EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, May 1, 1995

.1408

[English]

The Chair: Order.

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

This afternoon from 2 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. we've scheduled the various outfitters associations. We have the Yukon Outfitters Association, represented by Lee Bolster and Cliff Hanna. From the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association, we have Jim Grayston; and Len Romanuik from the Saskatchewan Outfitters Association.

You will note on our notice that we had invited the Fédération des pourvoyeurs du Québec, which is the Quebec outfitters association. I do not see any of its members before us. Maybe the clerk can let the committee know what happened there.

The clerk says that they didn't have enough time to get ready for today. We heard from them only later in the game. We tried to contact them to have them come with the other outfitters, but they were not able to organize themselves to do that. Anyway, it wasn't possible. The clerk indicates they are going to send a brief to the committee.

Before we commence with the witnesses, I will call on Mme Venne, who has a point of order.

.1410

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne (Saint-Hubert): I would like to ask our two witnesses if they could possibly take off their hats. I think politeness dictates, when one is in a public place, to take off one's hat. I wonder if it would be proper, here, to proceed in a civilized and normal fashion.

That was my first point. I have a second one.

The Chair: We will begin with this one.

Mrs. Venne is asking some of our witnesses to take off their hats. She is raising a point of order about that. Unfortunately, as far as I know, there is no rule. In the House of Commons, one can wear a hat. One has to wear a necktie and one can wear a hat. I was personally ordered out of the House because I was not wearing a necktie.

Now, the witness has decided to comply with Mrs. Venne's wish.

I did not want to rule on that point. Mrs. Venne has another point of order.

Mrs. Venne: I would like to know whether there has been an agreement among the committee members to begin at 2:00 p.m. today.

The Chair: Yes, as a matter of fact we... If the members were in agreement to...

Mrs. Venne: You must have asked for that at a previous meeting.

The Chair: Yes.

Mrs. Venne: I was not present, therefore I wanted to know if it was now an established guiding rule.

The Chair: It is an exception. We asked for that exception because there was a large number of outfitters not scheduled for this afternoon. Mr. Dupuis is telling me that this was provided for in the tenth report and that the committee of the whole agreed to that.

Mrs. Venne: That's important.

The Chair: If you read the tenth report, you will see that the committee had agreed to sit at2:00 p.m.

Mrs. Venne: Ah well, anytime. So, we are not forewarned...

The Chair: No. When it is necessary, but not... It is scheduled for today and next Monday.

Mrs. Venne: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: We are here to listen to you fellows. You can each make opening comments. There are three groups: Saskatchewan, Yukon and northern Ontario. I will take them in the way they're listed on the notice. The Yukon is first; followed by northern Ontario and then Saskatchewan. I don't know whether that's fair or not but you all have the same amount of time. You will have a full chance to put your views forward. Afterwards we will have questions and so on to all of you. Since you're all in the outfitting business, some questions may go to one of you as an individual and some may go to all of you. You will all have a chance to answer.

The reason we had you together is that as outfitters you represent similar interests.

I would ask the Yukon to give us their opening comments first, then northern Ontario and then Saskatchewan, and we'll have the questioning after the three briefs.

I will call on Mr. Bolster or Mr. Hanna, please.

Mr. Lee Bolster (President, Yukon Outfitters Association): Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for giving us the opportunity to present our views on Bill C-68. Bear with me, please; I'm not very good at this.

The Chair: Relax.

Mr. Bolster: The outfitting industry in the Yukon dates back over 70 years, starting with notable native elders such as Johnny Johns, one of the founders of the Yukon native land claims. We have a high percentage of native involvement in the industry and some are third-generation families.

The industry brings in over 20% of the total tourism dollars to the Yukon annually. These moneys are almost entirely brought into remote areas where there is little or no employment other than our industry creating jobs, where unemployment can be three and four times the national average.

Outfitters compete in a world market for clients in many areas that are just coming out of economic recession. There are many other places in the world that offer similar game - Alaska, Russia, Romania, etc. - with fewer restrictions.

.1415

We have spent the last 70 years building an excellent reputation of quality service with a good strong client base. To enact unjustified laws that could jeopardize this industry, which serves rural areas of Canada, is not acceptable.

