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]

Thursday, November 27, 1997

• 0938

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.)): Order. Good morning. We are still on the Firearms Act regulations.

Today we have, from the firearms user group, Steve Torino, president.

Welcome, Steve. Have you appeared in front of the committee before? Okay. So you know we'd be happy to hear from you, and then members of Parliament will have questions.

Mr. Terrence Burns (Member, User Group on Firearms): We understand the brief has not yet been translated. We'd like to read from that. We understand you also have the summary.

The Chair: The brief is being translated now, but you go ahead.

Mr. Terrence Burns: We'd like to thank you, Madam Chairman, and this committee for having again invited us to present the user group point of view on the draft regulations and to answer any questions you may have.

It is important to note that the recommendations in this brief are not individual opinions but the recommendations of the group.

We continue to work on the principles of how firearms issues affect all concerned and to provide advice and make recommendations to encourage maximum compliance through practical rules acceptable to firearms users. We have always believed maximum compliance is the final test of any legislation. If firearms owners can not or will not comply with a legal requirement, then there is a serious problem.

Another major consideration has been and remains communications. Our prior testimony included the problems of lack of communication in relation to Bill C-17. We were, and we remain, adamant that this should not happen again.

The major communications methods we believe are of benefit are: the 1-800 hot line; the Canadian Firearms Centre bulletin; the inside newsletter of the Canadian Firearms Centre; the Canadian firearms training manual; media publicity; and meetings and conferences with firearms organizations.

• 0940

We recommend that communications remain a priority item. We recommend that a top level of service remain after the implementation of the new law. We strongly recommend the continuance of regular meetings and discussions with all national and provincial firearms organizations, especially during the implementation phase of the Firearms Act and the regulations.

Compliance is the theme of this brief. If any legislation, either specific or general, is perceived as being too difficult, repressive, or costly to comply with, then non-compliance will most likely ensue.

As for our regulations analysis and recommendations dealing with the special authority to possess regulations, part III of these regulations is an excellent example of attending to an issue before it becomes a real problem. The matter of transportation of section 12 firearms, other than subsection 12(6) handguns, is in our opinion very well addressed by these regulations since they give authority to the chief firearms officer to license normal activities with these firearms under listed conditions.

Such foresight is highly encouraged and commendable. These provisions will greatly encourage compliance and prevent problems for all concerned. We recommend that other issues of legislation be addressed with such a practical method of preventing problems from occurring rather than trying to fix them at a later date.

We also recommend that firearms owners not be required to obtain a transport permit each and every time informal target shooting is involved, but for simplicity the individual's annual permit should include these activities with such firearms.

Regarding firearms registration certificate regulations, the primary problems of firearms identification were first noted during the examination of the 1996 firearms uniqueness study. There's an unknown number of makes and models of firearms in use in Canada without a manufacturer's serial number. Many are either relatively inexpensive or quite expensive. It was decided that stamping or engraving a unique number on such firearms was uneconomical and/or unfeasible. The result was that an unknown number of such firearms was in use without an inexpensive and simple method of registration being an available option.

There was also the serious question of the effect of stamping on the structural integrity of many older firearms.

Another concern was how remote, rural firearms owners might be able to comply if they had to drive or fly hundreds of kilometres to the closest facility for stamping.

Work was begun, and has continued since, on the proposal to affix stickers to all unnumbered firearms regardless of the type. Co-operation received from the Canadian Firearms Centre, RCMP, and Department of Justice was excellent. Durability tests have been very positive, indicating that cost savings relative to stamping or engraving would be tremendous. We believe that a suitable and practical alternative to stamping has been found.

Section 5 of the regulations states that if:

a firearm does not bear a serial number sufficient to distinguish it from other firearms in accordance with paragraph 14(a) of the Act,

then it should be modified to include the other criteria that will be used, such as make, model, calibre, action type, barrel length, etc., presently used for restricted firearms.

Since these criteria will be used in determining the need for a sticker, we believe they should be included in the regulations for clarity. This should fit in with paragraph 14(b) of the act.

We recommend that the requirement for naked-eye visibility be modified to permit the choice of installing the sticker on the frame or receiver under the stock to protect the confidentiality of the owner's firearms identification number.

Many quality firearms in existence, including some presently registered firearms, require disassembly to see the serial number located under the grip. Law enforcement members of our group who were present during the discussions stated that naked-eye visibility is not of immediate importance at the beginning of an investigation.

We recommend that the rules for verification, including approved verifiers, be settled prior to the implementation of the relevant regulations and be included in the regulations prior to their implementation instead of being determined afterward.

We recommend that the legal language for the requirements of using stickers versus stamping in section 6 be clarified to reflect what is now shown in the plain-language fact sheet.

Regarding exportation and regulations, since these regulations apply to any individual who would cross the Canadian border with a firearm, they should be as clear and concise as possible regarding the responsibilities associated with this simple task.

In our opinion, the problems begin with the title. The moratorium to January 1, 2001 will be of great help.

• 0945

We recommend, in addition to the title name of these regulations, clearly indicating that these regulations and provisions apply to anyone who crosses the Canadian border with a firearm for any purpose, such as hunting or attending a competitive event.

Most people have a common belief that the words “import” and “export” specifically refer to businesses that sell or purchase in another country.

We also recommend that these often-to-be-used regulations be heavily publicized so the maximum number of Canadians and non-Canadians will become aware of their cross-border responsibilities as soon as possible and before they show up at the border without the necessary information to satisfy authorities.

We recommend that the use of oral declarations be encouraged by the removal of the words “if the customs officer so permits” from the respective subsections 2(2), 7(2), and 11(2) of the proposed regulations. If customs believes there is a problem, it has sufficient powers to act in any manner it wishes. Leaving an oral declaration to someone's discretion will certainly cause many unnecessary delays for persons who have all of the required registrations and have great distances to travel, while producing no benefits for the registration system that tracks the movement of registered firearms.

We recommend that these regulations be particularly scrutinized for their effect on Canada's recreational and competitive shooting sports, as well as the guiding, outfitting, and tourism industries. We also recommend that these important regulations be greatly condensed for clarity and ease of understanding by the average Canadian.

Regarding the shooting clubs and shooting ranges regulations, under present rules only ranges that accept restricted firearms and any others that may have had to obtain provincial approval for their activities are licensed as firearm ranges or gun clubs. The new rules require licensing of all ranges, irrespective of the type of firearms used thereon, bringing numerous existing ranges under the control of the new regulations. However, there are no national standards yet established for them.

In addition to the new requirements, the new terminology without proper explanation will cause initial problems with the wording used in distinguishing between a shooting club and a shooting range.

We strongly believe that having to comply with the requirements of very costly and misunderstood business insurance policies, the environmental protection rules, projectile containment, and the range's geographical territory, etc., may well be beyond the financial and practical means of many existing outdoor ranges. Without legislative help and federal financial support these requirements will result in the closing of many small but established, important, and essential local ranges. The reduction in the number of existing legal outlets for target shooting may drive many firearms owners to carry on their activities in possibly unsafe areas.

The insurance provisions must be carefully examined. The exact details of the liability, errors and omissions, and continuous coverage requirements in these regulations are vague at best. Many brokers contacted have different opinions on the legality of this insurance.

The quotations received by members of the group indicate a very high cost of such insurance. In fact the quotes received are up to 10 times higher than those obtained by staff at Justice. This would be enough to close many small but established local ranges. Requiring shooting clubs whose only revenue is from fees charged to tournament participants to obtain such prohibitive insurance will result in many valuable and established organizations surrendering their non-profit charters. This is a very negative and unsafe situation that we believe requires immediate attention.

Compliance for safety purposes with the regulations of the Firearms Act is not encouraged by closure of long-established ranges that simply cannot meet the requirements. The possibly unsafe areas where these activities would subsequently take place are surely not what the authors of the law had and have in mind. Compliance that is not actively encouraged in any one part of these laws may result in non-compliance with other parts of the law.

Since safety is of paramount importance, everything should be done to encourage existing ranges to continue their activities and keep target shooting in these supervised areas.

We recommend that the work on national standards be completed prior to the implementation of these regulations and be included therein for uniformity.

We recommend a minimum of $1 million of general liability insurance. We strongly recommend that the errors and omissions requirements be removed.

We also recommend that all existing ranges be reviewed on the principle that their continued existence as a legal outlet for all target shooters, both present and future, is of paramount importance.

To offset the burdens imposed by these regulations, we strongly recommend federal financial and legislative aid as essential to the continued existence of legal target shooting outlets.

On gun show regulations, most gun shows known to our members seem to already comply with most of the sections in these regulations. Last minute decisions to participate in the gun show and last minute cancellations do happen quite frequently, and usually when the registrar is not open. If there is insufficient flexibility in the system to allow for such persons, the parking lot could become a sale site. The ramifications of this are unacceptable to all. Also, if the cost of legal participation is considered to be too high, parking lots could become attractive locations for potential buyers.

• 0950

Putting the responsibility on the sponsor for building security, storage, display, and handling is removing this responsibility from those who would normally perform such duties. We believe the sponsors' efforts should be aimed more towards maximizing legal participation. We believe these regulations should continue to be directed towards national uniformity and maximized legal participation by exhibitors by keeping fees as low as possible and by making it easy and practical to obtain the necessary licences. We also believe the registrar's office should advise the proper authorities of the approval of the gun show instead of the sponsor.

On the public agents firearms regulations, it is believed that there may be a problem with part of these regulations, wherein the public agents firearms regulations have created an offence section, specifically section 17. In our opinion, it is unworkable from the standpoint of having the effect of rendering public officers liable for the decisions that are made by their respective departments in the areas of safe storage of firearms. It is our opinion that this offence is effectively unenforceable. We recommend that subsection 3(1) of the public agents firearms regulations be amended to separate the liability of the public agency from that of the public agent.

We have other recommendations on compliance. All of the current, existing regulations, the fee schedule, plus the various orders in council, constitute over twenty references needed by a firearms owner whenever a problem arises. If they are not put in the most easily understood legal form and condensed to remove unnecessary repetition, very few firearms owners will be able to understand their responsibilities. Only clear and concise regulations, properly titled, indexed, and cross-referenced will reach the target audience and aid and maximize in compliance. We again recommend in the strongest possible terms that this committee do everything in its power to make the regulations as simple as possible by grouping and condensing the specific regulations into a form that all can readily locate and comprehend.

We recommend that the relevant portion of the fee schedule be included with each specific regulation, giving the reader all information relative to a given set of regulations.

We recommend that a trial period either precede or be incorporated into the actual implementation of the registration phase of the Firearms Act in order to permit all concerned to work out the bugs and become more familiar with the system.

We recommend that a safety awareness program be initiated in schools to familiarize youth with the realities of firearms. Teaching safe handling and familiarization will ensure that the safety loop is completed and will counter the incorrect messages received from film, TV, and media sources.

Maximum compliance encouraged through practical and acceptable rules is, we believe, the key to good legislation.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Ramsay, seven minutes.

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to thank our witnesses for being here.

Sometime before you leave I would like you to place on the record of our committee the definition of a user group, what role you played, how you were set up—those kinds of things. Then, when anyone does look at the record, they will understand the input you had, whatever it may have been, and the role you played as a user group.

Did anyone in the justice department make you aware of the fact that the information that would be going into the new registration system was going to be unverified? All of it would be unverified except in the case where firearms are sold or transferred. Were you aware that this is the nature of the registration system, that all the information to register a firearm in the mail-in registration system—and this is one of the forms; it's not the final form, it's a mock-up form outlining well over thirty pieces of information that will be going into the registration system to register and identify a single firearm amongst all the others Were you aware that this information was not going to be verified in any way?

• 0955

Mr. Steve Torino (President, User Group on Firearms): Pages 45 and 46 of the amendments to proposed conditions of transferring firearms and other weapons regulations, and specifically page 46, section 3, were given to us at the time this document was tabled. That states that on or after January 1, 2003 the transferor shall present evidence relating to the verification, and therefore the verification would be not mandatory until that date.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: And you were aware of that.

Mr. Steve Torino: We are aware of that at this time.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Okay. Then of course you'd be aware that the registration certificate issued on that kind of information would carry with it a degree of unreliability. Were you conscious of that?

Mr. Steve Torino: As to the degree of unreliability, it would depend on the final definitions as they appear on that form you have before you. We first saw the form about three days ago and received a briefing on verification during our meeting. We had a three-day meeting of the user group at the time the hearings were going on, so we have received debriefing on verification.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Appearing before this committee in the last week were the chief firearms officers from P.E.I. and British Columbia. The chief firearms officer from P.E.I. provided us with a brief that I would imagine, or I assume, was supported by the other gentlemen from B.C. He states that:

...the information contained in the registry on restricted and prohibited firearms will be unverified and hence unreliable.

He said this would impact on police safety, public safety, and enforcement.

Assistant Commissioner John L'Abbé stated this when he appeared before the committee:

A verification process, as outlined in the conditions of transfer regulations your committee is reviewing, is, in the RCMP's opinion, absolutely imperative to the effective operation of any firearms registration system.

The potential for errors on application for members of the public, who may not be well versed in firearms classification, is extremely high.

He went on to say:

If the police services of this country cannot count on the veracity of information entered onto the Canadian firearms registration system, they may not use it to its full potential. If this occurs, the system cannot meet its objective of maintaining and increasing public safety.

And finally, he said:

This verification process is bound to be a slow one. Many firearms owners will wait decades to transfer their firearms.

In other words, sell them. Many firearm owners do not have an FAC because they've never bought or sold. They just have firearms with no intention to sell them. That means that the verification process for some firearms may never take place until the person dies and the firearms become part of the estate and are dealt with through that process.

We have had testimony from the officials that was very surprising to me, if not shocking. It had to do—and I want to know if your user group was informed—with the fact that in the opinion of the justice department a registration certificate with a serial number that does not match the intended firearm will still be considered to be a valid registration for that firearm. Were you aware of that?

Mr. Jim Adam (User Group on Firearms): I think I can answer that, Mr. Ramsay. We were not officially aware of that. In the last three days I personally missed approximately a day and a half due to other commitments. Unless this was presented last Monday, we were not aware of it; we were not aware of the full ramifications or the implications of it.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: What is your opinion of that evidence or that testimony submitted by the officials of the department to this committee?

• 1000

For clarification, my understanding of what they said is simply this. If a registration certificate is issued for a specific firearm and the serial number on the certificate does not match the intended firearm, it still is a valid registration certificate and does in fact register that firearm.

What do you make of that?

The Chair: Let's be clear, for the record, that what you're doing is commenting on Mr. Ramsay's report of what was said. I appreciate that you don't have the actual testimony in front of you to comment on it.

Mr. Jim Adam: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that is basically the way we feel. We're not familiar with that evidence in terms of the question being asked here.

To answer your question, Mr. Ramsay, we have discussed this amongst ourselves and agree unanimously that if a serial number that has been either unintentionally or intentionally obliterated on a firearm cannot be properly raised to verify it, then the firearm cannot be verified.

Does that answer your question, sir?

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Yes.

Does anyone else have an opinion on that?

Mr. Steve Torino: We are of the opinion that of the eight to ten different categories for firearms identification, using everything but the serial number you can identify the firearm as to what it is, whether it is a Mauser or a Remington or whatever, but the uniqueness applies to the serial number. Therefore, without the serial number you cannot identify that firearm uniquely.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Okay.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay.

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

I want to thank all of you for being here today. We appreciate your insights.

