JURI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES QUESTIONS JURIDIQUES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, November 24, 1997

• 0938

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.)): Order.

It's Monday morning and I'm in Ottawa, so this must be guns.

Our first witnesses are Hank Mathias, chief provincial firearms officer for British Columbia, and Eric Goodwin, chief firearms officer, Department of Community Affairs and the Attorney General's office for P.E.I.

Welcome to both of you.

This is part of our regional concern on absolutely opposite ends of the country.

Do you have a joint presentation or separate presentations?

Mr. Eric Goodwin (Chief Firearms Officer, Department of Community Affairs and Attorney General for Prince Edward Island): Separate.

The Chair: Okay. Perhaps we'll start with Mr. Mathias and then go to Mr. Goodwin. Then we'll keep our questions all together.

Mr. Hank Mathias (Chief Provincial Firearms Officer for British Columbia, Ministry of the Attorney General for British Columbia): Could Mr. Goodwin could go first? He's speaking to the principal issues.

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Eric Goodwin: Madam Chair, I thank you and your committee for the opportunity to have some time with you this morning.

I want to apologize. I have some speaking notes prepared, but with the short notice on the invitation I haven't had the opportunity to have them translated. I would be pleased to provide you with a copy of them in English if you and your members would like to have them as I go through them.

The Chair: The only way we can do that is with unanimous consent. I don't know if all members of the committee would consent to that.

Is there unanimous consent to work from English notes?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you.

• 0940

Mr. Eric Goodwin: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you Mr. de Savoye.

Just to review, today's law, based on Bill C-17, requires that we as chief firearms officers have to issue firearms acquisition certificates to anyone who wants to acquire or borrow a firearm. Any business that wants to sell, manufacture or use firearms must be licensed. Restricted firearms, mainly handguns, must be registered and their use is highly controlled by a series of permits.

Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, contains some substantive new requirements that do not exist today. Every individual, resident or non-resident, in Canada who owns or uses any firearm will require a licence by 2001, every firearm in Canada will be required to be registered by 2003, and every transfer of any class of firearm will have to be approved by the chief firearms officer of the province where the transferee is located. This is a major new legal responsibility for myself and my colleagues. Non-residents entering Canada with any type of firearm will have to obtain a licence and temporarily register the firearm.

To review the objectives of the act and what these new requirements were meant to achieve, they are meant to reduce the number of incidents involving violence involving firearms, through improved education and awareness to reduce the number of accidents involving firearms, to assist the police in tracking firearms that are lost, stolen or used in criminal activities, to improve the screening requirements of those wishing to acquire and own firearms, and to improve the border controls on firearms moving into, out of, and through Canada, thereby increasing our ability to curb illegal smuggling and trafficking.

There are implicit benefits to the legislation. The legislation, coupled with the modern computer system that will be utilized in its administration, will provide legitimate firearms owners and users with conveniences that are badly needed. First of all, in most provinces buyers of restricted firearms will no longer be required to make three face-to-face visits to a police agency in order to effect a purchase. With dealer inventories registered and verified at the point of importation or manufacture, the chief firearms officer's approval of the purchase and the transfer of the registration can be facilitated by means of a telephone call almost any time of the day, any day of the week. Similarly, the requisite permits that owners of restricted firearms require can be issued and renewed. These same conveniences can be offered to non-residents who have temporarily registered firearms and obtained licences to possess these firearms in Canada, providing the data on the registration is verified.

In most provinces licence applicants will no longer be required to make two personal visits to a police agency in order to apply for a licence. Applications will be readily available at several locations and can be mailed to a central location where initial screening will take place.

Madam Chair, there are some concerns with the regulations that are before you, and I would like now to address those. First, the deferral of the verification requirement in the transfer regulations has created some uncertainty with regard to achieving the stated goals of the Firearms Act in that the information contained in the registry on restricted and prohibited firearms will be unverified and hence unreliable. This will have an impact on the safety of police officers, the public, and on the ability to enforce the law.

If the registration information on restricted and prohibited firearms is not verified then owners of these firearms will not be able to avail themselves of the benefits of the registration system in that chief firearms officers, who cannot be sure what type or class of firearm the person has, will not be in a position to issue authorizations over the telephone as was intended.

• 0945

As a result, the person may have to take the firearm to a public official for physical examination. Business inventories of long guns may not be verified. Hence, the transfer of these firearms may not be as streamlined and convenient to the public as was intended. Again, with unverified registration data, the purchaser may have to take the firearm to a public official in order to obtain the CFO's approval for transfer.

Second, the deferral in the regulations dealing with persons entering Canada with firearms has also created uncertainty. While it may seem logical to defer the requirement for visitors bringing firearms into Canada to be licensed until 2001, the date by which all Canadians must be licensed, this deferral may well reduce the level of controls that presently exist in part III of the Criminal Code.

It will be possible to bring a restricted or prohibited firearm into Canada without the controls that exist today, as part III of the Criminal Code will no longer exist. This deferral would create a void in that there could be a large quantity of unregistered imported firearms in Canada, firearms that may indeed be prohibited.

The regulations should be revised to make it clear that non-residents importing long guns need not comply with the point-of-entry requirements until 2001. Unless it is clear in the regulations, persons entering Canada with restricted and/or prohibited firearms may be able to enter the country without having to meet the requirements of today's law.

To assist your committee, we would be pleased to have the opportunity to provide specific recommendations that will help to maintain the present level of safety, introduce new conveniences to law-abiding firearms owners, and still provide deferral on verification for privately owned long guns owned either by residents or temporarily imported by non-residents.

Madam Chair, the next page gives detailed recommendations for both sets of regulations. They are minor modifications that would maintain the current level of control over prohibited and restricted firearms and provide for verification of registered data on business inventories.

Thank you very much. I'd be pleased to answer any questions your members have.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Goodwin.

Mr. Mathias.

Mr. Hank Mathias: Thank you, Madam Chair.

To begin, I would like to say, both as the CFO of British Columbia and as the chair of the Chief Provincial and Territorial Firearms Officers of Canada, that we endorse the recommendations Mr. Goodwin has presented to the committee. Again, thank you for the opportunity to do so.

I'm going to go through the remaining regulations that are before you and make some brief comments, if I may. With respect to the firearms registration certificate regulations, the committee may be aware that the chief firearms officers appear to have agreed with the notion of putting the name, address, and date of birth of the certificate holder on a registration certificate.

We say to the committee that this is being rethought for two reasons. One, some of the service efficiencies that we believe can be achieved through using the systems that we have might not be realized if we do that. Secondly, we believe the degree of control that is necessary over the documents does not require this kind of information. We're rethinking that. I suggest that we'll be trying to advise the Department of Justice with respect to this as well.

With respect to the importation and exportation of firearms regulations for individuals, I do have to emphasize the need to ensure that these are in place for restricted and prohibited firearms. The failure to include this could in fact create a very clear public safety risk. It also could create a very difficult set of processes for a legitimate firearm owner to in fact go through the importation process.

My belief is that as proposed, if I understand the regulations correctly, they could reduce our ability to control smuggling into this country. As proposed, the regulations may also have the effect of making it more difficult for individuals to import a restricted or prohibited firearm, which I don't believe was the intention.

If I could move to the shooting club and shooting ranges regulations, the CFO support the development of these regulations and, oddly, believe that they can in fact work for firearms enthusiasts. We believe time will be required to implement, and time to ensure there's a good balance between public safety interests and firearms users' interests while we implement the regulations. The work of the CFOs on the shooting club and shooting range regulations has always been framed by the notion that we need to introduce greater control, or some controls, but it has to occur in a way that will allow shooting sports to continue in this country.

• 0950

A general view by the CFOs is that there not be immediate implementation. A variety of implementation strategies will have to be used. In the work with federal officials the CFOs have sought to ensure that where possible the implementation of these regulations does not mean that on the date of implementation shooting ranges all over this country are closed. I think through these regulations we can achieve that.

You may be hearing from other speakers who may argue there is no need for these particular regulations. I can assure you, coming from British Columbia, with the tragic events in the last six weeks, we believe they are very necessary, and with respect to the interest of the firearms community, the tolerance for shooting ranges is getting lower and lower. It's our belief that the creation of standards will in fact support gun clubs in keeping the ranges open and going rather than what they are going through in many communities across this country, where they are simply enveloped by residential development and are being shut down.

I'll say a couple of things about the gun show regulations. The chief firearms officer has attempted to establish, in trying to influence the Department of Justice, common standards for the country. I think these efforts are reflected in the proposed regulations. It's our belief that wherever possible Canadians who own and use firearms should be able to move about the country and understand the rules, and the rules should be clear from one place to another, not subject to the whims of senior administrators.

I think concern will be expressed to the committee by some of the other witnesses about how the gun show regulations may be applied. Taken starkly as a set of words on a page, it could be quite onerous. I need to say that as for the chief firearms officers, discussions about it and our intentions for how we would apply these regulations, common sense has to prevail with it. If there are ways to reduce the demands for reporting but achieve the public safety goals, we will be doing that.

I know some folks may be apprehensive about it. The best I can do at this point is to say I think the regulations reflect what we need to have.

I might say the regulations in some instances are a step back from what is in place in this country today. There's a wide divergence in the degree of control exercised over gun shows in this country and the fees people pay for those. I wouldn't say this lowers the standard, but in some instances it lowers the cost for people putting on gun shows and in my view it provides some greater degree of consistency for those who do participate.

Just a very brief comment about the firearms fees regulations. One of the efforts we've tried to make in our efforts to influence the process and what is put together for the regulations, particularly around the fees, was to try to keep things as reasonable as possible but in fact achieve the goal of paying for the costs. It's one area where I personally don't think we're successful to this point where we have a large number of transfers of firearms going on, particularly where there may be a death in the family and an inheritance and a number of firearms go to somebody.

The current fee structure argues that it would be $25, I believe, per firearm for transfer. My suggestion is that the committee might want to give some consideration to some relief from that fee at a certain number—five firearms or something of that sort—so that it is a little less onerous, particularly where firearms are of historical value or sentimental value within a family. As it currently stands, there is no bulk transfer fee possible. I would think consideration of that might have merit.

• 0955

We agree with two other regulations before you: the special authority to possess and the public agent firearms regulations. I gather they are not drawing too much attention, but I would just say that the chief firearms officers agreed with those. In fact, who those will apply to and so forth is a process that's under way in each of the provinces and territories now in terms of trying to ascertain that.

Those are my comments, Madam Chair. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

We have about half an hour, so I'm going to start with seven-minute rounds, beginning with Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank you for attending, of course, and for your presentation today. I'd like to begin with you, Mr. Goodwin. You point out in your brief what Assistant Commissioner John L'Abbé advised the committee of last week with regard to the verification or lack of verification of the registration of firearms that will commence on October 1 of next year. Of course, I have some concerns about a system of registration that will contain any volumes of unverified information, inasmuch as it means that the integrity of the system as identified by the assistant commissioner will be placed in question.

To be specific, I'd like to ask you about what happens if a mistake is made on a serial number on the application form that is sent in to you and that mistake is entered into your system. Let's take the Lee-Enfield, which has all of the other nine identifying features exactly the same. The only thing that separates one from the other is the difference in the serial numbers. If you find a Lee-Enfield at the scene of a crime and the serial number has been entered wrongly in the system, it seems sensible to conclude that if you run that serial number through the system along with the other components the system will fail to identify it. Is that accurate?

Mr. Eric Goodwin: I would have to defer to the technical experts on the system, but knowing how queries are done in the Canadian Police Information Centre, where a query on a particular data field will not only search that specific data but will bracket the target and look for things that are close to it on either side, it may well indeed show up. But you're absolutely correct that it's possible that errors will be made. This is one of the main reasons why a regime or scheme or plan for verification was envisaged: to not only make sure that errors like that would be at a bare minimum, but to assist ordinary individuals in completing the forms and identifying where the data is.

But on whether or not it will be picked up in the system on a search, I'd have to defer to a technical expert, Mr. Ramsay, because I'm not sure.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Well, I'm not a technical expert, but it seems logical to me that if the serial number is wrong and if the police pick up that firearm and run through the serial number and the nine features that are the same on thousands of others—and the serial number is the only other feature that can identify that firearm from all others—the registration system is not going to be able to identify that firearm. Am I wrong in concluding that, or is there some question as to that conclusion?

Mr. Eric Goodwin: I honestly cannot confirm or deny your assumption because I don't know. I'm not sure whether the query would find and look for that specific firearm or any other one that was close to it. If, for example, the last digit on the serial was incorrectly recorded as a 7 instead of a 6, whether or not the system would attempt to find both or look for both, or look for a 5, 6, and 7, I honestly can't comment because I don't know.

• 1000

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Then what do you see is the benefit of a registration system? What's the benefit of a registration system if it cannot identify a firearm that is run through the system?

Mr. Eric Goodwin: Every firearm that is in the system will be provided with a unique identifier, a firearms identification number, very similar to what every vehicle in Canada has—a unique identifier, the vehicle identification number. So if there's a registration certificate, you can search by the certificate number. Every firearm will have a unique firearms identification number, and that will be the data field that will be searched. You could also search by serial number.

So you have several search engines, if you want, available to somebody doing a query on the system.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: But the registration system was reputed to be an identification system as well. It was to identify firearms; you know, the one firearm out of the millions out there. That was the challenge that we realized the department would be met with, to devise a system that could identify a single firearm out of the millions out there.

If the system—and you recognize this in your brief, because you speak about your concern about the information that's coming into the system that's not verified—can identify firearms with inaccurate information on the firearm within the system, then we have no problem. But I don't see how that can happen.

Both you and the assistant commissioner, who appeared here last week, identified that problem. I'm very concerned about the large number of firearms that will be registered within the system where the information, the ten features, will not be verified.

What I assume both you and the assistant commissioner have identified is the concern over the inability of the system to be relied upon unless the information is accurate, and verified as accurate.

Mr. Eric Goodwin: There are two aspects to your question. One is the verification of the data, an independent verification as opposed to someone attempting to register a firearm by simply filling in numbers on a form and mailing it in to the registrar without some third party, having physically viewed that firearm, confirm that this indeed is the serial number and the make and the model, and the information is recorded properly and initialled and signed off. That is the verification of the data.

The other piece you speak to is whether or not the data on that particular firearm indeed creates a unique firearm. With the firearms reference tables that the registrar and his staff have available to them, the data will be matched against that reference table. If it does not indeed tell it that this is a unique firearm, that's when the firearms identification number would be assigned to the firearm, making it unique.

We're well aware that there are lots of firearms in this country that have duplicate serial numbers, or no serial numbers. Those will not satisfy the requirements of the firearms reference table. They will be provided with a unique firearms identification number. That would be the search engine.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I'll come back to you.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Goodwin, in your presentation, you are telling us that the fact that some data is not verified at registration time will create a problem for the security of law enforcement forces, for public security and for the implementation of the regulations. I have a problem with what you're telling me.

