EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, January 28, 1997

.1300

[English]

The Chairman: I would like to now reconvene the hearings of the subcommittee on the draft regulations under the Firearms Act. It's a pleasure to have with us here in Ottawa this afternoon Mr. Gordon Gallant of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, and Mr. Tony Rodgers, executive director of the Nova Scotia Wildlife Federation.

Mr. Gallant, what is your title with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters?

Mr. Gordon Gallant (Land Use Specialist, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters): I'm a firearms specialist.

The Chairman: Okay.

We'll ask Mr. Gallant and Mr. Rodgers to make presentations, and then hopefully they'll welcome questions from members of the subcommittee.

Please begin.

Mr. Tony Rodgers (Executive Director, Nova Scotia Wildlife Federation): Mr. Chairperson and committee members, thank you for the opportunity to appear.

Before I make my presentation this afternoon, I feel it's important for this justice subcommittee to understand two significant facts.

The first fact is that because I am here in Ottawa today commenting on these firearms regulations as they relate to Bill C-68, you should not give any weight to the assumption that the hunters I represent support this bill and its regulations. There is absolutely no acceptance of Bill C-68 by the law-abiding firearms-owning community in Nova Scotia, especially its hunters. Simply put, our backs are now pressed even harder against the wall and we are being forced to try to protect our members and other law-abiding citizens by attempting to lessen the impact of these new rules.

It is equally important to understand our second point, which is that the executive and the directors of the Nova Scotia Wildlife Federation and the hunters we represent do support the idea of peace, order, and good government. We also wish to someday play a major role in a process by which fair firearms laws that confirm respect and support for the legal and responsible firearms ownership will be dealt with by a future parliament of Canada.

In the meantime, we are forced by the system to defend to the best of our ability the right of law-abiding firearms owners in Nova Scotia, who have been left on their own to fight for themselves, to make some sort of statement to you.

The hunters of Nova Scotia represent one in every five citizens in the province. This is a Canadian Wildlife Service statistic found in the publication The Importance of Wildlife to Canadians. These hunters and the people who represent them and their families would like this government to end the discussions on regulations and to consult once again with the people who use firearms as tools through hunting, to get a fair understanding once again of where this is going.

It has been observed by the firearms-owning community in Nova Scotia that there has been an attempt by some in the justice department, whose job it is to select the right regulations, just to deal with some of the softer regulations at this time. The controversial sections of this act, the ones in which the real battle will take place, will reveal the true extent of the hurt carried in this act to the firearms-owning community. They have not been tabled yet, and those are the regulations dealing with registration. These regulations will lead to the death of recreational hunting and shooting sports in Canada over time.

It will be a death of a thousand cuts. Tiny pieces of our freedom will be taken from the law-abiding citizens who use firearms in a responsible manner, as they have for years. Hunters have not been spared by this legislation, as the justice minister said they would. They have once again been misidentified with the criminal element in this country, tried, convicted, and sentenced to lose their firearms, as directed by a political philosophy.

The Nova Scotia Wildlife Federation represents the organized hunters in our province, and with our sister organizations across Canada we represent half a million people who feel betrayed by Ottawa because they, their children, and their grandchildren will be affected negatively by the enforcement of the regulations of Bill C-68.

.1305

This subcommittee should pay particular attention to the wording of these regulations to ensure that the regulations properly reflect the intent of the law. It has been brought to our attention that sometimes bureaucrats, who are the real architects of these laws, take liberties when writing regulations to ensure that their personal agendas are met.

I was a bit surprised when I saw the subcommittee's witness list for the first time and discovered that I was listed as a hunter, listed, I presume, as a person who would speak on behalf of at least a portion of the hunting community, a designation I am pleased to say I am very proud of.

As a recommendation to this committee, you should finish the job of the justice committee and hear from all the hunters, not just from us.

These regulations, Mr. Chairman, have the ability to strip away my pride as a hunter and to strip away the pride of all hunters in Canada by making us feel that we have done something wrong by owning a firearm, a tool needed to hunt. These regulations have attached to us the stigma that people who own firearms are bad people and should not be trusted.

Leading by example, the government has demonstrated the lack of trust they have in hunters and other recreational shooters by creating a bill and these regulations.

I have never worked in a climate of hate or distrust as a student or in my career, so I found it difficult to realize how angry I could get about the actions of my government on C-68 and to realize that the same sentiment is shared by so many of my fellow hunters.

So that you may better understand, please allow me to offer a hypothetical situation. If a law was made that obstructed you from practising your religion or from pursuing your spiritual beliefs and that hindered you in your attempt to share your spiritual beliefs with your loved ones, you would feel a deep pain that would cause you to experience a cavalcade of emotions. This is how we feel today.

For some of us, hunting is a spiritual expression because of the communion we share with nature in the act of hunting.

This is not in my text, but I just want to add here that as you deal with the subject matter, especially with some members of the aboriginal community, I think you might want to delve into that aspect a little deeper to find out how these laws will affect them more.

No one in government has bothered to understand the deep-rooted spiritual grasp hunting holds over most of us. And it really hurts to know you can't share this experience in the same manner in which you have enjoyed it because of the prejudices of others.

Bill C-68 really is the largest lie ever told to the Canadian public. The merchants of doom who were here earlier today have spread their poison against the responsible firearms community of Canada and have almost forgotten the real target of this legislation, which is crime.

It's been said many times, but it has to be repeated: gun control is not crime control. The time being spent on these regulation would be better applied to learning how to keep the criminal element of this country in check. However, the firearms community has a lot to learn from Canada's gangsters, rapists, murderers and other assorted lowlifes because they somehow have managed to get and flaunt their rights. I guess we're a little bit behind them.

Your government has brought forward regulations to Bill C-68 that embrace the assumption that a person who owns a firearm, a person who wishes to purchase a firearm, or a person who is related to someone who owns a firearm is, by association, a bad person.

I do not feel qualified to comment on all the regulations, especially in relation to prohibited firearms and regulations dealing with businesses, but I do have some comments to make.

I was given a lovely set of documents by your department to deal with on a page-by-page basis. I notice that wasn't adhered to by other presenters, but I'll do it just briefly.

I do have a prepared text. I'm sorry. It was right here. I should have just jumped it up for you, but I didn't.

Page 1, section 3, deals with a person looking for signatures in order to complete an application form. Anybody who is a newcomer to a town or to a province and who wishes to participate will have a hard time finding those signatures.

Also, I wonder what the ramifications would be for co-signatories if an accident happened or if a shooting event ever took place. What would happen to that person who actually signed and said the individual was a great citizen so he should be given a firearm? Will there be something coming back on that?

On page 2, section 3, this section is easy to abuse, especially for ex-mates who want to get revenge on the applicant. That was dealt with earlier today too. That is the section in which spouses must be informed of applications and then sign off on the application itself.

.1310

On page 2, subsection 4(1), no time line is given as to how long it could take to inform the spouses. If you couldn't find a particular spouse, the CFO could wait a year or something just to locate them. No time line is given on that whatsoever.

On page 7, subsection 15(1) deals with a person involved with domestic violence. The way this is written, if a firearms certificate holder steps in to defend a victim in a domestic violence situation, he or she stands a chance of losing the certificate. All it says is ``participates'' in that particular situation. And what about the victim? The victim also has an opportunity of losing their certificate, the way this is written, just by the mere fact that they were a victim in this particular crime.

On page 8, paragraph 19(e), this has to do with the gentleman you had here earlier today with respect to museums. Well, this also affects the Royal Canadian Legions across the country that have souvenirs and trophies that they've kept in their private collections.

With respect to storage, display, and transportation of firearms by individuals, on page 14, paragraph 2(1)(a), the phrase ``peace officer'' is used. I could not find a definition of ``peace officer'' in Bill C-68, and I believe it has a much broader meaning than ``police officer''. I think individuals appointed by the courts are known as peace officers now. That would give a whole new meaning to that particular section.

On page 16, subparagraph 3(1)(b)(ii) is on making a firearm inoperable. Once again, if the consultation process had taken place with the firearms community, a lot of these things would have been cleared up, because how to make the firearm inoperable would have been told to the government by the people who own the firearms, not as a matter of guesswork by somebody who isn't used to firearms. Again, that's the consultation process.

That leads me into another segue about the fact that before these regulations were supposed to be brought forward to the House of Commons...the justice minister had promised consultation on them before they were written, and this never happened in the same manner as I heard the word ``consultation'' used today. So nobody misunderstands me, Mr. Rock did not consult with the firearms-owning community during Bill C-68. I attended two of those sessions personally in Halifax. They were not consultation sessions. He came to tell us this was what he was doing. He wasn't there asking our opinion about it.

With respect to the aboriginal peoples and the adaptation regulations, this is a section that has the opportunity of driving a broad wedge between the aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities, especially with respect to hunting. I find this very dangerous. I think the aboriginal community will back me on this. This could be a problem.

The part I find insulting in this is on page 54, paragraphs 5(a) and 5(b). They show flexibility in this particular law with respect to the writing and taking of tests. Quite honestly, if I were in the native community and noticed this wasn't offered to the non-native community, I'd be quite insulted by that particular wording. That should definitely be changed.

Again, firearms fees are nothing more than a tax grab, an opportunity to tax a group of people who are just out there with firearms trying to enjoy themselves. Their recreation is going to be taxed.

In conclusion, I'd like to point out that this legislation has created another minority group in Canada. We're unwitting victims of violence ourselves. Because of the violence in this country, hunters and other firearms users have become the victims of a new law that we don't deserve.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Rodgers.

Mr. Gallant.

Mr. Gallant: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

Mr. Rodgers has already raised some of the points I was going to make.

.1315

By way of background, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters has been in existence for 69 years. We're Ontario's oldest and largest organized coalition of firearms owners. We have 74,000 dues-paying members and 540 local affiliated clubs across the province of Ontario. Our members use firearms for hunting and target shooting and as collectables. We are avid long gun hunters. We are target shooters who use both long guns and handguns. We have military arms collectors, ammunition reloaders, trap and skeet shooters, farmers, and trappers among our membership.

We have appeared before the Commons committee with respect to Bill C-68 and we have appeared before the Senate committee to voice our opposition to Bill C-68. When we appeared in front of those committees, we appeared as a coalition with our sister organizations from across Canada, representing over 500,000 dues-paying members. Our members are very much average Canadians.

Mr. Rodgers spoke earlier about public consultation. On May 4 the justice minister tabled a package of regulations much similar to the ones we are discussing today. Miraculously, four days later he withdrew those and promised:

We will proceed in re-tabling the first set of regulations only after the extensive consultations with members of the Caucus and other interested stakeholders.

When Deputy Minister Mosley appeared before this committee back in December, he made comments that there had been consultations and that the regulations before the committee today were the result of those consultations. Despite specific requests to the justice minister, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters was not contacted directly by the justice department with respect to the content of these regulations prior to the date they were tabled in the House, nor was any other organized firearms group in Canada, as far as I am aware.

There has been no consultation. These regulations before this committee have not had public review or the benefit of public discussion.

In 1986 the federal government released the first federal regulatory plan, and in that regulatory plan there was a document called the Citizen's Code of Regulatory Fairness. This code generally was to establish standards whereby the public would be protected and to provide a mechanism for regulating the regulators.

There are 15 articles of the code. It's attached to the brief I've provided to the committee today. Three are particularly relevant.

The first article is:

Canadians are entitled to expect that the government's regulation will be characterized by minimum interference with individual freedoms consistent with the protection of community interests.

The second article reads:

The government will encourage and facilitate a full opportunity for consultation and participation by Canadians in the federal regulatory process.

Third, article 11 states:

The government will ensure that the benefits of the regulation exceed the costs and will give particularly careful consideration to all new regulation that could impede economic growth or job creation.

The government has departed from these articles in introducing and passing Bill C-68 and is continuing its contravention of this established policy through these draft regulations.

Neither the legislation nor these regulations can be classified as minimum interference; the government to date has completely ignored any position, submission, or discussion that has not echoed the government's own agenda with respect to gun control; and there has been no analysis of the cost benefits of either the legislation or these draft regulations.

.1320

Even the government's own study released in July 1996, called A Statistical Analysis of the Impacts of the 1977 Firearms Control Legislation, is inconclusive that the recent changes in gun control in 1977 and in 1991 have had any effect on crime. Certainly there was no economic evaluation as part of that study.

That being said, we will make the following submissions to this committee in the hope that our concerns with the draft regulations will be taken seriously and that some amendments will be made to these draft regulations to lessen the serious negative impact these regulations will have on our members in Ontario and on other responsible firearms owners across Canada.

The first regulation I'd like to speak to today is the firearms licences regulation. The existing regulation, which is called the firearms acquisition certificate regulation, lists a number of classes of people who are entitled to serve as personal references, the last one on the list being the spouse of the applicant. With the regulation before the committee today, there is no indication in either the legislation or the draft regulation of whether a similar list of acceptable references will be provided or prescribed, or of what that list will be.

The regulation is specific in section 3(1)(c), which is found on page 1 of the paginated copies. The spouse of the applicant is specifically prevented from acting as a personal reference for the possession and acquisition licence. Similarly, the spouse of an applicant for an acquisition licence for a crossbow is also prevented from serving as a personal reference.

There is, however, in subsection 4(2), found on page 2, a conflicting phrase that allows the chief firearms officer to issue a licence without giving notice to the current or former spouse or common law partner if that partner or spouse has signed the application. There's a straight conflict here. Either the spouse signs the application and serves as a personal reference or they don't. That conflict within the draft regulation must be cleaned up.

It would be our recommendation that spouses not be denied the opportunity to serve as references, nor should a list of a class of individuals be proscribed at all. Any law-abiding citizen over the age of 18 should be able to serve as a personal reference for an individual seeking a possession and acquisition licence or an acquisition licence for a crossbow.

I've made some additional recommendations dealing with that regulation, and they're fully detailed in the brief.

There is one other amendment the federation would like to see relating to that regulation, and it deals with the issue of alternate certification.

The regulation as drafted requires an individual to have owned a firearm continuously since 1979 in order to avail himself of the alternate certification process. Clearly there are many firearms owners who are fully versed in the law and have clearly exhibited the ability to handle firearms safely, yet have not owned firearms continuously since 1979. As a result, they would not be able to seek alternate certification of their knowledge and experience.

Our recommendation is to delete section 16 of this regulation and provide some parliamentary recognition that the Canadian firearms safety course is not the sole avenue for responsible or acceptable firearms safety training in Canada.

With respect to the storage, display, and handling of firearms by individuals, the Ontario Federation is fully in support of the current standards mandating the storage of firearms under lock and key. We have long been advocates of that storage, certainly long before the regulation that's currently in place was enacted.

However, we do have an opportunity here to improve that regulation and to recognize that there are methods of storing a firearm, other than removing the bolt or the bolt carrier, that will prevent the firearm from being loaded and discharged. I speak particularly of single-shot rifles and double-barrelled shotguns as well. These firearms dismantle very easily and in that state cannot be loaded and fired.

