Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, May 10, 1995

.1535

[English]

The Chair: Order.

Unfortunately, we are late by five minutes. We had a vote in the House that delayed us, and I apologize to our witnesses, who have come a long distance.

We are continuing our examination of Bill C-68, An Act respecting firearms and other weapons.

We are pleased to have with us this afternoon as a panel the International Practical Shooting Confederation of Canada, represented by Bryan Hodges, president, and Lorne Rowe, director of legislative affairs. We also have the Shooting Federation of Canada, represented by John Perocchio, director, and Paul Shaw, a member of the executive committee.

We've received your briefs. They're both very complete, and they have additional material attached to them.

According to our rules, we ask the witness groups to limit themselves to 15 minutes for their opening remarks. That would be 15 minutes for each of you. If you can read the relevant parts of your brief in 15 minutes, you may do that. If you'd rather just have it tabled and refer to certain parts or highlight the major points, you can do that as well. In any case, we would like to, if we can, keep to the 15-minute rule.

We usually proceed in the order in which the witness groups are listed on the notice of the meeting. The International Practical Shooting Confederation of Canada is listed first, and the Shooting Federation of Canada is listed second. So I will give the floor first to the International Practical Shooting Confederation of Canada.

Firstly, though, I want to say that, in accordance with his commitment last night, Mr. Ramsay has tabled a motion with the committee with regard to the evidence given last night by the Yukon Indians and the James Bay Cree. He tabled the motion this afternoon, and therefore it will be in order to take it up in 48 hours. I've asked the clerk to distribute copies to all members so that you'll be ready to deal with it on Friday. Friday is the day we have set aside for a hearing from technical experts and so on, so at a certain point during those meetings, either at the beginning or at the end, we'll deal with Mr. Ramsay's motion. So I'd ask the clerk to copy and distribute it.

Mr. Hodges, the floor is yours.

Mr. Bryan Hodges (President, International Practical Shooting Confederation of Canada): Thank you. I will briefly go through our foreword and touch on each of the items in our nine sections. I'll allow my colleague, Mr. Rowe, to summarize at the end.

The International Practical Shooting Confederation of Canada very much appreciates this opportunity to appear before this committee on Bill C-68, the proposed Firearms Act. IPSC Canada is a mature, responsible, sport target shooting organization. Its members have been competing in IPSC competitions on national and international levels for over 17 years. A substantial number of our accredited range and safety officials are currently active as instructors in Canada's firearms acquisition certificate training program and also have contributed their time and effort towards other related community firearms safety programs.

IPSC Canada is held in very high esteem within the law enforcement community because of the integrity, the value, and, most importantly, the commitment of our sport to the safe, responsible use of firearms.

Through its membership, IPSC Canada wholeheartedly applauds the federal Minister of Justice in his endeavours to curtail the deliberate criminal misuse of firearms through increased penalties for such activity and his positive efforts further to enhance controls on illegal cross-border smuggling. In particular, these two areas of legislation should send a strong message to the criminal element in our society that such activity is intolerable and will, in fact, carry severe penalties for those who so offend. The general firearms community has long awaited such purpose and commitment from the federal government and, as such, congratulates the minister accordingly.

.1540

Unfortunately, certain aspects of the new Firearms Act will have a detrimental legal, financial and emotional impact on firearms owners in Canada and will impact substantially on the sport of IPSC to the point where there's a real possibility of the loss of our sport structure.

We certainly recognize that society today is demanding effective laws and controls further to enhance safety for ourselves and for those around us. As a substantial part of this society, we also ask for such a commitment from our government.

As Canadian citizens who are responsible, law-abiding firearms owners, we feel strongly that such focus should only be directed against those who deliberately use a firearm in a criminal act towards society. Prohibiting or restricting firearms that are commonly used in legal, legitimate recreational circumstances, such as casual target shooting, hunting, collecting, or informally organized competitions such as those under IPSC, does not prevent criminal acts. It only further restricts the already responsible owner.

Society through all governments enacts controls and penalties for the misuse of many items today without resorting to prohibiting them entirely when they are misused by a few. Society has also learned that in such areas it is much more effective clearly to outline responsible use and behaviour and then punish accordingly when such limits are deliberately breached. A clear reward to the responsible citizen in society today is the ability to own and enjoy property. By allowing criminal acts to govern such ownership and use, the criminal now controls the law-abiding citizen.

IPSC Canada is extremely concerned that such direction in legislation will eventually evolve into the total loss of our recreational pursuits. Accordingly, IPSC Canada has reviewed the Firearms Act as proposed and has included comments on various aspects of it that our members feel would be detrimental to the responsible use of firearms in today's society. As mature, responsible citizens of Canada, we respectfully ask this committee to review our concerns and to consider carefully our comments when considering the specific merits of this act.

In our section 2, we note that we have concerns about Governor-in-Council regulations. The change in wording from where it was originally designated as ``not commonly used for hunting and sporting purposes'' to the new description of ``if in the opinion of the Governor in Council the thing to be prescribed is reasonable for use'' concerns us greatly, because it now brings in this prescription for further prohibitions. Fact no longer becomes an issue. It now becomes someone's subjective opinion as to whether or not something should be used. So we have asked that this change in wording be struck out and that we revert back to the previous ``not commonly used for hunting and sporting purposes''.

In section 3, on large-capacity magazines, IPSC has long asked for what was clearly given to us in the 34th Parliament, which was an exemption for use of these magazines in sporting competitions. In Bill C-80 this was actually brought up to a 20-round magazine limit, but when it was resurrected as Bill C-17, it was reduced to 10. You will note that in the transcription from Bill C-17 legislative committee 8, the previous committee that sat on firearms issues, clearly recognized competitive shooters and felt this was a valid and warranted exemption.

Next is section 4. The prohibition of firearms with a barrel length equal to or less than 105 millimetres severely impacts on the entry-level part of our sport. We typically have people come into our sport who cannot afford to spend $5,000, $6,000, or $10,000 to compete, and they prefer to start with a much less expensive firearm. We find that perhaps these prohibitions that were originally geared around what people would term to be Saturday night specials or pocket pistols have expanded into areas that no longer fall under that sort of description. The typical revolver used today in IPSC competitions that fits into this category is a quite bulky item.

.1545

We would like to have the 105-millimetre limit dropped, and we would like the justice department to submit a specific list of firearms that they wish to prohibit for specific just cause so that this can be examined and discussed by all concerned.

Under section 5, prohibition of previously restricted and non-restricted rifles and shotguns for Governor-in-Council regulation, we are concerned that specific firearms that were clearly designated as restricted are now going into the prohibited category. We find no change in criminal use of these firearms in the last year since these particular firearms were restricted in Bill C-17. Accordingly, we would like these prohibitions to be dropped and to remain in the class of restricted firearms rather than prohibited.

We also note that, while in clause 18 there is specific allowance for the use of pre-February 14 handguns for target practice and competitions, there is no consideration directed here towards a similar use of the prohibited rifles and shotguns. If these rifles, such as the Colt AR-15, become prohibited, there's nothing in clause 18 that allows their use in shooting competitions.

Under section 6, Governor-in-Council regulations, we are concerned that these will be brought before cabinet without any consultation with shooting organizations, such as IPSC Canada and our colleague organizations. We would like to see communication on this issue from all sides. We would also like to see these kinds of regulations placed before the House for 30 days for debate after they've been approved by cabinet.

In reference to the national registration system, we have looked at this very carefully over the last few months and have now determined that we feel the non-compliance Criminal Code offences are very onerous for perhaps an inadvertent breaching of a registration regulation. We have noted that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police had a resolution to have a national registration system, but we find no such recommendation to put offences for non-compliance into the Criminal Code. IPSC Canada believes that the registration system should be disregarded and that the funds used towards this registration system could be better allocated to areas such as enhancing safe storage requirements, community training courses, safety training courses, that so on.

