EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, May 8, 1995

.1605

[English]

The Chair: I'd like to call the meeting to order. We will continue our examination of Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons.

For this meeting we have a panel made up of the New Brunswick Firearms Alliance, represented by Morell Sisk, vice-president, and Edmund Casey, vice-president; and from the Responsible Firearms Owners of Nova Scotia we have Brian Densmore, co-chair, and Tony Rodgers, co-chair. As with other panels before this committee, I will call the two groups in the order in which they're on the notice; that is, New Brunswick first and Nova Scotia second.

You can read your brief into the record. We try to have the opening statements limited to15 minutes. If you can read the brief in 15 minutes, that's fine. We'll proceed to questioning after the two briefs are read into the record or you make your opening remarks.

This meeting is scheduled to last until 6 p.m. I have to remind members that at approximately 6:30 p.m. there are going to be three votes. We'll be back here at 7:30 p.m.

I call on the New Brunswick Firearms Alliance first, either Mr. Sisk or Mr. Casey.

[Translation]

Mr. Morel Sisk (Vice-President, New Brunswick Firearms Alliance):On this day, we are commemorating the 50th anniversary of the triumph of democracy in Europe over an oppressive regime founded on basic principles which oddly enough, bare a close resemblance to those in Bill C-68.

[English]

Lest we forget, let us have a moment of silence for the thousands of Canadians who gave their lives for the preservation of our freedom and democracy.

The Chair: Excuse me. I'm standing up as well but I'm calling.... We had a moment of silence in the House of Commons on this occasion, and we have limited time today. I fully respect what you're trying to do, but I don't know whether it's in order before this committee. Parliament has already done this. We delayed the opening of Parliament today until 2 p.m. in order to attend the ceremonies that took place. So while I fully respect what you're trying to do, I think we should get on with the meeting.

Mr. Edmund Casey (Vice-President, New Brunswick Firearms Alliance): Bill C-68 involves the criminalization of Canadian firearms owners. Canadians will have fewer rights than defined in the Constitution.

.1610

The broad powers given to police by Bill C-68 essentially eliminate a person's right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Furthermore, apparently the government views firearms owners as criminals, since they will be included in the Canadian Police information computer used for tracking criminals.

[Translation]

Mr. Sisk: Canada has some of the toughest gun control laws in place and yet it continues to be soft on criminals while imposing at the same time tighter restrictions on the rights and freedoms of the Canadian public.

[English]

Mr. Casey: This introduction is just that, an introduction to our presentation. The presentation is before you. We will summarize what is in the presentation. We believe that will take less time.

[Translation]

Mr. Sisk: The law governing firearms and their owners changes so quickly that it is virtually impossible for a person to find his way through this legal jungle without knowing for certain whether any laws are being broken.

[English]

Mr. Casey: The New Brunswick Firearms Alliance does not believe it is the obligation of Canadian citizens to satisfy the government that they have some legitimate need for wanting to own and use any type of property before they receive permission to do so, especially when the evidence of any benefit is at best dubious.

Without the proof of a non-partisan investigation, Bill C-68 is simply a challenge against our right to own and use personal property.

Mr. Sisk: The government is deceptive in grossly minimizing the cost of registration. Furthermore, there is no consideration or accounting for the financial impact on the sporting community or revenues lost to provinces dependent upon hunting, firearm-related activities and associated tourism. What is particularly disturbing about Bill C-68 is the open-ended, vaguely defined expenditures of public funds in light of Canada's current fiscal reality.

Mr. Casey: Bill C-68 contains significant legislative precedents that will change the entire character of Canadian life as defined by the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Some of these include the confiscation of private property without compensation. Delaying the confiscation until the owner's death does not change the fact that it is confiscation. It contains sweeping powers for police search and seizure of private property. The burden of proof on the accused is another problem. The owner or prospective owner is required to prove his need. The continued expansion of government power through regulation and Order in Council constitutes an erosion of the democratic process.

Mr. Sisk: The government's irrational approach to Bill C-68 is demonstrated by the Auditor General's report in 1993, which criticizes the consideration of new firearm regulations without examining the benefits of the current law. The very vague and ambiguous nature of Bill C-68 will subject it to costly legal challenges. Only a small percentage of legitimately owned firearms are ever used in violent crime. Bill C-68 allows the government to invalidate shooting sports and subsequently state that there exists no reason to own the associated firearms.

Mr. Casey: The government's insistence on pushing Bill C-68 through Parliament by whatever means it takes is a miscarriage of Canadian democratic process. The public is not being informed by the justice minister of existing legislation controlling firearms, nor is he telling the public about the real nature of Bill C-68. The public is told that Bill C-68 is necessary for public safety, yet the justice minister continues to demonstrate that he is soft in other ways on criminals.

The blatant attitude of being above the law is prevalent in Bill C-68 since many aspects contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Constituent representation has been suppressed by the government to a point where Liberal MPs have been sanctioned for voting on behalf of their constituents.

Mr. Sisk: Bill C-68 is not about public safety. It is about abusing the legislative process to implement the theft of private property without the scrutiny of Parliament in order to gratify the personal agenda of the justice minister.

.1615

The New Brunswick Firearms Alliance has no vision of living in this kind of Canada. Consequently, we demand a complete review of the Canadian firearms control system in the form of a non-partisan royal commission. Only when such a comprehensive study is completed and analysed will Canada be in a position to make more firearm laws.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. Is that your presentation for the moment?

Mr. Sisk: Yes.

The Chair: I'll call on either Mr. Densmore or Mr. Rodgers to give the presentation for the Nova Scotia group.

Mr. Tony Rodgers (Co-Chair, Responsible Firearms Owners of Nova Scotia): Thank you very much.

First of all, we'd like to thank the citizens of Canada for helping us financially to attend this committee meeting. Secondly, we would like to thank the committee itself for the opportunity to make this presentation.

It was just over a year ago that Minister of Justice Allan Rock started to make statements in the media that indicated he was pushing for more gun control in Canada. At that time, statements were attributed to him such as that the police and military should be the only people to possess guns in Canada and that firearms should be removed from all cities and stored in armouries.

Although these statements have since been withdrawn, they alerted the law-abiding firearm owners of Canada that more trouble was on the way. We must thank Mr. Rock for this wake-up call. Many of us believed that the existing legislation, Bill C-17, as bad as it was and accepted by the gun community, although grudgingly, would remain around for a while. We did not expect any more interference with our legal firearms activities, especially after Bill C-17 was only in existence for one and a half years.

What this wake-up call produced was a strong unity within the firearms community of Nova Scotia and, as we learned later, in the whole of Canada. A firearms community will never be reactive again, but rather a proactive group with strong communications in this country.

The Responsible Firearms Owners of Nova Scotia organization represents 100,000 hunters in the province as well as gun owners, target shooters and farmers. It also is supported by 52 hunting and fishing clubs and 60 shooting clubs. Over the past year, these people have demonstrated their resolve to fight this legislation to its end, using whatever legal means available to them.

We have the support of the firearms community of Nova Scotia to tell this committee that the federal government's proposal to pass Bill C-68 into legislation should be halted right in its tracks without any further waste of taxpayers' money. We have been asked to tell you to please oblige the Auditor General of Canada and honour, through whatever process is necessary, his request to audit and determine if and how crime of any type in Canada has been reduced by former legislation such as Bill C-17, former registration of handguns, which has been in existence since 1935, and of long guns at dealers since 1976.

This is not the place to be dealing with statistics, especially statistics manufactured with misleading questions by those who want more legislation to help meet their needs to abolish firearms in Canada. We are sure those statistics have been made available to you.

Gun owners of Nova Scotia have attended 13 well publicized gun rallies in the province and a number of smaller townhall-type meetings to encourage the exchange of ideas and learn more about the impact Bill C-68 will have on them, their firearms and their future ability to own guns legally.

These rallies have been simply outstanding in the number of people who have been attracted to them. In a province of less than a million people, where one in every five over the age of fifteen hunt, we guess it's not really a big surprise at the large turnouts. At the smallest rally, held in the tiny rural community of Elmsdale, 225 people attended. To balance that, when the Hon. Lloyd Axworthy crossed Canada to discuss the changes in Canada's social safety net, fewer than 60 people showed up in the city of Halifax. This must speak volumes to you of the concern that this issue has developed.

There have been no anti-gun or pro-gun legislation rallies in our province, to our knowledge, and we don't expect to see any. This surely must demonstrate a lack of support for this new law. In order to hold a debate at Dalhousie University on the gun control proposal, the organizers had to go to Montreal to bring in proponents of the legislation, because according to the organizers, there wasn't anyone locally who had the desire to debate this issue. On the other hand, there was no shortage of people willing to defend our present gun laws and what we have in existence today.

Our Responsible Firearms Owners of Nova Scotia coalition was very surprised at the Prime Minister's lack of involvement publicly in this issue. He has appeared to stay at arm's length in this debate. Many Nova Scotians voted for that Prime Minister and his representatives in the past, and we are surprised at his lack of concern to this electorate. It should be no surprise to anyone that the gun-owning voters of this province have turned against his government. It appears to be his lack of foresight on the gun issue that is going to be his downfall, or at least the downfall of Liberal MPs from Nova Scotia.

.1620

The Prime Minister still has the opportunity to save face for his government and keep the promise contained in the Liberal Party's red book, but he must work quickly with this committee and the justice minister to find a solution grounded in common sense and not one being pushed by a small vocal minority. Mr. Rock isn't thinking about central armouries any more; he has changed his mind. He and the Prime Minister can also change their minds on gun registration.

