[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, May 2, 1995
.1530 
[Translation]
The Chair: Let us resume the hearing.
The Committee resumes the review of Bill C-68, an Act respecting firearms and other weapons. This afternoon, we will hear
[English]
the Canadian Sporting Arms & Ammunition Association, represented by Mark Dorricott, the president, and John Williams, a spokesperson for the group.
We have Allan Taylor, the president of Lakefield Arms and Ernie Barriage, the sales manager. From Para-Ordnance Mfg. Inc. we have Thanos Polyzos.
I think we have received briefs from all of you. If you can read your briefs in less than15 minutes, that's fine; otherwise, we'd ask you to address the major arguments or points in the briefs. If you can read them, then proceed, but if they're longer than that, the members have them and will be able to read them and refer to them.
First we'll hear from the Canadian Sporting Arms & Ammunition Association. Then we will proceed to Lakefield Arms, and then to Para-Ordnance Mfg.
Mr. Mark Dorricott (President, Canadian Sporting Arms & Ammunition Association): Would it be okay with the chair if Mr. Williams started for us?
The Chair: Fine.
Mr. John Williams (Member and Spokesperson, Canadian Sporting Arms & Ammunition Association): I own a small firearms retail store in Port Perry, Ontario. I will be speaking to you from the perspective of the retail owner.
If Bill C-68 is implemented as proposed, there will be a tremendous financial impact on business, as well as on the shooting public and the taxpayer.
.1535
Confiscation: Since introduction of the bill, I have noticed a substantial increase in buyer concerns. Many firearm owners feel the registration of all long guns will mean their ultimate confiscation in the future. At the September rally in Ottawa, Mr. Rock said that registration does not mean confiscation, yet his very own bill has provisions that will in effect confiscate over 550,000 presently registered firearms. That this is to happen only when the present owner dies does not mitigate the fact that it will happen - confiscation and no compensation.
Devaluation of collections: Growing numbers of people with firearm collections are trying to liquidate in an attempt to realize some of the value of their collections. Many have collected over the past years hoping for a worthy investment for their retirement years, but market prices for firearms, modern and collectible, have fallen for these people. This devaluation has spilled over to business, where the value of inventory of used firearms has been greatly reduced.
Cost of registration: Costs associated with registration are another concern. We have been told that the system will cost an estimated $85 million. I received last week a publication called Financial Framework, C-68, which contains a breakdown on costs. The cost has risen from an estimated$85 million to $118.9 million. This cost estimate is apparently on top of the cost of $65 million for the operation of the existing system. It would appear that the estimated added cost for Bill C-68 is almost double the cost of the existing system.
In the report from the Fraser Institute, Professor Gary Mauser has estimated the cost of registration to be $410 million to $500 million minimum. His figures are based on actual current registration costs obtained from the Department of Justice. If we are to assume the additional cost of $410 million, using the lowest estimate, there would be a deficit of $293 million, not $2.2 million. This deficit is on top of the $27 million deficit we enjoy under the existing system.
Whoever is responsible for this schedule of costs and revenues obviously has never had to show responsibility for their figures. For example, the revenues are misleading, to put it mildly. According to the CPFO, there are 200 fewer firearms dealers now in Ontario than there were last year. The revenue estimates are based on an approximate 8,000 licensed businesses. This figure wasn't true last year, let alone in future years when there will be fewer and fewer dealers.
As a businessman, I would never accept assumptions and maybes on a financial statement. I would certainly want accountability. My MP has asked that the costing be sent to the Auditor General for an analysis. This has not been done.
The total of the costs, renewable every five years, will prove too much of a financial burden for many, resulting in our sport being only for the rich -
The Chair: Excuse me. You are going a little bit too quickly for the interpreter, who is translating your words into French. So if you could slow down a little bit....
Mr. Williams: I'll calm down a little bit, too, and then I'll slow down.
The total of the costs, renewable every five years, will prove too much of a financial burden for many, resulting in our sport being only for the rich or the criminal, who isn't paying these fees anyway.
Effect on firearms sales: My sales figures show a marked decrease in firearms sales since the introduction of this bill. I've talked to other dealers across the country, and they are experiencing the same decline: fewer sales, less business, less taxes and jobs, more unemployment.
Retailer as a registrar: No one has asked my opinion about whether I should or would like to be the registrar for the government. I would have all the responsibility but not the authority of the existing civil servant registrars. If the retailer is expected to do the registration, who pays for the computer terminals and the added employee time required to register?
Since the minister has stated that the registration system would be cost neutral, that means I as a retailer will have to pass the costs on to the consumer. This will again adversely affect sales. I am sure many would feel that this is just what you want, to constrict firearms sales to the point where no more take place. However, you will deny many a livelihood and many a sporting tradition that this country, Canada, has always had. The economic impact will be severe with losses to retailers, wholesalers, lodges, tourism, ministries of natural resources, etc.
``Commonly used'' versus ``not reasonable'': Sales of many types of semi-automatic hunting firearms have been affected already by the proposed change in wording that allows the Governor in Council to prohibit firearms if it is of the opinion that they are ``not reasonable'' for use in hunting or sporting situations. This change from ``commonly used'' to ``not reasonable'' has the implication that a particular firearm will or can be prohibited with no notification or input from the shooting community, but based solely on the discretion of some bureaucrat and his or her interpretation of ``reasonable''.
.1540
There will be effects on the new hunter or target shooter. This bill will remove the opportunity for a new, young shooter to enter the sport. With the cost of obtaining a hunting licence course, a hunting licence, an FAC course and/or FAC test, the FPC and a photo, the start-up costs alone will be $200 to $370 minimum, and this shooter has not even purchased a firearm yet.
As a solution, I would like to make several suggestions. Divide the bill into two distinct parts. Deal with the crime section of the bill now, and deal with the firearms section after further study. The public wants you to control crime and the criminal use of firearms in the commission of crime, and let's get on with it. Firearms smuggling and other criminal activities involving firearms should be the primary concern of all.
Initiate the recommendations of the 1993 Auditor General's study. The recommendations included a positive evaluation of the current gun control program to give the Canadian public and its MPs the assurance that its objectives are being met.
Present a true and logical costing for total registration, and this report should be submitted to the Auditor General for an analysis of cost effectiveness.
This bill has omitted a significant area, the duplicate FPC. This bill must allow an individual to possess a duplicate FPC so that when ordering a firearm or ammunition via mail order, the original must be sent to the dealer. Without provisions for a duplicate FPC, the individual will not have it available when he is in possession of his other firearms. This must be available at a reasonable cost.
Educate the public about firearms regulations already in place. The federal government has done a poor job of informing the public about present legislation on subjects such as the rules regarding acquisition, storage, and transportation, what is prohibited, restricted, grandfathered, and a genuine collectible, etc. As proposed, the bill will only add to the confusion.
As a retailer, I have a difficult time getting answers from the CPFO on whether this has been entered into the costing factor. This is not because they don't want to cooperate; they are just too understaffed to be able to deal with all of us. If as dealers we are having difficulty getting questions answered, what chance does the public have to receive the information they need so that the innocent citizen does not unknowingly become a criminal?
Work with the shooting community for change. We want a safer society as much as anyone here. Instead of enacting legislation that we all know won't deter the criminal or control the unstable, let's look to the real solutions to the problems that threaten our Canadian way of life. Let's do something to eliminate the poverty and unemployment. Let's give our population a sense of purpose and a pride in being a productive citizen. I think the majority of Canadians would agree that instead of wasting our tax dollars on more regulation of law-abiding citizens we would better spend this money on fighting the cause of urban violence.
In conclusion, may I say the following. Some of your peers fought and easily won the battle against reforming their pensions because they felt hard work had earned them their pensions. Besides, they deserved it. Some of these same people are prepared to take away the livelihood from people such as myself. They will eliminate millions of dollars of personal and legal property by devaluation and confiscation. They will increase unemployment in a mostly rural, recession ravaged Canada. They will close businesses and destroy an industry of $1 billion plus a year, and an entire sport.
The language of this bill and what is being said by ministers in the media has tainted my business, my sport, and my hobby by implying links with criminals, drunken wife beaters, and now terrorists.
Let us work together for the collective well-being of all Canadians, discriminating against none and using our resources to achieve the most good.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Dorricott, do you want to add to that?
.1545
Mr. Dorricott: Yes, it's basically the second part of the brief from the industry, if that's okay.
