JURI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES QUESTIONS JURIDIQUES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 25, 1997

• 1542

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): We're back. This is Tuesday and we're still on consideration of the draft regulations on guns, under the Firearms Act.

This afternoon we have with us Eugène Morin, president of the Fédération québécoise de tir. From the International Practical Shooting Confederation of Canada we have Bryan Hodges, who is the president of that organization. And Mr. Paul Shaw is here from the Shooting Federation of Canada.

In a few moments we will be joined again by House of Commons security. Mr. Shaw has an artifact that is actually part of a gun and he wants us to take a look at it. When the security officer gets here, Mr. Shaw is going to circulate it around for us to look at in advance of his presentation.

An hon. member: Is it loaded?

The Chair: No, I don't think it's loadable. It's only part of a gun.

I see we have a visiting member with us. Welcome, and thank you for coming, Mr. Mark.

The usual procedure is that you decide amongst yourselves who's going to go first and then let 'er rip, but leave us time to ask questions.

Mr. Ian Paul Shaw (President, Shooting Federation of Canada): Can I just say something first?

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Shaw.

Mr. Paul Shaw: This is what I'm going to be asking the security personnel to pass around.

The Chair: Maybe you should just tell us what it is.

Mr. Paul Shaw: I'm going to ask questions about it afterwards. It's part of a gun, and I'm going to ask that they take it and let members take a look at it, and then I'm going to ask some questions about this to illustrate a number of things.

The Chair: You know how it works here, eh? We ask questions and you guys give answers.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Paul Shaw: Well, they might be rhetorical questions.

The Chair: When I was a defence lawyer and a crown attorney, I once in a while would have a witness who would ask me questions back. I would say, no, that's not how it works, I ask the questions.

Anyway, who is going first? Okay, Mr. Hodges, thanks.

Mr. Bryan R. Hodges (Director, Governmental Affairs, International Practical Shooting Confederation of Canada): Good afternoon, Madam Chairperson and members of the committee.

The International Practical Shooting Confederation of Canada appreciates this opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in order to discuss various points of the draft regulations of the 1997 Firearms Act as presented here today.

IPSC Canada is a member region of the world-wide organization known as the International and Practical Shooting Confederation, which currently lists over sixty countries in its world membership. IPSC Canada has approximately 2,100 active members throughout Canada and the territories.

• 1545

As a respected member of the shooting sports community, IPSC Canada has hosted many local, national, and international competitions, while its individual members and regional teams have competed worldwide for decades.

IPSC Canada is also held in high esteem within the law enforcement community due to its integrity and commitment to the safe, responsible use of firearms. An example of such regard and co-operation would be the 1997 World Police-Fire Games, which were recently hosted by the city of Calgary. IPSC Alberta was requested by the city of Calgary police department to provide event organization and officials for seven of the individual game events. During the post-event awards ceremonies, IPSC Alberta was singularly applauded by the games organization for providing the most spectacular and enjoyable events of the games.

IPSC Canada, as a recognized national shooting organization, is specifically concerned with two areas of the draft regulations that are presented before us today. We feel that if these regulations are accepted as currently drafted, there will be strong likelihood of further negative impacts to not only our sport but to others as well.

The first area is shooting ranges and shooting clubs. It appears from the current draft that all shooting organizations will be considered “clubs” if such organizations intend to host a competition at a shooting range that is not owned by that organization or club.

IPSC Canada's individual members belong to literally hundreds of existing gun clubs that own shooting ranges. The provincial organizations of IPSC Canada regularly rent such facilities in order to host provincial, national, and international events. Given such a structure, it would appear that IPSC Canada and its provincial organizations will be required to register each organization along with its current membership to each province's minister of justice.

It would seem to us that it would be much more logical to link shooting ranges and shooting clubs together, inasmuch as most shooting clubs own or lease the range facilities they are associated with. The club, through its own membership, would be responsible for the safety and operation of its own range facility. The club would also then be responsible for approving the use of its facilities by shooting organizations that wish to host a competition on its property.

Our concern is that such regulations as currently written would only allow a provincial minister narrow choices in administration and interpretation.

In regards to range safety, during the previous June 1997 meeting in Ottawa of the parties consulted in the draft of these regulations, it was suggested that the words “significant” be used when evaluating the possibility of projectiles leaving the confines of the shooting range.

IPSC Canada respectfully requests the following revisions:

5(1) The operator of an approved shooting range shall ensure that the discharge of firearms on the shooting range will not significantly endanger the safety of the persons at the shooting range....

And in the next subparagraph, a similar statement:

5(1)(a)(i) is such that projectiles discharged from firearms will not pose a significant risk of leaving the shooting range if they are discharged there....

As noted, these are the specific areas that our organization is concerned with.

I have two more that aren't listed on my brief. I note that from the previous meeting in June that liability insurance is increased from $1 million to $2 million. I would like to understand why that has been doubly increased.

Secondly, in reference to shooting clubs, I don't understand, if a shooting club has to be a non-profit organization, why it must have business insurance. I wonder if we can address that question today.

Unfortunately the short notice given to IPSC Canada by the committee for this presentation has prevented more detailed comments on other areas of the regulations. I hope that the other organizations appearing before the committee will have examined such issues in depth and comment accordingly. That comment comes from my organization being advised Friday afternoon—my time in Calgary—that there was a meeting here today.

The Chair: The reason for the short notice is that the legislation puts a time line on this of 30 days. We didn't want to prolong it because we wanted to make sure that the government within the 30 days got our report. That way we can more adequately effect changes to the regulations.

You had some specific questions. I see that one of our very favourite officials is just coming into the room behind you, and he's the man with all the answers. If you want to have a chat with him, I'm sure he'd give you a moment after committee to clarify that one question you had.

Mr. Bryan Hodges: Thank you.

The Chair: See, that will teach you.

Mr. Morin, are you second?

Mr. Eugène Morin (President, Fédération québécoise du tir): I think so.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Eugène Morin: It will be in French because I didn't translate it.

• 1550

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): I have a point of order. Would it not be helpful to the committee for all of the committee to hear the answer? The rest of us would like to know what the answer is.

The Chair: But he's not a witness. If you have some specific questions of officials, there may be one other opportunity to do that, but I'm not going to interrupt the time of these witnesses to do it. You can go over there and ask them.

Go ahead, Mr. Morin.

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Morin: Ladies and gentlemen, committee members, as president of the Fédération québécoise du tir and on behalf of its members, I thank you for agreeing to table our brief.

Tabling this brief is an excellent opportunity for us to express our viewpoint on the draft firearms regulations to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The committee is serving as our collective memory in this regard. For this reason, we should be devoting energy to this task and should strive to be accurate. In contrast to all the technical documents and briefs that our federation has produced, I would like to speak to you today as a Canadian and a Quebecker and to show you that we are offering complete co-operation with Canadian political authorities regarding these draft firearms regulations.

The Fédération québécoise du tir is a non-profit organization that has three components and which provides the foundation for safety rules in Quebec. We take part in provincial, national, international and olympic competitions. We offer a number of safety courses. I myself am a senior official in Canada for rifle and handgun handling, as well as a member of the International Shooting Union.

We would like the draft regulations the government has brought forward to be fair, and we would like you to look beyond the fact that a weapon may fire three, eight or even ten times. That fact is not important at all, and could do harm to several different disciplines within our sport. How important could it be to limit the length of a barrel? Adopt legislation that is fair for all Canadian shooters, and you can count on the Fédération québécoise du tir and its entire membership in Quebec to support you and to agree to legislation that is fair for all shooters.

Those are the main points to be found in my brief, and we will be sending the English version to you tomorrow.

I thank the committee.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Shaw.

Mr. Paul Shaw: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The piece of the firearm is going around. I would like everyone to take a look at it and I'm going to explain a little and use it to illustrate a number of things.

First of all, the Shooting Federation of Canada is the sport governing body for this country in the shooting sports.

Does everyone have a copy of this brief?

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): No.

