JURI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES QUESTIONS JURIDIQUES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 25, 1997

• 0938

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.)): All right, we're back for our consideration of the draft regulations under the Firearms Act.

This morning our witnesses are Steve Torino and Steve Stanko, who are vice-president and director respectively of l'Association des collectionneurs d'armes à feu du Bas Canada and the Association of Semi-Automatic Firearms Collectors of Quebec Inc. From the Ontario Arms' Collectors Association, we have with us William Bateman and Urmas Sui.

Oh, and we also have Mr. Panagiotidis with us. Are you with the Quebec group as well, Mr. Panagiotidis?

Mr. George Panagiotidis (Vice-President, l'Association des collectioneurs d'armes à feu du Bas Canada): Yes. I'm vice-president.

The Chair: Thank you.

I don't know if you've spoken among yourselves to decide how you're going to present your brief. You're from two different groups, so do you have two different presentations?

Mr. Steve Torino (Vice-President, Association of Semi-Automatic Firearms Collectors of Quebec Inc.): Madame Chairman, the Quebec Association of the Semi-Automatic Firearms Collectors represents the Lower Canada Arms Collectors Association for the purposes of these hearings.

The Chair: Great.

Mr. Steve Torino: We produced a four-page brief plus an executive summary. I was told just recently that even though I have the faxed confirmations, only the executive summary seems to be readily available, both in English and in French.

We will be presenting a combined brief, as was indicated in the letter I sent to Mr. Fortin and to Diane Lefebvre for both associations. When the time comes, with permission I would like to read it. It is only four pages long.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Bateman and Mr. Sui, do you have one presentation as well?

• 0940

Mr. William E. Bateman (Director, Ontario Arms Collectors Association): Yes, we have one presentation, Madam Chairman. Our submissions were faxed in yesterday and I understand they have not yet been translated, so Mr. Sui will just give a brief introduction.

The Chairman: Okay. We'll start with Mr. Torino then. We are just trying to keep some time for members of Parliament to ask specific questions.

Go ahead, Mr. Torino.

Mr. Steve Torino: Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of this committee.

Specifically, we would like to present the position of the two associations, and in general the collectors of Quebec whom these associations represent, on gun show regulations, gun club regulations and shooting range regulations.

We would again like to make the point we brought up in our prior presentation in February to the subcommittee concerning a reader's ability to readily understand what is required in a particular circumstance. We believe that the regulations package should be presented to the firearms community and the general public in a simple and comprehensive manner that lends itself to readily being understood by anyone.

We again recommend that each known firearms owner presently in the system, all known firearms organizations and associations, registered dealers and gun clubs and other organizations, should be sent a copy of the regulations along with the guide thereto and all relevant fact sheets. Firearms laws that are not directly in the hands of individual firearms owners will not be complied with since incorrect information can produce extremely unfavourable results.

In addition, we recommend that all printed media should be asked to publish the regulations, along with the guide or the fact sheets, through advertisements taken out by the government.

In addition, we believe that regular advertisements should be broadcast on radio and television, publicizing the commencement date of the new law and the major details thereof, together with local announcements as to where more details may be obtained.

The provisions of C-68 have not been sufficiently publicized in any detail by the government, either by individual contact or by detailed publication to the general firearms communities affected. In our opinion, properly presented information is the start to the assurance of compliance.

We would like to comment on specific areas of the proposed regulations as follows.

Gun show regulations: The associations we represent have no major objections to the sponsor being required to have a gun show licence per se approved by the chief firearms officer. However, we have been mandated to discuss the following problems which are of importance to collectors in Quebec.

Most sponsors of gun shows are non-profit organizations. Commercial shows such as camping, hunting and fishing shows are in a slightly different area that does not necessarily apply to the weekend gun show attended by members and guests of the sponsoring association. Requiring a firearms business licence for a sponsor could jeopardize the non-profit status of these organizations, effectively closing them or forcing a radical change in their charter and therefore in the membership mix.

We do not want or need such consequences if a business licence is interpreted as a reason for cancellation of or a change in the association's charter by those authorities responsible for compliance with the various provincial and federation corporations acts.

Under section 4, the application must include a description of the proposed means for ensuring the security of the building in which the gun show is to be held. In addition, the approval for sponsorship must be granted only if the CFO determines that the security of the building itself can be ensured by the sponsor.

The sponsor has no means or authority to ensure the security of the building in which the gun show will take place, especially when the show occupies only a small portion of the entire building.

We note that the proposed regulations guide mentions furnishing the security plans for the building, but later on specifies that the sponsor has the overall responsibility for providing security for the display area only. The “display area only” is something that most gun shows—the ones that we have attended and are aware of—are already taking into account.

Our point here is that if we are responsible for the security of the entire building when we are only occupying two rooms in it, it becomes a little bit of a burden and is, I think, beyond the scope of an association holding a weekend gun show.

Neither we nor most other collectors' associations or sponsors would be in a position to furnish an elaborate and expensive security for an entire building, especially one similar to a convention centre or other public building. Such prohibitive requirements would surely close all respectable gun shows presently sponsored by established associations. We would not wish to contemplate the results of the closure of such shows, leaving the area open to transactions in unsuitable places, since the security of the exhibitors and the firearms that are displayed is of prime importance.

• 0945

We have noted the stipulation in paragraph 6(a) that the required information be supplied in its final form to the chief firearms officer at least three days prior to the date of the gun show. This requirement for us is impractical, since many of our members travel to the show from outside the province, and in several cases come from outside Canada. Despite our efforts to plan table distribution for both sales and display, sometimes exhibitors do not show up for various reasons. Such cancellations are immediately filled by other members who call or arrive at the last minute, and/or are on a waiting list awaiting a vacancy.

We also note that paragraph 6(b) puts an onus on the show sponsor to send a notice to the appropriate police department, indicating the sponsor's intention to hold a gun show. If approval has been issued for the show, we believe the chief firearms officer is the best person to inform the local authority that approval has been issued, and he can therefore send a copy of the approved permit with the show notice. In our opinion, this will reduce the possibility of the local police department deciding it doesn't want a normal gun show, one that has been in its area for years, to suddenly be removed from that area. If the CFO has approved the show, the police are assured that investigations of the sponsor have taken place, and that everything is all right from the CFO's point of view.

Paragraph 9(b) of the regulations describing the responsibilities of the exhibitor requires constant supervision of the exhibitor's tables by a person who has reached the age of majority and holds a licence to possess firearms. This seems inconsistent with the other requirements of the act for the reasons that I will describe.

First, the act states that minors are eligible to hold a licence under stated conditions of hunting, target shooting, etc. Such persons often attend gun shows to advertise a shooting club or range, or to help out a parent or friend.

Second, the rules state that individuals have until the year 2001 to obtain a firearms licence. In addition, an individual can be in lawful possession of firearms if the individual had continual possession of a firearm, as per previous acts. In such a case, in our opinion, the individual does not need a firearms licence to supervise a table at a gun show.

We also question the need for exhibitors to maintain records of all transactions at a gun show, when all firearms transferred must be registered to start with. This seems like unnecessary paperwork, with no real law enforcement purpose not already covered elsewhere.

Here's another point we were asked to bring up: We wonder about the requirement for Canadian citizenship for show sponsors since, in our understanding, non-residents are permitted to have firearms licences if they go through the normal procedures and have to comply with all Canadian requirements in any case.

We recommend that the regulations reflect that the sponsor is not responsible for the security of the entire building where the show will occur, but rather only the area set aside for the show where firearms are on display. We also recommend that the requirements of paragraph 6(a) be modified to allow the chief firearms officer to receive these details within five working days after the date of the particular show rather than three days before. This would permit all interested exhibitors to have a table, and would avoid potential activities outside the show location's controlled environment. In other words, we would like to keep everyone who is selling firearms within the area that is supervised, instead of having transactions going on in parking lots or wherever else it is not exactly conducive to the reputation of the various associations doing the work to sponsor these shows.

We also would recommend that paragraph 6(b) be modified to permit the chief firearms officer to notify the appropriate police department by sending it the approval or the permit for the gun show, thereby demonstrating to the local authority that the particular show has met federal regulations as required.

We recommend that paragraph 9(b) be changed to modify the age of majority requirement to conform to the act, along with the appropriate revisions to permit a person in legal possession of firearms to supervise tables at gun shows.