First, it seems to me, the Act and the regulations are meant to ensure better public security, but this is first of all based on the fact that it will no longer be allowed to transfer firearms to people who do not know how to use them and who will store them in the bottom of a closet or under a bed, with all the eventual risks that this might entail. The Act will also ensure, with the regulations—unless I'm mistaken—that people will have been made more aware of the proper use and proper handling of firearms and especially ammunition.

Now, you are telling us here that because there might be some inaccurate data—I was looking at the form that was handed out to us—public security could be jeopardized. You're also telling us that this is not verified. If I understand the intent of the Act which is now before us correctly, the verification would be carried out at the time of a transaction. Previously, it could also be done on a voluntary basis.

• 1005

You also mentioned the fact that unfortunately the person will not be able to get an authorization over the telephone. I feel that you are raising matters of little consequence; they are not totally unimportant things, but overall they have little importance. How important do you think your concerns are? Are these things really going to jeopardize the intent of the Act or are they relatively secondary concerns?

[English]

Mr. Eric Goodwin: The chief firearms officers are charged with a major legal and public safety responsibility in the act. They have to approve the issuance of licences to people who apply to either possess the firearms they currently have or acquire new ones. After those licences are issued, the chief firearms officers have to approve the transfer, sale, or gift of every firearm in Canada.

Without the registration data having been verified and deemed to be unique to that firearm, which is Mr. Ramsay's point, it's impossible for me, as a chief firearms officer, to be able to make an informed decision on approving the issuance of a licence or a transfer because I won't know whether or not the firearm the person wants to acquire is, first of all, one that's lawful in Canada, or second, one that they have privileges to acquire.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: What would you do then?

Mr. Eric Goodwin: The registration scheme is a three-legged stool. There are three points at which data is going to enter the registration data bank. There will be the existing inventory of businesses that sell or use guns in this country. This would include restricted and prohibited firearms in their inventories now or anywhere in the supply chain, or any that they acquire by way of import or manufacture after next October 1. That's the first one.

The second one is guns owned by people like me, private citizens, who currently own firearms that are not in the registry.

The third one is guns that are brought into Canada by Canadians who leave the country and bring them back in after acquiring them, or by foreigners.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Goodwin, let's take an example. I am a resident of Prince Edward Island and I want to acquire a neighbour's firearm. I have the necessary licences and the firearm has been registered, but nothing has been verified. Now I call you on the telephone and request that you proceed. What are you going to do? Are you going to send someone over to confirm that the information is correct and to verify the accuracy of the information in your files? Is that really what you are going to do?

[English]

Mr. Eric Goodwin: Say it's an unverified registration. The unverified registration certificate says that my neighbour has a 12-gauge shotgun, and I have a licence that gives me the privilege to acquire shotguns.

As the CFO, I don't know what it is that the person is really acquiring. I may have to require the seller and the buyer, one or the other, if not both, to take that firearm, at great inconvenience, and maybe travel some distance to a public official, possibly a police officer, to have it viewed and examined to confirm that the data on the registration is the data on the firearm and that it is a type and class that the person is entitled to acquire.

Without that independent verification, it could be an Uzi machine gun that the person is acquiring.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: So, Mr. Goodwin, you're telling me that if I am ready to go over there or if the seller is ready to do likewise, the proper checks will be carried out and everything will be done according to the rules. So, really, you are trying to spare me some efforts at the time of a possible transaction, because I will not necessarily be doing a transaction. I find that you are very generous in trying to spare me some effort, but in order to spare this effort, they should be put, as they say in English, up front.

These efforts should be made right from the start and for all firearms owners. Then, to avoid efforts in the case of possible transactions, we would be making a great deal of effort for all those who possess a firearm, whether they are interested in selling their firearm in some future transaction or not. Wouldn't the measures to address the concern you are raising here go far beyond the benefits we might draw from them?

• 1010

[English]

Mr. Eric Goodwin: I just want to clarify one point. The recommendations in the presentation that I made are with respect to business inventories of long guns, non-restricted and restricted firearms, and the importation of restricted and prohibited firearms.

But for individuals who currently own long guns, non-restricted firearms, like myself, we are not suggesting that they should have to be verified at the time they apply to register. We're suggesting that those guns could be registered without verification until such time as they were transferred.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: These clarifications are very important and I thank you for them. Thank you, Madam.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. MacKay, seven minutes.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you both for sharing your time with us. I don't want to beat this point to death, but are we heading toward a system, in your opinion, that would include verification by the individuals? That is, you would have a person designated to oversee these transfers in terms of the verification of these numbers? This is to avoid the problem that Mr. Ramsay pointed out in terms of either inadvertently inaccurate numbers being recorded or, as a worst-case scenario, when somebody is intentionally misleading the government by putting these numbers down incorrectly. I know that could never happen, but—

Mr. Eric Goodwin: If business inventories are registered without verification, then it's going to be impossible for a chief firearms officer to make an informed decision on approving a transfer of a firearm.

The original intent was that large businesses, such as manufacturers and importers, would have someone in-house, an employee on staff, who's a trained, approved, certified verifier. So when the inventory of the manufacturer is registered before it ever leaves the factory or imported into the country, it's already verified.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay. Can I stop you there? I'm sorry to interrupt. Are you saying that a company like Canadian Tire would have somebody doing their inventory, after having taken a course provided by the government, and recording these numbers for you?

Mr. Eric Goodwin: I would suggest to you that if I were the head buyer for firearms for Canadian Tire, I would be saying to all the firms who want to sell me firearms that they should not sell me anything unless it has been verified by registration prior to it even arriving on my warehouse floor.

It would be one step further up the supply chain. It would be either on the factory floor where they're manufactured or by the importer. So I, as a Canadian Tire buyer, will know that all the firearms coming into my Canadian Tire stores are already registered and verified. All these transactions could be simply approved using technology that's very convenient to the buyer and seller. So at the level of the retailer and the consumer, that would all be done in advance.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So there are probably really more than three legs on the stool then. There's the possibility that the manufacturer... Say Heckler and Koch is sending guns into Canada. It would be done at the point of entry—

Mr. Eric Goodwin: Exactly.

Mr. Peter MacKay: —and possibly again by Canadian Tire.

Mr. Eric Goodwin: No, only once.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay.

Mr. Eric Goodwin: One verification, that's it.

Today, every time a restricted firearm changes hands, the buyer has to go to the police, get a permit to convey it, take the gun, have it viewed face-to-gun, and re-verify the data. That's done every time a handgun changes hands.

With this system, technology, and legislation, with verified registration, it's simply a transfer. It's the same way as if I sold you my car today. I would sign off the registration on the back and you would drive away with that document. You would have a temporary registration immediately.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay. I was interested in the point you made about the transfer of firearms within a family scenario or a death in the family that resulted in an instant inheritance through a will. You feel that is perhaps too costly and onerous a process under these current regulations. You feel there should be a clause that somehow delineates that if there are five or six weapons that are going to pass into somebody else's hands then there should be a one-time fee, as opposed to an individual fee.

Mr. Eric Goodwin: That was Mr. Mathias's point. I'll give you an illustration.

• 1015

Let's say there's a gentleman who owns ten shotguns and rifles and sometime next year, next fall, he opts to register them for a one-time fee of $10 for all ten guns and, God forbid, six months later he passes away and he leaves them all to his son. To effect the transfer of those ten firearms from his estate to the son will cost $250, $25 per firearm, whereas six months earlier the entire lot was registered for $10. That's a bit excessive.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So it's almost like an inheritance tax.

Mr. Eric Goodwin: Yes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm interested in a general way—and perhaps this is an unfair question for you—in the thought process that went into the regulations as they pertain to gun shows and shooting ranges. This seems to me almost as if it was an afterthought in terms of the overall regulations.

Could you comment on that?

Mr. Hank Mathias: I think when we got to it would be more the case, rather than an afterthought, particularly around the ranges. There is a significant concern about that all across the country.

In terms of our discussions and considerations, we went through long, long discussions about how you put into effect a set of standards for which clearly there's a public demand—at least where I live there is—and at the same time not stop shooting sports entirely. In terms of the time taken, this took a lot of time.

We all are aware of ranges in our own provinces that have operated for years and years and they've never bothered anybody and probably won't bother anybody. But we're also aware of others where the increase in population has increased the possibility of risk that some of the controls that exist today simply aren't sufficient.

We've done a lot of back and forth about that before arriving at—at least our input—what you have before you.

I want to emphasize that we did not want particularly the regulations relating to ranges to shut ranges down. We didn't want to end up there, so we've been very cautious in what we've recommended.

Mr. Peter MacKay: The regulations themselves as they apply to ranges you say were certainly not intended to shut ranges down, but you did make the comment that there seems to be a decline in interest in ranges somewhat.

Do you feel that this is going to lead to a further disinterest or perhaps it's going to become onerous and more of a hindrance and as a result gun clubs are going to decline further?

Mr. Hank Mathias: The greatest pressure on ranges is population growth and the creation of other recreational opportunities in the areas where ranges are. There are a couple I can think of in the Port Alberni area of British Columbia where the demands on the area right around the range are such that something will have to be done.

What's been going on at least in B.C. is they have been aware that this was a possibility and the clubs have been contacting us. At this point we don't have any authority to do anything. They have been asking, what is it you think we should be doing? We're going to make a significant investment—there was one in the order of $1 million about six months ago—what is it we might do that will ensure that we're as close to compliance as we can be?

Without overstating our authority in any way, we have tried to help them so their investment will be well placed.

The number of ranges is going down. There were two tragic deaths in Burnaby at a gun club, and there are three ranges in the space of a couple of miles there that are at risk of being shut down. They're not at risk of being shut because of the safety issue; they're at risk of being shut down because that side of Burnaby Mountain has been made part of a regional park and the parks and recreation commission of the municipality of Burnaby has said, no more. The deal for the regional park will disallow that.

What we would want to do there is to say, we don't have any role in that at all at this point, that's for the municipality to do, but if you're going to build another one here's the advice we can give you about that, here's how you can build or consider building so that as the pressures build wherever you've gone you have a way of responding to those in terms of noise abatement and environmental pollution issues and so forth.

• 1020

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Mathias, you mentioned a tragedy in B.C. that took place about six weeks ago. Do you want to elaborate on that?

Mr. Hank Mathias: One matter is still under investigation so I have to be very careful about how I describe it.

An introductory handgun course was being provided by the Barnet Rifle Club. A person taking the course appears to have taken the course so that she could get at a handgun, and at some point during the course she shot herself. About five weeks later, last week, at the same range, another person was shot in the head and killed. Initially it was deemed to be an accident, a misfire during the cleaning of the handgun. I believe—and I hope I'm not misrepresenting this—that it is now under investigation as either a suicide or a homicide. That's what I'm referring to.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you.

Mr. Goodwin, you mentioned that registrations on firearms are not necessarily reliable, and then you said a unique firearm registration number is assigned. Does this unique number find its way on to the handgun?

Mr. Eric Goodwin: Yes.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: The handgun would be inscribed with that number.

Mr. Eric Goodwin: That's one option. Yes.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: If you have questions regarding the registration number...

Mr. Eric Goodwin: Yes, that's correct. If there's a firearm identification number assigned to a firearm it has to be affixed.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Telegdi.

Three minutes, Mr. Ramsay. Can you do it?

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Sure.

The Chair: I'm going to hold you to it.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: All right.

Would it be fair to assume from your brief, where you say that “the information contained in the registry on restricted and private firearms will be unverified and hence unreliable”, that we are talking about a system of registration that will therefore be to a degree unreliable?

Mr. Eric Goodwin: What I'm speaking to are the regulations that you have before you, which, coupled with the act, are replacing the current part III of the Criminal Code and would permit the possibility of registration of prohibited and restricted firearms without them having been verified. Hence the recommendation to make a modification to the regulations you have before you.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: It also allows for non-restricted firearms to be registered unverified.

Mr. Eric Goodwin: The recommendation would see that non-restricted firearms in the hands of individuals, not businesses—commencement-day firearms—would not be verified until such time as they are transferred, that's correct; unless the person chose to.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Yes.

As Assistant Commissioner L'Abbé pointed out, some of these firearms won't be verified for years, and I would suggest that the largest number in circulation, over 50% of them, could be in that category where people just own them and don't intend to trade them or give them away; therefore they will remain unverified.

If that is the premise, that large amounts of unverified information are going to be placed within the registration system, is it fair to conclude that the registration system will be unreliable to that extent?

Mr. Eric Goodwin: To that extent, that's correct, it could be.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: You issue registration certificates, don't you?

• 1025

Mr. Eric Goodwin: No, the registrar, who is an RCMP official appointed by the commissioner, operates the registry. The chief firearms officers deal with the people side of the regime. The registration certificates and the database are the responsibility of the RCMP.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Right, but you issue the FACs now.

Mr. Eric Goodwin: That's correct.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Okay. They're somewhat similar.

If you can't answer this question it's all right. If registration certificates are going to be issued on unreliable information, then the certificates must by definition be unreliable as well.

Mr. Eric Goodwin: The certificates for registered firearms, as I understand it, where the data have not been verified will be annotated as such.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: What do you mean?

Mr. Eric Goodwin: There will be a prefix or a suffix that will tell a reader who looks at that certificate that these data have not been subject to verification.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: So that certificate would be unreliable.

Mr. Eric Goodwin: No. It could well be reliable, but there's a possibility there might be an error in that it has not been verified by a verifier.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: We're getting down to semantics. If the information upon which the certificate is issued is unreliable, how can the certificate be reliable?

Mr. Eric Goodwin: Subject to verification.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: But until it's verified it's unreliable. Thank you.

Mr. Eric Goodwin: It could be.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Yes, I agree.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Mathias, unless I'm mistaken, you will have to manage the system, including its Aboriginal users. Later on this morning, we will be hearing a very high-level representative from our friends, the First Nations. As we won't get another opportunity to speak to you after that, and as I presume that a certain number of concerns will be conveyed to us by Mr. Fontaine, do you have any thoughts to share with us on this matter?

[English]

Mr. Hank Mathias: We're still engaged in discussions with the Department of Justice with respect to how the regulations, as they stand today, can and will be applied to aboriginal people. We have not done a lot of work in the provinces or territories yet to begin discussions with aboriginal communities about the application of the act itself.

My colleague will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think generally there's an intention to look at providing services immediately in aboriginal communities wherever possible and look to aboriginal communities to provide the people resources to enable us to get things done.

We have some concern that the current aboriginal adaptation regulations not be weakened. Particularly in the area of sustenance and who qualifies for it, we want to ensure a reasonable job has been done in terms of what is there and whether we can work with that.

I believe it's going to be a long and quite involved task to get us from where we are today to where we need to be when the act comes into effect for aboriginal communities.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. MacKay, three minutes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Just briefly to follow up on the question by my colleague, under the present regulations aboriginal people are exempted. Is that fair to say?

Mr. Hank Mathias: No, I wouldn't say they are exempted.

Mr. Eric Goodwin: No, they're not exempted. They are required to be licensed like any Canadian. They are required to have their firearms registered like any Canadian. There are some special provisions dealing with intervention by elders in the screening and decision-making process on whether or not to issue a licence. There are some other adaptations with respect to firearms safety training, but they're not exempt.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay.