My first question stems from a comment made by you, Mr. Adam, with respect to ramifications and implications. You are persons, I would suggest, who are well attuned to the implementation of these regulations. You've had an opportunity to review this. You're in touch with what's going on in the firearms community.

What is your opinion as to the average person on the street, the gun owner who is not a member of a club, who has one rifle or shotgun in his barn or his tool shed, and the ability—and what an onerous task it's going to be—to make them aware of these regulations?

Mr. Jim Adam: Are you asking, Mr. MacKay, whether this involves registration or complying with registration, or all manners of adhering to the upcoming gun legislation?

Mr. Peter MacKay: All of the above. With respect to this committee, I've been steered back to the regulations time and time again. But compliance, as you've identified, is the issue here. I'm interested in your opinion on that—compliance with these regulations.

Mr. Jim Adam: This is not intended to be a pun, but if you ask somebody in downtown Toronto on Yonge Street what they were going to do, they would have a different answer from somebody in rural Nova Scotia. You'd get a far different answer.

To answer your question, it would depend upon whether compliance would be regional or territorial. Without going into great detail about this, I think common sense will dictate the answer on how it will be complied with.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay.

There are sections in the regulations that for all intents and purposes prevent the government from ever selling firearms back to groups—registered groups, the public, or anyone, for that matter. I'm wondering what your opinion is on this, that all firearms seized will be destroyed.

Mr. Jim Adam: That calls for a rather personal opinion, Mr. MacKay. I have no qualms about giving you my personal opinion.

I've been called upon by the provincial government to destroy some of these firearms for training purposes. When I have to take a confiscated $2,000 gun and destroy it to absolutely no value at all so that it can be utilized as a training weapon in an FAC program, for example, when in my mind I say, man, if 50% of the value of this firearm was collected it would go great towards the advancement of the FAC program, which in a lot of cases is running on a shoestring... It's a voluntary program, A lot of the firearms involved are firearms that have been acquired through various means. I don't mean illegally but that have been begged and borrowed. I was going to say stolen, but not stolen; they've been acquired nonetheless and they're utilized in the training.

• 1005

Some of these things are like crutches, and here I am destroying a state-of-the-art firearm because somebody has said, what does it matter? You're going to destroy it. Whether or not it's destroyed and put in a garbage can or destroyed and put on a table and helping to train people, it makes absolutely no sense to somebody like me.

That is my personal opinion, sir. I'm not speaking for the group.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Does the group have an official position on that?

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. MacKay, but Mr. Torino wanted to respond to that.

Mr. Steve Torino: I would respond to your original question, Mr. MacKay, if possible. You asked a general question on how compliance would be affected.

The first principle in this goes back to our original brief in our original presentation. You cannot have any kind of compliance or any degree of compliance if you don't get the information out there. It is starting to get out there, but in the opinion of the group there is a lot more that has to be done to get factual, concise information out there so that everyone can understand their responsibilities.

This has not yet completely happened. Whether it is in large urban areas, in rural areas, or in remote areas, the information has not gotten out there, and it must get out there. Only when people understand what is required of them can they decide whether or not they want to comply. Whether or not they want to comply will depend on many different factors, personal and otherwise.

If it's presented properly, it says these are your responsibilities. If the individual feels they are fair or they feel, as we have said many times in group meetings, they can live with that, then you'll have the best possible compliance rate. That seems to be the key factor.

Mr. Peter MacKay: In the opinion of the group—or again I leave it open for you individually to answer—do you see the biggest impediment to the success of these regulations in terms of compliance being the cumbersome nature in which they're drafted, or is it the fees associated with them? I would respectfully put that to you in terms of groups, shooting clubs, and individuals.

Mr. Steve Torino: If I could make a point I make regularly in group meetings, trying to comply with this...its present thickness I think is self-explanatory as compared to what was around under Bill C-17, which is about that thick. It does need some sort of work to get this into a more readily understandable form. It could be in the form of fact sheets, guides or whatever, but they must be comprehensive and clear to understand. People will look at this and automatically get turned off. It is starting to look like the Income Tax Act, and there's no question about that. However, being able to go through this in another form that answers all major questions I think will go a long way.

Mr. Peter MacKay: With respect, I know your recommendations are aimed at improving this act, but we've heard from a number of groups, most of whom came to the table with recommendations. I respect the fact that the principle behind your recommendations is simplicity, to make this act simpler.

We could go through these committee meetings for another year, I suggest, and still not get through all the witnesses who wanted to come. Each would bring more recommendations and we would eventually have a report or a regulation that was thicker than the Criminal Code.

If simplicity is the aim, what would you suggest we do in terms of paring this down to a workable piece of legislation? Remove some of the sections?

Mr. Steve Torino: I think we have covered, in the initial stages of our report, a form of condensation or condensing. As I said, guides and so forth that actually get to the root of all the problems can be a big help. There is the Firearms Act training manual, which has been out for a while and which we have seen at the Department of Justice's Canadian Firearms Centre. It's done in modular form.

• 1010

Modular form permits a person who is interested in, say, registration certificates or inspections or whatever to receive everything that is related to the particular problem he has at that point. It refers to all sections of the act; all relevant regulations. Then you have an explanation without editorializing, plus examples.

Doing it in modular form, as has been done, I think will go a long way towards what you're talking about.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. MacKay.

Ms. Bakopanos has a question, as does Mr. Maloney.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

As a point of clarification, these regulations will not actually come into effect until 2003, which gives you or the government, or both of us together, a number of years to inform the public, to prepare information packages, to assure the public that whenever there is a problem there will be help out there, because there will be verifiers who will be available—I assume the police or the RCMP, depending on the territory—who will be the persons who will be in charge of verification. There will be a system in terms of providing information or clarification to the public.

Is there something more that you would like us to do? We're talking about longer than five years.

Mr. Steve Torino: Five years is a very long period of time. If you look at the calendar, you count the days. It was literally yesterday that Bill C-17 began, and it is tomorrow, in relative terms, that Bill C-68 will kick in. The general public, the firearms community, or whatever, are either full of misconceptions or have correct information and are not able to apply it. There is a great amount of work to be done on this.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Bill C-68 will kick in October 1.

Mr. Steve Torino: That means tomorrow.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: That means we still have—

Mr. Steve Torino: That is effectively tomorrow in the space it is now. It is very, very near.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: It's nine months. Once it starts, obviously if there are problems you have five years also, in terms of the system, to be able to correct some of those anomalies.

As another point of clarification, were you consulted in the past? You made the point earlier that you were consulted in the last three days. Were you consulted during the summer when consultations by the government took place with at least 100 different groups?

Mr. Steve Torino: To answer your question, if I may, it goes back to Mr. Ramsay's request for a quick definition of the user group. We were formed two years ago by Minister Rock, and we were enacted or put into place the day after—I believe it was December 7, 1995—with a mandate to work on the registration system and to help in any way possible with the implementation of the Firearms Act. We have been consulted regularly for two years.

On the last set of regulations, I believe our brief of February 1997 is on file. We have been working since on the regulations.

Have our recommendations been acceptable? We think we've had a very positive influence. We think many of our recommendations have been accepted, and positively.

But I would like to address your comment when you said “us”. We are in a very interesting position in that we are advisers to the Minister of Justice—firearms advisers. We are neither working for the government nor for the firearms community. We are somewhere in that grey area in between. To paraphrase, we are getting shot at by both sides. It makes life interesting at times.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: It's the best position, then, to offer advice. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): I have a couple of questions on your concern about making the certificate highly visible. You suggested it may be an invitation to theft. Do you mean theft of the little sticker or theft of the actual firearm?

That's on the first page of your summary, the last paragraph, where you say “We recommend that the requirement for “naked eye” visibility be modified...”. You are concerned about “possible invitation to theft” and about the protection of “the confidentiality of the owners'...”.

Mr. Steve Torino: What we mean by that is theft of the serial number itself. A normal serial number stamped on a firearm is not readily visible; it's just there. It is black or blue, or whatever, and stamped in. It is part of the regular writing. It is much harder to view than a sticker that is standing out, if you wish, almost like a neon light.

One of the things we are saying is we wish to protect the confidentiality of the number from the theft of the number in case someone decides to duplicate the number and put it on another firearm.

Mr. John Maloney: Do you mean by sticker or by imprinting it?

• 1015

Mr. Steve Torino: It could be done either way—not theft of the sticker.

Mr. John Maloney: Have you seen the stickers?

Mr. Steve Torino: Yes, we have. We received samples officially this week. They look quite good actually.

Mr. John Maloney: Do you think that would be a real problem?

Mr. Steve Torino: We don't believe it's a real problem, but we would like to make sure if there is a problem we address it. As a national group we try to address the major issues we feel might crop up, at least the ones we can think of during the time constraints of a two- to four-day meeting.

One of the things we decided was that there are many firearms—overs and unders and so forth—where the serial number is on the receiver but underneath the barrel. So you must disassemble the firearm in order to view the serial number. We decided that naked-eye visibility was a problem. One of the precedents for having the serial number under and hidden from open view is to prevent any kind of theft and to protect the confidentiality of that serial number for the owner. That precedent was set many years ago in European firearms.

Mr. John Maloney: You say you feel the rules for verification should be settled prior to the enactment of these regulations. Have you given your suggestions on what these rules for verification should be?

Mr. Steve Torino: We were consulted this week and the process is still ongoing. However we don't see verification waiting five years. We believe verification should be implemented as soon as it is possible.

Mr. John Maloney: Do you think the gun lobbies would accept this immediate verification?

Mr. Steve Torino: That was not discussed at this point because it is part of the ongoing process.

Mr. John Maloney: But what's your opinion?

Mr. Steve Torino: I won't give a personal opinion, sir.

Mr. John Maloney: Okay.

On liability insurance of $1 million, what do these clubs and ranges ordinarily carry, or do you know?

Mr. Terrence Burns: Most clubs I'm familiar with are carrying $1 million at the moment. They are not carrying any type of errors and omissions insurance. The broker I checked with in New Brunswick—Steve checked with one in Quebec and Jim checked with one in Nova Scotia—with 35 years' experience in the business said to have the federal government define what it means by errors and omissions insurance in this regard because we cannot sell it to you the way it is there.

Mr. John Maloney: Could you tell me how much the increased fee would be for liability from $1 million to $2 million?

Mr. Terrence Burns: From $1 million to $2 million it is probably nominal. It's just an increased premium. The big fee is the errors and omissions insurance, or the best we can find is actually officers and directors liability insurance. We're getting quotes, depending on the size of the club, the number of directors, and how much money actually passes through that club of anywhere from $2,000 and $6,000. It is doubled in many cases because the gun club is also the owner of the gun range, so he needs insurance for both the gun club and the gun range.

Every club I'm familiar with will close its doors as soon as that's necessary.

Mr. John Maloney: Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Ramsay, five minutes.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I want to touch on the gun shows and the shooting ranges, but I'd just like to make a comment and you can respond to it.

The mail-in registration system was adopted in order to keep the cost down. If three million to six million gun owners were to bring six million to twenty million firearms into their local police stations and have the verification done, as it is now done with handguns, it would create an enormous cost. If I remember correctly, this is what the former justice minister spoke to. It will not be a costly situation because the cost to register a firearm was estimated at some $82. If you multiply $82 by the six million to twenty million long guns in this country you get an enormous cost, far beyond the $85 million that was suggested by the department.

But with the mail-in registration system comes the problem of verification, which has always bothered me. How can you have an identification system without verification of the information upon which it's based? That's always been my problem with the key pillar to Bill C-68, which is the licensing and registration system.

• 1020

If you want to comment on that, you may, but I would like to ask you about the gun shows and the shooting ranges. I have been contacted by individuals who have been running gun shows for years. They're saying that they don't feel it's possible for them to meet the requirements to run a gun show. It may close down gun shows and shooting clubs and shooting ranges.

Do you have any experience in these areas? Can you respond to the concern I have received?

Mr. Jim Adam: I'll respond first, Mr. Ramsay. I'm sure Mr. Torino will have something to add to this.

In the province of Nova Scotia up until about four or five years ago, when these very strong rumours and indications of costs, etc., crept in, we had nine annual gun shows. Today we have one, and it's hanging on by its fingertips. The reason for this is the high cost and the complicated, misunderstood requirements that are required to participate in a gun show.

The province of Nova Scotia was the only province or territory in the dominion where you had to pay $50 for each and every gun show, while the rest of the country enjoyed paying once a year, or whatever the case may be. This has done nothing but to drive away and underground...because people are now selling firearms out of the trunks of cars as opposed to at gun shows.

I'll tell you a story, if I may, that I saw on television three weeks ago. It showed a gentleman who owned a very lucrative business in the Annapolis Valley. He was being interviewed as to his business.

Now, I can state, being a firearms dealer, a gunsmith and a firearms safety instructor, that my business has gone down 85%, as has the business of the peers, the people I am associated with. But I digress a bit here.

This person who was being interviewed had a very lucrative business up until recently. His business has gone down 85%, which his livelihood and his family's livelihood was dependent upon, because it's not only firearms; it's related, and so is the equipment that goes with the business.

Coincidentally, the deputy firearms officer for the province of Nova Scotia happened to be there at the same time. The interviewer asked the owner what was happening to his business. He said that not only do the gun laws make it extremely hard to vend the firearms but he is also paying taxes on what he sells—HST plus an additional tax once a year when he's assessed on what he's sold. As well, he was being put out of business due to the fact that this individual—and he indicated the individual with his hand—was bootlegging firearms out of the trunk of his car.

The camera cut to this individual, Mr. Ramsay. It would not show his profile, just his body from the chest down. He was asked how long he had been doing this. He said he had been doing it for 10 years, and would continue to do it because this person—and he pointed to the deputy officer—could do nothing about it.

This is the type of thing that goes on. I am not being insulting when I say this, but I'm sure the people in Ottawa don't hear this type of thing. You don't see that kind of thing downtown, at the corner of Sparks and whatever, but you sure do see it in the areas where I come from.

What has happened to people like me...and I'm speaking for them. I was given carte blanche, believe me, to speak for them, before I came here. I approached them and asked if I had licence to speak for them on this subject if it was brought up. Absolutely, they said.

They're being driven out of business, sir. They're being driven out of business.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Torino.

Mr. Steve Torino: In so far as gun shows are concerned, one of the things we believe is that the establishment of a form of national standards or equal rules is going to go a great distance toward, or be a big help in, equalizing some of the problems Jim brought up, where some provinces have certain types of rules that have contributed to the reduction in the number of shows, whereas others are not in the same position.

By having a national standard and asking the sponsor, instead of each exhibitor, for a permit, it allows the exhibitors to come freely, and should help in theory to alleviate these situations, these inequalities, that exist across the country or may exist across the country.

• 1025

You also address shooting ranges, and I think we have to separate the two. In so far as gun shows are concerned, I believe the standards are going to be a big help. Other issues concerning gun shows were addressed by collector associations earlier this week, and I believe the recommendations are on record.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, gentlemen, for all of your work. We will rise for five minutes while we get our next witnesses ready. Thank you very much.

• 1026

• 1037

The Chair: We're back. We have with us Detective Sergeant Neal Jessop of the City of Windsor Police Service, who is the president of the Canadian Police Association, with Scott Newark, the association's executive director, and a third person. Who is your third representative?

Detective Sergeant Neal Jessop (President, Canadian Police Association): Madam Chair, Sergeant Gerry Pyke of the Vancouver Police Department is with us, and he is our working representative on the users group.