The Chair: Okay, fine. I didn't realize that.
Mr. Dorricott: The Canadian Sporting Arms & Ammunition Association is an industry group that consists of importers, manufacturers, wholesalers, sales agencies and retailers of products related to the shooting sports industry in Canada. Our members represent an industry that distributes a huge and varied range of products and services that provide millions of Canadians with a safe and rewarding activity.
Certain sections of Bill C-68 will, in our opinion, have a significant and negative impact on our industry and our members if passed in their current form. This briefing paper is intended to identify these areas of concern and to bring to the attention of this committee specific ramifications of the bill that will seriously affect the ability of our members to remain viable within our industry.
While we're in favour of any initiative to deal with and attack the problems associated with firearms related violence, we're of the opinion that Bill C-68 in its current form will do very little to address these problems. In fact, certain provisions of Bill C-68 will, we believe, create many more problems than it will deal with.
Our first concern is the economic impacts on our industry itself. The shooting sports industry is portrayed as a major component of what this government describes as the gun lobby in Canada. In truth, our industry is comprised of predominantly small businesses employing fewer than 20 people engaged in the importation and distribution of guns, ammunition, archery equipment, clothing, hunting and outdoor accessories, and related items.
Currently there is just one firearms manufacturer here in Canada, from whom you will be hearing a little bit later. The vast majority of revenue for our industry is derived from the hunting industry and hunting related activities.
According to a survey conducted in 1992 by Statistics Canada in which over 72,000 Canadians detailed their hunting related activities during 1991, the total expenditure on hunting was found to be $1.2 billion. This number is based on a marketplace of approximately 1.5 million active hunters. It's important to realize that of this $1.2 billion, less than 50% benefits the shooting sports industry directly. However, industries that also benefit from the hunting market, including tourism, truck and ATV sales and countless other small businesses, are also likely to suffer from a reduction in the hunting market.
As we've already seen since the introduction of Bill C-17, firearms control tends to weaken the hunting market. This happens in several ways.
First, prospective customers are precluded from entering the market because of ever increasing costs associated with the acquisition of guns and equipment needed to pursue a hunting activity.
Second, the prospect of further restrictions and prohibitions on firearms will cause existing hunters to leave the sport, once again because of the costs of the proposed registration system, in addition to a genuine fear and distrust of such a system. This is a particularly relevant concern when one considers that a provision of Bill C-68 allows for the future prohibition of any firearm that the government deems not reasonable for hunting.
It seems unlikely that a prospective hunter or shooter will be inclined to invest money and time required by various mandated safety and storage courses, firearms possession certificates and registration requirements when there is a distinct possibility that the government will, at some point in the future, confiscate his or her hunting rifle or shotgun upon the authority of a civil servant who thinks that the particular weapon is not reasonable for hunting.
The reduction of both prospective and existing hunters will certainly have a negative impact on our industry and related businesses. Retailers have told us that since Bill C-17, and more recently the introduction of Bill C-68, gun sales have decreased by as much as 50% in some areas. There is no reason to believe that this decrease in business will not continue or become even larger if Bill C-68 is passed in its current form.
Is it reasonable to assume that if the automobile industry, for example, was faced with a 50% drop in sales as a result of government legislation, this government would certainly pay attention? Why would we compare our industry to a giant manufacturing sector? Mr. Rock himself has used the analogy of registering cars to that of registering guns. Of course, if one fails to register one's car, one does not face the prospect of being sent to jail and acquiring a criminal record.
.1550
In any event, our industry simply cannot survive without customers, a scenario that Bill C-68 could probably facilitate.
Upon examining the financial framework for Bill C-68 released on April 24, 1995, it appears that the major funding for this program will come from legitimate firearms users. This framework states that over a five-year period almost $117 million will be generated through new taxes or fees levied upon current and prospective firearms owners. Put another way, $117 million will be taken from the disposable income of shooters and hunters that quite possibly could have been spent on new equipment or hunting and shooting opportunities. We have serious misgivings as to the validity of the financial framework, as it appears to be predicated on a series of assumptions on the part of the justice department.
One example is that the justice department assumes that the number of firearms dealers will remain constant or increase over the five-year timeframe. A call to the Ontario CPFO recently disclosed that 1994 saw over 200 fewer business permits issued than the previous year. This, coupled with the inevitable loss of existing and prospective hunters and shooters upon the implementation of Bill C-68, raises a serious question of reliability in the financial framework. We suggest that this committee subject the analysis to a subjective audit to establish the validity of the estimates before moving forward with the registration proposals.
On registration of legally owned firearms, our industry and the thousands of people who rely upon it for their livelihood have throughout the years remained in relative obscurity, relative, that is, to industries with a high profile and the financial or political ability to receive the attention of the government.
We're grateful to have this opportunity to be heard and to be able to communicate our grave concern with what we consider to be a misleading attempt by the Minister of Justice to convince Canadians that Bill C-68 will have any impact at all on the perceived proliferation of crime and violence involving firearms.
Not only is this minister proposing to burden existing firearms owners and businesses with a huge and cumbersome new registration system, the benefits of which have yet to be determined, but this proposed registration system will certainly result in a dramatic shrinkage of our industry's customer base.
You've just heard from Mr. Williams, one individual dealer, regarding the negative impact that Bill C-68 will have on his business. When one considers that there are over 7,500 such dealers in Canada, it becomes apparent that the economic impact on not only our industry but also Canada itself is likely to be substantial.
Registration, in our opinion, is a colossal waste of time, valuable human resources and money. We do not believe for one moment that the registration of legally owned firearms will have any impact whatsoever on the criminal acquisition and use of firearms.
We would ask this committee at the very least to allow the provisions of Bill C-17, particularly those relating to storage and training, to be evaluated for effectiveness before embarking on an extremely expensive and onerous registration system.
Indeed in his 1993 annual report the Auditor General requested a similar course of action. To date, this government has ignored this request. In an attempt to expedite swift passage of Bill C-68, Mr. Rock has repeatedly told the Canadian public that registration of firearms will provide increased safety for Canadians. If this is in fact the case, we wonder why the registration of handguns, which has been mandatory since 1934, has not stopped the incidence of handgun use in criminal acts.
The answer is, of course, that persons who commit crimes with firearms, handgun or long gun, will never show up on any registry, as they will simply not register either themselves or their weapons in the first place.
The approach of this government seems to be that of laying blame for firearms crime with groups and individuals who in truth have nothing to do with the problem.
We are also very concerned that a database with all gun owners and their property could be accessed by a criminal element. It has become apparent that in today's computer culture no database is absolutely secure.
With regard to firearms smuggling, our industry is being portrayed implicitly through Bill C-68 as a source of supply to those who commit firearms crime. Nothing could be further from the truth.
.1555
Criminals do not purchase their weapons or ammunition through legitimate business channels. To do this would leave a paper trail through the existing registration and recording channels already in place.
Our industry already complies with numerous regulations concerning the tracking of buyers and sellers of firearms and ammunition. Bill C-68 will create even more controls on the import, export and acquisition of inventory by our members. These additional measures imply that our members are involved in the smuggling of weapons and their illegal distribution thereafter. Moreover, the addition of further paperwork related to additional import or export permits, additional serial numbering and recording will mean additional financial and administrative costs for many of our members who simply cannot afford them.
The issue of firearms smuggling, a major contributing factor in the firearms crime and violence, has been lost somewhat in the public's perception of this bill. The strategy of the justice department and the proposals in Bill C-68 relating to firearms smuggling attempt to link our industry with the smuggling problem. Our industry strongly resents being linked, whether implicitly or explicitly, with the illegal firearms smuggling trade.
While it is impossible to guarantee that every single member of our industry complies with every single law and regulation, we strongly suggest that this committee recommend that the justice minister address the real areas of illegal firearms trading. We believe the financial resources that are likely to be expended to implement plans such as registration would be much more wisely directed toward increasing the ability of existing agencies to enforce current legislation, perhaps to the extent of forming a specific permanent task force to deal with the illegal trafficking of firearms.
We believe a severe, mandatory sentencing requirement for persons convicted of firearms smuggling, coupled with strict enforcement, would provide a strong deterrent to those who would become involved in such a venture.
We suggest that the justice minister concentrate on areas of the bill that address crime and criminals and that the provisions that affect legitimate business and individuals be dealt with on their own merits. Simply put, our industry and our customers are not the problem. Bill C-68 should focus more on the criminal and less on the law-abiding Canadian.