• 0950

On the firearms fees regulations, we have been asked to again address the $25 fee for each newly acquired or transferred firearm as being excessive, especially in cases where several firearms are purchased or transferred. The investigation costs will be the same for individuals involved in the transactions and the computerized system of transfer will not cost very much more for one, ten, or twenty-five firearms transferred after the investigation is completed.

The problem with the $25 cost is shown in an example where a person wishes to dispose of a collection or a part thereof. If 30 firearms are involved, a $750 fee is involved. If the firearms are worth $100 apiece, we're looking at about a 25% fee and it becomes excessive. We don't want it to lead to transactions that don't exactly follow the law. This again is not in our interest.

We recommend a sliding scale for transactions involving more than one firearm. Since much of the investigative work revolves around the individuals involved and since many of the firearms would already be registered through the initial $10 to $18 sliding scale, we are recommending a maximum of about $100.

On shooting clubs and shooting range regulations, to our knowledge almost all of our members are also members of various shooting ranges and shooting clubs and would therefore be affected by the ramifications of these regulations.

We believe the onerous requirements of complying with a set of rules whose consequences are presently unknown would appear very costly. Insofar as backstops and conforming to all the requirements in the regulations, if at all feasible, for many existing and long-established ranges this is cause for great concern.

The standards for the construction of containment barriers are not listed in the regulations, so the costs of upgrading cannot be determined at this time.

In addition, some clubs have obtained quotations from insurance brokers on the cost of the insurance required in clauses 3 and 4. Some brokers have refused to consider such insurance for small clubs and have stated that the errors and omissions insurance with continuous coverage is not possible for a non-profit range or club. Others have given detailed quotations that stagger the budget of even the largest clubs in our area.

Quotations obtained are in the $5,000 range for the insurance that is presently required, plus the apparent requirement for an audited financial statement for the errors and omissions insurance. This was brought to our attention by two brokers in Quebec. We verified this with a gentleman who spoke yesterday from B.C. who had obtained a quote of $6,000 to $7,000. That's a high figure, but the low figure is somewhat in excess of a few hundred dollars total. This is something we're continuing to try to determine.

Since the result of non-compliance with these requirements appears to be not receiving approval for the operation of a range, its closure would not leave any legal outlet for target shooting. This is a very unsafe and dangerous situation if left unchecked. I don't think anyone would like to see people taking their target shooting activities to the nearest wooded area or whatever, where unsafe conditions exist.

We recommend that the matters of insurance and related costs, together with the details of the design and corresponding cost of the containment barriers, be determined prior to the implementation of this set of regulations to prevent closure of many outdoor ranges in Quebec.

Since the verification process and the import-export regulations have been put off for a reasonable period, we request that a similar process be considered and enacted for this set of regulations to permit further detailed study of these very important issues, as listed above.

We thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bateman.

Mr. William Bateman: Mr. Sui will just introduce us.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Urmas Sui (Director, Ontario Arms Collectors Association): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Before dealing with specific concerns of the bill, I would like to give you some background on the Ontario Arms Collectors Association.

The Ontario Arms Collectors Association is a non-profit organization whose main purpose or mission is to promote the interest in the collection and history of antique firearms and militaria so they may be preserved for future generations of Canadians.

The Ontario Arms Collectors Association was founded in 1948, and next year will be its 50th anniversary. From its first meeting in 1948 at the Royal Ontario Museum, it has grown into an organization of over 700 members. Membership encompasses people from all walks of life, law enforcement officers, ex-military, former members of Parliament, etc.

• 0955

The Ontario Arms Collectors Association accomplishes its mission by having these historical and military arms exhibited at the nine shows it holds every year. These shows are open to the public and are under the protection of the local law enforcement officers.

The Ontario Arms Collectors Association also sponsors historical rifle matches for its members. These are carried out at military ranges rented from the Department of Defence.

The Ontario Arms Collectors Association also partially sponsors a black powder team, which competes in South Africa at the world historical rifle championships.

I will now ask William Bateman to deal with some of the specific concerns in the draft regulations being considered by the committee.

Mr. William Bateman: Madam Chair, as I indicated earlier, there's a slightly more extensive submission to the committee. However, I would like to deal with certain specific points.

The word “building” is used in several cases throughout the draft regulations. However, in certain other areas the word “location” is used. The association has a concern over what is meant in those circumstances, in that a gun show may occupy a portion of a building in which a venue is located. It is submitted that the regulations be amended to refer consistently to “location” throughout.

The regulations also require that a sponsor “ensure the security” of the location. Clarification is sought as to what this is meant to require. For example, it could mean a sponsor must make certain that only authorized persons, whoever that class of individuals may be, could enter the location, make certain no thefts, i.e., shoplifting, take place in the venue, or make certain no robbery takes place in the venue, by engaging an armed guard, for example. It is submitted that the phrase is extremely vague.

In addition, each exhibitor in the show is required under the Firearms Act and display regulations to display the firearms on display in a specified manner. It is submitted that a sponsor should not be responsible for defaults of exhibitors or third parties, and therefore that specifically proposed paragraphs 4.(1)(e), 5.(b), and 7.(1)(a), which place that responsibility on a sponsor, be deleted.

Proposed paragraph 6.(a)(ii) of the draft regulations and subclause 13.(1) of the shooting clubs and shooting ranges regulations require that certain records be maintained on each member of a participating association. Membership information is treated by OACA as extremely confidential material. Only the secretary of the association has full access to details relating to members, with other members of the executive being allowed access to such information only under supervision. This is done in order to preserve the security of the members.

Obviously a list of members' names and other identifying characteristics such as an address or telephone number would be extremely valuable to a criminal element, which would have an instant list of targets who would be assumed to hold firearms of significant value. It is submitted that the confidentiality of such a list could not be assured by the chief firearms officer and as such might fall into unauthorized hands through inadvertence or negligence, or perhaps through an application under the freedom of information legislation. Such an event would be extremely damaging to both the association and its members.

It is therefore submitted that the draft regulations relating to both shooting clubs and gun shows be amended to add language that would remove the requirement for the addresses and telephone numbers to be made available to the chief firearms officer. That information obviously would be available in the case of a specific inquiry, but as a general matter it is submitted that such would not be appropriate.

Proposed paragraph 7.(2)(b) of the draft regulations contains a reference to “paragraph 10.(b)”. I assume that's a misprint and the reference is in fact to paragraph 9(b), which relates to the supervision of tables at a gun show.

• 1000

The onus for complying with the regulations relating to the storage and display of firearms under the act is placed upon each individual or business. Those regulations are clear and explicit. It is submitted that it is both unreasonable and improper to place upon a sponsor liability for ensuring that such regulations be adhered to. The sponsor has no power to enforce the regulations under the Firearms Act, and any shifting of the responsibility would remove it from the exhibitors, who must be primarily responsible.

If it is a concern that the exhibitors be aware of their obligations, it is submitted that language similar to that found in paragraph 7(1) of the regulations relating to shooting clubs and ranges be inserted. It would specifically state that each sponsor should ensure that every exhibitor who indicates an intention to exhibit at the gun show for the first time be informed of the regulations relating to storage, display, handling and transportation of firearms. That's virtually identical to the language with respect to the participation in a shooting match for the first time.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. That is an overview of some of our submission.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bateman.

Mr. Ramsay, you can go seven minutes in the first round.

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

I'd like to thank our witnesses this morning for attending and for submissions they have provided to the committee. Seven minutes isn't very long to deal with the regulations of a bill with such significance as Bill C-68.

As a preamble to my questions to the witnesses, the irrationality of the bill is beginning to emerge in these final stages of the enabling regulations. We are seeing well-organized and well-disciplined gun shows and shooting ranges being overly regulated to the point where witnesses have testified here, and I've heard this through their contact with me, that some of these operations may have to close down because of these regulations.

On the gun registry itself, the mail-in system has bothered me from the time it was proposed by the former justice minister Allan Rock in the House. Witnesses who are part and parcel of the support team for Bill C-68 have come before this committee and recognized the inadequacies of the mail-in registration system. I find it quite amazing they would now come forward and recognize what they seemed to not recognize regardless of what we placed before them prior to this, to the point where much of the information within the registration system will be unverified, and therefore, according to their words, unreliable. So we're going to see registration certificates issued on information that is unreliable. Of course I can't see how the registration certificate can be any better in terms of reliability than the information it's based upon.

Getting back to the points you were raising on gun shows, gun clubs, and shooting ranges, were your organizations consulted, and if so to what extent, when these regulations were being prepared by officials of the justice department?

