme safety measures practised by your organizations, organizations that I believe exist in almost every corner of this country and exist throughout the riding of eastern Ontario that I represent. It's a very rural riding with the most miles of road of any riding in all of Ontario.

These are very responsible people, as are you. I know that this whole bill and the regulations are going to be slight inconveniences, but I'm sure you're all agreeing that even if it is a slight inconvenience it will be worthwhile if we save just one person's life at some time in the future. I'm sure we all agree with that.

Now I want to pick up on what a representative from the Quebec group said.

I believe you told us that these regulations would be or could be of benefit to hunters and newcomers. Would you like to speak to that?

Then I have one other question.

Mr. Panagiotidis: Yes. I commented that they would be of benefit to newcomers in the sense that newcomers are not part of any associations or any founding groups that are in either the collecting or the hunting structure. Most of the clubs in existence in Canada do offer and require some sort of training before an individual is admitted into a hunting club, a collector's association or a target-shooting club. If these people do not meet these requirements, they are not allowed to be part of that organization. Groups and clubs of this nature certainly exceed these regulations that the government has put forth.

.1630

The regulations the government is trying to put forth right now at times become very ridiculous and redundant. It's almost a matter of nature to perform in such a fashion when reacting to firearms. I find there are quite a few restrictive measures that will inhibit these people from joining these clubs, joining these fraternities, joining these associations, because of the regulations, because of the requirements, because of the cost involved in all this matter.

I'm saying to the new members, yes, these are important, but again, the associations, the clubs, have requirements for these people to enter, and if they don't have these requirements, they will basically be instructed. So the regulations being brought forth are almost a second coming.

Mr. McCormick: I agree with a lot of what you're saying, and I commend you on being here, because that's where we start to eliminate some of the red tape and perhaps we can tidy up some of these regulations.

Keep in mind that not all Canadians will be living within driving distance of a club.

There is one other thing I would like to put on the record. I hope not too many clubs ask members to resign or kick members out because of their political beliefs or the way they voted.

My second question, and it is a serious question, is about the transportation of replica firearms. I want to see the re-enactments, and I want to see you be active. I've been at re-enactments from Texas to Carolina to Alberta to Niagara-on-the-Lake. You say we should not have any regulations - I don't want to put the wrong words in your mouth - for the requirements for replicas, but is there not a great danger that if some of these fine replicas fell into the wrong hands they could be used for the wrong purpose? That's why I wanted to give you an opportunity to speak to that.

Mr. Panagiotidis: What would an individual gain from using a replica to go into a convenience store and try to rob it? If the individual behind the counter has a possession certificate to have a firearm or has some other means, such as a guard dog.... Personally, if I were involved in a situation of that nature, I would not walk into a convenience store with a replica or a non-functioning firearm to try to rob that place. I would be seriously hurt, and I would have to be a fool or somewhat deranged to do that.

Mr. McCormick: I appreciate that you wouldn't, and very, very few Canadians would, thank heavens. I did run a convenience store, a country store and whatever type of shopping centre we had, a people place. It was open long hours, closed one day a year. It had a lot of employees. I certainly always said to each employee - I hope I did - if someone comes through that door with whatever type of weapon, whether it be a baseball bat or a knife or whatever, I would not want them to argue. I would think it would be human nature if somebody came in with a replica, anyone...if one person was foolish enough to go in with a replica, a long gun, I'm sure many clerks might panic, and people would get hurt.

I would like to ask for you to think it over, that we have to have some regulations for replicas.

The Chairman: Mr. Ramsay, you have one small question, I believe.

Mr. Ramsay: Yes, for Mr. Bateman.

Can you give the committee an estimate of what the impact will be on the value of gun collections as a result of the bill and these regulations?

Mr. Bateman: I would be pleased to do so.

Could I very briefly respond to the previous point on replicas? I believe I raised it in my submission.

Mr. Ramsay: It's fine with me, Mr. Bateman. Go ahead.

.1635

Mr. Bateman: The point with respect to replicas is that there is a specific offence under the Criminal Code dealing with the use of an imitation firearm, including a replica, in the commission of an indictable offence. So that is covered.

The difficulty with the regulation is that for the transport of a replica, it must be in a locked container or in an automobile, out of sight of the public. The point is, all section 11 of the transportation regulation relating to replicas appears to do is to protect the public from perhaps being frightened because they see a replica firearm sitting in view. Since the possessor of a replica would not necessarily be a member of the firearms community, we would submit that a great many innocent people, who would not know any better, could be prejudiced by that.

To go back to the other question, since it will be more difficult to transfer, maintain, and retain collections of firearms, clearly their value will diminish. How much the value will diminish, I cannot say, but the value of anything, really, is a function of one's ability to sell it, if you like, or to be able to transfer it. Really, the essence of collecting is to acquire new pieces. As you acquire new pieces, most people's pocketbooks require you to get rid of something you previously had.

So I would be loath to put any type of dollar value on it, but clearly collections would be diminished a very great deal.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Mr. Bateman.

That's everything, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Panagiotidis: Mr. Ramsay, may I respond to that question. I happen to be a firearms dealer. I've noticed that in the last two years the price of firearms, especially for the ones that have been regulated at this point - and I'm talking about pistols right now, the .25 calibre and .32 calibre automatics and revolvers or pistols having a barrel of 4.14 inches and shorter - have dropped between 50% and 75% in price. Compared with semi-automatics, which were converted semi-automatics prior to being automatic, but according to our regulations, they're basically non-existent in terms of buying. People will not invest in that any more. The market has almost died out in that aspect.

So there is quite a bit of damage to the economy at this point. Businesses are going under. The value of firearms is not what it was, and it will never get to that point with the regulations as they are.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you very much, gentlemen. We appreciate your coming here today to testify and to give us your presentations. We realize that collectors are in a very special position and that there's a large investment, all done in accordance with the laws that exist at the time. We realize that. It's a business, and a part of the economy. We'll certainly take your presentations and reflect on them very carefully. So I thank you very much.

