JURI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, November 26, 1997

• 1539

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)): Order.

We have tight time constraints. Our chair is not here. I'm the vice-chair and we're going to proceed.

From the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association, Mr. Heiman and Mr. Roberge.

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, a point of order. I would like to deal with the final witnesses that we want before the committee. We wanted two forensic scientists. I guess one will have to do, as long as that forensic scientist is appearing in court on a regular basis on firearms cases. We would like someone who can address the cost. The officials from the department that appeared as witnesses could not do that. Also, we would like the registrar, I guess, the one who issues the certificates. If we could ensure that our clerk will be authorized to make whatever arrangements are necessary to have those witnesses appear...we have a very short time to do that.

• 1540

I don't know if Mr. McKay or the other members here would like to comment on that, but we need those witnesses and we need their testimony.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Mr. Ramsay, could we hold that down until the chair actually gets here? We're just trying to expedite this so as not to delay.

I know you've discussed this with the chair. I don't know what you've discussed. I don't take issue with what you're saying, but I think I'd rather that we just proceed.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Okay.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): We'll certainly do that as the last order of business if we get through the agenda.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Well, tomorrow is the last day of this hearing.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Mr. Roberge.

Mr. René Roberge (Executive Director, Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association): Mr. Chairman and members, my name is René Roberge. I'm the executive director of the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association.

I'm here today with my colleague, Mr. Erv Heiman. Mr. Heiman is the president of the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association.

Thank you for the invitation. I apologize for the unpreparedness; we just didn't have enough time.

Brief information on what the association is all about will set the foundation for what we're about to discuss. We're a non-profit organization, federally incorporated, representing and dedicated to the best interests of its members, companies, including the hunting, shooting sports, and outdoor industries.

We were founded in 1973. We provide a united and collective voice on behalf of its members. CSAAA has over 150 company members internationally, and through its members, rep association, we represent over 2,500 retail affiliates in Canada. We represent between 90% and 95% of all products related to hunting and shooting sports that are distributed and sold throughout Canada.

The mere introduction of Bill C-68 has devastated our business. We don't fit into the political correctness of the 1990s and we're paying for it. If this committee has any influence on the outcome of Bill C-68, then we respectfully request your attention to the following concerns we have.

Our concerns are business-oriented. We're not going to deal with the individual requirements of Bill C-68 today, mainly because our concern is simply our business. We would like to ask you several points pertaining to the regulations and hope you can, with your influence, help us to continue to do our business.

In the case of retail employees employed in a store that has a licence to sell firearms, we would like that employee to be required to have a minimum level 2 licence only. Level 2 licence requirements call for a possession and an acquisition certificate, the complete inspection of that person's background, and also a required long-gun safety course. That would be our request at the retail level.

Of course, if the retail store is into selling restricted firearms, we would then agree to have this same person, this same employee, move up to the level required for licensing that employee to handle restricted firearms. At the moment the regulations call for this person to be in the level of a restricted firearm where the retail store does not deal with that firearm at all.

I would point out Canadian Tire as an example, and Wal-Mart, which only deal in non-restricted firearms and yet the employee must be trained in the restricted handgun course. It doesn't make any sense, because Wal-Mart or Canadian Tire will never sell restricted firearms.

• 1545

Secondly, provision for a level 1 owner. A level 1 owner is one who has a possession certificate. It means he has firearms in his home. He's not likely to purchase a firearm. But if he should decide to purchase one, he would then graduate to level 2, which would move him into the category of acquiring an acquisition certificate. We're asking that this person not have to pay the additional fee; that he be able to graduate without facing the burden of paying additional fees to graduate to level 2.

This one is the most important of all. If I say anything today, it's that this particular issue having to do with carriers...if we can't get this problem resolved, it will put us out of business completely.

The proposal calls for three levels of carrier licensing. We have intra-provincial, interprovincial, and international; three levels. We ask that licensing not be required at all, but if that's not possible, at the very least reduce the licensing to one licence to carry firearms.

Most shipping companies in transportation will be unwilling to subscribe to the arrangement you are proposing in the regulations. The reason for that is that shipments of firearms are not so big that they can justify paying any fee at all. To get them to go for a licence will be difficult in the first place. If you have to get them to go for three licences, for one reason or another, it's going to be impossible.

We ask that you look at this very carefully. If you can't waive the licence altogether, then we would ask at least for just one licence. That would suffice in determining who is carrying firearms across Canada or into the United States. Remember that carriers are bonded and they are already licensed to transport cargo anyway. You already have a licensed vehicle. All we're asking is if you're going to issue a licence, don't complicate the issue by categorizing where and when and how they are going to carry it. Just license them to carry firearms and that should suffice. We can get some companies to agree to that.

About shows, there are two kinds of shows. One is where they retail over the counter and the other is where it's displayed and you take orders for future delivery. Our association produces a show. It's a trade show. It's called the Canadian Hunting, Outdoor Shooting Sports, and Outdoor Trade Show. Because of the product line we offer it's not a gun show as referred to in the regulations. It's diversified and we deal in all kinds of products, some of which include firearms.

Our show is not open to the public. It's strictly business. In 1998 our show will be held in Hull, Quebec. It will be our 12th annual. Firearms on display are not sold. They are not sold over the counter. We take orders for future delivery.

The regulations stipulate a $50 licence for my association to sponsor its own show. Firearm exhibitors within the show currently are required to pay the Sûreté du Québec $375 each for the privilege of selling firearms in Quebec. If they have 10 shows a year—in some cases there are companies in Quebec that actually go to 10 shows within the province—they pay 10 times $375. Under the federal regulation and the fact that the association would be sponsoring the show, will the firearm exhibitors be required to pay the provincial police in addition?

Initially I spoke to the justice department about this fact. They were going to look into it. I'm not sure whether they have done anything. All I've seen in the regulations is we have to pay an additional $50 to put a show on, which just adds another burden to the fact that we have to pay the province as well. That's a problem.

• 1550

In the case of buying groups—as examples, Marchands Unis in Quebec or Sports Distributors in Ontario—an order for firearms on behalf of the franchised independent dealer, the group will buy firearms for the best price. That's what they're grouped for. That's why they amalgamate. Is this buying group required to have a firearm licence? That's a question that none of the regulations stipulates. I'm afraid it might be required to have a licence, and it affects everybody in Canada. There are a number of buying groups who have retail members to their organization.

My colleague has some specific points as well, so I'll pass it over to Mr. Heiman.

Mr. Erv Heiman (President, Western Gun Parts, Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association): I'd like to go to the very beginning of the firearms registration certificate regulations. Item 3(b) stipulates:

(b) any modification to the action, calibre or barrel length of the firearm if it is registered as a frame or receiver, whether or not the modification results in a change of class of the firearm.

There are many modifications done to a firearm. The broadness of those very small first four words opens a door to all kinds of things. Any modification to an action could be interpreted as the installation of a telescopic site. The regulations change the aspect of a loaded firearm. There are conversion kits made that change a firearm to a clip loading firearm. I can think of probably 20 or 30 modifications that are done to firearms on a regular basis. They don't really change the firearm, but they are modifications done to the action.

If that's allowed to stand the way it is, I can see a person having to re-register that firearm dozens of times, and the cost each time it's done is $12.50. Every little change, and there will be many of them...will happen to that firearm. That's a great concern, because if that kind of wording is allowed to stand it will be an ongoing trip to the registrar.

I'd like to move on to shooting clubs and ranges. On the requirement for a range safety officer, looking at the reality of that particular situation, I can't see how anyone could accept that position. I think the liabilities are such in this day and age that no one in their right mind will accept that position. If anything ever happens, that person's going to be sued. There's just too much liability left for that particular person. I'm involved with numerous gun clubs, and anybody I talk to says that no one will stand for that position.

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): I'm sorry; which page are you on?

Mr. Erv Heiman: Page 13 of the regulations, “range safety officer”.

Still on that page, the definition of a shooting club leaves me a bit mystified. If I read that correctly, a shooting club is a shooting club only if they shoot handguns. It says that:

“shooting club” means a non-profit organization whose activities include target practice or target shooting competitions using restricted firearms or prohibited handguns.

Is a gun club not a gun club if they don't use restricted firearms? I'm asking the question because that's the way it reads. If that's the case, then a lot of these other regulations are redundant.

I would also like to address the situation where.... I understand the reason for it. There are many shooting clubs that are separated from shooting ranges. On the other hand, there are many shooting clubs that only operate as shooting ranges. If you read the regulations, there are two sets of them. If a club is one and the same, it should be only one set of regulations, requiring only one level of insurance, instead of the double insurance and all the double regulations. In many cases the clubs are one and the same. They exist only because they have a shooting range. That's a problem that's not very clear in these regulations.

• 1515

I also personally think some of the wording pertaining to shooting ranges, such as “on a regular and structured basis”, is going to open the door for people to go back to gravel pits and unsafe areas and start shooting. I think this is a step backwards. In trying to regulate so severely this particular aspect, it's a step backwards. I've been involved in this business for a long time, and that's the reading I get from people.