Mr. Paul Shaw: I apologize that it has not been translated. However, we too received notification late last week. I worked on this on the weekend and it got finished this morning, but it's the English version only. I do have additional copies here. I would be pleased to provide anyone who would like one with the English version.

The Chair: We don't receive the briefs unless they are in both official languages. That's an agreement of this committee with all our colleagues. Unless everyone on the committee wants to receive the brief in English, it can be received by no one. I don't care what individual members do, but it can't be tabled in the committee.

Mr. Paul Shaw: Okay. Well, I have a pile of them here. If individual members wish to come and pick one up, be my guest.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Paul Shaw: In the brief time allotted, I'm going to highlight a number of concerns. That does not mean I've addressed all the concerns, nor, certainly, does it mean I've covered everything that's within the brief. The brief scratches the surface of a number of things.

• 1555

When you have an opportunity to review the brief, you will note there is an overview covering the first two pages and there's an introduction entitled “Schedule A”. That introduction was actually a repeat, a copy of the introduction we used in our submission to the former justice and legal affairs subcommittee that dealt with the 1996 regulations.

When you are going through this, you will note we had certain concerns at that time. Those concerns still exist and in fact are perpetuated within these regulations.

We have athletes and competitors throughout this country that compete with restricted and non-restricted firearms, including rifles, shotguns, and handguns. We have both sexes, we have the able, disabled, and we have from novice right through to the elite athletes, in fact people that represent this country in world championships, world cups, the Pan American Games, the Commonwealth Games, and the Olympics.

I had the privilege last year to represent Canada as part of the Olympic trap shooting team in Atlanta, Georgia. What you have that is being passed around there is a portion of one of the firearms I took with me to compete in the Olympics. It will be illustrative of a number of the points I wish to make in clarifying some of the concerns.

The Shooting Federation has from the outset been concerned about the implications of Bill C-68, because in our opinion it does not do the things it was supposed to do, which were to address the criminal misuse of firearms and enhance public safety. As a matter of fact, it is our view that not only does it not do that but also it impacts adversely on the law-abiding firearm owner in this country with criminal stigmatism for infractions that can include acts or omissions, paper violations, things of this nature.

We had the opportunity to appear in front of this committee as it was constituted in the last Parliament, in front of the Senate and in front of the subcommittee as well. Unfortunately, of the recommendations we made, very few, if any, were addressed or found their way into implementation in amendments to the regulations or the bill itself.

We have those concerns, but we appear again and we have what we hope will be some constructive suggestions about problems. These are practical, real-life problems that people who are involved in the shooting sports find every single day when they use firearms.

I'm going to ask you please to follow me with respect to some of the specific provisions.

The first would be the very first regulation you have, the firearms registration certificates regulation. I would like to have you turn to page 2, section 3, paragraph (a), and that is what attracts the requirement that a firearm owner notify the registrar, and must do so within 60 days, of any modification of the firearm that could result in a change of class to the firearm.

My quarrel is with the choice of the word “could”. Why don't we deal in absolutes here, because are we going to potentially criminalize possibilities? If there is a modification that does result in a change of class of the firearm.... If that part of the firearm that's being circulated changes from a non-restricted firearm because of a modification to suddenly a restricted firearm or to a prohibited firearm, then that's fair enough, but let's make sure we deal in absolutes.

So I suggest you delete the word “could” and put in “that results”.

• 1600

Under paragraph 3(b), my ultimate recommendation is that you delete that paragraph, and I'll explain why. It says:

(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.

That brings me squarely to this. I know I'm not supposed to be asking questions of the members, but maybe I would ask, if you recognize what part of a firearm this is, that you show your hand, please.

Three of four members of the committee have signified that they know what it is. This is the receiver of a non-restricted firearm. To illustrate, to build the firearm into a functioning firearm you would have to add the barrel on this part. With this type of a firearm—it's a shotgun and it could have a single barrel or a double barrel—you basically build whatever type of firearm you want onto the receiver. You put a forearm on it as well. At that point I suppose technically it could fire, but I think you'd do a lot of damage to your finger if you tried to do that.

So the next part, which is on the interior portion of it, is the stalk that comes back here. You build your firearm in that fashion.

You will recall that throughout the regulations you have read that serial numbers are to be put on the frame or receiver, and you'll see on this part of the receiver that there is a serial number. I'm suggesting that's appropriate, because if you're going to be putting a serial number or a firearm identification number, that's the place to put it. This is going to be required before you could ever fire a firearm. A barrel isn't a firearm, a stalk isn't, and a forearm isn't.

So that's an appropriate provision. We don't quarrel with that.

The firearm identification number sticker would have to be placed on the firearm in some fashion, if there isn't a serial number. There is provision in the regulation that you can get a waiver for putting markings on the firearm if it would otherwise devalue the firearm and so on.

Incidentally, to replace this would cost probably $3,000 U.S. or thereabouts.

When you take a look at paragraph 3(b) of the regulation, a person who owns a receiver of this nature, who registers it, shall we say, is going to be registering it with one barrel, presumably. It may be a 30-inch over and under barrel. That's the type I regularly use for competition. But I shoot a number of different types of competitions. I have a non-single barrel that's 34 inches long that is used for shooting a 27-yard handicap. I have a barrel that is much shorter than that with which I can shoot skeet. There are other barrels that could be attached or I could borrow that I could shoot sporting clays or other competitions with.

Why should I or anyone who has a receiver of this nature be required to notify the registrar of a change in the barrel length? What difference does it make? If that barrel length remains 18.5 inches long or longer, it's a non-restricted firearm. Who cares whether it's a skeet barrel of 26 inches, a 30-inch, or a 32-inch, or a 34-inch? But technically, I must notify the registrar every time the barrel length changes. Why? If I have a 34-inch barrel and I decide to shorten it to a 30-inch barrel, it's still a non-restricted firearm. Why should we trouble the registrar with those types of paperwork? It doesn't make sense to trouble him. It doesn't make sense to trouble firearm owners in these types of things.

That is just shotguns. The same can occur with rifles or with other types of firearms as well. So if it doesn't have the effect of changing the class—and I'm suggesting to a more restrictive class—why go through the exercise? It's not required, with all due respect.

• 1605

Let me tell you something else with respect to firearms with respect to where it talks about the change of the action. When shooters get a little bit older they have what are called flinches. Somebody a number of years ago devised the system. When you pull your finger and the brain says, all right, now's the time to pull the trigger, and you just can't seem to pull it, that's a flinch. The target gets away on you. I'm talking about clay targets, things of that nature. They then devised what is called a release trigger. You pull the trigger back and the gun does not discharge until your finger moves forward. That's a change in the action.

For me, it might be a five-minute task to change this from a pull trigger to a release trigger. For other people it would take a few seconds, I suppose, but it's clearly a modification. It's a modification of the action. With this legislation, each time this was changed to a release trigger I would have to notify the registrar. What difference does it make? It's still a non-restricted firearm. If it is something on a rifle or a shotgun or a handgun that would change it to a fully automatic, for instance, if that type of modification is made, that changes the class and that may be appropriate, but that's caught under paragraph 3(a).

I've talked about barrel length and I've talked about the change in the action. The other aspect is the change in the calibre. I can attach to this a 12-gauge, 410-gauge, 10-gauge, 28-gauge and 20-gauge, but it appears that gauges aren't caught by this regulation in any event, so I'm not going to quarrel with that. But the same types of things happen with rifles or handguns. By barrel inserts or by a different barrel, you can change the calibre, the gauge. Again, what difference does it make?

If it's registered in a certain class, as long as the modification doesn't change it out of that class, leave it alone. You're inviting all sorts of compliance problems. You're inviting all sorts of non-compliance violations, and if people comply then you are inviting all sorts of paperwork with the registrar, all for what? For something that makes no sense whatsoever, in my respectful opinion. That's just one section.

I'm sorry I've taken so long with that. I probably won't be able to go through everything I want to talk about, but the solution here is to delete paragraph 3(b).

Let's turn to subsection 8(1) of the same regulation. This is the section that requires the holder of a registration certificate to ensure that the sticker that bears the firearm identification number remains attached to the firearm and is legible.