In section 8 we note that with the new firearms possession certificate there will be a separate handgun course. IPSC Canada, of course, is primarily handgun oriented, and we have developed what could arguably be the best and safest handgun training course in Canada. We would be pleased to offer our expertise either with the specific course or in helping the firearms control part of the justice department to develop this course.

At this point I'll turn over to my colleague, Mr. Rowe, for closing remarks.

Mr. Lorne Rowe (Director, Legislative Affairs, International Practical Shooting Confederation of Canada): Good afternoon.

IPSC Canada and its members continue to be extremely frustrated by the fact that Bill C-68 is fundamentally flawed in its approach to enhancing the level of public safety in Canada as influenced by firearms in our society. The current proposals, like virtually all of the previous legislation, are predicated on the idea that firearms control is a hardware or firearms issue, when in fact it is a people or user issue. This mistake is not unique to Canada. It has been made in many other jurisdictions and has resulted in legislation that has proven ineffective in virtually all cases.

The designation in Canada of a firearm as restricted is the one aspect of firearms control legislation in this country that properly addresses the user. The concept identifies those firearms types that are more easily concealed and then restricts access to these firearms to individuals who have passed more stringent scrutiny of their ability and stability and secure storage facilities. If this system works properly - and our experience indicates that it does - we're unsure how anyone can envision a greater degree of public safety flowing from prohibiting the ownership of certain other firearms types by those same capable and responsible individuals.

.1550

Predecessor legislation - Bill C-17 - contained something effective, in that its training and safe storage provisions were properly directed towards improving the level of competence of the average firearms owner, and reducing the chances of firearms falling into the hands of unauthorized users.

Unfortunately, Bill C-17 continued its hardware focus when it introduced the concept of limiting the capacity of cartridge magazines. We're unable to find much logic in a law that recognizes the first 5 or 10 cartridges, depending on the type of firearm, as being somehow acceptable, yet rules any additional ones as somehow being inappropriate. Surely one must acknowledge that even a single cartridge represents a potential threat in the hands of an incompetent or unstable individual, while the responsible and knowledgeable user presents no danger whatsoever, even with an unlimited amount.

Unfortunately, Bill C-68 continues its hardware focus, in that it proposes the individual registration of every legally owned firearm in Canada. For those types of firearms for which registration is not now required, we're unable to see any benefit to public safety that will come from their registration. We suggest that public safety is impacted upon primarily by the responsibility of the owner, his or her knowledge of the firearm, and the security under which the gun is stored.

If all of these controls are present, what additional safety will come from registration? If these controls are not present, how will that weakness be remedied by registration? There is nothing in this registration system that will in any way control the proliferation of illegally obtained firearms in Canada. These are the guns and their users that are responsible for the vast majority of the violence in our streets.

Bill C-68 proposes to create a class that prohibits a vast number of firearms that are now legally owned and, in most cases, subjected to restrictive firearms controls in Canada. This bill will create a semi-confiscated or pre-confiscated category of firearms, all of which were owned in strict compliance with all regulations applicable to that particular firearms type. The minister states none of these guns are being confiscated without compensation, but I respectfully suggest he should be adding the words ``at least, not yet''. Once the current owner dies, the guns will be confiscated without compensation.

These unwarranted regulations have virtually wiped out already the value of these sometimes very extensive collections, because their marketability is limited, and in many cases will be denied.

We respectfully suggest that the legislation currently before Parliament has not been developed out of a legitimate public need. A large part of this act is directed at a problem that does not exist and subsequently fails to address properly the very valid public safety concerns of all Canadians.

As members of this committee, you have the power to redirect this proposed legislation to focus clearly on the criminal. While it would possibly create delays that could extend passage beyond the minister's deadline, such meaningful changes would gain the respect and cooperation of all responsible Canadian firearms owners. We suggest that such support is the key to effective firearms control.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We will now proceed with the testimony of the Shooting Federation of Canada. I call on Mr. Perocchio or his colleague.

Mr. John L. Perocchio (Director, Shooting Federation of Canada): The Shooting Federation of Canada was formed in 1932 under the name of the Canadian Small Bore Rifle Association. In 1949 supplementary letters patents were issued for a change of name to the Canadian Civilian Association of Marksmen. Our present name, the Shooting Federation of Canada, was authorized in 1964 when skeet and trap associations affiliated to form one umbrella organization.

What began as a small association over 60 years ago has become a large and diversified federation. The Shooting Federation of Canada has over 100,000 members across Canada at any one time.

The SFC promotes and coordinates a wide range of programs and services for recreational shooters and arranges participation by Canadian teams in national and international competitions, including the Commonwealth, Pan-American and Olympic Games.

More recently, the SFC has acquired a reputation for its lobbying efforts. The SFC now actively interacts with provincial and federal governments to enact or repeal regulations and laws on matters of concern to firearm owners in Canada.

Let me begin by clearly stating that the Shooting Federation of Canada cannot support Bill C-68. We consider this legislation to be so poorly written as to be unworkable. We feel this legislation specifically targets firearm owners and, in so doing, diminishes the rights of all citizens of this great nation.

.1555

Bluntly put, everything about this legislation, from the lack of consultation to the current review process, flies in the face of what Canadians expect of their Parliament. The Minister of Justice has turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to any information firearm owners have offered. He has rushed this legislation through Parliament, invoking closure to then rush it into committee hearings. Bill C-68 will bring search, seizure, no compensation, arbitrary prohibitions and the total lack of public scrutiny.

The 1993 Auditor General's report asked for a detailed study. All the public has received is cute double-talk. Please understand that I do not say what I say without forethought. In the last year, I have been across this nation from coast to coast. I have discussed this issue with Canadians from across Canada. I have met and participated in a national communications network of firearms owners from every province and territory. They have asked the SFC to come to this committee and tell it: no more gun control; address the issue of crime.

You have ample evidence of what ails this society. Progressive Conservative MP Bob Horner reported in his 1993, unanimous, all-party committee that poverty, physical and sexual abuse, illiteracy, low self-esteem, inadequate housing, school failure, unemployment, inequality and dysfunctional families are fundamental areas that breed crime. These require your immediate attention and funding.

Firearms owners or not, Canadians don't buy the gun control fallacy any more. The recreational firearms community of this nation resent being coerced and blackmailed into an ill-conceived registration scheme that will solve nothing. Hunters, shooters and collectors want no part of it. We don't believe this will save lives; we do believe the money should be spent on those areas mentioned earlier.

This was repeated throughout my discussion with firearms owners - the discussion Mr. Rock alluded to, but never had with us. He did not hear about hunting outfitters and trappers going out of business. He did not concern himself with the investments of a lifetime in rare handguns becoming valueless. He was not bothered by dealerships folding across the nation. Retroactive prohibition of their stock items didn't bother him. He pontificated about our lack of need for self-protection from behind his phalanx of bodyguards. His idea of ``doing business with police'' was a trade-off of our civil liberties.

Firearms owners reject the notion of good or bad firearms as ridiculous.

We further consider that the misinformation used to create this bill is a great black mark in our parliamentary tradition. An entire nation was aghast when Messrs Serré, Crawford and Steckle were sanctioned for standing up for their constituents. In short, everything about this bill thus far leaves Canadian firearms owners shaking their heads.

Mr. Shaw shortly will be presenting the second part of our brief, the study of the actual contents of Bill C-68. Mr. Shaw's legal background has provided us with an in-depth study of the bill. I believe it to be one of the best in the country at this point.

Thank you.

Ms Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): Before Mr. Shaw starts, do we have a written copy somewhere in here of what you're going to say now?

Mr. Paul Shaw (Executive Committee Member, Shooting Federation of Canada): Yes, I'll direct you to that, Ms Phinney.