Our employees live mostly in rural areas or small towns in northern and western Canada. These jobs are an important source of income and lifestyle. In many remote places these jobs are almost the only private sector employment. Guns are a required tool of the trade.

Outfitting is a family-oriented business, not unlike ranching, farming or fishing, that is carried on in this vast, beautiful country. It is the strength of these families that has played a major part in building this great nation.

The outfitting industry contributes large monetary injections into their respective communities and provinces. These moneys come from outside the country and therefore are brand-new infusions in our Canadian economy. The threat of Bill C-68 to this income for Canada, and specifically its rural and remote areas, could conceivably cost our nation $1 billion of new income annually.

If only 25% or 30% of outfitters' clients refused to come to Canada because of gun registration, this industry would collapse. A loss of this percentage would render the outfitting business non-viable and it would fold. The fragile nature of outfitting economies cannot be overemphasized.

As shown by studies done for the Fraser Institute, the cost to the taxpayers could run upwards of $1 billion. The costs of enforcement after implementation will be horrendous. Major tax increases are sure to follow. If we add to these huge numbers the government's unerring ability to go over budget and inflate costs to do anything, it is very clear that the expense of implementing Bill C-68 makes it an impossible task.

At this point, a reality check is in order. The bureaucracy involved in instituting the proposed gun legislation of Bill C-68 will, in our minds, be a disaster. The entire customs workforce, police forces and game departments will have to be educated and relied on to expedite this process. Our clients, many of whom don't even speak English or French, will have one hell of a time sorting through this maze, when one small mistake could prevent their successful entry into Canada.

These problems will often be magnified because of limited communications. In areas as remote as northern Canada, there aren't even adequate telephone communications, let alone fax machines. Many of our clients have to arrive in places like Mayo or Ross River to meet a prearranged bush plane at a certain time. If they miss that connection, they will miss their entire trip, with a loss to the Canadian economy of approximately $10,000 per client. This kind of mix-up would seriously damage the sterling reputation of Canadian outfitting.

To people in remote areas, a firearm is a tool. Guides, trappers and wilderness travellers pack them every day for protection and subsistence. This right is something the Canadian people have always had.

Many people working in this industry, and others like it, lack education and the ability to deal with any more complications than they already have in their day-to-day lives. These workers often travel through several regions from their homes to their jobs in the Yukon, and at times from job to job, and then back at the end of the season. Their travels would now require permits, in some cases several, through remote regions with little or no government services.

Even bush pilots are required by the laws of Canada to carry guns in their planes as part of their survival gear while flying in the north. As this is a Transport Canada requirement, we are not the only ones who think guns are important in our way of life. Under Bill C-68, any guide or pilot with a criminal record, perhaps from drunken driving, will not be employable, thus creating personal hardships, more unemployment and the lack of revenue in these communities that have little else.

.1420

Many older guns have no serial numbers. Some of our clients come with custom-made rifles that have no serial numbers. In this legislation they wouldn't be allowed to bring them into Canada; therefore, we would lose more clients who have willingly left their moneys here in the past.

Our employees also often pack older guns or custom-made rifles. These workers can ill afford to have the government make the guns they own and need illegal.

Due to several manufacturers producing the same model of gun, there can be as many as 200 guns in circulation under a given serial number. This and other numbering complications make gun registry by computer a bureaucratic nightmare. What would happen to us when we try to fill cancellation hunts on short notice when it takes weeks or months to register a foreign gun?

In our research we cannot find where this legislation would have any effect on reducing crime. How can the government justify the cost? American hunters are promising to keep millions of dollars they have previously spent annually on hunting trips to Canada at home. Many will not register their guns at the border because their constitution guarantees them the right to bear arms. They do not want Canadian bureaucrats sharing registration information with their American counterparts.

If these foreign clients refuse to come to Canada because of gun registration, this will be a very serious threat to our industry. As U.S. hunters represent about 85% of clients coming into this country, even a 25% reduction would make most outfitting businesses cease to exist.

In our correspondence with other outfitting associations in western and northern Canada there is a consensus that this could destroy the industry that brings into the country hundreds of millions of dollars and employs thousands of people annually. In the current economic climate this does not make any sense to us. For urban Canadians with diverse economies and large crime problems, to impose the hardship of Bill C-68 on rural Canadians who do not have these crime problems or thriving economies is ridiculous.