Mr. William Bateman: The Ontario Arms Collectors Association was not consulted.

Mr. Steve Torino: The Quebec associations were not involved in the consultation. I don't believe there were any consultations with collectors. There was a consultation concerning shooting ranges, which to my knowledge occurred some time in early July. It was a one-day session to which numerous people were invited. That's the extent of my knowledge on that.

• 1005

Mr. Jack Ramsay: How would you categorize these regulations, then, with regard to the impact it's going to have on the gun shows and the shooting clubs? How would you categorize them? Are they reasonable? Are they unreasonable?

What is there about your operation of gun clubs and gun shows that has created a public safety problem that requires further regulation?

Mr. George Panagiotidis: Up until now, the safest place to be in town, when there is any hosting of any social event or any cultural event, is a gun show. That's my belief, and the belief of most other people. Most of the people at the gun shows either presenting firearms for sale or exhibiting the wares they have are very knowledgeable, very conscientious individuals who have been in the trade or business for many years. They have basically enacted the teachings to others who want to join this fraternity.

The regulations in effect right now have taken a drastic toll on the gun shows going on in the Quebec region and some of the Ontario shows I attend. The situation is that people are basically afraid to buy, afraid to browse, afraid to talk.

What are their comments right now? They're saying that we're being slaughtered at this point. The membership of these associations is drastically declining on a yearly basis. The inevitability of this whole concept right now is that the shows will close down.

There is no more historical advent in presenting what man has created and produced to exhibit, to shoot—as in target shooting, etc.—or to collect. It's something that will be obliterated and will take a great chunk of our history. What wars we went through, what special target-shooting events in the Olympics, etc.—these will be totally eliminated at this point in time.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: How many gun clubs are there in the province of Quebec?

Mr. Steve Torino: The last number I managed to obtain from the Sûreté was that there were between 150 and 200 gun clubs. Many of these are known to the Sûreté and have facilities for restricted firearms. Many others are not known officially in that they are long-gun ranges only. The precise number of those is currently unknown, but it's still in that general area.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: My time is up, and I may not get to come back to you with questions, but I want to put it on the record that I think these regulations are unnecessary and unneeded.

Whether or not it's intentionally designed to destroy your gun shows, and the culture this supports and maintains, that's exactly what's going to happen. I don't think they care whether or not that is the result. In fact, I think some within the community, who oppose firearms of all types, want that very thing to happen.

So I'm very much opposed to this. I think it's wrong. I think we'll pay the price indeed as time goes on as a result of closing down some of the cultural events surrounding the whole aspect of private ownership—in this case, firearms.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Ramsay.

Seven minutes, Mr. de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Thank you for your presentation. I do not share the views of my colleague from the Reform Party, but if we do need to work towards better security for the general public it should not be at the expense of organizations or individuals who practice a legitimate sport.

• 1010

Therefore, I appreciate the concerns you have expressed regarding the regulations, which are likely to lead to behaviours outside of the law because the regulations will be too difficult to comply with, or lead individuals to try and circumvent the rules. In this sense, your comments will allow us to find intermediate solutions that will hopefully enable you to pursue your legitimate interests while achieving the objectives of the bill.

Mr. Bateman, I am particularly interested in one point you raised. You said that if membership records are too specific, there is a risk of a leak that could be extremely damaging. You recommended that the addresses and phone numbers of members should not be recorded in an easily accessible fashion. I would like you to elaborate on this aspect and on your concerns and your recommended solutions.

[English]

Mr. William Bateman: My concern is that if the types of information proposed—name, address, telephone, membership number and date of birth of either participants in a gun show or participants on a range—fell into the wrong hands, it would be an instant map for anyone who wished to use that information to steal the firearms. Bearing in mind that storage has to be at a particular location, you're telling anybody out there who has the information that the individual in this location has something available for theft.

The specific suggestion that we are making is that the information consist of name, the membership number, and, if necessary, a date of birth not cross-referenced to anything.

If for some reason a law enforcement agency needed specific information on an individual, the club would have that information in terms of address and phone number. But as I pointed out, that's a highly confidential piece of information in our association—and I assume it's the same in every other association.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: How do you presently keep this information? How do you protect your files to make sure this information remains totally confidential?

[English]

Mr. William Bateman: The only person in our association who has access to that information is the association secretary. I am not allowed to be privy to the information, the whole list. If I have an inquiry about a particular member, that information is then made available to me, but neither I nor anybody else on the executive could ask for a list of the members.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Is the list kept in a safe or a locked filing cabinet?

[English]

Mr. William Bateman: The paper record is kept under lock and key. The mailing list is kept on a disk that is secured in a computer that is not part of a network. In other words, it can't be accessed from outside.

[Translation]

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

Mr. Torino, you mentioned paragraphs 6(a) and 6(b). You recommended amending paragraph 6(a) so that the information can be supplied to the chief firearms officer within five days following the event rather than three days before. Although I listened carefully to your explanations, could you elaborate on the consequences of the present language? What would this five-day delay after the event allow you to do? It is important that we have a clear understanding of your concern.

[English]

Mr. Steve Torino: There is a problem with the present proposed regulation requiring advance notice of three days. It is true that most of the gun shows have bookings they receive in advance; I'd say the vast majority are booked in advance. But there are a great number of last-minute phone calls made—let's say the week before—from non-residents or from people who suddenly had a cancellation in a particular activity and who now have some time to go to the show.

• 1015

There was a gun show in Montreal on Sunday, and there were a great number of cancellations. They were not due to the snowstorm, but were called in at the last minute because another activity had occurred. By contrast, a number of people were standing at the door, holding onto their various exhibits and wares, and waiting for these empty tables. So if a name is booked a week in advance—say, Jack Ramsay—and Jack Ramsay cannot show up for whatever reason, there's someone at the door. Peter MacKay is waiting there to see if I have a table. Yes, fine, he can come in and sell his wares or display them or whatever.

These things are known at the last minute or within that last three-day period. By the time the show begins, within an hour of commencement time of the show, the final list is at least known. It is scribbled down somewhere. Records are kept of it. There is always a plan of the tables in order to know exactly who is assigned to where. The day of the show, they are aware of the final list, but they are not at all aware of the final list in the three-day period beforehand.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Would it be acceptable, Mr. Torino, if you were required to produce a list before the show and then an amended list after the show indicating the real situation? Would that be an acceptable solution?

[English]

Mr. Steve Torino: All the organizations we represent are prepared to present a preliminary list in advance. We don't see that as a problem, because it is determined in advance. What we are asking for is some kind of a reasonable delay afterwards in order to produce the final list of exhibitors. But I don't see that as a problem. It would be acceptable because it is what we have been mandated to ask for.

[Translation]

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

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Mancini, you have seven minutes.

Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Thank you.

First of all, gentlemen, my apologies for coming late. I appreciate your presence here. I appreciate your presentation, and I'm sorry that I came in a few minutes late and interrupted it.

I have just a few questions. One of the things about being third is that many of my questions have already been asked. I am interested in and want to follow up a little bit on some of the questions that my colleague from the Bloc began on the membership list.

Am I to understand that the membership list, which I understand you consider to be confidential, is not used in any way for mail-outs? When you tell me it's confidential, if something of interest to the club or the members of the association comes up, is there no general mail-out? Is there nothing like that, or is there?

Mr. William Bateman: Yes, there is a general mail-out. In fact the association sends out a newsletter. However, the labels for the newsletter are produced by the secretary of the association and they are then mailed out. Clearly, if someone intercepted the letters with the addresses on, they could somehow compile a list. But I think the point is that under these regulations, that list would be on file—and not necessarily a secure file—in a number of places other than under the control of the association.

Mr. Peter Mancini: You are concerned that this would not be secure. On what basis?

Mr. William Bateman: On the basis that if it is filed with the chief firearms officer, I don't know what their filing system is. I cannot believe their filing system is secure, that such a list could not fall into the wrong hands through inadvertence or negligence. I believe such a list might also be available through an application under freedom of information. I think the point is that once the damage is done, it is virtually irretrievable. Once the list ceases to be secure, you cannot go back and change the list, because the persons are identified by their addresses.

Mr. Peter Mancini: The second question I have deals with a statement that was made, I think in reply to a question from my colleague Mr. Ramsay. I appreciate and respect that the people who are involved in your association are already responsible, that members are responsible in this setting up of displays.