On page 6 of the brief, you will note that my 17-page paper commences. I will be making reference to the page numbers of my paper as opposed to the page reference of the top right-hand corner. I propose we start on page 6. Constant search, seizure and investigative provisions - that's what I call page 1 of my paper. You'll see page 2 following. When I make reference to a page, it'll be my numbers.

In the brief time allocated here, I'm simply going to do my best to highlight a number of matters. In the event I can answer questions during the question period, I'd be more than pleased to attempt to.

The first aspect is the inspection aspect. That's at the bottom of page 1.

.1600

Simply put, a police officer may, at any reasonable time - of course, reasonableness is open to argument - enter and inspect any place that he believes on reasonable and probable grounds contains a firearm, ammunition or a record in relation to any of those. He need not suspect an offence was committed, but simply that there be a firearm, ammunition or record thereof. He can open any container that he believes contains a firearm or other things. Essentially, it's authority for a legal ransacking of any place for almost anything, whether legal or illegal, large or small.

I observe that a .22-calibre cartridge is the size of a pill. A record can be as thin as a receipt or an invoice. No place is sacred - not in your home, safety deposit box, safe, or private papers.

He may examine any firearm and any other thing, and he can take samples. He can conduct tests, take measurements and require any person to produce records, books of account or other documents. No evidence may exist that would incriminate a person until after the police officer is there on his investigation, and then the officer may very well find evidence in relation to some problem under the Criminal Code, part III, under the regulations or under the Firearms Act.

He may access data processing machines. Your computer is subject to utilization. He can make reproductions, take copies. They'll have the right to turn things inside out looking for non-compliance. What sorts of things will they be looking for? Maybe it's the treasure map that leads to the buried, unregistered guns; the receipt for the .30-06-calibre ammunition, when they can't find a .30-06 firearm; the check for club membership dues so they can search that club's records just to see what sorts of guns you were using. Isn't this a state-sanctioned witch-hunt?

Samples taken under the authority of this section may be disposed of in any manner the police officer considers appropriate. They may have actual or sentimental value to you, the owner. They may contain personal or confidential information. Isn't that officially sanctioned theft?

On the bottom of page 3, it's a positive duty to assist. The owner, the person in charge, and every person found in the place shall give all reasonable assistance to the police officer - provide any information. The right to simply remain silent in these circumstances is gone. The right to remain free from self-incrimination also appears to be gone. Will spouses and children be interrogated and forced to participate in witch-hunts? Is this not the slippery slope of a police state?

The warrant for a dwelling-house is very easily obtained on an ex parte basis. The only thing they have to say to the justice of the peace is that they think there's a record, a firearm or some ammunition, and the person may not give a consent to go in and inspect.

On page 4, I go into additional areas of unreasonable legislative infringement.

Guilt by association: Just briefly summarizing, if a person is under a prohibition order, then that person can affect other people who may be completely law-abiding but just happen to be cohabiting or are associates of that person, and the prohibited person would or might have access to anything such as a firearm by virtue of that association.

What does this mean? Must mom and dad dump their guns in an effort to rehabilitate junior, or dump junior and not associate with him in order to keep their firearms? Isn't the support of family and friends a recognized and important component of rehabilitation or reintegration into society?

.1605

On page 5 I talk briefly about reverse onus provisions. Reverse onus requires the accused to disprove on the balance of probabilities the evidence of a presumed fact. The bureaucrat who may very well have created the mistake need not prove that his record or lack thereof is accurate. A defendant must on the balance of probabilities prove the bureaucrat is wrong. I'd point out that the restricted weapons registration system is inaccurate a great deal of the time.

If one loses or misplaces an authorization, licence, or registration certificate, it may be difficult to prove such a document at one time existed. Are we to the point in our criminal justice evolution that we must file duplicate copies of everything with our lawyers? Better still, perhaps we should file everything with our MPs. We should send a copy to our MP's Ottawa office, constituency office, home, and cottage. Then, under clauses 99 and 101 of the Firearms Act, any peace officer could ransack the MP's offices, home, and cottage, as this would now be a record as contemplated by subclause 99(1).

While it may be difficult enough to prove the existence of one's own documents, because of loss due to fire, theft, a move, or so on, it may be impossible to prove the existence of someone else's documents. However, that's exactly what some of these provisions require. I go on to point out one example on page 6.

In regard to confiscation without compensation, I believe my colleagues pointed out that 58% of the registered handguns in this country may now be capped for life and intertraded or sold within the class, but to say they haven't been confiscated is inaccurate. It's ownership that is time limited. The value is considerably deflated. Give these people an opportunity to turn them in at a reasonable fair market price as determined on a date that preceded the legislation, the action plan, and government speculation about these measures or expand the transfer class within the country so that these firearms can be sold, bequeathed, or gifted to a transferee who has an enabling licence.

For those who may have difficulty relating to firearm-related measures, at the bottom of page 7 I've used an example where I've put it into the context of jewellery, It's hypothetical, but if you go through that type of an example, perhaps you can better appreciate the type of feeling the firearm owners in this country have in relation to their dearly treasured firearms.

At the bottom of page 8 I deal with minimum sentences. Minimum sentences, I submit, in many cases are inappropriate. The required minimum term of incarceration in some reasonable hypothetical cases may be grossly disproportionate. For instance, I have used the criminal negligence causing death provision. If it is appropriate to punish firearm negligence with a minimum of four years, then be consistent and impose a minimum of four years for any method by which criminal negligence causes death. It matters not to the poor victim. The poor victim is dead no matter what. Because a person uses a firearm negligently, he goes to jail for a minimum of four years, whereas in the next courtroom the person who used an automobile can argue mitigating circumstances and can be out perhaps without any incarceration whatsoever. Is that fair?

There are also minimum sentences for the transfer of firearms and ammunition and for customs violations that, I submit, in many cases are really not appropriate, because they don't address the criminal misuse. They address the lawful firearm owner who gets caught in a situation that is unfortunate.

What we're talking about here essentially under trafficking is anyone who manufactures or transfers even gratuitously, or offers to do so, anything in relation to a firearm or ammunition knowing the person is unauthorized to do so, for a minimum of one year in jail. Possession for the purpose is similar to the above.

.1610

In regard to importing and exporting, there may be circumstances where the law-abiding public is inadvertently caught, and I've used a couple of examples.

Before that, on page 10 you'll note that I've set out four items. I suggest this type of wording addresses the criminal. It doesn't address the law-abiding citizens. This is the type of wording this statute should be looking towards, I submit. Is that not what we all want? The net has been cast far too wide here and imperils firearm owners for activities that pose absolutely no danger to public safety and have no impact on increased crime.

Is it the mandate of our criminal justice system to criminalize Mary who gives a rare cartridge to her father to add to his collection or Ron who has travelled in and out of the country to competitions in the States with his shotgun for years? When he leaves, even though it's the same shotgun he takes out of the country, he's technically exporting it. When he comes back in with the same firearm, he's technically importing it. If some day he doesn't go through the paperwork, what does the law say? Sorry, you go to jail for a minimum of one year. I submit there are cases where this can be completely disproportionate.

The next item is terminology and definitions. I'm not going to go through those at this point. I don't feel we have time. However, the terminology is troublesome, in particular the definitions of ``report'' and ``statement''. Surely to goodness this is the jurisdiction of the thought police. This isn't something we should be finding in Canadian society. If something is not material, then it's irrelevant, so why is a person responsible?

I'll now turn to page 12, towards the bottom. Clause 110 of the Firearms Act simply delegates too much power and discretion to the Governor in Council. As my friends indicated, the bill proposes to leave the Governor in Council with almost total control over the activities and property of firearms owners. I suggest this is inappropriate.

The gun clubs and shooting activities have been run well for years. It isn't broken. That doesn't need fixing.

Why is this happening? Politicians and bureaucrats have unfortunately proven to be remarkably unfamiliar with, and even less concerned about, the practical details of our sport. An intervention in this area is really not required.