The Chair: Thanks. You know the drill, as we say.

Det/Sgt Neal Jessop: Yes, I do.

My name is Neal Jessop, and I apologize to you all because I won't be with you for too long. Mr. Newark and Mr. Pyke will answer your questions. I have to go over to the Hill to support Mr. Scott in his initiative in relation to organized crime.

Madam Chair, my initial and primary point is one that has given me great concern over the last two weeks. I'm sure the details of the regulations can be discussed by Mr. Newark and Mr. Pyke, but I would like to take you back to Bill C-68 and the registration of firearms in general.

Our support of the registration of firearms was predicated on the belief—which was, I believe, a sincere belief—that if all firearms are registered our people at the street level, when responding to calls, would have immediate access to the information on those registrations concerning the name and address. That issue was a paramount issue to our membership, and I believe it was the issue that turned our membership toward favouring Bill C-68 and supporting it.

As you know, the support was not unanimous. We are a democratic organization and we had a great deal of difficulty with that issue, but it was fully and completely discussed by our membership. When they learned that the public and our people could benefit from that type of information, which would be readily and immediately available to them when this act was complete, then in my view they agreed. Of course, our support I think was significant in relation to the acceptance by the public.

• 1040

Over the last two weeks, knowing full well that we were coming here and not having heard any information in relation to that particular issue, I asked Mr. Newark to speak with the justice ministry in relation to that issue and to ask for a meeting with the minister in relation to it, because I knew we were coming here. I suppose, to summarize, we were unable to get that information until this morning, when I was sitting out there on the credenza and was given an unsigned letter from the minister—which is now signed—that indicates to me this support will be there.

In our business, there are a lot of ups and downs, controversy, emotion, and extreme activity. What we always care about after the dust has settled is the result: Is the bad person locked up? Are the good people safe? Did any cops get hurt? On and on we go. That's the way, this morning, I'm looking at this situation. For whatever reason the communication was not there, and for whatever reason I came here this morning armed to the teeth because I intended to defend that principle. Of course, unfortunately or fortunately, depending on whose point of view you have, this situation has made the media.

I think everyone around this table has heard us before. When it comes to these kinds of issues it's not a winning situation. The situation has to be right, not won. I have those assurances now. We intend to follow up on them and make sure they're met. When the system comes into place, I will be, as will my colleagues, extremely pleased when we're heading to an address where there's a gun call and someone can tell us, providing the information has been inputted, that we're in a situation where people either inside or outside the house, or our own people, can be damaged by firearms.

I leave that with you. In my experience over the years...I particularly don't like to see these things dealt with in this way, but the results have to be there in order to protect the public.

It's unfortunate that on November 14 or 15, 1997, when we first wrote the minister, these communications could not have been made. We will proceed, of course, with the information as we have it. I thank you for your time.

The Chair: Thank you. Are you going to depart immediately?

Det/Sgt Neal Jessop: I can probably stay for 10 minutes.

The Chair: I'm sure your colleagues can adequately answer the questions.

Det/Sgt Neal Jessop: I'm sure they can.

The Chair: I want to accommodate you because you're from Windsor.

Mr. Scott Newark (Executive Director, Canadian Police Association): And required elsewhere with a minister of the crown.

Det/Sgt Neal Jessop: Thank you.

The Chair: Thanks a lot.

Mr. Ramsay, you have eight minutes.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank our witnesses for appearing. As a former policeman I am very reluctant to form conclusions, except those based upon evidence and solid fact, and I always keep an open mind because more evidence might come forward that would bring about a change.

I have had the greatest concern about the fundamental issue in Bill C-68, which is the registration system. If we are to create a registration system that is also an identification system, then the police must be able to rely on that, on the information. However, when I see a registration system and a so-called identification system that's based on unverified information, I have real problems with it.

• 1045

Can an unreliable identification system produce the tools that the police require? That is the question.

I repeat again, the evidence we've heard from witnesses who have appeared, both the RCMP as well the chief firearms officers who have appeared here, say that the system as set up will have huge volumes of information coming into it. It will be unverified and therefore unreliable, and this will impact on police safety, public safety, and enforcement. That's out of the presentation from the chief firearms officer.

For the sake of time, I will not refer to the testimony submitted by the deputy commissioner of the RCMP, but he said much the same thing. I would like your comments on that.

We have now finally seen the registration system emerge so that we get a better look at it. We have heard for years—three years or more—proposals for a mail-in registration system, and from that system certain benefits were going to flow. Every firearm would be registered so that the registration system could identify a single firearm out of the six million to twenty million in existence. We're now seeing that this may not be the case. They're to fill out a form like the one in my hand. Mistakes might occur when this form is filled out. Mistakes might occur when the person who receives this form puts it into the computer system. They may make a mistake.

So there is a lack of verification until you sell your firearm. No one is going to verify the information until there's a transfer of your firearm. How can the police rely...? We've heard from a senior police office who said that until verification takes place this system is not going to produce what we have heard for the last three years from the justice officials it is going to produce, the benefits that will accrue to enable the police to better do their job.

Sergeant Gerald Pyke (Vancouver Police Department): I think you have raised a number of valid issues. As a member of the user group as well, we looked at that very issue. One of the points we brought forward on behalf of the Canadian Police Association initially was that we must be able to identify the address of the person who has firearms registered to that home or to that business. Verification is an essential part of that process.

Verification has a couple of component parts. One is the accuracy of the information we receive. The second part is how the accuracy of that information impacts on the operational patrol officer. For example, in Vancouver, if I'm responding to a home where there's domestic violence against a man or woman in Canada—and for the record, we deplore any violence in this country against man or woman—it's unacceptable in any instance.

If, for example, the inaccuracy of the information refers only to the fact that the serial number on the handgun this individual may own, and with which he is threatening or harming his partner...if it's only the inaccuracy of the serial number on that firearm, I don't think that problem is one that would endanger the police officer or anyone responding to the call. However, if the inaccuracy relates to an address, or if there is manipulation on other people's part to purposely and maliciously put down false addresses, that type of inaccuracy is very serious to policing.

A huge percentage of the population of Canada will comply with these laws. If there are errors in transcribing serial numbers and that type of thing, eventually those errors will be caught by verification.

The second point on verification is that I don't believe it should start in 2003. I believe it should start on implementation date, October 1, if that's when it occurs. We should begin the process immediately.

• 1050

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Do you support the mail-in registration system, knowing the problems with verification? Of course, if I can add, my understanding of the reason for the mail-in registration system was that it was to keep the cost down. If you have to bring your long guns in like you do your handguns—this is what they had to do over the last 60 years to register them—then it's going to incur a cost of approximately $82 for the registration of each one of those firearms.

It was meant to keep the cost down. However, with the mail-in registration system comes the problem of verification. I have a firearm that I will register but it will never be verified. The information on that firearm will never be verified because I won't sell the firearm. I'll keep it. It's a keepsake. I had it when I was a child. I'll never transfer it.

So there's going to be no verification. That's going to involve a large number, I would suggest, of firearm owners in this country. So you're going to have a system of registration and identification that has huge volumes of unverified information in it.

The forensic scientists at the laboratories I visited before we began to examine Bill C-68 told me that this would be an unreliable mess. When I asked them to explain that to me, they told me what we are now hearing from police officers and chief firearms officers: you cannot register something you do not inspect.

Sgt Gerald Pyke: I'll revisit the issue of verification. I accept that you have this firearm that may never be verified. Eventually it will be done, whether it's by your death or eventually transferring it to another party, depending on what class it's in.

The most important part of what you say is the fact that the inaccuracy of the information does not necessarily impact on the operational police officer. I may not have verified exactly what the serial number is on your firearm. More important is the fact that we know the firearm exists in your home or mine. I have a couple of firearms myself. There's the fact that the police officer is able to access that information.

I agree with you that the reason we have the mail-in system now is in order to keep the cost down. It would be horrendous if we had to, at the initial stages, verify virtually every single firearm in person. We have people who live in remote communities and urban communities who would have to drive or fly hundreds and hundreds of kilometres or have somebody flown to them to physically inspect and verify these guns.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Then you have no concern about the reliability of this system.

Sgt Gerald Pyke: I have no concern about the reliability as it pertains to some of the minor areas in which we get the transposition of serial numbers. I do have a concern with those people in Canada who might attempt to thwart everything that's being done here by purposely giving misleading information or falsifying it. That's the issue for operational police officers.

Mr. Scott Newark: Can I also just add this? You're obviously correct that any time you have a self-reporting system, whether it's about firearms or anything else, the data is not of a clinical nature in the sense of being third-party verified.

I think the point that Sergeant Pyke is attempting to make is that the deficiencies in the objective accuracy of that information are not such as, in our judgment, to compromise the entire value of the registration system of firearms.

Here's the larger question for me. This whole process identifies this to a certain extent. It's not going to be quite as simple as we may have all been led to believe. It's not going to be quite as beneficent as we might have all hoped it might be.

It's going to require a constant balancing of several different principles, including cost, reliability, inconvenience, accuracy of information, and the nature of the information recorded. I suspect there will be a whole bunch of things that we're going to find out as we go along the way.

It's what, at least from our perspective, makes it all the more imperative that we have appropriate, practical insights in relation to the department as they go about creating this structure, and that there is a recognition within the executive branch of government about the importance of these very issues, not having them sloughed off to the side to be dealt with at some point in the future.

• 1055

Much like a discussion, Mr. Ramsay, you and I had a number of weeks ago in relation to attempting to guess what the Supreme Court of Canada might or might not allow, it is, I suspect, one of those questions to which there is no definitive answer. You're dealing with variables that defy that kind of definition. The important thing, I think, is that we all always have our eyes wide open about what are the benefits and the defects of the system we're creating, and that we be honest about it.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): First of all, I would like to thank you for tabling your brief in both official languages. You understood the message the last time.

Secondly, I listened to what your chairman had to say and I glanced through the brief that you are tabling, including points 2 and 3. Would I be right in saying that your chairman and your association appear to be less enthusiastic about the enforcement of the Act? I heard you speak on C-68. You supported this bill and you were optimistic. You had, among other things, commitments from the Minister of Justice at that time. Today you appear to be less optimistic when it comes to enforcement of this law.

You say, among other things, in paragraph 2:

Until such time as there is confirmation of federal financial coverage of all firearms registration costs, priority justification of such a program is suspect.

You then go on to talk about information that police officers should have. The system ensured that police officers were able to get the required information when they arrived at an address. They would be able to find out whether, for example, a particular building owner had firearms. You seem to be casting some doubt on this in your brief. In addition, you state in your brief, and your chairman said this verbally, that you are still waiting for answers to questions submitted to the Minister of Justice on October 14 and 15 of this year.

Am I right in thinking that you appear to be less optimistic about the enforcement of this particular Act, given the remarks made by your chairman, the statements made in your brief and the silence of the Minister of Justice with respect to the questions you raised?

[English]

Mr. Scott Newark: The reality—this answer is going to be a bit longer; I'm sometimes accused of giving long answers—is that the firearms legislation was not a priority item of public safety or criminal justice reform for the Canadian Police Association in the way that some of the other items were, such as high-risk offenders or some areas of parole reform, young offenders, DNA data banks, things like that. But the government is the government, and we respond when the government comes out.

Frankly, although we've had some disagreements, we think it's clear that there is undeniable public and police officer benefits to a firearms registration system. We looked at it very carefully. We analysed it. We reached a couple of conclusions. One was in relation to the funding of it. Although there is a benefit, in our judgment, to registration of firearms, that benefit doesn't justify taking police officers off the street, off their current, existing duties, to have them run this administration system.

We sought, actually, as a precondition from Mr. Rock, the former minister, and received as a precondition—before our assembly, to the national media, in this committee, in the Senate—that no dollars would be taken from existing operational policing budgets.

• 1100

Second was the system itself. It had to be able to do certain things for us to appreciate that would be worthwhile. If it was unable to supply the information to the patrol officers, it was wrong to tell people it could do something it couldn't, particularly as far as police officers were concerned.

I was physically present in the room during the discussion with Mr. Rock and the departmental officials when a defect in the technical capacity of the system was identified. I was physically present when Mr. Rock directed that the system would do what he had promised it would do. It's one of the reasons why I believe we have a users group, why we have people on it.

Those commitments for us are extremely important, as I'm sure you can appreciate. We also went back and had to answer to our membership who wanted to know the answers to those questions. We said, “Look, those are commitments. It's not something you can craft in legislation that says there will be no dollars taken from existing budgets.” But this is what we were told by the Minister of Justice. He said it publicly and we believe him. I've said many times to people who don't agree with our position on firearms registration that part of our job has been to effectively try to monitor that to make sure that commitment remains effective.

So if you got the sense, Mr. Bellehumeur, from the brief that we were beginning to become very concerned, that's because we were very concerned when we identified in the regulations...which was really the first public opportunity in a legislative forum we got to comment. As Mr. Ramsay said, these regs are now starting to flesh out the registration system.

Obviously there are cost implications here in doing some of the things people say, and there are potential cost implications for police officers. So we tried to get an answer to make sure that now that we have some specifics, this is the kind of stuff we will not simply tack onto police budgets.

We were aware that as of the date we were to testify we had not received confirmation of this search capacity on the system. What you see in the brief and what you heard from Mr. Jessop—and would have heard even more strongly this morning from both of us—was that we couldn't seem to get a straight answer. Having been given the undertaking by people in our own membership to monitor this, we felt obliged to bring that to people's attention pretty quickly, as we had certainly intended to bring it to the attention of our membership.

This morning while sitting here we received, in fairness, the answer. While that's very welcome, it still causes us some concern about the need on our part to be a little more vigilant to make sure the priority is understood loud and clear. Again, I'll make it as clear as I possibly can. If this system results in police officers being taken off the street, it's not worth it. Secondly, if this system does not have the full address capacity for information to patrol police officers, it won't be anywhere near as effective as the government claims, and in both instances we would view that as a repudiation of the promises made by the government.

It is our intention by this brief and in our ongoing discussions to make sure we're not remiss in making sure the government understands how much that's a priority for us.

That's a long answer, sir, to a reasonably short question, but your insights are correct. We think they've been corrected as of this morning.

[Translation]

M. Michel Bellehumeur: But you are still unsure about the commitments the government made to you. If I understand correctly, if the government is unable to fulfil all of the commitments that it made, enforcement of the regulations that we are now examining is jeopardized. The government must fulfil all of its commitments so that we have the most wonderful and best-designed regulations in the world. If we don't have the resources or what is required to enforce such regulations, we won't be able to do the job. This is what it boils down to. The minister must, very clearly and as quickly as possible, reaffirm the commitments made by her predecessor.

• 1105

[English]

Mr. Scott Newark: Yes, I think that's fair. Given the fact that we're talking about policy questions, about a policy commitment in relation to funding, it's not something that you can craft into a statute, but it would be something we would hope... We have it, frankly, in black and white from the minister, which I will carefully file and keep at the top of my file, but we would hope that perhaps when she appears here or in the House, this is confirmed as well.

I can assure you that it is something we will retain a vigilance on in making sure this is not missed somehow, that as we're developing things it's uppermost that this is not going to result in taking police officers off the street and that the system has a search capacity.

For example, we have two members on the users committee and we have to replace somebody on the users committee.