• 1020

Is there anything—I'm looking particularly at proposed paragraphs 9.(b) and 9.(c) on page 27, for example— I would assume from what you've told me that already when there is an exhibit, during the hours of operation the table or booth is supervised by a person who has reached the age of majority. Would that be standard practice?

Mr. William Bateman: I think that's also required under the display regulations.

Mr. Steven Stanko (Director, l'Association des collectionneurs d'armes à feu du Bas Canada and Association of Semi-Automatic Firearms Collectors of Quebec Inc.): May I comment on that, please? We had made a point of saying that the person who is supervising the table at the gun show need not necessarily be a person of the age of majority, because there are provisions in the act that allow a minor to be in possession of a firearm for the purposes of subsistence hunting or sport hunting—

Mr. Peter Mancini: A person under 18.

Mr. Steven Stanko: —to be engaging in a target-shooting activity and the like. We also have cadets in Quebec; and I imagine that happens in other provinces also. These classes of people, minors, should be allowed to display at a table. They are not necessarily going to be the persons who took out the table, but they should be allowed to be supervisors at a table at a gun show or a special event, be it the gun show, a sale, or a display type of gun show.

About the holder of a licence to possess firearms, there are in fact persons who do not necessarily currently hold any firearms licence, be it a firearms acquisition certificate or the proposed licences that will come into effect on October 1, 1998, and who are legally in possession of firearms because of other acts.

Mr. Peter Mancini: What you're telling me, then, in answer to my question is it isn't always the case that the person supervising this table would be a person of the age of majority.

Mr. Steve Stanko: No. It could be that the person who reserves the table in the name of the table might be a person of majority who is a member of an association where he could have— For example, we have shooting clubs who are especially engaged in training young athletes. We've all gone through that. Junior members are there to show themselves as being an active part of the shooting community. They have as legitimate a purpose in standing behind the table and answering questions as anyone else.

I hope I didn't interfere.

Mr. Peter Mancini: No, that's fine.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay.

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

I want to apologize as well for arriving late. Like my colleague Mr. Mancini— there was no disrespect for your presentation, and similarly I appreciate your coming today.

The overall impact of these regulations seems to be felt, for the most part, by legitimate gun owners and gun users in this country. Your group, like a number of groups, has come before the committee and expressed your legitimate concerns about that.

I have worked with a number of police officers in the province of Nova Scotia who had a great deal of concern about the resources that were going to be allotted towards this particular type of legislation and wondered about the focus of this. To put in a term I thought was quite apt, why not focus on registering criminals and not registering guns?

The concern you've voiced in your presentation seems to be the tone that there may be some backlash by lawful gun owners and this is going to create an element where persons who were using guns lawfully in the past are suddenly faced with a situation or a fairly onerous task of registering them and paying fees which is going to force them, in essence, or in their minds, at least, perhaps to break the law. Either in their practice of shooting—they are going to avoid going to gun clubs, or gun clubs in their area are going to close—or similarly when they transfer guns, for reasons of necessity, because of the cost or for simple reasons of civil disobedience, they are not going to go through the normal process.

Is this something you feel is going to happen on a fairly large scale? I'm not asking for a precise percentage, but is this something you can foresee happening in this country as a result?

• 1025

Mr. William Bateman: Yes. In response to that, I think part of the difficulty with this series of regulations is that it's almost a second tier. Certainly in terms of gun shows and so on, there are already very stringent regulations with respect to the transport and display of firearms both by individuals and businesses. What we're seeing here with respect to gun shows is another level of responsibility and another level of regulation, which we really believe is not necessary, because we believe the onus for complying with the regulations is where it should be: on the individual who in fact possesses the firearm.

On the wider point you make, I think human nature being such as it is, the more regulation there is in a particular area that requires compliance and therefore time and effort, the more people will attempt to either ignore it or get around it, not necessarily wilfully. One of the great concerns that I think most firearms owners have about regulation on regulation is that the more complex it becomes, the more difficult it becomes to comply with, with the best will in the world. Pretty soon we're going to get close to the Income Tax Act, where no matter what you do you're in trouble.

Mr. Peter Mancini: You've got it made.

Mr. William Bateman: In this case, it's conceivably going to create a great many people who through pure inadvertence are not in compliance, and therefore they're sanctioned.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I think you make a very good point. Revenue Canada, of course, is the bastion of fairness and equity in this country.

On your point about the information being leaked out, we've seen very recently in Quebec where information was leaked from Revenue Canada and used for a political purpose. I won't get into that in the presence of my friend.

A voice: Please don't, Peter.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Madam Chair, should I reply to this, or is it off the record?

The Chair: If you reply, it'll be on the record, but I think maybe we'll try to focus—

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Thank you for your wisdom.

Mr. Peter MacKay: As an overall comment, I agree with your presentation wholly, that there's too much emphasis on the legitimate gun owners in this country. There are already significant safeguards and legislative schemes in place to regulate your bodies.

What we are seeing here—and I choose my words carefully at this committee, because the words tend to have double connotations—is frankly overkill when it comes to the legitimate gun owners. What I foresee happening as a result is we're moving towards a society where criminals are going to be the only ones using guns, because they're not going to comply with these regulations—plain and simple. There's going to be such a disincentive because of this onerous scheme we're going to have that out of sheer frustration, people are going to either forget about it or they're going to do so illegally.

You're welcome to comment on what I've just said or leave it lie.

Mr. Steve Torino: Mr. MacKay, if I could make a comment, the real concerns of gun clubs managers and owners of ranges relate to people who are preparing to go hunting or whatever it happens to be. If a club is required by these regulations to expend a great amount of money, it may decide that the operation simply has to be shut down. Fine, that might be the way it is. But what we are concerned with is this person who is planning whatever type of activity and says he has to find out if this rifle, or whatever it is, shoots where it's supposed to, for safety sake. While trying to be safe, he forgets that going out into the bush and taking a shot at 200 yards at a target he puts against a tree may not be the safest way to do it. What we are concerned with is keeping this safe, controlled environment still alive.

• 1030

Insofar as gun shows are concerned, if the recommendations we request are put in, along with those requested by Mr. Bateman, then I think that goes a very long way toward putting that activity back on track the way it stands today. It will also address the safety issue of not leaving three-year-old kids at a table or not leaving a table without any supervision for three or four hours, which is all very proper. We fully agree with that. At least it lets the activity continue in a safe, controlled way.

It's the same thing with clubs. If they continue, the people at least are carrying on their activities in a safe, controlled location. This is what we are looking for.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I think it's fair to say that there are aspects of the regulations that are aimed particularly at safety that you would embrace.

Mr. Steve Torino: Definitely.

Mr. Peter MacKay: It seems to me that the regulations include perhaps something onerous or a doubling up in terms of the safety elements. It's basically a tax on the recreation of being a gun collector or a gun user for a legitimate purpose.

Mr. George Panagiotidis: There's even the hunter aspect. That's anybody going out to hunt. We have two hunting seasons per year. You hunt for a couple of weeks, then you put your rifle away for a certain period of time. The sights may be knocked over, etc. Every hunter, before going out hunting, sights in his rifle. Do you want them to go out into the bush, a sandpit, or a gravel pit to do that, or basically wherever?

On the aspect of gun shows, do you want the transactions to be held outside, in the parking lot, at the back door, in taverns basically, or wherever illegitimate enterprises basically— You're creating a black market at this point in time.

We basically want to keep a fair regulatory system in place where safety is of the greatest concern, but we also don't want to create a system where everybody is strangled by the regulations that are enacted when this illegal aspect comes into play. Whether you know it or not, you're basically committing an illegal offence by sighting in your rifle in the gravel pit instead of the shooting range.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Thank you.

Gentlemen, I read these regulations myself. I guess all of us have done so around the table. My first reaction was that they were intended to fill a potential gap in what the Department of Justice probably is trying to construct: a sealed system of some sort around firearms in terms of their usage, possession, display, sale, etc.

I read this. I don't see too many big words. It's all pretty legible and readable. I can tell you from my experience around here that if they really wanted to make some interesting regulations, the department could have done it, but they haven't.

I recall last week trying to master the concept of something called an “associated displaced threshold” in some other regulatory field. There's nothing like that in these regulations. In fact, they make me nervous a little bit, because when all is said and done, when it comes to enforcement, you could probably drive a truck through them.