.1325

It would be our recommendation that paragraph 3(1)(b)(i) on page 16 be amended to widen the acceptable standards for rendering a firearm inoperable, and specifically include the separation of barrel chamber from the trigger-stock mechanism.

With respect to the Canadian aboriginal peoples' adaptations, I will not attempt to provide comments to detail the effects this regulation might have on aboriginals, nor the appropriateness of this regulation for aboriginal Canadians, even though there are many aboriginal members in our federation.

On the point Mr. Rodgers made earlier about the ability to submit applications orally or by means of interpreters, certainly such an exemption should apply to any Canadian, regardless of ethnicity.

Sections 18 and 19 of this draft regulation relate to the issue of possession licences and are responsive to the issue of community and family firearms. Certainly the aboriginal community in Canada is not the only identifiable community to use community and family firearms. Non-aboriginal Canadian hunters were using family firearms long before there was any government regulation on firearms. The exemption that's being permitted to aboriginals in this case, which is allowing them to seek and be granted a possession-only licence, should be applied to all Canadians in this state.

There is another exemption that allows aboriginals to lend firearms without lending the registration certificate of that firearm at the same time. There has been absolutely no rationale for why an aboriginal hunter should not have to transfer the registration certificate along with the firearm, or why such an exemption should apply to only aboriginal hunters. If it is a valid exemption, it should apply to all.

The last issue in the aboriginal adaptations regulation relates to the storage of a firearm in a remote wilderness area. This is a valid exemption and it's something we've supported. But again, why only aboriginal hunters? Certainly there are more non-aboriginal hunters in Canada who use firearms in remote wilderness areas than there are aboriginal Canadians anywhere.

But it is a valid exemption. Amendments should be made not to this regulation but to the earlier regulations for storage, display, transportation and handling of firearms by individuals. That effective exemption should apply to anybody in remote wilderness areas. Hunters will still store their firearms safely - that is, separately from ammunition and in an unloaded state - but the requirement that they be disabled either by dismantling or through a trigger lock or some other mechanism, when they are in a remote wilderness area, is frankly ludicrous.

With respect to the fees regulations, it is the position of this federation that the government has departed so radically from established democratic and rational procedure with this legislation that there can be no justification for any of the proposed fees. We must not forget that the present government was not elected with a mandate to institute a system of mandatory possession licences or to require the registration of every single firearm in Canada.

.1330

The government has completely failed to justify the need or to make an objective presentation of the expected benefits of mandatory licensing and registration to Canadian society, and the government has been completely unable to determine and enunciate the expected costs of the implementation of this user licensing and universal firearms registration.

If the government is truly convinced that the mandatory licensing and universal registration will provide significant benefits to Canadian society, it should be willing to completely cover the costs entailed in the firearms control system that is being proposed, without passing user fees on to the individual firearms owners.

In the regulatory impact statement that was also provided, it was noted that there will be a significant impact on firearms owners, and that over time the government will achieve cost recovery in the administration of the firearms control system through the application of user fees. It would be our concern that the firearms owner, the average Canadian, will have absolutely no control over the costs of the administration of this firearms control system, which frankly we don't want and which, as far as anybody can prove, is of no benefit. The owners will be directly responsible for these costs through the payment of user fees.

We fully expect that the nominal fees proposed in this draft regulation will not be maintained at the level proposed, but will be increased by many times the fees proposed in this draft regulation in order to achieve a cost recovery of a useless, ineffectual, and unnecessary bureaucracy. It would be our recommendation that the fees proposed in schedule I be revised to their current level - that is, $50 for a new licence of acquisition - and that no fees be levied for possession-only licenses, for possession licences for minors, for non-resident licences to borrow, or for licences to acquire crossbows.

I've made numerous other recommendations in the brief, and I would encourage members of the committee to review the brief in its totality.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Gallant.

Mr. de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye (Portneuf): Gentlemen, I carefully listened to both your presentations. I disagree with some of your arguments, although I find others quite relevant. If I may, I would like to highlight the issues we disagree on before looking at your recommendations, which clearly show your expertise.

Of course, my role is not to speak in favour of the government's bill, but since I was a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs when the bill was developed, and taking into account the information I could gather as well as the initiatives taken by my party, the Bloc Québécois, in the interest of hunters, I believe, with all due respect, that hunters will be able to practice their favourite sport legally for many years to come. I too am a hunter, and I know that hunters contribute to a healthy environment and to the conservation of species. I also know that hunting, just like cross-country skying, can be a spiritual experience and it is a feeling I respect.

On the other hand, I believe that, if motorists are willing to pay a fee to get a licence and to register their vehicle - and you know how much that can add up to - , asking a hunter to pay a very small fee to possess or acquire a firearm for hunting or recreational purposes should not be regarded as inappropriate, even by those who consider hunting as a sport.

.1335

I should hope that people who hunt as a sport do not consider that, through this bill and its attendant regulations, they are treated like criminals. If it were the case, I would be the first to protest.

That being said, I note that you regret not having been consulted as you should have been. I agree that consulting the various group concerned by the issues at hand should always be a priority.

In your brief, you raised a number of concerns and made some recommendations. I would like you to clarify some of those recommendations which warrant to be developed further. For instance, you recommend that women should not be denied the right to provide a statement when their spouses apply for a licence. Other witnesses have indicated to the sub-committee that the proposed regulation waiving the need for women to sign the application will ensure that they're not submitted to undue pressure.

You argue the opposite. Don't you think that if women could sign, they might be submitted, in some cases - and even if it's only in one case, isn't that one too many anyway? - to undue pressure by their spouse when that person tends to be the aggressive type? What do you think, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Gallant?

[English]

Mr. Gallant: I'll answer this question, but before I do answer, I want to ask you something.

You did disagree with the position we have both espoused that the paying of a fee for licensing in order to hunt does not constitute an undue infringement, if I may paraphrase. With respect to that sentiment and your analogy of licensing cars, what the government is doing here is not a licensing to use, but a licensing to possess.

I would pose the question back to you, sir. Would you feel the same if the government decided it would require you to license your car even if you were going to leave it parked in your garage for the next 20 years? This is what the government has done to hunters. It is a licence in order only to -

Mr. de Savoye: If you'll allow me, what I said is I don't share your concern that hunters are treated as criminals. I remember when I was younger, my father used to pay a fee just to possess a radio. That was some years ago, but you might remember.

It is only on that ground that I don't share your concern. That doesn't mean I don't respect your opinion.

Could you come back now to the main question?

Mr. Gallant: Yes. With respect to the question of spousal references, certainly it is a concern that there may be some undue influence. However, that is balanced by the requirement of having two personal references, both of whom are willing to swear and attest to the fact that they know and have known this person for three years and that there is no reason they are aware of that there is any public safety concern that this person should not have firearms.

Mr. de Savoye: The argument has been that in certain instances a spouse could be harassed for her signature by an aggressive husband.

Mr. Gallant: As I said, in very few instances that may be a problem, but that is balanced by the requirement of having two separate references. On the other hand, we live today in a very mobile society. It is very difficult for many people to locate two people other than their spouse who have known the applicant for the required period of time.

.1340

Mr. de Savoye: Do you want to add anything, Mr. Rodgers?

Mr. Rodgers: The only addition I'd like to make is to thank you for bringing up the contribution that hunters do make to the environment. It's associated with the costs we pay out to our provincial governments to purchase licences and the taxes we pay in respect to the actual hunting activity.

I know that in Nova Scotia alone whitetail deer hunting is an industry worth $32 million, and there is a lot of generation of that. That's a type of cost hunters won't object to. Those are things they see and can participate in. But to add another tax or another financial burden - they won't accept that. Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: On page 6 of the English version of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters' brief, it is recommended to amend subparagraph 3(1)(b)(ii) to include the separation of the barrel chamber from the trigger-lock mechanism. In such circumstances, is it still possible to insert the cartridge and to fire?

[English]

Mr. Gallant: It is my experience with those firearms that when they are separated the trigger and locking mechanism are in one hand; the barrel and chamber are completely separate. There is no way to fire a cartridge from the barrel without this half. If they are stored separately, you have two inert pieces.

Mr. de Savoye: The cartridge cannot be put into the trigger mechanism because the chamber is not there. That's what you are saying.

Mr. Gallant: That's right. The chamber stays with the barrel of the firearm.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: In your brief, you say that Parliament should recognize, one way or the other, other types of training in the handling of firearms than the proposed course. I understand where you're coming from; some people have a lot of experience and expertise. How should we recognize that, do you think? We can't just ask somebody: "Do you know ...?" The individual must be in a position to prove that he or she has the required knowledge. I would like you to clarify this issue a little.

[English]

Mr. Gallant: The current regulation that's in place came into force, I believe, on January 1, 1994. I don't have the actual designation of the regulation, but it lays out in detail the criteria of competence that the firearms officer will refer to. Basically, they are knowledge of the basic principles related to safe handling in the use of firearms, knowledge of the basic operation of common hunting and sporting firearms, and knowledge of the federal acts and regulations and the regulations of the province in which the application for a firearms acquisition certificate - in this case a firearms licence - will be made that relate to the use of firearms for hunting and sporting purposes. It's very similar to the wording that is proposed in the aboriginal exemption regulation that I believe you'll find in the regulations that are before the House and before this committee.

Largely, it will be left up to the province and the chief provincial firearms officer to set standards, and currently many of those provinces already have set the standards. It may be a quick test that is administered to the applicant by the local firearms officer. It may be past course work or provincial hunter safety courses. There are a number of avenues that can be used.

.1345

The Chairman: Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank our witnesses today for their testimony.

What bothers me about this act and the regulations is that the fundamental purpose of the act is being overlooked. It's like someone deciding that they're going to build a ship to go somewhere and the whole of the discussion is diverted from the purpose, the location or the destination of the ship. We get into building the ship, and the engineers are saying where this should go and that should go and so on, and we get into that. We're discussing the dynamics, the principles involved in building the ship, when the purpose and destination of the ship is the issue here.

The issue here, according to the justice department, is to create public safety, to enhance public safety. The licensing of gun owners and the registration of their firearms will create a safer society. Now, we heard from groups yesterday and today whose history and other factors indicate that their use of firearms and the manner in which they use them pose no threat whatever to the safety of society. I would imagine that you would say the same thing for your organization, that the hunters are responsible firearms owners, that safety comes first, and therefore, except perhaps for accidents from time to time, there is not a threat posed by the members of your organization to the safety of society.

So if we look at what has motivated this legislation, we look at the disasters that have occurred because some individual has simply lost his rationality and chose to obtain a firearm and use it against others. We see the situation in Montreal, the latest situation out in B.C. When I apply my understanding of the legislation to those situations, to me it simply means that the legislation falls short of the goal, and that is to ensure that society is protected from people when they lose their rationality or simply go berserk and use a firearm against themselves, members of their family or members of the public. This act will not address that issue.

Now, I have asked the proponents of this act that question: how will the registration of a rifle and shotgun reduce the criminal use of that firearm? I have never received a direct answer. I asked our witnesses this morning who were here from the Coalition for Gun Control, and I directed it especially and specifically to Superintendent Don McLean of the Winnipeg Police. It was simply this: the registration of my firearm and the licence I have to own that firearm, together with the safety measure of having it locked away - if all those regulations are abided by to protect society supposedly, how will that protect society if I suddenly lose my rationality, take the key, open up the closet, take out the firearm, the ammunition, wherever it might be stored, for the purpose of using it against myself, members of my family or members of the public? I did not get an answer to that question today from the superintendent, and I did not get an answer from Ms Cukier, who also intervened.

So I ask you gentlemen that question: how will the registration of rifles and shotguns prevent the criminal use of those firearms?

Mr. Rodgers: It won't. That's a simple answer, Jack. It just won't. We're dealing with two things here. The confusion for me in Bill C-68 is why we never gave Bill C-17 an opportunity to grow and become a law. After a year and a half of Bill C-17, we moved along into another debate on gun control legislation, and the opportunity wasn't there to see if this legislation was good enough.

.1350

I'm going to go back to March 1993, when the Auditor General of Canada proposed to Parliament that they go back and review all legislation to see if it was indeed having an impact, as they wanted, on making Canada safer, reducing crime, especially crime with firearms. And those things haven't happened. So for you to ask that question of us...I have no background knowledge to say to you or anybody else that it will reduce crime. I don't think it will. I can't see that having a piece of paper attached to a firearm, or a piece of paper attached to the individual, is going to end that violence.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Gallant, do you have anything to add?

Mr. Gallant: There is no answer to that question. I don't have anything to add.

Mr. Ramsay: Do you believe that the registration -

Mr. Gallant: Oh, definitely not. There's no way it can. There's no way it can.

Mr. Ramsay: Well, maybe that's the reason I haven't received direct answers from the proponents of this legislation, including the witnesses who appeared here this morning.

My concern is that if it will not meet the societal safety objectives and if it is going to impact negatively upon museums and re-enactment organizations, from whom we heard this morning, which are going to become extinct unless the regulations dealing with them provide an exemption.... We heard from the armoured vehicles, Brink's and Loomis and others in that industry. There are gun clubs, a couple of firearm manufacturing companies in Canada who have appeared before the committee. We've heard from the guides and hunters, and I guess we'll hear more from them. These are all areas where there is careful use of firearms, where there is no threat to public safety, and yet they are being regulated. No regulation is demanded as a result of the creation of a danger to public safety, and yet they're being regulated.

What concerns me is almost a blind, narrow-minded focus simply upon the licensing and registration, with the claim that it's somehow going to enhance public safety.

We have the storage requirements in Bill C-17, as you have said, and most of the gun owners I've talked to support it because of the obvious safety factors dealing with children. That's not an issue in Bill C-68 or these regulations. There seems to be a single-mined push towards the registration of rifles and shotguns, the licensing of owners, when there is no evidence that it will enhance public safety, and yet this is what is being held out to millions of Canadians.

We in my party and others who oppose the act have been accused of misinformation, and yet I believe the greatest piece of misinformation that is being perpetrated in this whole situation is the fact that the Government of Government, through the justice department, is attempting to assure the people that society will be safer and to lull them into a false sense of security when no such assurance can be made. That's exactly what's happening in this whole debate, and that is unfortunate.

There isn't a gun owner or a citizen of this country who is not interested and concerned about gun control and public safety. We have four governments and two territories who are represented by common-sense people who do have public safety in mind. They're opposing this act. The three provinces and the one territory simply refuse, regardless of what happens with the constitutional challenge, to administer the licensing and registration portions of the act. I don't know how that will turn out, but it poses an enormous precedent in this country, where the federal government is introducing legislation and the governments whose constitutional jurisdiction requires them to administer that law are simply saying they'll have nothing to do with it. In spite of all that, it has suggested that they are not interested in public safety.

.1355

I get frustrated. And that's why we would repeal this bill. As a government, we would repeal this bill because we think it's a bad bill.

We would go back to the people concerned and listen to what they have to say. We would listen to those who use firearms in all of these areas such as the museums, the re-enactment societies, the armoured trucks and so on. We would listen as to whether or not they need laws to make their use of firearms safer.