Justice Minister Allan Rock's gun control law, Bill C-68, which the Liberals forced through second reading, will undermine at least four basic liberties that Canadians have enjoyed for hundreds of years. Legal experts and gun owners charge that, among other things, the proposed Firearms Act will allow police to search private homes without warrant. It will suspend citizens' rights to refuse to cooperate with police and may force them to incriminate themselves or face jail for failing to do so. It allows for the confiscation of private property by the state without compensation. It will create a reverse onus on those accused of offences under several of its sections; in other words, it will require those charged to prove their innocence rather than assuming they are innocent until proven guilty.

Bill C-68 has no place in the laws of Canada. Such a piece of legislation is unjustifiable. The task of trying to make such legislation actually happen in the streets is mind-boggling. The huge problem to the Canadian taxpayer is unacceptable. The inherent threat to the rights and freedoms of the Canadian people to own and bear arms or any other property is unthinkable. The direct loss of jobs and millions of new dollars in areas like the Yukon and other remote parts of Canada is intolerable. To initiate legislation to register firearms in Canada would be unworkable and counter-productive.

We have several letters we received when we contacted the other northern and western associations, and maybe Mr. Hanna will read a couple of them for me.

The Chair: Fine.

Mr. Cliff Hanna (Vice-President, Yukon Outfitters Association): We have attached these letters to the back of the brief. I'll just run through them briefly. For the sake of brevity, I'll probably read just one. They're fairly self-explanatory. The Alberta Outfitters Association is represented. Also the Mackenzie Mountains Outfitters Association has a letter of support in here, with their views. There is one other Northwest Territories association, the Barrenground Outfitters, and a letter from their president. Also there is one from Northern British Columbia Guides and Outfitters, from president Ray Jackson. Maybe I'll just read that one through. Their content is quite similar.

.1425

He addressed the letter to Mr. Rock and sent us a copy of it.

On behalf of the Northern B.C. Guides Association I am writing to make you aware of our opposition to Bill C-68. Passage of this bill has the potential to destroy our industry, as the vast majority of our clientele comes from countries other than Canada. In northeastern B.C. alone the outfitting industry operates 31 businesses and boasts over five hundred employees, thus contributing over $10 million dollars to the local economy each year. We probably do not have to remind you that these dollars are not solely recycled Canadian dollars, but new dollars being brought into the country by our foreign hunters, which assist in our balance of trade.

It is unfortunate that the current regulations, which are restrictive to foreign hunters and have prevented firearms offences from occurring at least in the northern B.C. area, cannot remain in effect.

Foreign hunters will seek alternatives to hunting in Canada should they be forced to register their firearms.

In closing, the proposed firearm restrictions should not affect a segment of the population which exhibits a great respect for the firearm and its destructive potential. Please assist us by changing or halting passage of this section of Bill C-68.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I will next go to the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association, Mr. Grayston.

Mr. Jim Grayston (Executive Director, Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association): Thank you for the opportunity to address you today.

NOTO is a non-profit trade and advocacy association that has represented the interests of the resource-based tourism industry in northern Ontario since its formation in 1929. It's the largest association of its kind in Canada.

This industry is made up of 1,600 businesses, including fishing and/or hunting camps and lodges, housekeeping cottage resorts, air services and remote outpost camps, canoe outfitters, campgrounds and trailer parks.

I am here today because of the potential impact that more restrictive gun control legislation will have on sport hunting and the resulting negative impact that will be forced upon our industry. I also want to outline some of the economic benefits that hunting brings to the economies of Canada and Ontario.

Canada is known worldwide as a destination for those who want to experience tremendous hunting opportunities for a wide variety of game species. According to the Canadian Wildlife Service 1991 study entitled ``The Importance of Wildlife to Canadians'', over 1.5 million Canadians hunt wildlife annually in Canada. Almost 40,000 U.S. residents also hunt wildlife in Canada.

This activity results in hunters spending $1.2 billion annually in Canada. Of this $1.2 billion total, $500 million is spent on equipment, $300 million is spent on transportation, $150 million is spent on food, $66 million is spent on accommodations, and $190 million is spent on other items and services, including guides, who are often aboriginal.

Also very important are the dollars brought in by Americans. It's important to remember that $100 million spent by hunters from across the border are new dollars to our economy.