I'd like to go on to gun shows and regulations. My colleague here has touched on it a bit. I'm going to deal with it from a little different aspect with regard to the weekend shows that are not necessarily business-oriented—this is on page 23. If I understand the requirements for transfers of firearms in the new regulations, I do not see how a gun show will fit these categories, because technically you will not be able to sell a firearm at a gun show. You could possibly make a contract to do some future business, but the transfer requirements for these types of shows will preclude the fact that these shows exist. With the transfer requirements, whether electronic or however they're done, and also taking into consideration the verification, the actual transfers or sales at gun shows will not happen under any circumstances.

The reality of a gun show is that in the past, people brought firearms just to sell as their own firearms. Again, if it's an owner who has the first-level registration certificate, he can't sell that firearm unless it has been verified. So it's basically out of the question; it can't be done.

One of the last things is the security. Canada just put on the APEC conference in Vancouver. We spent $15 million on security. The chief of security was asked, “Is this place secure?” and he said, “I don't know.”

You're saying here that the gun show sponsor has to ensure the security of the building. It's impossible. Anybody who wants to shut down a gun show in this country will shut the gun show down, because there isn't anybody that can absolutely ensure the security of the building, pure and simple. It just can't be. Again, the regulations are such that they're not changing how things are done; they're stopping how things are done.

The last item I have is verification, on page 45. Again, I've been involved in this business since the early 1960s. I consider myself and have been purported to be somewhat knowledgeable in firearms. I would not accept the position of verifier of firearms, and I don't think anybody in their right mind will either.

The RCMP's forensic units are unable to verify approximately 7% of the firearms that come into their possession. These are experts being paid high salaries and with extensive training, and they cannot identify 7% of the firearms that come into their possession. How is a person going to verify a firearm? There are so many different firearms, so many different kinds, that it's absolutely mind-boggling. It cannot happen.

I have concern with the last item in that chapter, that a firearm is only verified at one time. It's not to be subject to verification again. In other words, if it's done wrong the first time, it's going to stay wrong forever. I have problems with that.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I'm sorry, you said this is at the end of that section.

Mr. Erv Heiman: Yes, at the end of section (1.1), on page 46, it says:

For greater certainty, the information referred to in paragraph (1)(c) does not have to be subject to more than one verification.

In other words, if it's wrong once, it's wrong forever.

• 1600

As I said before, I've been involved in firearms all my adult life. I've been involved in the firearms industry since the 1960s. I've been involved in the two major firearms legislations prior to C-68. The thrust of all of the previous legislation, including C-68, has been the control and regulation of what has always been considered a lawful activity.

If tighter controls did not work in those two past attempts, what makes anybody think they're going to work now? I don't think they'll work, and the reason I don't think they'll work is that we can't predict when a person is going to snap. We can't look at a lot of things like that. Bill C-68 will actually put more firearms in the underground in a lot of areas. It's going to assure the availability of firearms for the wrong hands for a long time to come.

I don't believe it'll prevent another massacre and I don't believe it's going in the right direction. It just will not work.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Mr. Ramsay, five minutes.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Mr. Roberge, you have testified before this committee that if these regulations go through as presented they will put you out of business.

Mr. René Roberge: Correct.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Do you really think the mentality that has banned .22 rifles on the basis of their appearance really cares whether or not you go out of business? Do you think there's anyone in the justice department who really cares whether or not you go out of business? Do you think they do?

I suppose your presence here would indicate that you had hoped they would, but if we have the kind of thinking driving this whole area of gun regulations that would ban a .22 rifle, a gopher rifle, because of its appearance, what hope do you have that they're going to do something that's going to keep you in business, that they'll make a change that will keep you in business? If they do, that's great. But I'm asking you, what hope do you come to this committee with in regard to the future of your business?

Mr. René Roberge: Mr. Ramsay, we've been coming to Ottawa now for five years. It started with Bill C-17. Our business has dropped 60% in five years and has dramatically dropped in the last two years. We've lost 2,500 retailers who at one point had AB permits that allowed them to sell firearms in Canada. They've gone out of business or they've diversified into something else.

I have no hope for our business at all. I'm retiring in five years. I turned sixty last week and I'm thankful that I'm going to be out of the business. I've been so frustrated in the last five years in efforts to try to make the government understand the problems that we as a legitimate and legal business have had to contend with, not only with Bill C-68 but other bills as well, keeping in mind that our association was founded in 1973 for that reason and that nothing has changed. I think they're registering the wrong gun.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: From the time Bill C-68 was introduced and followed by the two sets of regulations, these being the second, the benefit of the registration system was promoted. That benefit has included the fact that it'll be an excellent tool in the hands of the police for returning lost or found firearms back to their owners, or if a firearm is found at the scene of a crime they can trace it back to its owner.

• 1605

We see testimony from the top or senior officers of the RCMP as well as chief firearms officers from two provinces. They have submitted testimony here that because there is going to be a lack of verification the registration system is going to be unreliable. Yet we have the departmental officials saying if you register your firearm and there is a mistake in the serial number, not found by the registration system, and a certificate is issued for that firearm...in spite of the fact that the serial number on the certificate differs from the one on the gun, the justice officials have told this committee it will still register that firearm.

What do you think of that?

Mr. René Roberge: That puts our citizens in danger of having their privacy invaded without justification by a clerical error or electronic error or whatever. That happens today, and we don't even have registration.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Do you have registered firearms?

Mr. René Roberge: I personally?

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Yes.

Mr. René Roberge: No, I don't.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Mr. Heiman, do you?

Mr. Erv Heiman: Yes, I have. As a matter of fact, a number of years ago I was awoken at 3 a.m. by the RCMP, who asked, do you have such and such a firearm registered in your name? I said, yes I do. He said, go get it. This is 3 a.m. I got it. He asked, are you holding it in your hand? I said, yes, I am. He said, read me the serial number. I read him the serial number. He said, stay there; somebody will be there in five or ten minutes.

I stayed there. I held the gun. This RCMP member came to the house. I asked, why do you want to see this gun? He said another one with exactly the same number killed somebody in Winnipeg. It was exactly the same serial number.

There's an example.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: My five minutes, gentlemen, are almost up. All I can say is this. I oppose this legislation. I've opposed it from the beginning, on the basis that it was impractical and it was simply wrong to do what this legislation will do to so many law-abiding, tax-paying firearm owners. I myself and my party will repeal this bill when we form the government. We'll bring in legislation that will deal with the criminal use of firearms and leave the law-abiding gun owners alone.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I hope that if one day the Reform Party forms the government, we will already no longer be part of this country, but that is not the debate I want to hold today.

Good afternoon, Mr. Roberge and Mr. Heiman. I would like to thank you for coming today. I will ask my four questions one after the other, and you can answer me at the end.

My first question deals with the various types of licenses that are called for. You were talking about intraprovincial, interprovincial and international licenses, and you would like there to be only one type. I assume that all the licenses would be international ones, but I would like you to tell me whether that is true or not.

Second, you say that the Quebec provincial police asks $375 from each exhibiter showing at each gun show. This sum seems high. Although I am not an expert on the price of firearms, having never bought any, I suppose that if a number of firearms are sold, the price of the license is reimbursed quite quickly. What is the average price of a firearm? How much does an exhibiter at a gun show make on average? I suppose that it is quite profitable, otherwise the exhibiters would not be there.

My third question deals with your concern about providing security at gun shows. When I read that, I don't see why it is a problem. I have organized events, such as neighbourhood celebrations, rallies and public meetings, and municipal regulations required that we provide security. If we are asked to provide security for a political meeting, why should the organizers of a gun show not be asked to provide a certain level of security for their event? I do not understand why you are so concerned about that.

• 1610

Here is my last question. You seem to be quite opposed to the legislation itself and to a number of aspects of the regulations. If you are against this legislation, what do you say to people who give us facts and figures to show that the mere presence of firearms in a home increases the risk of suicide fivefold and the risk of homicide threefold? We are talking about the mere presence of firearms.

Thank you for answering these questions.

Mr. René Roberge: May I answer you in English?

[English]

In regard to the question relating to the licence for carriers, we don't move enough products across Canada for them to justify paying any kind of a licence. All we're saying is the three licences will put us out of business because we won't have any method of moving our products to the marketplace, from our plants to the retailers. The fact is we'll pay for the licence ourselves for the carrier to carry the firearm. That's what's going to happen, folks, because we need to get our products to market. And if you are going to legislate the carriers and they won't buy it, then we have to legislate the carriers ourselves, which is a hell of a way to do business, but anyway.

I'm not sure if that answers your question relating to licences. I'm not suggesting they not license; I'm suggesting that one licence we'll live with, even if we have to pay for it ourselves. What can I say?

The other one is

[Translation]

the fact that the Quebec provincial police requires $375 from each

[English]

exhibitor, and you think they sell enough firearms to make up for it. The fact is they don't sell enough firearms. The margin on firearms nowadays is practically nil. They carry it as a loss lead to sell other products. So to pay $375 for the privilege of selling firearms is a farce, and it's a joke, particularly when they charge it at every show in Quebec.

It's not to say they wouldn't do the same thing in Ontario or anywhere else. In this particular case, my show is in Quebec, so that's why I'm complaining about it, particularly when the federal government comes along and I think they're going to alleviate my problem and all they do is put another charge on the show. So having to pay another $50 on top is adding injury to injury.