We'll now have a 10-minute break while we prepare for the next witness.

.1639

.1649

The Chairman: We'll now resume our hearings on the proposed regulations under the Firearms Act. We have three witnesses at the present time. Two of these witnesses will be here with us in Ottawa and the third is in North Bay.

Here in Ottawa we have Mr. Claude Gauthier, president, Féderation québécoise dé la faune, and Mr. Serge Tanguay, director general, Fédération des pourvoyeurs du Québec.

.1650

With us, by video-teleconferencing from North Bay, is Mr. Jim Antler of the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association. Mr. Antler is a research analyst. Welcome, Mr. Antler. Can you hear us?

Mr. Jim Antler (Research Analyst, Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association): Thank you.

The Chairman: I presume we'll be having all three gentlemen presenting briefs.

Mr. Claude Gauthier (President, Fédération québécoise de la faune): North Bay will be starting.

The Chairman: Mr. Antler, you'll be presenting the first brief, and then it would beMr. Tanguay, and Monsieur Gauthier will be third. After the briefs we will go to questions from members of the subcommittee.

Mr. Antler, would you begin, please, with your presentation?

Mr. Antler: Thank you very much. I'd like to start by giving you a bit of background about my organization and our interest in this matter and then some of the specific concerns we have about the proposed regulations.

NOTO, or the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association, was created in 1929 as an organization to represent the interests of what we call resource-based tourism, hunting, and fishing camps, those kinds of properties. We represent the interests of about 1,400 licensed businesses in northern Ontario. Our membership is around 600 of these camps and lodges, as well as another 100 members who are involved in supplying the industry with goods and services.

Our recent history on this issue includes an appearance before the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs back in September 1995 to discuss Bill C-68 at that time. Today, we're here before you to express some concerns over the proposed regulations, especially as they relate to licence fees, licensing for non-residents, and some of the registration aspects.

Our membership also has a number of resident hunters who would use our facilities, not just non-residents, but I know that groups like the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters have appeared before you already and have addressed a lot of the resident concerns. We'd like to state our support for their presentation and to let you know we're going to focus on the non-resident end.

When we appeared before the Senate committee a year and a half ago, we tried to present some of the economic data around hunting, not only in Ontario and in Canada. Based on a study by the Canadian Wildlife Service back in 1991, we determined there were 1.5 million Canadians who hunted wildlife in Canada. There were another 40,000 from the U.S. All told, these generated economic spending and activity of just over $1.2 billion in the country.

Hunting is a big business in this country, especially with non-residents. In Ontario alone we estimate there is probably close to $100 million in direct and indirect spending and economic activity related to hunting. We know that non-residents in Ontario purchased over $3 million in licences alone to hunt in 1994 and 1995. So we're concerned about more restrictive regulations and any increased fees that may go along with that. It could serve to reduce that visitation and those revenues in the future and make Ontario a less desirable place in the North American marketplace for hunting.

In terms of the specific regulations, I'm going to organize my thoughts in the same chronological order as they'll appear in the proposals, starting with the firearms licence regulations. Page 3, section 6, indicates that non-residents cannot apply for possession-only licences. I can only presume that means they can only apply for the possession and acquisition licence. I'm not really sure what the rationale behind this is, because if there's no desire to purchase a firearm in Canada, I'm not sure why they would need the acquisition licence, unless it relates to any new firearms that may come across the border in future years - for example, somebody purchasing a new firearm in the United States and wanting to bring it across the border.

That has a bit of an impact, cost-wise. If a non-resident decided he was a frequent enough visitor that he wanted to apply for a Canadian licence, he would have to apply for a more expensive licence, I guess, under fee schedules.

.1655

We have some concerns around the registration certificates or the confirmations, as they call them at customs, when non-residents would have to declare firearms coming across the border, that are good for only 60 days. We had some concerns about that originally when the legislation was passed.

One, we often have people in this province who hunt for bear in the spring and for moose in the fall, for example. I'll talk a little bit later about it, but the 60-day period almost means you would have to have two different permits that would be good for a spring hunt as well as a fall hunt. This could actually double the cost. You'd need to have two of those in a given year to go hunting or to bring the firearm in.

I guess we also wonder why registering a firearm for a non-resident is only temporary. If somebody was using a firearm and bringing it in and registering it, and they'd have serial numbers, we would have thought you'd only need to do that and record it once, with maybe a simple declaration every time you brought that firearm across the border. You wouldn't necessarily have to pay the same fee every time.

On page 4, section 10 outlines requirements for the 60-day possession licence for non-residents with regard to borrowing firearms. It's my understanding that this doesn't happen a lot in our industry in terms of borrowing firearms for non-residents. There was some concern, in paragraphs 10(3)(a) and (b), that only outfitters or other authorized persons who could provide services involving hunting could sign a statement for a Canadian resident that the applicant will be using the firearm for hunting. That seems a bit inconvenient, perhaps, to an outfitter who may have to do that, given that most non-residents who hunt don't hunt with Canadian citizens and would either have to find somebody they knew or rely on the outfitter to do that. It's more of a paperwork issue than anything else, I guess. So that's a concern we have.

As well, hunting guides in this province aren't licensed or accredited as of yet, so I'm not sure whether they'd even be eligible to sign the statement they're referring to or whether that would always fall back on the outfitter, given that they're not authorized as the regulations might say.

With regard to the regulations relating to storage display and transportation and handling of firearms, there is some allowance, I guess, that a number of these things don't apply when someone is hunting, but I'm not sure in the regulations what constitutes a definition of hunting. I don't see that. Whether it means you actually have to be in the bush.... What would happen at the end of the day when you're finished being in the bush and you come back to your cabin? Is that still defined as hunting, or would a non-resident then have to come in and put a trigger lock on or remove the bolt or the other things that go along with that?