To summarize, certain provisions of Bill C-68 will have serious economic impact on the Canadian shooting sports industry and associated businesses across Canada. The Department of Justice financial framework is flawed inasmuch as it is based on assumptions that cannot be validated. Registration of firearms, owners and their personal property will reduce the number of existing and potential customers for our members. Previous firearms control legislation has not been given adequate time to provide information as to its effectiveness. Also, the smuggling of illegal firearms is not an industry related problem, yet additional import and export regulations will penalize our members and increase our business costs.
The Canadian Sporting Arms & Ammunition Association thanks this committee for the opportunity to voice its concerns on this very important piece of legislation.
The Chair: Now I would ask Mr. Taylor or Mr. Barriage from Lakefield Arms, whichever one, to give us their opening comments.
Mr. Allan H. Taylor (President, Lakefield Arms): Lakefield Arms was established in 1969. It is located in the Village of Lakefield. The company manufactures .22-calibre sporting rimfire rifles. In 1989 I and three others purchased Lakefield Arms because we felt there was a significant export market that had not been touched.
Because of the uncertainty of the Canadian market due to the restrictive gun laws and the politically correct banks that felt firearms was not the business to support, the owners felt it was time to sell. In November 1994 the company was sold to Challenger Industries, a holding company in the U.S. Their main holding is Savage Arms of Westfield, Massachusetts.
Annual sales in 1994 were $2.9 million, down from $3 million in 1993. In 1995 sales will easily exceed $5 million.
At present we have 70 employees, and by August of this year the total will reach 85. That's a 100% increase in employment since November 1994.
In 1989 we exported 35% of our product; in 1994 it was 75%; and in 1995 we'll export 87%to 90%. We ship to 30 countries and 35 customers outside North America. In the U.S. we ship to70 distributors.
.1600
Our first concern with the proposed gun control bill is on page 11, No. 111, line 4, Board of Control, found in the government's action plan on firearms control.
- Tighter controls and inspection procedures are proposed, the cost of which will be recovered
from firearm importers and exporters.
- 42. A business may export or import a firearm...only if the business holds an authorization
to export or an authorization to import.
- Separate authorization
- 48. Each exportation or importation of goods described in section 42 requires a separate
authorization to export or authorization to import.
I am sure you are all aware of the high cost of inventory, just in time and cash flow. Our customers have these constraints, the same as any other business has. Lakefield Arms has to be service oriented if it wants to stay in the export business. Noting that our biggest market is south of the border, if the government constraints are placed on our industry, the foreign owners will be looking at other alternatives.
There are more economical and efficient ways to track exports. To my knowledge, there are only 10 to 12 companies in all of Canada that export firearms. If the government officials need to know how many firearms are shipped out of the country, all they have to do is require individual companies to send a monthly, quarterly or yearly report, noting numbers, countries and the purchasing companies' names. There could be an appropriate penalty if they did not comply.
Would this not meet all the concerns that government has in this matter?
Registration: In business, you have to get value for your money spent. In the case of firearms registration, I cannot see how it will work without substantial cost to every Canadian and a much higher cost to the individual hunter and target shooters.
First, let us review what we have at present. When a firearm is manufactured, a serial number is stamped on the firearm. When a manufacturer sells the firearm, the serial number is recorded and to whom it's sold. This procedure continues through distributor, dealer and mass merchandisers. All these businesses have to have a licence to sell firearms and have to keep a record of all sales with names and addresses of purchasers. So we have a system in place that can effectively trace firearms.
The government should have two concerns with this process.
One, what happens when an individual sells to another individual? Does the purchaser have a valid FAC? Does the seller keep the address?
Solution: When an individual wishes to sell a firearm, he does this through a licence facility and pays a fee to do this. If the weapon is found to have been involved in a crime, there's traceability to the last legal owner. There should also be a heavy fine or confinement if the procedure is not followed.
Two, what can be done about the millions of firearms that do not have serial numbers on them?
The next question would be, what types of firearms are these: handguns, centre-fire rifles, semi and full automatics that have had serial numbers going back to the 1930s. This leaves shotguns and rimfire rifles. Is there a true need to place serial numbers on these types of firearms? It is my belief that the cost would be prohibitive.
There are probably three million to four million firearms that do not have serial numbers. Take for example, the Cooey Firearm plant that started producing firearms in Cobourg in 1908. It did not start putting serial numbers on them until sometime in the 1960s. They produced .22-calibre rifles for the army during the Second World War for training purposes. After the war, these were sold back to Cooey, which refurbished them and sold them to the public. If you take them, plus what Lakefield Arms sold between 1969 and 1978 with no serial numbers, plus all the firearms that were imported from the U.S.A. and other parts of the world that did not require serial numbers at that time, then a number of three million to four million is feasible.
.1605
The government has already stated that it now costs $60 to register a firearm. Placing serial numbers on these firearms, plus computer programming costs, staffing and facilities, could raise the cost to over $100 per firearm. That would be $400 million just for firearms that are not serialized.
The government estimates that there are seven million firearms in Canada. The industry estimates that the number is closer to 21 million. Split the difference, say 14 million. Say the cost would be $80 per firearm. That's over a billion dollars. Many in my industry feel that is conservative. Of course, the other concern is how many will comply.
What has gun control done to the hunting and shooting industry since 1991? Mr. Rock's favourite statement is that they are not after the legal hunters and shooters, but all legislation to date has been directed toward these same people. Now hunters and target shooters who have enjoyed their sport for 20, 30, 40 years have to spend anywhere from $125 to $175 to purchase an FAC to continue to participate in their sport. If they are hunters, they still have to buy an individual licence for each type of game they wish to hunt, for example, ducks, deer, moose and so on.
Now in the new gun control bill there will be an additional cost of registering a firearm. Take into consideration that most hunters and shooters are from rural areas that normally generate lower incomes, as well as that many hunters are in their retirement years and might suddenly no longer be able to participate in their sport.
Since 1991 Canadian sales for Lakefield Arms have dropped by 48%. In the last year three distributors have closed their doors; it's now four. Most distributors have laid off staff.
Does the government realize the rippling economic effect this has throughout the country? Those affected are clothing industries, shooting ranges, resorts, lodges, motels, restaurants, gas stations, hardware stores, Canadian Tire and similar stores, hunting guides, and the list goes on.
The tourism industry in the north relies on hunting in October and November. In 1989 Canadians spent $2 billion in hunting, shooting, and wildlife related activities. How can Mr. Rock say this will not affect the hunter and the target shooter?
What are the benefits?
Let me point out some statistics on death and firearms and other related figures. All of you have seen this information, as I sent a copy to every MP in Canada last month. Take suicides as an example. According to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and the Canadian Centre for Health Information, the majority of all firearms related deaths in this country are suicides. Between 1970 and 1991, 75% were suicides, 15% were homicides, 6% were accidents, 3% were undetermined, and 1% were legal interventions by police.
If you look at attachment 1, ``Suicides in Canada'', you will see that an average of 3,500 suicides per year occurred between 1980 and 1990. Approximately 70% of these suicides were committed by other means, such as poisoning, hanging and so on.
The next question to ask is, if a firearm was not available, would these 1,050 individuals find another way?
Some other interesting statistics are that between 1977 and 1991 the Canadian suicide rate was 40% higher than it had been during the Great Depression, the Second World War, and the Korean conflict. These were periods of significant social upheaval, which are typically associated with elevated levels of suicide and homicide. Note that despite far more restrictive firearms control, Canada's suicide rate for the period of 1979 to 1990 was an average of 17% higher than in the U.S.A. The 1990 suicide rates for Canadians 15 to 19 years of age and 20 to 24 years of age were 10% and 19% higher respectively, than for the same age groups in the United States.
According to Kleck, as written in Point Blank:
- Few people would argue that it is a worthwhile goal of public policy merely to shift suicide from
one method to another, without producing any net reduction in the total number of suicides.
Therefore, establishing the suicide availability of one means of suicide must entail
demonstrating that such efforts cause a reduction in the total suicide rate as well as the rate of
suicides using restricted methods. So far, no studies of restrictions on the more lethal suicide
methods have accomplished this.
.1610
Now break this down. Average it out over 30 years and you come up with 503 homicides per year. If this country had total registration, homicides by non-firearms and restricted illegally owned would still make up 75.9%, or 11,449 of the homicides would still occur.