I'm going to ask you this question. Presumably if I have a serial number it's going to stick around, but in the event that this did not have a serial number and I attach an FIN to it, who's responsible for it? If one of the national team members calls me up and says, “Paul, I need to borrow your gun because I'm competing in Europe and I just want it as a back-up firearm”, I'll say, “Fine, show me your firearm acquisition certificate and if it's valid there you go.”

With respect to that, who is now the holder? Am I the holder? I am not the person who can verify whether that number remains intact or remains legible. I can't do it. It's not in my possession. So if there's going to be anyone responsible, I suggest it should be the person who has possession of it. Maybe that's the way courts will ultimately decide how “holder” is to be interpreted.

But why do we leave it up to the courts to make those determinations? I happen to practise as a lawyer. Lawyers make hay of things like this, and crown attorneys really don't necessarily know how to interpret these things either. They have their opinions; everybody has their opinions, but eventually it comes to a judge for a decision. You know who you want to define as being the holder here, I assume. Does it not make sense that the holder be the person who has possession of it, as opposed to the person who actually holds the registration permit?

• 1610

On that registration permit, incidentally, the registration for the firearm must accompany the firearm. So when I give this to a person and say, “Here you go; good luck and have a good competition”, the registration certificate, under the new firearms regime, must accompany the firearm.

I'm also suggesting, when you read through our brief, that there be some lenience and some tolerance in the legislation and in these regulations. Again, I know I'm not supposed to ask questions—maybe lawyers get too caught up in that sort of thing—but what if I asked each one of you, “Is your registration number for your motor vehicle attached and is it legible?” I would venture to say it's something you use probably every day of the year, or most every day, and some of you may not even know where to find such a number or whether it's legible or not.

For people who use firearms on a regular basis, that's not something you really pay a whole bunch of attention to. You're concentrating on the task at hand: to break the highest possible score you can. You might, if you marked it down on your calendar once a year or so, remember, “Oh, I have to go and check all my firearms to make sure the registration number is visible and intact”, but you're not going to do it every single day.

Why don't you put the amendment in as we are suggesting? That is, when it comes to the person's attention that there's a problem, with due dispatch or as soon as reasonably possible, the registrar will be notified and a new identification number will be issued. Otherwise, the people who are going to be prejudiced by this are the people who use it regularly.

I can tell you, at the high-performance sports level and for other people who compete regularly with firearms, this is something they don't need distracting them. The sports psychologists we depend upon for performance and so on don't want this type of thing distracting them. I'm suggesting it's a problem area for people who deal with firearms all the time, from hunters to recreational target shooters as well.

There is another provision under section 9, before we leave that regulation. When you take a look at how section 9 is drafted, it says, “The Registrar shall revoke a registration certificate if...”. I'm suggesting it be changed to: “may revoke a registration certificate”, because there may be circumstances in which “shall” is a little bit too restrictive. There should be some discretion there.

In any event, under paragraph 9(b), it says:

9. The Registrar shall revoke a registration certificate if

(b) the Registrar is advised under paragraph 3(a) of a modification that changes the class of the firearm or is advised under paragraph 3(b) of any modification referred to in that paragraph.

That puts us in an impossible situation, with all due respect. If you don't change those other provisions I've suggested, if I notify the registrar when I change my 34-inch barrel to a skeet barrel—still a non-restricted firearm—he revokes my registration certificate. Then I don't have a registration certificate for this firearm. When I tell him that the trigger has been adapted, because I'd been flinching with a pull trigger and now it's a release trigger, he revokes my registration certificate. Does that make any practical sense? I suggest it does not. I suggest what this committee should do is make the appropriate amendments to ensure this problem is rectified.

If we could take a look at the next regulation, which is Importation and Exportation of Firearms Regulations for Individuals, there is a provision under subsection 2(2). Maybe it's just my inability to understand how.... I'm trying to conceptualize how this can be complied with. It appears that a non-resident arriving at the border may orally declare the firearm, but not in person.

• 1615

Maybe it's just not getting through to me how that could be done. How do you propose it could be done when a person who is a non-resident arrives and doesn't do it in person? Is he supposed to go back to the nearest telephone booth and do it? I'm suggesting the words “but not in person” in that section be deleted.

The Chair: Mr. Shaw, can I just ask you, for my own edification, how much longer your presentation is going to be? It's just that we have other witnesses and we have a vote at 5.30 p.m.. I want to make sure I allocate enough time for questions. I want to assure you that once translated your written brief will become part of the record in any event and will be something we will study and consider. Certainly it will be something our researchers will have access to in the preparation of their report.

Mr. Paul Shaw: You tell me how much time I have and just cut me off.

The Chair: There are about 15 minutes left before the next witness. There are four political parties wanting to ask questions.

Mr. Paul Shaw: Would five minutes be acceptable?

The Chair: That's fine. I'm just saying that if you're reading from the brief, and I appreciate you have a method you're going through, we're going to translate that brief and every member of the committee is going to have it, plus it will form part of our report.

Mr. Paul Shaw: Could you please advise me when the five minutes are up?

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Paul Shaw: I don't want to mislead you. On page 7 of my brief I raise a concern about prior regulation in multiple crossings of the border. We understood it would be $20 per firearm each way. Carol said Denis has confirmed to me today that this has been waived for individuals. We appreciate that, because otherwise it would pose a considerable hardship to people who do multiple crossings of the border.

With respect to crossing the border, about 99.9% of the time you get border personnel who are 100% helpful. Every once in a while you get an obstructionist border person. If the wording remains the same, with the oral declaration, you must declare in your oral declaration exactly what is included within the prescribed forms. How in heaven's name would you know if somebody doesn't lead you on that type of questioning? There should be something there to protect people.

If you're asked “Is there anything else you want to tell me?” and you don't tell them everything, it's an offence. Let's make sure we don't have that type of thing where there is a problem there. Subsections 2(3), 7(3) and 11(3) are the cases I'm referring to. People don't have the right to deliberately withhold that type of information, but they aren't going to know if somebody doesn't tell them and lead them in that type of an investigation.

We also have concerns about confirmation numbers when you're going out or coming back into the country with the same firearm and you get an oral confirmation number. What are the consequences if you forget that number, don't write it down, or even if you get it in writing you lose it? There's a systemic error where you can't subsequently track it or trace it. What are the implications there? You're the one who has to prove it. I'm just suggesting there might be some modifications made there.

Under the shooting clubs and shooting ranges regulations we have a lot of problems. They appear vague in many respects and subject to interpretation. Is it the intention that clubs with multiple shooting disciplines, including not just restricted firearms and prohibited handguns but also trap, skeet, large bore, and small bore rifles of the non-restricted class and so on falling within that definition, must keep and provide records with respect to all club activities, including the non-restricted end of things? That's the way it appears to be drafted. There's an interpretation problem there.

Why would a club that has multiple disciplines have to keep records in relation to non-restricted firearm activity when other clubs that have only restricted firearms and prohibited handgun competitions...? That's what this legislation seems to be addressed to.

• 1620

But you have an interpretation problem there. People will say, well, if I can join such-and-such a club and shoot non-restricted firearms and they don't have prohibited handguns and restricted firearms, no record will be kept, so that's the club I will go to. You've just destroyed all the clubs that have multiple disciplines, because they are not going to attract the members. I don't think that's what you intend, but that seems to be the way it's written.

On regular and structured bases for ranges, I guess the question is how regular is regular and how structured is structured? Where do you draw the line, and how do we explain this to our people? I've given you some examples here.

You have a real problem with the insurance issue here, because you talk about comprehensive business liability insurance, and what is that? We know when we offer it to our members it's pretty good coverage, but when you are talking about business liability insurance, are you talking about errors and omissions insurance in this context? The excellent coverage we have is pretty inexpensive, but unfortunately if we start getting into some of these other things we are going to have problems.