That hasn't been done, although we have been assured from the beginning that consultation has taken place. It hasn't taken place with the act and it hasn't taken place with regard to the regulations according to the testimony we've heard. And that's sad, because if consultation had taken place, I think we would have a much better act.

The Chairman: This is your last question, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Rodgers: I wanted to speak to that particular point about the consultation. I have before me a letter I wrote to the Hon. Allan Rock on November 18, a few days prior to the regulations being tabled in the House of Commons. It came to our attention that this was happening, and my letter to him asked when he was going to have the public consultation on the regulations, as was promised. Yet at the same time we knew the regulations were going to hit the floor of the House of Commons in a few days.

I doubt very much if I'd be here today giving evidence if it wasn't for the fact that I wrote that letter asking why we hadn't had a chance to talk.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Kirkby.

Mr. Kirkby (Prince Albert - Churchill River): I want to touch briefly on your indication that there may be instances where wives of people who are making application for an FAC could be intimidated into signing references for those individuals. You said that might happen in only a few cases.

If a spouse who is applying for an FAC has threatened to kill an individual or his spouse with a gun and fears this may come out, he will apply for the FAC and say, with threats, ``Sign this.'' So the person signs it and later, let's say, wants to bring charges against that individual for uttering threats. Would not the signature of the spouse on the application form likely preclude the ability of the threatened spouse to seek a successful prosecution if the spouse had to swear to the fact that this person could have firearms even though the person issued threats? Do you not think that's a real problem?

Mr. Gallant: It would be a real problem if the spouse of the applicant signed under those circumstances, but -

Mr. Kirkby: Then why do we make them sign?

Mr. Gallant: I'm not saying we should make them sign. Make it possible -

Mr. Kirkby: Why make that opportunity available? Surely every single hunter knows two people who will sign for them without putting some spouses through that. Wouldn't you think so?

Mr. Gallant: May I answer that?

In my life there is one person who knows me best, and that is my spouse. I find it most disturbing that the potential exists that my spouse will not be able to testify in regard to my personal standing. It's very disturbing that -

Mr. Kirkby: I'm not concerned about you. I said that I'm concerned about the people who are threatening their spouses. Why should you worry?

In order to keep any spouse from being subject to that pressure...why does it bother you to seek others to be your witness if we're protecting some spouses from that kind of abuse and coercion?

Mr. Gallant: That type of coercion and abuse occurs at the point where the pen is put in the hand. At that point the law has been broken. It would certainly be our federation's position - and my personal position - that the law has been broken and that charges should be laid and prosecuted. Any firearms in the possession of that individual should be confiscated immediately. That is allowed under the current law and was allowed under the previous law.

.1400

Mr. Kirkby: You're not answering the question. Why should we allow any spouses who are subject to threats to essentially sign away the ability to get a successful prosecution at a later time against that person who issued the threats? Why would we do that?

Well, don't worry about that -

Mr. Rodgers: Can I just make a comment on that? That was the position outlined in the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters' brief, but I have a great deal of difficulty dealing with that question. I was imagining dealing with that. Because of what I'm like, I have a hard time -

Mr. Kirkby: I understand that.

Mr. Rodgers: It's like...how would I rob a bank?

Mr. Kirkby: I understand that.

Mr. Rodgers: It's just that I can't get into that type of question. If you want to talk to me about impacts on wildlife and what this will do in the hunting community, I can go for that. But I'm sorry, I wouldn't be able to deal with -

Mr. Kirkby: Okay. I understand that this would be completely foreign to you, but unfortunately in our society there are individuals who do these kinds of things.

Secondly, you've indicated with respect to the aboriginal provisions that you are opposed to any kind of exemption or treatment that doesn't apply to everybody. Would it be fair to say that's a blanket type of feeling that you have about the entire bill? Should there be any exemptions?

Mr. Rodgers: My particular comments weren't about the exemptions or whether the exemptions should apply to the native community. My problem was that it could drive a wedge between the native and non-native hunters, because for people living in the same community where one group has one set of laws to deal with and the other has another, jealousy could be a factor. That could be a problem.

Mr. Kirkby: So you're saying, then, that any special consideration given to anybody could cause a wedge. Is that correct?

Mr. Rodgers: Yes. And in some cases, if you're going to give these considerations, give the considerations to both.

Mr. Kirkby: In the regulations there is an exemption given to farmers who require the firearm to eradicate predators when there is a need. The safe storage requirements are modified so they can get at the predators more quickly. Would you be opposed to that exemption?

Mr. Rodgers: In Nova Scotia, if you have a problem with a predator on your property and you aren't a farmer, you can apply to the natural resources department and ask for a permit. Doing that would allow you an exemption to use a firearm.

Mr. Kirkby: I'm saying that within these regulations there are exemptions to the safe storage provisions for farmers who require the firearms to deal with predators. Are you saying that you're opposed to that exemption?

Mr. Gallant: If I may, Mr. Chairman -

The Chairman: Please do.

Mr. Gallant: - the exemption that's proposed in the regulation to allow for the control of predators is currently in place in the existing storage regulation. That doesn't apply only to farmers; it applies to anybody in Canada who needs to control predators at their home, subject to -

Mr. Kirkby: I doubt that it means urban dwellers.

Mr. Gallant: As I was just about to say, it's subject to other applicable laws such as municipal by-laws on discharge of firearms. But it does apply to everybody, not just to wheat farmers in the west or to potato farmers on the east coast or to any other identifiable segment of society. That exemption applies to everybody.

Mr. Kirkby: But that exemption doesn't apply to urban dwellers. Are you in favour of this exemption for people in rural areas?

Mr. Gallant: Certainly.

Mr. Kirkby: Okay.

Mr. Gallant: It applies to everyone.

Could we go back to that spousal issue?

Mr. Kirkby: I have more questions to ask and I've dealt with that.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, if he wishes to add -

The Chairman: Mr. Kirkby has the right to ask a question.

Mr. Ramsay: But he wants to answer the question.

Mr. Kirkby: I have the right, and I'm going to ask the questions.

Mr. Ramsay: You've been interrupting.

The Chairman: Please.

.1405

Mr. Kirkby: When we go hunting, we register ourselves by buying a licence. We drive in our registered car to an airport to take a registered plane with a registered pilot out to a registered outfitter. We have a registered guide, who drives us across the lake in a registered boat. I'm just wondering why in this world, where registration is relatively commonplace, there would be such a reaction to registration of a firearm when absolutely everything else we deal with on a hunting trip is registered.

Mr. Rodgers: For the very reason we argued against Bill C-68 in the beginning: because we know the registration will eventually lead to confiscation of our firearms. It already has. We've had registered handguns in this country for sixty-odd years. As of January 1, 1994, 52% of them became illegal in the hands of the rightful owners. We see no reason in the world why this could not eventually happen to long guns.

Mr. Gallant: I can add to that. That may be your hunting experience. It's not my hunting experience, and it's not the experience of a lot of hunters - the argument that everything else we use is registered. I think we should look very closely at the purposes for the registration of boats and cars and guides and whether the purposes of that registration accomplished anything of benefit to Canadian society.

Mr. Kirkby: To go on with the purposes of registration, you've indicated there is no purpose. I take it you support it when a court issues a prohibition order. Quite a few thousand prohibition orders are issued against people each year. Precisely how does one enforce a prohibition order when you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt a person owns firearms that may be in their possession or not? How do you enforce prohibition orders without registration? How do you say this guy has six firearms - ``you're prohibited; we want them''? How do the police enforce that without registration?

Mr. Gallant: You make a large assumption, that the person who will at some point in the future be subject to a prohibition order registers all his firearms. If you look closely at the statistics, the people who are involved in instances that lead to prohibition orders are not members of our federations, and probably in many cases the prohibition orders are in order and we would agree with that. However -

Mr. Kirkby: How do you enforce them?

Mr. Gallant: - the enforcement of the prohibition order is going to be exactly the same. The police will have to come in and make a physical search. I believe you would have a hard time finding any police officer who will testify to the fact that he will trust such a registration system. There will be searches and seizures following these prohibition orders being placed. There are now and there will be in the future.

Mr. Kirkby: What's to stop an individual -

The Chairman: We're out of time, Mr. Kirkby. I apologize to our witnesses as well. Time flies.

I want to thank both Mr. Gallant and Mr. Rodgers for taking the time to appear before us this afternoon.

I know time is important to you both, and for you to take the time to make your presentations has been very helpful. Thank you very much.

We'll now have a five-minute break before our next witness.

.1410

.1419

The Chairman: We're now resuming our subcommittee hearings into the proposed regulations under the Firearms Act. We're pleased to have with us now two very competent gentlemen, chief firearms officers. Mr. Hank Mathias is chief firearms officer, security programs division, Ministry of the Attorney General in British Columbia. Mr. Eric Goodwin is chief firearms officer, Department of Community Affairs and Attorney General, in Prince Edward Island.

Welcome, gentlemen. Thank you for coming this afternoon. I ask you to make your presentations, following which we'd like to be able to ask questions.

.1420

Who would like to lead off? Mr. Mathias, please.

Mr. Hank Mathias (Chief Firearms Officer, Security Programs Division, Ministry of the Attorney General of British Columbia): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I apologize for having no written submission to the committee, but I would like to make some introductory comments and then raise a few issues. Eric Goodwin will be doing the same.

We are here representing the chief firearms officers of Canada, not our provinces as such. Our presentation is brief, but we are of course pleased to respond to any questions that committee members may have.

Having appeared once previously, where there was some confusion about who we are and how we fit into the equation, I would just like to say that we're the officials within each province and territory responsible for the implementation and ongoing management of the firearms control programs in the provinces, under the Firearms Act of Canada or the Criminal Code.

As for the background of the CFOs across the country, many come from policing backgrounds and some come from public service management backgrounds. Each of us is responsible to our respective attorney general or minister of justice and to our government, through the minister, for direction on the implementation and the delivery of the firearms control program.

Our views as such are shaped by two major interests. One is the need to ensure as high as possible a level of public safety within the jurisdictions we represent, and a second is to provide a firearms control program that is as assessable, effective and cost-efficient as possible for firearms users. We do not position ourselves - it would be inappropriate to do so as public servants - on one side of the issue or on another, if there are sides being taken. There are, one might say, conflicting interests there. There are certainly interests that require settling between the two, and that's where we try to fill in and advise our governments.

We've had the opportunity to go over some of the presentations and to review some of the questions by committee members, and a theme that emerges throughout the discussion or the debate is that, if one sets aside for a minute whether or not you like Bill C-68 or chapter 39 and the attendant regulations, we in this country need to develop and commit to more national standards in how the firearms control law is applied.

I think a good example is for designated carriers who move firearms about. It has been, I think, as a result of the work by the CFOs to achieve a common set of policies and agreements that we are able to say today that it is much easier for businesses interested in getting into that business to do that and to not have to go through 12 different regulatory regimes and policy structures to try to achieve that.

So with respect to chapter 39, the Firearms Act, and the attendant regulations, however they turn out, you should know that there is a strong commitment by the chief firearms officers to identify, where we can, where national standards are possible and to work to have those in place. It doesn't serve anyone particularly well to have quite the level of diversity that we have, and we hope to be able to reduce that diversity where it's unnecessary.

I have just a couple of more remarks, if I may.

The CFOs were consulted, if you will, on the regulations before you before their final draft, and I would suggest some of our advice has been heeded and some of our advice has not. We will try to convey to you where that hasn't occurred, and we hope you hear us well.

Not to preach, but these regulations will impact on many, many Canadians, both firearms owners and non-owners alike, and businesses. I think your efforts to get them right, if you will - that is, ensuring that appropriate balance between public safety and respecting the interests of lawful users of firearms - are critical, and in many respects that's what shapes the work we do and the advice we give, whether it's to our own provincial ministers of justice or attorneys general or to the federal government.

.1425

We would like to offer comment on four areas in the regulations. They are some of the licensing requirements, spousal notification, businesses, and fees. I would like to begin with the fees and just raise an issue I haven't heard discussed or raised by anyone.

Much of the concern about the fees is that people will be asked to pay for services that perhaps they ought not to have to pay for. In fact, I would suggest to you that if this statute had never been created, the provinces would be saying to the federal government that the current funding arrangement is inadequate for the firearms program and the use of very expensive policing resources to manage and deliver particularly the registration process is something that would have to be rethought, and in fact we would need to say to Canada that costs are occurring here, no compensation is being received for them, and we are no longer in a time where that can go on.

So about the statements that there was no fee before and now there is, we would not have continued, in my view. Certainly the provinces would not have continued as we are today, moving into new cost agreements. We simply could not afford to do that appropriately.

The Chairman: Mr. Goodwin.

Mr. Eric Goodwin (Chief Firearms Officer, Department of Community Affairs and Attorney General of Prince Edward Island): There is one minor observation I would like to make about the fees. In the text a fee is specified for replacement of any licence or authorization or document issued under the regulations. That fee is set at $25. There may be cases where we as provincial administrators might have difficulty defending that, in that some of the original licence fees - I'm thinking of minors' licences - are less than $25. If you're considering anything on the fees, we would recommend that inequity be addressed. Perhaps if the replacement fee were the lesser of $25 or what the original fee was, that would be a little easier to defend.

Mr. Mathias: There is one other issue. Normally we wouldn't trod on part of another government's domain, but we feel a need to raise the issue of the cost for coming across the border, the $50 fee. Essentially, as it's structured today, you will get a renewal for no cost. As I understand it, you get sixty days for $50, then another sixty days based on your notifying the CFO, and away we go.

We will be suggesting to you and to our federal colleagues that it may make some sense to have a fee for an extension beyond the 120 days, but not a fee of $50, in that much of the initial work of taking in the information and sorting it and doing whatever you do with that information is done. In fact, we are now attempting to go through an electronic process in the main. It may not be that in all cases. So the fee set for something beyond the one renewal could be less than that once the information has already been collected and is available.

Now I would like to go to spousal notification. First let me say the CFOs support the inclusion of spousal notification requirements in the regulations. The overall goal of informing the people who may be most affected by the acquisition of a firearm goes to the heart of the public safety issue, in my view and that of my colleagues.

.1430

The current wording of section 4 of the firearms licences regulations, though, raises two significant issues for us, as the administrators and the statutory authorities who have to make this work. First, there is no specific definition of ``spouse''. This creates two problems.

Some would argue that yes, there is a definition of ``spouse'', but it isn't to be found here. If it is what we have been told about what the definition may be, people have made a good effort to inform us what it looks like and we just may not be quick enough to get it. But at this point there is no substantive definition such that we have said yes, that works for us and we can relate that to administering the act and the regulations.

Two problems are created by that lack of definition, in my view. The licence applicant may not know who to include in his or her application, and the CFO may have great difficulty in determining if the information provided by the applicant is complete and who should be notified.

That having been said, we support the spousal notification. Really, what we're describing here is a situation where it's entirely possible somebody may not understand what a spouse is, or common law. They will look to apply presumably the provincial law on that, not understanding there may be a federal definition of that which is available but not part of the regulation. A person could quite unwittingly not include somebody who should have been included, and now we have a person creating a false document with no intent.