Now we are down to 24.1%, or 3,638 homicides over the 30-year period. That's 121 homicides per year. Now please tell me. Is a national registration system going to save those 121 citizens? Would the assailant just find another way? What cost will it take to save these 121 citizens?
One of my greatest concerns with registration, and what I perceive as a threat to my freedom, is the security of information on the firearms I have. If you watched 60 Minutes on February 25, it showed what the hackers of this world are up to. The information highway has given these people access to all governments, businesses and organizations. All these groups have highly sophisticated security, but hackers are still successful in gaining access to the information.
As soon as a firearm owner registers his or her weapon, they have to feel less secure in knowing someone has access to this information. How can you justify putting these people at risk for political cause?
As the statistics show, gun control does not lower crime. What it does is allow the criminal freer access to the unarmed public.
What Canadians want is crime control. They want changes to the justice system so that criminals are not walking our streets. Stop downsizing law enforcement agencies. Our government does not need another bureaucracy. Take the money earmarked for gun control and put it into crime control.
This government has not even taken the time to see if the 1992-93 legislation has produced any results. Give it time to show results, one way or the other.
The government knows that if it splits the crime bill from the gun control bill, the gun control bill will never pass. Crime control is like motherhood; everyone believes in it.
Gun control takes away the rights and freedoms of the Canadian citizen of owning personal property and to protect themselves from hostilities, wherever and whatever they might be.
The Chair: Mr. Barriage does not have a statement to make.
I'll now call on Mr. Polyzos of Para-Ordnance Mfg. Inc.
Mr. Thanos Polyzos (Vice-President, Para-Ordnance Mfg. Inc.): Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee, thank you for having me here. Mr. Chairman, I must apologize, but perhaps an error generated, the culprit being word processing, has misspelled my name. It was a letter generated by my office, embarrassingly enough. It is Polyzos.
I'm vice-president and co-founder of Para-Ordnance Mfg. Inc. It was established in 1985 and it operates as a duly licensed manufacturer of pistols. At present we employ approximately 80 people in our Scarborough facility and 30 more in our investment casting foundry in Montreal, Quebec.
Our products have a wide range of users. The firearms we produce are purchased for legitimate purposes by law enforcement and military agencies and by licensed wholesalers who distribute to the recreational markets worldwide.
As an example of this, one highly regarded branch of the FBI, the hostage rescue team, has decided to switch to Para-Ordnance pistols. By the end of this year or by early 1996, all of the team's members will be issued our handguns as their official duty weapon. This FBI procurement has had a remarkable impact in the law enforcement and military markets internationally, which we believe will enhance the reputation of our products.
Para-Ordnance generates almost 100% of its revenues, now in the tens of millions of dollars, from export sales.
.1615
When this committee, as it was constituted then, was reviewing Bill C-17, we appeared before it. At that time we made submissions with regard to certain provisions of the bill that would have caused our company eventually to cease operations. Thankfully, at the last instance, amendments were proposed by the committee, and their enactment allowed us, albeit with some additional burdens and constraints, to stay in business to this date. Now with Bill C-68, we repeat the exercise and ask you to recognize again the business factors that affect our commercial viability, our jobs and the export value of our products.
Bill C-68 as drafted would likely cause us to cease operations or force us to move from Canada, if we could afford to do so. This bill has a number of provisions that make it almost impossible for us to continue in operation.
Specifically, subclause 9(3) provides that every one of our employees who may handle a firearm as part of his or her duties will have to obtain a restricted weapons permit. By way of example, the machined but yet unfinished and unassembled frame of a pistol is defined as a firearm. By analogy, Bill C-17 provided that these employees would have to obtain firearms acquisition certificates, FACs.
I will therefore repeat the entreaties I made before this committee at that time. Our company employs highly qualified mould tool and dye makers, machinists, quality control inspectors and other managerial staff. Such people are qualified to work for us because of their experience in metal working and computer assisted manufacturing. Basically, they have no affinity for firearms and they would normally have no need or desire to obtain a restricted weapons permit. To them, the manufacture of parts for firearms is not different from the manufacture of aircraft components.
We do not deal with the public directly, nor do we sell any firearms from our business premises. Our premises are licensed and inspected by the Chief Provincial Firearms Office, CPFO, for Ontario. Every firearm that we produce is given a serial number, recorded in a manufacturing log and stored in an approved manner. At the time of sale, each and every transaction is also recorded, showing the serial number of the firearm and to whom it was sold.
As such, we strongly believe and respectfully submit that there is no public safety interest in imposing on our employees, who may have to handle firearm parts in the course of manufacture, the requirement of obtaining a restricted weapons permit.
As you know, acquiring such a permit would require the employee to (a) provide personal references and perhaps have their neighbours interviewed; (b) attend and successfully complete a restricted firearms course; (c) have his or her home inspected with regard to where they would store any restricted firearms that they would now be able to obtain.
Subclause 95(1) provides for some exemption from this requirement, but the power to exempt is wholly delegated to the provincial authorities that administer existing firearms legislation. A similar provision was used to provide exemptions from the FAC requirement of Bill C-17.
Unfortunately, this was not of much help to us, since, notwithstanding the clear intent of the exemption section, the provincial authorities refused to provide us with any relief. However, they have provided exemptions to at least two other Ontario companies that are department of supply and services contractors because these companies have their employees' background checked by the said agency.
The Ontario CPFO has felt that this DSS security clearance is an acceptable alternative to the present requirement for FACs, but because we do not as yet supply to DSS, the CPFO has refused to exempt our company.
I must point out that this did not seem to be the committee's intent when it recommended that such an exemption be made part of Bill C-17. Rather, because of our submissions and those of others in the industry, we strongly believe that the committee was then motivated to do so on the basis that the provincial authorities would be in the best position to determine whether or not a business was a bona fide manufacturer of restricted weapons for which the committee had intended this exemption should apply.
.1620
In the present bill, subclause 95(1) gives the provinces the same unfettered discretion to provide exemption relief as they deem fit. We can only expect that any request for an exemption under this bill will be treated as before. We urge you to clarify this provision and make the availability of exemption real for our business as a bona fide manufacturer.
Clauses 10 and 71 of the present bill provide for the regulation of carrier as that term appears in the definitions section. It provides for a licensing regime for carriers that would transport firearms. In the past any common carrier was able to transport firearms. Despite the fact that we have never lost one pistol in transit to the U.S. or across Canada - and we have shipped tens of thousands of pistols to the U.S. and abroad - we now run the risk of not having any newly licensed carrier to transport our products.
It is hard to imagine why an international carrier would be motivated to obtain such a licence just to be able to carry the products Para-Ordnance ships to the rest of the world. The firearms market can only represent a minuscule percentage of transport revenues for any transport company operating within and out of Canada. The imposition of carrier licensing without ensuring that there will be licensed carriers available may result in the loss of our ability to ship our product.
Another potentially serious impediment is found in clauses 42 to 44 - I might add, thanks to Mr. Taylor's having pointed it out, that clause 48 also becomes very relevant, even though I didn't include that in my brief - which impose a requirement for export licences irrespective of destination.
At present we are required to obtain export permits for all of our products destined for shipment to any part of the world other than the U.S.A. The U.S. has the same requirement of its exporters for all foreign shipments other than those destined for Canada. While both countries allow shipments to each other without the need for export permits, both Canada and the U.S. require that import authorizations be made available to their respective customs authorities before any shipment is allowed to enter their territories. The export permit would serve no purpose other than to upset a standing reciprocal arrangement that spans the vast spectrum of goods and services involved in trade between these two nations.
Our particular problem with the export permit requirement for the U.S. is related to the frequency of our shipments, once a week or more. It is extremely arduous to try to predict and then apply for permits for any given quantity and model of product that we would be ready to ship in any given week. This would lead to a great disruption in our business and put us at a competitive disadvantage. It would place the timing of shipments to a customer in the hands of public officials and procedures over which we have no control.
Would it not be just as satisfactory to the integrity of the registration system to have the appropriate information filed as is presently being done, as opposed to actually applying and waiting for a permit to issue?
Our company maintains computerized logs, as approved by the CPFO, of all items manufactured and sold. These records are subject to compliance inspections by the relevant authorities, as we in fact have periodic audits from members of the CPFO and/or the Ontario Provincial Police.