On the second-last page you refer to the deferral in the regulations with respect to persons entering Canada with firearms and the uncertainty that may create. What do you propose might alleviate that uncertainty or void that's created under the current regulations?

• 1030

Mr. Eric Goodwin: There has to be a clear requirement in the regulations that if, after commencement day, someone enters the country with a firearm, a control has to be in place at the border point to capture and require that the item be entered into the registry, so they don't just walk into the country or drive into the country and drive around Canada with what could be a prohibited firearm or some firearm of make and design we've never even heard of.

Those controls exist today.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Right.

Mr. Eric Goodwin: On October 1, 1998, they will disappear.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So we need something to bridge that gap between the old system and what is coming into place. I guess part of the solution lies in the education process at the border and in working with our customs officers.

Mr. Eric Goodwin: And the law.

If I could, Mr. MacKay, I would like to go back to your comment and questions about ranges. I've told the folks who belong to and run gun clubs in my province, and I've suggested to them and to my colleagues across the country, that I expect the number of Canadians who recreationally shoot handguns under the new law will increase tenfold from where it currently is. In my province there are in excess of 2,000 registered handgun owners, individuals with restricted firearms. There are only about 140 members of the handgun clubs in my province.

Under the Firearms Act, somebody who owns a restricted firearm is going to have to demonstrate continued use of the firearm for the purpose for which they registered, recreational target shooting. I suggest to you in about seven years' time there will be ten times as many target shooters in this country as there are today. If anything, under this law the number of ranges and the number of people who shoot at them could dramatically increase.

Mr. Peter MacKay: To follow that logic, if a person has a gun tucked away in their desk drawer, under lock and key, and for ten years they have never used it, now they are going to have to pull it out so many times a year and go out to a range and shoot, or else lose it.

Mr. Eric Goodwin: That's correct; if it's registered for the purpose and they have a licence to use it for recreational target shooting.

Mr. Peter MacKay: And they have to register it for that purpose or lose it.

Mr. Eric Goodwin: No, they can register as collectors, and a number of them are so registered.

Mr. Peter MacKay: But that gun has to fit a certain description to be—

Mr. Eric Goodwin: There are criteria, and there have been for years, on what is a genuine gun collector. That's correct.

The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, for your contributions this morning. We appreciate them very much.

We'll rise for two minutes while our next witnesses take their place.

• 1033

• 1039

The Chair: Order.

We have now with us Mr. Gordon Gallant, who is a firearms specialist with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters; Mr. Robert Paddon, who is the chair of the firearms committee for the British Columbia Wildlife Federation, the National Coalition of Provincial and Territorial Wildlife Federations; and Mr. Claude Gauthier, who is president of the Fédération québécoise de la faune.

Just so that colleagues are reassured, Mr. Gauthier has something to show us. He was kind enough to call in advance and to clarify it.

Mr. Claude Gauthier (President, Fédération québécoise de la faune): I don't want you to get excited.

The Chair: No, but we made some arrangements.

Mr. Claude Gauthier: It's a gun.

• 1040

The Chair: It's a flare gun. We made arrangements for this with the able assistance of House of Commons security, who checked this out for us.

Mr. Gauthier called in advance and let us know that we were going to see this. I want to thank him for his courtesy, and to thank House of Commons security, who are present, for their assistance in facilitating the presentation.

Have you discussed among yourselves who should go first? Because you're sitting in the middle, I was going to pick on you.

Mr. Robert Paddon (Chairman, Firearms Committee, British Columbia Wildlife Federation, National Coalition of Provincial and Territorial Wildlife Federations): Thank you, ma'am.

The Chair: Keep in mind that we have a little less than an hour. As you've seen from the earlier presentation, and I know you've been here before, there'll be lots of questions. Members of the House of Commons like to talk too.

Mr. Robert Paddon: I have prepared a brief on behalf of the national coalition. I have provided copies to the clerk. Unfortunately, it's all in English. I've had to take a day and a half off work, without pay, to prepare this, and unfortunately haven't had time, like the previous presenters, to get any translation done.

I'm going to read from certain parts of the text. I have recommendations. If members have a copy of my recommendations in front of them, I can speak to those specific points, which might ease things.

The Chair: Does anybody have a problem with that?

Monsieur de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Madam Chair, you know that I am perfectly bilingual.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I have no problem with being handed a document in English. However, I find it rather unfortunate that these documents could not have been translated by the House service. To his credit, Mr. Paddon sacrificed as much of his own spare time as he could to draft the document, but if we had started our hearings next week, the House services would have been able to do their job, and this would have allowed the members of this committee to have normal access to a document in their own official language.

I am unhappy with this situation, but I do not want to deprive the members of the committee of the efforts made by Mr. Paddon. So, of course, I will give my consent. However, Ms. Cohen, please, do whatever is necessary to prevent this from happening again. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. de Savoye. Because of the legislation requiring us...if we're going to have any effect, we have to do this within 30 days of the tabling of the regulations.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: But we should do it respectfully, in both official languages.

The Chair: I'm not arguing with you on that point. I'm simply telling you that we had a time constraint this time, or I would have waited until we could have everything in both languages.

I thank you for your courtesy and for your consideration of your colleagues.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Paddon, go ahead.

Mr. Robert Paddon: Thank you, Madam Chair.

It is our purpose to provide this brief so that the recipient can understand the impact of these regulations on gun owners, police, bureaucracy, and the general public.

Where possible, we have provided recommendations for changes. These recommendations are not to be construed as support for the regulations but rather as alternatives to offset the regulations' impact on the user, to decrease the expense for the Canadian taxpayer, and to reduce unnecessary red tape.

The National Coalition of Provincial and Territorial Wildlife Federations is on record as being opposed to Bill C-68 as well. Our presentation does not change that opposition.

We'd like to draw to the committee's attention our concern about jurisdiction of the powers of the federal government. Section 92 of the Constitution Act gives exclusive power to provincial legislatures for “companies of provincial objects”. Shooting clubs are companies of provincial objects. They are registered with the provincial registry of companies.

Jurisdiction is one of the issues being dealt with in the Alberta court challenge under licensing registration requirements. We'll not deal with it further, but we want to make that point known to the committee.

The minister, in May of 1996, after the first set of regulations were tabled and withdrawn, indicated there would be extensive consultation with the users. It is our position that this has not occurred. We had a meeting with Justice in June of 1997 and were provided briefings of five or ten minutes. Now that we've given you this whack of paper, let's hear your comments.

We were given a chance to review concepts. Many of the concepts we made point to...but many of the issues inside these regulations were never brought to our attention as concepts.

In the minister's press release on the regulations they said there were extensive consultations. We disagree. The minister also indicated that these regulations are to be used to foster a culture of safety across Canada. We'd advise you that this culture already exists, and with an outstanding safety record when compared to many other recreational and sporting activities.

• 1045

These regulations will close down shooting clubs, ranges, and gun shows. They will drive these activities underground and back into the bush. The regulations have far-reaching ramifications with unattainable requirements in numerous cases. The full extent of these ramifications is unknown, as the various sections are written in extremely vague and open statements. It will take considerable time to research these.

For example, take the requirement for environmental protection and compliance with all federal, provincial, and environmental protection laws. I know that in B.C., if you chop a tree down and it falls into a creek, you have to deal with the Ministry of Forests and the Forest Practices Code. You have to deal with the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, because you may have affected wildlife and freshwater fish. You have to deal with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans because it could be a salmon-bearing stream. And you may have to deal with municipal requirements as well.

Does the requirement for environmental protection mean that to remain in existence or to start up, a gun club would need an environmental study? If so, would that cost upwards of $20,000?

The Canadian firearms community has used shooting clubs, ranges, and gun shows to promote safety. Gun safety will be dealt a dangerous blow if just one organization is unable to meet the requirements for approval. We want people shooting at rifle ranges. We do not want them shooting indiscriminately in the bush. That's where you'll find that the majority of accidents occur: in the field or at home.

In Quebec, the chief provincial firearms officer has developed some directives that in fact have closed ranges, have caused expenses upwards of $80,000 to meet compliance with the range standards, and have set dual standards. For example, clubs have to abide by zero-horizon requirements, yet the police do not. If the police bullets are not as dangerous as ours, I'd like to understand the logic. As well, events such as IPSC shooting and western-style shooting have left the province of Quebec because they cannot meet compliance with the new law.

We would ask Parliament and the committee to look at the Canadian firearms safety record.

On table 2 of my report I've given you a chart of fatal gun accidents. You'll notice that there has been a steady decline since the sixties; in fact, in the last five years it's been under fifty. I would ask your researchers to find out where those fifty accidents were. I only know of two incidents in the last five years in which there has been a gun fatality at a range or a gun show in the province of B.C. One was a suicide and one was an accident. Ranges have little or no problems. We have found that when there have been accidents they have generally occurred when the police have been using the ranges.

I would pass off to Gord Gallant for a few minutes for a few comments.

Actually, we'd rather just proceed right into our issue. Claude, do you want to make your point now or later?

Mr. Claude Gauthier: Go ahead, sir.

Mr. Robert Paddon: We're prepared to answer questions on our recommendations.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Gordon Gallant (Firearms Specialist, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters): To perhaps précis the detailed questions, briefly with respect to the firearms registration certificate regulations, we've made a recommendation on the size of the sticker that will be affixed to firearms that cannot be uniquely identified by way of make, model, and serial number.

We've also made a recommendation regarding the ability of the firearms owner to determine the location of the placement of that sticker or optional engraving in order to lessen the effect on reduction of value. Certainly, firearms owned by our members, our constituents, are particularly valuable to them. They may not be particularly valuable in terms of historical significance or any other classification you might wish to choose, but they are particularly valuable to the individual owner. That value can be adversely affected by the indiscriminate placement or requirement to place engraving. Certainly the firearms owner should be able to determine where to place that engraving. The issue is to identify the firearm uniquely, and as long as it can be done, what difference does it make whether it's visible on the face of the firearm or not?

• 1050

Regarding the requirements for notice on a number of issues throughout the set of regulations and regarding the notice of revocation in one location, the draft regulation requires five working days for notification by Canada Post. Quite obviously there are places in Canada where notification cannot get across town in five working days, let alone across the country. Five working days is completely inadequate. It should be at least ten working days.

We also have concern about the amount of information that may be visible on the face of the registration certificate, particularly the owner's name, address, date of birth, and so on. There's no reason why that should be required on the face of their certificate. There are public safety concerns.

Mr. Robert Paddon: I'd also like to bring up a point in reply to one of the comments by Mr. Mathias earlier, that the ranges are being closed because of public safety concerns. In the province of B.C. we have not found that to be a fact. We have found that the ranges are being closed because of noise and nuisance bylaws. When the clubs have spent $40,000 plus on studies and to meet compliance with the noise law, the city council passes a nuisance bylaw and closes the range down because it's a nuisance to hear the sound of gunshots on a Sunday at 2 p.m. It's not being closed because of safety problems but because of nuisance concerns. It's like, we've moved next to the airport and now we're upset about the noise and nuisance it creates.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Gauthier: When the debate on Bill C-68 began, it was said that the intent was to ensure safety for people everywhere. When we met the people from the Canadian Firearm Centre in June, we were told that they wanted to consult with us and we took advantage of the occasion to present some points regarding the safe use of firearms.

Some arms are not firearms and I wanted to show you one of these this morning. However, I have a problem: if this is not a firearm, I'd like someone to explain to me why the RCMP has put a safety lock on it, as this normally applies to firearms. Our point is that we have here an alarm gun worth $89.95 and which was purchased by a fourteen-year-old boy. Inside there are 12-gauge alarm cartridges, a gauge used for hunting. Mr. Murphy has in his possession charged ammunition, which is live and which contains a fuse. On the other hand, here we have some other modified ammunition which is not live: it has been refilled with lead. And it has been fired that way, with lead. At four feet from the muzzle, it fans out to a width of six feet. In the movies L'Express en Péril and Jaws II, a shark and some people were shot with a gun similar to this one. The barrel is not a regulation barrel and is less than four inches long. This pistol, when it is not equipped with a trigger lock, cannot be detected by a metal detector. I tested it at the Nicholls Company in Montreal and it could not be detected. The only metallic part is this one. If you want, I can pass it around so you can look at it.

Regarding firearm safety, it is important for the committee to consider the fact that this is a plastic gun, that it can be purchased by someone under 18 and that it can be placed in the hands of a person without any licence to possess or to acquire a firearm. This firearm can be sold across the counter and bought by anyone.

• 1055

We did not intend to publicize this fact, as we preferred to disclose it behind closed doors at the Standing Committee on Justice, while hoping not to sound like alarmists. However, we deemed it necessary to do this because of the lack of co-operation from the Canadian Firearms Centre, which claims to hold consultations all over Canada. As a matter of fact, they are only consulting the people they want to consult and who are in support of the Act.

Right now, the only people that are being attacked by this are honest people. With this pistol it will once again be law-abiding folks who are attacked. At least we will have managed to focus on the point that affects people, namely, safety. This pistol could be used to kill and maim. We should really stop to think about how it can be used, and everything that will surround the acquisition and possession of these weapons.

It should also be pointed out that the Canadian Coastguard has approved the use of this pistol. According to the new legislation that will be applied, it will be compulsory to equip all vessels over six meters long with one of these weapons. All passenger aircrafts entering Canada have one of these pistols on board. All merchant ships entering Canada also have one of these pistols in their survival kits.

Will Canadians be the only ones who have to register these plastic weapons that can fire 12-calibre ammunition or will everyone have to do so? Will this weapon become a restricted or illegal weapon? It will be up to you to formulate a recommendation and make a decision. I would like to pass around this weapon so that you can look at it. What it contains is not dangerous. There is a trigger lock and a 12-calibre bullet containing only lead.

[English]

The Chair: I know it's not dangerous and it has been checked, but let's take the cartridge...

Thank you, Mr. Maloney. We don't need to see the cartridge.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I want to see the cartridge.

The Chair: You can see it separately. We'll just leave it cracked open, with the cartridge out.

Mr. Claude Gauthier: Do you have a flare?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Claude Gauthier: For them, not for me. If they want to look at the difference in the weight...because this one, being loaded, is a little heavier than the flare.

The Chair: I just want to thank Ms. Denis Murphy, from House of Commons security, who has worked really hard to facilitate this demonstration today.

Is that the end of your presentation? All right.

Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank our witnesses for appearing today. We have now arrived at that point in this very long period when we're getting a final look at the whole of the system the government has been presenting piecemeal since Bill C-68 has come into effect. Of course my concern has always been the credibility of the integrity of the system. We now hear the registration system is going to contain probably huge volumes of unverified, unreliable information, upon which registration cards or registration certificates for firearms, long guns, are going to be issued.

The new area we haven't looked at to any great extent is the regulating of the gun shows and the shooting ranges and so on. I spoke with a member from my constituency who has been responsible for organizing the annual gun show in that particular community. That individual had a chance to look at the regulations and told me it simply would close down their gun show. I have concerns there.