In terms of the third one, registration, you say the accessibility to firearms indicates that certain percentages, and so forth and so on.... But it can be argued both ways, and it all depends where you're coming from on that argument. We have evidence to show that it doesn't make any difference one way or the other. It's been done over and over again, and we have ex-RCMP officers who will substantiate that kind of information. We have a gentleman in Vancouver by the name of Gary Mauser, who did extensive studies on the effect of registration. They've done it in other countries and they've cancelled it because it wasn't successful.

I don't have any firearms. I don't have to register firearms. I'm fighting for the people who own property and it's going to cost them more money to own that property. It just doesn't make any sense to me because they're going to have to get rid of properties that cost a lot of money. What can I say?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Marceau.

Mr. MacKay.

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

I want to thank both of you for coming. I would say at the outset that if I had anything to do with the legislation, I would change the name of it to the Act to Ban Firearms from Canada, period, because I think that ultimately is where we're headed.

I agree with some of the remarks made by my colleague from the Reform. We've heard about the flawed verification process. Some of the drafting of the legislation, I think, is unworkable. There are conflicts within the legislation itself. The justification that the government has given for bringing this legislation about has changed from one of crime prevention to safety. We hear the word “safety” riddled throughout the propaganda that surrounds this legislation. And I agree with many of your comments that the actual effect is going to be on law-abiding gun users, recreational shooters, dealers, and persons involved in re-enactments.

• 1615

If I had any questions for you, they would be around the changes that could be made, if any, to assist you in trying to carry on in your businesses. To that end, with respect to importation and exportation, you say if it were drafted in such a way that only one level of licence was needed, you believe this would be of some assistance to businesses?

Mr. René Roberge: Well, I'm suggesting you waive the licence altogether, but that certainly is a compromise position that we could probably handle, again keeping in mind that we would probably end up paying the fee, as a company.

Mr. Peter MacKay: My next question has to do with your consultation process in terms of your preparation for coming today, and I'm aware that you've been here in the past.

The legislation describes non-profit organizations throughout the regulations. I'm curious as to your knowledge of organizations that are out there for profit in terms of shooting clubs, because it appears there would be a void in this legislation if there ever came a time when a shooting range were to set up—and this is probably a very poor analogy—like a bowling alley, where people would go and pay to sight their weapons or shoot.

Mr. Erv Heiman: There are in fact organizations like that, but they probably come under the auspices of a business. There are some in western Canada and I think in central Canada where they have shooting ranges. I believe they operate under the auspices of a business, as an extension of that business. That fills that void.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay.

The other question I had for you, again arising out of the regulations themselves, is on the responsibility of the gun shows and the person who is supposed to basically assure the security of the persons attending the gun shows. You'll note on page 27, specifically in 9(b), there's reference to a person being under constant supervision at the booth by a person who has reached the age of majority and holds a licence to possess firearms. I'm wondering what your comments are with respect to that person who is supposed to man these booths.

Mr. René Roberge: They've always been like that. They've always had to have a licence to show firearms or sell firearms. We've always followed that procedure, and the association has always been responsible for putting the show on and providing the security that is necessary for the nature of the show.

The concern that Mr. Heiman indicated here is the reference to almost guaranteeing that nothing will happen, as if you're setting us up: if something happens, you'll cancel every show in Canada. That's been our concern and that's why I think Mr. Heiman might have raised that point.

This is our 12th annual show. It's a trade show not open to the public. It's a very professional show. Our people spend thousands of dollars to put on a professional display of all products. To guarantee that nothing will ever happen in a show is impossible. That's where our concern lies. When people make reference to things like that in a document in black and white, our concern is, well, what if it happens? Are we all of a sudden liable because it happened under our responsibility?

Again, this is our 12th annual show. We've never had an incident at our show. We provide 300 hours of manpower, of security, for a 28-hour show. We have security, we hire police officers, uniformed officers are on the premises, we have un-uniformed officers on the premises, and we hire our own private security rent-a-cop. So we have security coming out our ying-yang, but we do our best.

• 1620

Mr. Peter MacKay: In light of what you just said, this is a rhetorical question. Are you aware of any shows in Canada that you've either participated in or heard about where there was injury, death or otherwise involving the use of firearms?

Mr. René Roberge: Not firearms. I ran the international show in Toronto for eight years for Maclean Hunter, the hunting and outdoor show, and the one injury incident we had was when a gentleman was sharpening knives as a complement to selling knives in the show and the knife twisted and went into his leg. That was the only incident.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm sorry to hear you say that, because there might be people here who want to draft legislation against knives.

Mr. René Roberge: Well, exactly. That's why I mentioned knives.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Very funny.

Mr. Erv Heiman: My one concern is that this type of legislation raises the ante. Supposedly, if you go along with the philosophy, a firearm is getting very hard for the criminal element to get in Canada.

I see a gun show, especially a show unlike what René is talking about but a gun show that is held out in western Alberta, in Calgary, as an example where people in the past have gone and had shows. If firearms are hard to get, those types of shows could be a target. That's the type of security, that's the type of thing I'm concerned with.

Then they are saying to insure the building and insure the thing. If you up the ante, all of a sudden when the price is right things will happen.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Would there be groups out there—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Mr. MacKay, we're finished.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): On the question of liability, are most clubs incorporated or are they unincorporated entities?

Mr. Erv Heiman: They're incorporated under the societies act of most provinces.

Mr. John McKay: How do you obtain insurance at this point?

Mr. Erv Heiman: A lot of clubs don't have insurance. Some of the better ones, the smarter ones, probably have $2 million of liability insurance now. If they're a shooting club that has access to a shooting range, which is how it's done most in western Canada, with the exception of a few handgun clubs.... Some of the ones I belong to, two or three of them, do have $2 million of liability insurance. That's not a problem, but if you're a club and a shooting facility, all of a sudden you're required to double that. So it changes it.

Mr. John McKay: How would this act or these proposed regulations affect your liability position?

Mr. Erv Heiman: Double the cost.

Mr. John McKay: Have you verified that on the market?

Mr. Erv Heiman: Yes. You double it.

Mr. John McKay: We heard testimony yesterday that the cost of getting insurance is ridiculously cheap. Is that true?

Mr. Erv Heiman: For $2 million it works out to about $5 per person, because actually the incidences of problems in a gun club are pretty—

Mr. John McKay: So are we talking about a difference of between $5 per person and $10 per person?

Mr. Erv Heiman: Yes, probably.

Mr. John McKay: What's an average-sized club—100 people, 50 people?

Mr. Erv Heiman: I would say probably more than that. It depends. That's a hard question.

Mr. John McKay: So somewhere in the order of $500 to $1,000 would be the extra liability requirement that would be a direct consequence of this legislation.

Mr. Erv Heiman: Yes, with the exception of the safety officer.

Mr. John McKay: Yes. Now, how would an insurance company respond to that individual? Would that have to be a special rider?

Mr. Erv Heiman: I talked to one insurance company and they say a special rider, but the problem is not whether the gun club has insurance. If something happens, that person is going to get named along with the gun club. That person's going to have to defend himself by himself along with the gun club.

Mr. John McKay: Unless the insurance provides counsel.

Mr. Erv Heiman: They're vague on that.

Mr. John McKay: Yes.

Mr. Erv Heiman: They won't commit themselves to that at this point, because it's something brand-new.

Mr. John McKay: Would the regulations work without the concept of a safety range officer?

Mr. Erv Heiman: The regulations are a lot of what happened at most ranges already. They're not onerous, with the exception of certain—

Mr. John McKay: So the issue is the designation of an individual as an officer rather than what the practice is presently.

Mr. Erv Heiman: Making him responsible.

Mr. John McKay: So if the regulations could be crafted to exclude that concept, that would address your issue.

Mr. Erv Heiman: Well, even the concept is not bad. It's just that there is nothing to take the liability off that particular person if something happens at that range. It basically all falls on that one person, because he's the person—

Mr. John McKay: That's my point. If the regulations themselves could be crafted to exclude the concept of a range safety officer, then your argument would be met.

• 1625

Mr. Erv Heiman: Sure.

Mr. John McKay: Then you would just simply be left with the potentially increased liability insurance, depending basically on risk experience, which will initially will go up and might possibly come down, assuming your clubs operate as safely as they have in the past.

Mr. Erv Heiman: That's correct.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Ms. Cohen, you have a minute and a half.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): I just wanted to ask about these insurance policies at a range and a club. Why can't they just go on the same policy? Is it the same people who own it, or the same members?

Mr. Erv Heiman: That's what I said earlier. In many cases, at least in the west, with the exception of some handgun clubs, they're one and the same thing. So my question earlier was: why are we dealing with two separate sets—

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: You're not if they can be covered by it.

Mr. Erv Heiman: No, you are.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: No. I'm telling you that if they qualify to be covered by one policy, meaning to share the policy if they're the same owners, then as long as there is $2 million covering the liability, you'll meet the obligation in the regulations.

Mr. Erv Heiman: My reading of the regulations has two different.... They deal with the club, which is one entity, and the shooting range, which is another.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: I'm telling you that in law, if they were both able jointly to purchase the policy together because they're the same entity—the same group owns it—then there would only need to be one policy. The point is that any club and any range must be covered by $2 million in liability insurance, which isn't an awful lot of insurance when there is an activity going on that could, if it went awry, be fatal. Having $2 million isn't much for car insurance.