Under the universal registration of all firearms, on page 13, I'm only going to touch on a couple of things. There is basically a bureaucratic industry set up in this bill to entrap people who have not registered their firearms. The government, it would appear, insists that all firearms be registered, and there is ample evidence within this bill that the government intends to use a club to ensure compliance.

On page 15 I talk about unnecessary complexity leading to unfairness. I suggest that to make any sense whatsoever out of not only the Firearms Act but also part III of the Criminal Code and all the regulations and the interrelationship of these sections, you have to have a legal or scholarly mind even to hope to try to understand these things. Yet these are the things that law-abiding Canadian firearm owners are deemed to know. They don't know these things. The government has done very little to assist people in understanding these things, and it's designed in a way that is so complex that it's impossible for people to understand. There is not universal acceptance of these remote and obscure provisions among the firearm owners of this country, and without moral acceptance there will always be resentment and resistance.

.1615

Members of the committee, just how far can a democratic nation go before it looks back some day and sees that it has gone too far? The delicate balancing of civil rights and freedoms and the authority of the state to intervene for some professed reason can go too far. You justify subjugation of firearm owners today in the name of public safety; it's easier tomorrow for you or another government to justify more. Where did democratic principles stop and tyrannical ones begin?

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Shaw.

Mrs. Venne.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne (Saint-Hubert): The Chairman has said that you have come a long way to be here. It says in the International Practical Shooting Confederation brief that you are from Calgary. I would like to know where the other group is coming from.

Mr. Perocchio: The Shooting Federation of Canada has representatives throughout the country.

Mrs. Venne: Where are your headquarters?

Mr. Perocchio: In Gloucester, Ontario, not far from here.

Mrs. Venne: You are in Ottawa?

Mr. Perocchio: Yes.

Mrs. Venne: Mr. Perocchio, can you tell the Committee how many firearms you own? What type of guns do you have? What kind of shooting do you do?

Mr. Perocchio: I, personally, Mrs. Venne?

Mrs. Venne: Yes, you personally.

Mr. Perocchio: I used to own a firearm store. I go hunting and I do some shooting. I own collection firearms: semi-automatics, converted semi-automatics, automatics, and I also have extremely rare guns. I have done it all: target shooting, shooting with rifle, shotgun, etc.

Mrs. Venne: You were saying that you own semi-automatic and automatic guns?

Mr. Perocchio: Yes.

Mrs. Venne: Why would a civilian own automatic and semi-automatic guns?

Mr. Perocchio: I have always been interested in history and I find that automatic guns are a small part of history that belongs to me.

[English]

The Chair: So it's as a collector that you -

Mr. Perocchio: Absolutely, sir, yes.

We also have clubs in Canada that shoot fully automatic firearms. There's one in this city that's national, I believe. Competitions are held constantly across the country. I've never participated, but when I could, I did enjoy shooting my fully automatics.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Let's talk about the International Practical Shooting Confederation. In the copy I have, there's a graphic showing shooting targets that look a lot like humans. I would like to know what's the point of having targets in the shape of a human being? I could understand if it were for policemen, but for civilians, why shoot on such targets?

.1620

[English]

Mr. Hodges: I have not seen the diagram you are referring to. Could I see it?

That's a steel plate that's about 25 inches high that falls down when it's hit, similar to a biathlon target. It's a reactive target so that you can tell immediately whether you've hit it or not. There is no reference in our sport to that being a human target; it's far too small. It's simply a reactive target that disappears from view when it is hit, similar to the biathlon type of target, although theirs are smaller.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mrs. Venne, you have simply shown the page. Can you describe briefly what you see?

Mrs. Venne: The person reading my description will have a hard time imagining what it looks like. It's a target that I think has a human shape because when it is seen from the side or in the dark, it could look like a person. Mr. Perrocchio has told us that it is about 26 inches high. Why didn't they pick the shape of a frog.

[English]

Mr. Hodges: I'm sorry, of a frog?

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Yes. Why not? I really wonder. You tell me that it doesn't look like a human being, but I think it does. Why have you not chosen a different shape? I want to belive you, but when you look at the target, you know what it's supposed to represent.

[English]

Mr. Hodges: First, I didn't design the target; it's been around for about 15 years. Second, for an average 6-foot person the target stands about the height of your belt. The fatter part in the centre is actually 8 inches in diameter, that corresponds to the diameter of a round steel plate that we also use in our competitions. That type of target doesn't represent anything to us, other than the fact it is a taller, narrower target than the round steel target or the steel square target that we use.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: I also read here that this target is 42 inches high and not 26.

My next question is directed to either one of the groups. Do you think that Canada would be a safer place if more people owned firearms, if more people were trained to use guns?

Mr. Perocchio: It's hard to answer such a question because our system here relies entirely on government and police protection. Canadian citizens have always had the right to chose to protect themselves with guns. For that reason, it is provided for in the Criminal Code. Some people feel safer with a gun, others don't.

After having spoken with victims, I know that if they had had a choice, they surely would have owned a gun. However, not all seven millions of firearms owners in Canada will react the same way.

Mrs. Venne: Mr. Perocchio, I would like to know what is the relationship between your association and the National Riffle Association.

Mr. Perocchio: None at all. We do exchange information. We both follow what is going on both sides of the border.

Mrs. Venne: Are you an employee of the International Practical Shooting Confederation?

Mr. Perocchio: Yes I am.

[English]

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Welcome to Ottawa, gentlemen. Thank you for your presentation.

.1625

I would like to begin by asking Mr. Rowe and Mr. Hodges, inasmuch as they represent an organization, whether they were consulted by the justice minister or anyone from the justice department leading up to the creation of Bill C-68.

Mr. Rowe: Yes, we were consulted, and I use that word advisedly. We were invited to a meeting with the minister and two or three of his assistants.

Mr. Hodges: I'd like to make just a minor correction. We had actually asked the minister in 1994 to meet with us to discuss the large-capacity magazine issue. We had a letter in response from the minister in February 1995, I believe, indicating to us that he could not discuss that issue because at that time it was in front of the courts but that he felt it would be of value to us to come and meet with him and discuss other issues relating to firearms, but on a very restricted basis.

Mr. Ramsay: Was there a meeting?

Mr. Hodges: Yes, on May 30.

Mr. Ramsay: Were you there, Mr. Hodges?

Mr. Hodges: Yes, we both were.

Mr. Ramsay: What kind of a consultative process took place?

Mr. Hodges: We had been given the constraints of expressing our concerns to the minister on the effects on our sport of his proposed new legislation at that time. Those were the items he had listed prior to May 30.

Mr. Ramsay: What items were those?

Mr. Hodges: Those were a full registration system, tighter controls on ammunition, and a firearms possession certificate.

Mr. Ramsay: Did you give him any advice or counselling as to your concerns about a new firearms bill?

Mr. Hodges: I'll let Mr. Rowe take this one.

Mr. Rowe: We did express some concerns at that time, but I'd ask you to understand that we had not seen even a draft of Bill C-68 at the time. We had no idea precisely what we were dealing with, and given the constraints under which the minister granted the meeting, we really did not have very much opportunity to address specific issues that eventually surfaced in this legislation.

Mr. Ramsay: Were any of your concerns or advice embodied within the bill itself?

Mr. Hodges: Yes. We had thought that a number of areas could be addressed by the minister in the control of the criminal use of firearms, such as increased mandatory sentences for the criminal misuse of a firearm. We had suggested that the firearms possession certificate could be used, which would enable a tighter examination of those people who do own firearms, and items like that. We had looked at the registration system. However, you have to bear in mind that at the time the minister had proposed a total ban on handguns in Canada, and we had suggested to him at that time that there were better controls he could be looking at other than simply prohibiting that class of firearm.

Mr. Ramsay: Did you see that advice surface within the bill itself?

Mr. Hodges: We've seen some of that surface. In section 85 of the Criminal Code there is a penalty of from one to fourteen years for using a firearm in a crime. We've seen that increase to a minimum of four years.