Those uncertainties have impact in terms of what people would have to do relating to sections 3 to 12, which they say don't apply when you're hunting, and in particular sections 3 and 8, relating to the storage and the transportation issue. I guess that's more of a question right now than a concern; it's not knowing the answer.

Relating to the regulations that apply to the aboriginal peoples of Canada and some of the adaptation that's been done there, I know the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters made representation on a number of different points there. One in particular that I want to highlight relates to section 21, which states that aboriginals who use non-restrictive firearms for traditional hunting practices in what they call remote wilderness areas may store the firearm if it's unloaded and ammunition is not readily accessible. The storage regulations around that are perhaps less onerous than the sections under the storage provisions I mentioned earlier, in particular section 3, that you'd also have to have a secure locking device on the gun or removal of the bolt or the bolt carrier or store it in a secure container.

So there seems to be a lower level of requirement in terms of storage for aboriginal folks in wilderness remote areas than there are for other residents or non-residents. We're not sure why that applies just to aboriginals. I think this is a safety issue as opposed to one of ethnicity.

.1700

In particular, I'd say that probably 30% of our membership is what we would call remote, in that their water access and fly-in and those kinds of facilities are in remote wilderness areas. We think those regulations should perhaps apply equally to resident hunters and non-resident hunters who would take advantage of our facilities rather than just applying to aboriginals. To be fair, the location is the same.

Also, there's really no definition of what a remote wilderness area is. We know what we consider it to be, but if we could extend that regulation into law...that would have to be addressed.

I'm going to talk a little bit about the fees, because we're certainly concerned about them. I found section 8 on page 61 and section 14 on page 63 a little confusing as far as trying to figure out where waivers of fees and that kind of thing come in. Section 8 appears to mean that you could have one free renewal of a customs declaration if you are a non-resident as long as you make an application prior to the expiry of the licence that you currently hold. That is for the licence to borrow.

In regard to section 14 on page 63, the fees for the authorization and confirmations at the border, there are three subsections. Again, my simplified reading of it is that it sounds like you get one free renewal within a 60-day period of your confirmation. If during that period you wanted to request another confirmation - I'm presuming that's for a firearm you want to bring across at some point - the fee would be waived. Or if you request one or more confirmations after you've paid the first one, I guess subsequently if it expires you also get a free renewal.

It's a little confusing, but again, I think the key issue for us is the 60-day issue. As I mentioned a bit earlier, we have people who come for both a spring hunt and a fall hunt in Ontario. Let me give you the example of someone who comes for the spring bear hunt. In northern Ontario the seasons generally run from April 15 to May 15. Traditionally, non-residents come to hunt then. There are some hunting times after that, but they're used more often by residents. Most non-resident hunters come to hunt in the first few weeks of the season.

So even if we were to presume that someone had, let's say, a confirmation issued to start as late as May 15, for the 60-day period it's only good until July 15. The moose season doesn't even start until the third week of September or even into October in Ontario. It's the same for deer. We are in October or November before the opening of deer season.

So even if a non-resident did apply to renew the 60-day permit before it expired, his next 60-day permit still wouldn't allow him to reach the beginning of the next hunting season in the fall. So unless he wants to get caught up in paying again, or in the complex system of renewals and trying to get a free renewal here, or in making a phone call or in doing the application...it seems like an awful lot of work is involved for the average person in trying to avoid paying that fee.

I think it goes back to our concern about why you would have a 60-day licence period. Why couldn't you just register a gun once with a serial number and then have a simple declaration each time you come across the border? It wouldn't entail a $50 fee every time.

I realize there's some acknowledgement of the need to reduce fees, but it seems like a lot of work has to be done at the other end to try to catch up with the free renewals. It seems like a lot of work in order to make sure you have one in place by the time you go hunting again so that you won't have to pay another $50 if you're bringing the same gun across the border, in October, let's say, to hunt moose. That's one of the concerns about this. I know that 60-day period was in the act, so I'm not sure what can be done in the regulations. But that's the issue we have.

What we're getting at is that non-residents come to Ontario to vacation, to relax, and to try to enjoy themselves. Right now they pay a lot of extra fees that residents don't pay. In Ontario the cost of a licence for non-residents to hunt moose is ten times what it is for a resident hunter. They pay five or six times what a resident hunter pays for licences to hunt deer or bear. We see what goes on with fuel costs and the GST and the impacts they have on non-resident hunters. We now see the government looking at things like mandatory education and training for people to operate a boat in Canada. All of these things have an impact on discouraging travellers from coming to the province.

.1705

We should be looking at the system in order to try to make it simpler and easier for them to come and to enjoy a hunting vacation in Ontario without having it cost a lot of money, a lot of time, and a lot of paperwork.

In terms of the magnitude of the fees, a non-resident would pay $50 for a 60-day permit. A resident would get a five-year licence, if you will, the cost of which would be between $10 and $60, at least at this point, depending on when he applies. He then also has to pay a smaller fee to register all his firearms.

I guess we'd like to see something that would perhaps be more equitable on the fee end, although we haven't had the opportunity to sit down and go through it. We haven't been consulted by the justice department in order to try to work out something that might be more fair and equitable and that would meet our concerns.

There are also some other concerns. In one of the guides that we have for the regulations, it says that if someone is going to be a frequent visitor, he should just apply for a Canadian licence. I'm not sure that should have to be a necessary thing for a non-resident to do in order for him to come up and enjoy a hunting trip. If he's going to be here more frequently, we ought to be able to come up with a better solution than having him apply for a firearms licence in Canada.

To sum up my themes in general, my concerns are about increased fees, the increased paperwork, and the increased time for the hunter to come to Ontario, and about what these things might mean when combined with some of the other things that are going on to discourage tourism.

The fee system that is being implemented hasn't gone through any cost-benefit analysis. I know the Federation of Anglers and Hunters spoke to you about that; I believe they did so last week. Again, these fees are subject to increases in the future. They may be at the level they are at now, but fees usually only go up, they never go down. That's a concern that we have in terms of further negative impacts in the future.