Mr. Paddon, you have indicated the same thing. What is the basis on which you make the statement that these regulations will close down shooting ranges, gun shows, and so on?

• 1100

Mr. Robert Paddon: I'd like to make note to the committee that I'm also the president of the Historical Arms Collectors Society of B.C. We run at least 15 gun shows a year—10 on a monthly basis in Burnaby, five on Vancouver Island, and then annual two-day shows.

There are many wildlife federation clubs that have gun shows for fund-raising purposes. The funds are used for local community events, clubs, transition houses, conservation projects, and so forth. There are two aspects of the regulations that will impact us—first, the 60-day requirement to provide an initial list of exhibitors and to provide the final list three days prior to the start of the show. We feel this is redundant because of the minister's requirement to have a possession or a possession and acquisition licence by the year 2001.

We see no reason to provide them a list in the first place. If their concern is that people are going to be there without possession licences, it will be redundant after 2001, because by law you'll have to have one. Therefore the individuals at the gun show will have already passed some sort of screening process by the police or the registrar and will be deemed fit citizens to own guns.

The second aspect is that you require us to abide by business storage laws. The firearms community, as I mentioned in my brief in January, rarely understands the individual storage laws. The same goes for the police. We've had many instances on record where they have misinterpreted the law.

In addition, the business storage law requires that any firearm display be attached to a wall or a permanent fixture. When you rent a community hall, I don't think they're going to appreciate us using lag screws to secure guns to walls.

You can't consider a six-foot folding table as a permanent structure. Under the business storage rules you have to have the guns behind a counter so that the customer can't get at them. That means you'd have to have two six-foot tables, one in front of you, one with the guns behind you, and then the guy could ask and look over. It's totally unworkable.

What we have done lately in our gun shows is that we've had them unloaded, inoperable, and so forth. We have had no incidents of shooting that I'm aware of, in the 30 years my club has been in existence. We have no awareness of any safety problems of any guns being loaded at any gun show, or any accidental discharge of a firearm.

The business storage rules are just too onerous. As well, you transport your guns normally under the individual rules. Today I'm going to the range as a business, so now I have to follow a different set of rules. It adds to more confusion, sir.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I have been around a few gun shows as well as ranges, and I assume that the most law-abiding gun owners and the most safety-conscious gun owners are those who attend these functions.

Mr. Robert Paddon: I'd agree with your comment, sir. I'd also like to point out that the gun show is a key opportunity to get those what we call “unorganized gun owners” to become aware of the law. I still have people coming to me at the gun show who don't even know that the individual storage laws exist.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Have you expressed your concern over these regulations to the Department of Justice?

Mr. Robert Paddon: We were shown the initial concepts of the gun show regulations in June, which would have required every individual attending the show, even if they were only selling buttons and badges, to have a gun business licence. They have come back and changed it somewhat, but we were supposed to have gone back for a second meeting in September to go over the further concepts or the draft regulations, and we were never provided with that opportunity.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Thank you.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I really appreciate your comments here this morning. We all agree on one thing: the safety and protection of the public is important, but we also agree that this should not be done in such a way that it prevents honest citizens, such as those who do target practice or who hunt, from engaging in their sport in a safe way. Nor should this have any effects that are contrary to the spirit and intent of the law. What you have been telling us here this morning is perfectly in keeping with that; you have indicated how we can ensure that the law is enforced in the way it was intended without creating undesirable effects.

Mr. Gauthier, I want to thank you in particular for having drawn the committee's attention to this weapon—because it is indeed a weapon—that is not covered and which a 14-year-old child can obtain. I didn't quite fall off my chair because these chairs are sturdy, but I was nevertheless quite stunned.

• 1105

Mr. Paddon, Mr. Gallant and Mr. Gauthier, have you seen this draft form for firearms registration by citizens?

[English]

Mr. Gordon Gallant: No, we have not.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I would like you to take the time to look at it.

[English]

I would like you to have a look at this and tell us what you think. Is it workable?

[Translation]

Is there any information that should be captured and that will not appear here? Are there any inconsistencies? You are experts in firearms owned by individuals for hunting or sporting purposes. This form will be used to collect this information. I feel that your opinion is very valuable.

I would ask our clerk to give them this document so that they can forward their comments to us. I understand that you cannot do so easily this morning.

Mr. Claude Gauthier: Mr. de Savoye, this is more or less what we wanted to raise before the committee here this morning. We are not in favour of firearms registration or Bill C-68. That's certain and we made no secret of it. However, we were prepared to co-operate with the Canadian Firearms Centre in order to make firearms registration and all related issues as acceptable as possible, while imposing as few constraints as possible on our members.

We have offered our co-operation. We've received apologies and it was conceded that this process may have been mishandled at the outset and it was stated that co-operation was desirable, that there would be consultations, that an effort would be made to find out what we thought about this and find out what was going on in general. But once again, the firearms registration forms and other paperwork had already been produced without consulting us. We would have liked this committee to tell people at the Canadian Firearms Centre that we are ready to be consulted and to help them so that this is as hassle-free as possible for our members, while being in accordance with the law.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Madam Chair, what Mr. Gauthier says seems perfectly obvious to me. Most people who will have to fill out these forms are people who engage in a sport, members of a shooting club or hunters. We have here representatives of associations specialized in this area. It seems to me we should make good use of their expertise and know-how.

We would benefit in two ways. First of all, we would ensure that we have an accurate document. Secondly, even though these people are opposed to the legislation, they would still feel that things were done with decency and in the best interest of their members. I think that would be the least we could do. It's not even a matter of politeness, it's public-spiritedness.

Madam Chair, I would request that our witnesses forward their opinion to us about this document at a later time and that this opinion be transmitted to the authorities in the Department of Justice.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Paddon wanted to respond first, I think.

Mr. Robert Paddon: Yes.

A point was raised earlier by the CFO about a new official created by the regulation, “the official verifier”. In our brief, when you look at it, you'll see that we keep asking if this is going to be a contract worker or a public service employee or an RCMP member and so forth, because it's the minister's intention to take that verifying process, the registration process, away from the police. The indication from the CFO from P.E.I., I think, this morning was that we would take our firearms to a verifier.

I have 100 firearms. Do you expect me to load my little Firefly up with 100 firearms and find an official so that I can assure him I have not given a misleading statement? As an Enfield collector, I can tell you that unless you've had adequate training, you cannot properly register a Lee-Enfield without causing errors and omissions.

In the recent amnesty program in Vancouver, I know that when you turned a gun in under amnesty the police didn't want you to bring the gun in to them. They went to pick it up.

How many verifiers are going to be hired in each province. What's the geographic distribution going to be? How much is it going to cost for that verifier to come to my house to spend a day with me so I can teach him how to read Lee Enfield receivers with the three serial numbers, the three makes, the three models, so we can get the proper classification and so forth? Is that verification service part of the registration fee and so forth?

• 1110

These are the questions that we put in one of our recommendations that you should ask the justice minister.

The Chair: Mr. Gauthier, you had a comment.

Mr. Claude Gauthier: Yes. I wanted to add on that to Mr. de Savoye that I was talking with an MP from Quebec last week who was telling me that he had just bought two trigger locks to put on his guns in order to be legal. I said, “Does that refer to the law that was passed two years ago?” Even an MP doesn't know about the law. The guy used to be a justice minister in Quebec, but he didn't know about the law. So how do you want Joe Blow to know about the law if an MP, a former Minister of Justice in Quebec, doesn't know about it?

We have a lot of problems here.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Gauthier. That's a good point.

Mr. Paddon, and then we want to get to Mr. MacKay at some point.

Mr. Robert Paddon: Two quick points I see right off from the application form. One, it will be difficult to fax because of the multi colours in it; the colour transmission will be poor. In addition, it allows for registration of only a single firearm; there should be a form that allows for a mass registration.

Most gun owners that I talk to own from three to ten firearms. That's an average. I have what I call a small to mid-sized collection; I have 100 plus. I have members in my club that have 600 plus. That's a lot of paper to fill out. There should also be processes to do it by e-mail or by fax transmission of one mass form. To fill out 100 of these is going to take me a long time, Madam Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I just want to start my remarks by thanking you as well for being here. I also want to tell you that I agree with your basic premise that this is going to be a very onerous piece of legislation to implement.

Just to follow up on the last comment made by Mr. Gauthier about the difficulty here in registering, without getting into a philosophical argument about civil disobedience, do you feel, in talking to members of the gun community, that there is going to be widespread compliance with these regulations, either intentional or otherwise?

Mr. Robert Paddon: It is our position that we have told our members, at least in the B.C. position, to delay registration to the last possible moment, until you're legally required to register, because the system has to get worked out and has to get the bugs out of it.

In addition, if you die tomorrow, for the guns that you've registered... For my 100 rifles, if I register them for the $10, if I die tomorrow, my spouse is stuck with a bill of $2,500 to transfer them into her name. Contrary to most domestic laws, the legislation doesn't allow for joint title.

The issues on that are important.

Also, a lot of members are concerned: you can buy at a gun auction three or four rifles and it costs you sometimes $100 or $125, and you're going to pay $100 to register the four rifles. That's why we've put our recommendation in here that if you register three or more guns at one occasion, the registration would be $50 maximum, and that if you register more than ten guns a year—I would fall into that category, as would many of my members—you would pay a maximum of $250 a year.

The impression I got from Jean Valin, the director of public affairs, Canadian Firearms Centre, was that if you don't register, the justice department considers you a criminal, period, for failure to comply with an administrative procedure. In our opinion it is not a criminal aspect.

So we're informing our members that they do have a duty to register.

Many have told me flat out that there's no way in hell they're going to do it. Many have told me that during the war they registered one or two rifles and the rest they kept hidden away and they've never been registered.

Just two weekends ago at the Canada Remembrance Day celebration I got offered a handgun that was brought home from the First World War and I asked the gentleman, “Is it registered?” He said, “We don't know”. I said, “Well, I'll try to help you clarify that legal problem you have.”

• 1115

From giving public information briefings, I have come across so many unregistered guns. One lady told me she thought hers were registered. They were registered 20 years ago in her maiden name and at an address that she hasn't lived at in 15 years. So it's trying to get these people up to speed...

You will find in the recent amnesty programs we had in B.C. that only 85% of the handguns that were turned in were registered, and we've had 60 years of registration. I don't think the long-arm registration is going to have a much better record than that.

Mr. Gordon Gallant: Briefly, and further to your point regarding compliance, the aspect of a verifier comes in. Up until a week and a half ago we had no idea the federal Department of Justice was proposing a verifier, partly due to the problems of consultation with the Canadian Firearms Centre.

However, now that the proposal for a verifier is on the table, so to speak, I suspect we will be recommending to our members before they register any firearm, restricted or non-restricted, using this form or any other form, that they proceed directly to the verifier. The legal problems that can result to the firearms owner for inadvertent, incorrect registration are completely astounding, and it goes straight back to the legislation.

As I said, we will be recommending that all our members have all their firearms verified before registration.

Mr. Robert Paddon: That is in relation to section 106 of the Firearms Act, which talks about a false statement. Many members have a concern that if they honestly apply information, it might be deemed a false statement.

Many firearms cannot be read. I know this from a gun show experience where I picked up 75 guns and I could not find a serial number on 44 of them. Of the features of make, model, calibre, and serial number, I couldn't find them on 35 of the 75 guns. So this will be a difficult process, sir.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I know from the tenor of your comments and looking at your brief quickly that you are in no way, shape or form against gun control per se. Would it be a fair comment to say that you are troubled with the registration process itself as having gone too far and having targeted law-abiding, recreational gun users who do not pose a safety threat to the citizenry of this country?

Mr. Robert Paddon: We have always stated that we support gun control as long as it is reasonable, enforceable, affordable, and so forth, and fair to all parties.

Yes, as to the registration aspect, we do see a direct philosophical difference between the Liberal Party and our belief on this issue. We see no value in it. We see an onerous expense is going to occur. We see an example where the minister said it is going to cost $85 million for registration. We believe that figure has already been surpassed by the expenditures of Justice Canada, the RCMP, Customs, and so forth. They have already passed that.

To deal with the issue of registering guns in order to prevent domestic violence, the 20 or so women who die a year, which I think Senator Cools determined...we have 4,000 women dying a year from breast cancer and the government is putting $20 million over five years into that. We have spent over $85 million on this. Both issues have to be dealt with. They have to be looked at, but in the issue of financial responsibility and fiscal restraint we need to put our money where we can get the most benefit from it. Spending the money on one will not necessarily save money on the other.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. MacKay and Mr. Paddon. We are trying to fix these regulations. We've already been there, we've already done that, and we've got the T-shirt.

Mr. Maloney, you had some questions; five minutes.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): The witnesses last week provided us with a suggested prototype. This is not the final one but just for us to examine. Would you look at that and tell me whether you would find that particularly offensive, or do you think that would be acceptable to the gun community—the colour, size, and so on?

Mr. Robert Paddon: It would just be the blacked off area, sir?

Mr. John Maloney: Yes.

Mr. Robert Paddon: That should be workable. It meets the recommendation we've indicated.

Mr. John Maloney: One other comment was that you felt the gun owners should have the option of placing a sticker or engraving wherever they wish on the gun. Is there some problem with the frame or the receiver?

• 1120

Mr. Robert Paddon: The difficulty is that for some guns, especially handguns, the frame or receiver might be an extremely small area, and because of the grip area it takes more of that portion of the frame area away and you would constantly be wearing that off, whereas it would be easier to take the grips off and place it underneath. It's my understanding the onus of the law is that if you get pulled over and you have a gun, you have to prove you have a registration certificate and you have to prove this is the gun. It's the owner's responsibility to say “Here's where I put the sticker. I take off the top hand guard; there it is” and so on.

The issue also comes down to rarity and the destruction in value in the case of an engraving or stamping or things of that nature. It's our position that the Department of Justice and the registrar do not have the technical knowledge or the knowledge of the collecting field to determine what is rare and so on. We know what goes through gun shows. We know what the fair market value for certain guns is. I couldn't tell you what a Remington value is. I go to Phil for that advice. But he comes to me to advise him on the rarity of an Enfield. Collecting each type, make, or model of guns is a specialty and only the gun owner can figure it out. Justice has too much on its plate to come even close to considering what is a rare firearm.

I have a rifle. It's one of 20,000. You might say that's not rare, but in the scheme of 2 million SMLE rifles being built that's a very rare model. How many show up in Canada? How many are in existence? Who knows?

I recently had a rifle of which 40,000 of them were made and shipped to China. We know of 9 in existence in North America. That's it; 9 of 40,000. I would consider it rare, but the registrar would say no, 40,000 were made, that's not rare.

That's the type of determination we need to make, because we're responsible overall to say, yes, that's my gun and there's the FIN number.

Mr. John Maloney: Under the firearms registration certificate regulations, section 7 deals with exceptions to the requirement about having it visible to the naked eye without one's having to disassemble the figure. Do you find those exceptions adequate? Can you suggest additional ones? Are they too broad?