The Canadian justice system today has all the tools this country's police, courts and justice department need to curb the use of firearms by the criminal element in the country. Although our organization can support parts of Bill C-68 that deal with the increased penalties for persons using firearms for the named list of ten serious crimes, the tightening up of our border to the illegal flow of guns into Canada, and the use of replicas in the commission of a crime, on further examination we really don't need them.

The Criminal Code of Canada already has the punishments to impose on people who use guns in the commission of crimes. They should be imposed on criminals in a manner that respects public safety by having less or no plea bargaining by lawyers and the courts. Let's use these penalties as a deterrent to the illegal use of guns and have them mean something to those who broke the law and those who want to break the law. Why would a criminal want to take a knife to rob a store when he knows he would never be punished any extra for the use of the gun?

The Customs and Excise Act contains all the elements to control the illegal flow of firearms into the country, but has it ever been used?

We now have a great deal of difficulty in controlling the flow of illegal cigarettes, alcohol and drugs into Canada. The problem seems to be that we are willing to waste the country's financial resources on the production of a new bureaucratic firearms act instead of putting more resources into the hands of the customs officials in order to help them do their jobs. This would be a much wiser use of our tax dollars and one that I'm sure will show results.

While we're on the subject of tax dollars, the firearms community of Nova Scotia would like to ask the government to consider taking all this new money they have found available for a gun registration system and put it into the hands of community groups that deal with the social and economic problems that seem to be the catalyst of any gun problems that we do have. Drug and alcohol programs and job creation programs are needed more than a central firearms registration system that cannot be proven to reduce crime.

During an interview with Hana Gartner on CBC TV, April 25, 1995, Mr. Rock said: ``We don't have as much money as I'd like for social programs or crime control''. Why then is Mr. Rock insisting on spending money we don't have on a system that will do little to benefit Canadians? Use this money to help give Canadians at risk their dignity back and some hope. Then you'll see a decline in the crime in this country.

In reality, according to Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics material released in August 1994, of all the violent crime committed in Canada, only 6% of those violent crimes involved firearms. We ask again, please review your priorities.

Bill C-68 itself, even to a layman, stinks of reverse onus by making a person whose application is turned down responsible for proving that he or she should not have been turned down. This amounts to guilty until proven innocent. It is the bureaucrat who rejected the application who should be made to prove why the government acted against the gun owner. Clause 112 in this bill, which exempts the minister from consulting Parliament when he or she wants to impose further restrictions on the law-abiding gun owners of this country, is absolutely ridiculous and undemocratic.

Please take this message back to your colleagues of all political stripes. If Canadians are forced to accept this bad and unnecessary law, they should not be surprised by acts of civil disobedience that will occur. This is a statement our organization has heard many times from the ordinary gun owners from the many corners of Nova Scotia, from the grassroots gun owner. They will not comply with the new gun registration law. We, the Responsible Firearms Owners of Nova Scotia, have not promoted civil disobedience on this issue. It is already in the hearts and minds of these citizens.

Also, when people observe that one bad law can be passed and promoted by government, then they suspect other laws - even good laws - as to whether they should be obeyed. The question could be asked, have all previous laws been as unfair as Bill C-68?

.1625

The time has now come to question the bureaucrats of the justice department and what their hidden agenda may be as they move from Kim Campbell to Allan Rock to whoever is next. We are still hoping to wake up from this bad dream and find the government has found some sanity in this bill.

Our members wish good luck to all members of Parliament who choose to vote for this legislation in the next election, because they are going to need it. They will have let down the very people who supported them and there will be no surprises. It is vital to hunters and target shooters to remember many important things about their activity - safety rules, details about their equipment and so on. These important memory skills will be very important at election time.

As Nova Scotians, members of the Responsible Firearms Owners remain concerned with the current levels of crime in our society, notwithstanding the steady decrease over the last decade. The federal government must continue to reduce crime in Canada.

The Responsible Firearms Owners of Nova Scotia are opposed to any further control on the private ownership and possession of firearms now legally held or which may be legally acquired in the future by Canadians.

We are opposed to any further gun control measures that are advanced as a solution to suicide. There is no logical connection between the public availability of firearms and the incidence of suicide. The current provisions of safe storage standards in federal regulations may reduce the use of firearms in suicides, yet will do nothing to reduce the number of suicides in Canada.

Our provincial coalition is opposed to further additions to the list of firearms considered restricted or prohibited in Canada. These firearms have legitimate sporting and collecting purposes by all Canadians who are now legally allowed to own or acquire them.

Also, we oppose any further controls on the sale and possession of ammunition. Legal firearms owners are adequately controlled through the provisions of the firearms section of the Criminal Code. Further controls on ammunition are unnecessary, would not reduce criminal use of firearms, and would not increase public safety.

In closing, I would like to quote from an article written by Nova Scotia Senator Donald Oliver, in which he speaks about this gun control legislation:

The government has put forward this gun control legislation and must show why it is necessary. It has the burden of proof.

Please work with the Auditor General of Canada to make sure this is the right path we're on.

Thank you for your kind attention.

The Chair: Thank you.

We will follow the usual procedure, which is ten minutes for each of the three political parties, and then we will exchange with five-minute rounds from the government side to the opposition side.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne, you have ten minutes.

Mrs. Venne (Saint-Hubert): My first question is directed to the New Brunswick representatives. When did you first form a coalition or alliance with other similar groups?

[English]

Mr. Casey: November 26 was the beginning of this foundation. It began on November 26, 1994.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Regarding your mandate...

Mr. Sisk: I also have to say that some members of the New Brunswick Alliance are part of the Canadian Olympic shooting club...

Mrs. Venne: I'm aware of that.

Mr. Sisk: ...and of many other organizations that have been around for a number of years.

Mrs. Venne: You said that your association was first set up in November of 1994. Is that correct? You indicated in your information sheet that your association has a mandate to establish some lines of communication between individuals and groups interested in firearms-related activities, including recreational activities.

Another aspect of your mandate is to lobby the federal and provincial governments to reject Bill C-68. Once your mandate expires - one day we will complete our study of Bill C-68 and pass it - what will you do then? Will your alliance fold, will it continue to oppose the legislation or will it simply advise members of their duties and obligations under the law?

.1630

Mr. Sisk: If the bill becomes law, we will in due time certainly advise our members as to the risk associated with violating Canada's Criminal Code.

If the bill is adopted, the New Brunswick Firearms Alliance will continue to voice its opposition to firearms legislation and to call for the elimination of Bill C-68.

Mrs. Venne: My second question is for the Nova Scotia representative.

On page 2 of your brief, you state the following: "This is not the place to be dealing with statistics, especially the statistics manufactured with misleading questions by those who want more legislation to help them meet their need to abolish all firearms in Canada." You also state that these statistics have been made available to you.

What exactly do you mean by this statement which I find totally confusing?

[English]

Mr. Rodgers: What we mean by that is that as we have watched the process of the debate on the gun control issue since a year ago April, there's been a lot of grossly misleading information that's come from groups that are proponents of this bill. I don't have that information with me now, but I have kept a separate file in my office in Halifax. It is based on questions implying that Canadians are in favour of more gun control. If you were to ask me if I am in favour of gun control, I'm going to tell you, yes, I am in favour of gun control; we have gun control now and it's legislation we can live with.

But the figures being handed out by the people who are proposing to push this bill along have been asking the same question, going back and saying to the Canadian public that we're looking for more gun control, and that is not true. I heard Gary Mauser's name used a few times today and I'm not embarrassed about using it again. In Mr. Mauser's survey he was challenging questions in it to identify the information level held by the person being asked the question. It's only reasonable that if they knew something about the law then they'd be able to comment a little better on it.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Are you saying that your statistics are better than ours?

[English]

Mr. Rodgers: I'm saying that figures supplied by the justice department are more accurate than some of the figures that have been released by groups who propose to push this bill along, yes. The only figures we have used -

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: I would like to turn my time remaining over to Mr. de Savoye.

The Chair: You still have four minutes.

Mr. de Savoye (Portneuf): My comment is directed to the Nova Scotia representatives. I noted in your brief that your members "wish good luck to all the members of Parliament who choose to vote for this legislation because they are going to need it. They will have let down the very people who supported them."

You also state the following: "If Canadians are forced to accept this bad and unnecessary law, they should not be surprised by acts of civil disobedience that may result."

To some extent, your comments are similar to letters that I have received from constituents. I'm tempted to say that one must be desperately short of valid arguments if one has to resort to this approach.

If I was convinced that I had to vote a certain way, even if it cost me an election victory, my sense of honour would prevail and I would vote according to my convictions. I could not be influenced by someone who believed otherwise. I'm trying to take the fundamental elements of your submission which are likely to enlighten rather than influence me.

.1635

I would appreciate your commenting further on the following statement you made in your submission: "Bill C-68 itself stinks of reverse onus by making a person whose gun application is turned down responsible for proving that he or she should not have been turned down."

When a person applies for a driver's licence, his application may be rejected because he does not have the skills required to drive a automobile safely. Is that person considered guilty? Absolutely not. He is not allowed to drive because he does not have the necessary skills. The issue is not guilt, but rather ability.

Could you shed some light on this statement for my benefit? Why have you brought in the question of guilt? I'm interested in what you have to say, Mr. Rodgers.

[English]

Mr. Rodgers: If the registrar of firearms decides that for whatever reason I should not have permission to buy a firearm, he doesn't have to tell me what that reason is, but it's up to me, from that point on, to hire a lawyer and start fighting him to try to get this registration certificate that I want for myself. It wasn't a matter of my doing anything.