The benefit or utility of export permits for shipments to the U.S. is to say the least questionable. Not only does it potentially disturb existing reciprocal arrangements between Canada and the U.S., which for us now work very well, but it would also delay shipping times, cause new administrative costs, which will be passed on to our company, and provide no apparent benefit to the proposed registration system or Canadians as a whole.
.1625
We respectfully submit that the clauses discussed above be reviewed and amended as proposed in keeping with the following principles: minimize the business costs of increased regulatory burdens; integrity of the proposed registration system; recognition of the importance of the exemption mechanisms for bona fide firearms manufacturers; and the commercial viability and competitiveness of existing bona fide firearms manufacturers.
Thank you for listening to me. Of course, on anything you may want to ask me, we'll be staying here for any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We will now proceed with the questioning.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Chairman, when I started examining Bill C-68, I did so without any bias, and basing myself solely on the education I received as a citizen, and on the values I inherited from my family, and absorbed in the environment where I lived.
I thought the people we would hear before the Committee would help me reach a deeper understanding of various aspects of Bill C-68.
Well, the more we hear witnesses, the more the reality of this project is emerging clearly. It is a bit like a 1,500 piece puzzle. There's no need to wait for the 1,500th piece to know if the puzzle in question represents a scenery from the Rockies or the Grand Canyon.
I for one can see a reality taking shape: now in Bill C-68, I see two bills. The first concerns the committing of crimes and the heavier sentences who would commit such acts with firearms. I see no difficulty in sharing this point of view.
The second bill relates to firearms registration. Now, I represent a rural riding, where a great number of agricultural producers, forest workers and hunters, as well as the prospectors from other ridings are very concerned by this measure, whether rightly or wrongly.
My question is for Mr. Williams. How can agricultural producers, forest workers, prospectors and hunters be exempted from the registration requirement without jeopardizing a national registration system?
[English]
Mr. Williams: What you're asking is if there is a way in which the hunters and the -
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: The hunters and the agricultural producers. I mentioned agricultural producers, forest workers, prospectors, and hunters, in that order. Is there a way for them to be exempted from the registration requirement, without that compromising a national firearms registration system such as the one dealt with in Bill C-68?
[English]
Mr. Williams: No, I don't see how we can distinguish more groups than we have already, quite frankly.
.1630
I don't think the national registry system will work for the total population. Many of the people, at least many of my customers - who aren't any of what you say, they're just the normal citizen, a factory worker, or whatever - would certainly feel that they are being slighted if some exemption is given to someone else. I just don't know how there could be any other system, a different tier system.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Registration is compulsory and universal. This would give rise to the perverse effect as did the Volstead Act on prohibition. If there was a period when alcohol was selling well, it was certainly during prohibition, even if it was behind the curtain. Bootlegging was never as prosper as between 1919 and 1933, when the Volstead Act was in force.
In Canada, we have had extremely high taxes on tobacco products to deter people from smoking, but there emerged an underground market, and people were still smoking as much as, if not more than before. We had to bring down the taxes to try to regain control of the situation.
This is one of the questions I was asking myself.
There's also another provision of Bill C-68 which grates on me a lot, and with which I cannot be in agreement. It's the provision through which a person who omit registering his or her firearm, would by law be considered to be a potential criminal, since he or she would have committed an act punishable with five years in prison.
As my colleague Mr. de Savoye was saying the other day, when new crimes are thought up, new criminals are also created. A few moments ago, I was telling you about agricultural producers who need a rifle to kill a skunk that's rummaging through the garbage close to the house, or to kill a partridge or a hare to serve them up on their table the next day. I also talked about forest workers in need a firearm in the woods to defend themselves against wolves, that can be particularly ferocious when they attack, coyotes, and even black bears, and I also mentioned hunters who, in a time honoured tradition, hand down their firearms from father to son, or from mother to daughter. These people feel hounded, and lumped together with the common criminals that the act purports to deal with, at least in theory.
[English]
Mr. Williams: I think you are correct in saying that a lot of the people, the honest citizens, will feel attacked if compulsory registration of all firearms is enacted. I think a number of criminals, who would not normally be criminals, would be created strictly by the passage of the bill.
A person, a farmer or whoever, may decide that their rights, if they consider it a right to own property, are being infringed upon and decide that he or she shouldn't register it. It may be the farmer you were talking about who has had a rifle for the last 20 years. The rifle might be worth $20, and to get it registered, to get his FPC, I'm afraid is just not going to be worth it as far as he's concerned. He'll have to make that decision, whether he's going to take the chance or become a criminal instantly by not doing it.
My customers feel as though they're being lumped in with the criminal element. We traditionally have not been, or my customers and I certainly haven't been.
.1635
Mr. Taylor: I would like to add to that. Part of the concern with more restrictive laws we've put in there - you mentioned cigarettes and booze and those types of things - is that it's going to be the same thing with firearms. There is going to be more smuggling if they're harder to get into Canada. History is just repeating itself.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Could there be smuggling resulting from the implementation if this piece of legislation? Could this smuggling put in serious danger a company such as Lakefield Arms or the one that Mr. Polyzos was talking about a while ago? Is it conceivable that the legal market would be the first victim of the appearance of a firearms black market, just like corner stores were the first victims of the tobacco war?
[English]
Mr. Taylor: I don't see that affecting our industry. I expect you'll have more firearms, especially handguns, with the restrictions you're putting on there. Those types of things are going to come across the border and they're going to have no registration, whereas now you have registration. You're going to lose that control. But I don't think it will affect my industry as far as .22-calibre rifles go, and that's all we produce.
Mr. Williams: As far as the smuggling is concerned, with handguns or long guns, but mainly with restricted firearms, the Toronto Star did quite an article. I don't know whether you have seen it. They had tracked a dealer in the States through the connection in Canada and had accounted for, with this one particular dealer, 800 to 900 illegal firearms on Canadian streets, according to the article in the Toronto Star.
As far as I'm concerned, smuggling is the major problem we have. It's something that I think can be addressed. There certainly are provisions in Bill C-17 to address the smuggling problem. I don't think enough has been done about it, and I think if we took care of the smuggling aspect of it, we would notice a substantial decrease in the number of illegal firearms on the street. That is what we all, I think, are concerned with. I know I certainly am.
Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): We have had groups appear before this committee. There was the justice minister from the Northwest Territories and his colleagues, the group from agriculture representing farmers and ranchers and other people in agriculture, the guides and outfitters, those representing museums and, of course, this morning the collectors of firearms, and now you folks. Those are six groups, and they have all asked for exemptions from portions of this bill.
My colleague mentioned that this bill is really in two parts. One is aimed at the law-abiding gun owner and the industry. The other, of course, is aimed at criminal users of firearms, including smuggling and so on. There's no question that if this bill was split in two, those aspects of the bill dealing with the criminal users of firearms would be supported, certainly by our caucus. We would have amendments, as we will always do from time to time when we feel it should be strengthened. We think it's too weak in that area as it is, but nevertheless it's going in the right direction.
We had introduced what they call a reasoned amendment to do that very thing, to split the bill. It would have required withdrawing the bill and bringing it forward in the two parts.
.1640
Of course, we were asking them to bring it forward. The first part would be to deal with the criminal users of firearms and the smuggling part and to get tough in that area. Of course it would allow Bill C-17 and those provisions to go forward for a few years and do what the Auditor General had recommended, which is a complete review of that legislation to see whether it's meeting its goals and objectives before additional legislation is brought in.
Of course that didn't work. That amendment was voted down. In fact, the debate on it was shut off. We had eight or ten speakers who still wanted to represent their people from their constituency on that amendment. We never even got to debate the contents of Bill C-68 in a meaningful way, because the debate was on the amendment. Nevertheless, I'd like to touch on a point and perhaps ask a question, and you can comment it.
Under clause 5, if this bill becomes law, you are going to have to be licensed first. Every gun owner or anyone who wishes to be a gun owner will have to receive a licence, not unlike a driver's licence. In order to get a licence, the applicant will have to undergo background checks in the area of the Criminal Code to see if there have been any violations regarding threats or violence. There are provisions for a background check under the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act. There's also a requirement under paragraph 5.2(b) to determine whether the individual has ever been treated for a mental illness. That means to me that if I'm seeking a licence I would have to willingly open up my medical files to the chief provincial firearms officer so he could determine whether or not I had ever suffered from a mental illness or whether or not I had been in a hospital for such treatment.