Mr. Erv Heiman: I agree with that. The only problem is that anybody who has read the regulations interprets this as two separate—

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: They're misinterpreting it. That's what I'm trying to tell you.

Mr. Erv Heiman: It could be.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you, gentlemen. We very much appreciate your testimony here this afternoon.

The meeting is suspended for a few minutes.

• 1627

• 1632

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): We'll reconvene, please. I would like to welcome Robert McNamara, from Victims of Violence International.

Mr. McNamara, would you care to proceed with your presentation.

Mr. Robert McNamara (Vice-President, Victims of Violence International): I'm appearing here today on behalf of Victims of Violence, but I'm also appearing here for Priscilla de Villiers in caveat, victims of the December 6 massacre, and the family members of the murdered professors at Concordia.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present to you today on the final set of regulations related to Bill C-68. Before beginning, I would like to give those who are new some context for my presentation.

I've appeared many times before government committees on many justice-related issues. I have presented to the committees on Bill C-68 many times before, and to the legislative committee on justice and the Solicitor General in June 1995, when I was accompanied by Marc Hogben, whose father was one of Valery Fabrikant's victims at Concordia University. Fabrikant's wife obtained a restricted weapons permit by virtue of membership in a gun club she joined but seldom attended.

I have presented to the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs with Priscilla de Villiers, whose daughter Nina was killed, with Karen Marquis, by Jonathan Yeo. The inquest into Yeo's suicide recommended registration of all firearms.

I have attended meetings and appeared at press conferences with people such as Kim Forbes, whose eight-year-old son Matthew was blown apart with a shotgun by a young offender who obtained access to a shotgun that had been improperly stored.

I've attended meetings with people involved with the fallout from the murders of the Vernon massacre, where a member of the Barnet Rifle Club in Burnaby obtained a restricted weapons permit and killed his wife and eight members of her family. The inquest into the Vernon massacre recommended stricter regulations on handguns and registration of all firearms.

In Ottawa alone there are two more inquests into deaths where these regulations might have made a difference, the Kassonde inquest, which recommended that the Department of Justice implement its firearms regulations as quickly as possible, and the inquest into the murder of Brian Smith, where the killer had legal possession of a rifle, despite a history of violence, because of flaws in the existing laws.

My own brother was killed in Canmore, Alberta, wild rose country, by a law-abiding gun owner who lost his temper.

• 1635

In nearly all these cases the guns were legally held. Had the guns been registered and rigorous licensing been in place, it is just possible police might have removed guns before the tragedies occurred, or in the case of Matthew Forbes the owner might have taken his responsibilities a little more seriously.

While it's true that none of these incidents alone proves that these new regulations would have saved lives, we have seen three separate inquests—Yeo, Vernon, and Kassonde—recommend registration of firearms. I'm not sure how many more we need. We have also heard evidence provided by experts in public safety—police, public health, domestic violence, criminologists—that indicates increasing controls on guns reduces the likelihood of death and injury. By improving controls on who we allow to have guns and the guns we allow them to have and by having more information we will save lives.

I completely understand why gun owners may oppose these regulations. What I do not understand is the members of the committee who seem to place more weight on the evidence provided by gun owners and their hired hands than evidence provided by those we generally view as having a duty to protect public health and safety. I must also say on behalf of myself, Victims of December 6th and CAVEAT, as we have all said before, those who profess to support victims' rights and oppose this law just don't get it. Those of us who have suffered want to prevent others from experiencing what we have experienced, and this law is an important way to prevent violence.

Registration of firearms is essential to ensure that only licensed gun owners have access to guns by allowing police to trace guns that are bought and sold illegally. We know that most of the firearms recovered in crimes are rifles and shotguns, and many of them are bought legally and sold illegally or stolen. We need better controls on the gun trade.

Registration will also enable police to remove guns from people who have become threats. Right now it is true they have the power to temporarily remove guns and it is true right now they can apply to the judge for prohibition orders. It is also true that without information about who owns what guns, the police must depend entirely on search warrants or the gun owners for the information. “Knock, knock, I have a prohibition order. Do you have any guns? May I have them please?” The police don't know.

It is true that the former Conservative government introduced safe storage regulations. However, the police have said clearly and repeatedly that without information about who owns guns they cannot enforce safe storage nor can they ensure that individuals report lost or stolen guns. Moreover, as you have heard, there is a strong sense that when gun owners know their names are in effect attached to their guns, they will take more care, unlike, for example, the former justice minister in Saskatchewan who said “I have a rifle and somewhere in this world I have a shotgun.”

If gun owners are licensed and guns are registered they're more likely to pay attention to what they do with their guns. Registration will also support police investigations.

The method proposed for registering guns without serial numbers is certainly a compromise. Stickers can be removed, and we know our friends in the gun lobby—we've seen it on the Internet—are actively encouraging experimentation with solvents and innovative ways to modify and conceal the serial numbers.

However, it is important to emphasize the police have said that most guns do have unique identifiers and we know most Canadians are law-abiding. Some may even view it as an advantage to have their guns identified in the same way people invest in having their VCRs and bicycles engraved with unique identifiers. Law-abiding citizens will get and keep their stickers, therefore helping to identify criminals and their illegal guns.

Instead of starting with the question “Why regulate gun clubs and shooting ranges”, let us start with the position “Why allow civilians to possess guns at all?” Polls show that most Canadians would support a total ban on handguns. Handguns are not used for hunting or farming. Handguns are not common in rural areas. Handguns are not traditional weapons used by aboriginal peoples. However, the Parliament of Canada has decided that Canadians may, under very constrained circumstances, possess and carry handguns. The reason for possessing handguns and other restricted weapons include employment as police, self-protection under limited circumstances, collecting under strict definitions, and membership in an approved gun club.

If membership in a gun club is going to be the basis for allowing Canadians to possess handguns and restricted weapons, it is only reasonable that those gun clubs be strictly regulated. If gun clubs are places where Canadians who are unlicensed are going to be allowed access to, and taught to use, handguns and other restricted weapons, it is only reasonable that gun clubs be required to keep careful track of who they allow in. When I visit a health club I sign in, and so must my guests. I do not see a requirement to keep records of visitors to gun clubs and ranges as a great imposition.

• 1640

All guns are potentially dangerous, and Canada's new law, in many respects, extends some of the controls we had on handguns to rifles and shotguns. Without reviewing yet again the research on the subject, I think the strongest argument for controls is the experiment conducted south of the border. Most of us would agree that while they are not perfect, Canada's strict controls on handguns and even limited controls on other guns have saved us from the carnage experienced in the United States. As has been mentioned before, our new laws bring us into line with other countries in the world.

As for other countries in the world—I just throw this in—the gentleman before me said some countries had taken away their registration. That was New Zealand. They were doing it by cards, and now they are bringing it back in. They are one of the 33 countries that have signed on with the United Nations in this project.

While I was surprised and delighted to hear members of the committee who previously argued that the law was no good and a waste of time and money now argue that it would be more rigorous and that all registration should be verified, I think the compromise that has been struck to delay verification on sales and transfer of long guns is acceptable, though not ideal. What I do want to repeat, however, is that we do not seek to improve controls on rifles and shotguns at the expense of the current controls on handguns and restricted weapons.

I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to ensure that the current process with respect to restricted weapons is maintained. Without repeating what I've already said about the particular danger posed by handguns and restricted weapons, I would strongly encourage the committee to revisit the verification on sales and transfer of guns to ensure that in an effort to gain support for verification of long arms we have not relaxed controls on restricted weapons. It would be a big mistake.

I have not examined the other regulations in detail and I will defer to the advice of experts in the area. By “experts” I mean the experts on preventing crime and violence, not the experts on how to use guns.

In conclusion, I must say that I find the preoccupation some members of the committee seem to have with turning law-abiding gun owners into criminals a problem. If I do not file my income tax or if I do not declare personal income, I become a criminal. If I refuse to take a Breathalyzer test, I become a criminal. If I currently possess an unregistered handgun, I am a criminal. If I do not store my guns safely, I am a criminal. Under the current law, if I sell guns at a garage sale to someone without a valid FAC, I am a criminal.

It is not the law requiring me to file taxes or the law requiring me to take a Breathalyzer or Kim Campbell's Bill C-17 that has made me a criminal. With income tax evasion, drunk driving, and firearms there are a series of offences as well as room for discretion. But if law-abiding citizens don't want to become criminals, they just have to obey the law.

More important, perhaps, from my perspective, is that amid the complaints about the costs, the inconvenience, the notion that the law turns law-abiding citizens into criminals, you remember the cost of inaction. I must say, while I understand many of you are new to this issue, I find it very discouraging that some of you are still questioning the basis of the law. It is for that reason that I feel it is essential to remind you what is really at stake.

Certainly there are costs associated with this law. No doubt guns, like tobacco, are big business. As Senator Ghitter reminded us:

The firearms industry is worth more than $1 billion per year to the Canadian economy. The GST alone ought to cover the health costs you mention leaving aside the other taxes and reduction in welfare costs to people who might otherwise be unemployed.