You'll notice that most of the regulations are mandatory instead of prohibitive. In other words, they're saying that at a gun show the sponsor shall do this, the exhibitor shall do this, or a transfer shall do this. There aren't a lot of prohibitions or negatives in here. I invite you to be creative in reading them and in trying to meet the objectives of the statute.

I appreciate the problem. I'll ask you a question about the so-called final list of exhibitors at a gun show. There's no attempt in here to say that you couldn't substitute someone else at the gun show.

This may be a point that one could discuss, but let's say you give the final list, and at the last minute, Mr. Smith from Smiths Falls decides that he can't come. So he sends his niece along and she exhibits something else or a similar type of firearm.

• 1035

There's nothing to stop, as I read this, the sending of a supplementary list on the day of the show or the day after the show. At the end of the day, you simply have to satisfy the chief firearms officer of the province that you're responsible and that the objectives of the act are being complied with.

Wouldn't you accept that approach as a more viable one than picking these apart, because one could pick them apart?

Mr. Steve Torino: Mr. Lee, if I could address this, your comments relate to the wording in the final list of exhibitors, for example.

Mr. Derek Lee: All of the wording.

Mr. Steve Torino: You picked an example. If I could address that particular example, I would appreciate it. In our opinion, the words “final list” is, as you said, not a huge amalgam of all sorts of misunderstood words or words that are not readily comprehensible to the average reader.

“Final list” means that's it. It doesn't say “modified”. Another suggestion could be made that the final list could be amended or modified or that a substitute list could be put in. It comes back to the same thing that we requested in the way of “five days additional”. In other words, the final list cannot practically be done three days before. The final list can be done on the last day. That is possible. That's usually, let's say, a Sunday. That can be presented within a couple of working days.

If the regulations are modified to say that there are substitutions possible on the final list, as you suggested, or in other such similar situations, that is coming back to the concept and the practical solution we're looking for, which is how to give you a final list as of that day. That's all we're trying to address from this point of view of your example.

Mr. Derek Lee: So you think it's not unreasonable to take that approach. I'm simply recommending a fairly simple, basic approach to organizing the gun show part of the firearms legislation. It's pretty basic. Let's try it and see how it flies. If we start getting real technical about all of these little things and we start using words that are a bit longer and phrases that are a bit more technical, we're really going to get into a can of worms that the community is simply not going to accept.

I think the Department of Justice has tried to keep this pretty simple. I think members of Parliament want to keep it as simple as possible. Let's try it and see if it works. If it needs modification, then it should be modified.

Mr. William Bateman: I would just respond briefly. I agree with you that some of the phraseology is extremely general and you probably could drive a truck through it.

I think there are two things you have to bear in mind. First, consider the sanctions on any sponsor of a gun show, for example, whose interpretation differs from that of the chief firearms officer. That sanction, as I understand it, is that the licence is either revoked or not renewed for the next year.

So it's more than a difference of opinion. If things are not relatively clear, then the association, in our case, could be precluded from having one of its major activities.

The other difficulty is that these regulations are federal, and they are to extend across the whole country. The chief firearms officers in each province is charged with the responsibility for administering these regulations and how they would be interpreted in certain circumstances, such as ensuring the safety of a location.

One of the concerns would be that if they're not at least reasonably precise—I agree that you should use short words wherever possible—then we're going to have differences of interpretation and practice.

For example, in Ontario perhaps it would be permissible to send in a revised list to the chief firearms officer after the show, but in Quebec it might not be. I think you're going to have different regimes in each province. That would be the difficulty with a wide-open interpretation or perhaps a less precise terminology.

Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you.

• 1040

The Chair: I'm afraid that's all the time we have for this panel, but I want to thank you very much for coming and for your presentations.

We'll rise for a couple of minutes while our next witnesses take their places.

• 1041

• 1049

The Chair: We've returned.

From the Responsible Firearms Owners of Alberta we have with us Mr. Dale Blue, and from the Responsible Firearms Owners of Nova Scotia, Tony Rogers, the co-chair of that organization.

I just want to say at the beginning that I noticed during the work to decide who we were going to invite that there were organizations called the “Responsible Firearms Owners of” in virtually every province. I don't know about the territories. We chose the two of you as representatives of two ends of the country.

• 1050

Are these organizations linked in any way? It's hard for me to believe you all picked the same name.

Mr. Tony Rogers (Co-Chair, Responsible Firearms Owners of Nova Scotia): No. It's a very loose coalition; it's not a formed organization. We have met five times over the last number of years, since Bill C-68 was brought along, to discuss mutual concerns. No, we're not linked in any tangible form.

The Chair: There must have been some intentional choice of names.

Mr. Tony Rogers: Not ours. We just picked it out of the blue, and Alberta did the same thing. Not to reflect on Mr. Blue's name, but that's the way it came.

The Chair: Okay, I was just curious. Anyway, I want you to know that you are representative of all of them in the sense, in our minds anyway, that you all have the same name. We couldn't have everybody, so we chose the two of you.

Mr. Tony Rogers: I understand that the National Firearms Association was invited to attend this particular session as well, Mr. David Tomlinson of the National Firearms Association.

The Chair: They were invited.

Mr. Tony Rogers: They were invited and they chose not to attend. Is that correct?

The Chair: I don't know.

Mr. Tony Rogers: We've discussed this between the two of us, and if it's all right I'll be going first.

The Chair: Sure, that's fine. But save some time for questions.

They were invited and they declined.

Mr. Tony Rogers: They declined. Thank you.

This is just a short brief. I'll make a few comments and some recommendations.

The Responsible Firearms Owners of Nova Scotia would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to be here today to comment on the recent set of regulations placed before Parliament of Bill C-68, the act respecting firearms and other weapons. However, we believe it is quite unfair to give us less than a week's notice to prepare our presentation. That is why we do not only not have it translated into French, we don't have one in English either, because it was only last night that it was completed.

Our recommendations are not the work of one individual but of a collection of our members. My appearance here today on behalf of the Responsible Firearms Owners of Nova Scotia does not in any way endorse this legislation or its regulations. We have stated in documents and public presentations that this bill is totally unnecessary and will be a costly venture for all Canadians. However, it is equally important to remember that the firearms community of Nova Scotia does support the need for responsible firearms laws and regulations. The authors of Bill C-68 and these regulations should have written them showing some respect for the history of law-abiding citizens and their responsible use of firearms.

For the benefit of those who are new to this committee, this being my third appearance on Bill C-68—I do recognize new faces and new political parties at the table—it is necessary that you keep in mind that the Responsible Firearms Owners of Nova Scotia have never been truly consulted on this bill or its regulations. I know this is contrary to statements made by the Minister of Justice, the Honourable Anne McLellan, in her news release of October 30, 1997. Consultation, by definition, is an act of sharing information and giving advice and holding meaningful dialogue on a subject. This has never happened. Any meeting I have attended on this matter was nothing more than window dressing. For government to claim they engaged in consultation— Unless this committee is committed to making responsible and reasonable changes, then it's just another one of those times.

As an example, we were assured during a meeting with the Canadian Firearms Centre in the early part of this year that the firearms community would have an opportunity to read the regulations in advance and be permitted to give advice and suggestions on their content before they went to Parliament. This did not happen. We didn't get a chance to catch some of the things that are in the regulations.

In the past, my appearance as a witness and the appearance of others from the firearms community had been viewed with contempt by former members of this committee. These actions demonstrated a lack of concern and respect for the firearms community and failed to recognize our long history of safety in the use of our firearms. We have noticed that the tactics of the federal government have changed in the presentation of these regulations that now have a new, fresh face. They're using the terms “safety” or “safety theme”. I wonder what happened to the crime control aspect of it. I think that was the original intent, and “to foster a culture of safety” reads the news release.

We wish this had been the earlier theme of this act, because there was no legislation in the world designed more specifically for safety than the previous Bill C-17, and a registration component wasn't part of it. However, when it came to delivering the safety message about firearms, the government failed to do so. As far as I am aware, only one brochure was ever produced to inform Canadian gun owners about the new laws and the safety element in them. There were no TV ads, no radio promotions, no ongoing demonstration by the federal government that they wanted compliance with Bill C-17. Of course that in turn led to Bill C-68.

• 1055

I see that we have had some positive effect on getting the message out. Government ads now appear telling people about the elements of Bill C-17.

We remember former justice minister Allan Rock's opening volley on this debate about gun control in Canada. That's when he said that when he came to Ottawa he believed only the police and the military should have firearms. The statement did not seem to have a safety message at its core.