I guess those are the basic issues that we have right now, at least in relation to non-residents. Many people see this as a very discouraging aspect to tourism and think this may just be one more reason for people not to come to Ontario from the United States or overseas countries.

I'd like to stop there. I'll welcome any of your questions after the other presenters.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Antler.

[Translation]

Mr. Tanguay, please.

Mr. Serge Tanguay (Director General, Federation of Quebec Outfitters): The main point to which the Quebec Federation of Outfitters would like to draw your attention in the draft regulation relates to the fees applicable to firearms.

However the Federation would like to remind you of its opposition to Bill C-68 at the very outset as a member of a coalition of provincial organizations including the Quebec Wildlife Federation, the Quebec Association of Zecs Managers, the magazine Sentier Chasse Pêche and the Federation of Quebec Outfitters. Unfortunately, no parliamentarian representing a Quebec riding in Ottawa agreed to support the position of our group even though it was espoused by almost a million users.

It should not be assumed that outfitters are against the idea of effective controls against people using firearms to commit acts of violence. But we are convinced that the federal legislation is mistaken and that it will not resolve the problems. We can only observe that the groups advocating very strict control measures have made great use of crimes committed by the deranged in order to win their battle. These right-thinking people come mainly from big cities and care very little about the impact that the measures would have on the daily lives of people whose living depends on hunting, since there are people who make a living from this activity.

Hundreds of small Quebec companies which hire hunting guides are threatened by some of the regulations of this legislation. This concerns the whole of rural Quebec where poverty and unemployment are serious problems and where several of these companies had to close down.

We see the Act and its regulations as a new tax for paying public servants rather than ensuring the livelihood of hunting guides and people working for outfitters, since they will loose their jobs as a result of the drop in the number of people using their services.

.1710

I would like to give you a picture of the outfitting industry in Quebec. The members of our Federation are companies which, in exchange for payment, offer accommodation and services for the purposes of hunting, fishing or other open-air activities.

The term ``pourvoirie'' has been used in Quebec since the mid-1980s and corresponds to what would be referred to in English as lodges, outfitters and to some degree guides.

Our Federation represents most of the 683 outfitting companies with an operating permit issued each year by the Quebec Department of the Environment and Wildlife.

Hunting is an activity traditionally offered by Quebec outfitters. In some cases, this activity accounts for over 90% of the company's turnover, particularly in northern Quebec where caribou hunting attracts thousands of people from the United States, Canada and Europe in that order.

In order to attract customers, Quebec outfitters take part in hunting and fishing exhibitions and advertise in specialist publications.

The outfitting industry contributes over $103.5 million to the economy of the province. Furthermore, people coming to hunt in Quebec spend millions of dollars on goods or services on their way to and from the particular areas where they will hunt. The projected loss of visitors is also expected to have a significant impact on the bush aviation industry, restaurants, the accommodation sector and retail equipment sales.

In Quebec, outfitters employ 3,000 people. These people have little training and in most cases are from the regions where the particular facilities are located. They are employed mainly as hunting and fishing guides, maintenance workers, cooks and receptionists.

An outfitter's operating season lasts only a few weeks. In the case of northern Quebec, some outfitters have jobs for 8 to 14 weeks. Further south, the companies concerned can accommodate clients for 20 to 26 weeks. A lot of work is being done to develop new activities so as to prolong the operating season. At present, we are having some success in developing services for snowmobilers but this approach would not seem to be possible for outfitters located north of the 52nd parallel, that is in northern Quebec.

We shall now give a picture of the hunters using the services of outfitters. A recent study conducted by the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre (Office of labour force development) and the Fédération des pourvoyeurs du Québec presents the following picture of resident and non-resident hunters and fishermen in Quebec.

I would point out that since 1990, there has been a significant drop in the number of people using the services in Quebec, particularly in the case of non-residents.

The drop in the sale of licences is felt primarily in hunting, both as regards Quebeckers and non-residents. Quebec outfitters, who are the main providers of services to hunters, are feeling the impact of this drop in the number of hunting enthusiasts.

When we look at the regional situation, we can appreciate even more clearly the devastating impact of even a very small drop in the number of customers on outfitting businesses in areas such as northern Quebec, Témiscamingue or the Outaouais, to give just those examples. In fact these regions depend largely on American visitors who are particularly keen about hunting black bears, caribou or white-tailed deer.

.1715

Since the number of hunters is dropping every year for various reasons, outfitters are turning desperately towards the larger group of non-residents in order to find new customers for hunting activities. The fact that non-residents must pay fees at the border and register their hunting weapons will certainly hinder marketing efforts which outfitters have been making for a few years and will make it very difficult to develop a new clientele.

The money to be paid, responsibilities associated with these fees and foreseeable administrative difficulties will discourage a good number of present and potential customers.

At the present time, a number of our outfitters are taking part in hunting and fishing exhibitions in the United States and Europe, trying to sell hunting trips to Quebec for next fall. They are currently meeting people from the hunting community who are very concerned about the issues we are now discussing here. The requirement to register firearms and the extra costs related thereto are subjects which come up continually. Our customers do not understand what is happening and wonder why they are considered as criminals when all they want to do is go hunting. They also remind us that we are not subject to the same kind of rules when we go to their parts of the world to undertake the same activity.

I'd like to talk now about the likely impact of these regulations. First, the economic situation in the United States and Canada in recent years has impacted adversely on the profits of Quebec outfitting companies. In order to attract the same number of customers as in the past, the outfitter must invest more money on promotional and advertising activities but without being able to increase the price charged. In addition to the requirements and regulations which Quebec outfitters and their customers already have to deal with, they will also be faced with new marketing problems related to firearm regulations. There is nothing here to improve the situation. We think that the role of the federal government is not to harm an industry already in difficulty, but rather to help it.