But we must not forget the costs of inaction. Some have estimated that the cost of firearms death and injury at over $6 billion per year. I, however, have a hard time putting a price tag on my brother's death or on the deaths of the 1,200 people killed each year with guns. For the families of the victims, the costs cannot be calculated.

• 1645

I would like to remind you that it has been eight years since the Montreal massacre and it will be six more before this law is implemented. During the time it has taken to get the law this far, more than 10,000 Canadians have died from gunshots and we have not yet registered a rifle or licensed a gun owner.

As I recently said at a press conference, this has been a long and painful process. I know I speak for Priscilla de Villiers, for Marc Hogben, for Suzanne Laplante Edward, and for many others who have fought hard for this law, when I ask that the committee ensure that these regulations put the safety of Canadians first and move forward quickly. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you, Mr. McNamara.

Mr. Ramsay, you have five minutes.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Thank you, Mr. McNamara. Of course, I'm familiar with your concerns in this area. I've listened to your testimony on other occasions.

Would you support the complete ban of all handguns in Canada?

Mr. Robert McNamara: Myself, personally? Probably not. I think there is a place for Olympic-style competition, like Linda Thom and people like that.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: So other than that you would support a complete ban?

Mr. Robert McNamara: Of handguns, yes. Handguns, from what I can see, are made to kill people. That's why they are made. These little snub-nosed belly busters and such, like the Saturday-night specials, are designed to be concealed and to kill people. I see no reason why they should exist.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Well, I always look for a balance in any piece of legislation, including this one.

Mr. Robert McNamara: So do I.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I don't see the balance in this. If I did, I'd be supporting it. If I thought the registration of a piece of property would somehow make that property less likely to be used in a criminal way, I'd be supporting this bill.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. McNamara, we have four provincial governments that are refusing to enforce the licensing and registration portion of the bill. The responsibility of these people is to administer those laws that maintain peace, order, and good government that are passed by the federal government. But they have to stand for election before their people, and I marvel at the fact that we are still confronted with the statistical argument in that it still exists, because surely these governments would not be resisting measures that they honestly believe would be beneficial in enhancing the safety of homes and streets. Yet we see them doing it, making up not quite 50% of the population of this country. So—

Mr. Robert McNamara: Would you like me to comment on that?

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Well, I have to ask you a question.

You see, we're all concerned about safe gun control, and we all support it. But when we see a bill that is being brought forward—and we were told at the beginning that there's going to be a mail-in registration system, and we were concerned about this whole area of verification. Now we see where the senior officers of the RCMP are also concerned about verification; where the chief firearms officers of two provinces appearing before the committee expressed that same concern, saying the information contained in the registry on restricted and prohibited firearms will be unverified and hence unreliable.

I suggest that the promises and the hopes that have been raised in the minds of many people by the government by making those promises as to the benefits that would flow from this system have misled the people. We're beginning to see testimony from key individuals within the program, who will be administering the program, having a very large to-do with the program, saying that very thing, that there's going to be a system that is unreliable.

Do you have any comments on the reliability of the system, bearing in mind the verification requirements or lack thereof contained within the bill?

• 1650

Mr. Robert McNamara: Let's go right back to the beginning, when you were talking about the four provinces that have basically tried to opt out. Take the province of Alberta. From what I understand, the majority of the citizens of Alberta, in an Angus Reid poll, supported the legislation. If Canadians didn't want this legislation, I think you'd be sitting on this side and Mr. Lee would be sitting on this side. Canadians support this legislation

Mr. Jack Ramsay: The governments don't.

Mr. Robert McNamara: The governments are going against the wishes of their people.

I don't believe Ralph Klein was elected because of guns. I think that was way down on the list. He has his own agenda. If you listen to the people on that one, if you take the Reform Party's attitude of doing polls in your ridings and listening to the people, there would be no problem.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I've done that in my riding.

Mr. Robert McNamara: On the part about verification, I understand there are going to be problems; it's not going to be perfect. I think with the majority of Canadians they will try. I was here when the Canadian chiefs of police supported it. If I look at a group of people that put public safety first, that would be one group.

The National Crime Prevention Council supports it.

There are individual officers in the RCMP who don't, but there are individuals in your party who don't support this.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, I was elected at Selkirk—Interlake and I—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Mr. Ramsay, you're over the time limit. You can ask him a question after it's over, but it's time to move on.

Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you for being here. I enjoyed your presentation. I liked what you said when you pointed out the contradiction between opposition to gun control and the supposed defense of victims' rights. This is a very obvious contradiction, and I am very pleased that you have underlined it.

I have three questions to ask you and I would like you to answer them at the end. It will be very brief.

First, do you think that this bill and the regulations will improve the way owners store their firearms?

Second, what do you think of the statistics that say that the mere presence of guns in a home increases the risk of homicide threefold and the risk of suicide fivefold? That makes my blood run cold.

Third, if you could improve this legislation and the regulations, how would you do so? That is very brief. I would prefer to let you speak.

[English]

Mr. Robert McNamara: On improving the storage, it's obvious. You become responsible for your weapon. If you know you're going be charged if you haven't stored it correctly and somebody has taken it, or there has been a theft, or a child hurts himself because you haven't stored it properly.... A responsible Canadian adult will do that.

The stats on the presence of a gun, the three times and the five times...I'm not a mathematician, but I'll tell you one thing; if there wasn't a gun at the location where my brother was murdered, my brother would be alive. It was an idiot with a goddamned handgun that killed my brother. My brother was six foot four and weighed 220 pounds. He had no argument with this little punk, but this punk had a handgun, and he died. You can do it three times, five times, twenty times...in that one situation, because of the presence of a handgun, my brother died.

On improving the bill.... I was fortunate this summer. I had a consultation with the firearms centre. They explained to me what was going on. Of course everything couldn't go our way. Compromises had to be made, and in looking at this I think it's a balance. The only thing we're really looking for, from the victim's point of view on these regulations, is that you sign in guests at gun clubs and that you be very careful that you do not mess with the verifications on the handgun transfer that are there right now. We pointed that out, but we otherwise agree, and we hope these are passed speedily.

• 1655

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: You are satisfied, then, with the regulations and the bill as they stand today.

[English]

Mr. Robert McNamara: We accept them, yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I know that you accept them. Are you satisfied with them?

[English]

Mr. Robert McNamara: I'm satisfied, yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Fine. Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you, Mr. Marceau.

Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you.

Mr. McNamara, I want to thank you for being here as well. I've listened very carefully to your presentation. I sympathize with you greatly. I have never experienced a loss like you have, a murder within the family, and I won't sit here and say I could ever appreciate that without having gone through it. However, I do take exception to your comment and that of my Bloc Québécois colleague that you cannot oppose this legislation and be supportive of victims' rights. I completely reject that premise. I've worked for years with victims groups yet I do not support this legislation, and I'll tell you why.

If it comes down to making a purely financial argument—and I can't disagree with you when you say you can't put a price on a human life—I think the money would be better spent on registering criminals through a DNA databank, on putting money into education, or on putting money into shelters to help stem domestic violence. That's my first comment.

With respect to your situation with your brother, I don't know the circumstances and I'm not asking to hear them publicly, but it occurs to me that what this legislations ultimately does is lower the overall availability of guns. I would never argue that point. That's what this legislation will do. In particular, it targets the registration of long guns. That's ultimately what this is aimed at. As you know, handguns have always been registered for many years. I suggest to you that this punk, psycho, or whatever he was, that shot your brother, would never have registered a gun, would not have complied with C-17 and the safe storage regulations. Twist of fate, whatever it was, it was a terrible tragedy, but this registration would not have saved your brother's life.

Mr. Robert McNamara: I agree. I would hate to actually even have to think that if this legislation was in place, maybe my brother wouldn't have died. But what we can see from the victim's point of view is that this legislation will help prevent future deaths. If we go back to the safe storage issue, poor Matthew Forbes was an eight-year-old blown away by a shotgun at close range because the father locked it up with a dog chain and the kid just broke the chain. That maybe could have been prevented if the penalties had been a little stricter, for example, or if he had known he was responsible for that and it was registered. I think that might have played a part in it.

Mr. Peter MacKay: But I just see them as two very separate issues. The tangible impediments to the dangerous use of firearms—trigger guards, locking firearms, keeping ammunition separate, restrictions on types of weapons, sawed-off shotguns, and illegal guns—I have no issue with whatsoever. I endorse them 100%, wholly. But I don't believe that putting a serial number in a computer bank and having it available to the police is going to have a substantial impact on crime. For the criminal element, the Hell's Angels, those psychotic people, or those persons acting in a fit of rage, it's not going to matter one iota if that number is recorded somewhere in a police databank. It's not going to save lives.

Mr. Robert McNamara: Absolutely not. And that's what so perfect about it. If I'm a law-abiding citizen, I will register my rifle. If I'm not a law-abiding citizen, I won't. If the police ask me if my gun is registered and I say it's not, then I'm a criminal. It separates them right there, does it not?

• 1700

Mr. Peter MacKay: I suggest there are going to be a lot of law-abiding citizens who either through neglect, non-compliance or just outright refusal don't register those guns. They have never posed a threat to their community, are engaged in what prior to this legislation were lawful activities, and they are suddenly by a stroke of the pen and the passage of legislation deemed to be criminals when they pose no threat.