According to the CWS study, over 415,000 Ontario residents hunt annually in the province. Only Quebec has more resident hunters. Ontario hunters also spend $325 million annually on game hunting, more than in any other province.

Ontario's tourism industry, and particularly the industry in northern Ontario that NOTO represents, has developed over the years to offer hunting opportunities for all kinds of outdoor enthusiasts, ranging from large mammals to small mammals, waterfowl, and other birds. These opportunities provide substantial revenues for tourism properties in northern Ontario, especially from non-residents, who must hunt for certain species through a licensed outfitter - i.e., moose and bear. Hunting revenues are also very important as they provide needed business in the spring and fall shoulder seasons.

It should be clear to you that hunting expenditures account for a tremendous amount of economic activity for Canada and its provinces. From the perspective of the tourism industry, hunting activity translates into thousands of tourism jobs and healthy businesses in many small northern communities that suffer from a very narrow economic base as forestry, mining and other resource-dependent industries decline. These communities also benefit from spending by tourists.

More restrictive gun control legislation threatens to seriously erode this spending and the resulting jobs and economic benefits. Law-abiding gun owners should not be forced to jump through ever more bureaucratic hoops to partake in an activity that has been carried on by our forefathers for centuries.

.1430

Government should not try to reduce the incidence of violent gun crimes at the expense of innocent law-abiding gun owners.

Canada's current firearms laws are among the toughest in the world. Law-abiding people already have permits to buy guns. They have to pass government courses or examinations in all aspects of firearm safety. Personal references are required, and gun shops must keep records of all firearm purchases, and owners have to meet government standards for safe storage and transportation.

That's why the current demand for a national registry just doesn't make sense. We should target crime, not honest citizens.

The registration of all firearms will not make Canada a safer place to be. More gun control is not crime control. Criminals will not be the ones registering their guns. A national firearms registry will only be successful in making Canada less safe.

Computer hackers can get into any computer system anywhere. They've already broken into Canadian and U.S. government and military networks. Think about it. Would you want criminals to know where every gun in the country is stored? It would be an incredibly dangerous shopping list.

According to the federal government, over two million households in Canada own firearms, for a total of six million. The National Firearms Association disagrees and puts the number of shotguns and rifles legally owned by Canadians at 21 million. That's quite a supermarket for criminals and quite a job for enforcement officers.

Will the government have the resources to control gun control? Public safety could be further endangered if our law enforcement authorities are forced to spread their resources too thinly in order to enforce new gun control laws and administer new regulatory programs.

NOTO rejects the claims that further gun control measures will reduce the number of suicides in Canada. There's no logical connection between the public availability of firearms and the incidence of suicide. The current provision of safe storage standards in federal regulation may reduce the use of firearms in suicides yet will do nothing to reduce the numbers of suicides in this country.

Furthermore, any further controls on the sale of ammunition is needless. Legal firearms owners are adequately controlled through the provisions of the firearms sections of the Criminal Code. Further controls on ammunition are unnecessary, would not reduce criminal use of firearms, and would not increase public safety.

A national firearms registry would be a dangerous waste of taxpayers' money. Dr. Gary Mauser, of Simon Fraser University, estimates the planned firearms registration reporting system will cost $500 million over five years. I can think of better ways to spend $500 million. Imagine if that money was available for fish and wildlife enhancement or tourism marketing in the U.S. and Europe.

NOTO's fear is that additional restrictions will cause many outdoorsmen and outdoorswomen to reconsider their involvement and spending on hunting-related activities, and not just Canadian hunters but American hunters, as well.

This will cause even more economic hardship to our industry, an industry that has just suffered through three or four very difficult years. Our latest depression saw a dramatic reduction in discretionary spending as job losses and economic uncertainty took their toll on the finances of many families. Those tourism businesses that have weathered these tough times are now seeing the sun rise on the economic horizon in 1995. Demand is high and the future is looking bright.

Now is definitely not the time to pass legislation that will result in American tourists boycotting Canada.

I recently received a letter from the Kentucky Outdoor Association. This group is equivalent to our Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. They represent 75,000 people from that state and they've recommended to their membership, if gun control legislation is passed, to boycott Canada and not come here for their vacation.