If it's not clear who a spouse or common law partner is, then as I've noted it's very difficult, no matter how vigilant we must be. I'm from British Columbia, and we probably have today the most stringent controls on firearms permits in this country, flowing out of the tragedy in Vernon. So if there's a challenge to our commitment, it may be made but it won't be accepted. We don't know who it is we should be looking for if we're going looking, and we need to know that. If we don't....

Let's say we do. Let's say the ``who'' question has been answered. The way the regulation is written, there appears to be no limitation on the responsibility or the liability of the CFO as an agent of the Crown to notify any person named as a spouse. In our view it is unreasonable to create such an open-ended obligation for the governments administering the act.

What that goes to say is that we support the notion of spousal notification. We have some difficulty without who the spouse is being defined, and that there is no apparent limitation on the liability that's handed to us when those regulations are enacted.

Much is made of the licensing and registration requirements in the Firearms Act. We want to say a couple of things about that. One is that in fact in Canada we operate a partial registration system for long arms today. If you happen to buy your firearm from a licensed dealer, a record is kept of that. It's recorded. It's put in a book. It's an antiquated system. It doesn't do much for anybody except us, who go out and inspect them and try to figure out where firearms may be, who they were sold to and whether it was appropriate. So setting aside the existence of the new Firearms Act, I believe the provinces would be suggesting to the federal government that there's a need to update that system anyway.

I must say we have some difficulty distinguishing between the need to record the sale of a firearm today through a business and not having to do so if I sell my firearm to Eric Goodwin. No record of that is required. It seems anomalous that it's where we are today, but we are.

.1435

I think a number of the licensing requirements have raised concerns among people that coming into a licensed environment means that the state will begin to - I think there was reference by one of the previous speakers to confiscation - bring a heavy hand to bear on what are in the main, in terms of firearms, the sporting interests of people. On behalf of the CFOs, I want to say that one should be vigilant about that and not trust well-dressed bureaucrats with regard to their word that nothing can go wrong.

But in terms of oversight for licensed people, if I or Mr. Goodwin or any of our colleagues revoke a firearms licence or a permit for any reason, I think we are subject to a level of scrutiny that 25 years ago would have been unheard of in this country. Certainly a review by the court is possible. In my province, I will be looked at by an ombudsman or by a freedom of information commissioner. And if there's any hint of a conflict of interest, a conflict of interest commissioner will take a look. In the main, those things did not exist 25 years ago.

We are also bound by the administrative law and simply cannot be capricious or vindictive in the application of the law or in our decision-making. It is not there to be done. The courts sharpen our focus if we get at all close to that.

Those are the comments we wanted to offer. I hope they are of some use to the committee. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. de Savoye: Let me come back to one of your comments, Mr. Mathias, regarding spousal notification. You raised an interesting issue, which doesn't mean that your other comments are not equally interesting. You pointed out that there is no definition. Of course, we have the definition in the Income Tax Act, but the situation is not always clear-cut. It's not only a question of living with someone, it also has to do with supporting that individual.

Then, there is the issue of same-sex and common law partners as well as boyfriends and girlfriends. Regarding violence against women, we know that in some instances, girlfriends - who are not considered spouses, legally speaking - were threatened and were the victims of people who used firearms against them. I think you have pointed out an important issue. Given your expertise in the matter, which definition do you suggest we should use? Which definition would be appropriate, given the purpose of the legislation?

[English]

Mr. Mathias: I'm not a legal draftsperson, so I don't know how to craft this.

Here's the issue we bring to it: who do you want to include here so that it can be clear for the person making the application? This isn't about whether same-sex partners are included or whether it's a relationship that lasted three months and then moved on, where there was no cohabiting. Who do we want to include here and who is the protection for? Our belief is that as it stands virtually anything could be included. But as well, anything could be forgotten by an applicant. In our view, that's an unreasonable position to put an applicant in.

I think the language could support a tighter description of who we are really trying to talk about here. It may be a bit wordy, but at least it would be clear. The way this is worded now, I could - and I wouldn't, certainly not in British Columbia after Vernon - return and say that in British Columbia, you lived together for two years common law and the spouse is who you are married to, and I will check people who have been living together for two years and people who are married.

.1440

That's not the intention here. The intention is broader than that. But despite the position my government takes with respect to how important this is, when I advise our government I have to advise them about the exposure that exists here.

If a person making an application had an affair with somebody a year and a half ago, the person wouldn't meet the requirements in British Columbia for the definition of somebody to be checked, but it may be that relationship we're interested in.

I'm sorry that I can't say precisely what it would be, but it's to shape it more so that we're clear on who we're speaking about.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Your answer is useful in that it gives the subcommittee and probably also people in the Department of Justice some parameters to work with.

Mr. Goodwin, Mr. Mathias, you work in the field while the legislator works only with a piece of paper and a pencil. The Department of Justice's officials can only imagine how things are and try to find ways to deal with those situations through regulations; but in the end, you will be the ones responsible for the daily administration of the legislation and the regulations. I couldn't not help, during this hearing, noticing the number of activities which will fall on your shoulders. You'll have to assess applications, confirm that they are in good order, issue licences, get the money, all in all, you'll have a lot of work. You will even have to consider statements by people who believe that some firearms owners should not have them any longer.

So, as Chief Firearms Officers, or through your staff, you will have to make decisions. There will be a lot of work to do. Do you currently have the resources to properly administer the legislation and its attendant regulations, and do you think they will be sufficient as the years go by and as the bill is fully implemented?

[English]

Mr. Mathias: Well, if one is to believe the federal government...in a word or two, implement the program. The provinces will require cost agreements with Canada for cost recovery. Canada is committed to that at this juncture and is committed to providing transition funds so we can get geared up to move from where we are today to the implementation of the act.

I think it's our belief, Eric, reasonably, that we will be. But if I may, we are also looking at that with two other interests. One is to keep the costs of implementation and the ongoing administration as low as possible. We see no advantage in running the costs up.

Second - and I suppose it's part of that first piece - it's to try to significantly reduce the use of police officers. And I think we can - not necessarily in Quebec, I would grant you, because of the SQ running the program, but we certainly can where I'm from and where Eric is from. I think we can reduce the use of very expensive police time to administer this program.

It's certainly our hope that we will do it in as efficient a way as possible. We will take as little as possible from the pockets of the firearms owners and the taxpayers, and at the same time, we will be looking for efficiencies in who provides the services to people. We think we can do a better job than we are now.

Mr. de Savoye: Several witnesses have expressed a fear that a bad backlog would build up and that the proper services wouldn't be rendered in time for whatever events had to take place.

How do you react to that? Do you think there's a chance you won't be able to cope with the load or is this an unfounded fear?

.1445

Mr. Mathias: My responsibility and that of my colleagues is to ensure that in each of our jurisdictions, when we advise our minister that the day has arrived, the program is ready to go and it's available. That's what our responsibility is.

I think what may be behind the fear some people raise, though, is that there may be issues of enforcement. People aren't able to register or they aren't able to get the licence, and so forth. Clearly if the program is not ready and not available we won't be enforcing provisions people simply cannot comply with. So if there's a fear of that sort behind that, about not being ready, we can address that.

Mr. Goodwin: Mr. de Savoye, a number of things have to be in place in order for the program to be implemented effectively without a backlog. Concurrent activities are going on now. The province is getting ready for the transition: police training, firearms officer training, the development of the computer system, in some cases the hiring of staff, and probably most importantly a communications program to communicate the new requirements to the public and gun owners and users effectively. If all that comes together at the same time and we're ready, and if it comes well ahead of the fixed dates in the legislation, January 1, 2001 and 2003, with sufficient resources there shouldn't be a backlog. I know the concern about the backlog that was created in Ontario. That was done certainly without intent, and from what I've been told Ontario has done an admirable job of coping with it, but there's no denying it existed and was a great frustration for the public.

But if I don't need a firearms licence to possess firearms until January 1, 2001, and I'm able to apply as early as sometime in 1998, and all I want is a licence to possess, I really don't have to start getting too worried until about 2000.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Thank you, Mr. Goodwin and Mr. Mathias.

[English]

The Chairman: Before I go on to Mr. Ramsay, I want to talk about another aspect of this definition of ``spouse''. It would seem to me that when we're dealing with common law or same-sex partners there's another aspect, and I just want to get your opinion. That is when someone the applicant is living with now may not be the one in most danger. It may be the one to whom he is paying maintenance or alimony, who has the children. Maybe it's the divorced partner, or the partner of two or three partners ago. I just wonder if we should be looking at that and whether you recommend we should do something in that regard as well.

Mr. Goodwin: Mr. Chairman, you're absolutely right. We've been told that in some communities in this country in a two-year period, as suggested in the regulations, there could be a number of former partners. I guess our concern is that in the absence of any clear definition or reference to another definition either in statute or as found in some results in either provincial or federal law, we run the risk of inconsistency in what standard is used, what test is applied, from jurisdiction to jurisdiction or from case to case. We run the risk that sometime in the future the Supreme Court of Canada will decide what we should have been using. If we expect public compliance, the public expects enforcement, and we want to be able to administer that requirement effectively, which we think is most important, then some kind of clear definition has to be crafted so the test of who we want to notify is satisfied.

I share Hank's response. I'm sorry we don't have the solution, but it's certainly something that needs more consideration and more discussion from perhaps us and others wiser than us.

.1450

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Mathias.

Mr. Mathias: If I may say something just for a second, Mr. Chair, we've talked about that. It's not necessarily the person you are currently connected with. It may be the prior one, combined with the divorce and the fighting over the children and that kind of thing, that could provide the circumstance.

I believe that if the Canadian firearms registration system, which encompasses both licensing and registration, is built as we've suggested it should be and as has been proposed, and if a person has a criminal charge or a criminal conviction, there is a report to a police force and it goes into what they call their local indices and what the RCMP call PIRS. The system will then capture that.

In British Columbia, a set requirement of that system that we operate is something called a protection order registry, in which all peace bonds and protection orders are registered. That system will be linked to that as well.

If there is any indication from any of those sources, which today aren't necessarily connected at all, then we can go looking. Or, when there's an application, we can say to stop because we must take a further look. So that is a tool that will be available to us, but isn't available today. It gets us further down that road than we might be just by going to the person you're currently living with.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mathias.

Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like thank our witnesses for being here today, because I think their testimony is very important.

Mr. Mathias, you indicated that you're representing the CFOs of Canada here today. Are you representing those CFOs from provinces that are initiating a constitutional challenge against the bill? Are you also representing the territory and at least three provinces that are saying they will not participate in the administration of the licensing and registration part of the bill?

Mr. Mathias: That's a good point. I'm representing those chief firearms officers whose governments are continuing to be involved with this program.

Mr. Ramsay: What provinces aren't? What CFOs aren't?

Mr. Mathias: Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Ramsay: So you're not representing them here today.

Mr. Mathias: No.

Mr. Ramsay: What about Ontario?

Mr. Mathias: In Ontario, as I understand it, they are challenging the registration component of the Firearms Act. They are not challenging the licensing component. Correct me if I'm wrong, Eric, but I believe that's the position.

Mr. Goodwin: That's my understanding.

Mr. Mathias: So with respect to that, I would suggest that with regard to those components that his government has indicated he can be involved with, we're speaking for the professional views of the CFO of Ontario.

Mr. Ramsay: Okay.

I'd like to deal with your concern about cost. Inasmuch as the FAC requirements - the check that you have to do to issue an FAC - are similar to section 5 of the act itself, could you tell the average cost to process an FAC in your province of British Columbia?

Mr. Mathias: No, because we have not gone out and done a sampling on the cost. In part, that's because the Firearms Act was in process in 1995, and it did not seem to be a particularly good investment at the time.

Mr. Ramsay: Do you know the average cost for processing an FAC in your province?

Mr. Mathias: No, I don't.

Mr. Ramsay: Would that be difficult to find out?

Mr. Mathias: It would take time and some resources, and I'm not sure I'd know much if I did know that. If I may, the average cost would reflect the least effort and the greatest effort, and that's not a measure of what you necessarily want to have done. It's simply a measure of what is being done. I don't think I've argued, nor would I argue, that we are necessarily doing what we can do or what we should do with the current.

Mr. Ramsay: Do you have the total cost expended on FAC processing?

Mr. Mathias: The operation of the chief firearms office in British Columbia today is approximately $465,000.

Mr. Ramsay: Is that simply for FAC processing?

Mr. Mathias: Oh no, that's for -

.1455

Mr. Ramsay: The question I'm asking is whether you can provide the committee with.... If you can't provide the committee an estimated cost for FAC applications, then can you provide us with the number of FACs for a given year, the most recent year you have statistics for, together with the total cost for the FAC process, not the total cost of your operation?

Mr. Mathias: I haven't brought that with me, because I'm not here speaking for British Columbia, but I would be happy to provide that to the committee when I return, if that's suitable to you.

Mr. Ramsay: You're from British Columbia?

Mr. Mathias: Yes.

Mr. Ramsay: Then you would be most familiar with the cost in British Columbia.

Mr. Mathias: Yes.

Mr. Ramsay: Okay. Of course the purpose for that.... The Metro Toronto Police board did that very thing for 1994, and they determined the cost for an FAC was in the area of $180. Are you aware of those...?

Mr. Mathias: Yes, I am.

Mr. Ramsay: Do you have any comparison between the cost in your province and the cost that was determined by the Metro Toronto Police board?

Mr. Mathias: No, I don't. Again, an average cost.... I've been involved with cases where the costs would very clearly exceed $185. They go well beyond that in some of the things we get involved with. On the other hand, there are cases where the cost is a couple of phone calls and a confirmation of the information gained that way, and away we go.

Mr. Ramsay: But the average cost is simply dividing the number of applications into the total cost. That way you get your average cost.

Mr. Mathias: No.

Mr. Ramsay: Isn't that your average cost? What is that, then?

Mr. Mathias: What you're asking for is the cost. You go out and ask each of the police forces overseeing the FAC process what their costs are, and you would do a costing with each of those. You would roll those up against the number they have, take an average of that. Then you would roll that all up and take it on a provincial average. It wouldn't strike me as a good investment, but that's what you would arrive at.

But that does not go to whether or not this thing you're accumulating is representative of where you want to be, either. Is it more than necessary or is it less than necessary, or is it just washed out in the middle?

Mr. Ramsay: I'm not interested in whether or not it's necessary or not necessary. I would just like to know what the cost is so we could get a handle on the estimated cost of licensing 2 million to 3 million gun owners in this country. If we have an idea of the cost to process the average FAC in your province and across the country, then we can get some idea of the total cost that will be incurred simply to license 3 million to 6 million gun owners. Do you understand?

Mr. Mathias: I have no trouble understanding.

Mr. Ramsay: So I'm asking you if you're able to provide the committee with an estimated cost for your province. If you don't like the word ``average'', then could you provide the committee with the latest-year statistics indicating the number of FACs that have been processed and the cost involved in that process?