Mr. Robert Paddon: We've made our recommendations on the issue of paragraph 7(c).

Mr. John Maloney: Is that in your materials?

Mr. Robert Paddon: Yes, it's the second recommendation in our summary of recommendations.

Mr. John Maloney: What is your recommendation?

Mr. Robert Paddon: The National Coalition recommends that for the purposes of paragraph 7(c) of the firearms registration certificate regulations the rarity value or reduction of value be determined by the gun owner and accordingly the owner should be allowed to determine where to put the sticker or place the engraving or stamping.

Mr. John Maloney: So you're just saying carte blanche, quite frankly?

Mr. Robert Paddon: Let us make that determination.

Our ability to determine where it could go would also probably enhance its ability to stay on longer. You must realize that certain solvents and oils will probably take that sticker off in a short time. Then we have 60 days to notify to get another sticker. I don't think we want to keep in the process of ordering stickers every month after I've cleaned my gun after I've shot it. If we can put it in a place that makes it semi-permanent it would be an ease for all parties involved.

Mr. John Maloney: The sticker on your Lee-Enfield rifle wouldn't necessarily be a problem.

Mr. Robert Paddon: On my Lee-Enfield rifle I would probably have space for it.

Mr. John Maloney: How about most rifles?

Mr. Robert Paddon: It would depend on their design; some yes, some no. With some firearms the receiver is only that big. Again, it depends on the manufacture and design. With many firearms, for example take-down shotguns or hinge shotguns, you'll traditionally find the serial number now is underneath. You will literally have to disassemble the firearm to find the serial number.

The Chair: Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I'm interested in the fact that you've mentioned that the onus is upon the firearm owner to prove to the police that they have a valid and up-to-date registration certificate for their firearm. You might take some comfort in the testimony that was provided here by the Justice officials last week. It indicated that if the wrong information, particularly a serial number, is sent in and a certificate is sent out with that false serial number on it, this certificate still registers that firearm. That was a stretch for me to accept, I'll tell you, but anyway, that's the testimony we received here. Do you have any comments about that?

• 1125

Mr. Gordon Gallant: That isn't reflected in the legislation nor in the draft regulations. If that is the case, can we have a specific and detailed amendment of the regulations to include that, so Canadian firearms owners in the bush and at the ranges will know exactly where we stand with respect to that question?

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I don't have anything further.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Paddon, in the fourth paragraph of the introduction of your brief, you state:

[English]

shooting clubs are companies with provincial objects.

[Translation]

You must understand that this certainly pricked up my ears as a good sovereignist. What you are telling us is that shooting clubs are under provincial jurisdiction and that federal law therefore conflicts with provincial jurisdiction. Is that really what you mean? Could you elucidate that?

[English]

Mr. Robert Paddon: Yes. It is our understanding, talking to CFOs across the province, that according to the current Criminal Code requirements, to be in a provincial attorney-general-approved club you must be a registered society, organization or company. Depending on the province it may be called the Companies Act. In B.C. it's called Societies B.C. and you can register with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.

We have had 14 clubs in B.C. close down because they failed to meet the requirements of the societies act. They had failed to file annual reports; audited financial statements. Accordingly, the chief provincial firearms officer revoked their approved range status. At the same time, by doing that, all range-carrying permits were revoked and had to be reissued and so forth because the people had not maintained their provincial company status.

We just raised the concern to the Senate last January that we're provincial companies and not federal companies. I deal a lot with labour law and health and safety issues. If we form a company we fall under the WCB rules of that province, and if we hire an employee the labour code requirements of that province apply. We don't fall under the Canada Labour Code. We're not federal companies; we are provincial objects.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Thank you, Mr. Paddon.

Mr. Claude Gauthier: Mr. de Savoye, I would like to remind you that in the last five years, in your province of Quebec, over 50 per cent of clubs that were licensed closed their doors because of provincial regulations and the guideline that imposes zero horizon, which means that a pistol shooter must be in a space where he does not see the sky but only the target in front of him.

However, I could send you a video I recorded near a licensed shooting ground where horizon zero applies. You will note that these are police officers practising and that this regulation does not apply to them; they run on the grounds and shoot left, right and up. Why should an ordinary Quebec citizen be subject to zero horizon? When an ordinary citizen shoots his pistol and violates regulation, municipal and provincial police officers enter the site. But for them, there is no zero horizon; they shoot left, right, left, right.

You asked whether the firearms legislation was in conflict with provincial jurisdiction. Last week, I pointed out to our provincial representative, the new Minister of the Environment and Wildlife, Mr. Bégin, that right now, in Alberta, they were saying that issuing permits was a matter of provincial jurisdiction and that they felt that this was an attack by the federal government on an area of provincial jurisdiction. I think that the province you represent—and the sovereignist that you are—should protest against this interference by the federal government in the internal affairs of a province.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I have noted that, Mr. Gauthier. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gauthier. We can get national unity in anything, can't we?

Mr. MacKay, two minutes.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: How do you say that in French?

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): C'est bien.

• 1130

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm just harking back to some of your earlier comments about the shooting clubs themselves suffering dire consequences, without again getting into philosophical comments about the real purpose behind this legislation. A previous witness made the remark that we are going to see an increase in the use of shooting ranges as a result of clauses within these regulations that require a person to basically use it or lose it when it comes to having a gun. How is that going to factor into the situation you're referring to of shooting clubs basically drying up and blowing away?

Mr. Robert Paddon: There are two aspects. The current scheme of Bill C-68 and its overhang on the firearms ownership situation at this time has resulted in many people dumping their guns. When you tell them it's the use it or lose it clause, in many cases, as we've seen in B.C., they're simply turning them in under amnesty programs and throwing a $500 item away because they can't be bothered to deal with the new regulations.

Yes, some people will come back to the sport. For one reason or the other—family life, work, whatever—they had to stop the sport. Now they will come back. But I doubt severely we will see a tenfold...look at England. When more laws came into effect the ownership of guns dropped. The participation rate in clubs might improve for handgun use because you'll be forced to.

Another concern about shooting club use and how this is onerous for us is that the clubs may not be in existence because they cannot meet the insurance requirements of the regulations. We've made several recommendations about this.

There are things like errors and omissions insurance. When I contacted our insurance people I asked what that would cost and they asked what it was. They said it's professional liability and we're not professionals, so we're not entitled to it. Then I said we needed $2 million in insurance and asked how much it would cost.

If you're an organized group that belongs to a wildlife federation it's reasonably priced, but if you're an unorganized shooting club like the “Spuzzem Rifle and Revolver Club”, for example, just to make up a name, you're going to spend anywhere from $1,000 to $6,000 a year in order to get third-party liability insurance before you even consider directors' insurance.

As well, the regulations state that you must have continuous coverage. Both insurance brokers that I talked to told me it is impossible to get continuous coverage because the coverage is from a set term and at the end of that term the insurance company determines whether or not you're a risk, whether or not they're willing to cover you and so forth, and whether or not you're prepared to pay for it.

We've made three recommendations on the issue of insurance. If they want continuous coverage, they should indicate that the insurance coverage be maintained. We've indicated too that if they want omissions and errors insurance and if they're in fact saying directors' and officers' insurance liabilities, they should list it as such; things of that nature.

Mr. Peter MacKay: You mentioned England as another country that you looked at. Can you give any idea to the committee of how these regulations compare to those in other countries in their approach to gun control?

Mr. Robert Paddon: Offhand, we'd be talking at a philosophical level and we'd be here for a long time in order to deal with it.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Just generally, how does it compare? How does what we're intending to do with this regulation compare to other countries like the United States, for example?

Mr. Robert Paddon: England had the mandatory registration of all firearms. As you know, they've recently gotten rid of all their handguns except for 22s. In Australia you can have everything registered now except semi-automatics and pump-actions and so forth. There is a loss of many firearms. Many people are just getting out of it in those countries. I know that in this country a lot of people are just getting out of shooting and going into archery because they can't be bothered with all the paperwork requirements.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. MacKay.

Mrs. Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I wonder, Madam Chair, if you would permit some questions.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you.

Under general requests for approval of shooting ranges, paragraph 3(g), relates to the evidence that the shooting range complies with any federal, provincial or municipal legislation that applies to the establishment and operation of such a facility in regard to environmental protection.

If the question was asked before, Madam Chairman, you can rule me out of order.

The Chair: No, go ahead.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: In my riding I have some business people who own a series of interior shooting ranges. They were at one time used by the police, but whether it was the RCMP or the Sûreté du Québec, I don't remember. This was a few years ago. They left on the grounds that it was not environmentally safe.

• 1135

This gentleman claims that he had all kinds of proper equipment to get rid of the smoke, or whatever it is you get rid of at a firing range—I know a great deal about this—and they rented other premises that were, in his opinion, far more dangerous to the health and safety from an environmental perspective.

Could you tell me what environmental protection means, please, in an enclosed space for a shooting target range?

Mr. Gordon Gallant: That's exactly the point we've tried to make here.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Maybe I shouldn't have asked the question.

Mr. Gordon Gallant: There is no definition that has been provided by the Department of Justice. Accordingly, I believe these regulations are premature.

We have recommended that we should sit down with the Department of Justice, provincial officials and provincial environmental officials to develop some standards. That development hasn't been done, and probably won't be done by the time these regulations are to be implemented, leaving us, those who will be forced to comply with these regulations, scrambling around in October trying to determine if there are any municipal, provincial or federal regulations, and if so, what's going to be needed to meet those regulations.

Mr. Robert Paddon: We've also indicated in our brief, as one of our recommendations, that if they want us to meet environmental protection rules they should specify, in the application form, which acts, which regulations, which sections, and so forth. As a volunteer organization, you have the Spuzzem Rifles, say, with 20 members. They don't have the technical knowledge or the experience to go through all that legislation.

The issue you talked about, environmental protection in an indoor range, may or may not exist, but there are the health and safety issues of proper ventilation and exposure to lead. That is a health and safety issue that isn't addressed here. Once you expel that, you have to have adequate filtration systems in order to prevent the exposure of lead to the atmosphere and so on and so forth. You also have to deal with the disposal of sand in the butt area. As soon as you put lead into the sand, it's now hazardous waste, and it has to do with other acts dealing with hazardous waste management, transportation of dangerous goods—you name it. It rolls on and on.

I worked as a base general safety officer at CFB Chilliwack, and I have seen the impact of environmental protection requirements that the Department of National Defence has had. It's amazing; we can't destroy a building at CFB Chilliwack until we make sure there are no owls in any of the buildings. We have the spotted owl incident and we have certain mice that have to be protected.

The environmental protection rules will close the gun clubs, because they are so far and so extreme that the expense to meet them will be onerous, even to study them, for our aspect.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: A supplemental, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Yes, Mrs. Finestone. This is unbelievable to me.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Do we intend, Madam Chair, to ask the officials of the department what they plan to do in terms of defining this particular issue? I don't want to have this man back in my office; now I know to ask him if he has sand that's full of lead. I didn't know that before.

Voices: Oh, oh.

The Chair: Some of those things are provincial issues, but I'm sure we can arrange for those questions to be answered.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you very much.

Mr. Claude Gauthier: Madam Chair, we offered to run this through a metal detector. Do you still wish to have that done?

The Chair: No, I don't think it's necessary.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: There are land-mines that look like that, I have to tell you. You can't detect them, either.

The Chair: If somebody wants to go and see that thing go through a metal detector—Mr. Gauthier says it can pass through a metal detector without problems—I'm prepared to accept that.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): No, I believe it.

The Chair: If anybody wants to do that, Denis Murphy can arrange it.

We'll now rise until our next witnesses are ready.

• 1139

• 1159

The Chair: We're back on the record, and we have with us Phil Fontaine, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations. Let me say, this is the first time in this term that you've appeared with our committee and we welcome you, and we also congratulate you on your election.

Chief Phil Fontaine (National Chief, Assembly of First Nations): Thank you.

The Chair: I know you have some things to say to us, and I know that members will have questions for you, so I'll leave it to you to drive the agenda.

• 1200

Chief Phil Fontaine: Thank you very much. You're quite correct when you point out that this is actually my first appearance before any committee of the House since my election four months ago. Quite appropriately, it has to do with firearms regulations or gun control.

I accept, by the way, your offer of congratulations. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee.

Our intervention here is going to be rather brief, I think. My predecessor and others, as you know, have made numerous appearances before various committees and we've made clear our position on the Firearms Act and our view that it impinges on the rights of our people and that the process leading up to the enactment of the legislation was unfair to the interests of the people I represent. You've heard not just from aboriginal people but from others that the consultative process was less than adequate, and our position is still firm on this. We recognize that this is now after the fact and we come before you now knowing we're not going to have much influence on how this whole thing unfolds.

Government has decided in its own way to move in a particular direction and it has done so without sufficient regard for the interests and rights of first nations peoples. That's our position. It's really very straightforward, very simple, and all of our previous interventions had little impact on the ultimate decisions that were taken by the government.

I suppose it's good that we've been invited to appear before this committee. We're not quite sure that there's any real purpose to our presence here, but as a matter of protocol we were invited, we've come, and here we are.

So we welcome the opportunity to make what we consider, at best, a token appearance before this committee. I don't think there's any real commitment to addressing in a serious way the concerns that have been expressed over time by first nations people in regard to what we consider an important matter and one that infringes on rights that have been recognized by governments and by Supreme Court decisions and, most recently, through an expression of goodwill by the premiers, who were meeting in Winnipeg recently, accepting the legitimacy and the validity of sections 35 and 25.

So here we are. We thank you for giving us the time to be here. That's it.

The Chair: Thanks, Chief Fontaine.

I know Mrs. Finestone has to leave in order to go to another committee on Term 17. She wanted to ask a question, so I'm going to go out of order and allow her to do that. I think we'll start with five-minute rounds.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I thank the opposition for the courtesy of allowing me to address a question.

Mr. Fontaine, I heard what you had to say. I am brand new to this committee and I have not followed carefully all the details.

I am curious as to one factor. You talked about the infringement on the rights of the aboriginal peoples and section 35. I find that a very interesting observation. I don't have a comment because I don't know enough about this particular act. However, one thing does strike me. Are you referring to first nations off reserve as well as on reserve?

• 1205

Chief Phil Fontaine: First of all, treaty rights are portable as they affect our people, or I should say, they're enforced whether you're a resident on reserve or off reserve, and in our view the infringement applies equally to on- and off-reserve residents.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I understand and appreciate that, and I note that they are portable rights. Notwithstanding, we are living in a very dynamic and changing society. You have acknowledged that yourself in observations I have heard you make.

That being a given, and recognizing that Canada is a society that doesn't wish to have firearms easily available except for specific and defined purposes, do you not think that if you're living in a metropolitan or urban centre, portable rights are not... You have a right as a Canadian to be ensured of safety and security, and this enables an assurance of safety and security for the general population, and particularly for women, for whom I speak.