We had a situation in Halifax, more recently - it was in Lower Sackville, which is just outside the city of Halifax. A lady went in and wanted to purchase a firearm. Whatever was happening on that particular day, the RCMP officer didn't like her attitude. It wasn't a matter.... She is a firearms owner and she was purchasing a new firearm. He didn't like her attitude. That lady ended up going to court in order to purchase that gun. That's the sort of power this bill will have, and I don't think it's fair.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: If you take a driver's test and, for one reason or another, the examiner feels you have failed to perform the manoeuvres properly, he will not pass you. If you want to contest the examiner's decision, you will have to follow certain procedures. Are you talking about guilt or merely about opposition expressed in the normal course of events?

[English]

Mr. Rodgers: I think it's the opposition within the process itself. I'm sorry, I shouldn't be taking the mike away from my colleague here. There's a great deal of information on that side of it.

It just seems that of all the laws we've been able to develop in this country, of all the experience we've had in developing laws, to take this document and look through it...again, this reverse onus on the person to prove their need or their right is inherently wrong. We have more experience in that to write better laws.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: I should point out, Mr. Rodgers, that in accordance with subclause 70(2) of the bill, it says that where the firearms officer has refused to issue a permit, ``A notice given under subsection (1) must include the reasons for the decision and be accompanied by a copy of sections 72 to 79.''

Mr. Rodgers: I appreciate your pointing that out to me.

Mr. Thompson (Wild Rose): Thank you for your presentation.

Do you gentlemen have quite a few women who belong to your organizations? Are they involved in your organizations?

Mr. Brian Densmore (Co-Chair, Responsible Firearms Owners of Nova Scotia): In Nova Scotia there are, sir, yes.

Mr. Thompson: And in New Brunswick?

Mr. Casey: As well in New Brunswick, yes.

Mr. Thompson: One of the biggest concerns I'm getting from the people in my riding is with regard to clause 110. This was brought to my attention by a group of people who studied it. I was aware of it, but they were really stressing some concern about section 110, where it says the Governor in Council may make regulations. We're talking about Orders in Council, a selected few, the Governor in Council.

.1640

Then you look at page 45 and page 46 and page 47 and page 48, and this goes on and on and on - what this little group of individuals can do once this legislation comes in - respecting the establishment and operation of shooting clubs and shooting ranges, the activities that may be carried on at these places, the possession and use of firearms at these places.

It goes on to talk about the operation of gun shows - they can make decisions regarding that - and the activities that can be carried on at gun shows. There is a whole list of things. They can create offences consisting of contraventions of regulations made under paragraphs (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (l), (m), (n) - they can do that.

Also, even though they keep indicating this is a one-time fee and nothing will ever happen, they have a clause in here that says this person, this governor, or this council can prescribe the fees that are to be paid to Her Majesty in right of Canada for licences, registration certificates, authorizations, approvals of transfers, and on that goes. So there obviously isn't a lid on what this is going to cost, not with something of that nature written.

When you look at this kind of legislation...I would like to ask you gentlemen something. I've been involved to some degree of participation in some trap shooting and target shooting types of clubs, and I can see absolutely no justification to attack these kinds of organizations or to protect, as we say, Canadians from harm and danger from the use of firearms from gun shows, trap shooting, all these things.

You people have been involved in this and you have groups that are. How many occasions have you seen in your provinces where that is a serious problem for the safety of the people of this country?

Mr. Casey: To my personal knowledge, there are none. I haven't seen any occasions where it's a serious threat to anybody, including the participants or anybody else who would be involved or could be involved.

Mr. Densmore: Mr. Thompson, in Nova Scotia there has never been an accident caused by a firearm at any of the shooting ranges. I attend a great many gun shows. There has never been a firearm accident at any gun show. These things are running along very well; we do not need more controls on them.

Mr. Thompson: So to your knowledge, there has never been any justification or any statistical proof that this kind of stuff is needed in order to protect the Canadians from these activities.

Mr. Densmore: Absolutely not.

Mr. Thompson: This goes on even in more depth when as the document continues to talk about Orders in Council. Now, this is the frightening thing to the people who talk to me about this - the whole section of Orders in Council. Then they refer to being guilty and you must prove you are innocent. Then they talk about seizure without warrants, and then they talk about how you don't have the right to remain silent. I even heard it mentioned that the right to remain silent was to prevent people from torturing you into confessing - that's the reason we have that on the books. Yet this takes that right away.

There are a number of things of that nature. When they sum it all up, they simply say this whole document is totally undemocratic; it represents legislation that infringes on the civil liberties this country was established on. That's loud and clear.

Now, I've heard from other provinces. Do the opinions of your membership in the province of Nova Scotia and the province of New Brunswick reflect the same opinions that I've been hearing?

Mr. Sisk: Yes, that's quite right. I'd like to take the opportunity to point something out, using the hon. member's example of the automobile licence. If you fail to pass your automobile driver's licence and/or fail to register the automobile, you will not have it confiscated and you will not go to jail under the Criminal Code of Canada.

Mr. Rodgers: We're hearing the same thing, Mr. Thompson. If you look at this bill, there is something that's interesting. Take one statement here, and I hope it's not taking it out of context.

.1645

What's happened here is that the law-abiding gun owner in Canada has become the latest victim of violence. We are the victims of violence because it's violence in this country that has led us to this new legislation. At least that's what we're told. It's supposed to be a crime-fighting thing, but it is not going to reduce crime because we haven't been able to prove past legislation has done so. It's made victims out of us because we're going to have to pay with our wallets.

If we should make the slightest mistake in the registration of a firearm in the future or forget to have a card with us when we're carrying a particular firearm, we're going to get dinged and we don't understand why. That's why there are a lot of people upset, because it hasn't been properly explained. You can't even get a copy of this. My MP couldn't get me one. I am serious. Each MP had about five copies, I'm told, and if you wanted to get this in Nova Scotia, it was going to cost you $15 to get a copy.

Now, that's not getting the information out to the general public on this particular legislation and it's bothersome, really bothersome, when you want to impose a piece of law on citizens and then you can't provide them with the information. We don't have the resources to go photocopying a 112-page document to get it out to 100,000 people. We don't have those resources, but yet the Canadian public is expected to accept this.

We talked about Nova Scotia in particular. We have eleven members of Parliament. Three of them are in urban settings and the other eight in the rural ridings. Those rural ridings have been rocking, really rocking with discontent over this. The civil disobedience thing - people are just saying ``I've been a responsible gun owner since I came back from the war. I'm not going to do this. This is not right because they can't tell me why we're doing it in the first place.''

Mr. Thompson: I think it's important to hear what you feel as much as anything else.

There are 124 pages to this document and I am also having a difficult time getting it into the hands of the requests I have, although through various measures I've managed to get about 300 of these distributed. I did find that once some people who chose not to form an opinion came back and did form an opinion, which very much goes along with what you have said today, after they read it. I do think there needs to be an ample amount of time to get this message out regarding the document, and I think the government will agree; they have reasons to do it as well. They want to make sure people understand it from their point of view. For some reason, it's limited. I guess it's lack of money.

I just want to cover one other thing with you. With regard to the businesses you talked about - I'm not sure which one I read it in, your submission or maybe both. Just expand on that a little bit. How are the businesses affected in the areas you were referring to? You didn't speak to it very long, so I would like to hear a little bit of an elaboration on that.

Mr. Sisk: Inasmuch as retailers are concerned, I guess in New Brunswick we didn't have an overabundance of firearm retailers to start with, but I know of at least two who have already gone out of business and probably Ed knows of some more. It is definitely a trend where the business has fallen off to a point where these people can no longer make a living.

Furthermore, we have had correspondence from the United States advising our tourism minister that in view of the restrictive process they would have to go through, they would not be renewing their hunt in New Brunswick this year. Without even being passed, it has already started to have its impact.

.1650

Mr. Densmore: Mr. Thompson, in 1992-93 in Nova Scotia there were 252 firearms dealers. In the past year since the first inkling of Bill C-68, before people knew what it contained, 86 dealers cancelled their licences in the province of Nova Scotia, part of it through economic reasons but not a lot of it. People were not spending their money on firearms because they were afraid, they didn't know what this contained and they couldn't find out. So the average man on the street was not spending on firearms, and the dealership closed down for financial reasons. They couldn't keep going.

I'm a small firearms dealer myself. So far this month I've not had one sale. My own particular business was quite a nice little business. Bill C-68 has practically destroyed it. I know many, many dealers in the province and they're all telling me the same thing, that this bill is destroying the business they've built up.

Mr. Rodgers: There's another element here. It's the reliance of some people in the province of Nova Scotia on jobs as guides during the hunting season, to bring in part of their annual income. The threat by the American hunters not to come up to Canada and spend their dollars here is going to have a negative impact on them.

There's another thing too. Nova Scotia generates about $30 million during the hunting season in our province. We don't have too many $30 million industries in Nova Scotia, but this one's going to hurt as time goes on, as we lose.

You heard earlier today from other presenters about young people coming into the shooting fraternity and becoming interested in these activities. It's not this year or next, but 10 or 20 years down the road the province of Nova Scotia is going to lose that ability. As a matter of fact, there's going to be a reverse of it too because you're going to see wildlife controlled by paid hunters. There are other impacts that have yet to be seen, although it doesn't take much of a guess that when the average age of the hunter in the province is 45 we're not getting a lot of young people into our activities, and that's serious.