Mr. Ramsay: Did you give him any advice in regard to the law-abiding gun owner side? There are about six pages in this huge document that deal with the criminal use of firearms, such as smuggling and so on. The rest is directed at the law-abiding gun owner. It's interesting to hear your testimony that you met with him and feel that some of your suggestions did appear in the legislation on the criminal side of this bill. What about the law-abiding gun owner?

Mr. Hodges: We had talked about the national registration system and indicated to him that, as the sport of IPSC is predominantly a handgun sport, all of the firearms and handguns are restricted and therefore have to be registered and that further restrictions probably weren't going to affect our sport.

.1630

However, we did point out to the minister specifically that we didn't feel an actual registration system would have any effect on crime in Canada because it did not concentrate on the person who perpetrated the crime. Rather, it simply listed every firearm owner in the country.

Mr. Ramsay: Does it seem to you that he has taken your advice on that issue?

Mr. Hodges: No, I believe he hasn't.

Mr. Ramsay: What about the banning of the .32 and .25 calibres?

Mr. Hodges: One of the basic tenets of IPSC is that the minimum calibre that can be used in our sanctioned competitions is 9 millimetres, although we have used .22 calibre, .25 calibre, and .32 calibre firearms in informal training courses for people approaching the actual IPSC training course. At that point they have to use a 9 millimetre. I don't believe we discussed specific firearms, such as the .25 and .32 calibre, other than that we had heard from someone else in the justice department that the minister was considering a ban on so-called cheaply manufactured firearms.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.

Mr. Perocchio or Mr. Shaw, did the justice department contact your organization?

Mr. Perocchio: It's my understanding from the files I've looked at that we wrote the minister on March 25, and the answer came back in August. He did not meet with us until October. None of these meetings were fruitful. The last meeting we had was at the beginning of this year, and again it did not appear to go anywhere.

I believe Mr. Shaw wishes to comment.

Mr. Shaw: I should comment as well that I belong to two other organizations that did make a request for a meeting with the justice minister. Those two organizations are the Ontario Provincial Trap-shooting Association and the Ontario Olympic Trap-shooting Association. I'm a trap-shooter.

Our joint boards met with him approximately in mid-September. At that point in time we submitted a brief, which I'd be pleased to make available, that includes the things we recommended at the time. Clearly we recommended that there should be no universal registration of firearms and certain other things.

However, at the time it was speculative as to what was going to happen. There were rumours there might be a central lock-up and certain other things. So we tried to take a shotgun approach, shall we say, on that.

I don't think that anything we recommended found its way in for the protection of the law-abiding firearm owners, and we're very disappointed.

Mr. Ramsay: If we're going to set up a universal registration system, my concern is that registration should be an effective tool in the hands of law enforcement agencies. My concern is that, although it's not contained within the bill, the justice minister as well as the deputy commissioner of the RCMP have indicated there will be a mail-in registration system. When I look at that, I have enormous concerns about it. The fact is that you cannot maintain the integrity of a registration system if you don't verify the information that's going in it. The peace officers I've talked to who are experienced in registering handguns tell me you cannot register a firearm unless you inspect it.

Some of the information I have received from the forensic laboratories of the RCMP in regard to their standard collection is that approximately 20% of the rifles and 15% of the shotguns do not have serial numbers. I just recently obtained information indicating that of the handguns - I think there are about l.2 million registered in Canada - 370,000, or 30%, have identical serial numbers. Eighteen firearms had identical serial numbers, makes, barrel lengths, and calibres.

If we're going to set up a registration system, then surely we must be able to be satisfied that the integrity of that system is such that it can positively identify one firearm out of the 6 million to 20 million estimated to be in Canada.

.1635

When I look at that, and I realize it's going to be a mail-in system where errors can occur, as they have occurred in the present system, I have some real qualms about registration certificates being issued based upon information from a card that's been mailed in, as to whether or not it will accurately register that firearm. If one serial number is out, then it won't register that firearm.

What I'd like to ask both groups is, what do you feel about this whole idea of registering or setting up a universal registration system through the mail-in system?

Mr. Rowe: I would suggest that if the inaccuracies you've apparently been advised of already exist in a system that involves the actual inspection of a firearm before it is registered - and in fact we are looking at errors of that magnitude - then that number is going to increase geometrically as soon as the inspection process comes out and we're talking about a mail-in system.

Even if this system was 100% accurate, I'm not sure how anyone can perceive an improvement in public safety coming from such a system. It's a tremendous cost; whether it's to be borne by this government or the firearms owners has yet to be determined. It's a tremendous cost and a tremendous amount of work, and I would suggest to you, sir, for no benefit.

Mr. Perocchio: Having been a firearms dealer for many years, my answer would be, categorically, no - there is no way this system would work. I spent my time correcting firearms registrations. Sometimes up to 50% of collections were in error. We have seen errors in calibre, name and model. The worst offenders seem to be the German firearms. The military pistols would repeat their numbers with every letter of the alphabet. If you forget one letter, then you've lost the gun. It has occurred elsewhere.

Handguns are just a small segment of it. The long guns would be an even worse nightmare. As a dealer, I had people come in and tell me they had X gun and I would find it was a totally different model. It is absolutely a fool's errand to try to register anything you don't see. I have to agree with my colleague that I don't see how this can benefit Canadian public safety.

Ms Phinney: I wasn't planning on going into this line of questioning right now. I had a couple of other questions first. But I'll follow on this line.

Mr. Hodges and Mr. Rowe, you said you met with the minister or somebody from the department on May 1. Is that right?

Mr. Hodges: It was on May 30, 1994.

Ms Phinney: Was that the only time you or anybody from your group met with either the minister or somebody from the department up to this point?

Mr. Hodges: We've occasionally met with some individuals from the Firearms Control Task Force.

Ms Phinney: They are helping to put together this bill.

Mr. Hodges: Yes. They've occasionally asked us for advice on technical matters.

Ms Phinney: What do you mean by occasionally? Is that two or three times, or seven or eight times?

Mr. Hodges: It's about six or seven times. I once met the minister personally, again, while he was on a trip in Calgary. But it was informal, at a meeting, and nothing was discussed.

Ms Phinney: I just wanted to comment that you said you met him on May 30, 1994 and you didn't have the bill there. Well, there was no bill yet.

Mr. Hodges: That's correct.

Ms Phinney: They were searching for information to help them put together the bill. You mentioned that it was without the bill. Of course it was. There was no bill.

Mr. Hodges: Right. But our point at that time was.... We indicated to the minister that we could perhaps afford him a degree of support for a registration system, without seeing exactly how he proposed to flesh out that system. When we now see the system he's laid before us in Bill C-68, there are no circumstances whatsoever under which we could support that registration system.

Ms Phinney: I just didn't want to leave the impression on the record that somebody held back the bill or something, and didn't let you see it. There was no bill, so there was nothing for you to see at that time.

Mr. Hodges: No, there's no question of that at all. We reacted to public statements of the minister that he had made in various press scrums and so on, when he was talking about a national registration system, a complete ban on handguns in Canada, further prohibitions, banning of firearms in cities, and perhaps rural armouries. Those were the areas we had to address, because that was all we had seen.

.1640

Ms Phinney: I'm sure he appreciated your help because that's what consultation is, getting help and getting the information.

Mr. Shaw and Mr. Perocchio, you said you met with the minister in September of last year?

Mr. Shaw: Yes.

Ms Phinney: Have you met with anybody in the department, or from September 9th on have you been asked to meet anybody in the department to help with consultations?

Mr. Shaw: No.

Ms Phinney: Has anybody in the association?

Mr. Shaw: I'm answering that on behalf of the Ontario Provincial Trap-shooting Association and the Ontario Olympic Trap-shooting Association.

Ms Phinney: I think you're here, though, on behalf -

Mr. Shaw: I'm here on behalf of the Shooting Federation of Canada.