You also have problems I think the legislature should be addressing, and those are with exemptions the insurance companies are going to come back on. You realize that as a result of Bill C-68 and the regulations the government has now encroached on and criminalized certain behaviour as negligent and careless. What do you insure against? You insure against negligent acts, you insure against careless acts. But insurance companies will rely on public policy exclusions, so if there is an accompanying Criminal Code conviction or conviction under the regulations they could very well say, and I know they have raised this numerous times, well, public policy permits us not to honour the insurance provision if there's a criminal act. But you've legislated in the field of negligence and carelessness, and is that in the public interest? We are trying to protect our members, the public, but you have a problem with the way insurance is being dealt with.

Let me leave some of the other issues in that. I would like to talk briefly about gun show regulations.

I think the way you've drafted these you have some real interpretation problems. Let me tell you this. When I brought this, it was for illustrative purposes. We have members of our national teams, we have instructors, coaches, and other people, who for display purposes and explanation purposes will take non-restricted firearms and explain things to people. Well, the way gun show regulations are drafted, this committee just became a sponsor. It may be a display gun show, but you couldn't have given me notice to come, and certainly not to bring this to explain this to you, late last week, because you have to make an application to the registrar sixty days in advance. The registrar may waive the requirement, but it's sixty days in advance.

So when our people are notified by brewery clubs and Lions clubs and Brownies and so on that they would like to have a little talk and for us to show the firearms that are used in major competitions, by definition that just became a gun show. It could be a display gun show. It probably is.

That's the way I interpret it. I think we need some pretty major revisions there to take that type of thing out.

Auctioneers, especially in rural communities, regularly sell non-restricted firearms. They ensure that people have firearms acquisition certificates. It appears if a firearm is being sold, that just turned into a gun show. Similarly, on page 13 I have other examples.

There are some real interpretation problems there.

Madam Chair, I've spoken long enough. Thank you for your indulgence.

The Chair: Mr. Ramsay, two minutes.

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Two minutes. You guys come all this way and we get two minutes at you.

• 1625

Mr. Shaw, I'll ask you a question, and of course it's the thing that's concerned me the most. It is the mail-in registration system, where there is going to be an awful lot of unverified information going in and an awful lot of registration cards going out that have been based on unverified information.

When the officials from the justice department were here and we were questioning them on this, we were advised that even though the serial number on a registration certificate for a firearm is different from that on the firearm, it will still register that firearm.

What do you think about that, Mr. Shaw?

Mr. Paul Shaw: It won't register that firearm. How could it?

This firearm has a registration number that includes five numerical digits. If any one of those is out, it doesn't register this as a firearm in my opinion.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Do you expect or do you intend to register that firearm?

Mr. Paul Shaw: I'll reserve on that comment at this point in time.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Let's say you did. Do you intend to sell that firearm or do you intend to keep it? I ask this because it will be verified only upon transfer. So if you made one or two or more mistakes in filling out the form, then that mistake will remain on the record and within the system for as long as you own that firearm, because according to the statute there's no way of verifying it unless you transfer it.

Mr. Paul Shaw: That's correct. My understanding is that if I were to mail in the registration number and if I made a mistake on it, that mistake will remain in the system forever until the first transfer.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I want to know why you would contradict the Justice officials when they tell you that, even though your registration certificate carried a different serial number than your firearm, that is valid. They're telling us its valid; why are you saying it's not valid?

Mr. Paul Shaw: A person will have a document entitled “Registration Certificate”, but it won't register this firearm. It will be a registration certificate on the face of it, but it won't register this firearm.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: What registers your firearm?

Mr. Paul Shaw: In my opinion the only thing that would register this as a firearm is if the correct serial numbers were verified.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Another time.

The Chair: Thanks.

Madame Bujold, do you have any questions?

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Shaw, I haven't had the pleasure of reading your entire brief, but I do think the comments you made were very important. You have analyzed all the clauses in the firearms bill. I noticed how you were keeping an open mind, and I think that is very important. You are active right within this particular area, while I am not. I am sure that the Bloc Québécois will carefully study all the points that you have raised.

You have been able to answer the questions from most of those who take part in shooting competitions, as you do, as well as those who import these weapons and those who belong to shooting clubs, as Mr. Morin was mentioning. To my mind, you have a good idea of what people are currently saying about the legislation, which was passed during the last Parliament.

I haven't had the pleasure of reading your brief, but I assure you that I will be looking at it with interest. The Bloc Québécois will certainly be doing the same, and will use your brief to improve the regulations. Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Paul Shaw: Thank you very much. If you don't mind, I would like you to read our brief on Bill C-68 that was presented as well, and I can also make you a copy of the brief that was presented for the 1996 regulations, because there are some things there that didn't get fixed and it might be something you will want to take a look at.

The Chair: I'm sure, Madam Bujold, we can get you copies.

I'm going to skip Mr. Mancini and go to Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): These questions I'd like to direct to Mr. Shaw. I'd like to thank him for a very detailed presentation. As this is only my second visit to the committee, as I'm the associate member, I have to say, as madame from the Bloc has said, that it is very good for us to be able to see a really detailed analysis of the bill.

One of the things I was wondering about is you mentioned there probably will be increased costs for shooting ranges in gun clubs and organizations of that nature. If these increased costs were to cause this business or this association to stop operating, where do you see these people who enjoy shooting and who make shooting part of their life going to shoot, Mr. Shaw?

• 1630

Mr. Paul Shaw: We already have challenges at this point in time with facilities that are scarce. It takes a lot of money to establish a shooting facility, to operate and maintain it. What we have right now are, for the most part, unpaid volunteers. This is going to put a tremendous burden on them. With the additional cost, with all due respect, I think a lot of people will shoot less frequently and may not shoot at all; they may hang up their firearms. They're still going to keep them, because some day when they have enough money they'll go out, but right now many of our competitors are forced to go to American ranges, sometimes driving many hours. We have one young person on our ladies' national rifle team who can't participate in Ontario because she would have to drive too far. She travels into Michigan, about two hours, and she practises two times a week, competing on weekends and so on. That's what they have to do.

We're proud of our heritage; we're proud of our national team and our feeder system and so on. Without the feeder system, which builds up to the national team, I don't know what is going to happen. It's going to significantly impair our shooting sport.

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Shaw, if there is an increase in cost and it causes these shooting ranges or gun clubs to wind down, and you have people who are really enthused about shooting and do it because they love the sport and they end up in some gravel pit or something—forced by this new law—does it increase or enhance public safety?

Mr. Paul Shaw: No, of course it does not. As a matter of fact, I think it would have to be counter to public safety if people are not able to go to a convenient gun club, shall we say, and practise their sport. If they go out to a gravel pit, I suppose at some point in time, when we know what “regular and structured” means, the gravel pit itself may turn into a range, until you go to another gravel pit or what have you.

I think it's going to be contrary to the interests of public safety if a lot of these clubs close down. We have an immaculate safety record over the years.

Mr. Mark Muise: I'd like to—

The Chair: Sorry.

Mr. Mark Muise: That's it? Is it because of the quality or time?

The Chair: No, it's just because of time.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you.

The Chair: I gave you twice the amount of time that—

Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): She did it to me. I know it's not the quality.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you.

The Chair: I gave you twice the amount of time I gave Jack—

Mr. Mark Muise: I appreciate that.

The Chair: —and he's going to tell me about it.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I'm making notes of this.

The Chair: I know you are.

Ms. Bakopanos.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): There have been gun regulations and gun control in other countries and shooting ranges still exist. You're about the third witness, Mr. Shaw, who says that no shooting ranges will exist, if I'm going to take it to the extreme of what you've said.

Why are you so sure there are not going to be? New Zealand is an example, or Australia or England, for instance.

Mr. Paul Shaw: I happen to know a lot of people on many of the national teams in other countries and I know there's a significant government influx of money to support the shooting sports. Sport Canada does not contribute money at this point to our shooting sports, to our clubs or anything.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: So it's a question of money, not a question of this regulation.

Mr. Paul Shaw: It's a question of money, but it's also a question of regulatory provisions too. I don't know which country you're referring to—

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: New Zealand.