Mr. Robert McNamara: What we're asking for from a victim's point of view is that for a little inconvenience of sending in a card and $10 you can maybe help prevent death in this country, help out the police, and maybe help control crime in this country. I live in a little valley, in the Ottawa Valley. All my friends see no problem with this. They're all hunters. They own rifles. What's $10 if it can help prevent deaths, help fight crime, help the police?

The Canadian Police Association supports this and the chiefs of police. The list of those types of organizations, the people who we should be listening to when it comes to public safety, all support this.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I can see we're not going to convince each other.

Mr. Robert McNamara: I don't think you have a hope in hell, to put it bluntly.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you, Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Now the government side—Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: Mr. McNamara, we've heard some members opposite undertaking to repeal the legislation in the event that they form the government. We've actually heard witnesses oppose the legislation and even hint at civil disobedience and things of that nature. I'm wondering whether, having read the regulations, there is anything in the regulations themselves that you see as so obnoxious or so onerous as to move a citizen to enter into an act of civil disobedience. Is there any point at which you cross over and see this sympathy point for those who—

Mr. Robert McNamara: Actually, I still just see it, the $10, as a minor inconvenience. I had sympathy for the guys who were in before me talking about the three different carriers, international, interprovincial and that. I had a sympathy for that. People have a business. They don't want to get tied down with too much paperwork in that end.

But for the registration of these rifles, as I said, it's a card to send in with $10. It baffles me why there's so much opposition to it. If everybody wants to be John Wayne and carry a gun...there's that mentality. Otherwise, I don't understand it.

Mr. John McKay: I heard statistics that something in the order of 90% of victims are known to the perpetrator. Is that a correct statistic within your experience?

Mr. Robert McNamara: Not from my personal experience. Our organization started with the Olson murders. A lot of ours are abductor murders, stranger murders. But in general I believe that to be correct.

Mr. John McKay: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Are there any other questions? We have three minutes.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: One would be enough. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We've heard a lot of testimony in the last few days about law-abiding citizens not committing crimes. Yet the statistics—and I think Mr. Marceau pointed this out also—show that in family violence situations it's basically someone who has never had any other criminal record, someone who sometimes never even had a parking ticket according to some people. Yet the presence of the gun has allowed that person to commit a crime and even a death or murder in many cases.

We also heard a lot of testimony about other countries that have tried the registration system and in the end have decided to do away with it, which is contrary to what I've read. But that was also stated by the former witnesses.

In your experience, Mr. McNamara, would you say those are correct statements? Secondly, it's true that registration will not take care of the whole problem, and we are looking as a government to other types of crime prevention alternatives besides this type of legislation. One of them is in fact dealing with perhaps a bill of rights for victims, or ombudsmen for victims, or a whole series of other options. We're looking at it as a package. Do you see it as part of the package of crime prevention measures that this government should be taking?

• 1705

Mr. Robert McNamara: Most definitely—crime prevention and also public health. We have to take into account the suicides and so on of the young people in this country. It's part of the package.

But when you're talking about victims' rights, if you ask the victims, we don't want rights; we want crimes prevented. This will help prevent crimes. DNA data banks—we can't wait for that one to come. We think that's another very important tool. There are going to be arguments about that, along the same lines.

We always look at it from the point of view of helping Canadians not having to experience what people in our organization have gone through. For a lot of people, it's absolutely horrendous the way they have suffered and what they've had to go through. It's our belief that this will help prevent that.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: So it's part of a series, then.

Mr. Robert McNamara: It's another part of the whole package.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thanks, Mr. McNamara. I appreciate your attendance here today.

Mr. Robert McNamara: Thank you.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Thanks, Bob. We appreciate it.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): The meeting is suspended for a few minutes.

• 1706

• 1712

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Before we start, I want to respond to Mr. Ramsay's initial inquiry at the beginning of the hearings today. We are hearing tomorrow officials from the justice department: Mr. Mike Buisson, the registrar of the Canadian Firearms Registry, and Mr. Murray Smith, chief scientist, Central Forensic Laboratory, along with officials from the department.

We have attempted to get a forensic officer who appears in court on a regular basis. We've been unable to do so. Those we have requested to come have declined. We are still leaving it open. If the Reform Party can come up with an individual, we will ask them to come tomorrow, and we will fit them in where possible.

Does anybody have any questions about that?

Mr. Peter MacKay: I have one potential witness from Nova Scotia, but I'm having a hard time getting confirmation from this guy. I've provided his name to the committee—Dr. Hunter-Duvar. We gave you his name and number a week ago.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): The difficulty, Peter, is that we are going to conclude tomorrow.

Mr. Peter MacKay: We're done tomorrow? Tomorrow is the last day for witnesses?

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: The officials are coming in the afternoon.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Well, there you go.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: How is he different from the others?

Mr. Peter MacKay: He was originally a proponent involved in the drafting of this legislation some years ago, and he's now on the other side. I thought he would offer some interesting discourse as to why he changed.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: The other option is a written brief.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: If he can get it to us by the weekend, that's fine, too.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Okay.

Let's proceed to the last witness, from SNC Industrial Technologies, Mr. Normand Héroux.

I'm sorry, gentlemen, you were asked to leave your position after getting set up, but Mr. McNamara was ahead of you. We regret the inconvenience of the misunderstanding.

Go ahead, Mr. Héroux.

[Translation]

Mr. Normand Héroux (Director, Prevention Administration, SNC Industrial Technologies Inc.): If you will allow me, I will speak in French.

I am the director of prevention administration for Les technologies industrielles SNC. With me is Sylvain Dionne, who is a technologist, a firearms expert and a weapons technician.

I will start my presentation with a short preamble. Last Thursday, November 20, at 3:15 p.m., I was invited to appear here on Monday, November 24, at 4:30 p.m. to talk about regulations that I had never heard of.

• 1715

I received documents—and I emphasize the plural—Friday at about 2:00 p.m. by fax. I worked on the same documents as you, and I now know that they were not the right ones. I have just learned that there were draft regulations tabled in October 1997. I had never seen those.

I will make a general comment on the regulations. We can see that these regulations are trying to discourage the average person from acquiring and owning firearms and trying to make certain firearms illegal.

That is fine, and we are not opposed to that. But whether we like it or not, we have an army in Canada. The army needs weapons and ammunition for those weapons. Police officers also need weapons and ammunition. They have to be trained to use those weapons safely. Suppliers are therefore needed to supply them with the weapons and ammunition.

We are a legitimate business that exists for a reason. Even if we managed to fit our activities under section 21, for industrial purposes, in the firearms licenses regulations, we do not see much possibility in the regulations of flexibility or exemption, like those for the movie industry, to help us carry out our objectives and our mission.

In short, we are not a corner store selling firecrackers.

For those who do not know—because the last time we came, we described our organization a bit—Les technologies industrielles SNC used to be known as Arsenals Canada. This was a Crown corporation, part of government. The company was privatized in 1986, when the government decided to create a private-sector munitions industry in Canada; the company was sold to the SNC group for $92.5 million. The company is now worth $150 million.

Les technologies industrielles SNC now has two manufacturing plants, one at Le Gardeur and the other at Saint-Augustin-de- Desmaures near Quebec City, and it employs more than 700 people. The company also has a research and development department with 60 technologists and scientists working on military contracts for Canada, the United States and other allied countries.

Along with four other Canadian companies, which are Expro, Diemaco, Ingersoll Machine Tool and Bristol, our existence is protected for national security reasons by a permanent order in council adopted by Parliament in 1978 called The Munitions Supply Program. Since 1986 and ongoing until 2006, Les technologies SNC is a designated supplier of over 100 products and services for the Canadian Armed Forces.

In order to be able to manufacture and deliver products that meet our clients' requirements, we must be able to test them using the same weapons as our clients. In the case of our new line of training products using subcaliber training ammunition, we must manufacture and supply a conversion barrel required for safety reasons. We are also continuing our research and development activities on small calibers arms, often on a contract basis with the Department of National Defence or other allied countries. Consequently, we need to possess and use a vast collection of firearms of various models and calibers in order to carry out these tests.

• 1720

What bothered us the most in the documents that we received was the draft Firearms Registration Certificates Regulation, which state:

The FIN must be visible to the naked eye on a clearly visible part of the frame or the receiver except:

@ti24 the weapon was imported by a business holding a licence for a short period only, for a purpose covered by section 21 of the Firearms Licences Regulations.

I was simply wondering whether the short period applied to the license or to the period of importation. If the regulations mean that the firearm is imported for a short period, should they not read "imported for a short period only by a business holding a licence for a stated purpose"?

I would point out that weapons belonging to the Armed Forces are not registered; neither the legislation nor the regulations cover them. These weapons are provided to us on long-term loan, and we can sometimes be asked to return them because they are only on loan. Some of them are destroyed, however, and then replaced. Spare parts can be interchanged in these weapons. The Armed Forces are exempt from the legislation and we are not able to register these weapons just because they are in our possession. We currently keep a register of all our weapons, which we present on request to the Chief Firearms Officer of the province. We would like to be able to continue to do so.