This is only the tip of the iceberg. I know of at least five other states that are circulating similar threatening letters. Virginia, Texas, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and North Dakota are warning us that if the legislation goes through, members of their associations will no longer hunt in Canada. American state sports clubs are very upset by this pending legislation, and it may be us who will feel their frustration.

We know from experience that American tourists avoid areas of controversy. We've seen it at our border. When Ontario passed conservation-based regulations to manage her own resources, a neighbouring state, Minnesota, passed retaliatory legislation creating a controversy.

Canada cannot afford this sort of negative impact across her border. Our borders need to remain tourism friendly.

So far the information being provided regarding non-residents bringing firearms into Canada to hunt is very vague, and the first reaction is not to come at all if weapon restriction is required.

We already have a situation where customers coming into Canada go through a scrutinizing search. What other obstacles will they face at the border, and what will it cost them to bring their firearms into the country for a hunting trip?

It could cost us their business.

.1435

Gun control legislation has the real potential to restrict additional tourism growth and cause job losses and even business closures for many in northern Ontario. NOTO cannot stand quiet and let this happen. That's why I'm here today.

The Chair: Now we will pass to Mr. Romanuik, the president of Saskatchewan Outfitters, to make his presentation.

Mr. Len Romanuik (President, Saskatchewan Outfitters Association): I thank you for letting me have the opportunity to speak here today.

Canada, not very long ago, was a very distant, unexplored land. The men and women who came here to explore and settle the land did so with knife and gun in hand. Canadians came west to hunt buffalo, beaver, elk, deer and bear for sustenance and livelihood. Since that early time, the knife and gun have been an integral part of our culture. Our society survived and grew during that time, supported by the ability of those early settlers to use the gun to hunt, trap and protect themselves. In rural Canada today, we still foster that love for our knife and our firearm.

We own them, we hold them, we clean them, we feel them, we look at them and we take pride in them as an art collector does in a fine painting. We sharpen our knives to keep them sharp and we fire our guns for pleasure, sport and our livelihood. Firearms have always been a part of our culture.

One man, Allan Rock, has stated that he intends to change that culture.

Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler also changed their countries' cultures.

The outfitting industry in Saskatchewan, and probably all of Canada, derives almost all clients from the United States. In Saskatchewan alone, the outfitting industry generates about $39 million in export income annually. American hunters, who have the constitutional right to bear arms in the United States, are set against any manner of registration. Because of the close ties of the Canadian customs to the FBI and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the American people feel that a temporary registration in Canada will be a permanent registration at home in the United States.

Saskatchewan and Canada, in these economic times, cannot afford any loss of revenue dollars because of an ill-conceived program that has absolutely no evidence that it can do what it promises to do. There is absolutely no evidence that non-resident hunters have ever or will ever contribute to Canada's violent crime rate or any other crime rate.

What, then, is the purpose?

There are already strict rules on what types of firearms, how many firearms, the amount of ammunition and import-export of firearms across our borders. Increased amounts of paperwork for law-abiding people will do nothing to prevent crime.

A Canada-wide boycott by hunting and fishing organizations is already rearing its ugly head. Saskatchewan outfitters are already receiving cancellations from American hunters because of the legislation and outfitters are experiencing very low bookings compared to past years. The outfitting industry impacts strongly on rural and northern Saskatchewan. The negative impact of this legislation creates insurmountable difficulties for these segments.

This anti-gun legislation can be said to be anti-hunting, as it makes access to firearms for young hunters very difficult and will make the keeping of firearms too expensive for the casual shooter or hunter. With no young hunters entering into the sport, this legislation will eventually spell doom to hunting and the outfitting industry.

All this for legislation that all available hard facts show will only be a make-work project.

This legislation leaves serious questions about its purposes.

Allan Rock states that regulation is necessary to help track all firearms, whether used in crimes or not, for public safety and crime control.

Subclause 3(2) states, ``...this act does not apply in respect of the Canadian Forces''. Clause 15 exempts firearms owned by the Government of Canada, the provinces or police forces. Do these clauses mean that firearms used or owned by the military, government or police will not or cannot be stolen, illegally sold or used in any crimes under other circumstances?

It seems more likely that these exemptions serve to enforce the fear of inevitable confiscation and lend credibility to Allan Rock's December 1994 statement:

I envision a Canada where only the military and police have firearms.