The Chair: Before I go to Mr. Gallaway, I want to clarify one of the answers you gaveMr. Thompson. In his opening question he asked if you had quite a few women in your organizations. You answered yes. Could you both tell us how many women there are out of the total membership in your organizations, New Brunswick...?

Mr. Casey: I don't have those statistics.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Sisk: Could I just give you an appreciation? You understand that we're an alliance, so many of our clubs' and organizations' make-up is through organizations like the New Brunswick Wildlife Federation, who represent some 40 clubs. It is common in New Brunswick, and especially in the northern part of the province, which is the Acadian area, to have family memberships where men and women are full-time participating members. In that number we're probably representing in the vicinity of 10,000 people. That's about the only handle I can provide today.

The Chair: Is 10,000 people the total membership?

Mr. Sisk: Yes.

The Chair: What about Nova Scotia? Do you have any idea?

Mr. Rodgers: Our figures, as Morell just alluded to, are made up from a number of larger organizations, the Nova Scotia Wildlife Federation being one of them. Their membership alone is 7,000. With the gun clubs and that, I think we'd be in about the 10,000 range as well. As for the female participation in the Nova Scotia Wildlife Federation, it's roughly 10% of their membership.

Mr. Casey: For clarification purposes, I believe Mr. Sisk was referring to only the wildlife membership; there are a lot more groups in our particular thing.

Mr. Sisk: In our organization we have the Canadian Olympic Shooting Team, the New Brunswick Police Marksman Association, the Royal New Brunswick Rifle Association, Atlantic Trap & Skeet, New Brunswick Outfitters, New Brunswick Trappers Association, Concerned Citizens for Responsible Firearms Ownership, International Practical Shooting Confederation - New Brunswick, New Brunswick Waterfowl, New Brunswick Wildlife Association, and we also have a number of local hunting and fishing clubs that are not members of those organizations.

Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): I believe Mr. Casey and/or Mr. Sisk referred to a hidden agenda somewhere in this place. Could you expand very briefly on what that hidden agenda involves?

.1655

Mr. Casey: As a personal opinion, it seems to us that this law is very far-reaching, and as we've heard in the earlier presentations, there have been promises that it will not disturb hunters, firearms collectors, target shooters and the like. Logic following from that would mean those things would not have to be addressed, I think, and they are addressed to the extent of clause 110 to no end. If the government has no intention of doing those kinds of things, it seems mention of those powers leads us to believe that there is more there than meets the eye. Clause 110 allows all kinds of changes to be made to the law, from my understanding, at any time.

Mr. Gallaway: You also made the point that the tools the police need already exist. Last week we had the police before this committee. Now, the police didn't talk about any hidden agenda. We had the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. The Canadian Police Association suggested some amendments to this act but did endorse the concept of registration, subject to some amendments. Why do you think the police disagree with your assumption that the tools they need already exist?

Mr. Casey: I believe the level of police you're talking with are representatives at a higher level and tend to be somewhat political in nature, and not the grassroots level that we see. Our opinions are formed from talking to everyday people who have their hands on these things. Some of the policemen I have talked to - and I assume they don't want me to mention their names - say that these things that are addressed here aren't the problem in Canada, that there are other things they could do more efficiently to make that happen.

Now, they didn't make particular suggestions on this. One in particular, when I went to my local registrar to register a gun, mentioned the fact that the gun was .32 calibre and that maybe sometime in the near future that wouldn't be allowed any more. Well, it happened to be an international Olympic-style gun, so I didn't have too many reservations about it, except for the fact that I know I would have a hard time to sell them and get any value out of them now, being threatened as they are.

I guess the point is that it seems to us if you need all these powers, how we can be sure they're not going to be abused?

In the light of the other situation, the second question you asked, I believe that, as I said, you're talking to high-level people who see this from a perspective that's not at the ground level. I don't believe the ground-level people see it exactly the same way, and I would suggest that probably the thing we need to do in that respect is to go and do a complete anonymous poll of all the police people in this country, or a representative poll of all the police people in this country, with a question that's agreeable to both our side of this question and your side of this question.

Mr. Gallaway: The Canadian Police Association, when they were here...they're not representing the chiefs; they're representing the rank and file, the front-line workers, the people you're referring to. The representative of that group took great pains to explain to us how in March here in Ottawa they had a resolution passed that effectively, with some amendments proposed, endorsed this concept of registration. Also, the representative described to us in great detail how this is a grassroots organization, it represents grassroots officers, that it was publicized that this would be discussed, that it would be voted on, that in fact there was some dissent, but 80% - I believe it was - approved it.

I wonder, then, how you can tell me.... We're hearing from people such as you who have talked to people who disagree, and add on the fact that they are police officers, but we're finding this introduction of anecdotal evidence - I know someone who disagrees with it; he's a police officer; therefore, all police officers disagree with it. Yet we had the representatives of the group here and they made it abundantly clear that, yes, there were those within their ranks who did not agree with it, but that in fact the Canadian Police Association is a very democratic organization and the majority of the police officers in fact are endorsing this concept. How do you reconcile that with what you're saying, then?

.1700

Mr. Casey: They may be endorsing the concept on the basis that, yes, if we had fewer firearms in this country we might have fewer firearms that could potentially kill us. I believe that's the overview they're taking. I don't think they'd examined the bill, because I don't think there have been enough copies around for those people to see what is in the bill.

They have a basic fear, of course, of being injured by firearms...because from day to day they deal with potentially violent situations. So I think they're making a general supposition. I don't think it's a well-educated supposition.

Mr. Gallaway: Then you're saying that the police are not sufficiently informed?

Mr. Casey: It doesn't seem.... I believe Mr. Thompson or Mr. Ramsay referred to how many copies of the bill he could round up, and it wasn't -

Mr. Gallaway: Once again we're being anecdotal. In general terms, are you telling me that the police are not sufficiently informed? Mr. Thompson and Mr. Ramsay are suggesting that they didn't have enough copies. But we're dealing with people who deal with the law. Are you telling me that they are not sufficiently informed?

Mr. Sisk: Sir, excuse me, I'd like to interject here.

I apologize, but I really don't know exactly what the Police Association representatives said their reasons were for supporting the bill. Perhaps you could point out one or two items and that would give us a chance to direct an answer toward your questions.

Mr. Gallaway: I'm asking specific questions about why you feel the police are supporting this. You're telling me that they're misinformed - at least that seems to be the conclusion I'm reaching. I want to know why you feel that way.

Mr. Sisk: I'm really not sure why. I don't know what they said, so I'm sorry. If you told me what they said, I might be able to answer.

Mr. Gallaway: I'm not here to reiterate what people -

Mr. Casey: This is personal information. What I've seen when I talk to people - and this is only people on the street.... I've talked directly to a police chief in a small community, I've talked to my local handgun registrar, and I've talked to a policeman from another community who has firearms interests in this case. They have big fears about this. They've told me this stuff. I haven't taken major polls or anything like that, but all the people I've talked to about this, who would talk to me about it, expressed those concerns - but off the record. They specifically said ``off the record''. One in particular told me that it would relate to his ability to keep his job should he support my side of the question.

Mr. Gallaway: You suggested that there be an anonymous poll of police officers?

Mr. Casey: I don't have all the answers, but that strikes me as one possibility.

Mr. Gallaway: Are you then suggesting to us that the endorsement of the representatives of the police officers who were here last week is in some way misleading? Or are we telling the messenger to go away and come back with another answer? Which way is it?

Mr. Casey: I don't think it's either of those two. I just express reservations about it.

Mr. Gallaway: All right.

You also talked about the reverse onus - I'm sorry I don't remember which one - and about the whole idea that this is in some way an abrogation of civil rights, if I can put it in that basic term. Are you aware of the provisions of the Criminal Code that apply if I'm stopped by the police who suspect that I have been drinking, that if I fail to take a breathalyser I'm guilty of a criminal offence?

Mr. Rodgers: Yes.

Mr. Gallaway: Do you find that provision in any way analogous to this one?

Mr. Rodgers: The fact that if I don't have my registration certificate at the same time I'm going to end up in jail under the new firearms act.

Mr. Gallaway: And if you fail to take a breathalyser, you could end up in jail too.

Mr. Rodgers: Exactly.

Mr. Gallaway: Are you aware of the spot checks that are operated at certain times of the year in this country where, as an innocent law-abiding driver, I am stopped? Do you find that an inconvenience?

Mr. Rodgers: No, I don't think so.

Mr. Gallaway: Do you think that's an abrogation of our civil rights, whatever they might be?

Mr. Rodgers: I've never viewed it from that point.

Mr. Gallaway: I just want to deal with this whole question of civil rights or this notion of civil rights that's been put forward here - and you're not the first to do it. Are you aware that civil rights groups in this country, those groups that are vitally interested in the laws in general - I'm not talking about gun laws, but laws in general - have not spoken out against this bill? I don't presume to speak for them, but apparently they have not registered any objection to this legislation, that they do not see the registration of a gun as some sort of abrogation of yours or my civil rights.

.1705

Mr. Rodgers: Perhaps it's their investigation. Have they bothered to get into the bill and investigate it? As an example, I could be asleep in my bed after registration and at three o'clock in the morning a knock comes on the door and a police officer says ``Look, we had an incident a street over from you. There was a .22 calibre rifle involved. We know you have one. We have it on registry and we want to see it.'' I think that would be an invasion of my civil rights, yes. If that's where we're leading to, I don't want to see it.