Ms Phinney: Has that group been asked to take part in consultations since September 9?

Mr. Shaw: I'll let Mr. Perocchio answer that question.

Mr. Perocchio: We did sit in with the task force on January 24. We were represented by Mr. Robert Kierstead, Mr. Robert Todd and myself.

Ms Phinney: Did you offer suggestions on various parts of the bill, and did you offer suggestions on which guns should be in or not in?

Mr. Perocchio: We discussed the legislation and we found at that point that unfortunately there wasn't very much we could support. We ran into a stumbling-block The government wanting a list of, shall we say, good guns. Our position in the shooting federation is that all firearms are used by legitimate owners, and therefore are good firearms. The government wanted a list of guns that were specifically for competition. Our reasoning is that you don't come into the world with a $3,000 Hammerli target pistol. You start off at your entry level with a very inexpensive firearm. You join a club and you take up shooting. Invariably, these firearms tend to have barrel lengths of 4 inches or so and to be of .32 calibre, which is what the Olympic shooters use. What we are seeing here is a situation where the government is about to cancel out all our entry-level shooters. It's much like saying -

Ms Phinney: You didn't like the general impression or the general philosophy of where you thought the bill was going. You felt you couldn't give specific information of which guns should be included, say, for the competition, theh people in your organization.

Mr. Perocchio: We ran into a stumbling-block with that. We ran into a situation where the government was discussing whether it should register antiques, not realizing how many millions there are.

Ms Phinney: I get only 10 minutes, so I'm going to stop you there. I'd like to go back to something, but I'll come back to that.

Between September 9 and January 24, were you asked, at any time that you can recall, to meet with the minister or the department?

Mr. Perocchio: We were asked at the end of December, if memory serves me correctly, to appear in something of a neighbourhood of a week and give a presentation. This was impossible. By mutual agreement we put it off until January 24, at which time we could assemble Robert Todd, who deals with international shoots; Bob Kierstead, who is the Canadian Olympic coach; and myself for the SFC as general information.

Ms Phinney: When the white paper came out before Christmas, as it sounds from your September 29 meeting, you probably didn't have any input into exact guns that would be used by competitors that are under your organization?

Mr. Perocchio: Do you mean when they actually gave us the working paper?

Ms Phinney: On September 29 you met with the minister. Is that right?

Mr. Perocchio: It was October 31.

Ms Phinney: Okay.

Mr. Perocchio: It was a meeting on October 31. I was not a part of that meeting, so I'm at a disadvantage to give specific details.

Ms Phinney: No, it was Mr. Rowe and Linda Thom.

Mr. Perocchio: Yes.

Ms Phinney: Do you know if at that meeting they gave any information to the minister about which guns should be included and which should not?

Mr. Perocchio: No. I think we have pretty well maintained the position that we do not want to limit access to any firearm for our competitors or collectors.

Ms Phinney: I ask that question because when the white paper came out before Christmas, I heard immediately from people who were against the bill and they said, ``Look, you haven't even asked any groups for any information, because a certain gun that they need in competition, the Walter .32'' - I think it's Linda Thom who uses that particular gun - ``was not included as being exempt so it could be used in competition''.

.1645

I presumed from the statements you made that you were not consulted. Certainly what I heard is that you people had not been consulted. However, you were asked for your opinion, but you chose philosophically not to give it.

Mr. Perocchio: No. As I say, I was not privy to the October discussion, but my understanding from discussions with our members is that we were offered a situation that was not something we could support. Our suggestion to them at that point was that (a) they were barking up the wrong tree, to put it bluntly, and (b) they should not limit handguns because it was a waste of time -

Ms Phinney: Okay, you have explained that.

Mr. Perocchio: Yes. That's our position, and I can't change it.

Ms Phinney: But that does not explain why you would have announced to the public that your opinion was not asked for and that gun would have been left out because you weren't even asked about it, and you certainly were asked. It's just that you decided not to answer that question.

Mr. Perocchio: I think the reasoning here is that when you're asked for an opinion as a national governing body and your opinion is totally ignored, you get the impression you were just asked for asking's sake. That's what we've seen repeatedly. We had -

Ms Phinney: The question Mr. Rock said he repeatedly asked your group was to determine the types of handguns that should be protected for the purpose of high-performance competition and international shooting events. I understand what you're saying. You don't agree at all with the principle of the bill, so you don't want to do give him that list. However, that is not saying that you weren't asked for it, which is a totally different thing. You were asked for it.

Mr. Perocchio: He asked us for a limited list. We declined respectfully.

Ms Phinney: Okay. So you can't say from that that you were not asked for it. You were asked for it, but you chose not to give it.

Mr. Perocchio: Yes, that's a fair assessment.

Ms Phinney: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that.

The Chair: You can have one final, short question. You're in your last minute.

Ms Phinney: I'm going to go on to another topic altogether, to the International Practical Shooting Confederation. In part 2, page 2, of your brief you recommend that a consultative advisory body be formed. We had one before. I was wondering if you knew how it worked, why it was called off, and how you would make the new one different.

Mr. Hodges: Yes, I'm aware of the Canadian Advisory Council on Firearms. The International Practical Shooting Confederation of Canada did not sit on that body, but I believe it was formed as a group to advise the minister or the minister's office on items pertaining to changes in the firearm regulations. I don't believe, for one thing, that they established policy, and I don't believe they recommended changes in policy. I think they were there simply to answer questions from his office -

Ms Phinney: What do you think a body should do if one is formed?

Mr. Hodges: I believe there should be a similar body, because when the justice department does indeed look at creating regulations like this, I think they involve the entire range in the community. I would include, for example, police associations in that also. If you include firearms owners, competitive shooters, police associations, and other groups concerned with those issues, I believe he would then have a much more informed basis on which to make decisions.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Mr. Chairman, I have here a document from Mr. Glenn Springer, which I received via Internet. Mr. Springer presents himself as a member of the International Practical Shooting Confederation and a member of the board - il est membre du bureau de direction. He also specifies that he is the Editor of your newsletter. I suppose in French we would say ``bloc-notes''. In the document that he sent via Internet, he explains that he believes that ``the gun control is part of the Quebec government's strategy to disarm Canadians'' - le contrôle des armes à feu est un volet de la stratégie du gouvernement du Québec visant à désarmer les Canadiens.

.1650

Of course, this is a bit more, but I'd like to know if you share this view since Mr. Springer is a member of your board.

[English]

Mr. Rowe: I should point out that the gentleman in question is, in fact, a member of the board of the Ontario provincial section of IPSC. He is not a member of the board of the Canadian organization. That notwithstanding, we don't attempt to exert any degree of censorship over what our people suggest.

However, if one looks at the Canadian experience of how firearms have moved over the years from being virtually unrestricted through various degrees of restriction and now to prohibition, I don't think it's difficult to draw the conclusion that is perhaps the ultimate objective of this government. Particularly in Bill C-68 we see that firearms that were legally owned and legally registered in full accordance with the law of the day have now been made prohibited. Some of those that the minister considers particularly heinous are being confiscated with or without compensation. Others have been told they can keep them until the end of their lifetime, and then they will disappear from circulation, fully 58% of the existing handguns.

Mr. Hodges: Mrs. Venne, perhaps I could add one more comment to that. When IPSC Canada as an organization makes a statement or an announcement, it usually appears under our letterhead or as coming from my own office. No one in the country would presume to make a statement on behalf of IPSC Canada itself. We certainly can't control people from putting on the Internet their own personal opinions on certain issues.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: I do not ask you to censor your membership. I ask if you share their opinions. There is a difference, isn't there?

If I understand correctly what you say, you do share this opinion, at least for Mr. Rowe.

[English]

Mr. Rowe: I may share it as an individual. That is not the policy of this organization. I will clarify -

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: No. I ask you if you share this opinion.