.1440

This bears a strong resemblance to Nazi Germany and communist Russia, among others.

Clauses 34 through 41, deal with temporary importing and exporting of firearms. Mainly hunters and target shooters would be affected. Aside from making more paperwork and giving customs officers more to do, this will have no value, as there is no evidence that these firearms are lost or stolen and that the bearers of these firearms are a threat to public safety or contribute to crime.

Clauses 67 through 71 deal with issuing and revoking registration certificates, import-export authorizations and authorizations to carry or transport. The issuing or revoking of any licence or authorization is left to the discretion of the registrar or chief firearms officer.

Subclause 73(3) and proposed section 117.11 both state that the burden of proof lies not on the Crown but on the applicant or the accused. These sections under this legislation remove the rights of the innocent until proven guilty.

Clause 99 gives a police officer the right to enter any place other than a dwelling-house at any time if he or she has reason to believe there's a firearm on the premises. This section will allow the officer to conduct tests, use any copying or data processing equipment, take copies or samples of any material or dispose of any samples or copies as he or she considers appropriate, all without a warrant.

Clause 100 requires anyone on the premises to assist the police officer during the search under section 99. What has happened to the right to be proven at fault and the law requiring a search warrant?

Proposed subsection 117.15(2) states that the Governor in Council may use its opinion to decide which firearms are or are not reasonable for hunting or sporting purposes when making regulations. What right does a government have to use its opinion when making laws or regulating the personal property of its electorate?

The amendments to the Criminal Code outlined in Bill C-68 clearly discriminate against firearms. It is apparent that the justice minister has a one-track mind with a clear agenda. The minister feels it is more serious to commit a violent crime with a gun than with a knife. The Canadian people believe murder is murder and rape is rape, and all violent crimes and criminals should be dealt with severely regardless of the tools used to commit the crime.

This bill is only a feeble attempt by the government to quiet special interest groups. At best this bill can only curtail the property rights of the law-abiding citizen and cause some criminals to use a different type of weapon.

Crime control should focus on stopping the crime before it starts. If preventive measures are not enacted, crime is inevitable. Energies of government are misdirected toward the inevitable result or toward the method of the crime. What possible purpose does it serve to determine the degree to which a firearm is lethal?

Allan Rock's knee-jerk reaction to crime does not seem to be well thought out. It seems more to be aimed at guns and gun owners simply because Allan Rock and Wendy Cukier do not own and do not like guns.

After statements made by Mr. Rock last week, farmers in Saskatchewan fear they may have to register fertilizer and diesel fuel.

This bill is said to be necessary to fight crime and protect the people of Canada. It seems very strange that the recently passed Bill C-42 contains amendments to the Criminal Code that raise the felony indictment theft from $1,000 to $5,000. Mr. Rock has made petty theft a much more lucrative business, while he continually tells us we don't need our guns to protect ourselves or our property, and he says, ``Trust me''.

We're being told that enforcement of this bill will not in any way take police officers off the street or put any additional workload on police forces. How can the mandatory registration of more than 20 million legally owned firearms, and inspections thereof, not strain our already strained police and customs officers?

The 1992 Auditor General's report recommended dismantling the present registration system because of its gross inadequacies, its tremendous cost to Canadians, coupled with the hard facts that show absolutely no value to crime prevention or crime control. The Auditor General further recommended against any more gun control until a major study had been done and proof existed that the system could work and would contribute to crime control.

Here we are: no study, no proof, just high-handed government tactics and more wasted money.

.1445

Statistics show the underlying cause of crime starts, in most cases, with legally purchased alcohol. Crime control and prevention would be a more productive measure than gun control, and much more cost efficient. Concentrating on prevention of drug and alcohol related crimes would provide the government with a goal that would be much more achievable and productive than gun control.

Domestic violence is almost always the end result of stress caused by today's financial demands and alcohol abuse. There is absolutely no evidence to prove that registering a firearm will change the outcome of domestic violence. There is evidence to show that stress management and alcohol drug counselling can reduce suicide and family violence. Here lies the key to crime control.