The Chair: Before I go to Mr. de Savoye, I want to clarify something that was raised, gentlemen. When you suggest that perhaps we should take a private poll of police officers to find out what they really think, don't you understand if we are to be fair...somebody might suggest we take a secret poll of your members, of all the gun owners in New Brunswick and all the gun owners in Nova Scotia because we can't trust what you're saying here today. You're coming here representing New Brunswick gun owners and Nova Scotia gun owners, and if we took the same approach, we'd say we can't really believe you. We are going to have a poll of all the people who own guns. Of course, we can't do that.

It would apply to all the people who come here. They come here in organizations representing Canadian health associations, policemen, police boards. We ask them questions - how many members do you have and so on and do you charge a membership fee? We accept what they say. When you say the gun owners of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick believe that, probably the majority do. I also believe the police.

If we were to be fair and if we were to do what you said, we'd have to do the same thing across the board.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Thank you. When mention was made of conducting a survey, you spoke of "our side and your side of this question".

I want you to know that I don't feel that I have taken sides in this issue. A large part of my riding is rural and I have a number of reservations about this bill. You realize that the Bloc Québécois intends to move all the amendments it deems necessary in order to achieve the bill's objectives which are to reduce violence, accidents, death and crime. I think everyone would agree in principle with these objectives.

Moreover, what I need is information, not assumption. I have some questions for you concerning the conclusion of the submission by the New Brunswick Firearms Alliance.

[English]

You say:

Bill C-68 is not about public safety, that is why the government has been employing the deception cited above. The true rationale of the legislation is to remove legally owned firearms from Canadian firearm owners and collectors via the following.

1) Registration - to determine the location of all firearms so they can be confiscated;

2) Deeming shooting sports illegitimate and therefore limiting the reasons for owning a firearm;

3) Administrative hurdles and taxes/fees to discourage firearm ownership and to reduce participation in recreational shooting activities.

Those, gentlemen, are your conclusions. Where is the evidence I can use to forge myself an opinion? I am listening to you.

.1710

[Translation]

Mr. Sisk: The first article describes exactly what we say will happen. Someone registered a prohibited weapon. January 1, 1995 came and went and the following February 10, some members of the RCMP knocked on this person's door to ask for the firearm in question. However, as the person was not at home, the RCMP asked his 17-year-old daughter to go and get the gun, in particular the stock which bears the serial number. By law, the serial number must appear on the stock. All other parts are extra and can be mounted on other firearms.

After this part was turned over to them, the RCMP demanded all of the other parts. They even threatened to turn the young girl out of the house, in minus 10 degree Celsius weather, and to seize the house and its contents until all parts of the gun were turned over. This type of action is already being taken. This is only one example and I'm sure there are others. However, this is the only documented case we have.

Mr. de Savoye: I let you tell the story because it wasn't clear that everyone had read the article. I had and those watching us on television probably understand what we are talking about. You were wise to summarize it.

I have two questions for you. Firstly, why was the firearm considered illegal? Secondly, what did the owner use this firearm for?

Mr. Sisk: I'm only assuming, but the owner was a collector. The gun was not a prohibited weapon when he first acquired it. Consequently...

Mr. de Savoye: Is it now a prohibited weapon?

Mr. Sisk: I'm not certain. It was a...

Mr. de Savoye: A gun, a military weapon?

Mr. Sisk: It fell into the category of a military weapon because of the shape of the stock.

Mr. de Savoye: Why didn't this person comply with the law?

Mr. Sisk: He did comply with it when he purchased the firearm. He further complied with it when he registered the weapon at the appropriate time. It wasn't until later that the gun was seized.

Why stress this incident? Because what we feared would happen is already happening. There are other examples, but I have no clear information about them at the present time. However, these cases have been challenged in our courts.

Mr. de Savoye: Could you eventually let the committee know what type of weapon was involved? I would appreciate that.

The Chairman: Your time is up. Would the witness care to respond?

[English]

Ms Torsney (Burlington): Are there any members of the boards of your organizations who are practical hunters or practical shooters?

Mr. Sisk: Yes.

Ms Torsney: Are you a practical shooter?

Mr. Sisk: I'm both, a shooter and a hunter.

A witness: Hunter only.

Ms Torsney: Hunter only, practical shooter?

Mr. Densmore: Yes, I'm a target shooter.

Mr. Casey: What are you describing as a practical shooter?

Ms Torsney: You know, practical shooters are the people who teach civilians how to shoot defensively, where life-like targets or shapes of people come shooting out.

Witnesses: Oh, no, none of us.

Mr. Casey: No, if that's what you mean by practical shooter -

Ms Torsney: Well, there's an organization, the International Practical Shooting Confederation.

Mr. Rodgers: They should be invited to speak.

Ms Torsney: They are going to be invited to speak, Mr. Rodgers. Are you a member of that organization?

Mr. Rodgers: No, I'm not.

Ms Torsney: Is Mr. Densmore?

Mr. Densmore: No, ma'am, I'm not.

Ms Torsney: Are members of your executive in that organization?

Mr. Casey: No.

Mr. Rodgers: No, none of ours.

.1715

Ms Torsney: To the New Brunswick people, I wonder if you are aware that over half the gun-related homicides are committed with hunting rifles and shotguns in the province of New Brunswick. Are you aware of that?

Mr. Casey: I have heard statistics to that effect.

Ms Torsney: In New Brunswick you have a firearm death rate that is 40% above the national average, and it has three times as many fatal accidents as the national average. Are you aware of that?

Mr. Sisk: Yes, and I would like to point out, too, while you're talking about those statistics, that we are the province that has the highest registration per capita in hunting licences. Last year we had 130,000 hunting licences issued with...how many thousand non-residents?

Mr. Casey: I don't have the figures right here.

Mr. Sisk: Several thousand non-resident licences as well, which would increase the number of firearms.

Ms Torsney: In your brief, you identify that the registration of hunting rifles and shotguns at Canada's borders will put clients and outfitters in a position where their firearms could be confiscated and disposed of should they fail to stop at the Canadian customs on their way home. Now, I assume that means Americans who come up to hunt in Canada and fail to check in at the border on their way out of Canada. Do you believe the RCMP would come down into the United States and seize their guns? Is that what you were saying?

Mr. Sisk: Not exactly. If they inadvertently did not check into customs to return the documentation that was issued to them, then they would be guilty of illegal exportation of firearms and on their return would run into problems.

Ms Torsney: Oh, on their return to Canada. So if they can't follow the rules, the next time they come into the country there would be penalties.

Mr. Sisk: Right.

Ms Torsney: You raise a number of issues. Mr. Sisk, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you said you have no plans to live in Canada if this is the way the legislation goes.

Mr. Sisk: I said that the New Brunswick Firearms Alliance had no vision of living in a Canada that is described by laws that permit the confiscation of private property - theft of private property is what I said.

Ms Torsney: Thank you for that clarification.

To you, Mr. Rogers, are you aware that it is the red book on which we campaigned? Actually, you must be because you mention it in your brief. Are you aware of the section called ``Safe Homes, Safe Streets'', where we actually mentioned gun control in that brief?

Mr. Rodgers: Yes.

Ms Torsney: Do you think we should implement the parts of the red book that you like or just the parts that we promised in the red book?

Mr. Rodgers: I think you should implement the parts of Bill C-68 that address crime and drop the registration part.

Ms Torsney: So only the part that you like.

Mr. Rodgers: Yes, if you would like to phrase it that way, sure.

Ms Torsney: Well, I campaigned on the red book and we'll be implementing pretty well everything in there, if I have my way.

You mentioned also in your brief that there is unity amongst the firearms community. I found that interesting because in fact in my community many of the firearms owners who are hunters in fact would like handguns banned and the handgun owners have a different perspective. How do you identify that difference with your community?

Mr. Rodgers: For one, the responsible firearms owners in June 1994, the hunting groups as well as the target shooting groups, were invited to participate, and at that particular time, when the organization was formed, all of the elements that were in Nova Scotia, whether pistol target shooters, hunters, trap and skeet, whatever the case may be, were all in the room at the same time and there was a consensus that any attack on any part of the firearms community in Nova Scotia would be an attack on all of us. So it wasn't a matter of -

Ms Torsney: I just have one final question to you; it's really quick.

The Chair: Very quick, like Mr. Thompson's short question.

Ms Torsney: You identified that you wanted the Auditor General to comment before we move any further. I just ask you, does Parliament set the policy in this country or does the Auditor General?

Mr. Rodgers: Parliament does.

Ms Torsney: Thank you.

Mr. Rodgers: If you are not going to listen to recommendations coming from the gentleman who's paid to try to keep some control on the purse strings of the country, then you might as well give it to his office -

Ms Torsney: No, I never said we were not going to listen.

The Chair: No debates.

Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): I think you're very much aware of the feelings of the people around this table about the National Firearms Association in the United States and the concern from Canadians that we will become like America, that all we're doing is responding to a gun lobby group. Yet you said a very interesting thing, Mr. Rodgers. You said that the gun community, for the most part, were reactive, that they only got concerned about gun issues when the government imposed legislation. Your comment was that the gun community was no longer going to be reactive, but proactive.

.1720

Are you telling me this piece of legislation is placing Canada in the same position the United States is in, that instead of leaving the gun community to be reactive and to go about their business without lobbying together, this bill has done precisely the opposite and has got the gun community organized, lobbying and becoming, in their terminology, more like the NFA down in the United States?