Mr. Mathias: I could, but it would take some work to put that together. It's not a simple matter that's immediately at hand. I would have to take leave from my government to go down that road. It's not to thwart the interests of the committee, but I would ask the question, do we want to undertake that? I can give you the costs for delivery of the firearms program that are direct costs we know of and the number of FACs that are processed in British Columbia.

Mr. Ramsay: Do you have any idea what it will cost you to license the long gun owners in your province? Do you have any estimation of what that will cost?

Mr. Mathias: No, but we have looked at what we do today and looked at whether there are means to reduce or at least maintain the cost levels that would exist today. That's what we've done. So if the pieces that have been put together, the model that has been constructed, works - and I think it will - my belief is that the cost per person may be less on average than it is today.

.1500

Mr. Ramsay: You are dealing just with those people who are applying for an FAC -

Mr. Mathias: Today?

Mr. Ramsay: Yes.

Mr. Mathias: We're not dealing with people who are registering and for whom there is no charge today.

Mr. Ramsay: But when this bill comes into effect, all gun owners will have to obtain a licence. Do you know how many long gun owners there are in your province?

Mr. Mathias: The estimates we have, I believe, are about 350,000.

Mr. Ramsay: From your model, can you indicate what the cost will be to register those owners? How many owners would you have to license?

Mr. Mathias: I'm sorry, that would be about 350,000 owners.

No, I haven't done that work. That is part of the transition requirements we will be going through, and part of the discussions and negotiations with the Government of Canada.

Mr. Ramsay: I guess that's part of it. How can you negotiate the cost of a program if you have no idea what the cost is going to be?

Mr. Mathias: As I've suggested to you, there is a transition period, and part of the activity in the transition period will be to assess the work that is being done using computer-based technology and how we model, how we deliver, firearms services in British Columbia - or in Prince Edward Island; it doesn't matter which. Then we will assess what our costs are if we use the models we've proposed, use technology, and then we'll put together what those costs are for it.

Mr. Ramsay: So you can't give this committee any idea of what the cost will be to process a licence upon application?

Mr. Mathias: I'm not sure it would be as straight a line as that for me anyway, because in advising the government I represent I would be suggesting I want to know the current cost of the permit process, where there is no charge, rolling that together with the licensing and asking, all right, what are the total costs to this program? But I think Mr. Goodwin is in the same position as I am, as are all of the CFOs in this country whose governments are still involved. That is, we require funding support to go out and do that assessment. We are obligated to inform our provincial or territorial governments what those reasonably will be -

Mr. Ramsay: You haven't done that yet?

Mr. Mathias: No.

The Chairman: Ms Whelan.

Ms Whelan (Essex - Windsor): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The first question I wanted to ask is about your opening comments, Mr. Mathias, where you mentioned you thought there was a need to develop and commit to national standards. We had a presentation today - I don't know if you were here for it or not - by the Canadian Museums Association.

Mr. Mathias: No, I wasn't, unfortunately.

Ms Whelan: You may not have seen their brief yet. I'm assuming you will see their brief in time. One of their big concerns is that over and over again, every museum in Canada is going to be forced to write to the chief firearms officer for exceptions, because of the types of displays they have.

One example they gave was a display that cost thousands of dollars. It depicts people in a room. It's a war scene, and because of the way the guns are positioned in that scene it would be impossible to have them chained down, or it would definitely not work well in the setting. So they are going to be asking for changes.

Also, because they are museums, they keep the guns they take in. They are not fired. They are always stored unloaded. If there were other ways they could have them on display and secured for different types of displays....

They seemed to think they would have to be writing over and over again. They are not sure whether the chief firearms officer in their province would be interested in any exceptions or that there would end up being variances across the country in what would be allowed and not allowed.

Have you had any chance to discuss amongst yourselves how you would deal with museums?

Mr. Mathias: We've had fairly extensive discussions about that. Our discussions began - I'm back to Mr. Ramsay's point - about cost. Many of the museums are very small. They are volunteer organizations. What we asked for and what I believe seems possible is that in some provinces we were prepared to waive the fees for people to get licensed.

.1505

Certainly most of the provinces that I'm aware of have firearms inspectors or an equivalent. As part of their role, they go out and work with museums to try to make it possible for them to comply, to learn about what their issues are, and to see how we can best support that.

You will see variations. National standards won't be possible in all circumstances, but if you're asking if we will be sensitive to those specific needs, the answer is yes. And if Mr. Goodwin comes up with a solution for the presentation - I think that's a diorama they're describing, where you have the firearms and so forth in that kind of display - we seek to make that our solution as well and to say that if there is a set of safety issues here, they're the same safety issues where I live. We will piggyback on what he's done.

So we work pretty closely now with our museums. And again, fairly, Mr. Ramsay, the CFOs who are still with this see it as part of our responsibility to make it possible for them to comply. There are going to have to be some changes. Some of the things that some of the museums do are unsafe. We're going to have to work with them to make things safe.

Ms Whelan: One of the concerns they raised today had to do with their belief that what they do now is safe. I'm not going to dispute that, but I would appreciate it if you would take the time to look at their brief -

Mr. Mathias: I'll be pleased to.

Ms Whelan: - and even make some recommendations on behalf of the CFOs to us.

My other question is with respect to the definition of a spouse. I guess you kind of opened a Pandora's box, because I look at another clause that talks about domestic violence or abuse and I'm just wondering how far we take that as well. Do you see any problems with that? I guess who we are talking about should be defined in the same way.

Mr. Mathias: In some respects you do want to look for some consistency there, because you're probably talking about the same situation. In many instances, you're just describing it differently. I know there have been some concerns raised here with the committee about the vagueness of the domestic violence. Concerns have been raised that we would act precipitously and move into people's lives when some people have had an argument, where somebody makes more of it than there is and somebody else loses their licence and the guns are seized and all of that kind of thing.

Eric, correct me if I'm wrong, but here's how we see the domestic violence issue: if there is a flag to us that there is something going on, if somebody has brought that to our attention, then we need to take a look at it. And unfortunately, at some point somebody makes an assessment about the degree that is represented in that situation.

But I can't, for example, get a phone call about Eric from someone who's saying he's drunk and he's being a jerk and then start this process. I need more and I need to know more. We want to achieve some balance - it's a word I've used a couple of times - between not moving or doing anything until we have a formal police report with charges and hearing it on the bus riding home and starting police action immediately.

I think our legal responsibilities are to try to find that balance in it. We have probably had as long and as spirited a discussion of these issues as you have. I'm not coming down on the side of any absolutes with it, but I think that with respect to the concern about any hint or just a suggestion of domestic violence leading to all kinds of legal action, the fear is not warranted. There are just too many checks and balances on it. To be quite frank, I don't have the resources to take that kind of action - nor do our governments - except where it's necessary, so when we do take that action, it has to be based on an informed decision.

Eric, do you want to comment?

.1510

Mr. Goodwin: I understand your concern about the vagueness in regard to when the CFO becomes aware of a person being involved in an act of domestic violence, but I draw a comparison to what is in the current Criminal Code with respect to a police officer's ability to get a prohibition order against an individual who may own firearms or who may want to acquire them.

Right now there is a provision in the code - and there has been for some years - whereby if a police officer is aware that a firearms owner or some other person may be at risk because of his violence or threats of violence, even if circumstances may be such that he's not able to get a search warrant, they can - even today - go in without a warrant and seize firearms. They have to report to the court, and then the person whose firearms were seized has an opportunity to come forward. The safety net is there.

The words in the regulations draw up a similar situation, except that now it's on us when we become aware that the person was involved. But the same kind of tests will have to be applied. And most of us who are involved in firearms control at the provincial level are assigned that task because we're involved in a number of other licensing areas as well. Most of us issue a lot of other kinds of licences besides the one relating to firearms. I guess we've been given this task because we have a lot of experience and expertise in doing that. None of us want to be in court under judicial review for revoking a licence without justification.

Mr. Mathias: If I may, I have just one more thing to say about that. British Columbia was one of the strong advocates for this domestic violence stuff being in here. In part, our thinking - and certainly mine, as a CFO - was this: that's an expectation we have of police. Where they see it they act on it, and we have a Crown policy to pursue those who the victim is not willing to pursue.

I think this says that there's also an obligation for the chief firearms officers to understand and to act where we see that. I think that's an extension of this. And from that perspective, it's unreasonable to set that obligation for the police and not set it for ourselves.

Ms Whelan: You started to talk briefly about businesses. Yesterday we had before us witnesses who work with the armoured vehicles, for Brink's and Loomis and a number of other associations. If you look at some of the regulations in regard to business, there seems to be some inconsistency between those that apply to businesses and those that apply to individuals.

There were a number of suggestions put forward, which I haven't had a chance to analyse or get an expert opinion on. Have you looked at any of those and do you see any difficulty for your enforcement purposes in regard to the business side of it?

Mr. Mathias: In some respects, we are requiring a higher standard for businesses than we are for others. I know a significant concern has been expressed by the armoured car industry about the expectations placed on them, particularly in the area of mandatory training. And this proposes mandatory training, and I would suggest to you that -

Ms Whelan: But your province is a little bit different anyway. My understanding is that there's already a two-week course or something that's mandatory.

Mr. Mathias: In British Columbia, a two-week pre-employment course is required before you get hired. There is also a one-week course required for armoured car guards who are employed today.

Although it's been characterized otherwise, we have consulted extensively with the armoured car companies in the creation of these courses. They were part of the process in developing the course. We weren't asking them if there was to be one, but we asked, though, about what they thought about the content. They are, in fact, negotiating with me - under another hat I wear - to deliver the program themselves. In the first instance, they were not permitted to do that in British Columbia because in our view they had failed to provide adequate training in areas of public interest for their staff.

.1515

So what you see here is something that I don't think.... Certainly in the armoured car area, it's not necessarily the $900 two-week course. That's a pre-employment strategy to get people ready for jobs and that kind of thing. But in British Columbia, where I live, they are virtually the only people who carry handguns, other than police and conservation officers. If they're going to have that as part of their right in the carrying out of their duties, they're going to meet certain standards for it.

I'm going on too long here, but in British Columbia what led to that was the fact that an armoured car guard shot a man - the man had attacked him - in the back as the man ran away. The court found the armoured car guard not guilty of manslaughter, but nobody - not the companies, not the unions involved in it - ever suggested there wasn't something terribly wrong with that when the person didn't know what to do. So what we have in place in British Columbia is something to deal with those people so that they understand what they are to do.

At the national level - this is where wearing different hats comes in - a number of my colleagues who are CFOs are also the people who license armoured car guards and armoured car companies. We've suggested that there needs to be a national standard for that, and I don't think that's unreasonable. And if that standard is established, that standard will be portable. It will not be inconsistent with interprovincial trade agreements, so somebody who is an armoured car guard in Prince Edward Island can go to work in British Columbia tomorrow because he or she has a standard. Today that is impossible, sir.

The Chairman: Mr. Goodwin, did you want to add something to that?

Mr. Goodwin: No, that's fine, Mr. Chairman.

Ms Whelan: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms Whelan. Mr. de Savoye is next.

Mr. de Savoye: No, thank you. I don't have any further questions.

The Chairman: Mr. Kirkby? Mr. Ramsay?

Mr. Ramsay: Well, my area of interest in the courts, Mr. Chairman -

The Chairman: Five minutes.

Mr. Ramsay: I won't need five minutes. It was in the area of finances. Apparently we can't get the information.

Mr. Mathias indicated that the funding arrangement was inadequate, but from his answers to my earlier questions or inquiries, it doesn't seem that he's able to provide us with any idea of the cost of the FAC requirements in his own province. It seems as though it's too onerous a job for him to undertake in order to provide this information to the committee. I'm therefore going to be making a request that we perhaps contact the CFO from Ontario to see if he'll come in, because at least one of the city police forces did do an analysis of the costs for their FACs in 1994. I would like to have that information. I think it's valuable for the committee.

That's all I have. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

Ms Whelan, do you have anything further?

Ms Whelan: No, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, gentlemen. We appreciate your testimony and the time you took to come here this afternoon. It's been very helpful.

As Mr. Ramsay said, Mr. Mathias and Mr. Goodwin, if you can find some costing on the FACs, we'd certainly appreciate having it, but as you mentioned, it's difficult to determine.

Yes, Mr. Goodwin.

Mr. Goodwin: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to add that I appreciate Mr. Ramsay's desire to have information on costing, because there is a concern to the public and a concern to us and to governments at all levels. However, if B.C. was able to compartmentalize its costs of issuing FACs in British Columbia today to a dollar figure per FAC, and if you took that information and applied it to the licensing of acquisition permits and possession permits under Bill C-68, you could be grossly misled one way or the other.

The business processes that have been developed for issuing licenses under Bill C-68 are at the other end of the spectrum of how we do business today. We do business today on a very decentralized, labour-intensive, police-involved, inefficient manner. Bill C-68 calls for a centralized, mail-in, highly technical, systems-driven operation with minimal police involvement. It's very difficult to say that this is what it would cost under Bill C-68 using current-day data.

I just add that, for what it's worth.

The Chairman: Mr. Goodwin, I agree with you. We wouldn't want information just for the sake of having information. Unless the person sending it in felt very confident that it represented the information that was so cited, we'd rather not have it, because it would just be misleading. We understand that not all things are possible. We take your comments as very instructive.

.1520

Thank you.

Mr. Goodwin: You're welcome.

The Chairman: We'll now have a ten-minute adjournment while we set up for our final witness of the afternoon.

.1521

.1532

The Chairman: I would like to reconvene with our witnesses: Mary Sillett, interim president, Inuit Tapirisat of Canada; Martha Flaherty, president of the....

Ms Martha Flaherty (President, Pauktuutit (Inuit Women's Association of Canada)): Pauktuutit, the Inuit Women's Association.

The Chairman: Yes, thank you very much.

We're waiting for Mary Nashook. She's going to be speaking to us from Iqaluit, I believe, when we have our feed completed.

Ms Creig, you are the...?

Ms Martha Creig (Vice-President, Pauktuutit (Inuit Women's Association of Canada)): I'm the vice-president of Pauktuutit.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Wendy Moss is the legal adviser to both groups.

Ms Wendy Moss (Adviser, Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and Pauktuutit (Inuit Women's Association of Canada)): Consultant to both groups.

The Chairman: Right, thank you.

I think we'll begin, even though we're waiting for our connection for the video-teleconferencing with Iqaluit. We'll begin and she will be joining us. I would ask for presentations, following which we'll have questions, if you so permit, from members of the committee.

Ms Sillett.

Ms Mary Sillett (Interim President, Inuit Tapirisat of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson. I just want to emphasize that two separate organizations are sitting here today.

The Inuit Tapirisat of Canada is the national voice of 41,000 Inuit living in six Arctic and sub-Arctic regions of Canada: Labrador; Nunavik, which is in northern Quebec; and the Kitikmeot, Kivalliq, Qikiqtaaluk, and the Western Arctic, all in the NWT. The Inuit territory is divided into four distinct legal regimes by virtue of three major land claims agreements - the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, and the Nunavut Final Agreement - and the outstanding aboriginal title of the Labrador Inuit. The existence of these three land rights agreements and the fact of unextinquished aboriginal title and rights in Labrador are important to an analysis of the Inuit position on federal firearms legislation. We will deal with this later in our submission.