Furthermore, our outfitters are already faced with increasing competition from other countries where the popularity of organized hunting is growing. In Quebec we can feel the impact of this very clearly. For example, we see East Block countries moving into the big game market and Latin America entering the market for water fowl hunting. In the United States, farmers and large woodlot owners are developing their hunting areas in order to attract American and Canadian hunters. Although relatively small today, the number of Canadians going to hunt in the United States might well increase considerably if their access to hunting in Canada is restricted by our regulations. Therefore, in addition to competing with us on their own market, we find that the Americans are looking towards our local market.

Moreover, our American competitors are looking forward to seeing the new regulations under the Firearms Act and intend to make good use of those regulations to discourage American customers wishing to come to Canada to hunt, and will try to attract Canadian hunters to the United States where they will not be considered as criminals.

.1720

In American exhibitions, you can see small posters put up stating that in the United States hunters do not have to pay fees, are not considered as criminals and have the right to practise their activity.

There is also competition from other areas of tourism. Resident and non-resident hunters are offered a wide range of activities, which reduces proportionately the amount of money to be spent on hunting in Quebec. If the federal government wants to do away with hunting, it has found the right way of achieving that. We would be pleased to know what its real intentions are, and to know if that is really what it wants.

Recession, fewer customers, increased competition, increased supply: that is the perfect way of killing an industry. And you want to add to that!

You should not underestimate the impact on the industry of certain government decisions such as the new employment insurance provisions which could significantly hurt our sector. One of the results of a drop in the number of customers will be to reduce the number of hours worked and make it more difficult for the people working with us to obtain employment insurance benefits. That is important; that is the reality for people living in these areas.

There are 3,000 people in Quebec who depend for their livelihood on wildlife, fishing and hunting. The resource is there and is well managed. There is also interest among a large number of resident and non-resident customers, but the regulations under the Firearms Act could destroy this potential.

While seeking to disarm idle people living in cities and using weapons for criminal purposes, you could end up by killing a regional industry which provides a livelihood for thousands of Canadians and Quebeckers.

In conclusion, are you so sure of the results of this proposed legislation and regulations that you are ready to sacrifice the quality of life of those people employed in the outfitting industry?

Can you assure us that with such costly measures, you will help to significantly reduce the number of crimes involving firearms?

What measures will you introduce to reduce the impact of this proposed legislation on people who live from hunting?

What measures will you introduce to help them avoid bankruptcy and losing their jobs?

We are appealing to your sense of duty to ensure that these proposed regulations do not kill off an industry which is very important for many parts of Quebec and other Canadian provinces.

If we have got this message across to you, you will agree to amend the proposed regulations and remove the provisions requiring non-residents to register their hunting weapons and pay a fee for so doing, when they come to Quebec or any other parts of Canada to practise sport hunting.

The quality of life of many of your fellow citizens, who live in the regions, depends on your decisions regarding these draft regulations. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you Mr. Tanguay.

Mr. Gauthier.

Mr. Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen.

[English]

I've prepared two drafts, depending on what our partner from North Bay had to say on the law, whether it would be extensive or not. I'll go ahead with the one that's supposed to be the hammer.

[Translation]

I'm speaking to you this afternoon with the hope that this is the day that you will finally hear our message concerning our fears regarding firearm registration and regulations. Both for the organization I represent and myself, my first two appearances before your committee were very disappointing. We noted in fact that the consultations of the Standing Committee on Justice were not even taken into consideration by the government in office. Therefore, all the research work we did to inform you about the impact of these regulations was unfortunately just discarded.

Furthermore, the second time, as Quebeckers, we had to ask an anglophone member of Parliament from Western Canada to represent the 1.2 million firearm owners. Not one Quebec elected representative, from any party, agreed to represent the 1.2 million hunters represented by our organizations. To use the English expression, shame on you.

.1725

Nevertheless, we have continued our lobbying work and organized more meetings. I myself met with the Minister of Justice for consultation purposes on three occasions. During those meetings he took no notes, nor were there any minutes written. How therefore can he boast of having consulted the representatives of firearm owners and hunters? It's just a joke.

As Mr. Tanguay mentioned earlier, for over three years our federation and a number of other groups have been trying to explain to the government that it is not taking the right steps to reduce the crime rate or the number of accidents involving firearms. By implementing these regulations, they will be punishing good rather than bad people. In fact, firearms will not disappear from the streets just because everyone is now supposed to register their weapons. That will be completely unrealistic and inconceivable, and we really don't see how politicians could believe that or try to convince Canadians of it.

So as usual, ordinary people who hunt for pure enjoyment will have to pick up the tab. In addition to them are the people who live off the hunting industry: collectors, dealers and outfitters.

In our view, it makes no sense for the government to tell people that implementing Bill C-68 will cost only $85 million. Unfortunately, the facts are quite different. A study done by Gary A. Mauser of Simon Fraser University in British Columbia shows that the Canadian taxpayers will actually have to pay over $500 million for the implementation of Bill C-68.

One of the problems is the cost that firearms owners will have to pay to retain their ownership rights over their legally acquired firearms. The cost will be imposed even though the ownership of the firearms is recognized as being continuous. The regulations will also require them to register weapons for which some uses are already covered by provincial legislation or regulations.

Requiring firearms owners to register them federally would be like forcing us to get a permit in order to keep a car in a yard, even though the car has already been registered with the provincial government. It's very similar to double dipping.

We do not understand why politicians elected to represent the people want to get these people involved in a scheme that will cost several million dollars to make some purely bureaucratic changes. Our ability to pay is limited, particularly given the high percentage of people who live below the poverty line. Citizens are very disappointed to see that their elected representatives are unable to take action that will ensure that everyone has a decent standard of living.

This decision will cost taxpayers more. It will create a separate entity and spread the financial burden around among taxpayers, who are already having social and financial problems. Why not focus on bills that deal directly with crime and its root causes, such as poverty and unemployment?

We are also afraid that Bill C-68 will allow the Minister to make changes to the firearms regulations in future, particularly regarding costs and the prohibition of certain firearms. These changes could be made without being first presented to the House of Commons. That means that the federal government will be able to disregard all our democratic procedures and increase these hidden taxes as it sees fit.