I think I can say in fairness, having seen this, that it's moved up the agenda on our items of things we deal with, precisely because of the implications: one, as a practicality; and two, it's important in relations that you're able to count on people living up to their obligations, which we fully expect will occur, having received this letter from Ms. McLellan.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Thank you. That is all, madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bellehumeur.

Mr. MacKay, you have eight minutes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Newark, I should begin by thanking you both for taking the time out of your busy schedules to be here with us. Could we ask you to perhaps table a copy of that with the committee?

Mr. Scott Newark: Yes, sure. This is the letter received this morning from the minister.

The Chair: To table a document in one language requires unanimous consent.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Have a vote.

The Chair: Is it agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Table it.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Newark, again I want to thank you for the comprehensive brief you supplied on short notice to this committee.

The underlying theme here appears to be concern over resource allocation in terms of borrowing from the current resource allocation to police efforts to combat crime, to perhaps lend to the implementation of this particular legislation. Is this something you are concerned about now or do you foresee this posing problems down the road?

Mr. Scott Newark: We were concerned about it enough during the passage or discussion of Bill C-68 to make it literally a precondition for our support, and we received that from Mr. Rock. I think the letter that has now been tabled in these committee hearings confirms that is and remains the position of the Government of Canada.

You, like Monsieur Bellehumeur, have the correct insight that it's the number one priority item for us in relation to this, literally because although there's obviously a benefit to be gained from this, it was our sense and our membership's very clear sense that it did not justify literally taking police officers off existing operational duties to comply with a regulatory regime that was put in place. Yes, there were benefits, but the only way to deal with that was, inasmuch as it was in effect a new federal policy, that there should be new federal dollars to do it and that it not be downloaded. That remains, without any hesitation, the position of the CPA.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Would it be fair to say that without new dollar allocations the police would be called upon essentially to take officers who are in the field or on the street to assume administrative roles in the implementation of this legislation?

Mr. Scott Newark: It's probably more of a domino effect, but it would require people who were doing some administrative duties to do more administrative duties, which would require other people to go in and fill those duties.

But the causal effect I think is undeniable, and even in as vague a form as what's contained in these regulations about the duties on public agents, I don't think there's any question that there are new administrative duties contemplated. So the short answer to the question is yes, that would be our view.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Newark, knowing your background and your knowledge of the DNA legislation, as well as many issues that affect police and law enforcement in Canada, how do you see the implementation of this particular legislation coupling with the government's initiative and promise to bring about DNA legislation? Is this going to be extremely onerous for police officers and administrators in particular?

• 1110

Mr. Scott Newark: That is difficult to answer. Given what's contemplated here, I have probably more questions than I do answers about what's involved.

You must remember that at the time Bill C-68 was introduced, it was surrounded, if you will, by a host of other federal pieces of legislation: DNA search warrants, high-risk offenders, parole reform in Bill C-45, and Bill C-37 young offender reform. It was really part of a larger package of things that, quite frankly, we felt were a higher priority in public and police officers' safety than Bill C-68. Most of those have been accomplished, maybe not with all the amendments we sought, but that's reality.

One of the major ones outstanding is DNA data banks.

Mr. Peter MacKay: If I could interject, you spoke of priorities, and this may be an unfair question, but from the police perspective and your perspective as a spokesman—and I realize the government is being ambitious in what they're trying to do—is it realistic? Of the two initiatives—DNA legislation and legislation aimed at getting guns off the street—which is going to be more effective in protecting Canadians, and particularly saving lives?

Mr. Scott Newark: Our perspective is not anything new. This is something we said at the very beginning. In fact I once suggested a bumper sticker that said “Register Criminals Before Firearms”. From our perspective, a DNA data bank is far more effective in terms of public safety legislation. However, democracy dictates that the people on this side of the table have been elected as the government and their primary function in many ways is to make those priority choices.

We respect that. That's why we responded to the legislation and didn't just say, “We don't agree with the priorities, so we're not going to comment on the legislation.” There are undeniable public benefits in registration of firearms. Part of our job is to attempt to convince government from time to time that maybe it wants to try our priorities, and sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.

Given the fact that it is government's responsibility to assess and set priorities as it sees fit until maybe the public agrees or doesn't agree, what we try to do is say, “Well, okay, given that's the reality, we still would like you to do DNA data banks, but here's how to make this other system work better.” It's an ongoing process, as I'm sure you know probably a lot better than I do, Mr. MacKay, of a government setting priorities and people like us trying to influence them, but we're still here.

Mr. Peter MacKay: In terms of dollar amounts, we know the projected cost of the gun registration is $85 million. It's probably exceeded that already without even getting into the implementation of it. The monetary cost of implementing DNA data banking, I understand, is substantially less than that.

Mr. Scott Newark: Yes. I've been involved in the discussions on the creation and implementation of the DNA data banking system. It is very much less than even the $85 million.

From our perspective, the value of a DNA data bank system—and this is the thrust of a lot of our legislative recommendations—is that, unlike a firearms registration system, which has really very general application, it's targeted at a select group of individuals who have an identifiable antisocial criminal behaviour, and at using that information to deal with apprehending those people specifically. That really is the value of it.

The reality in our system, certainly in North America and I think around the world, is that a disproportionately large number of offences are committed by a disproportionately small number of offenders. When you start to use some of the tools to get at that group, you get a really significant increase.

During this government's tenure, for example, the rate of detention—that is, keeping the worst offenders in custody for their full sentence—has gone up. The high-risk offender legislation and the restrictions on violent repeat parole grant legislation have all gone up in that way, and it's no accident that the most serious violent crime rate has gone down.

We'd like to suggest that some of the success government has had in targeting that legislation can also be had in DNA data banks. It doesn't take away from the fact there is legitimate public and police officer safety in a general registration system. It's just we view it as our job to attempt to say that in our judgment, you'll get a better bang for the buck, pardon the pun, by doing this.

• 1115

They of course are the elected government and that's the way the system works, as it should.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Pardon my pun, but it targets the criminal, not the broad base. Is that fair to say? So it costs less, it's focused more on criminals and not the average person, and could be implemented in probably a substantially quicker and more effective way than this legislation.

Mr. Scott Newark: That's true, although the registration system was part of a larger package that includes significant improvements in the Criminal Code procedural and penalty sections and cleaning up some of the things. It's probably not fair to take the registration system in isolation. Generally, I must admit—and I'm sure there are people who will disagree—that my sense about what the real end-run value of a registration system will be, apart from the hints you get back knowing where somebody has guns or things like that, is that in the long run it's going to be an identification to people who populate the criminal justice system—police officers, prosecutors, judges, appeal court judges—about how seriously we take firearms and firearm incidents as a people.

Over the course of a generation or so, incidents involving firearms are going to be viewed far more seriously, which I think will produce a much more significant public safety benefit, but that's a pure subjective speculation.

Where I prosecuted I don't think that was the case, frankly, in a lot of ways. It was a gun incident. I think having as a society made the conscious choice to devote the resources and the time and energy and everything else we do to actually registering all the firearms is going to be an indication to people that we take this seriously, as we should.

The Chair: Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Going back to what we're supposed to be talking about this morning, which is these regulations, I wanted to address a couple of points on page 3 of your report with respect to section 17, which creates an offence. Section 17 creates an offence with respect to section 4 with respect to storage, and you object to that.

I take it the point of this regulation is to create an offence for the rogue police officer or the rogue department, which has no real enthusiasm for this legislation. Can you flesh out what your objection is here?

Mr. Scott Newark: I'm not sure I agree that's what it is, but assuming you're right that it is targeted at the rogue police department, you have to understand that a police organization is a paramilitary one, and if someone superior to you in rank says, this is our storage facility, you will use it, I think it's unsustainable that somebody would bear personal liability in effect for following orders and putting the gun into something that management has made the decision about. It's not something they don't want to comply with. There's a difficulty in apportioning personal liability in something for what is in effect a corporate decision.

Mr. John McKay: So the issue is the allocation of the offence to the individual rather than to the department or...

Mr. Scott Newark: Yes.

Mr. John McKay: Okay. So that's the point of your objection.

The next objection you had was with respect to the 30-day reporting period. What is your suggestion in that respect? I assume you're thinking it's a time period that's too short.

Mr. Scott Newark: Yes. This was actually an evolutionary process. You'll notice the second one says that we'll need to seek the insight from such affected agencies, but we wish to make clear that any additional administrative costs... It's something we want to alert people to, that given the nature of the administrative requirements and who it is who has the guns in the first place, if it is such that the 30-day reporting period is viewed as creating too much paperwork and somebody having to complete this, we may end up trying to reserve the right to come back and say you should maybe make it a little bit longer.

We haven't had the opportunity though of dealing with the larger agencies to find out their specific opinions. We're just trying to point out that perhaps when you're asking the questions or when the users committee is making its recommendations, you might want to look at this.

Mr. John McKay: I wonder whether the issue relates to the initial set-up of the system, where there may well be a flood of registrations and then the flood will dissipate into more of a steady stream of registrations.

• 1120

Mr. Scott Newark: Although the timeframe is a rolling one, right?

Mr. John McKay: Yes.

Mr. Scott Newark: Frankly, this is more of a detail, I think. This is not something that one would hold up—

Mr. John McKay: You're not going to go to the wall on this one.

Mr. Scott Newark: I think that's a fair way of putting it. Sometimes I'm not sure where the wall is on some of the other ones.

It is something you want to check, I think, probably with the major metropolitan agencies as well, because they're the ones who are likely going to have this kind of volume requirement.

Mr. John McKay: Presumably your group could report back to us as to whether there are serious objections to this—

Mr. Scott Newark: Yes.

Mr. John McKay: —because we don't want to inadvertently get into this.

My final question is more of a general question. We heard earlier testimony this morning about bootlegging operations of firearms, people selling firearms out of their trunks and things of that nature, and literally no enforcement being done. Apparently this was actually being done in the presence of law enforcement and no enforcement was being done.

How will this legislation assist the law enforcement agencies in reducing bootlegging operations?

Mr. Scott Newark: I can give you just two observations.

The first is in relation to the traffic in stolen firearms too. We actually recommended that there be a specific penalty section about dealing in stolen firearms and smuggled firearms as a reflection of the seriousness of it, and that was passed in the original bill. We certainly view those recommendations positively.

It's reasonably obvious...and I take Mr. Ramsay's point about the accuracy of the information, but it's always easier to prove if you have an identifying number. If you have an identifying number, it's easier to prove that in fact it's possession of stolen property than it is if you have nothing at all and you're sort of going on a generic description.

As I listened to the gentleman's remarks, though, it didn't sound to me that it was a problem in relation to the specifics of the law as much as it was one of will. In that sense—

Mr. John McKay: Intentional defiance of the law.

Mr. Scott Newark: And probably a sense of the authorities not having the will to actually enforce the law itself.

We've commented on that before in relation to the protection of our borders and smuggling, but frankly, it's not something that I'm in a position to be able to give you an intelligent answer about right now. It's not anything that I've personally canvassed.

I don't know if Gerry has anything he wants to add from the user group.

Sgt Gerald Pyke: The smuggling and the stolen property is the main issue there.

Mr. John McKay: We received a fair bit of testimony about potential inaccuracies in the filling out of forms and things of that nature.

You responded quite well in terms of saying that effectively if you're being called in on a domestic you'd at least like to know that there's a gun there. It may not be this barrel or that barrel, or the registration may be off by a number or off by two numbers, but so what? At least you'll know that it's there, which you don't know now.

Are there any other implications for a citizen with respect to inaccuracies in registration that you think could be remedied? What I draw your attention to is the fact that under the Personal Property Security Act in Ontario an error in registration is an extremely serious thing, potentially invalidating security documents based upon that registration.

Are there any other serious or onerous implications with respect to errors other than the potential of misleading police officers in a very small percentage of cases?

Sgt Gerald Pyke: As the user group, we have discussed the issue of the term “knowingly” misleading or “knowingly” putting false information on one of the application forms. By having the term “knowingly” there, it obviously creates the notion of intent. If somebody intentionally misleads, then there is the federal sanction for that, but in terms of it actually impacting in a personal property matter to negate the registration, I'm not aware of that and whether that would be important in terms of the overall registration.

Mr. Scott Newark: It's not like a Torrens Title System, where it creates title by virtue...

Mr. John McKay: That's right.

Mr. Scott Newark: So I'm not sure about that.

Actually there's one of the other preconditions we haven't discussed that we had for our endorsement of the legislation. Originally, the non-compliance with the registration requirements was a strict Criminal Code offence exclusively. Perhaps in light of where you're going with some of these questions, let me tell you that we suggested it should not be, that it should also be under the Firearms Act as a purely regulatory offence. Given that it could easily be regulatory non-compliance, you didn't necessarily want to prosecute somebody under the Criminal Code.

• 1125

Mr. John McKay: So the crown is going to have to prove intent on a registration that is in error.

Mr. Scott Newark: Correct, but the police also retain a discretion as to charging under the regulatory Firearms Act for a violation, or for somebody who has them buried in the backyard and stuff, for example, and there appears to be a clear criminal avoidance with the necessary intent. That was one of the preconditions, and Mr. Rock changed the legislation specifically to accommodate that.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. McKay.

One brief question, Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney: In regard to the firearms identification number, does it matter terribly much to you whether it is visible, as the act requires? Would you be concerned if it's on the receiver or frame somewhere, or do you think the exceptions in the regulations are adequate for your purposes?

Sgt Gerald Pyke: The position that I took as a member of the user group was that in the initial stages of a police investigation it is not important at that point that the police officer be able to identify where the serial number is or where the firearms identification number is. As you progress through the investigation, you will eventually look for that identification, but it is not imperative to the investigation's eventual success that you immediately be able to identify it in a visible way or to the naked eye.

Mr. John Maloney: Is it advantageous to have it, or does it matter?

Sgt Gerald Pyke: It would be advantageous, I believe, only in that you could verify that the serial number or the firearms identification number is that which is contained on the registration form. Otherwise, you may have to remove a part of the grip or the stock or something like that.

Mr. John Maloney: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Maloney.

Ms. Bakopanos, did you have a question?

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Thanks, Madam Chair. I'll be quick.

I just wanted clarification, since I'm not a policewoman. Is it true that the DNA data bank would identify a certain type of criminal element in our society that you are trying...? No? Well, like I said, I'm not a policewoman. Can I finish the question?

A voice: Yes, sorry.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Are we targeting two different groups? You made your point earlier, Mr. Newark, that really it's part of a package in terms of crime prevention for the government. Really, that was the aim and the objective of the government, and there will be other changes to the Criminal Code that come along. The data bank for the DNA is part of it, from what I understand.

What I'm trying to say is that when you're looking at the family violence situation, having DNA is not going to help the police in doing their job. What you really need to know, as one of my colleagues said earlier, is if there's a gun in the home when there is a call put into the police. The patrol officer has to know if there's a gun in that situation. Is the DNA really specific to a certain percentage of the population that you're trying to target in terms of certain situations?

Mr. Scott Newark: Generally, I think the answer would be yes.

The DNA doesn't target specific sorts of types. It's from people who have done things like murder or rape and have left trace evidence behind. It tends to be most useful in the most serious kinds of cases. That's why we've even recommended—and I know we're going off topic—scheduled offences for taking the samples at the time of arrest as opposed to the time of conviction. Otherwise, you leave a terrible hole in the process.