.1535

To understand fully the significance of the Firearms Act and its regulations to Inuit, the subcommittee and the standing committee must first recognize that we define ourselves and the essence of our culture as being a hunting people. We are a people who rely on the animal resources of the land and sea for food, for trade, and for our cultural and spiritual existence. As a distinct people with a right to self-determination, we are entitled to our own means of subsistence and to determine our means of economic, social, cultural, and political development. The aboriginal and treaty right at stake in this matter is the Inuit right to hunt, fish, and trap without unreasonable restrictions on our access to and contempory and customary use of the tools essential to the exercise of those rights: firearms.

Case law clearly supports recognition of a right to use firearms as a necessary incident to an aboriginal or treaty right to hunt. Rights to possess and use firearms are also specifically recognized in Inuit treaties, which are the land claims agreements. Any proposals restricting our ability to use the tools necessary to our hunting culture or which would change our relationship to those tools are of great concern to us.

The day-to-day life of Inuit in the far north is very different from that of southern urban dwellers or rural residents. For this reason a law of general application imposing a uniform system of regulation, offences, and enforcement will not work in our best interests. A law that fails to provide for our aboriginal and treaty rights in a positive manner by incorporating them within the regulatory scheme will not work and is in violation of those rights. The federal government's political commitment and legal obligation to respect aboriginal and treaty rights and traditional practices of aboriginal peoples have not been met.

The Chairman: Excuse me. We now have our connection with Iqaluit, and I just wanted to welcome Ms Mary Nashook to our forum.

Can you hear us?

Ms Mary Nashook (Secretary Treasurer, Pauktuutit (Inuit Women's Association of Canada)): Yes, we can hear you. Good afternoon.

The Chairman: Good afternoon. We'll have the statements of the presenters here in Ottawa and then we'll ask you to make your presentation. Following that we will have questions from members of the subcommittee.

Ms Nashook: Part of our presentation will be coming in from Martha Flaherty and Martha Creig.

Ms Sillett: The federal government's obligation to respect aboriginal and treaty rights and traditional practices of aboriginal peoples has not been met in the draft regulations or the act. To understand this, we must first examine the utility of the non-derogation subsection, subsection 2(3) of the act, which states:

For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The federal government says the non-derogation subsection, subsection 2(3) of the act, expresses Parliament's intent that the new law respect the constitutional protection given to the aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal people of Canada. However, neither the act nor the regulation contains exemptions or adaptations specifically tied to aboriginal or treaty rights, despite specific and repeated requests by Inuit during the legislative and regulation drafting process. The legislative and regulatory exemptions for persons who hunt or trap as a way of life and the so-called ``adaptations'' made in the aboriginal regulations do not necessarily coincide with the scope of Inuit aboriginal and treaty rights or our contemporary or traditional practices in relation to firearms.

.1540

Where the necessary accommodations for aboriginal and treaty rights and the Inuit way of life have not been made directly in the act, they should be incorporated into the aboriginal regulations and into a federal enforcement policy. This has not been done. Consequently the objective or the purported objective of the non-derogation subsection is not likely to be applied at the level of enforcement in the community. Instead, Inuit will only be able to invoke the non-derogation subsection after being charged with an offence under the act.

As committee members know, another provision of the Firearms Act that is specific to aboriginal peoples is paragraph (u) of section ll7 of the act, which allows for specific regulations to be developed and applied to aboriginal people by providing that the federal cabinet may make regulations

respecting the manner in which this Act or the regulations applies to any of the aboriginal peoples of Canada and adapting any such provision for the purposes of that application

Throughout the legislative process, whenever ITC raised the need for certain amendments or statutory exemptions, Inuit were told they didn't need them because the government was confident all the Inuit concerns could be met through the aboriginal regulations. ITC was dubious of this claim, knowing regulations must be consistent with the authorizing statute and therefore they could change the substantive provisions of the legislative. Nevertheless, the government has set this high standard for itself.

First let us look at how the aboriginal regulations define their scope of application. Under section 1 of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada Adaptations Regulations (Firearms), the term ``Aboriginal''' roughly corresponds to the categories of peoples referred to in subsection 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. However, section 3 of the aboriginal regulations provides the key criteria determining to whom the aboriginal specific regulations apply. In paragraph (c) it defines an aboriginal individual to whom the regulations apply as, among other criteria, a person who ``engages in the traditional hunting practices of the individual's Aboriginal community''.

This may be a narrower category of people than those holding constitutionally protected treaty rights under Inuit land claims agreements. Each of the three Inuit claims agreements defines the beneficiaries of the agreement; that is, who are Inuit treaty holders for the purposes of these agreements? None of the Inuit claims agreements restrict their class of beneficiaries or treaty right holders as individuals engaging in traditional hunting practices. In other words, Inuit hunting rights are not defined in reference to traditional practices only or as this term applies with reference to activities tied to an arbitrary historical period such as ``pre-contact''.

An evolutionary approach to the protection of aboriginal rights, including our economic and subsistence rights, conforms with the interpretation of the right of all peoples to self-determination. For example, section 24.3.14 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement defines the right of Inuit to harvest as including present and traditional methods of harvesting.

The scope of this term, ``traditional hunting practice'', used throughout the aboriginal regulations, for example in sections 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, is not known. While the act and the general regulations refer to hunting and trapping in the general exemptions for sustenance hunters, the proposed aboriginal regulations refer only to ``traditional hunting activities'', and not to fishing or trapping activities, although these are activities where firearms are also used by Inuit. Because there is no definition of this term, it is not clear whether the term includes the following activities: use of a firearm while trapping; use of a firearm while fishing or harvesting marine mammals; use of a firearm for self-protection, particularly by non-hunters.

.1545

The definition of ``aboriginal individuals'' in these regulations should be clarified by specifically including a reference to beneficiaries under land claims agreements and/or treaty rights holders and the activities listed above. This would ensure that the application of the specific aboriginal regulations is not more narrow than the scope of Inuit treaty rights.

All three Inuit claims agreements incorporate references to laws of general application in the area of public safety. This is consistent with the common law of aboriginal rights. However, there are limitations on the government's power to restrict aboriginal and treaty rights for public safety objectives.

Under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, Inuit harvesting rights - for example, hunting, fishing and trapping - specifically include the right to possess and use all equipment reasonably needed to exercise that right, subject to certain specified public safety considerations outlined in articles 24.3.12 and 24.3.14. However, the kinds of restrictions contemplated by the signatories under this agreement relate to ensuring physical safety in terms of people in the immediate vicinity and to prohibiting obviously dangerous activities posing a direct threat to other people. For example, article 24.3.9 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement states:

Restrictions on the right to harvest for reasons of public safety shall apply primarily to the discharge of firearms, to the setting of large traps or nets in certain areas, and to other dangerous activities having due regard for others lawfully in the vicinity.

We wish to point out to the committee that specific treaty provisions require that a minimum of control and regulation be applied to Inuit in this regard. For example, in respect to Inuit and Cree hunting, fishing and trapping rights under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, article 24.3.30 states explicitly that ``A minimum of control or regulation shall be applied to the Native people'' and

Neither the responsible government nor the Coordinating Committee shall change or affect the Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Regime in such a way as to infringe upon the rights of the Native people established by this Section.

Similarly, under Article 5.7.42 of the Nunavut Final Agreement, the Inuit right to harvest is made subject to laws of general application respecting ``public safety and firearms control''. But this is subject to the overriding objective of article 5, as stated in 5.1.3, to create a system of harvesting rights that reflects the traditional and current levels, patterns and character of Inuit harvesting, and which avoids unnecessary interference in the exercise of the rights, priorities and privileges to harvest.

Decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the government's obligations with respect to the constitutionally protected aboriginal and treaty rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982 likewise require the most minimal interference possible to achieve valid legislative objectives such as public safety.

.1550

There is no one clear formula to be applied to each situation in which an infringement of aboriginal or treaty rights is alleged. Particular infringements must be examined in the overall context of the regulatory scheme as a whole and adapted appropriately. However, one of the questions the court would have to ask itself is whether there has been as little infringement as possible in order to achieve the desired result.

We believe the Firearms Act and its regulations impose undue hardship and unreasonable interference with customary lending practices, customary giving practices, customary practices relating to the purchase of firearms and ammunition, and practices relating to transport of firearms.

These are our recommendations. ITC recommends that new regulations be added to provide specific exemptions under the authority of subsection 2.(3) for such traditional Inuit practices as (a) the purchase of firearms and ammunition by unlicensed persons as gifts for or for the use of hunters who are licensed; and (b) the temporary lending of firearms to unlicensed persons who are out on the land and need such firearms for protection from predatory animals.

Second, section 3 of the regulations should be amended to refer to treaty right holders and land claims beneficiaries as falling within the meaning of ``aboriginal individuals'' by adding to paragraph 3(c) a reference to individuals exercising aboriginal or treaty rights to hunt, fish, or trap and to aboriginal individuals reasonably requiring firearms for protection against predatory animals.

Third, sections 12 to 17 should be amended to ensure alternative certification is available to any aboriginal individual who can satisfy the CFO they possess basic knowledge of safe use of firearms. At the very least an additional qualifying criterion should be added, that alternative certification is available to Inuit where the CFSC is not available in Inuktitut or Inuvialuktun, in addition to the other circumstances now provided, namely lack of accessibility in terms of cost or location.

Fourth, fee waivers should be available to all aboriginal individuals in order to ensure non-hunters who require firearms for self-protection do not have an unfair barrier to this essential tool.

Fifth, a specific community consultation process should be undertaken in the Inuit community to provide information on the government's classification system for restricted and prohibited weapons and to determine where such weapons are typically used by Inuit for particular hunting practices. Some accommodation, including fee waivers, should be made through specific regulations to allow for the specialized use of such weapons by Inuit, including necessary accommodation regarding transport, storage, and authorization to transport, to take into account the particular needs and limited resources of the Inuit.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms Sillett.

Ms Flaherty.

Ms Flaherty: Before I move on, I would like to inform you that I will be doing the first portion of the presentation. Martha Creig, the vice-president, will do the second half.

First of all, Pauktuutit, or the Inuit Women's Association of Canada, is a national non-profit organization representing all Canadian Inuit women. Pauktuutit's mandate is to foster a greater awareness of the needs and perspectives of Inuit women and to encourage the participation of Inuit women in community, regional, and national concerns relative to social, cultural, economic, and political development.

For many years issues of violence against women and children and the treatment of victims of violence have emerged as priority concerns of Inuit women in all regions of the north. I'm talking about the Northwest Territories, northern Quebec, and Labrador.

.1555

Women at the community and regional levels have looked to Pauktuutit as an organization to voice their concerns about the effectiveness of policing, courtroom, and sentencing practices and other aspects of the justice system in addressing violence in Inuit communities. Pauktuutit has responded by becoming active in identifying justice issues at the community, regional, and national levels which are important to Inuit women and by assisting women in expressing their concerns and their proposals for solutions to decision-makers within government and within Inuit organizations.

Pauktuitit has made the views of Inuit women known on a number of justice issues, including Bill C-41. On this latter issue, our recommendations on Criminal Code amendments to meet the needs and respect the equal right to justice of Inuit women in the Arctic were ignored by the federal government.

Pauktuutit has met with some success in raising awareness of gender equality issues in the implementation of Nunavut. This is reflected, for example, in the proposal of the Nunavut Implementation Commission for gender parity in the legislative assembly of the Nunavut Territory and the recent acceptance of this proposal by a majority of Nunavut leaders and by the federal Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

As a result of Pauktuutit's work there is increased public and government awareness of violence against women and children in Inuit communities as an issue requiring priority attention. In the Arctic it is generally accepted that crimes against a person occur at high rates and that women are primary victims. Consequently prevention and offender treatment progtrams and victim support programs are regarded by Inuit women as essential parts of any effective justice system. Few such programs exist in the Inuit communities.

Now I'll give the Pauktuutit position on the Firearms Act and regulations.

Pauktuutit is fundamentally opposed to this form of firearms regulation. The aboriginal-specific regulations do not satisfy our concerns. The act and its regulations in their totality do not serve the interests of Inuit women, men, or children. There are two main reasons for our opposition.

First, the government must realize the different character of violence in the communities as well as the different relationship Inuit have with firearms. The problem of violence in Inuit communities as it exists today has its roots in the enormous cultural, economic, and political upheaval experienced by us through colonization of our lands and our people. This regulatory scheme is more likely to bring further disruption to our traditional hunting culture, and therefore more frustration and fuel for violence.

For a greater understanding of the nature and the sources of violence in Inuit communities, we recommend that the committee review chapter 14 of the final report of the Canadian Panel on Violence against Women, entitled ``Inuit Women'' - you probably have it, it was done through the federal government - pages 101 to 142. It draws a clear link between our loss of control over our lives, our experience with colonization, the cultural disruption we have suffered over the past fifty years or so, and the endemic violence we are facing today.

.1600

Furthermore, as this part of the report states, solutions to violence in Inuit communities must come from Inuit culture and they must come from the local level.

While Pauktuutit does not oppose the notion of gun control, there must be laws governing the safe storage and handling of firearms. There must be severe criminal law penalties for acts of violence involving the use of firearms. In our view, many of the matters addressed in the federal act could be dealt with at the local, regional, or territorial level - I'm talking about such things as licensing and safe handling and storage regulations - and they could be done in a far less intrusive and culturally appropriate way. This would not only recognize and realize our inherent right of self-government, but it would also be the best means of fashioning a form of gun control best suited to the unique situation of Inuit and our distinct society.

The Firearms Act and its regulations are based on a set of assumptions about needs and priorities with regard to violence, which do not apply to Inuit communities because of the different character of violence in our communities and our different relationship to firearms.

The assumptions underlying this regulatory scheme may serve southern communities very well and make a lot of sense here. Unfortunately, they do not serve the interests of Inuit women or of Inuit society as a whole.

For example, the Firearms Act has as objectives the establishment of a uniform system of tracking firearms ownership and a uniform system of firearms control. The government has said that this will, among other things, assist police in solving crimes where firearms are recovered, identify the sources of firearms that are recovered, and give police information about the number of guns known to be in the home when they have to conduct an investigation or carry out a court order there. These are objectives arising from an urban or southern environment where people essentially live in communities of strangers. In the north our communities are so small that everyone is largely known to everyone else.

Firearms are a way of life, and practically everyone owns several. The perpetrators of crime are usually quickly and easily known.

The Government of the Northwest Territories made it very clear throughout the legislative phase that this act will not serve the best interests of the population there and it is simply not suitable to the needs of northerners. The federal government, on the other hand, has attempted to justify imposing this act and its regulations on the Inuit by arguing that reducing access to firearms will reduce domestic violence and suicide. We disagree.

As a study sponsored by Justice Canada revealed, prevention of future domestic homicides with firearms will be limited by two main factors. The study is titled ``Domestic Homicides Involving the Use of Firearms'' and was done by Dansys Consultants Inc. On page 51 it says:

- domestic homicides with firearms currently are being committed in large measure by persons who have already acquired and ``legally'' possess a firearm; and

- conversely, a number of these incidents are committed by those who illegally possess a firearm.