Mr. Paul Shaw: In New Zealand the regulatory provisions, as I understand it...I haven't seen too many people develop through that system, except one or two, in the last number of years on shooting teams.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: I just wanted to have your answer on that. It's really a question—

• 1635

Mr. Paul Shaw: I don't know whether I've properly understood your question, or properly addressed it. Are you asking why our shooting sports would be impaired as a result of these regulatory provisions?

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: You're going further than “impaired”. You're saying they're not going to exist. There will be no shooting ranges for people to practice.

Mr. Paul Shaw: I don't want to suggest that, necessarily, but they will certainly be impaired, as will our shooting programs.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Thank you.

The Chair: Thanks.

Mr. Maloney, you have a little question.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Yes.

The Chair: I assume it's little.

Mr. John Maloney: Yes, Madam Chair.

In your comments on gun clubs you suggested adding the word “significantly” to subsection 5(1). That would suggest to me there is a level of danger that shooting clubs—

Mr. Paul Shaw: That was not my suggestion.

Mr. John Maloney: It wasn't your suggestion?

Mr. Hodges, then. Should that suggest to me that there is a level of danger that gun clubs will accept?

Mr. Bryan Hodges: No, it's a matter of judgment and risk. It's the issue of whether or not someone thinks if you take a firearm onto an approved shooting range that is a risk unto itself, that a projectile will escape the range and possibly harm someone.

What do you determine as risk? Do you determine that you build up berms behind the target so that you don't have projectiles leave the range when they're shot at in that particular direction? How high is the berm? Do you have to make the berm 15 feet high, 20 metres high, 50 metres high? What do you consider significant risk, and who makes that judgment? That's my biggest concern.

I think it's very easy to make the simple adjustment that it's too much risk to have a gun at a gun club. I think there needs to be developed a standard of what risk we're talking about.

That's why I think it has to be termed “significant” risk. I believe it was brought up by one of the government policy analysts at the last meeting that it should be qualified.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Maloney.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation.

Mr. Bartlett is here from the justice department. I know you had a specific question about insurance. Maybe Mr. Bartlett could help you with that during the break.

Thanks, Mr. Bartlett.

Members, I've asked, if the committee requests, if we can get the justice officials back here to sum up. The minister's office has agreed to accommodate us on that. We may indeed want to do that at the end of the session.

We'll rise for a couple of minutes while we get the next witnesses in place.

• 1638

• 1646

The Chair: All right, we're back. We now have with us, from the Ontario Handgun Association, Lawrence K. Whitmore and Lawrence Cowlishaw, and from the Ontario Rifle Association, Adrian J. Praysner.

I'm going to ask each of the two organizations to make its presentation to us. Then we'll have questions.

Mr. Praysner.

Mr. Adrian Praysner (Ontario Rifle Association): Madam Chair, honourable members, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to address you today. My comments will be in three parts: first my personal credentials; secondly those elements of the proposed regulations under the Firearms Act that I and the organizations I represent, to the extent that I have been able to ascertain, are aligned with; and thirdly our concerns about the proposed regulations and the act itself. I might add that use of the term “aligned” doesn't necessarily mean we are delighted or in agreement, but we can live within them.

To begin with my credentials, I am president of the Ontario Rifle Association. The ORA was formed in the 1860s to foster marksmanship within the militia. There was no permanent Canadian armed force at that time. The ORA continues to pursue that aim, as well as providing the structure for armed forces personnel, police, cadets, and civilian members to train and compete in national and international rifle competition, including target rifle, service rifle, and limited black powder. Many of our members, both men and women, have achieved international status in events such as the Commonwealth Games in Bisley.

I am a vice-president of the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association, a director of the Ontario branch of the army cadets, a member of the board of directors of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, and a life member of the Canadian Infantry Association. I am a past secretary of the Royal Canadian Military Institute Pistol Club. I am a former lieutenant-colonel commanding officer of the Royal Regiment of Canada.

Subsequent to that appointment, I was the senior staff officer for administration and logistics for the Toronto Militia District for three years and the senior staff officer, infantry, for the Land Forces Central Area for five years. In the former position, among my responsibilities were the maintenance and operation of all range facilities. In the latter capacity, included in my responsibilities were skill at arms assessment and training for all army personnel in Ontario.

I have numerous small arms qualifications, including supervisory training and endorsements. I have conducted a variety of small arms training programs for Canadian and American military personnel.

To begin, I recognize that for many Canadians living in an urban centre, such as myself, ownership and use of a firearm are certainly a privilege. However, I'm well aware that for many others who live in rural areas ownership and use of a firearm are a necessity to enable the collection of game, often a major complement to their diet.

On the proposed regulations, I wish to begin by saying that the personnel of the Department of Justice have made a genuine effort to engage interested parties such as myself in the review of the various original drafts. Furthermore, it is evident that many of the recommendations that were made by these parties have been incorporated into this latest proposal of October 1997. In no particular order, it is gratifying to note that the only time I could find the term “weapon” used it is used correctly in relation to its use by a public service agency. The balance of the regulations use the appropriate term of “firearm”.

• 1650

We are pleased that range facilities maintained by the Minister of National Defence under the National Defence Act are recognized for use by approved shooting clubs. I make an important assumption from this provision that such facilities are therefore not subject to the provisions of section 3 of the proposed regulations pertaining to club and shooting ranges.

We are pleased that specific wording in this section allows for the establishment of new shooting facilities, subject to reasonable safety requirements and liability coverage, and further, that the requirement for the maintenance of club records is not unreasonable.

I would like to note that liability coverage for members of existing shooting clubs is readily available and required by all clubs that I'm familiar with. The current cost is approximately $5 per annum per member for $2 million. This is a reflection, I'm sure, of the very low risk historically associated with this type of activity. I'd like to make the observation that your children would have difficulty obtaining the same sort of coverage at a similar cost for high school sports activities.

I'm also pleased that a provision has been made for businesses, such as armed courier services, to establish and operate ranges for training purposes.

On a general note, I'm satisfied that the personnel assisting the department with respect to range regulations are, in my opinion, well qualified for the task. This was not the case several years ago when the training material for the firearms acquisition certificate was contracted to a firm that had limited—in some cases it was dangerously inadequate—knowledge of the subject. I'm continually puzzled as to why, in the past, firearm legislation and regulations appear to be drafted by those who clearly did not know what they did not know. Canadian citizens deserve better than presumptive expertise.

In a similar vein, I wish to comment on a component of previously proposed legislation that has since been withdrawn but still concerns my organization, as it should all informed Canadian citizens. This is about the former minister's provision for the right of search and seizure without warrant. This enables police to enter a residential premise if they have reason to believe unregistered firearms are present. Such a provision provides a pretext to evade guarantees that citizens of most democracies have enjoyed since the signing of the Magna Carta. With regard to whether this was proposed through ignorance or design, it had the potential to facilitate an outrageous abuse of authority and power.

Thankfully, it's no longer included in the existing or proposed legislation, but we must all be mindful of the ease with which this sort of restriction of rights and freedoms can occur and then guard against it.

On a positive note, we fully endorse the proper training and licensing of the individual intent of acquiring a firearm. I'm satisfied from personal experience that the intent of the FAC is both desirable and, most importantly, being achieved.

I'm unclear as to the intent of the section dealing with the importation and exportation of firearms. For competitive purposes as well as in sport, it's critical that the provisions allow for firearms to be brought into Canada and returned with reasonable ease.

Similarly, Canadians who wish to compete or engage in hunting activities outside of Canada must be allowed to do so without undue restrictions. Unfortunately, I cannot tell from the information provided to me whether this is to be the case. As for the purchase and importation of firearms into Canada, others can no doubt speak more knowledgeably.

With respect to gun shows, I believe that certain assumptions exist that are not universally true. For example, it has been suggested that these shows impose a financial burden on local police forces. This is not true. In the case of shows sponsored by the Ontario Arms Collectors' Association, police personnel are paid by the sponsor for the extra duty that the current self-imposed security standards dictate.