But you're quite correct, and I think it's fair to point out that the firearms legislation provides a benefit that is different from what you get from other pieces of high-risk offender legislation or young offender legislation. Public safety and criminal justice reform is far more complex than just dealing with one specific bill that deals with one specific target, and that's also why. Although it's obviously a subjective assessment, from our perspective, there's a greater public benefit perhaps in doing something else, but that doesn't mean there's not a public benefit in a generic firearms registration system. I would suggest to you—or anybody else, as I have—that it's undeniable that there is, particularly in the kinds of circumstances you're talking about.

It is for government to make its priority choices, and it is also fair to point out that when this particular choice was made, it was surrounded by, and remains surrounded by, other initiatives in other areas. But it's quite true that there is a benefit that comes from a firearms registration system that would never be covered by any of the other laudable initiatives of government.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thanks a lot. We'll rise now, as our next witnesses are ready.

Thank you, Mr. Newark, Mr. Pyke and Mr. Jessop.

• 1130

• 1151

The Chair: Order. Now we have Neil McLeod, who is the property manager for Six Angles Productions Incorporated.

Did I get your title right?

Mr. Neil McLeod (Property Master, Six Angles Productions, Inc.): Well, the position is called “property master”, which means a little more to some people than “manager”.

The Chair: We were to have someone from the Motion Picture Studio Production Technicians—Local 891. Are you representing—

Mr. Neil McLeod: Yes, I'm representing them as well. I'm a member of that organization.

The Chair: Mr. McLeod, thank you for coming, first of all. Secondly, I apologize that we're getting behind ourselves. We're trying to manage the process of writing the report and hearing witnesses at the same time and sometimes these things just don't work. I apologize for the delay in hearing from you.

Please go ahead. Tell us what you have to say. Then I know my colleagues will have questions.

Mr. Neil McLeod: Thank you.

I'm a property master working in the British Columbia film industry. I also work occasionally in Washington state. I've been in the entertainment industry for 28 years. I've worked on full feature motion pictures, movies of the week, television series, full action adventures involving all sorts of firearms. I was a war weapons specialist on Legends of the Fall with Anthony Hopkins and Brad Pitt, which involved—

The Chair: A great movie.

Mr. Neil McLeod: Who said “a great movie” after I said “Anthony Hopkins”? I don't think anyone did.

If you saw it, there was a war sequence in it which involved 750 Canadian soldiers fighting 350 German soldiers, completely outfitted in weapons and regalia of the period.

This is my third appearance before a parliamentary committee considering the regulations to implement Bill C-68. I represent prop masters in the motion picture industry in B.C.; Six Angles productions, which is my own company and which specializes in historical period props and rents firearms to other prop masters and production companies; and I represent myself as a businessman and a family man.

I have grouped my comments in five categories. The first is the overall legislation and regulatory procedure as proposed and the effect it will have on the motion picture industry.

I would like to say first of all that the CFC...we are very fortunate, I think, to have these extremely bright and very energetic people trying to make some sense out of the very difficult language of this very difficult-to-implement bill.

Bill C-68 will have a huge impact on the motion picture industry and the men and women who are responsible for the firearms it uses. This impact, because of the many changes of procedure and costly permits, licensing, and registrations, will mean a large increase in the time and effort spent on paperwork, phone calls to different time zones, production stalls, and slowdowns while the legal interpretation of various requirements of filming is sorted out. We are trying to protect and nurture this growing industry by continuing to be efficient and competitive compared with other locations around the world.

Members of Local 891 of the international motion picture technicians have decided to work as individuals and businesses involved in the movie business to achieve regulatory language that will create the least amount of negative impact possible on this industry.

• 1155

We could have thrown up our hands, shrugged our shoulders, and said to the studios and production companies, both foreign and domestic: “These are Canada's new gun laws. Your industry and investments were not considered when this bill was passed and now you've got to abide by the new rules, whatever they may turn out to be.”

When we reviewed the legislation it struck us that if these companies read this stuff they will panic, leave in droves, and take away all their dough. So we chose to try to work within the legislation to customize it to allow us to continue to work and operate. The best we've been able to achieve so far, according to the proposed regulations, is that what we at this hearing all have in front of us is a system of licensing that subjects all those who handle firearms for movies and theatre and all our families and their families to intense scrutiny, security systems and permits, and the possibility of committing a criminal act out of mere misunderstanding.

It can mean putting antique firearm collections built as future investments into business inventories and parting with expensive investments we are told we are no longer entitled to own. It means several hours of each week will be spent filling out forms, making phone calls, reading numbers and so on, just to perform routine movement of goods. It means annual licence fees that may or may not be recovered because one may not work on a movie involving firearms for two or three years. That's just the nature of our industry. Yet everyone will be required to have a licence just in case he or she gets an opportunity to work on a movie that has certain firearms in it.

Even more shocking is that we have somehow agreed to put our personal lives and those of our spouses and children, our financial histories, our health histories, our professional relationships, and the security of our homes and relationships on the examination table for any enforcer of the public Firearms Act to dissect, record, and share with others, as suits his or her whims.

It strikes us as odd that instead of our government coming to us and saying “Congratulations. You folks have built a $2 billion industry in 15 years. You must be good at what you do. Is there any way we can help you make it greater?”, it appears what our government has done can be put this way: “We've introduced legislation that will change all of your lives and the lives of your families and neighbours and certainly your relationship with us. This is what you have to do to avoid being criminals.”

That's not to say we haven't been consulted. Our letters to Minister Rock before and shortly after the initial act was tabled opened dialogue with Justice prior to the creation of the CFC. They showed a strong interest in our response and our requirements and have worked extremely hard grappling with writing regulations that stay within the definitions of the act and yet reduce the negative impact on our industry. We are all very appreciative of that.

I feel I must stress at this point, however, that the feeling throughout our industry regarding the effect of Bill C-68 is one of disappointment and pessimism about the future. The language of the act is such that it is nearly impossible to predict what regulations will be imposed in the future, and therefore it's disturbing as to how we might deal with unpredictable changes. It is felt that we will be in a time-consuming and expensive process of interpreting new regulations endlessly and trying to adapt to them, when what we really need is government support, not necessarily financial but procedural.

Let me make it clear that we in our industry recognize the responsibility we all have to keep weapons out of the hands of abusers. Our industry has worked for 15 years now in co-operation with our CFOs to develop safety and security procedures that exceed any legislated public standard. We have also implemented safe handling and storage procedures for weapons and insist that anyone who handles any firearm, weapon or dangerous device, including the directors, producers, and their assistants, is familiar with these procedures and follows them.

We are currently producing a video training film in co-operation with members of the justice institute on safe handling and security of firearms. This video will be used in a two-hour instruction course, called level 1, for all personnel on a movie set whose work is affected by guns and gunfire—blank firing only, of course.

• 1200

We will go further by designing a level 2 and a level 3 course, which will provide those men and women in the property department with a choice of how much training they wish to obtain in order to qualify for various levels of licensing. We are included in the list of legal users of firearms and have a very good record of policing and regulating and training ourselves. We face with trepidation, however, the level of regulation and the expense we in this industry and the people of Canada must now undergo to satisfy the language of this act.

I have several comments on some more specific issues.

The replica firearm issue. One of our greatest specific concerns is the replica gun issue. Our industry cannot function without using safe alternatives to real guns. I have discussed this issue at previous hearings and it has been addressed by the CFC.

We feel the regulations are basically workable, except for one key concern. Replicas of various safe materials are manufactured locally; for example, rubber copies of real guns. However, metal replicas and hard plastic replicas are usually imported from overseas manufacturers. I have not found any mention in the regulations about the procedure for importing new replicas.

We recommend that it require certainly no more stringent permits or procedures than an import permit to bring other prohibited items into Canada for motion picture and theatrical use.

Licensing structure and procedures; first, grandfathered handguns. Some of you in the room may recall from statements I've made at two previous appearances before the House and Senate committees that the prohibition of short barrelled and small calibre handguns, referred to as grandfathered and described in subsection 12(6) of the act, is a big problem for our industry. We pointed out that to make these items inaccessible to property masters would have a huge budgetary impact on filming certain projects, and since they are inherently no more dangerous than restricted firearms, possession should be permitted by licence.

In other words, we recommended the creation of a second level of prohibited licensing to address this problem in order that certain property masters could maintain their occupation by choosing to be licensed to possess certain prohibited firearms without needing the technical expertise and paying the extremely high cost of licensing for all prohibited firearms.

Before we reconvened here, I discussed with members of the CFC, Carolyn and Bill... I'll read the confusion that we have about the way the regulations are written, although I understand now that the problems for us have been corrected. However, I'll proceed with this.

I have not had the opportunity to seek clarification—I have had an opportunity now—from the CFC on the following, and perhaps we can do that here and now.

Page 58, section 15 of the October, 1997 proposed regulations does draw a distinction between these short barrelled, small calibre firearms and other prohibited firearms by implying a separate licensing structure. The language, however, appears to say that a $400 licence to supply movies would only allow a business to supply restricted firearms, prohibited devices, and prohibited weapons. Is it intended that this licence not allow the licence holder to be in possession of short barrelled and small calibre handguns?

Furthermore, on page 59, paragraph 15(b), is it not intended to say “prohibited firearms, in addition to”, rather than “other than those” referred to in subsection 12(6) of the act?

Our recommendation was that the division between classes of motion picture licences be done to include grandfathered firearms in the first or lower level licence. I strongly urge you to encourage the inclusion of short barrelled and .25 calibre and .32 calibre handguns in the section 15, page 58, $400 movie and theatre licence.

For a detailed explanation of the effect this particular prohibition will have on our industry, you can refer to page 3 of my brief to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee dated December 6, 1996, where I elaborated on the potential problem of that. If anyone is interested in that, I can give you a copy.

• 1205

In obtaining various licences, what's not clear in the act nor in subsequent regulations are the procedures and requirements for obtaining the various licences. I recognize this as a provincial responsibility to be determined by the CFOs, but I strongly urge the members to ensure, with whatever influence they have throughout the regulatory process, that the provincial requirements should not be so stringent as to force people from their occupations.

It's also extremely important that the notification of these requirements be made in plenty of time before licences are required so as to allow proper preparation. The intention of this legislation surely is not to force people to find other lines of work.

As for the cost of licences, it's strongly felt by the prop masters in B.C. that the section 15 licence of $400 per year is too high. As the regulations stand, the activity and responsibility of these people will not change all that much from what they now do with an FAC and a permit to carry that has no fee. It's felt that $250 would be reasonable.

Consider the activities included in various licences and fees. It's unclear to me from the regulations whether or not every business may need more than one licence to conduct all its activities. For example, does the holder of a motion picture supply licence need an additional licence to sell or manufacture firearms or provide gunsmith services? If so, do they have to pay the additional fees? If this is confusing to others, I urge you to ensure that this is made clear to all concerned.

Consider the limits to future excessive fees. There seem to be no controls built into the act or the regulations that provide for orderly and prudent fee changes in the future. Is there to be any restriction on raising fees to unaffordable levels?

As for registrations, the firearm identification number, FIN, marking system could become a problem for us without some flexibility.

Clearly, other user groups have expressed their opinions regarding historical value and so on. That, of course, is one of our concerns also. The inherent value of antique firearms is a major investment that would be seriously compromised by stamping and sticking an FIN sticker on them.

Sections 2 to 5 on page 5 of the “Guide to Proposed Firearms Regulations” state that this applies only to firearms owned at the time the law comes into effect and the firearm imported for a short time only, and that movie suppliers do not have to mark firearms when they are importing firearms temporarily for a film production.

This does not address a permanent or semi-permanent inventory. We could not consider marking an entire inventory of Plains of Abraham muskets with bar code stickers, laser stickers, or anything else visible on the screen. Nor is it is sensible to stamp a 1999 FIN on the lock, stock, or barrel of an antique weapon.

Our recommendation on this one is for situation-by-situation decisions. If a number of firearms are purchased by a licensed movie supplier who intends to keep them permanently, and in the extremely unlikely event they have no serial numbers, it should be up to the licensee, in consultation with the registrar, to determine how to identify them. There must be some flexibility in this.

Consider all procedures and processing. Due to the nature of the film business, which is budgeted by the number of days a production company or studio determines it needs to complete a project, time and deadlines are always rigid. It's essential for licences, permits, registrations, import/export permits, and so on, to be processed quickly.

The present system in B.C. recognizes our strict time constraints, and it's very efficient. Producers are very worried that with the introduction of a new system that's complex and covers many circumstances with perhaps unclear jurisdictions in many geographical areas, the wheel will grind to a halt and the train will stop.

That would be devastating to the film industry. All it would take is one production shutdown for a couple of days over a processing misunderstanding to send a destructive ripple throughout the business. It's absolutely essential for all parties to co-operate to prevent that from ever happening.

• 1210

Canada Customs, UPS, Canada Post, airlines, prop masters and arms suppliers must all be informed of the same information and taught procedures to prevent shutdowns and yet of course ensure the safety of the public. I urge you to press the CFC for estimates on the time required to process each application for various licences and permits and authorizations. There was discussion of registrations being “instant” at the point of transfer. What about licensing? What about import and export permits?

We all must understand, if these regulations are to be implemented, that they must only become law when all the bugs are worked out and all the systems have been tested and revised, and tested again.

We in the film industry, and Local 891, offer our services once again to do trial runs, testing, import, export—whatever it takes to avoid serious disruption to production.

In looking over all of this material, once again I was struck with some reactions, which I'll describe as personal reactions. As someone who is trying to make all of this work with the rest of my life at the same time, I'd like to make one other statement in closing my presentation, which, I'll reiterate, is a personal one.

The world is not a perfect place. The movie industry tries to show us that. Our literary heritage tries to tell us that. Even our grandparents try to tell us that. There are forces that will take advantage of us, cheat us, lie to us, and put us in physical danger.

When did Canadians lose this link to their own safety and protection? When did the government begin to believe it must take charge because citizens were not? I don't believe I can afford to pay to protect all the people who seem to be unable to protect themselves. This goes for the weather; not wearing a seatbelt; smoking cigarettes; reckless drivers; using drugs; herbal remedies; faith healers; used car salesmen; X-rated web sites; terrorists; and situations that are mentally and physically threatening.

Canada does not have a crisis of gun violence, although this act implies we do. If some of the resources that are being spent regulating the good guys were spent on educating people to look after themselves, there would be a lot more lives saved for a lot less taxpayer money; a lot more bad guys caught and brought to justice; a lot more resources channelled away from computers and into communities; and a lot more self-respect restored.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. McLeod.

Mr. Ramsay, five minutes.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I begin by thanking you, Mr. McLeod, for coming, and by telling you that I agree wholly with your conclusion.

We do not have a firearms crisis in this country. In fact, if you look at the records, we don't even know how many firearms are in this country. We have a rough estimate as a result of a survey, yet at the same time, if we take those figures and divide the number of firearms deaths against the number of firearm owners reported to be in this country, the percentage is small. I think we should try to reduce that if we can, but this is an enormous piece of legislation that I don't think intended to sweep everyone into it the way it has. You're one of those people. You represent one of the industries swept into this.

During the last regulations examination we did, in January and February, we had representation from nine different groups that were going to be negatively impacted economically by the regulations. When I asked the Justice officials if they had conducted an economic impact study into what their bill was going to do, they hadn't. I have to draw the conclusion that they haven't because either they don't know—and certainly they know by now—or don't care enough to do that. When we bring legislation forward and we don't know the economic impact of that legislation upon society, I think someone is irresponsible.

My question to you...and I think I've asked you this question before. Certainly I've asked it of other witnesses who represent groups and organizations that are self-regulated when it comes to the handling of firearms or replicas.