In summary, I would like to say that, as a piece of legislation, serious questions should be raised concerning both individual rights and freedoms and where the legislation will eventually take gun ownership. It is our opinion that this piece of legislation has drastic implications for every individual's rights and freedoms in Canada. This is not really a gun control issue any more, but a question of where this government is heading in regard to the rights of the individual in relation to the state.

History indicates that as the rights of the individuals are removed under the pretext of a safer state, the principles of democracy are undermined. All kinds of flags should go up as warning signals with this legislation.

Second, let there be no doubt about the long-term strategy of the Liberal Party in regard to gun control. Those people who remember the 1978 debates on gun control will place the present situation in context. As I have stated previously, Allan Rock has publicly stated that he envisions a Canada where only the military and police have firearms.

The third and final solution of total confiscation will happen in the next go-round of the Liberal Party. This must be recognized and addressed now. The devastating effect of gun control on Saskatchewan and the Saskatchewan outfitting industry is viewed to be extremely serious by participants. American clients are presently cancelling hunting and fishing trips. A survey of members indicates that upward of 50% cancellations are expected with hunting outfitters over the immediate future.

These economic difficulties and long-term implications could indicate a very weakened industry, if not the eventual demise of the industry. An immediate loss of $10 to $20 million from the industry is expected.

Certainly, because of its make-up, Saskatchewan will be more affected by this issue than other regions. Proportionately, the outfitting industry, as an export earner, is higher in Saskatchewan than in other provinces. The outfitting industry in Saskatchewan is one of the few viable tourism generators in the province.

I would like to close with this statement. Canada has fought wars to defend democratic principles. Thousands of Canadians have died to protect the inherent rights of the individual over the state. Canadians are seeing our inherent rights and freedoms diminished. Lest we forget.

The Chair: Now we will proceed with questioning. What we do is have an opening round of 10 minutes for each of the three parties and then 5-minute rounds where we exchange between the government side and the opposition side.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Good morning. I believe it is Mr. Bolster who said that bush pilots must have firearms on board according to Transport Canada regulation.

I have here Transport Canada regulation as well as Canada AIP. It is indicated under survival kit that the pilot must have an axe weighing at least two pounds and a half. There is no requirement for a gun in survival kit. It is up to the operator to carry a gun or not. So there is a distinction which I wanted to point out since I have the regulations here.

.1450

I talked with Transport Canada officials who told me that in the new regulations, it will be suggested to pilots not to carry a two and a half pound axe since it could be dangerous in a situation such as a crash when people tend to panic. I thought important to mention it since you claim that Transport Canada regulations require that guns be part of the survival kit.

Secondly, can you tell me what are the regulations for foreigners, for Americans - since we're talking about Americans here - who come to Canada to hunt? What must they declare at customs at present?

My question is for Mr. Bolster since he seems well informed on the situation.

[English]

Mr. Bolster: When American hunters - and I've cleared them in customs in Dawson City - come with their gun cases, they're asked why they're entering the country. They say they're going hunting in a certain place. They have their gun cases. Their ammunition is supposed to be separate. They open their cases and show that they have hunting rifles, and they're cleared through customs. There's no registration. If they are asked, they have to show what's in the box. But to date they don't have to register the serial numbers, the make of the firearm, or anything like that.

As for the Transport Canada thing, it's quite possible. The northern region out of Edmonton recommends that we pack firearms as part of our survival kit. I had no idea it was not law, because we're told to do it. I'm also a pilot. Any time I don't take a gun, I feel as if I'm breaking the law.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: I'm just saying that the regulations say it's optional. That's all I'm saying. But the same regulations apply throughout Canada.

Secondly, you're telling me that at present, when an American comes to Canada, he doesn't have to register his gun. I know that and there will be a new requirement for them. But they already have to declare that they carry a gun and they have to sign a form. If you cannot answer me, perhaps your neighbour, Mr. Romanuik, could.

[English]

Mr. Romanuik: When they reach the border, they are asked what they're doing. They quite often have to produce proof that they are going hunting, like a hunting licence or a contract of sorts. They are asked if they have firearms. The guns are inspected. The amount of ammunition is limited. They cannot transport any restricted weapons whatsoever, such as handguns, semi-automatics with too big a clip, those sorts of things. They have to follow all present regulations - none of the restricted weapons, whatsoever.