There are requirements now proposed for the sponsor to obtain a business licence. Again, in the case of the Ontario Arms Collectors' Association, the governing body is not a business, and this requirement has created some confusion. It is noteworthy, however, that the department has eased the burden somewhat by allowing one licence to cover many planned shows and has dropped the requirement for each exhibitor or member to obtain a separate business licence as well.

As for the responsibility of each exhibitor to ensure the safe and secure display of firearms, this is certainly a desirable and acceptable requirement.

Some concern was raised regarding undesirable individuals or groups participating in such shows. We assume other avenues are open to the authorities to prohibit their acquisition and ownership of firearms, such as the withdrawal of permits or FACs, etc. Therefore, I question this particular factor as a determinant of policy.

I wish to point out, however, that the creation of undue restrictions on these events may have the undesirable effect of forcing them into a more clandestine operation, which serves no useful purpose.

In reference to the current proposals for identification, registration, procedures, and fees, I believe every attempt has been made to design an identification system that will preserve the value of collectors' firearms and that will facilitate the ease by which registration will be accomplished. I believe the time lines established to accomplish registration are reasonable from a firearm owner's perspective and that the fees are appropriate, although I doubt they will cover the cost that will eventually be incurred.

• 1655

I do not believe satisfactory consideration has been given to ensuring the accurate and unique identification of each firearm that will be presented by registration, nor do I believe that the self-reporting nature of initial registration will be without major problems—some deliberately and some accidentally caused.

Notwithstanding, the registration of firearms will, however, represent a significant inconvenience to shooters and collectors alike. Perhaps what is most important is that the registration of non-restricted firearms is seen by most of my members, and others within the firearms community, as a first step towards the banning and eventual seizure of all firearms. This would no longer be a simple inconvenience, but a costly action that would deny us the pleasure that competition and other shooting sports affords. It is further assumed that since no right of property is expressly provided for in our Constitution, such a potential seizure would provide for no compensation—an extraordinarily costly loss to most of us. It would also signify that our government had chosen not to trust a sizeable segment of its constituency.

The implications of such a decision are only to be guessed at. I am aware of anecdotal evidence that seizures of this nature have already occurred with respect to restricted firearms that had been reclassified as prohibited, with no evidence of there having been a single illegal act attributed to the availability of these firearms to the general public.

In summary, many years ago, as a junior officer, I was taught that the first principle of any operation was the selection and maintenance of aim. It is my understanding that the aim of the legislation effectively proposes to ensure the safe storage, transport, and use of firearms, and to ensure that the owners of the firearms do not pose an undue risk to the public. I believe the current regulations regarding restricted and prohibited firearms and the requirements specified to qualify and retain an FAC in order to acquire any firearm meet that aim. I am also satisfied that the proposed legislation regarding ranges and shooting clubs will further that aim, although given the current high standards of safety already achieved by existing ranges and clubs, it may be unnecessary.

I am unclear on, although vitally concerned with, the legislation relative to the importation and export of firearms. I am therefore unable to make an informed observation.

I do not believe the proposed regulations with respect to gun shows do anything to further this aim, any more than the currently existing legislation.

Finally, I can see absolutely no evidence that the proposals set forth for the registration of all firearms will in any way influence achieving the aim. I do not see how it will in any way prevent the illegal acquisition or criminal use of firearms.

I do see ample evidence that imposed registration will create animosity towards the government and distrust of the eventual intent. This particular element of the legislation—registration—has created and will continue to foster paranoia that could lead to civil disobedience out of proportion to any presumed possible benefits.

As an alternative proposal, I would suggest that registration of firearms, a very difficult and costly task with a number of potentially impossible challenges and legal pitfalls, be abandoned in favour of a mandatory registration of all firearms owners. This system would employ the procedures already established with the current FAC, and would, in my opinion, deal more effectively with the aim.

Thank you for your indulgence.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Praysner.

Mr. Whitmore.

Mr. Lawrence K. Whitmore (Executive Manager, Ontario Handgun Association): Actually, Mr. Cowlishaw is going to read for us.

The Chair: Sorry. Mr. Cowlishaw.

Mr. Lawrence Cowlishaw (President, Ontario Handgun Association): Madam Chairperson and honourable members, my name is Larry Cowlishaw, and I am the president of the Ontario Handgun Association. With me is Larry Whitmore. He is the executive manager of the same association.

On behalf of our 8,000 members and 240 affiliated sport shooting clubs, the Ontario Handgun Association is grateful to the committee for the opportunity to comment on the draft regulations recently tabled under the authority of Bill C-68.

The OHA is a recognized governing body for competitive handgun shooting in Ontario. As an amateur sports association, our firearms are a tool of our sport, nothing more. We do not advocate the use of firearms for self-defence, and we support effective gun control laws that take the guns out of the hands of criminals and the irresponsible. We do not support laws that infringe on the rights and privileges of law-abiding Canadians.

Before I comment on the content of the regulations, I would just like to mention that we have not yet completed our detailed, written submission. Unfortunately, last week was our AGM and we were tied up, but we will get it in to you.

The first section I would like to speak about is the regulations pertaining to shooting clubs and shooting ranges. Gun clubs are run by volunteers. They are no different from tennis clubs, golf clubs or bowling leagues. These volunteers are already saddled with a large amount of paperwork to comply with the existing regulatory process.

• 1700

They are obligated to conform with all municipal and provincial rules and regulations pertaining to safety, construction, zoning, the environment, as well as FACs, safety training and transport permits.

Now these volunteers are forced to deal with another long list of regulations in order to continue to practise their sport.

The majority of ranges operate on a non-profit basis and provide a safe, supervised environment for recreational target shooting. They are the lifeblood of the shooting sports and have been operating safely for decades, well before any compulsory government safety programs.

There is no persuasive evidence that our existing ranges are unsafe. In fact, due to self-regulation, our safety record is second to none in any organized sport.

There are very few activities that can boast the safety record of the shooting sports, and even fewer that can purchase liability insurance at our rates—$5 million a year for less than $4.

This sport has been self-regulated for decades, and there was no need for the heavy hand of federal legislation to control their activities.

Also, many of these regulations in respect to shooting ranges are ultra vires of the federal government and come strictly under provincial and municipal jurisdiction.

While there is no empirical evidence of a need of these regulations, if this government determines they must be proclaimed and enforced we ask for the following to be considered.

First, that ranges established and operating in a safe manner prior to the proclamation of these regulations be exempted or grandfathered. We do not know what the technical specs will look like when they are produced, and most of the clubs cannot afford expensive renovations to meet obscure and unnecessary standards.

Second, in section 2, if it is that necessary to impose these regulations on civilian ranges and clubs, we recommend that police, military, and other public agencies and businesses should not be exempt. In fact, we believe that the standards on those establishments should be higher.

As a footnote, there has not been an accidental fatality on a civilian handgun range in Ontario in over 35 years. Public service ranges cannot make that claim.

Third, in paragraphs 3(3)(c) and 4(3)(b), the regulations require a minimum of $2 million of liability insurance coverage. However, the errors and omissions coverage is not necessary and could impose a further financial burden on the clubs and ranges. As non-profit, recreational organizations, they simply do not have the exposure to a professional liability risk to warrant this expense. We ask that this requirement be removed.

Fourth, in subsection 5(2), the range owners set range safety standards in the lease agreements with the individual clubs. Section 5 of the regulation seems to override the contractual obligations of the clubs by having their club safety rules take precedence over those of the range owner.

Since this would violate the lease agreement and since the range safety rules have already been approved by the CFO, the wording should be changed to indicate that the range safety standards of the range owner prevail over the safety rules of the shooting club.

Fifth, in subsection 10(1), the discharge of a firearm can cause minor injuries due to recoil, malfunction or incorrect placement of the hand. For example, a recoiling slide can cut an improperly positioned hand or finger. There is no necessity to require the reporting of these types of minor injuries as indicated. We recommend that the wording be changed to read “injuries caused by the projectile” in place of “caused by the discharge of a firearm”.