The safety theme is once again an attempt to hide from the Canadian public the true intent of this legislation, which is the ultimate confiscation of personal firearms. Time will be the main ammunition of this confiscation by inconvenience to owners, buyers, clubs and the eventual escalation of registration costs. All of these will have an impact by keeping new shooters out of our activities and hindering the interest and the preservation of older shooters.

Over the past number of years, responsible firearms owners from Nova Scotia dealt with many aspects of the bill and how it affects a Nova Scotia community. We have represented our province before this committee but we've also done something else. We have taken the pulse on the issue with Nova Scotia gun owners, and without hesitation we will tell you that this bill will fail, especially the section in respect to registration, because there will be a lack of compliance by firearms owners.

Registration was the cornerstone of this bill, but it actually turned out to be the straw that broke the camel's back. Government went beyond safety with this bill. It started messing with individual ownership of private property and the freedom to use that property. Because of this mass non-compliance, the registration element will not work in the same way envisioned by the Liberal government.

My organization has never supported non-compliance, because we are not only responsible in name but also in action. The shooters we have spoken to say they may register one or two of their firearms but they will not register all of them. The registration system will only be effective and reliable if it enjoys full compliance, and we don't believe this will happen for at least three generations. It certainly will be irresponsible for the government to go forward with registration, given the consequences of non-compliance.

Yesterday you had a presentation from the National Coalition of Provincial and Territorial Wildlife Federations. I had a chance to review their recommendations, and a lot are quite similar to the ones I have here. If you wish, I will go to my conclusion. We can come back to it during the questions.

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Tony Rogers: Thank you.

In conclusion, the Responsible Firearms Owners of Nova Scotia feel that the delivery of this act and these regulations has been an attempt to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The coalition of gun control provided the materials and the bureaucrats within the justice department tried to sew them together. The result has been a poorly written piece of legislation and regulations.

If Canada is serious and wants to have a comprehensive firearms act, they will have to obtain and understand the support of the firearms community and the general public. To be enforceable, to be fair and to help ensure safety, we must start the whole process over again with a clean sheet of paper. That means that this government must sincerely consult with all participants on an equal footing and commit to producing a better society for Canadians. If we don't, unfortunately only time will prove us right. The final costs of starting all over again will never outweigh the long-range negative costs to this country if this bill is enforced.

Yesterday you also received a presentation from Mr. Claude Gauthier of the Quebec Wildlife Federation. He came to you with an item called a flare gun, a hand-held flare gun. It was brought into the meeting accompanied by a security guard. It also had on it a finger-trigger lock. That was totally unnecessary, because according to your act it is not a firearm and it was perfectly legitimate for Mr. Claude Gauthier to carry that into this meeting in his pocket with a couple of shells in the other pocket, if he chose to do so, as long as it was for the legitimate purpose for which it was intended, and that was to signal for help. There was no indication that he was looking for help yesterday afternoon, so he couldn't possibly use it.

I'm suggesting that this committee go back to the Minister of Justice and ask that she open the act to change the definition of this device so that it becomes a firearm and is treated in the same fashion as it was treated yesterday, and that the people who want to use these devices for signalling, for aircraft distress or whatever, be forced to take a firearms registration course.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Blue.

• 1100

Mr. Dale Blue (Responsible Firearms Owners of Alberta): Yes. This is interesting. I'm a long way from home, but one of things this is doing is contributing, I suppose, to national unity. I'm finding I have a lot in common with people from all over Canada, like Mr. Rogers. Both of us are here without watches, so if somebody could indicate to me the time we have left and give me a warning of where we're at—

The Chair: There's about a half an hour left on what's scheduled for the meeting. Really it's a little more than that, but we're just hoping you'll save some time so members who have questions can ask them. I don't know how many members may have questions.

Mr. Dale Blue: I'll begin my formal presentation.

The Chair: Thanks.

Mr. Dale Blue: I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity of being here. I think it's important for the committee to get different perspectives, and what I'm going to attempt to do is give you a different perspective from many of the perspectives you've heard to date at these hearings.

Our presentation is short. The timeframe was short. That's fine. Some of our colleagues have done a better job than we have at preparing a presentation and a detailed analysis of the regulations and what we would have suggested would have been redundant.

Before I deal with the specific regulations, I would like to make some general comments. These comments can apply to the regulations.

First of all, I would like to tell you that two or three months ago my brother had a hayfield that he decided he would have to look at again. So he cultivated it. He tore it up. I had a good look at the grass roots. Before I came on this trip—and I'm from a small community—I wanted to find out what message I should bring here. I didn't go to the soil scientist experts to find out what message I should bring, I went to the grass roots. I talked to my neighbours and asked them what I should tell the people in Ottawa when I'm there.

A lot of the things that were suggested I won't pass on, but an interesting point was made by my neighbour, who's 65 years old and has likely used guns unsupervised for 55 of those years. He has owned firearms for 50. This is the message he asked me to bring to the committee: “I am not the problem. Leave me alone.”

The perception among gun owners is that they are not a problem and that the legislation is unnecessary. One of our recommendations is that there's going to have to be a tremendous sell job to make this legislation work. People like the person I've described are going to have to be somehow convinced that they're a problem, that they're a potential problem, that they're a potential criminal, that they could be treated like a criminal because they would like to do what they've done safely in the past.

From a personal point of view, three years ago I wouldn't have believed I would have been here. I wouldn't have believed I would want to be here. Then I read Bill C-68. This is a really powerful piece of legislation. I am not sure how much you realize about the power this bill has. It's powerful. It's the last firearms legislation that Canada is ever going to need.

This committee may be looking forward to the fact that this is the last time they'll have to deal with these regulations—section 119 of the Firearms Act. After this, changes can be made to these regulations, whether they're adopted or not. After this there's no need for consultation, even though it may be done. Changes can be made to any of the regulations that you've looked at without further consultation. If I'm wrong on that point, I would like to be told so.

There are many reasons our organization is opposed to the legislation. This is one of them. Another is the fact that this whole legislation, including these regulations, is likely going to take years of court challenges to sort out. There are a lot of problems here. There are a lot of problems that likely should have been addressed three or four years ago.

Regarding consultation, I've heard the committee ask people if they were consulted. I have a twist on this. Our organization was invited to the Canadian Firearms Centre in September for consultation on the regulations. We turned it down. Why? Because we wanted to make the point that regardless of what the regulations are like, the enabling legislation is so powerful we can't accept it. What regulations are now is an attempt to put a nice icing on what is essentially a rotten cake and then sell it to the Canadian people and especially gun owners.

• 1105

It's our position that the legislation must be rescinded. That doesn't mean we're opposed to sensible gun control. Nobody is advocating firearms anarchy. What we object to is this legislation and the nature of it.

One of the things that has been mentioned before the committee is that you've heard there's an irony: places with the highest number of firearms have the highest number of injuries and deaths from firearms and the most resistance to the legislation. Let's refer to something else. Last winter, if I remember correctly, there were 16 deaths in Alberta from the use of snow machines. There hasn't been any subsequent legislation regarding that. I might point out that in Florida there have been no deaths from the use of snow machines, and the people in Florida likely wouldn't mind if snow machines were banned. We feel that legislation is being applied to us by some people who have no idea even of what we do and don't understand our use of firearms.

Legislation, including this legislation and these regulations, has to have a purpose. Section 39 of Bill C-68 has a purpose. It's outlined in section 4 of the act. The purpose of this act is to license, register, and give authorizations for the use of firearms, among other things. That's the stated purpose.

So there has to be an intent to the legislation. The stated intent has been, first of all, this is a crime control bill; second, now this is a safety bill. Now we're worrying about safety. Is this the only intent of the legislation?

The Chair: Mr. Blue, I'm sorry to interrupt you. I'm wondering if you have any comments on the regulations themselves. Maybe we could get to that. It's 11.05. We know your position on the gun bill, but there's been an election on that, the bill's passed, it's not being rescinded, and we need to deal with these regulations, Mr. Blue.

Mr. Dale Blue: I'm quickly getting there. I'm sorry.

The Chair: Why don't you cut to them, okay? I know that Mr. Ramsay would like to have a good ten minutes with you, and so would Mr. de Savoye, Mr. Mancini and Mr. MacKay, and none of them is going to get a chance to ask you any questions if you don't get to the regulations so we know where you're going.