Mr. Rodgers: Yes, I think it's the National Rifle Association that you're thinking of - the NRA. What happened in Nova Scotia was kind of a surprise to me because I come from the wildlife side of it. I was surprised to find out that the shooting clubs within the province were not organized under a provincial banner of any sort. I thought they had been. So when we came to Truro to meet and form our organization, that was a surprise to me.

What has happened as we've moved along over the past year and had our meetings is that it was decided that if we don't form an organization and keep the glue together forever, every four years we're going to be going through this again. Bill C-17 is a year and a half old, and bang, we're back in with Bill C-68. I'm predicting right now that in another four years, regardless of how this bill goes through, there will be more gun control legislation, because it seems to be a bandwagon to ride on between elections. We've been going through this for a long time.

I'm sorry, but I have to go back to the Auditor General. He's still saying why don't you have a look at what you did; was it any good? Did it work? You're right; in Nova Scotia alone - I don't want to pretend to speak for any other province - there's going to be a gun community there that's going to be visible and that's going to stay together.

Ms Meredith: Did you want to respond as well?

Mr. Sisk: I just wanted to add that in our hand-out there is a block diagram that describes graphically very well what we have to do today to purchase a firearm.

The Chair: I thought that was for Quebec.

Mr. Sisk: No, it's for Canada as well. It happened that it was developed by Taylor Buckner, an associate professor of sociology at Concordia University, and he included Quebec. Each province has a little different twist on the way the paper flows. In general, that's what you have to do in Canada to purchase a firearm.

Ms Meredith: Another point I'd like to bring up is the concept you raised about coming down on the criminal use of firearms. I know the registration is very much a concern of your community because it touches you. Did you have any opportunity of looking at part III in this particular piece of legislation and how it will impact on the criminal use of firearms that we have? Do you feel it goes far enough? Do you feel that a minimum four-year sentence for the ten most serious crimes is adequate? Do you feel that some re-conviction for criminal use of firearms is adequate?

Mr. Sisk: Absolutely not. Over and above that, and I may stand to be corrected here, I did not see anything in this bill regarding the plea bargaining of firearm charges, guilty pleas on lesser offences. One of the things we understood would be in this crime bill was the removal of that section of law that allows for plea bargaining. It's clear as well in recent court cases where penalties for firearm offences have been appallingly low.

Ms Meredith: Just to clarify, if plea bargaining is not written in, it's because they cannot prove that what was used was a firearm, and this piece of legislation doesn't change that. They will still have the same problem of having to prove that what in fact was used was a firearm or...what they've added here is a replica. That problem still does exist.

Mr. Rodgers: Nothing's going to mean a hill of beans until the judiciary start imposing the penalties upon the people who are breaking the law. Under the Criminal Code of Canada, what is it, one to fourteen years for the use of a gun in the commission of an indictable offence? Just throw out the names of all the people who have that sentence imposed upon them. It doesn't happen.

.1725

We have seen the silliest things in Nova Scotia lately. This was in the paper, and it's just appalling. A fellow got into a fight with his friend and the fight escalated to the point where the guy went to get his shotgun. He smashed the fellow in the face with the butt end of the gun and was subsequently charged by the RCMP. He received a $1,000 fine for the assault, and the judge saw it fitting to give him a $1 fine for the use of the gun in the commission of that crime. And he had threatened to kill the guy with the gun. Now, where's the deterrent? Why shouldn't I take my gun to the fight now? I'm going to get a $1 fine.

Ms Meredith: Okay. The other thing I would like to bring up is the total disregard. Mr. Densmore, you mentioned the impact it was having on your business as a gun dealer. What I hear from various members of the House of Commons is that they want to remove guns from the community, and if it means removing the businesses that provide those guns, there doesn't seem to be any regard for the fact that they are small businesses, that they do contribute, whether they agree with the commodity of exchange or not.

There seems to be a total disregard in the attitude of some members of committee and this House that if they're going to handle this legislation in this manner in order to get guns off the street, it means that small businesses are going to be hurt and individuals are going to lose the fair compensation for their property when it is made prohibited.

Mr. Densmore: I made a presentation to the Halifax Canada Council last week. Unfortunately, I didn't bring the figures with me, but my wife and I went over my books. As I said, my business was small, but it was growing. In 1992, 1993 and 1994, I think I spent a total of $12,700-odd dollars in our community on accounting, advertising, that type of thing. I spent most of it right there. This year, I'll be lucky to spend $12. So far this month there has not been a sale. My business has been destroyed by this, as have various others in the province.

The provincial government, in this case, is losing that tax base and the GST, of course. It is going to hurt by taking away my contribution in tax dollars to this country.

Ms Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): Could you tell me how much it is going to cost, with this new bill, to register your gun?

Mr. Sisk: I have no idea.

A witness: We have no idea.

Mr. Casey: Yes, a document we have in our possession projects it is going to cost $15 for a non-restricted firearm and $60 for a restricted. Evidence points to the fact -

Ms Phinney: Who wrote that document?

Mr. Casey: Mr. Rock, I believe.

Ms Phinney: When?

Mr. Casey: I guess it was presented to the committee. I have it here somewhere. I can find it.

Ms Phinney: Mr. Densmore, Mr. Rodgers, do you know what it's going to cost to register your gun?

Mr. Rodgers: No, ma'am, I haven't been told yet.

Ms Phinney: Do you know how often they will have to register their guns?

Mr. Rodgers: We're going to be at five-year increments, but -

Ms Phinney: Registering guns. Do you think it's going to be five years?

Mr. Densmore: Yes.

Mr. Sisk: We don't really know, but the way the legislation is written, it is obviously going to be a repetitive process because it is clearly specified that upon re-registering a firearm one will have to prove use. If you register your firearm at day one, which is considered in the bill the beginning, when you re-register you have to show proof with testimony from the club to which you belong that you did use that firearm for the purposes that you said you would.

Ms Phinney: As far as I understand, people will be asked to register their guns once in their lifetime, and right now the plan is that 10 guns or under will cost around $10 or under $10. That is information that's been out for a considerable amount of time. I am wondering how you can feel responsible when you're representing a large group of people.... I mean, it would take one call to the justice department to get that information.

.1730

Mr. Casey: The information that you suggest hasn't been produced, at least to my knowledge, in a positive way. It's been suggestive, not concrete, I understand.

Ms Phinney: Well, I'm not sure what a positive.... Excuse me for interrupting.

Mr. Casey: I'd like to look at this document here. It says that January 1, 1998, the cost will be between zero and $10; it's not very specific. Evidence provided by the TR 1994-9e tells us that now it costs $82.69, I believe the figure is -

Ms Phinney: Where did that $83 figure come from - the Ontario Hunters and Anglers Association?

Mr. Casey: No, this is a technical report on firearms registration, RES Policy Research Inc., Ottawa, the research district evaluation directorate. It's a government document.

Ms Phinney: It was done, I believe, for the justice department.

Mr. Casey: Yes, probably.

Ms Phinney: But even if it's $1 to $10, that's not a lot of money. Do you think to register five guns once in your lifetime, from now until the day you die, that's a lot of money?

Mr. Sisk: I'm sorry; it is not clear that it's only once in your lifetime. There's no indication that is so. The wording in the bill suggests that it is repetitive. Now, I'm sorry if the bill suggests that, but that's what it suggests.

Ms Phinney: I understand your confusion, and that's one of the reasons we're here - to make sure that when the bill comes out it's clear and everyone understands what's in it. Also, things probably will be changing as we're going along -

Mr. Sisk: One thing I'm not confused about, though, I want to emphasize, is the fact that it does not say that this will be a one-time registration. It is open-ended, and with the clause 110 of the powers to the Governor in Council...whoever the Governor in Council is can make any changes to the law without going through Parliament at any time.

Ms Phinney: There has been so much misinformation out there. If I were representing a group I'd be on the phone fairly regularly to the justice department to confirm that I was transmitting the right information to my membership, that's all. I understand why you feel it's not clear; some of it's not clear to us, and that's what we're doing with the bill - making it more clear.

If you forget to write something down on your registration paper or if by accident you put the number down incorrectly or something like that, what is the penalty going to be for that?

Mr. Sisk: I think it's the one where...it's in the same category as if you forget to register; that's five years in jail.

Ms Phinney: Just so that you have this correct, too, for your membership, you have to knowingly make an error on your registration -

Mr. Sisk: No, that's not true. You have to prove that you knowingly didn't do it, but as the law states, you are assumed guilty of doing it on purpose.

Ms Phinney: Thank you.

The Chair: To give a bit of clarification to these points, the minister, when he was here a few weeks ago, distributed this document, which is called ``Financial Framework for Bill C-68'', and in it he puts down what the fees will be. He says: ``Registration certificates for firearms currently owned will be introduced January 1, 1998, at a cost of between zero and $10 for the first 10 firearms, with the possibility of increasing to a maximum of $18 for the first 10 firearms by the year 2002.'' Then he says: ``Registration certificates for newly acquired firearms will cost $15 per non-restricted weapon and $60 per restricted weapon (handguns) effective January 1, 1996, but the fee is expected to be reduced to approximately $30 when the new technology comes into effect on January 1, 1998.'' By that he means a computerized system. Anyway, this is on the record; perhaps you can get a look at that or get a copy of it.

.1735

Also I have to point out clause 64 of the bill says:

A registration certificate for a firearm expires where

(a) the holder of the registration certificate ceases to be the owner of the firearm; or

(b) the firearm ceases to be a firearm.

That's not the regulations; that's the law.

As long as you own the gun or as long as the gun continues to exist, you don't have to get it registered again. If you were to sell it, trade it or will it on, there would have to be a new registration number, perhaps.