Finally, it is our observation that these regulations have been drafted without the input of the individual range and club operators. It is our recommendation that these regulations be deferred until such time as an impact study can be completed on the effect of these regulations and the incomplete range standards.

There is no overwhelming necessity to expedite the regulations in light of the fact that the ranges and clubs have been operated safely for decades. Please keep in mind that if these ranges are not in compliance with municipal and provincial standards, they would be shut down.

• 1705

Handgun owners have lived with the registration system since 1934. This system is bureaucratic, time-consuming, costly, and inherently inaccurate. To achieve the goals stated by the justice department in justifying a registration system, the system must be 100% accurate and have 100% compliance or it simply will not work. It will not be accepted as evidence in court and it will not be trusted by the police agencies. We will be throwing away countless millions of dollars to perpetuate a useless bureaucracy.

I was amused by the exchange that occurred last Wednesday in these hearings between Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Mosley, and Mr. Bartlett. Under questioning by Mr. Ramsay, the justice department representatives admitted they cannot guarantee total accuracy and in fact are willing to accept inaccurate information. Both Mr. Mosley and Mr. Bartlett stated that if errors were found, there would be no charges laid, and as long as the information is close, that is acceptable to them.

I was particularly interested in Mr. Mosley's statement that:

We do not have a history of people being charged because they are in possession of a handgun registration certificate that has an error on its face.

That statement is very cold comfort to the 10 firearms owners in Halton Region who were arrested, charged, and had their firearms confiscated and destroyed last June because they forgot to change the address on their registration certificates.

With all due respect to Mr. Mosley, law-abiding Canadians are being charged for minor paper glitches, memory lapses, and incompetent police investigations. The attitude of some police officers can be summarized—and I am quoting one of them—as: “Charge them all and let the judge sort them out.” Is this the most efficient use of police resources? I fail to see how this will enhance the safety of Canadians. The current regulations are complex and open to individual interpretation and abuse. If the police and the courts cannot understand them, how are the rest of us supposed to know how to comply?

Since the beginning of debate on Bill C-68, the justice department has been assuring us that the computerized registration system will be secure and that no unauthorized person can have access to the information. We have been assuring the justice department that there is no such thing as a secure database. There was an article in Friday's Globe and Mail titled “Quebec data-selling scandal widens”, indicating one Hydro-Québec employee and eight Revenue Canada employees have been fired for selling confidential information.

It is very difficult for us to determine the legal obligations of our organization and club representatives who display firearms for educational or instructional purposes. These displays can take place in malls, sport activity demonstrations, schools, fall fairs, etc., as well as outdoor shows and gun shows. We really cannot comment on something we cannot understand.

Antique dealers have a habit of gathering in malls or other locations for a weekend or special event. If even one firearm is present, the whole event turns into a gun show, by the definition in the regulations. At the smaller shows, a large number of collectors engage in non-commercial buying, selling, and trading, much the same as stamp or coin collectors. These regulations are far too complex for them to understand, let alone comply with.

There are already enough regulations in effect concerning transport and display of firearms. Anyone in violation of these at a gun show runs the risk of arrest and having their property seized. Any more rules on top of this are redundant and unnecessary. We are not aware of any problems or incidents at gun shows to warrant federal government interference.

For some unexplained reason, the Firearms Act does not allow for the grandfathered owners of prohibited rifles to obtain permits so they can take the rifles to the range and shoot them. They can own them, they can look at them, they can handle them, but they cannot fire them at a range. Several months ago, the OHA made a submission to the justice minister to amend this act to correct this and other areas that are of questionable value to public safety. We have yet to receive the courtesy of an acknowledgement or a response.

Under Special Authority to Possess Regulations, there is an attempt to correct this particular anomaly by allowing the occasional possession, at the discretion of the CFO, of their rifles at a range for target or competition purposes. We interpret this to mean that a temporary permit is required every time the owner wishes to shoot at a range. This is a waste of time for the gun owner and the police registrar. The owners of prohibited rifles have been inspected, investigated, and passed by the police. Surely we can trust them with a one-, two- or three-year permit to take their rifles to the range. We recognize that the occasional basis be amended to allow a longer term for permits.

• 1710

We have noted in subsections 12(1) and 13(1) that individuals and businesses may ship only non-restricted firearms by Canada Post. Restricted firearms can no longer be shipped by this method, even though it has been permitted up to now with no recorded difficulties.

In his verbal submission to this committee last week, Mr. Bartlett made the following statement:

...the very anonymity of mail service provides quite a high degree of security for what's in the mail.

In our discussions with Canada Post we were advised that the diamond industry has an arrangement with its insurers that allows diamonds to be sent through ordinary parcel post. The delivery record's fairly good.

If this is the attitude of the justice department, I recommend that restricted firearms also be allowed to be shipped using the services of Canada Post.

The justice department has indicated that additions are going to be made to the exemption list with regard to antique firearms. I do not know whether this list will be submitted to this committee for review; however, I would like to make a recommendation. The list we have been provided with suggests that exemptions will be made for some modern reproductions of muzzle-loading firearms. They include matchlock, wheel-lock, and flintlock rifles and pistols. The list does not include any percussion cap firearms, rifles or pistols. The only difference between these types of firearms is the method of ignition. They are all muzzle loaders using black powder, and we can see no reason why muzzle-loading percussion cap firearms should not be included on the exemption list.

The last section I would like to address is one that has the most impact on the sport of handgun shooting, and that is the prohibition of 58% of our handguns that were caught in Mr. Rock's “Saturday night special” net. This net was cast so wide that it included a large number of the most popular and accurate firearms used in competitive shooting. Please keep in mind that the people who own and use these firearms have been investigated by the police at least twice in order to be able to purchase them and continue to own them.

The legislation calls for a grandfathering date of February 14, 1995. But since that date, tens of thousands of these types of handguns have been legally registered by qualified and approved individuals. Once this section of the Firearms Act is proclaimed, these firearms could be confiscated with no compensation. I don't think I need to explain the ethical and legal implications of carrying out this measure.

Retroactive legislation has no place in democratic society, particularly when it entails confiscation of legally owned private property. If this measure must take effect, we recommend that the grandfathering date be changed to the proclamation date.

There is supposed to be an exemption list that will take very few of these firearms off the prohibited list. The list we have seen ignores the vast majority of entry-level target pistols used by recreational shooters. I would ask this committee to revisit the whole concept of the “Saturday night special” prohibitions to determine if this is an issue in criminal activity or whether it will have any effect on public safety.

In conclusion, we will be honest with this committee. We applauded Bill C-68's mandatory penalties for the criminal use of a firearm. However, recent court decisions have struck down these particular statutes. In our humble opinion, it was the only part of the act that had any real potential for enhancing public safety in Canada, and it is now effectively null and void.

What remains of the Firearms Act is the regulatory framework establishing the licensing of anywhere between 3 million and 7 million Canadian gun owners and the registration of an estimated 6 million to 20 million firearms. It should be taken as a given that only law-abiding citizens will comply with these regulations. Even the justice department candidly admits that criminals will not register.

The regulatory framework contained in these proposals and the various other sections of the Firearms Act apply to over 99% of Canadian gun owners who never have and never will commit a violent act in their lifetimes. Since everything the remaining 1% does with their guns is already illegal under a variety of existing criminal statutes, Canadians are entitled to wonder whether there is any new law we can pass that will persuade them to stop doing it.

• 1715

Complex bureaucratic regulations open the door to abuse and nuisance paper charges against law-abiding Canadians. We are already experiencing situations where misinterpretations of the current regulations have resulted in charges that have been thrown out by the courts, with apologies from the judges.

Serious criminal charges can result from insignificant regulatory infractions that could prove to be emotionally and financially devastating to those involved.

Will public safety be enhanced by all this new bureaucracy? Hardly. If anything, it will serve against the public interest by bringing the law into disrepute, clogging our court systems, and diverting dwindling police resources.

It is our humble opinion that the government should re-examine if it is worth the cost to embark on gun control in a gun control program that appears to be treated with contempt by the very people who are expected to comply with it, and whether there is not somewhere else this money can be spent that will have greater impact on public health in Canada.