Mr. Dale Blue: Okay. I'll speak again in terms of an overview. I am speaking to the regulations as well as the bill. I talked about purpose. Now I'll talk about intent. There's been a stated intent— there may be a hidden intent, something we haven't heard about, to reduce the use and the number of firearms in Canada.

The Chair: How do these regulations do that? Could you get to that, please?

Mr. Dale Blue: How do these regulations do that?

The Chair: Yes. You're here for the regulations.

Mr. Dale Blue: Yes, I am. Okay, I was going to talk about effects. I'll deal specifically with the regulations then.

Registration certificates— There's been some talk about verification. Our recommendation would be that firearms be verified upon entry into the system. Some people recommended that we can wait, and I would suggest the reason we can wait is that it's more important to get bad information into a system than to do it correctly. The intent of this is safety.

Two of the reasons we have for making this recommendation, and I won't disguise my intent, is first, cost. As a taxpayer, I'm going to want to know what this system is going to cost, and it right now has cost far more than the $85 million advertised. Let's get the cost up front, let's determine what it is, let's put people to work and identify firearms.

Another reason I would like them verified is because this is going to be an inconvenience to firearms owners, and my challenge is to convince firearms owners that this will serve some purpose.

• 1110

The second recommendation on regulations, which I have mentioned before, is that there will have to be a sell job, because unfortunately—and our organization does not advocate this—there will be non-compliance. I have no idea how much. Some of you here are in a better position than I am to contact Australia, for example, and find out how many firearms were turned in in their buy-back scheme compared with the number of firearms they suspected were available.

Clubs and ranges— If I've taken too much time, I'm sorry. What I would like during the question period is for members of the committee to tell me what safety problem, or perceived safety problem—

The Chair: Mr. Blue, no. Please, we want you to help us here, and you're not helping us by asking us questions. Please tell us what your recommendations are. If you don't have any, that's fine, but we have specific questions for you and it's 11.10.

Mr. Dale Blue: I'm sorry.

Our recommendation on gun shows and ranges is that the regulations be tabled. They do not serve a safety purpose. They will serve another purpose, whether it's intended or not, and that is to shut down ranges. You've heard evidence to that effect.

The Chair: You're saying you don't want any regulation of gun shows.

Mr. Dale Blue: We have regulation of gun shows. In my actual brief I have a description of what happens at gun shows. I have a description of what happens at ranges. I have, as an addendum, a response from one range and what is happening currently.

To explain why I feel these have the potential to shut down shows and ranges— A lot of these operate on volunteer time. Volunteers are hard pressed to make a range work as it does. A tremendous amount of bureaucracy and paperwork will have to be done with each. It may be very difficult to find the volunteer time to do the paperwork. For that reason, not safety, ranges may shut down.

I have a comment on fees. It has been suggested in previous submissions that the fees will be regarded as a tax. Fees upon a death might be regarded as an inheritance tax. Fees need to be looked at.

One of the things that concern me—I'm referring back to section 119 of the act—is that once these fees have been through committee, they don't have to be reviewed again. The government has made a statement to the effect that the system is going to work on the basis of cost recovery. I've alluded to the costs being far higher than the estimates. If this system is going to work on cost recovery, if the situation is politically correct fees might skyrocket.

That's my comment on fees.

I'll stop my brief now. I'm sorry if I have gone over time. I'll entertain questions.

The Chair: Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I'll just follow up on the final statement you've made, Mr. Blue. If the system is to be run on a cost-recovery basis, we will not know what the fees will be until we know what the overall cost will be. So I think you make a significant point there. If it's going to be a cost-recovery system, how can we determine what the fees will be until we know what the overall cost will be; and not only to set up the system—I don't know if that's going to be recovered—but to run it on an annual basis. If the fees that have been presented in the regulations are factual, we need to know what the overall cost will be, and what portion, if not all of it, is perhaps going to be involved in a cost-recovery situation.

• 1115

Questions? I don't know if I have any, per se. I reject the bill. I reject the needless regulation of events that pose no safety risk now to society. I don't understand why we're doing this other than to force the extinction of some of these cultural events that occur. I refer, of course, to the gun shows in particular, where there's no firing of firearms, where all the firearms are secured with trigger locks and so on.

As you mentioned, Mr. Blue, they're regulated now. The provincial authorities have watched these events over the years, and they do have requirements. I've been at them, and I've seen some of the safety measures. They're simply adding additional regulations that, as we've heard earlier today and heard yesterday, and as I personally have heard through phone calls, are simply going to cause some of the gun shows to shut down, and certainly some of the shooting ranges.

So I have a grave concern that this will be the direct result. It will not enhance the safety of gun shows in any significant way, because I see no danger that a gun show creates at this particular time, bearing in mind the fact that they are regulated now.

We're regulating events that are already regulated, and I think satisfactorily. If the provincial governments across this country are failing to register, or failing to properly control gun shows or shooting ranges, surely we would have heard about it before now.

Yes, the regulations are there, they're going to be imposed upon people, but for the first time in my memory we have a major bill of the federal government of Canada being opposed by four provincial governments and two territories. That is a significant statement about this bill.

I'll end there. Whatever time I haven't taken up, I'll pass on to my colleagues, Madam Chair. Of course I invite any comment our witnesses would like to make.

The Chair: Monsieur de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I thank you for your presentation. It is obvious to my mind that people who practice a sport, be it hunting or shooting, are, for the most part, responsible. The associations that you represent deserve their name; you are responsible people. You have concerns, and they are legitimate ones.

I nevertheless believe that, just as we register automobiles and require of drivers that they obtain a licence after having proven that they are capable of driving an automobile, eventually, in the area of firearms, most people will accept the requirements of the law and will continue to legitimately practice a sport that they enjoy.

However, Madam Chair, there is one point that is starting to wear on me. These people have come here in good faith to table remarks. I understood that they were a little rushed. They were asked to come and meet with us without much notice and they did not have the time they would have liked to have had to prepare themselves for their appearance here. Madam Chair, their remarks might have enlightened us further had they been given more time to put on paper the sensitive issues they wanted to stress. We are probably all victims of this hurriedness and I believe that this has in no way contributed to the government's good management. But this is where we are at, and we have to live with it.

Mr. Rogers, I know that yesterday you asked the clerk for a copy of the registration form for firearms.

• 1120

Perhaps you would have something to say on this matter that you have not yet mentioned. Is that the case? I am listening.

[English]

Mr. Tony Rogers: Thank you for your question, Mr. de Savoye.

The form itself is quite standard, both in English and in French, but I must say that the first thing I noticed was the size of the type. A lot of the people who are going to be asked to complete these forms are seniors, and my understanding is that over time the eyesight starts to go. Actually, I think I'm ready for my first eye test.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Tony Rogers: Errors are made with misinterpretations, especially when the print is so small. I don't think it takes much imagination to see how tiny it is.

And I wonder sometimes about the duplication of information here. It requests the firearms licence, the FAC number. I think once that number is affixed to this document it pretty well covers everything else about the individual, including the address, telephone numbers, and so on and so forth. Perhaps this document could be changed at least in some fashion to save space or perhaps the blank side could be used to do one side in French and one side in English to make it a little bit easier to understand and to use.

Also, when you're dealing with a piece of paper—and I think this came up during discussions about the act—you're presenting something that is available— and we talked about security earlier with the group that was before us, about what happens with these pieces of paper and where they go and where they end up. I know that we're supposed to be going to a central registry as far as computerization is concerned, and there was a lot of discussion about how this would be a mainframe computer that would be linked only to that particular system.

Well, here we go with just an ordinary simple piece of paper, and where does it go and how is it going to be treated? If I remember correctly there was something about destroying of documents and things of that nature, but there is nothing concrete about it. I think it opens itself up to abuse.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Thank you very much, Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I'll be very brief.

Mr. Rogers and Mr. Blue, both of you have indicated that in your opinion there is going to be a considerable problem with the enforcement of the regulations because of a lack of compliance by individuals.

Mr. Blue, I think you said in your presentation that the government needs to do “a sell job” in order to have people accept the regulations. Let me ask you this, quite pointedly, I suppose. I take it from your presentation you are not prepared to cooperate with the government in that sell job. Am I right in my assumption?

Mr. Dale Blue: We'll inform firearms owners of the implications of not registering, that they could be subject to a jail term of up to ten years.