Chief Phil Fontaine: We don't have any argument about recognizing the importance of safety for all, nor do we argue with the fact that the world has changed significantly for all people, including our people. We don't ignore the fact that a large percentage of our people are now resident in urban centres. But that doesn't take away from the fact that we're still of the land. Our people have a unique and direct relationship with the land, and if we had a choice we would make far more effective and better use of the land and its resources if we were allowed to do so.

The fact is that all of what we considered to be a way of life has been steadily eroded, with more and more restrictions and significantly more and serious limitations on our ability to in fact be connected to the land in the same way we have always been. This is one example of that, and I want to underline this point.

You're assertion is quite correct, and we have no argument with it. We believe in safe and healthy communities, whether we're talking about urban centres or first nations communities in semi-isolated or isolated areas. But our position on this count remains unaltered. We have some very serious reservations and concerns about the Firearms Act and its regulations, particularly the licensing, registration, and other related requirements. We had hoped, of course, that these wouldn't come into force until the very specific interests of first nations people were recognized and respected, notwithstanding our acceptance of the point you make about the safety of communities and how that is critical to the well-being of our society.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: So, Mr. Fontaine, do I understand that it is the process that you disagree with and not the principle or the philosophy?

Chief Phil Fontaine: We have no argument—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Your neighbour is shaking her head yes. I want to know if you agree.

Chief Phil Fontaine: We have no problem with the principle or the philosophical underpinning of this, but there is more than one principle that is incorporated here. They're our rights, and the principles underlining those rights and the principle that you referred to should be compatible. If it's the process that has undermined giving effect to those two principles, then the challenge we face is to ensure that both are mutually reinforced.

• 1210

The Chair: Chief Fontaine, I wonder if you could introduce your associates, because I didn't do that.

Chief Phil Fontaine: Oh, I'm sorry.

The Chair: That's fine.

Chief Phil Fontaine: I apologize. The lady to my right is Alexandra McGregor and she is an employee of the Assembly of First Nations, and actually the expert when it comes to this issue at the assembly, not I.

The Chair: These things happen.

Welcome, Ms. McGregor. We're happy to have you here as well.

Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I would like to welcome you, Chief Fontaine, and Ms. McGregor as well.

I was of course on the committee when your predecessor appeared, and when the James Bay Cree representatives appeared, and when the Yukon Indian representatives appeared, and when the Métis representatives appeared. I found out rather quickly that we as members of Parliament cannot protect your constitutional rights. We can't protect them here in this committee; we can't protect them in the House. The only way in which you can protect your constitutional rights is by taking the government to court or anyone else to court who you think is violating your rights.

We found out that some of the agreements of the James Bay Cree and the Yukon Indians form appendages to the Constitution of this country, and that the consultative process had not taken place in the prescribed way according to those agreements. In spite of that fact, this whole gamut of Bill C-68 has been washing over top of those rights, regardless of what we could say and regardless of what representation we made in the House of Commons. I say this because I asked for a special debate on the constitutional rights that appeared to have been violated as a result of the testimony submitted by the groups that I referred to.

I have said, and it's on the record, that had the justice department gone to the aboriginal people first and set the benchmark as to your needs, perhaps we wouldn't be in the problems we are, with so many people, including four provincial governments and two territorial governments, challenging this legislation in a court of law.

As far as the safety measure is concerned, we heard testimony this morning submitted in written form. The information contained in the registry on restricted and prohibited firearms will be unverified and hence unreliable. This will impact on police safety, public safety, and enforcement. So the chickens are coming home to roost as far as some of us are concerned. We now see the final shape emerging on this whole firearms registration system, and not only is much of the information and much of the system going to be unverified and unreliable but also that lack of reliability will impact on police safety and public safety, as well as the enforcement of the law.

If this legislation would truly create public safety, it would have the support, certainly, of myself and my caucus, and it wouldn't be opposed by four provincial governments and two territories. Four of those governments are saying that they will not enforce the licensing and registration portions of the bill.

So the concerns you have, although they are specifically coming from your unique position within Confederation, are shared across the country with many groups, based upon the fact that this legislation will not enhance the safety of our streets and our communities. I say this because no one yet—including the justice minister, the police chiefs, and those who support the bill—has shown us in any way how the registration of a rifle or a shotgun will reduce the criminal use of those firearms.

I don't have any questions for you. I had lots of questions for your predecessor and those who appeared on behalf of the various aboriginal groups that appeared before the committee. We know where you stand and your comments are on the record. I have nothing further to add to that.

• 1215

If you wish to comment on anything I've said, you're welcome to, but those are my comments, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Ramsay.

Did you have a response, Mr. Fontaine?

Chief Phil Fontaine: No, it's okay, thank you.

The Chair: Mr. de Savoye, cinq minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

Chief Fontaine, I don't speak any of the first nations languages and I understand you don't speak much French, so we will use our common second language, which is English.

I've been on this committee both at the bill process as well as in the last regulation round last January. At that time many representatives of the first nations came before us. Basically they said two or three things. First, safety concerns—yes. Second, the way we're looking at the legislation and the regulations does not correspond to where they live. Third, although they do respect the Canadian Parliament, they have indicated their belief that no legislation regarding firearm controls should be imposed by the Canadian Parliament, because they are nations themselves. Of course, being a good sovereignist, I received that with a lot of comprehension.

I remember that last January the members of this committee made, among several recommendations, one specific recommendation, because we were anxious about the question of how this legislation and the regulations could apply both in the field and respectful of first nations. The recommendation to the justice minister was to open channel talks to try to find a way to respectfully, from all sides, apply the safety concerns we had, without contradicting the rights of the first nations.

My question, Grand Chief Fontaine, is this. Have these talks happened, and if so, where do they stand?

Chief Phil Fontaine: I have to confer with my experts here.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: That's why we have experts.

Chief Phil Fontaine: So far, very little has occurred in terms of formal or informal discussions. In fact we are still waiting to proceed with what we understood was a process that would include both formal and informal discussions. There has been no action.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Well, I'm not surprised, and at the same time I am surprised, because I think we owe the first nations that kind of respect, to at least try to find a way to implement what is agreed upon—safety concerns—in a respectful manner. I take it you have not been consulted either on specific limitation issues such as a form to register firearms.

I don't know, I haven't been in the north in Quebec meeting Cree people, but tell me, how could some of your people indicate which city they live in? Sometimes they don't live in a city, do they? Are your territories identified in such a way? I'm afraid this form will be unusable by your people. However, we were told by justice officials that you will be provided with a translator so the people can understand the questions. My problem is, they might not have the answer for whatever question they will understand. Do you have any comments?

• 1220

Chief Phil Fontaine: The form is one issue. We've had to contend with all kinds of forms for various pieces of legislation: family allowances, pensions, GST. You name the legislation and there is a requirement to fill out forms. We've always had to do that.

The big issue here is the commitment that was given to consult adequately with our people. That commitment, in our view, has not been met.

We believe that there's still an opportunity to meet that commitment, and we're prepared to give the benefit of the doubt in this case. We'd be more than willing to support the consultative process, and in fact to participate as fully as possible in it.

The form itself is a secondary issue.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Madam Chair, I think this is an opportunity that should not be missed this time. Let's talk.

Mr. Fontaine, merci.

Chief Phil Fontaine: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Chief Fontaine and Ms. McGregor, for agreeing to come under these circumstances.

I would echo many of the remarks made by all the members of this committee, particularly those of Mr. Ramsay and those of my colleague in the Bloc—other than the fact that I'm not a good sovereignist. But the consultation process itself seems to have broken down here significantly in relation to the implementation of these regulations.

This may be a question more for your expert, Ms. McGregor. I'm told that certain exemptions are going to apply in reference to first nations. With the backdrop that you've given us, that you are dissatisfied with the process and really don't want to get into the specifics of it, I'm wondering if you could tell us about those exemptions as they might apply if these regulations are going to be put into effect.

Ms. Alexandra McGregor (Environment Unit Officer/Coordinator, Harvesters Committee, Assembly of First Nations): The exemptions, as I understand them, are a lowering of the age limit. There are a number of aboriginal exemptions. None of them address the principal problem with the lack of a consultation mechanism, because it serves two purposes.

First, it brings information to the community on why the legislation is being drafted, how it's going to affect them, how it's going to affect their treaty and aboriginal rights.

At the same time, you were talking about safety and the proper operation of firearms and those sorts of things. That needs to happen at the community level, but that's something we're not seeing by not bringing the consultation process in. You'll never find enough information just by leaving the situation as it is. Aboriginal exemptions or no, there are still fundamental problems with the consultation.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Chief Fontaine, to address this problem of consultation, in your opinion what needs to happen here? How can we remedy this?

Chief Phil Fontaine: In our view, it's a very simple matter. There has to be a commitment with Justice and with the Department of Indian Affairs, because the direct relationship really is through the Department of Indian Affairs but in this matter the lead role is obviously that of Justice. So there has to be a co-ordinated approach, with the two departments working directly with the Assembly of First Nations and the constituency we represent in order to ensure that there's a proper consultation process, one that will ensure that sufficient feedback will be secured.

Then there has to be a commitment that it isn't a matter of just hearing us out. The commitment has to include acting on the recommendations that can be given effect as a result of this consultation process.

• 1225

Quite often, whenever such an undertaking is given, people take the position that they'll consult with these people and that once they have consulted with them their commitment has been met and that people should be satisfied with that.

That leads to unnecessary frustration on our part because it's not a real commitment then; it's just giving us an opportunity to vent. We don't have to be engaged in a formal consultation process to vent. It's much more than that.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I have to ask you this question just to put it to rest. I don't have the benefit of the prior experience of my colleagues at this committee level, but we've been told in the past that when legislation has been rushed through, the election had a lot to do with it.

Chief Phil Fontaine: My election?

Mr. Peter MacKay: No, the federal one.

But my question is related directly to your election. I don't profess to know how the process works with the first nations election process, but did the lack of consultation have anything to do with what was going on in your election process? I just ask you that so you can clear the air.

Chief Phil Fontaine: No, not that I'm aware of, unless it was all in the back rooms, but we have very few back rooms when we have our elections.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Fair enough. Thank you very much, Chief.

The Chair: Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Welcome, Chief Fontaine. I'm pleased you are before the committee.

Unlike some of my colleagues, I did not have the occasion to hear from the first nations before. Let me say that the legislation as such, in terms of timeframe, wasn't rushed, because it took up a big chunk of time in the last Parliament.

I do hope, Madam Chair, that we could maybe have the Justice officials in and talk to them about what kind of consultations they took part in with the first nations.

I would like to let Mr. Ramsay know that if he wants verifications on all guns covered by the legislation, including the ones that are presently owned, if he moves the motion, I will second it. If his party gets behind pushing for it, I will support him on it. So if he wants to go out and push for that verification for every handgun and long gun in Canada, I'll be right behind him.

Chief Fontaine, back in 1996 I had an occasion to be on the west coast, on Vancouver Island. This really involves safety more. I was going to visit one of the reserves, but the visit was cancelled because there was a tragic accident with a long gun. A young boy about 10 years old got the gun for Christmas. They were shooting into the woods and a young native girl was killed. She happened to be about the same age as my daughter. It had a particular impact from that perspective.

I know that in terms of the traditional way of life there is a reliance on hunting from being on the land and close to it. I wonder, just for my edification, what kind of safety things are done in terms of handling firearms on first nation lands.

• 1230

Chief Phil Fontaine: It wouldn't be a formal process. If you've lived off the land from the time you were born, safety is just a part of your upbringing. You're taught to use firearms safely as a matter of course. It becomes second nature.

That's not to suggest accidents will never happen. Accidents happen. That's the nature of accidents. One shouldn't then conclude that because an accident has occurred here or there this way of doing it is inappropriate. It has been. It has been, and it has worked.

All I would say is accept the validity of this informal process, and that it's just a way of life. People learn what has to be learned about how one handles firearms safely. This is introduced at a very early age. This becomes part of your life learning cycle. There is no magic to it. There's no magic.

The thing we're talking about, and that's the biggest problem as we see it, is we've been forced to be lumped in with all the rest. The big problem with firearms hasn't anything to do with people who live off the land and use firearms as tools for earning a livelihood. It's what transpires in the urban centres and what people do with firearms.

It's unfortunate we aren't able to introduce appropriate measures for our people. We have rights that are absolutely explicit, and these rights are being undermined by this legislation. That's the position we advanced when we started. That's the position we bring here today.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Fontaine.

Mrs. Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I wonder if an answer might be found in the following way, Chief Fontaine. You'll recall that section 15 of the Canadian charter had a delay period of three years for the application of section 15, which was on the non-discrimination and the affirmative action, or positive action, aspects of the Canadian charter. Within the procedure there was the fact that the charter came into effect, and there was a three-year delay in the application of section 15 and a particular undertaking to study the issues that flowed from that particular section of the charter.

If we address the particularities of the aboriginal people, which I believe to be in this particular instance very much different from the rest of the nation, their long history of belonging to this country and as the founding people of this country I think might well...and I would hope the justice department and Madam Chair might look at this. If we could put the passing of this bill, withholding the obligation of the aboriginal people for a period of two years, during which time consultation would take place, which is also going to meet the educational component, which I think is absolutely fundamental here... That's part and parcel of a civil society in today's world. If we could do something of that nature to allow the consultation...

I heard Mr. Ramsay say there was something... I don't know if it's in the bill or in section 35. I don't know where this particular responsibility for that consultation is to be found, but I do believe there is a right here that could be considered.

• 1235

First of all, I would ask you what you would think of that. Secondly, I would ask the committee to give some thought to that.

Chief Phil Fontaine: Madam Chair, I don't mean to be rude here, but I wonder if I could be excused. I have another engagement and I'm late for it.

The Chair: Of course. No problem.

Chief Phil Fontaine: It's not that I haven't enjoyed this. On the contrary, I think it's been useful.

The Chair: We've enjoyed having you here.

Chief Phil Fontaine: We appreciate the opportunity that you've given us, and in spite of my earlier comments, we'll be back if you want us back.

The Chair: I know, and I appreciate that.

Let me say that we have a series of pieces of legislation, but also of particular studies, coming up. One is on the rights of victims of crime and one is on the impaired driving sections of the Criminal Code. We would particularly appreciate the assistance of your organization on those.

I'll say on my own, as an individual member of the committee, that it would be very helpful to have your assistance, especially in the area of victims' rights, where your concepts of healing and working in the community are somewhat new to the rest of the country. I'm going to ask you for that now, and we'd be glad to have you back on anything of concern to you.

Thank you very much.

Chief Phil Fontaine: Thank you.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Can you answer my last question?

Chief Phil Fontaine: I thought you were making a point, and it was a good point.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: No, I asked you if a delay of two years would suit you.

Chief Phil Fontaine: Oh, of course. I just thought you were making a good point and—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: That's what I wanted to know.

The Chair: Thanks a lot, Chief. Thank you, Ms. McGregor.

Chief Phil Fontaine: Thank you.

The Chair: We'll rise for a couple of minutes while our next witness comes in.

• 1237

• 1240

The Chair: We're back, and we have with us Jim Antler, who is a research analyst with the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association.

Just before anybody else does, I'm going to say that that's a perfect name.