I received a review of the bill from a crown prosecutor in one of the provinces who pointed out that if this is how we're going to have to do it, then in order to get a licence I would have to agree and consent for them to look into my medical file; otherwise, I wouldn't get a licence. Then the question was raised as to whether or not that is real consent and whether or not that's a violation of my right to privacy as protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
To carry on, not only will that background check have to deal with a Criminal Code record, any criminal or mental illness record, it also has to deal with a neighbourhood background check to see whether or not there's any history of violent behaviour, threats or whatever, before a licence is issued.
My information from the Province of Ontario, the City of Toronto, is that an FAC that follows a similar pattern of background checks - not the same, I understand, but a similar one - costs the city of Toronto $185 per application. If that is a fair cost as to what will be incurred with regard to the acquisition of a licence, then if you multiply that figure of $185 by the three million gun owners in this country, we come up with a figure of $555 million. That's the low figure, the three million gun owners. If you take the higher figure of about six million, then it's $1.11 billion before any firearm is registered at all. So the cost is enormous.
These checks would go back five years. At least I think the criminal record check and the mental illness check would go back five years. I don't know about the neighbourhood history check.
.1645
If individuals were turned down and they couldn't obtain a licence, then that's going to mean that they cannot possess a firearm. Unless I'm reading it wrong, it means that there's going to be confiscation of firearms immediately, in that people will not meet the licensing test.
Mr. Polyzos, your employees, under this act, even though they don't own firearms, even though they have no desire to own firearms, would have to be licensed. That's not an FAC; that's a licence to own. What kind of a burden would that place upon your business?
The Chair: Mr. Ramsay, you've used nine of your ten minutes. However, all of you may answer the question.
Mr. Polyzos: My immediate reaction to your question, Mr. Ramsay, is that we would probably not look at it only in monetary costs. I think the biggest burden would be that we would have to deny employment to these people because they would not want to obtain such a licence in order to be employed. As I said in my brief, these people are highly trained, and they can work for us or any other company that requires their experience. That company could be De Havilland, Bombardier, or any other company that utilizes people with that experience.
We've got the sense that it is rather difficult to have people who bring this wealth of experience to a company go back home and tell their wives that they now have to be licensed to acquire a firearm, that their neighbours will have to be interviewed, that they will have to go through all these checks, when in fact they don't have any desire to obtain a firearm. A lot of them would feel that perhaps the perception of their neighbours toward them would change. They certainly do not want to become apologetic for coming to work for us, and I think they would seek employment elsewhere.
Mr. Taylor: I have the same concern. Sixty per cent of our employees are women. Two out of the 60% actually had FACs when they came to work for us. The rest of them are in the process of taking the test or have taken it. We've had some that don't have the education, and a couple of them have failed it. One has failed it twice. Now the burden on this person is tremendous. She is concerned about losing her job; she doesn't have a place to go. She doesn't have the education to get employment anyplace. Of course, the employment in our area is not the best in the first place. So it has put a tremendous burden on our employees, not only the women but all the people we have.
The other problem is that my people are supposed to have an FAC when they come into our plant. We are in the process of hiring two people every week. The process to get an FAC takes three months. It's supposed to take 28 days, but it takes three months. So technically we're breaking the law. We're doing our best; we're training the people we have to train. You're talking about a cost of $125 or $150 per person for them to get a job. It's not quite fair.
Mr. Williams: If I could elaborate on what Allan Taylor just said, I'm the one who failed the woman the second time, actually. I give the FAC test. I talked to this lady after the exam. Until she was taking the course, she had never handled a complete firearm. Her job there, I believe, was assembling a magazine, and that was exactly the sum total of her involvement or her desired involvement with any firearm. So it does place quite an onus on her. She was certainly very embarrassed and so was I, quite frankly.
.1650
Mr. Lee (Scarborough - Rouge River): I want to direct my questions to Lakefield Arms and Para-Ordnance.
You both told us you have business volumes in excess of $20 million a year. Is that right?
Mr. Taylor: No, that is not what I said. It is $5 million. It will be $5 million this year. Last year we were at $2.9 million.
Mr. Lee: And at Para-Ordnance, Mr. Polyzos.
Mr. Polyzos: Yes, I stated that.
Mr. Lee: Does Lakefield Arms export about 75% of its product?
Mr. Taylor: Last year it was about 75%, and this year it will be between 87% and 90%.
Mr. Lee: At Para-Ordnance, what percentage of your sales are exported?
Mr. Polyzos: Our sales in Canada, if I can use that side of the equation, are a classical de minimis. They're in the tens of thousands of dollars, not exceeding $30,000 or $40,000 a year.
Mr. Lee: It would be like 1% or 2%?
Mr. Polyzos: No, it's rather like 0.1% or one-twentieth.
Mr. Lee: I'll ask Para-Ordnance what the existing security arrangements are around your premises. Are there security arrangements?
Mr. Polyzos: The security arrangements are quite extensive. They have been approved on an ongoing basis by the CPFO, as I had stated earlier. The perimeter is of course controlled by motion detectors and other contact alarms. We have an employees exit equipped with a metal detector similar to the ones at airports, to make sure our employees don't forget what they shouldn't take home. We have tried to do as much as we possibly can in terms of following our products with the best possible record keeping, to make sure we're always in touch with what should be in stock on our premises.
Thankfully, we have never had any problems with outside incursions, and we believe the security system in place has an integrity to notify police in time.
Mr. Lee: Do you test fire your finished firearms before shipping?
Mr. Polyzos: Yes, all our firearms have to be proved. That means testing them with at least one cartridge of excessive pressure to make sure that there is integrity in the firearm that it would never be a safety concern to the end user.
Mr. Lee: Is that done on the premises?
Mr. Polyzos: It is done on the premises. We have a firing range. Once again, approvals for that range, and outside inspections of it, were conducted by the CPFO. We also have to have the municipality of Scarborough give its rubber stamp approval in order for the CPFO to proceed with its licensing.
Mr. Lee: What percentage of your employees, who I gather number about 120 in Montreal and Scarborough, have to have FACs now?
Mr. Polyzos: Basically we've tried to keep the ones who don't have FACs from handling those parts that would constitute an infraction of the law. As I mentioned earlier, that infraction would apply the minute someone handles a frame of a pistol, just the lower part, unassembled, by itself. It's nothing more than a piece of metal. However, I think I might answer the question best if I said to you that only two employees are authorized to test fire, function test if I may, the pistols that leave the factory.
Mr. Lee: I want to get back to what the cost and the administrative burden is for FACs. What percentage of your employees would come in contact and would handle the frame, the firearm, the box, or whatever parts are restricted?
.1655
Mr. Polyzos: At some time or another, it would have to be as high as 60%, maybe 70%, of our employees, in order for us to operate with some efficiency.
One example: if one of our computer numerically controlled milling centres has machined a part improperly and that part happens to be the frame, we would need to have a mould maker look at what might have gone wrong, perhaps with the jigs and fixtures on which that frame is held, because he would be the one to make any repairs. A mould maker now would be considered a person handling a firearm, and would in fact have to have a licence for restricted weapons.
Mr. Lee: I want to deal with exporting, since such a high proportion of Lakefield products are exported. I think both of you may have missed something that is in clause 43, which may sound absurd.
Clause 43, in dealing with exports, says that in order to get an export permit the firearm has to be registered. That's a bit of a catch-22 here. Since you're exporting, first of all you have to have employees with FACs; then your business now, under the new bill, would have to be licensed as a business - which you both are, I gather - but then if you're exporting a particular firearm you have to register it first because paragraph 43(a) says that you must hold the registration certificate for the firearm before you get an export permit. So you actually have to register it first. Then you have to get the export permit. Then you have to find a licensed carrier, which doesn't exist right now and which you think you may have difficulty finding -
Mr. Taylor: Extremely.
Mr. Lee: Then you have to get it to a particular designated export point. You can't just send it wherever you want; it has to go to a designated export point.
Can you carry on business with that amount of paperwork and regulation out there? Something tells me you're going to have difficulty.
Mr. Taylor: As I stated in my brief, this company would definitely have to move south. It could not stay in Canada with the regulations we are now looking at. We have to have some relief there.
Mr. Lee: Both your businesses seem to be doing fairly well, generating export dollars. I understand that Para-Ordnance has sold its product to the FBI. I assume your employees are proud of that.