As my predecessor from the Fédération des pourvoyeurs du Québec said, in order to maintain an industry like outfitting, it would be advisable to exempt non-residents from the requirement to register their firearms at the border. You should realize, however, that if you make such a recommendation, we will see to it that we make you exempt Canadian and Quebec citizens as well from this requirement.

.1730

It would be unimaginable and unacceptable that in a country in which everyone enjoys equal rights, Canadians and Quebeckers would be required to register their firearms while others would be exempted from doing so on the pretext that they are non-residents.

Since it was elected, your government has been boasting about Canada's position at the top of the list for its record on democratic rights and its standard of living. However, we should not sully this reputation by making Canada into a virtual police state.

Finally, if the government were to decide to implement these draft regulations despite the massive outcry, the Fédération québécoise de la Faune and its partners would be forced to take action. They would recommend to their members and other firearms owners in Quebec, which are estimated to make up 25% of the population, to vote in the next federal election for the party that promises not to implement firearms registration and these draft regulations.

The reason is simple: we are convinced that these regulations will do nothing to further the objectives of the legislation, which is to get firearms off the streets in order to make our streets safer.

The administrative red tape that will be involved in implementing these regulations will do nothing to promote hunting as an economic activity. Rather, it will further the decline that is already apparent since C-51 and C-17 came into effect. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gauthier. We will start the questioning with Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. de Savoye (Portneuf): I've listened to your presentations, gentlemen. Since I am not a member of the party in power, it is not really up to me to defend legislation put forward by the government. However, as a member of this subcommittee, I do have a responsibility to highlight some facts.

As you know, I attended most of the hearings of the Standing Committee on Justice on the firearms bill. The testimony I heard over those many months gradually convinced me that this legislation would help reduce violence involving firearms. The representations I heard from your groups often used expressions such as: ``hunters will be seen as criminals'' and ``the country will become a police state''. However, once again, I repeat that you are entitled to your opinion.

When the committee was studying the bill, some people told me that if I supported it, they would tell my constituents who are hunters - and I have the greatest respect for them because I am a hunter as well - to vote against me. I heard that again today regarding these regulations. I must tell you quite frankly that I will follow my conscience, as I have done in the past. If that means that people will vote against me, then I guess they will vote against me.

The bill has been passed, after many interventions by the Bloc Québécois at the Standing Committee on Justice and many efforts by the officials from the Department of Justice to ensure that the rights of hunters would not be affected. We are also seeking to ensure among other things and in particular, that the fees resident hunters would have to pay would be as low as possible.

.1735

In this respect, the Bloc Québécois can be proud of its direct, effective contribution, which resulted in an extremely affordable fee for all hunters. It will cost them $10 to register a number of firearms and $12.50 for a licence. Given how much it costs to hunt these fees are extremely reasonable.

We also achieved others gains that will mean that in no case will hunters - who are honest, responsible people - be considered in any way, shape or form as criminals. If it were not for this, the bill would not have been supported by the Bloc Québécois.

However, the legislation has been passed, and the purpose of your appearance today is today is to help the subcommittee avoid any irritants that might result from badly-thought-out regulations. You have raised a number of problems, particularly the one regarding non-residents. You recommend that they be exempted, but at the same time you say that if we do that, you will force us to exempt all Canadians and Quebeckers.

In order to represent your interests, we all need solutions, not threats. I'm not surprised that the proposed regulations contained some irritants and caused you some problems. That is true of many people. However, my role here today is to try to find some solutions. I am with you on that and I think probably all committee members are. But please help us find the right solutions. You are the specialists in your field, and the last thing I want is for these regulations to have a negative impact on outfitters in my riding of Portneuf. However, I am not the specialist. Please explain things to me. Other witnesses have shed some light on these matters. I am trying to exercise my good faith and judgement for them, and I need your help. Could you pinpoint the irritants and the solutions you would suggest so that we can proceed in a way that people generally, including those you represent, will find acceptable.

Mr. Tanguay: Mr. de Savoye, the Fédération des pourvoyeurs du Québec consulted its members in writing and during a general assembly, last December, to try to find some solutions and to suggest, to the government and to the committee here today, some ideas that would help us both make some headway.

Outfitters have clearly told us and are trying to tell you in their brief today, that when they set up booths at shows and try to sell their hunting trips, the additional $10 and $12 amounts are significant, because of the economic situation we live in and the growing competition from other countries, other outfitters and other regions of the world that are not subject to the same rules.

The globalization of markets is also affecting the hunting sector. That is the reality. I am fully aware that we could work together on things for months, but today's reality is unfortunately the one I have described for you.

Mr. de Savoye: I understand reality. Yes, go ahead, Mr. Gauthier.

[English]

Mr. Gauthier: Mr. de Savoye, in October 1995 we met with the Bloc Québécois caucus. I believe you were there. We met with you guys and explained to you our situation regarding Bill C-68. We believed then - and Mr. Bouchard was your leader at the time - that something was going to be done by you and that you were really going to represent Quebec.

.1740

Unfortunately, Mr. Bouchard wasn't there when the law was put into effect. Somebody else was leading the Bloc Québécois. It's amazing that when the vote came in, 22 Bloc people decided they needed to pee. Why? Were they afraid to represent people from Quebec or did it just happen that you had coffee at the same time that morning?

It's just not clear. You're not really there to represent us. You're there for a job, but I don't know what it is. We tried to tell you what it was. We tried to tell you in French so that you would understand. I'm trying to tell you in English now. Maybe you'll understand this one.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: I understand our witnesses' political complaints. However, I am trying to tell you that, like the other members of this committee, I will only be in a position to focus on possible solutions if you suggest some. You can use all the time you have been allotted to criticize me; you are entitled to do so because I was elected. You will feel better when you leave, but I will not be in a better position to help you. Can you give us some ideas or do you prefer talking to other witnesses about it? It is your choice.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. de Savoye.