[English]

Mr. Rowe: As an individual? Yes, I do.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: This is what I wanted to know.

[English]

Mr. Hodges: I would like to clarify that IPSC Canada as an organization does not share that opinion. It does not have that type of opinion.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Okay.

I'd like to ask a question to both groups, particularly to Mr. Shaw. You say that the bill is very complex. I fully agree with you. And I'd like to ask you how you'll serve your members and intend to inform them on the way to comply with the new law when it will be promulgated.

[English]

Mr. Shaw: First of all, I hope that the bill won't become a new act, because I hope this committee will do the right thing and get rid of Bill C-68 and come back with something that's a lot more sensible and addressed towards criminals as opposed to law-abiding citizens.

We have statutes such as the Income Tax Act that are very complex as well. The government doesn't sit down and explain that to people. People are impacted in one little area here and one little area there. So those who are impacted considerably and who can afford to do so can have a professional accountant or someone to advise them.

We're volunteer people. I'm volunteering in the functions I do for the Shooting Federation.

You asked me what I'm supposed to do. Isn't it the government's responsibility to promulgate laws in an appropriate fashion for the benefit of all of its citizens? That's not my responsibility.

We have conducted the shooting sports in this country for many years in a safe and well-organized manner. We are conscious of the responsibilities we have in regard to firearms and ammunition. We monitor and regulate things very well.

Now we're being told there is an act that might be very complex. This is an act that has Criminal Code sanctions in it as well. It differs considerably from things such as the Income Tax Act. I think it's the government's responsibility to do that, not mine.

.1655

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: The responsibility of promulgating and explaning the law rests certainly with the government, but it's also a service that you must provide to your members. It is not enough to criticize the law when it's the time to critize, it is also necessary to explain its application to your member. This is ultimately in their best interest, since there will be sanctions if they don't comply. I'll ask the same question to the other group, if you don't want to add anything, Mr. Shaw.

[English]

Mr. Shaw: Yes, I do. You have to keep in mind that while we may represent 100,000 recreational target shooters throughout Canada, who represent perhaps a small portion of the people who would be impacted on by this law, how do you deal with hunters, farmers, etc.? They also have problems.

We have been doing our best to go around the country and explain the provisions of this proposed law. But it is complex.

I don't profess to understand the things. If somebody can tell me the working interrelationship of the proposed Criminal Code sections 99 and 101, when they apply and when they don't apply, please tell me. I've talked to crown attorneys about it; they don't understand it.

So how am I supposed to explain it to the average lay person who just simply doesn't understand?

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: The question relating to the rules, Mr. Chairman. Is the revolt taking place presently?

The Chairman: Yes, and it concerns the pensions for members of Parliament. Mr. MacLellan has gone to inquire at what time exactly the vote will take place.

Mrs. Venne: Couldn't he have used the telephone?

[English]

The Chair: Well, he wanted it more specific. To make sure, he spoke to -

Mrs. Venne: Okay.

The Chair: Not only that, but we're also being called for a vote on a bill. It's a half-hour bell. The question is whether there's any possibility of our continuing the meeting by pairing or not.

So he'll come back in five minutes and report.

In any case, it's a 30-minute bell. For the moment we have time to carry on.

Ms Torsney.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. The other group wanted to answer my question.

[English]

The Chair: Sure, answer the question as well.

Mr. Hodges: The International Practical Shooting Confederation of Canada has a national newsletter we publish for all our members. We have in the past advised, and will continue in the future to advise, them on aspects of whatever legislation passes and how it affects our members in the sport. We have done this in the past, for example, with the magazine capacity regulations.

We do not profess to advise the average Canadian farm owner on how to conduct himself with respect to other areas of the bill. We simply work with our members who are complying.

Ms Torsney (Burlington): That was a perfect lead-in, Mr. Hodges, because isn't Glenn Springer in fact the publisher of your newsletter?

Mr. Hodges: Glenn Springer is the fellow who actually has it printed. Another fellow actually puts the newsletter together for us.

Ms Torsney: Well, that's interesting, because Mr. Springer is representing himself as both a board member and somebody who publishes and edits the newsletter.

Mr. Springer has been rather busy on the Internet, sending rather curious messages, stating, for instance, that the registration system is going to be staffed from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. on weekdays with a staff of one physically or mentally challenged individual of the female persuasion from a visible minority who can barely speak either of the official languages, to do all the registrations for the greater Toronto area.

He's spreading these messages on the Internet, representing your organization. In my gun club in my town they're very concerned when their members act up like this. In fact when they came to my office and threatened my staff, I was asked to report on the member, although I didn't.

So I'd ask you to indicate whether or not you will be sanctioning Mr. Springer or whether you will continue to allow him to sit on the board and whether you will recommend he be removed, cautioned or continue his job as printer.

Mr. Rowe: Might I suggest again that your observations about Mr. Springer's position are correct as they relate only to the Ontario section. We would like to make that clear.

Ms Torsney: Again, he represents himself as a board member of your organization -

Mr. Rowe: Right. I think you'll find it's the Ontario Practical Shooting Association

Ms Torsney: Well, I'm telling you he's telling you he's something else.

.1700

So if you want to take care of that, we would be happy to receive a copy -

Mr. Rowe: Trust me.

Ms Torsney: - of your communication.

Mr. Rowe: I will deal with that.

Ms Torsney: Thank you.

Mr. Rowe: Those policies are not those of any level of the organization.

Ms Torsney: Well, that's good.

The other thing I have a question about is the goal of IPSC. To my understanding, it's an organization that teaches civilians how to shoot targets that are shaped like people. I know we've already identified that in your mind the pepper-popper, with clearly a figure like a hat, a set of arms that are crossed - or somehow there - and legs, is not a human figure.

But I'd suggest to you that this, which is about the size of my upper torso and those positions.... Anything that's a hot target for both the face area and the heart area would in fact suggest that you teach people to shoot at other civilians.

Do you think people should be arming themselves and practising defensive shooting like this? Would you recommend to your members that if there is an intruder and they have a loaded .45 beside their bed, as apparently many gun owners I met in Kamloops do, but still manage to define themselves as law-abiding - I'm not sure how that works - they would shoot somebody in those zones, or would they shoot for another part of the body?

Mr. Hodges: I would take objection to your claiming that my members break the law by having a loaded firearm in their house. If you had an actual member who told you that and he belongs to my organization, I'd like to know it.

Ms Torsney: Okay.

And with regard to the other issues about practising shooting at human torsos, Mr. Hodges?

Mr. Hodges: Yes, I can address that.

By the way, we were quite willing to bring a target down here - unfortunately, it's a little bit difficult on the airplane - including the metal target.

It is true, Ms Venne, that it is 42 inches tall.

I have a note here:

Ms Torsney: Is Judith Ross a member of IPSC?

Mr. Hodges: No.

Ms Torsney: Oh! That's funny. She has competed in the competitions in England.

Mr. Hodges: She was a member of IPSC, but I have no idea if she competed in the English competitions.

Ms Torsney: Well, when she came before us, she told us she had. In fact, those were IPSC competitions. Again, those competitions involved people underneath cars, with targets popping out. They need to shoot down the targets - which again are lifelike; they're the pepper-poppers - that would simulate shooting people in defensive situations.

Do you think it is advisable for Canadian citizens to join your organization, learn how to shoot defensively and arm themselves for self-protection?

Mr. Rowe: First I'd like to reassure everyone in this room that absolutely nothing IPSC does or says encourages people to arm for self-defence.

Our position is that it's solely the responsibility of the various law enforcement agencies in this country. We have never taken any attitude to the contrary.

I would suggest that if the honourable member has evidence of someone who in fact keeps a loaded firearm on their bedside table in direct contradiction to the laws that are currently on the books, then she has a responsibility to notify someone in a law-enforcement capacity.

.1705

Mr. Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Shaw, are you a lawyer?

Mr. Shaw: Yes, sir.