Mr. de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: I see that you have learned well.

The Chairman: This time, yes.

Mr. de Savoye: I have to admit that when my colleague asked if you were aware of the details concerning gun registration, I was surprised to learn that you were not. This is clear proof that information must be made more readily available. If that was the one thing we learned this afternoon, it would already be highly instructive.

Now that you have this information, what are your feelings about the principle of registration? Do you think that other criteria or conditions should prevail to make registration more accessible and acceptable and easier to administer? I'm interested in hearing your views.

[English]

Mr. Rodgers: It's hard to deal with how you can make registration better or make it suit the situation when you don't want it.

Probably one of the reasons we haven't had the answers to questions asked at the other end of the table is that when we looked at the document, certain roadblocks were there immediately that said no, throw the baby out with the bath water; we don't need this.

So we didn't bother spending a lot of time looking at other aspects of it that were not going to concern us anyway. The people we represent have asked us to come here to tell you they don't want this registration.

To answer your question on how it could be made better, I'm sorry, but we haven't given it much thought.

Mr. de Savoye: What you're telling me, Mr. Rodgers, is you don't have a B plan. You just have a single mandate. It's a straight no, and nothing else.

Mr. Rodgers: There are aspects within this bill that we've already told Mr. Rock we can live with, and in our statement we made that clear. Those are the increased penalties and dealing with the importation of illegal firearms into the country. We can support him 100% on that, and we've made that statement publicly. But I'm sorry, the aspects of registration just block it right up.

It is unfortunate that in dealing with this bill before second reading you didn't split it.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: I have a few other questions for you. As we know, registration of handguns has been mandatory for a number of years. How long has this been the case?

Mr. Sisk: If I'm off by two or three years, will I be guilty of anything?

Mr. de Savoye: No, not really.

Mr. Sisk: Since 1936 or thereabouts.

Mr. de Savoye: Therefore, for approximately 60 years.

Mr. Sisk: Yes.

Mr. de Savoye: Here in Canada, is the crime rate associated with handgun use comparable to the rate of crime involving shotguns or rifles?

Mr. Sisk: In terms of murders, the rate is 0.7 per cent compared to 17 per cent and higher associated with the use of illegal firearms and over 17 per cent in the case of other firearms.

Mr. de Savoye: Which percentage quoted applies to handguns?

Mr. Sisk: In the case of handguns, 0.7 per cent.

Mr. de Savoye: And in the case of shotguns or rifles, 17 per cent?

Mr. Sisk: Yes, approximately 17 per cent.

Mr. de Savoye: In your view, isn't there a cause-effect relationship between handgun registration and the lower crime rate associated with handgun use?

Mr. Sisk: No, what I said was that legal handguns were involved in only 0.7 per cent of all crimes and that with respect to other types of firearms, the rate is obviously much higher.

Mr. de Savoye: I would like to pursue this matter further, but I will have to wait for another opportunity to do so.

.1740

[English]

I would like to ask you questions a little later.

Mr. Scott (Fredericton--York--Sunbury): Welcome, particularly from New Brunswick. I'm aware of how large the hunting and recreational sports industry is in New Brunswick. Someone here--I think a dealer--mentioned it.

It's been my understanding that the people who are concerned about this are leaving hunting, etc. Basically they're fearful of the potential for confiscation down the road. So why would you go out and buy a gun that someone is going to take away from you? Or the high cost of the sport...

When these points are brought to my attention, though, the inconsistency I get is the fact that the people who are talking about confiscation are not the government. Ads have appeared in the local newspaper in Fredericton suggesting that the government intends to confiscate guns. So I would assume that if I was thinking about buying a gun, I'd be a little worried about doing that, except it's not our ad. It's an ad placed by your organization.

As a member of Parliament, I get calls from constituents who call me up and ask where they are supposed to deliver their guns. I'm an MP, and it wasn't me who suggested that. In fact I have spent a lot of time in the last two months trying to convince the people of my constituency to save the industries you're talking about, because they're very important in my constituency. As you would be well aware, people hunt for food.

So the other question becomes one of cost. If people are not buying hunting rifles because of cost.... The government has produced documents to suggest it's going to cost perhaps a dollar a gun for the life of the gun. Isn't that the information you should be getting out to people so they wouldn't be reluctant or fearful of high costs? Again, that would be to protect those industries that you're afraid are going to suffer because of the fear of high cost.

It's unfortunate that the Nova Scotia Wildlife Federation didn't receive the information. I know the New Brunswick Wildlife Federation did receive it.

I know Mr. Stickles and I assume you'd know him.

A witness:Yes, I do.

Mr. Scott: He's a constituent. He received the number. He called me because it wasn't enough.

Mr. Rodgers: It's interesting the way you've brought your question forward. I don't see it as my responsibility to be informing the gun owner in Nova Scotia about laws that are going to be imposed upon them and the costs associated with those laws that are coming from the government. Wouldn't that responsibility fall to the people who are bringing the legislation forward, to ensure that the people who were going to be living with this are truly informed?

We have done our best. There haven't been any rallies in Nova Scotia that have been organized by government to inform the hunters or the firearms owners in the province to come out and get that information. We've made the attempt to do that.

Mr. Scott: I agree. Interest is served by informing people.

I had a well-attended public meeting in my own constituency yesterday, in the rural part of the constituency. We did discuss this and there was an awful lot of information that just wasn't consistent with what I knew to be the facts. In fact, even in the context of the article you've given us today, someone got up at the meeting and said three carloads of RCMP showed up at Mr. McKnight's house. Even the article just says one RCMP officer. So there's an awful lot of information that is obviously inaccurate.

My point here is that I think we should be working together in the interests of the industry you're talking about to make sure the information is out there so that people are not making decisions that are based on the fact that they're fearful of confiscation. It isn't the government that's talking about....

We're talking now about confiscation of a hunting rifle, regular, generally available guns that would be used to hunt ducks and deer, the kind of hunting that goes on in my part of the area.

There's a real sense on the part of some of those people that there's some agenda. I'm saying it is not the government that's saying that. Certainly I spend most of my time saying that it doesn't exist.

Mr. Casey: I would like to speak to something that came up while you were having that discussion. Consultation is a word that springs up to me. You talk about consultation and working together to make this happen.

Well, I was part of the consultation process in New Brunswick. I presented a comprehensive brief to Mr. Rock suggesting a lot of things about the organization I represented at that time and giving him a perspective of where I was in that organization, how I felt about it personally, the feedback I was receiving from the people I represented as the president of a particular organization, and the fears we have about the legislation. As a result, some error was made where the Olympic guns--that's the sport we deal with--fell under this law.

.1745

Now, I think maybe there were several mistakes and I don't think the consultation was that good, because I didn't get the feedback I sought. I never was contacted by Mr. Rock again, except for the standard mail-outs that go out.

Not too long ago I got a letter from Mr. Rock that commended me for being in favour of the legislation, and if you don't mind, I'll read a section of that:

The Honourable Douglas Young, Minister of Transport, has forwarded to me a copy of your further letter expressing support for our gun control initiatives.

Well, that pretty well says what he said. I replied to that letter telling him, more or less, of some of the things I had been involved in in the interim. I also have a copy of the letter I had written to Mr. Young, and I don't think it reflects that view at all.

So if there's misinformation, I think it's coming from both sides.

Mr. Rodgers: It should be noted that last summer, when Mr. Rock went across the country to deal with this issue, in our minds there was no consultation. It was a matter of selling the idea that this was coming along.

As was just pointed out by my colleague from New Brunswick, the amount of information that was shared with the justice department by the groups does not appear anywhere around here.

Mr. Scott: Do you expect there to be amendments to this legislation?

A witness: I certainly hope so.

The Chair: Before I go to Mr. Ramsay, I fully agree with you that the government probably has to inform the public better too, but it would be helpful for your own industries if the public wasn't misinformed by some of your colleague organizations.

We found we had some pamphlets this morning that were based.... So it scares the hell out of them. Then of course they don't buy guns and they think it's going to be much worse, as Mr. Scott says.

So the government has an obligation, but I think your organizations should also try to not misinform, if not at least inform.

Mr. Casey: We certainly try to do that, sir.

Mr. Densmore: I made several calls to the justice department requesting information, and got into their very efficient voice mail, but I've always got these same four or five pages. To be honest with you, I haven't tried it lately. But until a month and a half ago I was getting the same thing. It was almost instantaneous. It's a great system, but it just wasn't updated enough.

The Chair: Somebody this morning testified that they phoned a 1-800 number and got some information by fax. It wasn't complete either.

So I've asked our staff on the committee to call the 1-800 number to see how efficient it is. If it's not giving the full information, we should update it and give full information.

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): I want to thank the members for taking the time to appear before the committee by making your presentations.

I want to touch quickly on a couple of things, and I'd like to get to the cost factor if I can. There are a couple of issues here that I can't let go by.

First of all, there's this business about misinformation. When the proposals were tabled by the justice minister, those proposals were going to ban our handgun competitors. When we stood in the House and asked the justice minister a question as to whether or not he would be willing to exempt the .32 calibre, his answer--and it's on the record--was ``Certainly not''. Now he has moved back from that position, for which I congratulate him. Nevertheless, that was the issue that went out at the time. He was going to ban the handguns used by some people in national and international competition.

So when we start floating trial balloons, you better believe there's going to be misinformation, and that comes from the government. So let's not blame the people of Canada entirely for the spreading of misinformation. We should be looking directly at the source of misinformation.