Mr. Polyzos: We certainly are proud of what we've accomplished and they are proud to be part of the organization.
Mr. Lee: What are you going to do about these increased costs?
Mr. Polyzos: It's not only a matter of dollars and cents; that again is just one facet or one aspect of the problem. You have costs associated with disturbances of the type I mentioned by not being able to produce and deliver to market as needed the products that we would be able to manufacture at any given time and deliver on outstanding orders. It would definitely force us to consider ceasing operations in Canada.
Mr. Lee: I forgot to mention to everyone, of course, that you'd have to de-register the darned firearm when you export it as well. Having registered it you'd have to deregister it when it left the country; otherwise, you'd have some unnecessary entries in the firearm system.
Do both of your businesses, Lakefield and Para-Ordnance, get along reasonably well with the chief provincial firearms office? Is that relationship operating smoothly? If it is or isn't, can you give us suggestions here about what we might do with the bill or the regulations that might improve that relationship?
Mr. Taylor: We haven't had that kind of problem. They're so busy we don't see them that often anyway.
Mr. Polyzos: Perhaps we've had more frequent contact. We have a good rapport, to say the least, with the people at the CPFO's office in Toronto. There is the exception, of course - and this has nothing to do with the rapport - of the fact that when we asked for the exemption because we have been designated by them under other provisions of Bill C-17 which they readily gave us as this committee had then intended that they should be given, we were not given the FAC exemption.
.1700
I suspect that one of the reasons was the fact that they felt they had an unfettered discretion to do so or not. They were given no guidelines whether they should or they shouldn't and it was perhaps much safer not to.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Williams, if the provisions dealing with the universal registering were adopted, we would come back to the penalties problem: penalties could be or should be imposed to people failing to register their firearms.
If we adopted a registering system, do you think it would be acceptable, not to institute a criminal offence for people failing to register their firearms, but simply to institute a statutory offence which would not give a criminal record and which would authorize to give that person a fine, as it is the case when a person drives with a suspended license, but does not commit a criminal offence while doing so?
[English]
Mr. Williams: I think it's certainly better than obtaining a criminal record for something like that. I really don't know if the government would ever pass legislation that would just give a person a fine for something like that. Perhaps what would be entailed in that as well would be a prohibition from ever owning firearms or confiscation of any other firearms that he had, whether he registered them or not.
Certainly I agree that it shouldn't make a person a criminal. But I think before I say a whole lot I'd like to know what the other alternative is. I still feel the best alternative is not universal registration on long guns right now, until we examine and get the system we have already in existence, see the results of how it's doing, and see if it's doing what we want it to do.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Of course, I am dealing by elimination. The first hypothesis was no registration. If we had a registration, don't you think a statutory offence would be better that criminal offence?
I'm going to pursue my reasoning as you speak of other possibilities. If we kept the criminal offence, would you agree that we add one condition? I just wrote it down, but it is not a legal version. We could add to the offence a supplementary condition which could be more or less: no judge or jury could convict the accused unless he's persuaded that when the offence were committed, the accused presented a threat or real danger for the life or the security of any person.
A farmer, a logger or a prospector could use this defence: "I was not a threat for anyone; I was alone in the woods cutting trees and I wanted to protect myself against animals." The Crown could even have the burden to prove that this person was a threat for the society or for any other person. It would be a quite exceptional defence, but it would have the advantage to get around the possibility to categorize exempted citizens, to say for example that such or such person would be exempted because of his or her profession, as you said earlier and as Mr. Taylor also said, while other person is not. We could establish a standard of "dangerousity", if I could use this term, and the Crown would have the burden of the proof.
[English]
Mr. Williams: It would certainly be much better than the person obtaining a criminal record. If it was enacted in the way you suggested, then it would certainly be much better than what's in the present legislation proposal.
.1705
I still think it would be a paper nightmare. It would be awfully expensive for the government, and it would be very expensive for the person to try to prove that perhaps he wasn't a threat. A lot would depend on who was sitting on the other side of the table to decide if the man in the woods was a threat, or the farmer that didn't have a registered shotgun was a threat, as compared to someone who lives in town who did the same thing.
The Chair: I want to remind committee members that we have a vote at 5:30 p.m., for which the bells will start ringing at 5:15 p.m., so we'll have to clear out of here at 5:25 p.m. The meeting was called until 5:30 p.m., so we have to quit five minutes short, and I have no permission from the whip tonight to stay away. There are two votes, I believe.
Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): Mr. Williams, you've talked about devaluation of collections. I think this is an issue that most of us are very sensitive to in terms of people spending money and losing it. At the same time, why do you think people buy and form gun collections? Is it an affinity to guns, or is it an investment in their retirement?
Mr. Williams: Some people no doubt use it as an investment in their retirement. Over the past few decades certain firearms have increased in value faster than numismatic coins, for example. As they get older they get rarer, and people are willing to pay more for them. A lot of people have purchased firearms in the past for this reason. They felt in their aging years they could....
I could give you an example. Three weeks ago I had a call from one of my customers. He'd just found out that he has a terminal illness. He had to dispose of his firearms. Now, this man is approximately 65 years old. He's been collecting since he was 20 years old. He's built up his collection, trading, buying and selling, until he got some good examples of what he was collecting. He wanted to sell them all, of course. I went down to see him and to see them. From last year to this year, the value of 32 firearms - they were all long guns - has dropped by at least $10,000 because people just will not pay it.
We also have collectors who collected, for example, German Lugers. There are hundreds of variations of this firearm and they're desirable by collectors. Those guns are worth nothing because most of them have four-inch barrels.
Mr. Gallaway: Would you not agree that the same thing could happen to somebody who invested their money in Canadian art or strip malls?
Mr. Williams: It could, but in Canadian art, for example, it would be the market that would dictate that drop in value, not the government.
Mr. Gallaway: What about the stock market?
Mr. Williams: The stock market?
Mr. Gallaway: Bill Clinton gets a cold and you lose it all tonight.
Mr. Williams: Well, I haven't got much to lose in the stock market, but I understand what you're saying.
Mr. Gallaway: There are many events in the world, some of which are political, some of which are not political, that affect the value of people's investments.
Mr. Williams: Yes, except this particular bill would affect a lot of people. It has already affected a lot of people, and it has not even been implemented for results I think a lot of us feel it doesn't justify.
Mr. Gallaway: In terms of justification, certainly government legislation, whether it's here or whether it's in various provincial capitals or whether it's in municipalities, can affect the value of goods. I'm thinking of municipal councils, which is owned property, which has a direct spin-off effect on abutting properties. One sees the value of properties perhaps collapse in the short term. Do you think that some of this might be unjustified speculation on the part of investors? Is it fear or is it reality?
Mr. Williams: On the part of firearms owners?
Mr. Gallaway: Yes.
Mr. Williams: No, it's reality.
Mr. Gallaway: All right.
Mr. Williams: I might add one thing. The devaluation in your property, for example, doesn't go from $2,000 an acre to zero.
Mr. Gallaway: What about exportation?
Mr. Williams: Of firearms?
Mr. Gallaway: Of collections.
Mr. Williams: It's virtually impossible.
Mr. Gallaway: Why?
.1710
Mr. Williams: You need an export permit. Now, as a dealer, I was dealing with a Canadian in Zimbabwe, as a matter of fact. He works for the government over there and wanted a couple of firearms from me. I applied for an export permit. The first one took me a little over a year to get and he had his permit from the other side. The second one took me about four months to get. With that time lag, we just don't have a plus. I just wouldn't go through the bother of export. I'd leave that up to the gentleman at the end of the table.
The Chair: Your time is finished, but Mr. Williams can finish answering the question. Did you finish, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: On exportation by a normal citizen, they would have no idea how to go through the routes. If you phone the country that you want to export to, getting through to that department is really hard. I have tried it. Getting hold of the department in Canada that's responsible for that is also hard. As a matter of fact, for that one permit which took me a year and a half to get I corresponded with the gentleman in Ottawa by fax. He never returned a phone call once. It really is a problem.
Mr. Thompson: I have a basic question. If we could get a short answer, then we'll have room for one more.
We have 124 pages here of Bill C-68. As near as we can estimate, about 117 pages address the law-abiding citizens of the country and about six pages address the criminals. I just received word a little while ago that in the West Edmonton Mall there have been some more problems. I think somebody got killed, but I don't know all the details. Every day we get more and more victims added to the list of those who belong to Victims of Violence and other organizations.