I believe it's up to the government to sell firearms owners on how this will make them safer and how it will make society safer. Frankly, a lot of the arguments I've heard sound good in theory but don't really make sense in a community where there is high firearms ownership and use.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Okay. And I think both of you indicated you would not encourage non-compliance. Am I right?

Mr. Dale Blue: Yes.

Mr. Tony Rogers: Definitely. It has been our experience too, Mr. Mancini, that during numbers of gun rallies and more recently during the last federal election at some meet-the-candidate nights held across the province of Nova Scotia—

Mr. Peter Mancini: Yes, I remember them.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Tony Rogers: —the indications to me personally, as well as comments made from the floor, were that this is going to be a very difficult task. And it's not because after 65 years of living in Canada and being law-abiding citizens these people have all of a sudden decided they are going to be criminals. It's just that they feel they have been imposed upon enough, and they don't feel this is the way to be going with this.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Having been at one of those meetings, I don't disagree with you.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Blue and Mr. Rogers, I too want to express my gratitude for your attendance here today. I know you have both come a considerable distance. As well, I would like to apologize, at least on my behalf in terms of my membership on this committee, for the short time that you've been allotted and the short time that you had to prepare for your presentation.

• 1125

With that said, I agree wholeheartedly with much of what you've said in terms of the reasons for opposition to the regulations and the bill itself. I think we have essentially targeted legitimate gun owners.

On the safety element, I agree with you that there has been a shift in terms of the philosophy the government has apparently presented as the reasoning for it. We are getting tough on legitimate gun owners, according to the government, as a way to perhaps dry up a pool of guns that criminals may use for criminal purposes. This seems to be the underlying theme.

I suppose the next thing will be to say we will have to register knives and baseball bats because they might be used for criminal purposes.

Mr. Tony Rogers: I don't see why not, because I believe the act mentions other weapons. I hope not. I won't be attending those rounds of talks.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I also think you make a very good point about the amount of resources that will be included in this. There are a lot of other resources that aren't going to be factored in, and they include how the police are going to legitimately carry these regulations forward on the ground.

Mr. Tony Rogers: I had the opportunity to be here yesterday and hear some of the presenters. There was continuity on our side from the various groups from the various parts of the country that led to the same thing. They don't believe the resources will be distributed properly. The system won't have the opportunity to work because of the lack of participation.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I seriously question whether the majority of police are really behind this, as we're told. I know the higher-ranking officers certainly are, and they've made their views known.

I guess if I had any question it would be along the lines of the question asked by Mr. Mancini. If you see gun clubs and in particular shooting ranges disappearing as a result of the implementation of these regulations, do you feel from both of your perspectives and regions that this will drive legitimate gun owners into the woods and gravel pits and cause them to take part in shooting practices that aren't as safe as they currently are?

Mr. Dale Blue: I'll give you an interesting answer to that. I live in the country. I have my own little range practically right outside my door in a safe direction with an adequate backstop. Neighbours use it. Last week a couple of hunters came by, saw the range, and asked if they could use it. I stayed in the house. I wasn't involved. Under these regulations I don't know where I would stand. They had a safe place to shoot, and people will need a place to shoot. They may determine it for themselves or they may go to a range.

Mr. Tony Rogers: I believe the club I belong to will probably disappear in very short order. We only carry about 40 members, and it's an hour's drive from my home to the club. As you can imagine, I don't participate as often as I'd like because of the distance. If we have to deal with insurance costs and things of that nature that will be coming up, it won't be very long before we'll disappear. I think we'll be going the way of the dealers.

I think over 50% of the gun dealers in the province of Nova Scotia have already disappeared because of this bill. People reacted to it almost immediately and they're not purchasing firearms in the way they were. Genuine collectors are having a field day, of course, because there has been a flood of firearms people are trying to dispose of, and they're taking advantage of that opportunity. I don't know how long they'll last with their collections either as time goes on, because eventually I believe the costs will be prohibitive.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Lee, you have a brief statement.

Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you.

I just wanted to reassure Mr. Blue and Mr. Rogers that new regulations under the Firearms Act must be tabled in Parliament and referred to our committee in every case. The only exceptions, of course, are where a regulation has already been tabled and there's no need to retable, and in the case of urgency, which is outlined in the act. So you should have no fear that members of Parliament won't have an opportunity to review new regulations proposed under the Firearms Act.

• 1130

Mr. Dale Blue: I wasn't referring to new regulations. I was referring to regulations that were dealt with last spring and are being dealt with now. Once these regulations are through committee they can be changed without coming back, correct?

Mr. Derek Lee: No.

Mr. Dale Blue: No?

Mr. Derek Lee: A regulation proposed under the Firearms Act must be submitted to Parliament.

The Chair: Does that include amendments?

Mr. Derek Lee: Yes.

The Chair: An amendment or a change to the regulations would be a new regulation.

Mr. Derek Lee: The chair is correct. An amendment to an existing regulation is a new regulation under the Firearms Act. So it would be submitted as well.

The Chair: Thank you for clarifying that.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: A point of information.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I'm a little confused on that, because the regulations that went through in January and February have been amended and we have them here. Are we looking at these amendments as well during this hearing?

Mr. Derek Lee: If we have them here, they're obviously before us.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I thought they were here for information purposes only. But they are here, and these are the amendments to the regulations that were passed in January and February.

The Chair: They're before us.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Yes, but do they have to be before us? Are we looking at these as well as these other regulations?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Derek Lee: That's my understanding. I would refer this matter to the chair, but of course these are part of our agenda and they're here because they were required to be.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: But these were not tabled. We were not notified that these were being tabled. We were notified that the new and the final series of regulations were going to be tabled. I was not aware of these until I saw them as they were presented here to me.

Mr. Derek Lee: I would suggest then that the answer to your question lies in the Order Paper in the House of Commons and in the Senate.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: If the legislation is as you say, then that's all I want clarified. That is, whenever an amendment occurs to these regulations that we're passing, if it has to come back before Parliament then that answers the question. I was not assured of that.

The Chair: I have to tell you that they did come back, that they were tabled. They're in this book that was given to all of us and they're part of the subject-matter of these hearings.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Yes. Okay.

The Chair: Ms. Bakopanos.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): I have a very short question, just for clarification.

The Chair: I want to give Mr. Thompson a chance; I didn't notice him.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Would you like to go first, Mr. Thompson?

The Chair: You go ahead.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have three points of clarification. I just want a yes or no answer. Are you against registration?

Mr. Tony Rogers: Yes.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: So no matter how many consultations this government would have done—and the will of the 35th Parliament was very clear when you were consulted in the first hearings—your position would not have changed.

Mr. Tony Rogers: No.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Are you against verification?

Mr. Tony Rogers: I'd need some more information on verification, because verification is very new to our organization. This was only found out about five or six days ago. I'd like to know what verification means, whether it means it will be done through a police body, through individuals, how exactly it would be done.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: That's part of the information that will be sent to everyone by this government.

I have a third question. You were invited, Mr. Blue, to a consultation on September 3 and 4, and you declined.

Mr. Dale Blue: Yes.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Would it have changed your position if you had gone to the consultation?

Mr. Dale Blue: We turned down the consultation for a reason. I think to put the emphasis—

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Yes or no, Mr. Blue. Would that have changed your position?

An hon. member: He's not under oath, Eleni. Come on.

The Chair: No, no, no.

Mr. Dale Blue: Would it have changed my position on the regulations?

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Yes.

Mr. Dale Blue: No.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Thank you. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): I just wanted to thank the two fellows for coming.

In Wild Rose, in my riding, I have to say I have heard far too much, and it frightens me what the results are going to be in non-compliance. People are just saying no, they're not going to comply with this ridiculous legislation. I know that's going to be a major concern. So I'm glad you brought that out. It's something we have to be prepared for.

Police are not anxious at all to become involved in the work that's going to be required for registration. That's said over and over again. And I'm talking about those who will have to do the work, not the top dogs in Ottawa. Thanks for bringing that out.

My last comment— I hear this quite often, and I'd just like to make this statement. I heard it again today from a Bloc member. Registration of vehicles, registration of guns— You do not have to register your cars. There's no law that says you have to register them. I can buy all the cars I want and I can drive them around my property all day long if I want. I do not have to register them. There's no law. And there should not be one for guns in the same respect.

• 1135

Mr. Jack Ramsay: No criminal offence.

Mr. Myron Thompson: There's no criminal offence if I do get on the highway. It's a felony.

The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen.

Our next meeting is at 3:30. We'll rise until then.