Thank you for your time.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cowlishaw.

Mr. Ramsay, three minutes.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Three?

The Chair: Yes. The bells are going to ring. You may find you're the only one who gets to ask questions.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Right.

The registration system that is the central hallmark of Bill C-68 and the regulations that flow from it cannot meet the claims the justice department and other proponents of the bill have claimed, because it will be an unreliable system. For the first time, witnesses who have been proponents of the bill have come before this committee and admitted that.

My question to you is, if we have a registration system that's going to mobilize 3 million to 6 million Canadians to register between 7 million and 20 million firearms, and if that system is going to be unreliable because a vast amount of information going into the system is going to be unverified, then in your view can it meet the safety objectives claimed by the justice department?

Mr. Lawrence Cowlishaw: You're addressing the question to me. In fairness, may I ask Larry Whitmore to answer it? We both came a long way today and we both should have time.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I would welcome answers from all three witnesses.

Mr. Adrian Praysner: I would like to comment first of all on the potential for vexatious registration. Let me give you an example.

Currently the Colt AR-15 is restricted. It was at one time a normal rifle. In the future, we expect the Ruger Mini-14, which I think was the firearm that set off a lot of this legislation, will probably end up being restricted. It is not now.

For example, in a self-reporting situation, let's say Mr. Mancini takes it into his mind to pick up the serial number for a Ruger Mini-14 and generously register it in your name. Now you have a firearm that will no doubt ultimately become restricted and that the police believe you are in possession of. Explain that to the police when they come visiting and want to prohibit it or take it away from you. You're going to say you don't know anything about it, and they're going to ask you where the registration came from. It will be a very difficult explanation to make.

I'm trying to give you one example of the potential in a self-reporting system for registration. While I would not suggest for a moment that Mr. Mancini would do that—

The Chair: You never know.

Mr. Adrian Praysner: You never know, yes.

So that's one example of the type of flaw we have in this type of system and why I would be a proponent of trying to ensure that firearms acquisition certificates are the means by which people are registered, not the firearm. I don't want to sound like the American broken record, but the real issue here is the people.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Thank you.

Mr. Whitmore.

Mr. Lawrence Whitmore: As handgun owners we've been living with this system since 1934. When a handgun is registered it is verified by the local registrar. The firearm is taken to the local registrar and the local registrar verifies the information that is sent in to the RCMP in Ottawa. Then the firearm is given back to the owner and, with the transport permits, of course, taken back to his home.

• 1720

Yet in this system, where there is verification by either a police official or a civilian working under the auspices of the police, we have an estimated 30% to 40% error rate. That has been calculated. In fact, I believe the RCMP right now is trying to clean up the system. A number of our members who've called my office have received letters from the RCMP asking them if they still own certain guns of a certain calibre when the guns were sold five, six or seven years ago and properly registered to the new owners.

So we have a system that is verified that is inaccurate and now they're trying to bring in a system that will not be verified and the accuracy rate will be infinitesimal.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: It's a complete mess; an unreliable mess.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Whitmore and Mr. Ramsay.

[Translation]

Ms. Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Praysner, you mentioned the firearms import-export regulations during your presentation, and you said that you were not sure you understood the intent of the related section. In this particular context, you were speaking more specifically about shooting competitions and the sport in general. Do you believe that these regulations could be harmful to the Canadian firearm industry by complicating the whole process of transporting firearms? Is that what you were trying to say during your presentation, or were you talking about firearm imports and exports and how they affect the sport?

[English]

Mr. Adrian Praysner: With respect to the commercial importation and exportation of firearms, I don't believe I'm knowledgeable enough to comment on that. Having read the provisions, however, provided here for sportsmen and women who would be exporting firearms for hunting and target shooting, or bringing them into Canada—for example, we have teams that come in from Great Britain and South Africa to compete in Canada—we would want to ensure there was no major barrier to them coming into this country and no major barrier for our members to compete in their countries.

I cannot tell from reviewing this whether there will be barriers or not. On the surface it appears it will be a fairly reasonably straightforward process, but I know one of the other members, Mr. Shaw, I believe, commented at length on his concerns about what might occur, and I would have to rely on his interpretation.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Your association seems to be having the same problems. In terms of the sport, is your association facing the same problems as those Mr. Shaw mentioned to us in his presentation?

[English]

Mr. Adrian Praysner: Absolutely. In fact, although I'm not as familiar with his particular sport as with rifle shooting, our problem may be compounded by the fact that we typically send very large teams. Teams to Bisley would number 20 to 25, as an example, and that would be very typical. So that could be a problem.

I can speak somewhat anecdotally about a problem General Motors had at one point when it was producing the MOWAG, the general purpose armoured vehicle for offshore sales. As I recall, it was going to Saudi Arabia. Diemaco in Kitchener was contracted to provide the fire system, and there was a great deal of difficulty obtaining the appropriate permits so those weapon systems could be incorporated. But this is an area beyond my expertise.

The Chair: Thank you.

Next is Mr. Mancini, if you're not too busy falsely registering weapons in my name.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Thank you. Well, I have a lot, and that's right, I'm registering them in Ms. McLellan's name.

I have just a couple of questions and I'll be fairly brief. You indicated in your presentation, in what I've read, that the regulations regarding club membership are not onerous or unreasonable for you.

Mr. Adrian Praysner: That's correct. For the Ontario Rifle Association with a DCRA rating, the kinds of records that are required are things we would typically keep anyway.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Okay. Is there a security problem to your membership in filing those memberships?

• 1725

Mr. Adrian Praysner: In regard to providing you with a list of the membership, I would say no, because many members and many other organizations have copies of it, so I don't think there is any particular concern there. However, if you ask for information related to firearms acquisitions numbers and information of that nature, I would have to seek counsel on that. I don't know what the problem might be.

Mr. Peter Mancini: The second question that I have for you is one that has a more ominous tone to it. In the last part of your presentation there's an indication—and you express your opinion and I respect this—that

...this particular element of the legislation (registration) has created and will continue to foster paranoia that could lead to civil disobedience out of proportion to any presumed possible benefit.

Can you tell me what you anticipate?

Mr. Adrian Praysner: Absolutely. I don't think anybody who's associated with shooting sports has not heard somebody share the opinion that they're not going to register their firearms. They believe it's the first step to them taking the firearms away, and they're not going to register.

Whether or not they would behave in that fashion I would not want to suggest, but the view is there and the concern is there. As you compound this with evidence where firearms have been seized, as we know, you can understand why this becomes a great concern.

Mr. Peter Mancini: But the disobedience would be in terms of non-compliance with the regulations.

Mr. Adrian Praysner: Non-compliance; precisely.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Those are my questions.

The Chair: Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you, Madam Chair. I will address my question to all three gentlemen.

In one of the briefs I noticed that handguns have been registered since 1934. Yet when it comes to public safety, people are involved or have used handguns during the commission of crimes regularly and we hear of people dying by the use of handguns regularly. In your opinion, will the registration of all firearms reduce the use of guns in crimes, in robberies or murders or what have you?

Mr. Lawrence Whitmore: First of all, with relation to—

The Chair: That will have to be the last answer because we have a vote now. Go ahead.

Mr. Lawrence Whitmore: In relation to the criminal use of handguns, several studies found that over 85% to 90% of the handguns that were recovered and had been used in the commission of a crime were never registered in Canada. They were smuggled in from the border.

I think you will find the same thing with rifles and shotguns if they in fact start to register them. The guns that will be used in the criminal acts simply will not be registered because they are either smuggled or stolen or whatever else. There's such a huge black market out there that a criminal can get a firearm very quickly. Any police officer will tell you that.

That is the problem we're having with handguns. You'll find that even though the handguns have been registered since 1934, their use in criminal activity as a percentage of firearms crime has actually been rising, so I see no evidence to indicate that registering rifles and shotguns will have any effect on the criminal use of those firearms.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Muise, and thank you all for your presentations.

We're adjourned until tomorrow at 3.30 p.m. in the East Block.