What bothers me is we're spending a lot of time addressing these things where there are apparently already a lot of regulations in place that govern you people in your business and govern all firearm owners. Apparently these crimes that I heard about today are being committed with handguns. Handguns are registered. Handguns have been registered since 1934.
I am an angry person because we've been here a year and a half and we haven't addressed the problem of killers in this country that we don't go after. I don't see any action except a lot of let's talk about this wonderful document that goes for 117 pages addressing law-abiding citizens. After analysing this document I believe that it is a document that is infringing on the civil liberties of the citizens of this country.
I wonder if any of you have analysed it in those same terms. If you have, would you respond. Please make it short, because we have another question here.
Mr. Taylor: Basically, homicides in Canada have not changed since 1978. There's no increase in homicides by firearms. You had your gun laws by then. What's the change? All you're doing is going after law-abiding people. They've made no effort to go after the criminal.
Mr. Thompson: Does anybody else want to respond?
The Chair: I don't think the RCMP would agree that they haven't made any effort to go after the criminals.
Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): I noticed that one of your businesses has been around for 25 years. I'm not sure how many years you've been in business - 12 - and you've been in business for 15 years. Do you feel that you have a substantial problem with theft, with your product relocating illegally somewhere else?
You made a question, Mr. Williams, that it was an American dealer who was bringing in thousands of guns unregistered into our country. Do you see that this legislation is going to change that at all?
Mr. Williams: That was one dealer that had sent hundreds by the way, not thousands, but I'm talking about one dealer only.
.1715
There are provisions in here that certainly deal with smuggling. We have regulations against smuggling in Bill C-17 that if implemented and upheld by the courts, would certainly be harsh enough.
Ms Meredith: Are you aware of the provisions in here for smuggling or illegal possession of a firearm - it's not specifically smuggling - and that it can also be summary conviction as well as a criminal conviction? Do you feel that is going to be any deterrent?
Mr. Williams: Yes, it would help to be a deterrent. If you do the crime, do the time for a change. That can be dealt with.
People come into the store who have read in the papers where guns can be bought on the street. If everyone knows where to buy these guns on the street, then why aren't the RCMP buying some of them and the guys they buy them from being put away forever?
Ms Meredith: It's because that's not in this legislation.
Mr. Williams: I know.
Ms Meredith: This legislation says it can be a summary conviction, which means a fine, not any time.
Mr. Williams: That's right. That's what it has been.
Ms Meredith: That's what I asked you. Do you feel that this legislation deals appropriately with the criminal use of firearms?
Mr. Williams: We have legislation that can deal with it. I'm not a lawyer; I don't understand all of this bill. I can't go through it, because to go back and forth is just beyond me on some of this stuff. But the penalties are what will regulate it.
Mr. Wappel (Scarborough West): Gentlemen, thank you for your evidence today. It's always interesting.
I simply want you to know that some of the points you've made I certainly agree with, and I appreciate your flagging them. That doesn't prevent me from asking questions that will make it appear as if I don't agree with you.
Before I do that I want to, in particular, congratulate Mr. Polyzos on his presentation. As everybody on this committee knows, I love a presentation that's short, that specifically mentions the sections that are of concern, and specifically offers suggestions for improvement. So I thank you, sir, for that.
I want to address the costs of registration from an ordinary taxpayer point of view, not fromthe full cost of the system because that is in the realm of speculation, whether it's $85 million or$1.2 billion or anywhere in between.
I own a .22 rifle. I have owned it since I was in my early twenties. I haven't used it in 15 to18 years. As I understand the system, I will have to register myself as the owner of that long gun. Let's say it will cost me $10. That's going to last me how long? Five years? As I understand it, it's going to cost me $10 to register that firearm for five years. Is that correct or wrong?
Mr. Taylor: It will cost you $60. First you have to get an FAC.
Mr. Wappel: No, I have it already.
Mr. Taylor: You have an FAC?
Mr. Wappel: I'm talking about me now. Specifically, when this bill comes into effect, what am I going to have to do? This is what I want to talk about. I have a lousy .22 in the basement that I haven't used in 18 years. How much is it going to cost me? I'm going to walk over to the post office. I'm going to fill out a form that's going to tell the authorities that I own a long gun. That's point number one. That's the first part of the registration system, as I understand it.
Mr. Taylor: You're going to walk over to the post office and register.
Mr. Wappel: And get a form, and then you send it in.
Mr. Taylor: And you're going to send it in? You can put any number on it that you wish to put on it?
Mr. Wappel: No, I'm going to do what I'm required to do. What I'm getting at -
Mr. Taylor: Not everybody does what they're required to do.
Mr. Wappel: I'm not interested in that. I'm talking about me. I'm looking at it from my perspective at this point. It's going to cost me $10 to register. Isn't that right?
Mr. Taylor: For the first year it's $10; $60 in the year 2000.
Mr. Wappel: How do you know that?
Mr. Taylor: Because it's in the papers here. That's what it says.
Mr. Wappel: The actual costs aren't in there. That's going to be determined, isn't it?
Mr. Taylor: They are too. They're in there already.
Mr. Wappel: I'm not talking about the gun; I'm talking about me.
Mr. Taylor: I'm talking about you. The first year it's $10, and in the year 2000 it will be $60. That's the number they have in there today, whether it's going to be that or not.
Mr. Wappel: All right, that's fine. That's good to know.
I have a female dog. I have to register her in the City of Scarborough. It costs me $23 a year to get a licence for my dog. I can get a licence for my .22 for $10 for five years. I don't see that as a terribly onerous burden for the ordinary person on the issue of cost.
.1720
You've mentioned the effects on the new hunter or target shooter. My goodness, it's going to cost between $205 and $370. I'm just paying $699 for my son's driving course. Then he has to take a licence test which is $135. He wants to drive the car, and that's going to cost me $2,000 in insurance. Then I just wrote a cheque for my daughter's licence. Mind you it's for five years, but it's $65.
If I want to take up skiing, just to buy the equipment and take the lessons is going to cost me $370. If a person is interested in a sport of some nature, it's going to cost them some money. If you want to go fishing with any degree of propensity, you're going to have to buy a reasonable rod and reel. You're going to have to get a fishing licence. You're going to have to pay for whatever quota of special fish you want to take. If you want to go up north, you're going to have to pay to go up north for that.
Just looking at it on the bald face of it, $370 doesn't sound like a very expensive proposition to me. I would think it would cost more to buy the firearm. But of course it's going to cost an awful lot to buy a pair of skis, too, or whatever particular interest you may have.
I don't see where the big objection is here on those two issues, as it affects me as a citizen. I'm not talking about collectors. I'm not talking about people who have 15 guns. I'm talking about a person who has a .22. I don't see that aspect of this bill as being all that upsetting. Why do you?
Mr. Taylor: Two years ago they put in a law where people had to register some of their firearms. Then they turned around and passed a law stating they were going to take them all away from them. That's going to continue.
Mr. Wappel: That's an entirely different issue.
Mr. Taylor: That's the direction you've been heading in.
Mr. Wappel: Confiscation has nothing to do with cost. That's an entirely different issue.
Mr. Taylor: That's our issue.
Mr. Wappel: I understand that.
Mr. Taylor: Our issue is that you're trying to take away something of our personal property.
Mr. Wappel: I understand that.
The Chair: Tom, I'd ask you not to interrupt.
Mr. Wappel: Sorry.
The Chair: Do any of you want to answer further Mr. Wappel's question?
Mr. Williams: I'd like to add one thing. I would assume most people, according to statistics done by government, have said that most Canadian households that have firearms own more than one. I think the average they said was 2.7, or whatever the case may be. Presently, if you own only one, the cost is insignificant. But don't forget that when you get your FPC, which you will have to get sometime, that will be $60.
If, for example, your son wanted to get into handgun shooting at a range, there's a cost of $60 per new registration per firearm. I find that quite inhibitive.
We're not talking about collectors. We have collectors who have a very large number of firearms which will cost a very large amount of money.
The Chair: I would have liked to ask a few questions myself, but I can't because I have to go to the House of Commons and vote.
Anyway, we have had a quite exhaustive discussion of your briefs. I want to thank you very much for coming here today.
Members of the committee, we will continue our work tomorrow afternoon and evening, and again Thursday morning and afternoon.
The meeting stands adjourned.