[English]

Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You seem to have touched a nerve on both sides of the table. Your concerns were registered with this committee. It's on the record from outfitters all across this country, except from your province. This committee was well aware of the concerns of the people in your industry.

We're not looking at a farmer or a rancher or a gun owner who, like me, has an old relic locked away in a closet. I have it there, and I don't want to lose it. I had it when I was a child. I have a problem with the bill because of that.

You folks, according to what you have testified to today and what we've heard when the bill was here, are looking at the livelihood of all those people involved in 680 outfitting organizations across your province. We're looking at the livelihood.

What bothers me is this. As I've said before, I've never been dogmatic on this issue. What makes sense to me will make sense to my neighbour and my constituents. The common sense that ought to be brought in here I do not see.

We have asked witnesses who've appeared not only before this committee on these regulations but also on the main bill what they know about the impact of this bill upon other Canadians. We had witnesses today who did not know, yet they're supporting the entire bill. So people are supporting an entire bill when they don't know that they're going to put perhaps the re-enactors out of business. The economic impact on museums may be such that they have to close their doors. We heard from the outfitters from B.C. and Alberta that if the bill goes through it could shut some of them down because of the economic impact. Yet we've no sensitivity - no sensitivity - from those who support this bill.

For example, we all know back in the west that in Alberta, when they brought in the seat belt laws it did save lives, but should we do away with the seat belt law because one person died when their car went into a slough, they couldn't get their belt undone and they drowned - a direct result of seat belts?

.1745

Should we put you out of business because a mad man murders 14 innocent young girls in a tragic episode in Montreal, or because someone does the same thing in B.C.? Are we to wipe out those businesses that will be wiped out? Are we to ignore all of that?

I'd like to ask this question, and it gets more specific. We heard concerns raised both within committee and outside of committee about the security of the system. We're going to licence all of these people according to the regulations, and they're going to be on a computer list together with their firearms. Individuals expressed concern, before the committee and otherwise, about the security of that system.

I received 24 certificates for restrictive firearms in the mail from an individual who had those 24 sent to him, together with his own. He took his own out and sent the 24 to me - he didn't know what else to do with them - which showed a breach in the security of the handgun registration system. Do you have any concerns with regard to the security of the computer system that will be handled by the police officers in the police departments across the country?

Mr. Gauthier: We do have some concerns about that, because we do believe that firearms registration will become the biggest shopping list in Canada. Right now, you can go into any bar or tavern in Canada and ask for a specific kind of TV or VCR and two days afterward you get it. There are some other places where you'll able to ask for a .357 magnum, Smith and Wesson stainless steel, and you're going to get it because there's going to be a shopping list. What's frightening right now is that according to Le Soleil newspaper last Saturday, cops are selling information, and they will be the ones who have access to that. If you want the article, it's here. They're sworn to secrecy and they violate that statement. They sold personal information regarding criminal records - anything personal on people that was registered in their name.

Who's going to be watching who? If you ask for a .357 magnum, ask the right people and you're going to know. You may go into a bar to have a beer and talk with a guy and say you live at 357 First Avenue. The guy beside you is a cop. He says, ``Oh, did you know your neighbour has a nice 12 gauge shotgun with a short barrel and all that?''

It's going to be the biggest shopping list. Can we afford to do that? Can we afford to take the chance of losing one person on that? No, we can't.

We always said at the Fédération québécoise de la faune that we agree with the safe storage of firearms. As a matter of fact, we were in front of Coroner Anne-Marie David in 1996. We told the psychologist there that there was a law that made people store their weapons securely. The psychologists around the table said, ``Do you have that law?'' I said we did. That law means you could save lives, because by the time a person finds the gun and the ammunition, the idea of shooting himself is gone. For a teenager, as the guy said, it's within a ten-minute blackout. If you have to find the key for the gun and the key for the ammunition, you don't commit suicide.

Safe storage and transportation are good. We agree with that. Registration wouldn't save 14 girls at the Polytechnique. It wouldn't save people in B.C. It wouldn't save anybody, because you can get a gun anywhere you want. Just work on legislation to keep your criminals from having guns. That will be enough. We'll save more lives with that.

Mr. Ramsay: I wonder if Mr. Antler has any comments he'd like to make on that particular question.

Mr. Antler: Yes, I do. We're also concerned about the security of any sort of system. I'm certainly not a computer expert by any stretch of the imagination, but there are people who can break into just about any system out there, by the sounds of things. We're very concerned about that. The resident population, as I mentioned before, through the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters is also very concerned about that, because it does provide a kind of electronic shopping list, and that does carry a concern.

.1750

In terms of what may happen with a non-resident, I'm not sure how the impact may work there in terms of whether or not Canadian people could then track where firearms are in the U.S.. Knowing what happens in the States and how they value the first amendment in terms of freedom of speech and expression, I'm not sure they would be looking at that kind of a registration system as an overly positive thing. I could see where they would see it as an intrusion in their lives.

I know the gentlemen before me have also spoken about some of the non-resident concerns. I didn't say people would be treated as criminals, but I could certainly see where, at sports shows, people who are offering hunting vacations in the States would be able to say to Canadians ``Why don't you just stay here and hunt? You don't have to go through the paperwork, you don't have to go through all the fees, you don't have to put up with the hassle, so come to Montana or Maine, or whatever it is you're looking for.''

In general, with the security issue, yes, I think there are issues there.

If I could, I'd like to go back to the previous committee member who talked about the need to look for solutions. We want to look for solutions too. The difficulty we've had in this is that once the bill was put together and they were working on the regulations, it was our understanding, through press releases and so on, that the minister was going to consult extensively with firearm user groups and those kinds of things.

We appeared before the Senate and made representations before. We certainly weren't contacted as a group to make a presentation or to work on the system. Again, I don't believe the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, which has about 75,000 members in Ontario, were contacted either.