When weapons enter the country for a short period for testing or modification, a declaration is made at the time of importation and, if applicable, export; this is a control mechanism. We ask that a section be added to the regulations to exempt weapons from registration that enter the country for short periods. Weapons belonging to foreign police forces or armed forces enter the country and are provided to us for modification. They are not registered in either their country of origin or in Canada.

We have a licence to modify weapons. We sometimes receive 100 or 200 weapons that we need to modify to be able to fire FX ammunition. I would remind you that these are not our weapons: they belong to military forces or police forces. We work under contract with these organizations. The weapons are not registered and I believe that we should be exempt from the registration requirements.

I will now deal with the shooting clubs and shooting ranges regulations, which provide that:

No person may use a restricted firearm or a prohibited handgun in a shooting range unless the person is:

-, a member or an officer of an approved shooting club;

-, an individual who ordinarily resides outside of Canada who is a member of a recognized shooting organization; or

-, a guest of a member or an officer.

We concluded a contract with a shooting range not far from our plant and we set up a shooting range to be able to fire weapons other than pistols. We paid for the modification and signed a contract with the shooting range. We would ask that employees of a business holding a licence issued for industrial purposes under section 21 of the Firearms Licences Regulations, in the course of their work to carry out the activities of that business, not be required to be members of an approved shooting club. We do not see why we should be members of an approved shooting club to do our work.

In the Public Agents Firearms Regulations, a public agent is described as follows:

police officer or peace officer; persons training to become police officers or peace officers; Chief Firearms Officers; persons designated by the regulations on behalf of a federal, provincial or municipal government; any individual acting on behalf of or under the authority of a public service agency.

It is this last definition that interests us in particular.

Our products and services are intended only for public agents; we are not working in the retail sector and we are not selling to individuals. We are dealing only with public agents, public service organizations and armed forces. In most cases, we already comply with the sections proposed in the regulations.

• 1725

We would merely ask to be considered to be a public agent because we are acting as a business of behalf of public organizations, or we are mandated in our industrial activities under contract by public or military organizations. We can easily comply with the sections in these regulations.

The same regulations talk about protected firearms, those for which an organization is responsible without being the owner, as is the case of seized or found firearms. In our case, this definition could be acceptable as well. We could thus hold protected firearms when they are loaned to us for modification, testing, research or maintenance or repair. We are then not the owners of the weapons.

One section dealing with training provides that:

All public agents must receive appropriate training. The public service agency employing them is responsible for providing that training.

We do this already. We have a training program that is complete, comprehensive and ongoing for employees who must handle and use firearms.

The regulations covering authorized possession in particular cases stipulate that:

When the Firearms Act comes into force, replicas will become prohibited devices.

We put a barrel on certain weapons, which we call an FX kit. These kits make it impossible to fire anything other than practice ammunition. We disarm a C-7 machine gun, a prohibited weapon, and we modify it to fire FX ammunition. The RCMP has stated that this modified weapon was a training device, and not a prohibited weapon. But if that replica is considered to be a prohibited device, the storage, display and transportation regulations that cover it must not apply as if these weapons could constitute a danger for the public and for police officers. That is not the case.

There is, however, some openness in this area, since we are expecting a visit from Mr. Murray Smith, who said he was interested in learning about the kit. He wants to see what it looks like and what a magazine of over 10 cartridges is. These kits are plastic and can contain only practice ammunition.

Modifications are dealt with also in the draft regulations called the Storage, Display and Transportation of Firearms and other Weapons by Businesses Regulations. The handlers in our business are used to transporting things that are even more dangerous than firearms and ammunition, including high-caliber explosives and grenades. The requirements for transporting prohibited firearms stipulate that they must be transported in separate, unidentified containers in separate vehicles by people with a licence to transport prohibited firearms.

The handlers in our equipment control service are used to transporting explosives and high-risk materials. They already have a general licence to handle explosives, which enables them to be solely in possession and control of explosive substances. They are known by the business and are reliable.

We feel that our handlers are much more competent to transport prohibited weapons than an unknown driver of a transport company. We would be much more at ease having one of our handlers transport the weapons from our plant to, for example, Petawawa.

• 1730

Authorized freight carriers may transport prohibited firearms in separate unidentified containers, not in separate vehicles, driven by persons who have no license or knowledge of firearms. Similarly, civilians employed by armed forces may transport assembled firearms, not in separate vehicles.

We ask that it be possible to transport prohibited firearms in two separate unidentified containers, not in separate vehicles, in vehicles equipped with an alarm system and driven by a competent handler who is known to the business. Our employees who drive our vehicles were chosen as a result of a selection process involving passing a number of tests.

Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thanks, Mr. Héroux.

Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Again, I'd like to thank our witnesses for appearing. I guess the most important question I have in mind is what economic impact these regulations and of course the bill itself will have upon you if they go forward in the present form.

[Translation]

Mr. Normand Héroux: There will be quite a significant impact. All the regulations under this legislation end up affecting us. We already comply with the requirements of the Quebec law although certain provisions do not allow us to go to work in Ontario, for example, or even to go through Ontario or transport prohibited weapons there. This is a problem we are attempting to resolve.

The draft regulations for the registration of firearms would require us to make statements to the government and to keep a temporary registration number for the many arms entering our premises that do not belong to us. Once we have made the appropriate changes to them, we have to send them back to the owner, once again going through Customs, and have them deregistered.

Although at the present time we are able to go to shooting ranges, the new regulation would require us to have a special permit to this effect.

In the final analysis, all the company's activities would be subject to permits; we are told we must have firearms acquisition certificates, take the appropriate courses and obtain other permits for the handling of prohibited firearms; at the present time these are only designations, but later on they will require permits.

Our employees already take courses and are competent in the handling of firearms and even have permits for the handling of explosives. A selection process has already taken place to ensure that these employees are reliable and honest. We do not see the need for a second verification through a firearms acquisition certificate.

We must keep in mind that 600 people are working in the plant and it may be necessary to transfer them to another department. This could apply to R&D, to our technicians and to our personnel responsible for testing. Whenever there is a staff transfer, we would have to offer the appropriate training to the employee concerned. He would have to take a course on hunting and obtain a series of permits: the 3F permit, the firearms transportation permit, the firearms handling permit and after that the prohibited weapons handling permit. Obtaining this series of permits would take at least six months insofar as courses are available. We are not in a position to transfer our entire staff and require from all those who are likely to handle firearms that they obtain all these permits.

After all, the kit we manufacture is only a piece of piping, there's nothing dangerous in a kit even if it is less than 105 millimetres. Even if you wanted one and put it on an ordinary weapon, you would not be able to fire bullets offensively. Mr. Dionne can explain to you how it works.

• 1735

[English]

Mr. Sylvain Dionne (Technologist, SNC Industrial Technologies Inc.): When we talk about conversion kits, we basically modify part of the firearm so it cannot fire standard live ammunition. If inadvertently somebody uses standard live ammunition in the conversion kit, the kit is equipped in such a way to fire the round but to have no bullet exit. In other words, it has two holes on the sides to expel high-pressure gasses. Therefore nothing moves in the firearm; all you hear is a bang. There's no danger for anybody, even if they were sitting two inches in front of the gun. So even if somebody wanted to use it in a bad manner, he could not hurt anybody with it, except by making noise.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Has the operation of your business in the past created any type of personal or public safety threat?

Mr. Sylvain Dionne: No.

[Translation]

Mr. Normand Héroux: Never.

[English]

Mr. Jack Ramsay: So you've never had any incidences or accidents or anything like that?

[Translation]

Mr. Normand Héroux: No. Let me explain exactly what I mean. Before 1990, we manufactured large and medium-sized ammunition. We're talking about 105 millimetres, 155 millimetres, 81 millimetres and 20 millimetres. In 1990, when we bought IVI, which manufactured smaller ammunition, we incorporated it into our company and since 1992 we've been manufacturing practice ammunition. We've never had any incidents with practice ammunition.

Our plant has an alarm system as well as what is necessary for the stocking of our arms and it is under 24-hour surveillance. Our alarm systems are superior to those of many weapons manufacturers and this means it is very difficult to enter our premises, as Ms. Brosseau can testify. Furthermore, it is practically impossible to get to the place where the firearms are kept. We meet the criteria of the Quebec police force, we were visited by QPP officers who confirmed that we were able to stock prohibited firearms on our premises. We've never had any problems in this respect.

[English]

Mr. Jack Ramsay: My final question is were you consulted by justice department officials with regard to either the bill or the regulations, and if so, to what extent?

[Translation]

Mr. Normand Héroux: We were not consulted about the bill. However we were consulted in relation to the first draft of the regulations and we were invited through the provincial comptroller who suggested we take part in a meeting since he was aware of the difficulties involved in our complying with the law and he hoped that certain provisions could be modified in order to assist us.

We were invited to come to Ottawa to discuss the bill, but at the time it was only in the draft stage. The text was submitted to us only on our arrival. We then came to the hearings during the study of the first draft regulations at the beginning of last December. These drafts went back to October 1996.

[English]

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Okay, thank you. That's my time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thanks very much.

Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you both for being here. We appreciate that with the short notice you were given it's certainly a tribute to you that you were able to put your presentation together and do so in a very professional way, I might add.