Mr. Jim Antler (Research Analyst, Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association): Yes, many people have commented on that.

The Chair: I'm sure it's not a novel observation, but it's a great name.

I know an executive summary of your brief in both official languages has been circulated. We would ask you to make your points and then we'll have questions for you. We apologize for the lateness, but we had a scheduling glitch.

Mr. Jim Antler: No problem.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Antler. Go ahead.

Mr. Jim Antler: I've also given the clerk 17 copies of my more formal, written presentation that I'll leave with you. You may find there will be a couple of modifications from the actual tack, but it basically remains as I have written it.

Before I start, I'd just like to say that we appreciate the opportunity to appear before you. I'd like to ask your indulgence. I'll more than likely read my presentation, but I'd be happy to answer any questions afterwards.

Good afternoon, Madam Chairperson, committee members. I appear before you today as a representative of the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association—NOTO, as we call it for short. We're a non-profit trade and advocacy organization that represents the interests of what we call the resource-based tourism industry in primarily northern Ontario, that basically being the area north of the southern boundary of Algonquin Park and over to Parry Sound, for those of you who may be from Ontario. There are a number of businesses south of that area in what we call more central Ontario, in the Muskokas and the Haliburtons. They have a lot of the same interests as our members, but traditionally we've just been a northern-focused organization.

In the north, our industry is made up of approximately 1,600 licensed businesses. Those businesses are primarily fishing and/or hunting camps and lodges, housekeeping cottage resorts, outpost businesses, air services, canoe and ecotourism outfitters, camp grounds, trailer parks, and houseboat operations.

We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to comment on the most recent package of regulations. In case you're not aware of it, we have appeared at three different committees before, both of the House and the Senate, on the legislation and the previous draft package of regulations. In regard to the bill itself, my boss, the executive director of NOTO, Jim Grayston, appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in May 1995. He went before the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs with regard to the bill in September 1995. And by teleconference, I went before the Subcommittee on the Draft Regulations on Firearms of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, in February of this year.

Our position remains essentially unchanged since those earlier presentations. We remain opposed to specific sections of the bill and its regulations that require universal firearms registration, and especially the need for non-resident hunters to declare and register their firearms and pay the related fees.

For some background, our estimates show that well over 50% of the resource-based tourism businesses that I referred to earlier in northern Ontario are involved in hunting in some fashion, whether it be big game hunting, small game or water fowl, and they rely on those hunting revenues as an important part of the business. The majority of the businesses in our industry are also owned by Canadian residents who are firearms owners themselves, and they are therefore concerned about the bill on two fronts: as residents themselves and the requirements they'll have to meet; and also on behalf of their non-resident clients who may be visiting Ontario to hunt.

Given the limited time we have today, I'm going to focus more on the impact on non-residents as opposed to residents, because I'm sure you will have heard about those impacts already. In fact, I ran into a friend of mine from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. I guess you heard from him earlier this morning, and I'm sure he made comments on behalf of the resident population.

There will be two basic sections to the presentation. I'm going to make some general comments around the bill itself and then some more specific comments on the two packages of regulations that have come forward.

• 1245

Ontario—as are many provinces in this country—is blessed with some quality wildlife resources, such as big game, small game, game birds, and waterfowl. As a province, Ontario, and northern Ontario in particular, is well known and positioned among non-resident hunters, especially those from the United States, for its offering of a variety of quality hunting opportunities.

We've heard estimates that non-resident hunters in Ontario generate approximately $100 million annually in economic activity through both indirect spending and induced spending, and most of those revenues come for our businesses in the spring and fall shoulder seasons, which are very important. Most businesses in our sector are seasonal. They're open from May to October, and sometimes into November if they have a deer hunt. That early season revenue, in spring for bear and in fall for moose, bear, deer, and other waterfowl and small game, adds some real important dollars for them in terms of their overall profitability and bottom line.

Not only do those revenues provide that important contribution to their businesses, but it's also tax dollars for all levels of government, based on spending, PST, GST, and localized spending in nearby communities.

Of the hunting clientele, American hunters comprise the overwhelming majority of our non-resident clients in Ontario. We've made this point before, and you may have heard it throughout the hearings to date: Bill C-68 and the regulatory provisions for registering firearms for non-residents have been very negatively received by U.S. hunters themselves and by outdoor organizations, groups, and hunting publications.

It has resulted in various groups and publications calling for a boycott of Canada in terms of tourism hunting opportunities. We've heard that a number of high-profile organizations have supported this in the States, such as Ducks Unlimited and Safari Club International.

Perhaps one of the most outspoken advocates of the boycott we're aware of is a gentleman by the name of Ted Nugent. He's an outdoor personality in the States and a member by his own admission of about 50 different sporting organizations nationally in the States and internationally. Attached to my formal remarks is a copy of a letter he provided to our organization on this topic. I think you'll find that his words are very clear in terms of what he plans to do in terms of boycotting Canada.

He makes some other comments in the letter, and we don't want to be considered as being in any way in agreement with them. He's made them, and others have compared some of the things that have gone on in Canada to things like Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union and Cuba. That's not our position. We don't agree with that in any way, but we wanted the committee to be aware of some of the direct pressure that we are hearing about and that we are receiving from the United States in terms of this boycott and the pressure for U.S. hunters to take their vacation dollars outside of Canada.

I've also attached some other sample letters and e-mails and things that we've received. We've heard from U.S. hunters who have called us or e-mailed us or faxed us to say they're not coming back to Canada this year. That happened when the regulations were planned to come into effect on January 1, and I'll talk more about that a little later. I've attached a few samples to my formal presentation as well so you can see the kind of correspondence we're getting. Basically they're concerned about the need to register their firearms, in essence, and they're concerned about the fees that go along with that.

You may be aware that the whole issue of firearms registration and regulation is a very hot topic in the United States. A lot of groups and agencies oppose that in the United States, based on what they call their second amendment rights, I guess, and I don't pretend to be an expert on the U.S. Constitution.

I think our government should understand that if they're not in favour of those things in the States, they're certainly not going to be in favour of similar kinds of systems here in Canada.

We've made the point in previous presentations that we're not aware of any statistics showing that non-resident hunters have ever committed violent crimes using their firearms in Canada, whether it's murder, attempted murder, assault, robbery or manslaughter. We're not aware of any such statistics and we in fact doubt that there are any.

So from our perspective, until there's a legitimate problem or need to take action against non-residents in such a fashion, we simply cannot support the implementation of the new regulations.

I'd like to make some brief comments on the package of regulations that went forward last November, because in many ways those are some of the things that we were most concerned about at the time in terms of types of licences and fees.

• 1250

Through the presentation I made earlier this February, those remarks should already be recorded in the committee minutes, but I want to reiterate some of them before I comment on the new package. But please understand that our first position is one of opposition to the registration process for non-residents.

We are concerned about the need for non-residents to re-register every year and pay the related fees, even though in many cases they use the same firearm from year to year. From our perspective you should only have to register that once, if there is such a system, and pay for it once.

We were concerned about the $50 fee for the temporary confirmed declaration for non-residents—that's the 60-day temporary permit—compared to the five-year Canadian possession and acquisition license fee, which is only $60. We've questioned why the fees are almost the same, given the large difference in time that the license would be valid for each.

The declaration for non-residents should be valid for longer than 60 days, especially when they're using the same firearms year after year. I know some people have said they can also apply then for a Canadian possession and acquisition licence if they're going to be a repeat guest to Canada. That process, from what I can understand, at least in the comments we have to date, is going to be far more restrictive for them than the temporary one, in that they'll have to register every firearm that they own, not just the ones they may be bringing across the border, so I don't see them favouring that in any way.

I know there is some discussion about allowing outfitters and people in our industry to handle some of the paperwork on behalf of their guests. That does seem to be a bit of a reasonable approach in terms of taking the onus off the non-resident, but it does add more work and more paperwork and red tape for the operator to look after on behalf of his guests. Many governments right now are trying to cut red tape and paperwork for small business, not actually add to it.

We are also concerned from those original regulations that there were some exemptions for aboriginal people in remote areas from some of the storage provisions that were to apply to non-aboriginal folks. A lot of our businesses we consider remote, and I'm not sure I saw a good definition of what that was. We think if that was an issue of safety, then it should apply to everyone. It shouldn't be based on issues of race or nationality.

Some comments on the current package—in many ways it's perhaps more questions and comments, because it was unclear, at least in my brief reading of the regulations, exactly how it would take place.

Section 2 under the new regulations indicates that non-residents have to declare both in person and in writing the firearms they will be importing to Canada. Our concern is where and how those forms are going to be made available, what types of information will be required, and the level of information that will be required.

We think the type of information that may be required on those forms could have a substantial impact on the willingness of non-residents to go through the process in order to come into Canada, based on what we've heard today. If they have to provide basically the same level of information as residents and be subjected to the same types of background checks, etc., we would suggest that the system won't be utilized by non-residents very well, and as indicated earlier, they'll choose to stay home—or perhaps not even go to another province in this case. It will mean staying in the States, and we'll lose those revenues.

Some might argue that if a non-resident has nothing to hide, he shouldn't fear a background check. I think that misses the point of why our American hunters are so opposed to the new law and regulations. They have made arguments and comments to us, as I know some resident gun owners have, that they view registration as a first step towards eventual confiscation. That's their fear. They also don't trust that law enforcement officials in Canada won't share the information that they get and the computer system with their American counterparts, despite the commitments that have been made. Those are their arguments, and those are the reasons why they're not overly pleased with what they're seeing in Canada.

One of the documents, the Guide to proposed firearm regulations, indicates that when non-residents export the firearms out of Canada they need to produce the confirmed declaration that they'll get and deliver it in person to a customs official or put it in a drop box. It would appear that therefore the original paperwork will be returned to the customs officials.

We had a gentleman from the justice department at our recent convention, and I believe he mentioned it's envisioned that renewal should be able to be carried out by phone. I hope that will be the case. The renewal system should be made as easy as possible, and if it can be by phone, then fine, and in some way...because if they have to turn that individual paperwork back in when they leave the country, it will have to be based on a name or something else, because they may not have all the original forms or numbers that went with their original declaration.

• 1255

We do appreciate the fact that the government has decided to delay the implementation of most of the non-resident regulations until 2001. Originally it was supposed to be January 1, 1998, and that was probably causing most of the stir, at least in the United States. So that's good news in the sense that we hope to recover some of the business we heard we would lose starting in 1998.

I had a phone call last week from a gentleman who wanted to comment on things. I told him those provisions weren't going into place now until 2001. He said he would reconsider his decision not to come to Canada and may have another talk with the outfitter he was planning to use. But until I told him that he felt he would not be returning in 1998.

Unless we see some fundamental changes around our concerns...while the delay is welcome many people feel it postpones the inevitable and in 2001 we'll be up against this again.

We're not aware of any data that indicate our clients, non-resident hunters, have been a factor in firearm crimes. To me this shows they're law-abiding people. They want to come to Canada to enjoy the opportunities we have, the scenery and beauty of Canada, and contribute some substantial dollars to our economy and our members' businesses. They believe they've done nothing wrong and they're wondering why Canada is asking them to go through this process, because it makes them feel as if they have done something wrong.

Tourism is a very competitive global industry. There are many countries and states that compete with Canada for the hunting dollar. I guess the more difficult any jurisdiction makes it for guests, whatever they may be planning to do, to enjoy the activities they want to enjoy and pay to enjoy, the less successful they seem to be at capturing that tourism dollar. We're concerned that's being forced upon us, and Canada, in particular the province of Ontario, will have a very difficult time when these new regulations come into place.

I have worked for NOTO for nine years and I can tell you that no single issue over that time has generated as much concern and opposition in our membership as this one. Our membership is pretty much unanimously opposed to what they've seen and what they understand of the bill. They are very concerned that the loss of dollars they were expecting because of the boycotts will have a serious impact on the businesses and on the shoulder season revenue.

I will close there. I would like to thank the committee and Madam Chairperson for the opportunity to address you today. I will be pleased to answer any questions or comments you might have, based on the presentation.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Antler.

I know Mr. MacKay has to leave. Do you have a question before you go?

Mr. Peter MacKay: I have just a brief question on the impact. Have you consulted with any similar interest groups outside of northern Ontario on their positions in relation to your own?

Mr. Jim Antler: Not formally. I know that when Mr. Grayston, my boss, appeared before either the House committee or the Senate committee he was on a panel with gentlemen from a Saskatchewan outfitters group and a Yukon outfitters group. My recollection from reading through the transcripts was they feel very much the same as we do.

Some of the organizations in Canada like us may not be as large or have the same resources we have available. We're probably the biggest one in Canada in terms of number of members and the ability to have some staff. I haven't seen anything that makes me believe other organizations in our sector are overly enamoured with the bill and the regulations, based on the impacts they feel it will have.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Given that you are a larger organization in relation to this type of outfitting business and you've said it's going to significantly impact on your group, can one glean from that that this could be potentially fatal for a smaller group?

• 1300

Mr. Jim Antler: In the context of making that comment, I was talking about for our individual member businesses, and my guess would be whether you're a hunting outfitter in Manitoba, Alberta, Ontario, or New Brunswick, the impacts will likely be the same. So the comment wasn't made in terms of what it would mean to NOTO; it was made in terms of what it would mean to the individual operator.

Different businesses have a different percentage of their business that relies on hunting, and that will also have an impact on the bottom line of the business.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you very much, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Ramsay, let's start with five minutes.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Mr. Antler, I want to thank you for appearing again on Bill C-68 and its regulations. During the last hearings on the regulations, in the last week of January and the first week of February, 1997, this whole business of the economic impact of Bill C-68 and its regulations was discussed. There were at least nine groups, including museums and the film industry and so on, that expressed concerns about the negative economic impact Bill C-68 and its regulations were going to have upon them and their businesses.

I asked the official who appeared at the end of our hearings whether or not the government had conducted an economic impact study and they had not. Of course, I was concerned that they would bring forward a bill like this, which has such potential for a negative impact on so many industries, and that they weren't aware of that. They obviously weren't aware because there isn't a concern motivating a study to see what impact it would have.

There are two questions I'd like to ask you springing from that. First, are you aware of any study the government has done since January 1997, since our last go-round on these regulations? Secondly, have you done a study in your own area—to follow up on Mr. MacKay's question—to determine exactly the negative potential the bill will have upon the industry you represent here today?

Mr. Jim Antler: In answer to your first question, I'm not aware of anything the government has done in particular. I know that OFAH, which you heard from earlier, talked about that in their presentation in terms of an overall cost-benefit analysis to see whether or not the benefits of the bill and the package will outweigh the costs in other ways. I'm not aware of anything in particular.

We haven't done that ourselves, and probably the reason why is a case of resources as much as anything else, although we are the largest outfitting group, as far as I know, in terms of numbers in Canada. As a non-profit organization, our cup doesn't always runneth over. We are tied into a number of issues aside from just this one.