• 1215

You mentioned that you've been around for 15 years.

Mr. Neil McLeod: I've been in the entertainment business for 27 years.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: All right. From your personal experience, has the required handling of firearms, replicas, and that kind of thing by the movie industry created a personal or public safety problem?

Mr. Neil McLeod: I only know of two circumstances. That's not to say there aren't more. I only know of two circumstances that could be interpreted that way.

One, many years ago on a production in B.C. of a Sylvester Stallone project, some guns that had been modified to fire blank ammunition only—so there certainly wasn't a serious threat, but nevertheless—went missing for a period of time. That's one. That would have been in 1981, somewhere in that area.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Were they recovered?

Mr. Neil McLeod: They were recovered, yes. They went missing, not because of negligence, but because somebody knew where they were and worked quite hard to get them. They were locked in a truck in a vault, the way we all do it. Nevertheless, they went missing. I've never heard of another situation where that has happened.

One other circumstance I've heard of, really to do with replica guns, is that an individual working on a movie set as an extra somehow put it in his bag at the end of a call. It was discovered missing. He had taken it home to play with it with his roommate, that sort of thing.

Other than those two circumstances, I know of no situation involving the use of firearms in the movie industry, that I've been involved in, that has resulted in any type of violation of any normal safety principle.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: And in your opinion, to maintain that same high level of safety in the use and handling of firearms by your industry, do you need these regulations?

Mr. Neil McLeod: No.

I'm just thinking it through for a second. I cannot think of anything in this legislation that is going to make it easier for us to be a safer industry that we do not already implement ourselves. There is nothing in this legislation that's going to streamline our industry and thereby make it more efficient and safer. In fact the reverse is true. There are dangers in over-legislating this kind of stuff.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Can you live with these regulations? Can your industry grow and expand using the firearms in movie scenes? Can you do that as a result of these regulations? Can a healthy, growing, prospering industry such as yours do that under this bill and these regulations?

Mr. Neil McLeod: It's a difficult question. Obviously it's law and we have to live with it. There is really no way I can answer that question any other way.

I'm here today because we are trying desperately to make this work so we don't sabotage the entire industry. The reaction from U.S. producers is they're extremely nervous about what this might do. The loss of a day of filming can be over $1 million. The loss of a day of filming because something is tied up in paperwork at the border, here in Ottawa, in Victoria, Calgary, Edmonton, or whatever can be a huge financial problem for the industry.

• 1220

If that ever happens, which I've mentioned in here, the ripple that will go through the swimming pools in Los Angeles will have a devastating effect on the industry, certainly in B.C.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I will follow up on that initial thought.

I also want to thank you for your presentation. Coming from your background—I noted it was extremely professional—there were no theatrics whatsoever, if I could use that word, and it was very well organized.

The overwhelming conclusion that I come to as a result of your presentation is that I agree not only with each and every point you've made but also with your final statement saying that there isn't a crisis in Canada with respect to guns. To put a finer point on it, there is certainly not a crisis in Canada with respect to guns posing any threat within your industry to average citizens or anyone in this country. Is that fair to say?

Mr. Neil McLeod: How would one define “any threat”? If we are responsible people, then I agree with that. But of course whenever these materials are being handled and used and so forth they're inherently dangerous, even though our equipment is modified to be much less dangerous. Most of it does not fire live ammunition, although of course some could.

To answer your question, in my mind, no, it doesn't compromise safety principles in any way.

Mr. Peter MacKay: The reason I put that statement to you in a straightforward fashion is in keeping with your comment that there is nothing in this legislation that you foresee improving safety within your industry.

Mr. Neil McLeod: No.

Mr. Peter MacKay: In fact, the greatest impact of this legislation, these regulations in particular, appears to be a huge financial and regulatory impediment not only to the industry in Canada but also to the possibility of companies from the United States or elsewhere coming and locating in Canada for the purpose of production of motion pictures.

Mr. Neil McLeod: Correct.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay.

The delay I guess is one of your main concerns also. You've stated that simply delaying by a day can have costs of up to $1 million associated with it?

Mr. Neil McLeod: On a large feature film, yes. The standard would be maybe $450,000.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Would it be fair to say that the American film industry is one that would have the most impact in terms of your production in Vancouver?

Mr. Neil McLeod: There are some Japanese productions as well that film here, because it's so difficult to film in Japan because there's no room. They make their action adventure films here.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So the reaction of people from outside of Canada, upon hearing or seeing these regulations, seems to have been very negative and may result in them simply not coming.

Mr. Neil McLeod: It may.

At this point they have confidence in our ability to try to make this work. Several of the proposed regulations and a lot of this work is based on us trying to make this work. So there's a bit of a wait and see. If we go back at some point and if I go back and say, well, this is going to be the reality of this and this one we lost and this one we won, it will then be weighed and it will be business as usual until the first day there's a problem.

Mr. Peter MacKay: You've told us that it's basically a $2 billion industry, and that would be growing, I would suggest.

Mr. Neil McLeod: Yes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: The implication seems to be that, at least on behalf of your involvement, sincere efforts have been made and will continue to be made to comply. Do you get the sense from talking to others within the industry that there may be some non-compliance out there? I'm not suggesting you name them or identify them, but do you get that feeling?

• 1225

Mr. Neil McLeod: Absolutely. Whether or not those are empty threats is hard to say, but it's very difficult to legislate away people's common sense.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Sure.

In further keeping with the good faith you've shown, you've indicated instructional videos have been made by your production company. It would appear, based on the suggestions you have made in terms of how we might make this workable, or at least palatable, some changes could be made, although your preference would be that you be exempted.

Mr. Neil McLeod: Elements of the proposed regulations have made the language of the act in some ways simpler than the way it operates now. Because of the amount of scrutiny and the looking through a microscope at the whole process of providing firearms to the film industry we have made some progress in simplifying some of this stuff. Right now, as we all know, it's pretty scattered across the country. There are different practices in different provinces and all that. I think we welcome that kind of cohesive approach for safety reasons. If everyone is on the same playing field it's a safer environment and we all understand what to do. However, the level of—I hate to use the word “bureaucracy” in this town, but that has—

The Chair: There's a bit of it here.

Mr. Neil McLeod: It's exploding with all of this. It's absolutely exploding, and it's going to explode and we're going to go down with it, I'm convinced of it.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I have a final question on the earlier comments about the impact and how it might affect people in Canada. Do you see a day coming when American film production companies, Brad Pitt, Sylvester Stallone, and others, are simply not going to come to Canada to make films?

Mr. Neil McLeod: Films at that level are primarily location driven. A $60 million feature film has enough money to shoot wherever it wants to. The types of films that come to Canada come primarily because of the location; the wild west vistas or whatever. They are location-driven films. The bonus in Canada for these companies is that their $60 million project may cost only $49 million because they have a complete facility in this country in western Canada, or Toronto or Montreal, for making the movie. The infrastructure is there. All the equipment is there. All the talent is there. All the people are there. It's a real bonus for them.

Nevertheless, the reason those projects are shot here rather than in Czechoslovakia or South Africa or Argentina is they are location driven. All the other projects, the ones that are not location driven, come for the value of the dollar both on the exchange rate, which of course is a major beneficial factor here, and the value of talented crews for that dollar.

So I think the large feature films would be able—I'm giving you an honest answer here, not to say everything else I've said is not honest—to absorb additional costs from the gun control process we're trying to figure out here. The cost impact is really on us, on those of us who are working here and trying to earn a living here and all of that. Our costs are getting to the point where it's almost unworkable. The movies of the week will not come because they won't be able to afford this kind of stuff.

• 1230

The action-adventure television series will shoot someplace else because of the speed at which television series are done. You have a day and a half to accumulate all of this material for a big action adventure sequence, and then it bogs down someplace. There's no episode filmed that week, which means they have to re-run another episode six weeks down the line when they don't have one ready for the network. There almost isn't anything worse than that in the TV industry.

So I don't think the big feature films are nearly as heavily impacted with this as the movies of the week and major television series are.

Mr. Peter MacKay: What about Canadian production?

Mr. Neil McLeod: The cost of Canadian production will also skyrocket if it involves this kind of material, but not in every case.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr. McLeod, you've raised some fairly compelling perspectives here in connection with the motion picture and television production industry. It's a fairly buoyant export for us, I understand, and there's still a bit of growth potential in it. You've certainly raised a caution light here in terms of what we're doing. I think we've succeeded in imposing another layer of regulation on an activity of Canadians, so I want to talk about two parts of it.

First, you've indicated the potential consequences of a mess-up somewhere, as it would or might relate to a particular motion picture. It would create delay and cause the producers or the production company to simply avoid Canada again. There might be a ripple effect. Is there a possibility that a point of contact at the Canadian Firearms Centre could be a point of resolution for things like this? Have you detected a willingness there that might be available to the industry in the future?

Mr. Neil McLeod: Oh, yes, we have detected what I think is a high level of co-operation and a willingness from CFC to sort through what, for us, will be some problems. What we really don't have any idea of is the local and provincial level of decision-making with regard to this. Unless what you're suggesting is that we get on the phone and say, “Carolyn, phone Hank and make this happen; you've got till noon”, I certainly feel comfortable in phoning Carolyn and asking her that question.

Mr. Derek Lee: What I'm suggesting is that there may be a need here in this new bureaucracy for a Miss or Mrs. Fix-It for the motion picture production field. You're not sure it's there, but I'd like to think it is. Only time will tell. You're a professional in the field that you operate in, so I assume you and other colleagues in British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, and down east would want to look for Mr. and Mrs. Fix-It, both provincially and federally. Hopefully, they'll be there. I'd be very disappointed if they weren't. Is that a fair perspective?

Mr. Neil McLeod: I think that's fair. We are used to solving many problems in many different ways, and the reason I'm sitting here right now is that I'm trying to solve this one.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay.

The second part of my inquiry has to do with the level of fees. You've indicated that the level of fees here wouldn't deter a large investment production. Most of the fees here are on an annual or five-year basis at $25, $50, or $100. It costs more for a cab sometimes.

• 1235

You have indicated that the fee structure may be an impediment to the small businesses serving the motion picture industry here. Is that what you said?

Mr. Neil McLeod: Yes.

Mr. Derek Lee: So what about you and your business? Does a $1,000 annual fee impair your ability to carry on business?

Mr. Neil McLeod: Sure. It has to come from some place. I either have to take it out of my hay bill or take it off the grocery table or charge somebody else for it, and obviously I will charge someone else for it.

In my case, because I deal with firearms on a regular basis, I need the licensing that I must have, and I'm personally prepared to make that investment so I can continue to operate.

There are 40 other people in the property department of Local 891 of the motion picture technicians who are on the fence about this. They may do a show involving guns once every three or four years. There are some people who might turn down a show that involves guns because they don't feel comfortable about it. It's those people who are at this point individuals who we are regulating into becoming businesses and who then have to have a business licence, get involved in the taxes, in the GST, yadda, yadda, yadda, and it just escalates from there.

I don't see any impediment to the fact that municipalities will now all of a sudden start looking at 40 independent businesses that once in a 12-month period are all supplying one gun to one movie for the bad guy who comes running out of the elevator. The municipalities will be looking at these people and saying to them that they're businesses so they need a business licence, proper business storage facilities, and an electronic security system. That's all in here.

A lot of these people don't own any of their own equipment, but in order to possess the equipment, to take it from me, for example, or from other suppliers, they will now have to become a business. So of course I'm getting a lot of questions like “why do I have to do this?” and “I don't have to do this now, why do I have to do it then?”

Mr. Derek Lee: So you see these fees and regs reducing competition on the motion picture servicing side. You're going to have people who will drop out and simply not bother to participate or who won't be able to participate in servicing because the fees and the regs are too stringent.

Mr. Neil McLeod: Yes. I wouldn't have put it that way, but now that you mention it that way, yes, certainly. What I see having a greater impact is that it forces an individual to either get out of the industry or become a business.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay. If the fees were cut in half, that would make it a bit more palatable. In your kind of business, as I read the fee structure here, after the initial phase-in period of a year or two you're looking at $500 a year for restricted and non-restricted and $1,250 if you're dealing in a prohibited firearm.

Mr. Neil McLeod: Right.

Mr. Derek Lee: How does that compare to your current fee structure for the FACs and whatever else you have to do now?

Mr. Neil McLeod: I can't remember what I paid the last time. I think I paid $25 for an FAC. The permit that allows me to move what I need to move is free.

Mr. Derek Lee: Yes.

Mr. Neil McLeod: It's a phone call to E Division of the RCMP.

Mr. Derek Lee: But now you're going up to $2,000 a year.

Mr. Neil McLeod: No. It would be $1,250.

Mr. Derek Lee: I'm sorry. It would be $500 plus $1,250.

Mr. Neil McLeod: Apparently we've cleared that one up as well. The $1,250-a-year licence for a movie supplier allows all of the activity we have to do that is covered under other licences. In other words, we manufacture firearms. We do things that could be classified that way. We do gunsmithing services. We sell firearms. We move things in and out of our inventory. I understand that the $1,250 licence would allow us to do all of that.

• 1240

Mr. Derek Lee: It doesn't say that in the fees, but you've had some discussions, then, that lead you to believe that.

Mr. Neil McLeod: Yes, I've been led to believe that's where it's headed.

Mr. Derek Lee: Well, that's somewhat reassuring.

Mr. Neil McLeod: So it's not a combined thing with the $500. Those are two separate licences. One is at one level and one is at a higher level.

What we're saying is we would like to reduce the amount for the lower-level licence, which is really talking here about individuals who are becoming businesses.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Thanks a lot, and thank you, Mr. McLeod. I'm sorry we delayed you, but thanks for your presentation.

Mr. Neil McLeod: Thank you very much for the opportunity.

The Chair: Carrying right along, our next group is from the Métis National Council, with Gerald Morin, president. With him are: Tony Belcourt, president of the Métis Nation of Ontario; Bob Stevenson, the fur representative from the Métis National Council; and Dwayne Roth, who is a lawyer with the Métis and is from Saskatchewan. Welcome.

Who will be presenting? Will you, Mr. Morin?

Mr. Gerald Morin (President, Métis National Council): We all will, I think.

The Chair: Great.

Mr. Gerald Morin: I think most of us will be making opening remarks. I'll start with some very brief remarks.

First of all, I want to thank the committee for once again giving us the opportunity to present our views before you on the gun control issue. We were in front this standing committee before when the Firearms Act was being proposed, and also before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

The first point I would like to make is that in both instances, when we appeared before both standing committees, we did present briefs and make presentations at that time. Our position has not changed; it remains the same. I want to make that very clear. We stand by the positions we advocated the first time around.

The Chair: Let me put you at ease and confirm that we understood that before you arrived, and we accept that submission.

Mr. Gerald Morin: Okay.

There are a couple of points I would like to highlight. I think one of the points made in both presentations was that it is the position of the Métis National Council that the federal government has a constitutional and fiduciary obligation under the Constitution of Canada to consult aboriginal peoples, which would include the Métis, on matters that directly effect the lives of our people and our communities.

We made the point then and we make it again that when it comes to regulating firearms or putting in place a legislative or regulatory regime that could have the impact of our firearms being taken away or people being criminalized or being put in jail, this is something that directly affects the lives of our people. Hunting, trapping, and living off the land is such an integral way of life for Métis people and communities. Of course, the ability to use and possess a firearm is necessary in order for us to pursue that way of life.