There may be people who are willing to work on solutions, but if you're not brought into the process, you may not always know what's going on behind closed doors, and you may not have some impact on those things. That's why I talked about some of the concerns we have.

I don't have a concrete solution I can give you today about whether the temporary licence should be good for 60 days or a year. All I know is that from what I see here, I'm concerned that what is being proposed isn't really going to do the trick.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Kirkby, do you want to share your time with Mr. McCormick, or do you have any questions?

Mr. Kirkby (Prince Albert - Churchill River): What I'm curious about is, what is the real objection to registering firearms when it's not going to be time-consuming and when it will only cost an individual hunter $10 to register all their firearms?

I don't understand why that is onerous or would cause any concern. Can you tell me what the real issues are with why registration would not be something you'd comply with?

After all, we register ourselves every year when we go hunting. We drive in our registered car. We might fly into a lodge in a registered plane with a registered pilot. We go out with a registered guide. Our snowmobiles are registered. Our boats are registered. What is the problem with registering firearms? I don't see any distinction.

Mr. Gauthier: Does registering a car or a snowmobile stop them from killing?

Mr. Kirkby: No, but what is your objection to the registration when we register it?

Mr. Gauthier: What is your point to register? That's the same thing you asked me. It's not registered right now and it's killing people. Why would you want me to register it? It won't kill any more? Are you going to plug it, or what?

Mr. Kirkby: You're testifying before this committee. I would like to know what your objection is to registration.

.1755

Mr. Gauthier: I would like to know why you want it to be registered. You're telling me if you register a car and have an accident, you're going to die. Does that change anything?

Mr. Kirkby: Why do you object to registration?

Mr. Gauthier: Why would we have to register it?

Mr. Kirkby: Tell me why not. Is there a good reason?

Mr. Gauthier: Because it's something that has belonged to me personally for many years. I use my weapon to go hunting.

Mr. Kirkby: Yes, so do I.

Mr. Gauthier: When you say it's not going to be time-consuming, I hope you don't own a Cooey .22. For 20 years Cooey made .22 rifles and there were no serial numbers on them. Try to register a Cooey .22 rifle with no serial number on it and tell me if it's not time-consuming. Tell me what you're going to have to do. You will have to go to a cop shop and give them your name, address, phone number, and everything. Then they will take the gun and ship it to Ottawa to get a serial number on it. When you get it back you will have to pay to get a print on it. Then you'll have to register it again. It's not time-consuming, is it?

Mr. Kirkby: You say that's what's going to happen. Isn't it only necessary to simply provide a description of the firearm? What is the problem? Tell me what is the problem with registration. What is the real objection?

Mr. Gauthier: I have two Cooey .22 rifles at my place.

Mr. Kirkby: Sir, you're not answering my question.

Mr. Gauthier: I will answer your question.

Mr. Kirkby: I want to know what your objection is to registration when we register everything else we own.

Mr. Gauthier: I will answer your question. I own two Cooey .22 rifles. They don't have serial numbers on them. If my gun is used to kill somebody, which one did the job, registered or not?

Mr. Kirkby: In order to register firearms, all you need to do is provide a description if they do not have serial numbers. I'm sure you have guns with serial numbers as well. What is your objection to registering them? I don't understand that.

Mr. Gauthier: Hang on. You asked me a question and I'll answer you.

I have owned those guns for 10 to 15 years, and they haven't been registered for 15 years. They have killed deer, moose, and bear. They have never killed anybody. Why all of a sudden are they dangerous weapons that have to be registered because somebody decided they have to be? Why are they dangerous right now when they weren't for 15 years?

Mr. Kirkby: When cars first came out you didn't have to register them either, and you didn't have to have a driver's licence, but now you have to register your car and have a driver's licence. You didn't used to need a hunting licence and now you need a hunting licence. Lots of things are like that.

What is your objection to registration? I simply don't understand it.

Mr. Gauthier: That's why we've been trying to make you understand for the last two years and the message isn't getting through. Nobody wants this law.

Mr. Kirkby: But give me a good reason.

Mr. Gauthier: Money.

Mr. Kirkby: Money? Is $10 too much?

Mr. Gauthier: Well, $10 for a member of Parliament is not much, but for somebody living in a rural area on welfare who needs to go hunting once a year to get some deer or moose, $10 is a lot of money - $60 every five years is a lot of money.

If that guy lives on a rural route and doesn't read or write very well, and two months before his birthday he gets his renewal and doesn't fill it out, the day after his birthday he is an outlaw. He's a criminal because his gun is not registered properly the day after his birthday. Why would you take an honest man and make him a criminal because his gun is not registered on his birthday? Why would you do that?

Mr. Kirkby: There are prohibition orders made by the court against individuals so they can't own or possess firearms. Without registration, how do you enforce a prohibition order?

Mr. Gauthier: A prohibition order has never been enforced before.

Mr. Kirkby: That's the point; that's the problem.

.1800

Mr. Gauthier: I owned a gun and I had a prohibition order for ten years. I had my gun down in the basement and nobody came to get it. If it's registered or not, what are you going to do about it?

Mr. Kirkby: I don't have any more questions.

Mr. Gauthier: Because you don't have any more answers.

Mr. Kirkby: I have no more questions. Thank you, sir.

The Chairman: We've gone quite a bit overtime, because we wanted to get the presentations and be able to allow all members the opportunity to ask questions.

I want to thank you gentlemen very much, Mr. Antler, Mr. Gauthier, Mr. Tanguay, for being with us this afternoon; Mr. Tanguay and Mr. Gauthier for coming here to Ottawa, Mr. Antler for agreeing to appear before us through the medium of video-teleconferencing. Your presentations have been very helpful. We have heard from other outfitters and hunters. A lot of what you have said ties in with what they have said. We have very valuable information from you. I hope you'll leave that with us, and I'm sure we will give it close examination. Thank you very much for coming.

I now adjourn until tomorrow morning.

Return to Committee Home Page