I've attached a sample from one of our operators who faxed us a handwritten note. Actually, it was originally sent to his MP, Bob Nault out in Kenora, from Lake of the Woods, who sent a carbon copy to us in late August 1997. His non-resident business last year amounted to about $33,000 from hunting revenue. That resulted in, I think, 30 or 33 guests at roughly $1,000 a person. As of the end of August 1997 he had two booked for next year.

I can't say whether that's an average or whether that's high or low on the scale, but I know there's a lot of fear out there and there's a lot of concern. Even when he did his we hadn't had the moose hunt yet in the fall; we hadn't had the fall deer hunt yet, and usually that's the time when people start thinking about what they want to do next year.

So we hadn't seen a lot of those people, but I know there have been different things in different publications out of the U.S.

I've attached something to my presentation, one of the appendices that actually appeared in a document, a publication that's entitled Outdoors Unlimited. It's for members of the Outdoor Writers Association of America and it's a comment from one of their gentlemen. It's a bit of a feeder publication, if you will, in that the outdoor writers subscribe to it. The message they would be getting would be the one you see here, which is this gentleman saying, I'll not come back if this is the way I'm going to be treated in Canada.

• 1305

We're doing some activities with a conservation group in Michigan, which is similar to the OFAH, on some common issues we have. On an initiative we have, they're receiving a number of letters from their membership asking why they're even dealing with us as a Canadian organization because of the gun control legislation. Even though it's not us who are proposing it, their members are saying to them, why are you working with him? You should be working with our people in Michigan. Canada is trying to restrict us.

The short answer is no, we don't have a study. I'm not aware, as I've said, that the government has produced anything either.

The Chair: Mr. de Savoye, as a sovereignist you should have some questions about the sovereignty of Canada generally as compared to the United States and the National Rifle Association, who seem to be yet again trying to tell us how to run our own country.

Go ahead. I'll have more on this later.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Our chair has made an interesting comment, but one that neglects an important aspect. It is true that Americans have principles that differ from our own. It is also true that they try to impose their culture on the entire planet. But at the same time, we can't try to adopt principles and hope that they will accept them without making an effort on our side.

Mr. Antler, do you know whether the government intends to hold an advertising campaign to promote Canadian outfitters in order to counter the negative American publicity that you have described?

[English]

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Madam Chair, there are only two or three of us left here. Would it mean if I had left he wouldn't have been able to say this? He wouldn't have been able to make his comments?

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: You deserve credit for that.

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: The point is are you aware of any

[Translation]

advertising produced by Canadians or by the Canadian government to help you sell your product?

[English]

Mr. Jim Antler: On a broad scale, I'm thinking of this in two ways. One is I know that through the Canadian Firearms Centre the government is undertaking the communications with regard to the bill. They are making efforts to get into the U.S. market through 800 number cards, an Internet site, various ways, to try to get that information out to people.

I've utilized that 800 number myself. Whenever I talk to people on the phone or we get e-mails we respond to I give that information out. I want people in the U.S. to understand as clearly as possible specifically what they are going to have to be involved with. To a certain extent there is rumour and misinformation. There are some comments that have been made that presume some things that aren't actually in the regulations.

Part of our job is to try to inform people as much as possible with the information we have, and the most accurate information. From that perspective, yes, I am aware of what the government is doing in terms of the communications end. We appreciate that because it helps take some of the onus off the operators themselves and through organizations such as ourselves.

In fact, we're going to be circulating, word for word, one of the most recent bulletins the Firearms Centre has prepared to every one of our members to help them understand so they can communicate that information to their people. In that regard, yes, I am aware, and we do appreciate that this is going on.

• 1310

From, say, a tourism marketing perspective, I know that through the Canadian Tourism Commission there are a number of projects that go on. I haven't seen a lot, frankly—or I'm not aware of them—that will deal with hunting, per se, in terms of tourism promotion.

The history in Ontario, at least, with our provincial government has been that hunting has not been an activity they've chosen to openly market, probably for a number of reasons. It's not always the most favourable activity among some members of the public, so they've steered away from it. Fishing, which we offer, and some other outdoor activities generally are a little softer and perhaps don't provoke the same reaction.

We get the communiqué bulletin from the Canadian Tourism Commission. I'm not aware of any targeted activities that they're doing around the hunting end. I know they're looking at outdoor adventure and that type of thing, but I don't see a slant on the advertising in terms of hunting and tying in some of this information so that people are aware of that. If it is there, then I stand to be corrected.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: My point is that U.S. operators have an opportunity to grab Canadian business from their people. It's obvious. If I were in their place, I'd do exactly what they're doing.

The Canadian government business is to recuperate the tax money we will otherwise lose. Mind you, they should invest up to this amount to recuperate it. Otherwise, they're losing money, and we're losing money.

Is it your intention, Mr. Antler, to push government agencies to do so?

Mr. Jim Antler: I guess we haven't sat down and formally thought about how to approach the government on that particular point. We've chosen to try to tackle this issue such that we deal with the regulations and deal with the bill and try to get something that we think will have the least impact possible on our people.

It's certainly an interesting point, one that, as I say, we haven't thought a lot about. We've been more focused on looking at what the requirements are going to be. We feel that there is such a substantial market in the United States that has been coming to Canada, and that enjoys Canada because it has some different characteristics in terms of these opportunities, that this market is already there. It's already coming. If we could have something in here that would mean the least impact on these people, we wouldn't have to work overly hard to try to recoup all of those dollars that we might lose from a system that's going to discourage people.

Depending on the outcome of this particular exercise, that may be something we'll have to sit down and take a look at.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Antler, I congratulate you for having sent us your brief on Friday, as this allowed us to have a French version here today.

You asked four questions about the proposed regulations we have before us:

[English]

Where and how will forms be made available? What types of information will be required? Will non-residents have to provide the same level of information? Will non-residents be subject to the same level of background checks...?

[Translation]

I think I know the answer to two of those questions since I put them to representatives of the Department of Justice. What kind of information will be required? A draft form was proposed and I have it here. Our clerk could provide you with a copy of it.

Question 3 asks whether non-residents will have to provide the same level of information. In response to my question, I was told it would be the same form, regardless of country of residence. It would therefore seem that we have the answer to the second and third questions.

You have asked these four questions because you have concerns about the scope of what is at stake here. With regard to these questions, could you explain what it is you are worried about, what should be done and what should not be done?

[English]

Mr. Jim Antler: I haven't seen that form. I'm not aware of it. I would appreciate if we could get a copy of that at some point. If the Canadian Firearms Centre is the avenue by which that gets distributed, I can try to find out that information.

• 1315

I guess in most of those comments, especially 2, 3 and 4, which you seem to refer to, at least in my understanding of what the resident process will have to go through, from my recollection the screening process on that seems to be fairly extensive. As I say, I've focused more on the non-resident provisions in my work on this, because I know there are resident groups that are going to take care of that in terms of who gets the application, who gets to comment on it, those kinds of things.

Given the concerns and the feedback that we're getting about non-residents now, I guess the concern was that if people in the States would in essence have to go through the same process as residents, that seemed to be fairly detailed. From what I could understand, it didn't seem to be anything that was going to say, we don't have to do a lot of work, we don't have to know a lot of background on you. I guess I looked at it and felt that if you were going to be providing applications to spouses and things like that, which at least for the Canadian resident licences you're supposed to do, it's just easier for people to say, why do they need all this? I can go hunting in Michigan and they're not going to ask me all these questions, they're not going to make me go through this paperwork for me to be able to undertake that opportunity.

So it appeared to us that the harder we made it for them, the less likely it would be that they'd be willing to go through the process.

So that's where the concern came from.

I know that a lot of the firearms owners, and I know that the OFAH again, because we're more familiar with their position than with other provincial federations'... Most of their members, at least in northern Ontario, consider themselves to be law-abiding gun owners. They're not involved in crime. They're just enjoying a recreational activity that they want to enjoy. They feel, and I guess we felt the same way, that most people who want to do that question why they have to go through all that process if there's no record of them or no problem or no sense that they're a segment of the society that we have to be overly concerned about to put them through the process.

As I said before, without statistics showing that non-resident hunters have been committing crimes in Canada with their firearms, it seems as if they've been abiding by the laws and not causing trouble.

So I guess in a roundabout way that's what we were concerned about.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: So what basically you're saying is, for God's sake, keep it as simple as possible.

Mr. Jim Antler: Yes, because you've got a lot of fear and concern and negativity out there.

I talk a lot about the Americans because that is where the overwhelming majority of our hunters come from. Their position would be, we don't want paperwork, we don't want checks, we don't want all that.

That would be the easiest thing to do. I'm not sure that the government is prepared to do that, so the process has to be as simple as possible and has to be seen to be, I guess, as unobtrusive as possible, for them to look at it and say, well, okay, I'll make that decision to go to Canada; even though I may not like what they're doing and I may be afraid that we'll see the same thing in the States, I'm still going to be willing to spend that money—because that's what it will come down to.

The Chair: I have two questions that are generated by the research staff.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I'm leaving, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Goodbye, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: That means you'll have to shut down, you know, because you'll have only two members here.

The Chair: The researchers want these questions asked, so if you don't want them asked, then leave and we won't ask them.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I don't know what the question is.

The Chair: You've indicated that there's a delay—

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I'll wait for your questions.

The Chair: —that you appreciate the delay of the provisions of Bill C-68 and there are regulations for non-residents, but there's a problem with that, a drafting problem that has come up, and a problem in that it may leave us with no regulation on the entry of restricted and prohibited weapons. So if the delay was limited to apply only to non-prohibited or restricted firearms—in other words, we're talking about long guns basically—would that still...?

You're not concerned about handguns here.

Mr. Jim Antler: I don't think so. I don't believe that many people who come up have handguns with them. I can't say with any certainty, but—

The Chair: Actually they do, and that's what we're trying to prevent.

Mr. Jim Antler: But I mean in terms of hunting per se. I know that you'll have people who are in shooting competitions and those kinds of things.

• 1320

The Chair: A lot of your comments were in relation to the requirements of the act themselves, which is one thing, and we've had an election on that and it's all over, but there are regulations here today. Your general comments, I take it, are still on the act itself.

Mr. Jim Antler: It sounds as if your question is if you could delay the regulations for long guns and rifles, basically, would that be okay for our people? Is that basically what the question is?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Jim Antler: In most cases that should be, from my understanding of what people are using when they come to hunt in Canada. As I say, I don't think too many people are bringing handguns for hunting purposes.

The Chair: Or Uzi's.

Mr. Jim Antler: Certainly not Uzi's. But if it's not going to apply to rifles and non-restricted firearms, then I don't think that's going to hurt us.

The Chair: I appreciate what Mr. de Savoye said. This is a personal comment for me. Given that this act is here, we've had an election on it and it's here, I think insofar as the government is concerned, to stay, it might be more productive if we worked together on how to deal with these Americans.

I travel from Windsor every week. Saturday I flew to Toronto and back to Windsor, and there were about 20 hunters from Michigan on my plane. In fact, except for me the plane was full of hunters from Michigan, and they were going to northern Saskatchewan. As I often do, I engaged them in conversation about where they were going and that sort of thing, and I asked them specifically about our gun regulations. I was surprised by the amount of misinformation they had. When I clarified it, they weren't nearly as concerned as the Ted Nugents of the world would have them be.

I would suggest that rather than being alarmed by people like Ted Nugent, we all ought to work together to make sure we get the best information we can and we market properly.

I think Mr. de Savoye's recommendation is absolutely correct. The National Rifle Association does not run Canada, nor do American hunters. If they want to visit foreign countries, perhaps they should have some acknowledgement of our culture. We don't change our culture to suit them. It should be, I think, that we work together to try to minimize these effects, not have them pull the chain and make us dance.

I say that with sensitivity to the economic interests of your group. I think these recreational activities are valid and I think they are important to our economy. But Ted Nugent doesn't rule the world as much as his inflated ego may think he should.

Mr. Jim Antler: I don't want to leave the impression...if I did leave the impression that Ted Nugent was ruling the world, then I'm sorry. Not knowing what the committee's background was on some of the folks like him, who have been very outspoken in the States, as I say, I have attached his letter. There are some comments in that letter which I don't agree with and we don't agree with, but it's designed as a sample to show you the kind of communication we're getting back.

The Chair: And the kind of craziness that's going on over there, Mr. Antler. So let's work together to try to... We don't need that kind of pernicious violence in Ontario and in Canada, people who think they have a... What Ted Nugent is talking about is the right to bear arms; just walking around the street with it on your hip. That's the kind of stuff he talks about.

What I'm saying to you is there are lots of respectable hunters from Michigan and from all over the United States, and we should welcome them in Canada, we should share our bounty with them, and we should benefit from that. But let's work together to do it.

I'm sorry, but living in Windsor, I'm regularly exposed to Mr. Nugent and his ilk on the American airwaves, and this is craziness. These people are nuts.

Mr. Jim Antler: I agree that we need to work together. Every time we've had the opportunity to come before the committee...and I appreciate that the committee called us and asked us. I wasn't aware the hearings were going on. If there are people who want to sit down with us, as I say, we're working together with the Michigan United Conservation Clubs, the equivalent of the OFAH on some things in the state of Michigan. We had Henry Vanwyk from the justice department come to our convention to go through the package, to explain to our members exactly what the information is, to try to make sure they have the most up-to-date information. The head of that MUCC group was at our convention and heard those comments and made comments on his own.

• 1325

If people want to sit and work together that's fine. We'll get people together. We'll organize outfitters to sit down in any kind of a working group. We can call people like the folks from the Michigan club together. I'm sure they'd be happy to sit down and do it. I'm not aware that we haven't been asked to sit down in that kind of group.

The Chair: But I've seen correspondence from some of your organizations. I don't know about your particular organization, but I have a farm on Pelee Island and I saw, in black and white, what they were telling the American hunters at the pheasant hunt this year and I was appalled. They're using the gun bill to push people away. Don't shoot yourself in the foot, to use an appropriate analogy. Let's work together.

The industry department has a large initiative on tourism. I think you would fit in perfectly. Your association should get hold of them and Tourism Canada and see what you can do. This is a real economic problem and there are some remedies available. Let's use them and stop feeding NRA paranoia.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: You've alerted them of what we're talking about right now.

The Chair: Yes, and I'll alert them as well.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Get some push to this idea.

Mr. Jim Antler: I know how the NRA reacts, and we don't have any direct dealings with the NRA as an organization.

The Chair: I'm grateful to hear that.

Mr. Jim Antler: I faxed them the package we got from the Firearms Centre. I don't know anybody there. I found out who to send the most recent information to so they would have it. When I get information, I like it to be the most accurate. It's been hard for me sometimes when people ask me, well, what's the best information. You're in the process of drafting regulations and things can happen and change. That's why we asked Henry Vanwyk to come to the convention to hear it right from the Firearms Centre people and the justice department themselves.

In my job I want to make sure my people have the best information available on what this means so they don't misinform people. I want them to clearly understand what will happen and how the system will work so there is no misinformation and things aren't made out to be bigger than they are.

If there is an opportunity for us to work together in some fashion, you name the time and the place and we'll have people there.

The Chair: Thanks.

We'll break now until 3.30 p.m.