Mr. Thompson: Good. I'll need your help, because I'm not.

I want to refer to proposed section 117.15 of the bill. Proposed subsection (2) says:

Am I correct in assuming that?

Mr. Shaw: I don't know whether you're correct or not. I think it's a reasonable assumption and that could very well be the case. If it is, it's a concern.

Mr. Thompson: So you're confirming the fact that the Governor in Council could prescribe or identify a weapon as prohibited?

Mr. Shaw: There's no question about that.

Mr. Thompson: He can because of this legislation?

Mr. Shaw: In my view he can.

Mr. Thompson: When I talk to people who have lived in other parts of the world in other eras, and they see something like that - they're the ones who pointed this out to me - they say, ``Look, all of a sudden you have legislation. You're going to have registration that identifies all the weapons in the country. Then you have a small, selected few, with a Governor in Council who has the ability to prohibit all of these firearms if he so chooses. That means they could confiscate every firearm in the country.

Is that possible under this legislation?

Mr. Shaw: It would appear to be the case.

You have to keep in mind that the Governor in Council currently has limited authority to put firearms on the prohibited list as long as those firearms aren't commonly used for sporting purposes in the country.

That was some modicum of protection for firearm owners. When that goes, it's wide open.

Mr. Thompson: So it's wide open. So this document indeed is literally setting up what the old folks would call a dictatorship.

Is that correct in your view?

The Chair: In court that's a leading question, but you can answer it if you want.

Mr. Shaw: Well, I would call it a tyranny as opposed to a dictatorship, -

Mr. Thompson: But clearly -

Mr. Shaw: - but it's pretty close.

Mr. Thompson: In other words, a nation could be disarmed with a piece of document like this?

Mr. Shaw: In my view it could be. Keep in mind that's my view. I'm one lawyer giving an opinion, but it seems to be clear to me.

Mr. Thompson: It's no wonder that some people are frightened when this kind of legislation comes to the House. It certainly bothers me.

Mr. Shaw: Well, I think it bothers the substantial majority of the firearm owners out there, who are concerned about the historical progression of non-restricted to restricted to prohibited varieties of arms.

We've had people here talking about semi-automatic firearms and so on. Well, semi-automatic firearms are commonplace in shotguns and rifles, for hunting and target purposes in this country.

Mr. Thompson: Okay, we have to hurry; I have only five minutes and I need some more law lessons.

I want to refer now to clause 110. I've think you've talked about it.

I'm quite concerned that civil liberties are being trampled on pretty heavily throughout this document, but when I I look at the establishing of the Governor in Council, I count a total of 22 things that this Governor in Council can decide simply by making a decision. This legislation authorizes him to do a massive number of things.

.1710

I'm also led to believe that in the Criminal Code there's supposed to be a limit to those kinds of activities. Are you aware of anything in the Criminal Code that limits certain things?

Mr. Shaw: I believe there are certain limits that are supposed to be imposed. The case law would interpret it in that way as well.

But I don't see any limitation under clause 110, because there is a provision where it is to go back in front of the House unless, for extraordinary reasons - because of urgency or of what he considers in his opinion to be something of nominal importance - at the discretion of the Governor in Council....

The Chair: Your time is up, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Thompson: Darn! I have just one more.

The Chair: We have to adjourn in five minutes and Mrs. Barnes has the last five minutes.

I'd just like to say that, under that clause, when the minister decides not to put the regulations before the House for those reasons, he has to table a statement in the House giving the reasons.

This committee could still meet to examine those reasons and the minister. It requires only four members of the committee to force a meeting.

Mrs. Barnes.

Mrs. Barnes (London West): This is something I was not familiar with before having to study this bill. I had to learn about it.

Could you tell me what a black badge is?

Mr. Hodges: A black badge is part of the graduation certificate after people take our initial training course.

I don't have one with me -

Mrs. Barnes: I don't need to see it. I just -

Mr. Hodges: It's a small bag that has a person's name, their membership number and grade. It's given to them after they've successfully completed a 16-hour training course.

Mrs. Barnes: In some of the reading I've done on IPSC matches one of the sentences that surprised me - and I want to hear if this would be an accurate statement - is that ``A single IPSC match uses about as many rounds as some annual police quotas''.

Would that be true?

Mr. Hodges: In one single stage of competition the largest round count I've ever seen is 42 rounds. Very typically, if you're in a 2 to 16 round -

Mrs. Barnes: So this is an inaccurate statement?

Mr. Hodges: Yes, I would believe so. I haven't seen the whole context of that sentence, but I would -

Mrs. Barnes: It just astounded me.

Mr. Rowe: But you should understand, if you will, that in many police forces the annual training quota is 20 rounds per man. If the comment was made in that context, it's perhaps not inappropriate. That's the magnitude of the number we're talking about.

Mrs. Barnes: I've had outstanding cooperation from some of the members of gun clubs, and I really have only one in my riding. When this bill first came out, I gave a member of that particular club a full copy of it. I said, ``Please read this over and come back to me with your criticisms of the bill''. I didn't know what I'd get.

I must say that I was very pleased to receive in a meeting of a few hours some weeks ago a 60-page document that went through the bill clause by clause. He was pleased and I was pleased to see that some of our concerns were similar.

So I think there are constructive ways to go about amending this legislation, if it's needed.

Coming from Ontario, I know that most of my population in Ontario, at least at this point in time, is very favourably disposed towards this legislation. The criticism that has probably been levied on more than one occasion is that, gee, the misinformation that's fed....

We're hearing of a lot of National Rifle Association material coming up from the States into Canada. This is being coordinated: there are plans and strategies, there are the meetings.

Have there been meetings to strategize on how to deal with this legislation?

Mr. Perocchio: Do you mean of the Shooting Federation?

Mrs. Barnes: Yes.

Mr. Perocchio: Oh, absolutely. When this legislation was put forward, I was hired specifically to address the situation.

You must remember that -

Mrs. Barnes: Who hired you?

Mr. Perocchio: The Shooting Federation of Canada.

Mrs. Barnes: To...? Okay, go ahead.

Mr. Perocchio: You must remember that the Shooting Federation of Canada has never really been a lobby group. It has the potential to do it. It was more concerned with the shooting aspect, but because of the situation with this legislation, they found it imperative that somebody who had the background, which I do -

.1715

Mrs. Barnes: What is your background?

Mr. Perocchio: I was one of the founding fathers of the National Firearms Association.

I had the background necessary to go to people and explain exactly what was in the bill. You must admit that 120-some pages of it are rather heavy for the average Canadian to swallow.

The Shooting Federation has gone out of its way to publicize the bill. I have been up and down this country. I am bilingual. I just got back from Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

I must tell the committee that the people do not know what is in this legislation. When they -

Mrs. Barnes: Well, that's why we have televised...[Inaudible].

I wanted to get at what your meetings would state.

The Chair: Unfortunately, unless some of you want to miss the vote - and I don't know whether you do; the whip will be angry with us -

Mr. Perocchio: Mr. Chairman, could I make one point, please.

The Chair: Yes, if you make it -

Mr. Perocchio: There was an allusion to our meeting with the NRA.

Mrs. Barnes: Yes.

The Chair: Let him answer.

Mr. Perocchio: I was down at a convention. This was the first North American Shooters Convention. We were invited because we are the Shooting Federation of Canada.

Again it was purely an exchange of information. It was a discussion group.

That is the extent of our work with the National Rifle Association. It's a courtesy that we exchange information with them back and forth.

The Chair: I'm sorry that we have to run off like this. This is one of the perils of working in this place. There are votes from time to time.

I want to thank you for coming and giving us your views. Your briefs are both very complete and I assure you they'll be given serious attention.

Whether the committee agrees with all of it remains to be seen. At the end of the hearings we'll be voting on different amendments and so on.

Mr. Perocchio: Thank you.

The Chair: This meeting stands adjourned.

;