We reiterate the position we made at that time, that appearing before the standing committee does not constitute consultations with the Métis National Council on this particular gun control issue and that essentially no consultations have taken place with our people and our communities before the Firearms Act was enacted. Again, there have been no consultations with our people and our communities with respect to these regulations that have been tabled before the House.

So there have been no consultations with our people. Certainly the consent of Métis people in Canada has not been obtained before the Firearms Act and regulations have been put before and enacted by the House. We feel that at some point in the future the federal government is going to go ahead with this legislation and the regulations anyway. What will likely happen, in the context of one of our people being charged under the act or regulations, is that one of our Métis individuals will challenge the act or regulations in the courts. In our view, given our interpretation of the Constitution and the state of law that we feel is correct, the courts in applying the law and the Constitution of Canada will probably rule that the Firearms Act and regulations do not and cannot apply to Métis peoples and communities because they violate the Constitution of Canada.

• 1245

We feel that by virtue of the various provisions under the Constitution, the federal government cannot put in place laws and regulations that directly affect the lives of our people without first consulting with our people and obtaining our consent. That's been confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada, particularly in the Sparrow decision.

As far as we are concerned, this law cannot and will not apply to our peoples and our communities. We are prepared—and Dwayne has done a preliminary review of the regulations, both the most recent set of regulations that have been tabled with the House and those that were tabled in November 1996, I think—to give you some of our thoughts with respect to those regulations. However, I want to make it very clear again that our presentation here today does not constitute consultation. Although we may comment in some way or express our thoughts with respect to the proposed regulations, it does not mean we are compromising or in any way withdrawing our support for the positions that have been advanced by the Métis National Council in previous presentations to this standing committee.

One other point I would like to highlight from our previous presentations is that we again fail to see how the act and the regulations could in any way curtail criminal behaviour throughout the country. The fact that people have to register their firearms and become licensed as firearms owners and the fact that they will have possession of firearms will not in any way, in our view, prevent people from using firearms in the commission of crimes.

Even if there's a suggestion that under this legislative and regulatory regime the state would have the power to prevent certain individuals from owning firearms, we feel that because of this legislation there is going to be a black market in terms of the exchange of firearms, and those individuals, if they so desire, will have access to firearms in terms of pursuing any kind of criminal behaviour on their part. In any event, they have access to other weapons and other tools, such as knives, that they could always use in carrying out their intentions. So we fail to see a connection. We feel it's an expensive, complicated, and unnecessary initiative on the part of the federal government that is not going to accomplish its objective.

The other point we would like to highlight once again is that the reality in our communities, where many Canadians are coming from, particularly those who reside in the urban centres—and there's been a major urbanization process taking place throughout the country, involving our people as well. Many Canadians, and I guess legislators at all levels in Canada—federal, provincial or municipal—simply don't understand the reality our people face in growing up in our communities, whether they be Métis communities, in remote areas of the provinces, or in urban centres.

Many of our people simply don't concern themselves with issues such as the Firearms Act and its regulations. They simply don't know or they don't care.

As highlighted in our previous presentations, we've pointed out the grim social and economic circumstances that many of our people grow up in. The income levels are extremely low. That has been pointed out by statistics. Unemployment levels are very high, and unfortunately the dependency on social assistance by many of our people throughout the country is high. For people to dish out even a small amount of money for licences as gun owners, or to register firearms every time there's a transfer, is something our people simply cannot afford. There are other necessities or priorities in their lives that they need to expend their money on.

• 1250

Living in our communities even today, including many of the urban centres across the country, are people...not only with respect to this law but to many laws, particularly as they pertain to the criminal justice system.

We said before that the chief firearms officer will be administered by the provinces. It will be another layer of bureaucracy added to the existing criminal justice system, which has been demonstrated to be a terrible failure in terms of enforcing and administering laws in Canada. This is simply going to reinforce that. It adds another layer of officials who can oppress our people, who have incredible discretionary powers under the act and the regulations, and who can use a lot of their own subjective opinions as to whether they license gun owners, regulate firearms, revoke licences and so on. It is just going to add another sad legacy to the administration of the criminal justice system when it comes to our people in this country.

The statistics are so basic and they've been there so long that unfortunately it seems a lot of people have come to accept this as a way of life for our people, or something that is legitimate and should be overlooked. When it comes to enforcing this law it will be a tool on the part of the state to put more of our people in jail, to criminalize their behaviour, and harass our people, whether they live in the cities, in our communities, or in remote centres. It is something that simply not only will not apply to our people and communities, but it's something that is just not going to matter to our people. There really is a prevailing attitude out there that our people simply don't care or don't know.

I think it is a really sad and unfortunate thing that the Government of Canada has not taken into serious consideration the views of not only the Métis National Council but those that have been expressed by all other aboriginal leaders at all levels in terms of the Firearms Act and its regulations. It is something that is simply unworkable, and it is not only going to be expensive in terms of maintaining the registration system and the licensing system, but it is going to be expensive again in terms of hiring chief firearms officers, keeping our people in jails, and all of the negative costs not only in financial terms but also in human terms of administering a justice system that has been demonstrated to be unworkable as far as our people and our communities are concerned.

I wanted to make some of those remarks. Again, it is the view of the Métis National Council that this law and its regulations will not apply to our people and our communities. But we feel when it is challenged in the courts and there's a proper application and interpretation of the law, including the Constitution of Canada, that it will be declared to be invalid and of no effect in terms of its enforcement on Métis peoples and communities. At that point it will be unfortunate that the Government of Canada will then have to come to grips with the issue and recognize our rights in some serious fashion, the Constitution of Canada, and the state of law, and in a reactionary fashion it will have to address this issue we have been raising time and time again in various forums.

Those are my opening remarks. I invite my colleagues who are at the table to also make opening remarks if they wish.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Morin.

Mr. Belcourt.

Mr. Tony Belcourt (President, Métis Nation of Ontario): I'm the president of the Métis Nation of Ontario and I represent people who are members of the Métis Nation who live in about 380 different communities of the province. Our people are spread throughout the province. Hunting, fishing, trapping and harvesting issues are of concern to our people no matter where they live, whether it be in Welland, Ontario, or Sarnia, Windsor, Timmins, North Bay, Sault Ste. Marie—anywhere.

We've been organized now in the Métis Nation in Ontario for the past four years as a Métis-specific group. Prior to that we were involved in a lobby organization with non-status Indians. We are the Ontario wing of the Métis Nation. Since 1994 we have been expressing and exercising our rights to hunt and fish for food. This year we announced the Métis harvesting policy, which we provided to the Ministry of Natural Resources.

• 1255

We provide Métis harvester certificates for a couple of reasons. First, we are ensuring that people who carry harvester certificates are indeed entitled to exercise a right as an aboriginal person, because they are Métis. We back this up with our single registry system where people must meet the criteria we have established, which is based on our historic way of defining ourselves as being people of aboriginal ancestry who are not registered as Indians within the meaning of the Indian Act. We ensure that we have proof of aboriginal ancestry on our files. That's one reason for issuing the harvester certificates.

Another reason is to ensure that people who have harvester certificates have knowledge of firearm safety, and also so that our citizens have knowledge of our policies on hunting in so far as it concerns safety or in so far as it concerns hunting on posted private property.

Gerald is right in emphasizing with you that our people basically don't understand or know what's going on as far as the firearms regulations are concerned. We are ill-equipped to be able to provide much information, given the fact that the Métis Nation of Ontario gets a whole $80,000 a year as its operating budget from the Government of Canada.

We have a right to hunt and fish for food. The Supreme Court has said so. The Government of Canada has an obligation according to the Supreme Court to ensure that we have access to our rights. That's just not being done. We totally object to what's going on.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Belcourt.

Mr. Stevenson.

Mr. Bob Stevenson (Métis National Council): Thank you.

I'd like to tell you a bit of a story about myself with respect to all of this that is going on and in support of what both Tony and Gerald have already said. They say that I'm the fur representative with respect to the Métis Nation. I work under that capacity from time to time. However, we're not funded for that.

I originate from up on the Alberta-Northwest Territories border. My father was an Irishman, full-blooded. His grandfather came from Ireland. My mother was Cree. However, my great-grandmother raised me, and I can still speak my Cree language. I didn't know English until I went to school at 8 years old, or whatever it was at the time; I moved from Yellowknife 15 years ago.

I want to share with you some of the experiences I have had over the years with respect to what these people are saying in relation to the government's lack of consultation. I try to keep involved from time to time on these issues if and when consultation occurs, so we can deal with it with our groups in the various provinces and territories. That's where we're sitting right now—saying if and when.

Upon leaving Yellowknife 15 years ago and moving down here...I now live with the Mohawks in Akwesasne. I don't know if they've made a presentation here yet, but they probably will if they haven't. I work for the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne; that's who's paying me today. However, they allow me to go to various meetings like this with respect to recognizing my right as a Métis person and also with respect to trying to work together with everybody. That means I also serve on the fur harvesters committee for the Métis National Council, which we are still trying to set up. We do have some representatives, but again, they're not funded in each province. I also serve on the Assembly of First Nations harvesters committee, through the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne. That too is recognized by the Assembly of First Nations, the Métis National Council, and the Mohawk people, because we deal with issues of not only fur but hunting, trapping, fishing, farming, and gathering.

• 1300

People say we have 50,000 aboriginal trappers in Canada. To me, these people have not even been properly dealt with, with respect to consultation. That's just in the hunting and trapping areas. I phoned the firearms centre to find out where this meeting was and found out there are 190 people working there. I don't know whether it's true or not. One of the staff told me that.

I came here on a last-minute basis.

I get letters. When I first moved here 15 years ago I attempted to set up the Aboriginal Trappers Federation of Canada to deal with all these issues. In 1990, after being funded pitifully by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, which was responsible for the fur issue, the funding for the Aboriginal Trappers Federation of Canada was cut off. The funding was also cut for an organization called Indigenous Survival International, another native organization that could deal with these issues. Both were replaced by a small bureaucracy at Indian and Northern Affairs to look after a so-called fur program. Since then they've been mismanaging that program. However that's another issue we will be dealing with ourselves.

I just wanted to share that with you. That adds to the complications when you're trying to implement something like firearms control and aren't dealing with the people who are heavily involved, such as the hunters and trappers in the far northern communities—people who are poor, as they said.

Basically I would like to see more consultation other than the silly ads that are being put on aboriginal radio stations right now by the firearms people. Just listen to the ad they're airing right now. I would like to get a copy of it. Maybe I'll just have to copy if off the air with a tape recorder or something. They have an ad out there that depicts an aboriginal person coming in from the bush after a great hunt and how he must put his gun away. It sounds like he's a dumb Indian talking to his kid. That's derogatory stuff. I don't like that at all. That's not consultation or implementation. That doesn't encourage people to do what the firearms regulations want them to do in implementing them.

The Chair: Whose ad is it?

Mr. Bob Stevenson: There's a 1-800 number to contact the firearms people in Ottawa, I guess.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Bob Stevenson: It's running in Akwesasne on the radio station. Incidentally, as a committee member for the Assembly of First Nations we had a conference called two days ago. Some of the people in northern Quebec also voiced that concern.

The Chair: Okay, so this is a concern you're generally hearing about this ad.

Mr. Bob Stevenson: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you for telling us about it.

Mr. Bob Stevenson: The point I'm making is that people who've been hired—the 190 of them if that's true—are already going ahead without our consultation and implementing some of these things, such as ads. I think the resources would be better spent if you gave the money to the groups themselves to deal with their own people, as opposed to sending it to a radio station that maybe people don't even listen to. Anyway that's one burr or thorn in my side with respect to what's going on.

The Chair: I think it's a burr in your saddle and a thorn in your side.

Mr. Bob Stevenson: There you go.

The Chair: And a pain in your...

Mr. Bob Stevenson: I used to be a westerner.

That's basically what I'd like to mention. Of course somebody also mentioned there was no economic impact study with respect to the film industry. There's another area we could look into for ourselves. There are a number of things.

• 1305

When you have operations like that, all it leads to is mistrust and lack of a proper working relationship. As aboriginal people we've always tried to share, and all we ever ask for is the same equal treatment, and usually that's not the case. If it's not the case with this, then we're just looking at more trouble down the road, as Gerald said.

Anyway, thank you. I have another meeting I have to go to, a fur meeting with the Department of Indian Affairs across the river there. We'll see how far we can get on that one.

The Chair: I don't know if we can help you with that, Mr. Stevenson, but thank you for your presentation.

Mr. Bob Stevenson: No, but it's part of it, because there are trappers out there.

The Chair: Yes. Thank you.

Mr. Roth.

Mr. Dwayne Roth (Legal Counsel, Métis National Council): Madam Chairperson, committee members, I too would like to thank you for the opportunity to address the group. Unfortunately, being the fourth to speak, we have only one message to bring. I don't know how many times we can keep saying it, so I won't belabour the point.

Basically, the position of the Métis National Council, the Métis people in this country, has not changed. A presentation was made to this group by the Métis people in the past. That position has not changed. The new regulations, effective October 1997, deal with certain specific groups. They don't have a direct, specific impact on the Métis.

However, it should not be discounted that the position of the people the new regulations affect directly is very different from the position the Métis are in. I refer specifically to gun clubs, shooting ranges, gun shows, the film industry, public agents, business, citizens in general. All these people are in somewhat of a different position from that of the Métis, and indeed that of all aboriginal people, in that, as Mr. Morin indicated, aboriginal people have a section 35 constitutionally protected right to continue to hunt and trap and continue their inherent activities. It is the legal position of the Métis in the country that any regulatory scheme that would infringe on that right would be of no force and effect. That is not something the other groups affected by this October 1997 regulation can say. Other aboriginal groups can say that, certainly, and I think they are saying that.

The Métis in this country have always had these inherent rights. However, it has only been recently that the rights have started to be recognized in the courts. I'm a Métis lawyer from Saskatchewan. We do currently have court cases there with the appeal courts to deal with this issue. We won at the lower levels and we're confident we're going to win at the appeal courts. It may go to the Supreme Court of Canada. In Ontario I know the Buckner case of February 1997 basically also says Métis here have a section 35 right to hunt. So clearly the courts are starting to recognize what we've had all along, and that's the inherent right to hunt.

Clearly, if we do have that right, certain consequences come with it, and one of the consequences is that any regulatory scheme that infringes on those rights would be struck down by the courts. I urge this committee to take that into account when they consider the submissions of the Métis in Canada.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. MacKay, I won't put on any time limit. I'll just let you go till I'm not going to let you go any more.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have no doubt you'll let me know.

I want to thank you all for coming. I appreciate very much your being here. I appreciate your remarks.

I would like to pick up where you left off, Mr. Roth, on constitutional challenges. I would suggest it would be very costly to your people continually to have to challenge the law, which you feel has clearly already been stated in your favour. I agree with the comments of your president, Mr. Morin, that the money would certainly be better spent in areas that address the specific social and economic circumstances found in the Métis nation.

• 1310

I just open those remarks up to you as to the use of your money to defend a right that has already been established in this country.

Mr. Dwayne Roth: Certainly I would agree with you that the money would be better spent in actually implementing this process in a useful way rather than in fighting with the Department of Justice, if you will, in the court system to get something we already have. But unfortunately that's the reality of the situation.

I think for a very long time our political leaders have tried to come up with some resolutions that would effectively represent our concerns and be satisfactory to us, but that hasn't happened.