The understanding I have is that you do not sell to the retail market.

Mr. Sylvain Dionne: No.

Mr. Peter MacKay: You sell only to either police agencies or armed forces. Is that international as well?

[Translation]

Mr. Normand Héroux: Yes, the FBI, the RCMP as well as the French Gendarmerie.

Mr. Sylvain Dionne: The FBI and the SAS.

Mr. Normand Héroux: We sell in Japan, Hongkong and we will be selling in Saudi Arabia. Also in the Netherlands and Denmark.

[English]

Mr. Peter MacKay: So a significant portion of the business is outside Canada.

[Translation]

Mr. Normand Héroux: Yes, a significant portion.

[English]

Mr. Sylvain Dionne: The largest portion of the business is in Canada regarding large-calibre ammunition, but regarding small-calibre ammunition, most of the business is outside Canada.

• 1740

Mr. Peter MacKay: Dealing first with your business within Canada—that's RCMP and armed forces—the cost associated with complying with these regulations, once implemented, would be borne 100% by your company.

Mr. Sylvain Dionne: Yes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So there's that financial impact, aside from the red tape, paperwork and machinations—

[Translation]

Mr. Normand Héroux: Yes, a very large one.

[English]

Mr. Peter MacKay: This, I assume, would affect your speed of business and you might have to hire more people to deal simply with that part of your business, as opposed to the manufacturing.

Mr. Sylvain Dionne: Yes. It even gets to the point where it becomes difficult to do certain types of business because prohibited parts of weapons are considered as prohibited weapons and so on. So you give a weapon to someone to modify, bring it back to the vault during break, take it out again and so on. We spend most of the day travelling and not working.

Mr. Peter MacKay: As an example, under these regulations would it be wrong to suggest there may be occasions when you might have to modify a single weapon several times, even within a day?

Mr. Sylvain Dionne: Yes, that's right.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Under these regulations you would be required to pay $12.50 upon each modification and notify the registrar of firearms. Are you aware of that?

Mr. Sylvain Dionne: If we have to do that we are not going to modify anything.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay.

Mr. Sylvain Dionne: There are conversion kits. In order to design a conversion kit, which is basically what I do, it may take two or three months. We may have to do four to twenty prototypes. You have to remember, we have a very small energy cartridge that has to function a machine gun or whatever. It's not always easy or simple to do. Lots of parts have to be changed—magazines, bolt carriers, and so on. So of course the firearm has to be modified time after time.

Mr. Peter MacKay: You're talking about volumes of firearms.

Mr. Sylvain Dionne: Yes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I take it from your presentation that you often receive prototypes or firearms from many different countries. You're talking about licensing fees and importation certificates associated with getting them into the country. Then you would modify them overall thousands of times.

Mr. Normand Héroux: And register them.

Mr. Sylvain Dionne: Yes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm interested in the economic impact on your company along the lines of a question by Mr. Ramsay. How do you foresee this impacting on your business? I think it's important it's on the record that you employ 700 to 800 people.

Mr. Sylvain Dionne: Yes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: How do you foresee this impacting on your viability and business operations?

Mr. Normand Héroux: We didn't make any calculations on that. We really don't think we will be able to fit in the law like that. That's why we are trying to get out of it by any means.

Mr. Sylvain Dionne: You were mentioning red tape, and since the previous laws came into effect I think Normand spends more than 80% of his time just controlling permits, asking for licences, checking this, checking that, importing and exporting. Those things were not part of his duties before; he just inherited them.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I take you at your word with respect to the safety provisions you have imposed upon your own work environment. Do you think these guidelines in any way, shape or form will improve safety? I ask you that question having heard you say there are no accidents and virtually no problems.

Mr. Sylvain Dionne: There haven't been any problems in our plant because we do probably more than what's required by law in the area of safety. We have vaults that are built like bank vaults to put firearms into. The law does not even require that.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm interested in your answers, even if other members of the committee may not be.

• 1745

I would like very much to thank you again for coming. I agree with you. I think your company, in the way that you present it, should be completely exempted from these regulations. I think it's shameful that it's going to have this impact on you from the way you presented it to us.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Normand Héroux: Thank you.

Mr. Sylvain Dionne: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thanks, Mr. McKay.

Mr. Lee, did you have a question?

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

I was concerned because of your belief or apparent recollection that there hadn't been much consultation with SNC Industrial Technologies, which is your firm. If I'm not mistaken, I do recall you appearing here before the justice committee for Bill C-68. I seem to have that recollection.

[Translation]

Mr. Normand Héroux: No, not for Bill C-68.

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee: No? I was also under the impression that officials of the justice department visited with your firm at least once.

[Translation]

Mr. Normand Héroux: Yes.

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee: They walked through the operation. So there has been an understanding.

I would like to go through two or three parts of your very good submission.

The first item deals with this business of short periods, short time. I didn't think that was much of a problem, but we'll check that later on your behalf. As I read that, it's pretty clear that the short time refers to the period of time for which the firearm has been imported.

Mr. Normand Héroux: No, it's just because there are some permits that are for a short period.

Mr. Derek Lee: It refers to, I believe, the period of time for which the firearm was intended to be imported. Say the importation was intended to bring it in for a short period and then take it back out again. I believe that's what the section covers.

[Translation]

Mr. Normand Héroux: That is what I understood, but it wasn't clear.

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay. As we go through this, we find a number of sections that are not that clear in our reading of it. The department always tries to make it clear.

The second item is the section on the shooting club user. As I read the section of the regulations dealing with shooting ranges, there is an exemption for employees of a licensed business. I don't know if you managed to read that.

Mr. Sylvain Dionne: In the guide, there's no such exemption.

Mr. Derek Lee: I'm on page 14. Subsection 2(2) says:

(2) A shooting range that is part of the premises of a licensed business is exempt from the application of these Regulations on condition that it is used only by owners and employees of the business who hold the licence authorizing the holder to acquire restricted firearms.

Mr. Sylvain Dionne: That's not our case.

Mr. Derek Lee: You have prohibited—

Mr. Sylvain Dionne: No, the thing is that there's a public shooting range close to where we are. We use that range occasionally to do certain tests. It's basically for that purpose that the question was brought up.

Mr. Derek Lee: Oh, so you don't have your own range that you use exclusively.

Mr. Sylvain Dionne: We do, but they are indoor ranges. With certain types of ammunition, we cannot shoot there or it's not long enough.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay, that's a good point that you make. It's worth considering.

The next section you raised is on the public agent firearms regulations. The first impression is that your firm would not be a public agent. The definition of a public agent—this is on page 36—includes:

(b) an individual acting on behalf of, and under the authority of, a police force or a department of the Government of Canada or a province.

• 1750

I guess that wouldn't help you with the FBI or foreign services that would use your—

Mr. Normand Héroux: No.

Mr. Derek Lee: However, once you're a public agent.... We may have difficulty with the individual, but if there were to be an agreement between the armed forces and your business that constituted you as an agent acting under their authority, that would appear to me to provide you with an exemption. And once exempted as a public agent, that may also arguably apply to work that you do for non-Canadian clients.

I clearly can't solve all of your problems here today, but I did want to draw your attention to that. Do you have any comment on that?

Mr. Sylvain Dionne: Yes. With respect to the armed forces, it's probably something that's very feasible to do. What do we do in the case of small police departments throughout Canada, RCMP, Quebec police, and everything else, and in the U.S. where we deal with police departments of four police, basically, right up to the FBI? We also deal with overseas police departments or military institutions.

Mr. Derek Lee: Forgive me for thinking too much here, but if you are to ask the armed forces to designate you as a public agent acting under their authority—

Mr. Sylvain Dionne: Then it will be clearer—

Mr. Derek Lee: —then you are a public agent acting under their authority, and for so long as you continue to be of that status, you would be exempted or at least be dealt with as a public agent under the regs. I'm not offering that as an opinion, but as I read it that is certainly arguable. It would be important to clarify that with the chief firearms officer for the province, and at this stage I think we should ask you to clarify it with the Department of Justice as well.

Mr. Normand Héroux: Yes. That's why I mentioned it earlier. This sentence is all about individuals. We are not and we can't be with all the individuals, so that's why we asked that all the enterprises—

Mr. Sylvain Dionne: The company itself, not individuals in the company.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay. Of course the difficulty with that is that you won't have a circumstance where the government is prepared to designate the chauffeur as a public agent, so for the whole company, no, but there may be individuals within your operation who can act in that capacity. There may be dozens of them and they may be constituted as public agents. I'm not suggesting that this is an easy fix, but it appears to be—

Mr. Normand Héroux: That's an open door.

Mr. Sylvain Dionne: Probably something like 200 to 300 people would have to become public agents in such a case.

Mr. Derek Lee: Two or three hundred.

Mr. Sylvain Dionne: Yes, out of 700, because you have a quantity of engineers, scientists, technologists and whatever. When compared to production people their numbers are actually higher.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Mr. Lee, we're out of time.

Mr. Derek Lee: That's too bad. There are a couple of other issues that perhaps other colleagues can take up. I think these things deserve some clarification.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): That's it, gentlemen.

Thank you, Mr. Héroux and Mr. Dionne.

We're adjourned until tomorrow morning at 9.30.