.1605

Even with the greater restrictions of this scheme, firearms will obviously be prevalent in the Arctic and violence in the Inuit communities will not likely be reduced by firearm restrictions alone.

What we really need we do not have: we need programs designed by and for the Arctic communities, with the full and equal involvement of Inuit women, for the prevention and treatment of domestic violence.

The real need to address violence in Inuit communities is at the root of our second objection to this act, our belief that the aboriginal regulations do not address our objectives to the legislative scheme as it now exists.

In fact, as Inuit women, we greatly resent the significant amounts of money, time and human resources that have been and will be devoted to establishing and administering a legislative scheme that will have relatively little - if any - impact on violence in our communities.

We have made this concern known to the department and the minister many times. We have repeatedly said that if the Government of Canada is serious about addressing violence in Inuit communities, we must be provided with the funds to establish victim support services, shelters in our communities, counselling and treatment programs, and programs to address the problem of male batterers.

We have asked for reforms to the law with respect to the sentencing of violent offenders, but our recommendations were ignored in the final result.

Pauktuutit believes that what Inuit need much more than this intrusive, unsuitable regulatory scheme are prevention and treatment programs to address the root causes of violence in our society in its early stages, that is, long before people are driven to attempted murder or suicide.

Again, government-sponsored studies support our conclusions on the different nature of suicide in aboriginal communities. Although not including data from the territories, a recent study stated that:

Persons of aboriginal background have much higher total suicide rates as well as higher firearms suicide rates than others, but that firearms suicide make up a lower or similar percentage of total aboriginal suicides than is the case for non-aboriginal victims.

This is a quote from Moyer and Carrington, in Gun Availability and Firearms Suicide, page 27.

More specifically, this study found that aboriginal victims in small communities were significantly less likely to use firearms than non-aboriginal victims living in communities with the same population were.

We resent having a gun control law imposed upon us that in its cumulative impact is an unjust and unreasonable restriction on our aboriginal and treaty rights instead of getting government support for the anti-violence programs we desperately need.

.1610

The complexity and the bureaucracy now attached to gun control law is fundamentally incompatible with the nature of a traditional hunting culture. The cumulative impact of this law can be measured in the following points: first, the need for all gun users, including non-hunters, to acquire a firearms license and to enquire about the regulation of the firearms they use; second, the need to register all firearms and to register the transfer of all firearms; third, the criminalization of traditional practices in regard to the lending and giving of firearms and the purchase of firearms and ammunition; fourth, the need to enquire about licensing and registration of firearms when one is a passenger in a vehicle containing a firearm; fifth, increased regulation of restricted weapons used for particular hunting purposes; sixth, the need to know a very complex system of legal rules with regard to the purchase, use, lending, giving, storage and transfer of different types of firearms.

In conclusion, the act and its regulations do not really address violence and suicide in Inuit communities.

Counselling, prevention and treatment programs - not more interference in our culture and traditions - are needed to address these problems in Inuit society. We believe that many aspects of the act and the proposed regulations are unnecessary interferences with Inuit culture and Inuit norms of public safety.

We support the recommendations for changes to the regulations made by ITC and we fundamentally object to the regulatory scheme as a violation of our aboriginal and treaty rights to use firearms to hunt and to protect ourselves while on the land.

Thank you.

Martha will speak next.

The Chairman: Ms Creig.

Ms Creig: I'll go on with the recommendations.

In view of the government's intent to impose this scheme irrespective of our objections and our rights, Pauktuutit recommends the following changes to the aboriginal regulations, complementary to the recommendations made by ITC.

First, our primary recommendation is that the firearms legislation not be implemented in Inuit communities without also making available the prevention, counselling and treatment programs needed to address violence in the Inuit communities. Without these programs, the imposition of this regulatory regime, which is both unsuitable and in violation of our aboriginal and treaty rights, will not address, and may even aggravate, the problem of violence in Inuit communities by creating further disruptions to our culture.

Second, the definition of ``aboriginal community'' in section 1, on page 53, and the definition of ``aboriginal individual'' in section 3, on page 53, are very problematic in that they define the existence of aboriginal peoples with respect to traditional practices only, meaning activities tied to the arbitrary period of contact or pre-contact with Europeans.

This notion of our collective rights as peoples and of our rights as aboriginal peoples is contrary to the understanding of what self-determination of peoples mean. We are not restricted in our existence as peoples to traditional activities only. This definition sets a very unprogressive precedent that we are concerned will be repeated in legislation in the future.

We do not agree with these limiting and arbitrary definitions of our communities, of our rights or of the individuals that make up our people. The government has no right to impose them on us, and shouldn't impose them on us. We recommend the deletion of the word ``traditional'' wherever it appears in the aboriginal regulations.

Third, with respect to the requirement for a declaration and confirmation that an individual engages in the traditional hunting practices of his or her community, in section 6, on page 54, we recommend the deletion of this requirement. Hunting rights under claims agreements belong to each individual beneficiary whether or not they have a history or currently engage in the traditional hunting practices of that community. Membership in an aboriginal community and the particular status as a beneficiary in a claims agreement should be sufficient for the application of these regulations in the case of people with rights under comprehensive claims agreements. Our concerns expressed in our third recommendation regarding the use of the word ``traditional'' apply here also.

.1615

Fourth, there is a need for much greater community involvement in the decision-making process for the issuing of firearms in aboriginal communities. Decision-making power should not be concentrated in the hands of one or two individuals. With sections 7, 8 and 9 of the proposed aboriginal regulation, on pages 54 and 55, and more generally in the exercise of the firearms officers' discretion and power under sections 5, 55, 68, and 70 of the Firearms Act, amendments should be made to the aboriginal regulations to provide for the establishment of community panels which could assist in providing information and advice to the firearms officer about known incidents of family violence or other relevant problems which might not be known to the police, and advise on how to balance such factors with the additional factor of the importance of hunting to the individual. See section 7 of the aboriginal regulations, pages 54 and 55.

Also, amendments should delete reference to ``traditional'' and refer only to the hunting practices of the community or people concerned. Our concerns expressed in our third recommendation about the use of the word ``traditional'' apply here also.

Fifth, about section 13, on page 56, Parliament should delete the reference to ``engage in traditional hunting practices'' in paragraph (b) and should not restrict alternative certification to lack of accessibility to the CFSC for reasons of cost or time. Alternative certification should be available to any aboriginal individual meeting the knowledge criteria in proposed section 14 of the aboriginal regulations, pages 56 and 57. This would acknowledge aboriginal expertise and norms regarding firearm safety and make the licensing process simpler and more accessible to Inuit while still providing a common base of criteria for firearms safety knowledge between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people.

Sixth, Pauktuutit has some serious concerns about the position of women in sections 18, 19, and 20 of the aboriginal regulations, page 58. Under the act, paragraph 7(4)(c), and by section 6 of the firearms licences regulations, any adult who owns a firearm as of the day the act comes into force can qualify for a possession-only licence for the particular type of firearms they own without having to take the CFSC. This is a time-limited opportunity. People must apply before the year 2001.

.1620

Sections 18 and 19 of the aboriginal regulations extend eligibility for the possession-only licence to aboriginal people who have had use of a firearm to engage in traditional hunting practices as of the day the act comes into force. This opportunity is also limited to people who apply before the year 2001.

This is an interesting proposal, because Department of Justice consultation documents indicate it was intended to address the concerns of aboriginal people that the act does not recognize communal ownership of guns; that is, practices by which firearms are freely lent within aboriginal communities for hunting or hunting-related purposes. In the past ITC and Pauktuutit have raised concerns about the situation of non-hunting women or men, people, without an FAC or licence under the new act who need to borrow a firearm to protect themselves from animal predators while left alone in camp. The aboriginal regulation should allow such people to apply for a possession-only licence by indicating they have use of a firearm even if they don't own it as of the commencement date of the act.

The problem with the Justice proposal is that it is limited to the current generation of gun users who apply before the year 2001. This means as of January 1, 2001 non-hunting women, for example, who don't have a possession-only licence will not be able to apply for one and will have to apply for a possession-and-acquisition licence, either by taking the CFSC or by being alternatively certified in accordance with the regulations. This means the Department of Justice recognizes the problem posed for non-hunters, particularly women, because it has proposed this regulation, but it is a time-limited solution.

Our aboriginal and treaty rights are not time limited, nor is our need for protection on the land. Women are concerned about whether they can be lent guns to protect themselves in the absence of having firearms licences themselves, as well as the registration certificate, a situation not permitted by section subparagraph 33(a)(ii) of the act or aboriginal regulation 20. Non-hunting Inuit women typically do not have an FAC and to require current and future generations to do so would be a hardship and an interference in the traditional practice of our Inuit culture of providing temporary measures to protect women from animal predators. These practices are consistent with long-standing Inuit norms of public safety. This practice is integral to Inuit culture because it is a practice essential to the physical survival and safety of Inuit women and children left in camps.

To require all women to take the CFSC would be an unnecessary hardship, and just as importantly an unnecessary interference with Inuit culture. To do so also carries the presumption that Inuit do not have their own means of instructing our people on safe gun use for particular purposes. Inuit women are instructed by our own people, within our own culture and norms of public safety, on safe gun use to fit the circumstances in which they need guns, such as those situations described above.

.1625

We recommend the following revision of draft section 20 of the aboriginal regulations to address authorized lending of non-restricted firearms on a temporary basis to deal with animal predators:

Section 33 of the Firearms Act is adapted, consistent with the aboriginal or Inuit practices, such that a person may lend an aboriginal individual a firearm to

(a) engage in the hunting practices of the community;

(b) exercise treaty hunting rights; or

(c) protect that Aboriginal individual and his or her family from predatory or other animals that can harm human beings.

Turning to number 7, there are several problems respecting section 21, ``Storage of Firearms'', on page 58. The notion of ``in a remote wilderness area'' is not a concept having any relevance in Inuit culture, and there is no equivalent concept in Inuktituk or other Inuit dialects. For this regulation to have meaning or relevance to Inuit, as well as to reflect respect for our notions of the land, the term should be replaced by the term ``on the land''. Furthermore, this regulation is not practical in terms of Inuit safety requirements to deal with animal predators or the requirements of hunting. Ammunition must be readily accessible at all times.

Number 8 is the last one: The federal government must continue its consultation process into the implementation stage and remain open to further regulatory and statutory amendments as needed to meet the needs of the Inuit community. The federal government must insure that each of the 55 Inuit communities is reached by a consultation process explaining the requirements of the law and its regulation.

During the legislative phase, federal spokespersons repeatedly expressed their confidence and belief that all of the Inuit concerns about possible conflicts between their traditional practices and the act could be met through the aboriginal regulation. My question is, will they?

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Now we go to Iqaluit via video-teleconference, and to Mary Nashook.

Ms Nashook, we apologize for not getting back to you for a while. Do you have a presentation that you would like to make?

Ms Nashook: Actually, I don't. Since I'm the secretary treasurer of Pauktuutit, I just strongly reiterate the presentation they just gave to you. If you have any questions, I'm willing to respond.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Now we'll open the floor to questions from the members of the subcommittee. Mr. de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms Creig, Ms Flaherty, Ms Sillett and Ms Nashook, I am troubled by your presentations. I suppose you don't speak French.

[English]

You don't? I don't speak your language either, so just so my feelings will not go through the translation process, I will talk to you in English. Usually I do that in French, you understand, but I think this is a special occasion.

I think you've been kind to us. When I read the notion of ``in a remote wilderness area'' is not a concept having any relevance in Inuit culture, I have a feeling that some people have written regulations and a piece of law without knowing your way of life. You have been telling us this in very gentle words, and that is why I say you're being kind to us.

.1630

I also took notice of your reaction to the word ``traditional''. I understand I think as well as you do, because I come from Quebec, that the definition, the essence of a people, may base itself on what tradition was, but it is also building tradition as it goes along through the years. As a matter of fact, a people evaluates socially, economically, and culturally. You do not want your rights to be protected through what they were but through what you are and what you will be, if I understand you well.

I have the notion that you will eventually take steps to make sure your constitutional and treaty rights are well protected. Meanwhile, you do propose to this subcommittee a few recommendations that would accommodate your main preoccupations as this moment. I think you are very clear on those.

I would like you to expand a little bit on your need for resources to cope with violence. As you say, this piece of legislation is not what you need. Could you expand a little? The objective here is to lower the level of violence and to eliminate it if at all possible. What can be done? I think you have a forum here to express this, and I would be most happy to listen, as would, I am sure, the other members of the subcommittee.

Ms Flaherty: Thank you.

You say you have a problem expressing yourself in another language. I have a real problem with English, but I'll try my best. In fact, I wanted to speak in Inuktitut today, but it could not be accommodated, which is unfortunate, because we would have expressed ourselves much better.

Thank you also for your kind words.

For two years the federal government spent $10 million on the Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women. I have a few comments to make, because I was also a member of that panel. As we travelled to different regions of Canada, such as northern Quebec, Labrador, and the Northwest Territories, we found practically the same request. There was a long list of requests, but in short they were asking for culturally appropriate programs designed by and for Inuit. They're talking about shelters, programs for both men and women, and programs for the victims of violence as well as the perpetrators. Right now the whole community is dealing with healing. They're asking for healing centres, not necessarily for violence but also for sexually abused children. They're asking for training in the communities for counsellors and programs.

I think Martha should help me with this. I'm a little uncomfortable speaking English.

.1635

Ms Creig: One other thing is they really want to work on cultural oppression, because we've been oppressed for so long. That's something they are really starting to do. As Martha said, the healing process is starting to happen. Through that the cultural oppression too is being dealt with. That's one area that's starting to help.

Personally - this is my point of view, from someone coming from an Inuit community in northern Quebec - I don't feel putting gun control into the Inuit communities or up north is a solution. It just adds to the things that have been handed out to us from outside, with people from the outside making decisions about how we should live. I also really believe in safety, the storage and training; but what really needs to happen is that our values, the culturally appropriate programs involving the elders and the way people.... Hand in hand, together, is what we really want.

Ms Sillett: I would like to add something. I was involved in this whole process from the beginning to the end and one thing that always struck me was that in developing the act and eventually the regulations I think there has been a really great fear among southern politicians about the impact of accessibility to firearms. For example, we saw front-page stories in the news about those girls who were killed in Montreal, and I guess there was a call by the Canadian public that the politicians in southern Canada do something about that. I think the Inuit really got caught in the shuffle, because the situation with firearms in the south is not what it is with firearms in the north.

When this whole question was raised at the subcommittee hearings with our elders, I remember many of our elders, who are certainly law-abiding citizens, saying these laws are so alien to the way we live, so alien to the way we see things, that we feel we can't abide by the rules Canada will make for us, because they will hurt our very way of life. They said in all their lives they have never seen the many people in their communities who kill themselves kill thmeselves with guns. They said guns weren't killing the people in our communities, social problems were killing the people in our communities.