In Saskatchewan, for example, until we actually challenged this process and had our hunting rights recognized, our people were being criminalized for doing what they had an inherent right to do and no political discussions seemed to get around that.

I agree that it would be money better spent to deal with it in other ways, and I believe that's what the Métis would prefer.

Perhaps Mr. Morin could comment on the political aspect of it.

Mr. Gerald Morin: It's money better spent not only in terms of combating social and economic conditions in our communities, but just in terms of the whole intent of the Parliament of Canada to minimize criminal behaviour involving firearms.

There are sections of the act that we don't disagree with, on which we've made our point before we appeared before the standing committee; for example, the restrictions on handguns and prohibited and restricted weapons, the importation and trafficking in weapons, and stiffer penalties to deal with crimes involving firearms. We don't disagree with that and we don't disagree with trying to reduce crime in Canada. We just think that there could be better ways and initiatives that the Government of Canada in partnership with the provinces—which is not the case with many provinces in this proposed act and regulations—could do in terms of combating crime, particularly in the urban centres, and we'd certainly be prepared to be involved in a dialogue as far as that goes.

On the issue of resources, in the Métis community we have very limited financial resources. It's happened throughout the Métis homeland in western Canada, but they've been particularly more active in Saskatchewan in advancing land rights and hunting and fishing rights cases through the courts. We've been fortunate to have people like Dwayne Roth, and we've had people like Clem Chartier, who's a lawyer in Saskatchewan, and Jean Teillet, out of Toronto, Métis lawyers who have been willing to go to the courts and have been paid very little in terms of their fees and reimbursement for their disbursements and so on, who've been willing to take on these cases in the courts because they firmly believe in Métis rights and the points that they're making in the courts.

In Saskatchewan what has happened is we've advanced a number of court cases and Métis organizations such as ours and our provincial affiliates have supported them to some extent financially, given our limited resources. But fund-raising efforts have been undertaken as well, and Métis individuals, non-Métis individuals, organizations, and so on have contributed, so they've been able to offset some of the costs.

So it is very difficult, but somehow we are able to manage in advancing these court cases in the courts when we feel very strongly that our rights are being infringed. Again, I think it will be in the context of one of our individuals being charged under the act and regulations where they will come to Métis organizations and Métis lawyers and say, I am challenging this law and I need your financial and other support. Likely that support will be there, enough support anyway to be able to continue to advance that kind of a challenge in the courts. It's unfortunate that we have to do that, but...

Mr. Peter MacKay: Along those lines and in that vein, can you give this committee any idea, first, of how people in your community have received the knowledge that they're going to have to comply with these regulations?

• 1315

The second part of that question would be, what are your impressions as to how they will comply, or will they comply? You've said that somebody may bring forward the idea of a challenge, but on a more practical level, do you feel there will be widespread compliance?

You're probably aware that Grand Chief Phil Fontaine has already appeared before the committee, and he was asked similar questions, but I'm interested in your perspective. In your communities, on the ground, how are people reacting to this?

Mr. Gerald Morin: Maybe I'll comment on that and I'll ask Dwayne to comment as well.

That's the point I was trying to drive at earlier in terms of the realistic and practical level for our people. Whether they live in places like my home community of Green Lake in northwestern Saskatchewan, which is a traditional Métis community and has a bush economy, where hunting and fishing is important, or whether they live in urban centres like Edmonton or Saskatoon, the blunt reality is a lot of our people are simply not going to comply with the act and the regulations. A lot of our people are unaware of the act and regulations. They're unaware of the entire gun control initiative that the federal government is proposing. This is what I mean when I say our people grow up in a different reality from what other Canadians may grow up in.

For our people, a firearms act and regulations being proposed by the Government of Canada without widespread consultations with our people... They're simply unaware of it, or if there is some awareness of it, they simply don't care. I think they will continue on with their way of life and how they're doing things in terms of handling their firearms without any change now that the Firearms Act and regulations have come into effect.

Particularly what concerns us in the Métis National Council is there is a five-year delay, I believe, in the implementation of the registration or licensing components of the act. When that deadline approaches and when that delay is over, there's certainly a tremendous amount of concern within our communities from the leadership at all levels that there is going to be non-compliance.

The state, the government, is going to have this incredible power to decide whether we can be licensed or register our firearms or whether they should be revoked or permission should be given for them to be transferred. The discretionary powers particularly—and this is where I refer to the chief firearms officer as the criminal justice system and so on—are very subjective, and in spite of the changes that have been made to the act and regulations, are still broad.

The bottom line is, because of all of those factors, there is essentially going to be non-compliance, and it's a scary situation when the state can have the power to take away our firearms or put our people in jails or impose stiff penalties that our people can't afford.

The Government of Canada and Canadian society as a whole are going to have a very major problem on their hands once that deadline arrives.

Dwayne, did you want to comment?

Mr. Dwayne Roth: Yes, briefly.

Certainly I would agree with Mr. Morin's assessment of the situation. I believe that in his last presentation to this committee he indicated what some of the statistics are with respect to the economic position that Métis people—all aboriginal people, but Métis people in particular—are in.

What pops into my mind is what I believe is called Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory, which I took in university. It basically says that people need to deal with their primitive needs first, and then they can get into some of the higher awareness needs and deal with those.

Our people are at the primitive needs rung, if you will. They have to eat. They're trying to survive on a day-to-day basis. They grow up in a different reality. It was mentioned that the cost of regulation is about the same as a cab ride. Well, our people don't even take cab rides; they don't have that kind of money. There are no cabs in some of the communities. It's a totally different reality.

To expect them to know what is entailed in this process, come up with the money to register, and actually go about the process of registering... They have other things to consider—basic survival—that they will try to deal with first.

• 1320

There will be those who certainly will comply—and I'm thinking perhaps in the urban centres—but those aren't the ones we should really be focusing on, because they're not the real bulk of the gun owners. It's the people who still hunt and trap and traditionally use them. They don't have the capacity to understand this entire process, and I think that just through involuntary ignorance, if you will, they won't comply. We're going to be forced into the situation in which a lot of our people are going to be criminalized, and we're going to have to defend them somehow. I think we'll just be challenging it in that respect.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Morin.

I'm just going to see if Mr. Lee has any questions.

Mr. Derek Lee: I think we all appreciate the difficulty of imposing a new system of regulation on an entire country, some of which is urban, some of which is rural, and some of which is what I would describe as—you've used the word “aboriginal”—particular to the aboriginal community. You've indicated that the Métis nation and those who see themselves as part of it are not likely to want to be force-fed or forced to comply with this legislation or the regs, at least until the legal issues are sorted out as to whether or not the Métis nation is constitutionally protected from compliance in some respect.

After that is sorted out, and it will be... Perhaps the courts are the best place to sort it out. Maybe the courts are a good place to start. You have Parliament here; you have the executive of government across the street, where you negotiate in offices; and then you have the courts. After the courts have finished—and that may take a number of years—do you think the Métis nation will buy into the principle and some type of regime of safety for firearms?

Mr. Gerald Morin: Well, first of all, we don't believe the courts are the best place to sort out an issue like this. I guess what we're saying is that we tried to address this issue in a serious fashion with the legislators before the act was enacted. The best place to address these issues is through negotiations amongst the political representatives of governments, including aboriginal governments. Unfortunately, because we've been ignored and the government has once again conducted itself in a particular course of action that is consistent with their traditional approach of non-recognition of Métis people and non-recognition of our rights, we're going to be forced to once again address this issue through the courts. It's not our preferred way of doing business, but we unfortunately have no alternative. We're put into that situation.

You're right, it will take several years before it's sorted out in the courts, particularly at the Supreme Court of Canada level. It will take quite a number of years before we get there, but I think what's really sad is that until that day arrives—and it's a long way away—this regime will have been imposed upon our people without their consent. More of our people are going to come into conflict with the criminal justice system because of this act and these regulations. More of our people are going to be jailed and labelled as criminals and so on, and I think that's very unfortunate.

In terms of safety, we don't really have a problem with measures directed at promoting safety in terms of the use of firearms. Generally speaking, as Métis people, I think we value the safe handling of firearms. Traditionally, we've handled firearms. It's a traditional way of life for our people. We don't have a perfect record, but I think we've been generally quite good in terms of addressing safety issues in our communities.

• 1325

Certainly we would be willing to work in co-operation with federal and provincial and municipal governments. That's why we advocate co-management agreements to try to enhance greater safety in the handling of firearms. We don't object to that. We would support that.

If we could work with other levels of government in a co-operative atmosphere, that's something we'd be prepared to promote in terms of not only safety but also conservation of wildlife resources. I mean, we do believe we have a right to hunt and fish.

Right now the Government of Saskatchewan has changed their policy because of court rulings. We do have the same right to hunt as treaty Indians do in the province of Saskatchewan, which has created quite a public reaction. We've been desirous of getting to the table with the Government of Saskatchewan and negotiating co-management agreements to address conservation and safety, but the government has been unwilling to come to the table.

So, yes, we do support the noble objectives of the legislation on safety and conservation, but we feel that the registration and licensing components of the act are simply going to put our people in a position where they can't comply, and again we'll come into negative conflict with the criminal justice system.

Whether we would at some point in the future agree to a licensing and registration component is open to debate, but the fundamental principles that we advanced in terms of us being aboriginal governments is that we have the inherent right to govern our own affairs. That is a right that's recognized in section 35 of the Constitution. There have to be consultations, and our consent obtained, before any regulatory regime that directly affects the lives of our people could apply. Those principles have to be maintained.

Mr. Tony Belcourt: I want to make a few comments, Mr. Lee.

It really makes me angry to hear a member of Parliament suggest that the best way to deal with the issues confronting a whole people in Canada, one of the aboriginal peoples of Canada, is to put us into the courts rather than to try to work with us to make sure regulations and legislation take us into consideration. It really makes me angry. But it's consistent with the way the government has dealt with Métis peoples ever since the days of the Manitoba Act and the hanging of Riel.

I think it's shameful—this committee is supposed to be a committee of justice and human rights—that such a suggestion would be made. You know full well that the jails are full of our people. A disproportionate number, a hugely disproportionate number, of jails include our people. It's because there has been a systematic criminalization by Canada's laws ever since 1870, ever since there were things done by the Prime Minister and the House of Commons and the new regime in Manitoba to swindle the lands away from our people.

You talk about the cost, Mr. MacKay, in terms of dollars and cents, but it's time we started taking a look at other costs—human costs.

Our national president mentioned the issue raging in Saskatchewan now. Why do you think night hunting came into existence? It was because our people couldn't hunt during the day. That's why you have this kind of problem out there. How many of you people here or the people in Saskatchewan know that in the Métis Nation Wildlife Act in Saskatchewan night hunting is prohibited?

What kind of co-operation do we have between our regime and the Canadian regimes to ensure that we can regulate the way we want to regulate? Do you think we're fools? That we're not concerned about the safety of our own people? We're just as concerned as everyone else.

There's a lesson to be learned from when William McDougall was sent out, and the surveyors were sent out. Riel stopped on the survey change and said, “You go no further”. Well, this country's not going to go any further where our rights are concerned.

• 1330

Gerald said, and I will reinforce it: “We want to have regulation as well.” We require it. Every society does. In fact, we have it within the Métis nation. Historically, we have had our own laws and our own rules. We want to work with the rest of Canadian society to ensure that we are part of it, but we're not.

Our people are fed up. In Ontario our people are exercising their right to hunt and fish for food and they're doing so out in the communities, out in the bush, where we now know how racist some of the people are, the people who have the badges, the ones who come out and will do anything to harass our people, the ones who take their racist attitudes right to our people in the things they're saying out there. You allow this to go on; you know it goes on, and it will continue to go on as long as we're ignored.

Confrontation is on the rise within the Métis nation. We're not going to stand for what's happened to us and what continues to go on. We want to be part of the Canadian establishment. We've always wanted to be part of building a nation in Canada and doing it right, but we've been ignored and it's not going to go on. It's just not. It won't be tolerated.

The Chair: Mr. Lee, did you have something to say?

Mr. Derek Lee: I think I should, and I should be careful that I don't overreact. I don't for a moment accept that it is in any way shameful for me to suggest that a difference in view over the application of the Constitution could be settled in a courtroom. It certainly isn't appropriate to settle it in an office somewhere with bureaucrats. It might be appropriate to settle it in a debate in Parliament if one could conjure up some resolution or law that would adequately deal with the issue at stake.

I have no doubt that there is a ton of sensitivity in the Parliament of Canada to the historic position and role of the Métis nation. I don't doubt that for a minute, and there's a pretty good sense of the historic grievance. That's on the record. I have no doubt that it's there.

But in terms of a forum to try to sort out the actual constitutional ground rules about what Ottawa or a province can legislate in relation to people of the Métis nation, I happen to think that whether you have your lawyers in an office or in a courtroom doesn't make any difference. At some point the right decision is going to get made. Once the ground rules are there it gets a lot easier to deal with all of these personal situations and financial situations.

We're way off on a tangent here. I just felt that I couldn't not react, and I must say that if dialogue is going to continue there's going to have to be a whole lot of mutual respect for the past and the present.

Mr. Tony Belcourt: If I could just comment on this—

The Chair: Go ahead. I just think you might be talking at odds. I know Mr. Lee very well and I'm confident that he wasn't suggesting court conflict in a criminal sense. I think he was simply talking about a reference to the court on constitutional issues. That was all he was talking about. He wasn't talking about arresting a group and throwing them in jail, and I kind of took that from your comments. If that was what you took from what Mr. Lee said, I think it was misplaced.

• 1335

Mr. Tony Belcourt: No, I think I heard Mr. Lee clearly. He was talking about constitutional issues and whether or not we do have certain rights, and I disagree that the courts are the place to solve these.

The Chair: And he's of the view that the system...

Mr. Tony Belcourt: But if I might, Madam Chair...

We had a resolution to the rights of Métis in the Charlottetown constitutional round. We had the Métis Nation Accord. Every government in Canada, every house of legislation in Canada, approved it. We had negotiated what was to be the recognition of our rights.

Justice delayed is justice denied. We've been denied justice on our land rights because we can't come to the table. There is no table for us to come to on land claims. So we have to resort to the courts.

The Manitoba Métis Federation took ten years to get to the Supreme Court of Canada; just to get the right to be in court. It took ten years.

You're suggesting we move these things through the courts. You know how long it takes to get things through the courts. Why do you want to go to the courts to try to get them to bring a resolution to what we have already been able to come to the table to discuss in a reasonable and very thorough way?

We have the royal commission on aboriginal people, which has commissioned endless reports that substantiate what our rights are.

Parliament can act. Your party, the Liberal Party of Canada, says it believes in and will implement the inherent right of self-government. Yet it does something like this, totally ignoring us.

I get very frustrated and very angry when I know how much we've fought for justice over generations and generations and generations. To be told to go to the courts is just... I'm sorry, Mr. Lee. I took it as a slap in the face.

The Chair: I don't think Mr. Lee meant it that way.

Mr. MacKay, I understand you have to depart. Is that correct?

Mr. Peter MacKay: I don't want to delay this discussion. Again, I want to thank all of you for coming. It has been very enlightening.

Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. MacKay is our social convenor.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Not at all. The last thing I want to do is hold up any of these discussions. I've been an advocate of open discussion here all along. I wish we had another two weeks to hear from groups.

The Chair: With that, I excuse you and we have to rise.

These things don't fall on deaf ears here. We do hear you. Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.