Now, I would just like to say that as far as the record in Canada is concerned, you never see prohibition of a firearm before restriction and registration. Why were the so-called military firearms first placed on a restricted list? That required registration. Why weren't they prohibited right off the bat? Well, of course, if they're prohibited right off the bat, the government would not know who had them and where they were.

.1750

Now, as we move forward.... This is whether they're unrealistic fears or not. Nevertheless, this is what I'm hearing from the gun owners, and I've addressed close to 36,000 or 37,000 of them. These are the fears. Yes, the only reason they want to register our rifles and shotguns is because they want to know where they are and who's got them. So these are some of the....

Now, if those fears are not realistic, then that's fine. But if they are and they point at the history that first of all, before they prohibit something, they have to know how many there are, who owns them and where they are in the country....

Anyway, I want to get to the cost factor. The Metro Toronto Police Board analysed the cost of the FAC process, which is not unlike the process outlined in clause 5 to obtain a licence to own a firearm. They estimated it cost the taxpayer $185 for each one of those.

If we are to assume that figure is close to what it will cost to obtain a licence, where the chief firearms officer and his agents will have to do the criminal background check for all violent offences, a medical record check to see if there have been any cases of insanity, psychiatric treatment or whatever and the neighbourhood history check to see if there's any evidence of violence, then what we have here is a process that is equal to or more expensive than the FAC process.

So if we're looking at the $185 figure, multiply that by three million gun owners at the low end and you get $550 million before a single gun is registered. Now, that may not be coming out of the pockets of the gun owners, but it's coming out of the pockets of the gun owner indirectly and the rest of us through taxation. If we take the high figure, which is six million gun owners in Canada, then we're looking at a cost of $1,110,000,000 before we register a single firearm.

I don't know what it's going to cost the gun owner to register a firearm. The justice minister had indicated his figures. That's okay if we can take and accept those, but that's not near the cost.

So I would like to know if you gentlemen have any idea of the cost to simply obtain a firearms acquisition certificate in your areas. What is the cost not only to the applicant but also to the taxpayer?

Well, my five minutes are up.

The Chair: Your five minutes are up, but the witnesses can answer the question.

Mr. Densmore: The cost of acquiring an FAC in the Musquodoboit Valley is perhaps higher than the cost of acquiring it in the city of Halifax. For example, I took a course last fall. I spent four nights and each night I had to drive a total of 80 miles. That was four nights out of my life, 360 miles on my car, $40 to $50 worth of gas on top of the $50 fee to take the actual course. So as I say, it costs more in rural Nova Scotia than it does in downtown Halifax or Calgary, but it's still.... I'm looking at $150 to get my FAC.

Mr. Rodgers: There's another cost associated with this that may not be in the monetary line. That's a cost to the people who are actually receiving the instruction.

In Nova Scotia we had a hunter safety education course that trained people--primarily young people--in safe handling of a firearm. But as part of that course they also learned basic math, how the compass works, survival skills and things of that nature that would help them if there was a problem when they were participating in the activity.

Under the FAC course that portion has now been married. The hunter education course and the FAC course have been married together. We're hearing that the section providing information to these young people on survival skills and things of that nature has now started to peter away. It's like the bottom end of the federal government's big course.

Mr. Densmore: It's not even there.

Mr. Rodgers: As Brian said, in some cases it's not even there. That's going to be a cost somewhere to somebody down the line.

There's one other thing. I have a 13-year-old son who got his first firearm for Christmas this year. For him to take that FAC course when he's old enough and eligible enough, he's going to learn how to use a handgun. That's going to be taught to him. He didn't ask.... Oh, it's in the FAC course. He's going to learn how to take apart a revolver.

.1755

I'm not interested in his having that information at this particular time. When he does and when he feels secure about it, I will send him to Brian and have him taught on a one-on-one basis.

Just last summer I told Mr. Rock that he's escalating the desire for handguns in the country by putting information into people's minds.

The Chair: So it's separate. There are going to be two courses. So you had an influence on Mr. Rock.

Mr. Densmore: Oh, we did something.

The Chair: Have you finished answering?

Mr. Densmore: I have one question, Mr. Allmand. Is there a date yet for when these two courses will be changed? Is there a minimum they would have to pass?

The Chair: Well, I would think the bill would have to pass.

Mr. Densmore: No, I meant the safety courses.

The Chair: I hear the bill provides for two separate courses. We could check that out. Maybe it's before the end.

Members of the committee, I have a request from Jane Stewart to take a five-minute round. Is there agreement that she can? She was on the committee this morning, but she's not on this afternoon.

Mrs. Stewart (Brant): Excuse me, but I'm replacing Mr. MacLellan.

The Chair: Well, Mr. MacLellan is here.

Mr. MacLellan (Cape Breton--The Sydneys): [Inaudible].

The Chair: Okay, you say you left. That doesn't happen that way, but they said yes anyway.

Mrs. Stewart: Well, you guys are great, and I appreciate it.

Thank you for being here, because it has been an enlightening presentation.

First of all, we're talking about the responsibility of the government to get information out to interested parties particularly. I understand that to each of the provincial wildlife organizations he sent an indication that we have a brochure that talks about the pricing, about the number of times firearms will have to be registered. Mr. Rodgers, your group would have received one of those. Will you be willing to provide those brochures to your membership?

Mr. Rodgers: I have not received that document you are talking about.

Mrs. Stewart: Is that right?

Mr. Rodgers: Yes. I don't recall.... Now, mind you, I must admit that there's a small rain forest somewhere in Canada that's gone because of this issue. I can't believe the amount of paper that's come across my desk.

But anything that came from Mr. Rock or the justice department would have been handled in a different manner. It would have been something that would have been--

Mrs. Stewart: Would it be appropriate for you to distribute those brochures and information to your membership?

Mr. Rodgers: I don't have the financial resources to do that unless it was such that a small document.... I don't know what size document it is. Are you talking something this size or the size of one page?

Mrs. Stewart: Small information brochures.

Mr. Rodgers: Something like that. Possibly at least at the director level, yes.

Mrs. Stewart: Well, you should check and make sure you did receive that letter.

Mr. Rodgers: I will.

Mrs. Stewart: Also the articles in this magazine have been fascinating to a number of members.

Mr. Sisk, the article you were referring to and a number of colleagues have referred to, written by Mr. McKnight, was particularly interesting to me.

I know a constituent of mine also had a firearm that became prohibited on January 1. In advance of that, he received an indication that this was going to happen and a request to bring the firearm in for compensation.

Now, I'm wondering why Mr. McKnight--I'm assuming he would have had that information as well--wouldn't have done that and why he would have waited for the RCMP to come knocking at his door. As he said, he was waiting, expecting them to come for over a month. As I read the article, it just seemed that he was very antagonistic about that. I can understand his disappointment, but I know he would have had prior warning.

Obviously he did. He mentions that he'd been waiting for the RCMP to come.

Mr. Sisk: I only can respond with exactly what he says in the article. For one reason or another he expected to have a visit.

Mrs. Stewart: I have just one final piece of information. You referred to Mr. Buckner's statistics and were responding to Mr. de Savoye--

The Chair: He'll be here tonight.

Mrs. Stewart: Oh, it will be interesting. You referred to the statistics he puts forward. I think you were talking about the use of legal handguns and how small a role they play.

But as I was looking at the information on page 27, I found it fascinating that under the section.... This is Statistics Canada's information on 1991 mortality. Under accidents, we see that rifles and shotguns were responsible for 62. Then farther down the list, in fact under light wounds, we have handguns responsible for 4 accidents.

Under suicides, we have rifles and shotguns responsible, at the top of the list, for 1,065, and right at the bottom we have legal and illegal handguns responsible for 43.

Regarding homicides, again we have rifles and shotguns up high and then legal handguns way underneath.

Do you think it's possible that your membership would look at that and say, my goodness, maybe the controls we've had on handguns are making a difference and that in fact rifles and shotguns are a problem and we do need some kind of control similar to those we've had for handguns in the past?

.1800

Mr. Sisk: Since the figures for handguns include both legal and illegal handguns, I would not be in a position to answer anything about legally owned firearms.

Mrs. Stewart: The very fact that handguns, whether they're legal or illegal--

Mr. Sisk: If I can offer this, the Toronto city police set up an operation where they purchased a number of handguns on the street. Sixteen out of the seventeen handguns that were purchased were illegal handguns, only one of which had been stolen from a legitimate firearm owner. The other sixteen were smuggled.

Mr. Casey: I would like to make a point in that respect. When Mr. Sisk was describing the stats, legal handguns used for homicide in Canada in 1991 constituted 0.7% of the deaths. On the other side of the question, illegal handguns constituted 17.4% of the problem. So illegal handguns seem to be a major problem still, even after the legislation.

Mrs. Stewart: [Inaudible] ...far less, according to this report, than rifles and shotguns.

Mr. Casey: Consequently there is a severely smaller number of them, according to the government's own statistics.

Mrs. Stewart: Perhaps as a result of legislation.

Mr. Casey: That's not likely, because it hasn't happened very much lately.

The Chair: Well, it's after 6 p.m., we're going to have a vote in a little while, and I'd like to remind the committee that we have meetings this evening with the Ontario and Quebec responsible gun owners.

I understand Mr. Buckner will be with the Quebec group. He's a professor at Concordia University. So some of you will have questions for him.

I want to thank you, gentlemen, for coming down and giving us your views. We're trying to get as wide a range of views on this as possible, so it's good to have people from Atlantic Canada here.

This meeting is adjourned.