They said what we need in order to address that is resources, as Martha Flaherty, who is the vice-president of ITC, and Martha Creig have said. We need training for our own people to act as counsellors. We need infrastructure, because in our communities there are no places for us to heal our people. We have to find ways for our own community to take control of our own problems.

I think that's the story of the difference between the south and the north: how much power the south has. The rules the south makes for us get us into it too, even though it might not necessarily be best for us. But we have made recommendations here that would minimize the cumulative effect of these regulations on our aboriginal and treaty rights, and this subcommittee has the power to change that for us in the north.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Ms Flaherty.

Ms Flaherty: I have just a small comment. I just wanted to remind you that if the federal government is so serious about eliminating violence against women it should really have been looking at Bill C-41. They asked Pauktuutit, the Inuit Women's Association, to appear here, and we did. We spent hours preparing and we submitted quite a few pages of recommendations. They didn't show one sentence.

.1640

I'm wondering, is this going to be the same thing? Are we being consulted just so you can say you have consulted with us? I'm skeptical about coming to Parliament these days.

What we want in the community are solutions for family violence. It's not gun control; it's what Inuit want. Wherever you go in the communities they're talking about healing, and they are good and ready, I think. Thank you.

The Chairman: I can't assure you that this will lead to any changes in social programs because we're only dealing with the regulations of the Firearms Act. I will assure you that your presentations will be looked at very carefully and they will receive careful consideration.

Ms Nashook, do you wish to say something on this question?

Ms Nashook: Yes. Thank you.

You have asked what we need for resources to cope with violence in the north. They have answered you very well, but I would say that we, the Inuit, should be trained to be counsellors. Whether or not it is at a university, we should be recognized as our own traditional counsellors.

In relation to the gun control proposal, it is minus 40 outside and it's freezing, and I don't think it would be very appropriate to keep bullets hidden away or safely locked up outside at this time, especially if a predator comes. I guarantee you... [Technical Difficulty - Editor].

The Chairman: Thank you very much. I know what you mean. It's freezing here too, and I wouldn't want to go looking for ammunition outside in Ottawa tonight.

Are there any further questions, Mr. de Savoye?

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: No, but maybe I'd like to conclude on a comment.

[English]

I am very sensitive to what you've said. If I could have things changed overnight, I would do it. But you can depend on me, and I believe on some other members of this subcommittee, to try to make things evolve in a direction that will be more suitable for you. At the same time, I congratulate you for the continuing efforts you're making, because you need to continue those in order to have things evolve in the right direction. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. de Savoye. Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank our witnesses here today who have come so far and our witnesses back home listening to the proceedings.

To me, your presentation makes sense. It comes from people with common sense, who understand what their problems are. You recognize your problems and you know what the causes are. Over and over again I have made a note, as you've gone through both presentations, that there is a desire to get at the cause of the problem.

I've never been able to understand how Bill C-68 and the regulations would reduce violence. That's why I can't support the bill. If it would, of course I would support the bill. Who could not support the bill if mothers came to us and said they needed this to protect their children and their families? We could not do anything but support it. But I do not see that.

I am a father of four children, and I'm very concerned about their safety from any threat, including firearms. But I do not see how, other than perhaps safe storage and that kind of thing, it would protect my family. As I said earlier today, if I get angry and lose my rationality and want to use a firearm against a member of my family, or myself, or a member of the public, registering it and having it locked up temporarily, with me holding the key, is not going to protect anyone. It won't protect us. And although there are some aspects of the present legislation that are on the books now, such as the storage - I think everyone supports that - I cannot support this bill.

.1645

There's no question that the bill is going to come through. We couldn't change much in the bill when we were making recommendations. We changed a little bit, but it was changed back. The important area was section 117, which allows the Governor in Council to prohibit any firearm if in his opinion it is not adequate or proper for recreational or hunting purposes. That was brought back in.

You tend to support some aspects of it. I don't know whether that's because you know it's coming and you're trying to make the best of it, or whether you really do see some good things about the bill. I'd like to ask you about that. It's a public safety bill; that's what it's called. Do you see any enhancement of public safety in your communities as a result of licensing the owners of firearms and registering their firearms? Do you see any benefit that will come to your community as a result of the bill?

Ms Moss: My name is Wendy Moss. Pauktuutit and ITC have asked me to help answer that question.

I can inform you that in the legislative phase before the various standing committees, Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and Pauktuutit indicated that some of the aspects of the firearms legislation as a whole that they did support were likely to increase penalties for the use of firearms in violent offences, for example. But as you're suggesting, there was a massive amount of disagreement with the government about the utility of the licensing and registration requirements.

As the ITC brief points out, it's somewhat significant that the Government of the Northwest Territories, representing all the people of that jurisdiction, opposes this bill. It was speaking on behalf of law enforcement officials, on behalf of aboriginal peoples, and every sector there, and it made basically the same arguments that the Inuit made: there is a different northern reality.

Yes, regulation of firearms is a good thing, having storage regulations is a good thing, but there are different ways of doing things, and there are different requirements for different parts of the country. As the ITC brief indicated during the legislative phase, and as the Pauktuutit brief indicates today, there really isn't any accommodation in this bill, in this regulatory regime, for recognizing the ability of Inuit to regulate themselves as an aspect of self-government, and that is open to the government.

There is a chapter in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement that specifically refers to the fact that the criminal law power of the federal government can be amended in its application to Inuit to deal with their hunting rights under that regime. The criminal law power is not exempt from the application of section 35 rights. So, constitutionally, it's possible to make these accommodations, but it hasn't been done.

.1650

Mr. Ramsay: Are there dangerous practices within the aboriginal communities now with regard to storage?

When your justice minister appeared before the committee he told us the story about the polar bear that came into an isolated community, attacked a man and started dragging him away. The man's little boy ran and got the gun that he knew was always loaded and kept inside the door, shot the bear, and saved his dad. He also told us that the FAC requirements are not being abided by because there's no way you can get a passport photo in some of those communities, so people are just kind of ignoring the requirements.

I think the question relates to this. The best way to govern a people is to teach them proper principles and then let them govern themselves. With respect to the use of firearms my dad taught me how to handle a firearm, and how to treat it and so on. Is that not ongoing in your communities? Are there any flaws in the manner in which firearms are being stored that would create a public safety concern?

Ms Flaherty: I'll ask Mary Nashook and Martha to answer those questions first. I definitely do have experience with respect to that but I'll ask them to speak first.

The Chairman: Ms Nashook.

Ms Nashook: I don't see any problems with living in the community where there is gun storage, but living in the outpost camp.... My parents live in an outpost camp about 100 miles out, and there is no problem like this. You don't require any storage in an outpost camp. In a larger community such as Iqaluit, storage of rifles in the community itself would be appropriate, while it wouldn't be out in the wilderness, as you call it, out on the land.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Ms Creig.

Ms Creig: There was an incident this summer. I love berry-picking. My sister and I were berry-picking bakeapples - they're sometimes called salmonberries - and had no firearm whatsoever because our intention was to pick berries. My sister said ``Martha, look over there, there's a big bear coming!'' And it was. He was up on his two hind legs and looking at us. We didn't have a gun, and even though we could have found a stick and just pretended it was a gun, we didn't know what to do right then. So I don't know what made me say this when the bear started running towards us, but I said ``Get out of here in the name of Jesus!'' And it walked away!

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms Creig: So if my words can be ammunition.... But I'm from Kuujjuaq, and what is starting to happen is that at the community level, right inside the community, people are starting to store their rifles. Rifles used to be right in the house, like a boast: you were showing that you were a man because you had all these rifles, right on the wall. But that doesn't happen any more. They're not inside the house. The rifle is in the shed and the bullets are maybe inside the house - that type of thing - but the rifles and the ammunition are not stored together as much any more.

The tent setting is very different from the community setting. We don't have the lock and key. But people are even using the lock and key, and the parents have it. I have grown kids too, and we have the lock and key. But although it's stored, if people get really intoxicated and very angry, sometimes they take the gun. But when the bullets and the gun are not in the same place that means you have enough time for intervention.

So we are aware of that, but it's very different in the hunting and camping areas. I hope that answers your question.

The Chairman: Yes, it does. Thank you.

Ms Flaherty.

.1655

Ms Flaherty: We have practised this for thousands of years. And today it's practised even more. Inuit families sometimes go out together in the spring to teach the children about gun safety, about when to use a gun and when not to.

We are also using it for healing. For instance, in the correctional institute in Baffin where all the abusers or people who commit crimes are staying, the elders or the traditional teachers take them on the land for healing and teach them about the proper use of the guns. It's working very well in the communities.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Kirkby.

Mr. Kirkby: What I hear as a major concern is basically what we've heard from aboriginal communities for a long time. Over the years, many regulations, laws, and ways of doing things have been put in place without consultation and without any sensitivity to the aboriginal peoples and to their way of life, their traditions, their rules, and how they organize their communities. This has caused a lot of violation to the people in those communities.

I do understand that. I come from an area where there are 30 or more aboriginal communities, and I know exactly what you're saying.

While the regulations are what they are, it's probably the administration of these regulations that's going to be important. I heard one of the witnesses saying his group wanted to see some kind of partnership where you have a committee of elders who are going to oversee exactly what is taught to the individuals in the courses and how it's going to be taught, and they wanted to see committees that are going to assist the firearms officer in approving or not approving an application made by an individual for an FAC.

It's my hope and I think it's certainly the desire that we can have that type of thing happen, with the people in the community having a say and a real involvement in how these things happen.

Oviously there are many things, the least of which are the passport photos. I know in my own riding people are having to spend several hundred dollars to fly out to a community to get a passport photo. There have to be ways to deal with these types of issues.

And, yes, the regulations are there, but I certainly want to see, as you've said, more partnership. Or we can even take what is good about handling firearms from one culture to another. We can take the good in each, put them together and work together so that public safety is at the bottom of it.

Was I correct, then, in hearing that you want to see that type of working together and real involvement of the local community?

Ms Moss: I want to comment on Mr. Kirkby's remarks.

We've taken note of the fact that in the consultation documents sent out by the justice department the officials are basically saying that the process of developing regulations - and presumably not only so-called adaptation, but exemptions - is not complete. They're saying that they will continue to listen to Inuit and other aboriginal peoples and will continue to look at what is needed by way of specific aboriginal regulations. That seems to be what I am reading in the regulatory impact statement, for example, that accompanied the regulations.

There are some accommodations that can be made in the administration of the act, as you're pointing out, on things such as the requirements for photographs and so forth. But there are limitations, as pointed out in the briefs here and as was pointed out in the previous legislative phase.

.1700

It really is puzzling that in an act that says on the one hand it will not be construed so as to abrogate from aboriginal and treaty rights...yet when you look at the regulations and the act, there's not a single exemption; there is not a single provision other than subsection 2(3) that refers to aboriginal and treaty rights - nowhere. Nowhere is the term ``claims beneficiaries'' used. There's no reference to it anywhere.

The fundamental danger, particularly to the treaty rights regimes, posed by these regulations is that the government is attempting to address those aboriginal and treaty rights concerns with certain language, such as the sustenance hunters exemptions for aboriginal and non-aborigianl peoples. As has been pointed out several times, that may or may not correspond precisely to the scope of both individuals covered by those agreements and to the activities covered by those agreements. The same applies to the aboriginal-specific regulations and the reference to traditional hunting activities. It may or may not correspond precisely.

You're asking these people to take the risk that it does, which basically means assuming I don't know what, that law enforcement officials are going to stand there with the James Bay agreement - all 400 pages of it - several pieces of implementing legislation for just that agreement, the Constitution Act, section 35, the Sparrow decision and umpteen decisions since Sparrow, the Firearms Act, its regulations, its aboriginal-specific adaptations, and say, yes, you're right, you are asserting an existing aboriginal and treaty right and I have just determined that you're not criminally liable for an activity that for somebody else without a treaty right....

It's not going to happen. It won't happen unless the accommodations and the tie, the connection, to aboriginal and treaty rights is made in the act and the regulations. To date the government has refused to do that. Presumably it has refused to do that because it doesn't want to stand up in the House of Commons and defend what appear to be special exemptions for people. They're not special exemptions. It's the law of the land. It's the supreme law of the land; it's the Constitution.

If the government has that as an objective, if the intent of subsection 2(3) is to protect aboriginal and treaty rights, it has to go about doing that in a very precise legal way in the regulations and in the act. There is quite a danger that it's not being done.

Mr. Kirkby: A fact, a danger, or a risk? Which is it? Are you saying that it's a fact that it's not happening or it's a risk that it may not happen?

Ms Moss: We've given some specific examples. For example, when we have asked what do you mean by traditional hunting practices in the consultation process - for example, one that took place in Iqaluit with Pauktuutit. Does it include trapping and the use of firearms in fishing and trapping activities? At that time Pauktuutit was told that a liberal interpretation would be taken. They could assume that those activities would be covered by the word ``hunting''. That official is not going to be there when some other law enforcement official may have a different interpretation of this section.

If hunting means fishing, trapping, and the use of a firearm for self protection, then let's say so. If the intent of traditional hunting practices is an oblique reference to the exercise of aboriginal and treaty rights, then let's say it explicitly. Why do we have to approach it obliquely? If we're going to protect aboriginal and treaty rights, do it explicitly.

Mr. Kirkby: Traditional rights have been interpreted by the courts. It's not something that was fixed way back when in time. It does allow for evolution over time. I think it's a term that has been used by the courts, and I think it's in that context that it's being used here. I don't think it's used in order to limit the scope of what's being said.

.1705

Ms Moss: I think there is a pretty live debate in the Supreme Court of Canada on that issue. Madame L'Heureux-Dubé, in several decisions, has taken issue with the definition of aboriginal rights as specifically tied to a particular arbitrary historical period and has suggested that that is an incorrect approach. Her opinion is perhaps not shared by other members on the Supreme Court, but she has made quite a point of saying that in several cases.

So it appears to be very much a live debate within the court at this point about whether we should be lumbering aboriginal people with this word ``traditional'', which particularly, in the context of modern claims agreements.... Modern claims agreements deal with hunting rights, period. They don't say traditional hunting rights. The word ``traditional'' is used at times, but there are hunting rights, period, and it's that lack of correspondence between the claims agreements and the terminology of this act and its regulations that is a problem.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

This has been very interesting and very helpful. I know I speak for all members of the subcommittee when I say we very much appreciate the time and the trouble you have taken to meet with us today.

I also thank Ms Nashook in Iqaluit for her presentation. Thank you very much. I appreciate your contribution and the time you've taken. It hasn't been easy sitting there by yourself listening to all this, I know that. I want to say that we will reflect on your presentations with respect to the regulations of the Firearms Act. Thank you again, and safe trip wherever you're going.

Ms Flaherty: Thank you.

Ms Creig: You are welcome to come the week of March 16. We can even take you out on the land so you'll know what the wilderness setting is like.

The Chairman: I want to say before we adjourn that we'll be reconvening tomorrow at 9:45 a.m., a little later than usual because we're going to have a video teleconference from Saskatchewan. So we adjourn now until 9:45 a.m. tomorrow.

Return to Committee Home Page