Not all the time, but quite often, they must fill out a declaration with the serial number - much the same as we have to do when we go skiing - to prove that when they are on their way home they are taking the same firearm back home with them and they did not leave it in Canada. I guess that's about it. They are not always required to fill that document out.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Perhaps you tell us what will be the difference. There will be a fee of about $50 according to Revenue Canada for the temporary license that the American will have to buy when he comes to Canada to hunt. That's the only difference; he'll have to pay $50 and give the serial number of his gun. It's the only thing that will change.

.1455

You said yourself that these people spend millions of dollars when they come here. Each of them must spend at least $1,000, if not more. Surely you're not suggesting that they will be outraged at having to pay an extra $50.

[English]

Mr. Romanuik: No, the dollar value that it will cost them will have no effect at all on what they do, although it will not be quite as simple as you suggest. They will be required to fill out an import-export permit. Then they will be issued a temporary registration certificate and possession certificate. That will go to the central registry. Every traveller with a firearm will have to fill that out, and it will be an official document, not just a document that shows that they must take it back home.

The Canadian government has already indicated it will screen these fellows through the PAL system, and now it can, through computers, go right into the FBI databanks to check these people out. If a fellow has shown something like an impaired driving charge 10 or 15 years ago, he may be refused that import-export permit at the discretion of the customs officer or the firearms registrar.

This process at the border will not be done in five minutes; it will be done in one or two hours, possibly. In fact, in the discussion for debate, there was some information saying that they can apply for the registration certificates through their consulates and have these filled out and registered before they reach the border, to save time.

Prices and a lot of this stuff are not in the bill, but clause 110 and all the paragraphs allow for the importation-exportation of firearms through hunters to be regulated. Those regulations are not here for us to see. They will be made through Order in Council with no debate or input by us, which does not seem like a democratic, law-abiding procedure.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: On that point, Mr. Chairman, I may need your advice because I seem to recall that someone said that the regulations would be debated in the House. Wasn't this mentioned before?

The Chairman: I don't think so.

Mrs. Venne: No? I thought it was.

The Chairman: There is in the act a provision which says that the regulations would have to be tabled for discussion.

Mrs. Venne: That's it. This gentleman said that there would be no debate on the regulations.

The Chairman: I'll find the relevant section and get back to you on this.

Mrs. Venne: Yes, please do. I think it would be interesting.

[English]

The Chair: On whether the regulations are to be tabled in the House and debated, I'll get that and I'll bring it to the attention of the committee later.

Mr. Romanuik: Under clause 110 there is a subclause that states that amendments to Orders in Council, if felt by the minister to be minor, do not have to be put forward for discussion or debate again. Exactly what is meant by a minor amendment to an Order in Council? This tells me that by the stroke of a pen we can have laws made without a lot of input from the Canadian people or the government.

The Chair: The article in question is article 111 at page 49. It says:

The federal minister shall have each proposed regulation laid before each House of Parliament. Each proposed regulation that is laid before a House of Parliament shall be referred by that House to an appropriate committee of that House as determined by the rules and the committee may conduct inquiries or public hearings with respect to the proposed regulation and report its finding to that House.

That is the general rule. So all regulations have to be presented in the House and referred to a committee. There are some exceptions for questions of urgency, and in those cases, the exception is spelled out in the articles that follow.

Mr. Lee (Scarborough - Rouge River): On a point of order, with reference to what you've just stated, regulations that are created under section 117.15 of the code are not referred to Parliament.

The Chair: Maybe not. This refers -

Mr. Lee: Without any regard to urgency or anything else. There are in fact two types of regulations under the statute.

.1500

The Chair: These are regulations under what will be called the Firearms Act.

Mr. Lee: That's correct.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Madam Venne, do you have any more questions?

Mrs. Venne: I would only like to come back to the issue of the fee Americans will be charged. I don't think you made any comment on that, but let me ask you: Would a $50 for a temporary permit be excessive for anyone coming here to spent thousands of dollars?

Still on the issue of charges to hunters, is a $10 fee too much for a lifetime registration of a firearm?

[English]

Mr. Grayston: I don't think the $50 is the issue. I think the issue right now is (1) the Americans don't want to get into any form of registration from the Canadian side and (2) I think the important thing to remember is that we've already got letters from six states that have told us they're advocating not coming, period.

It's not a question of money; it's a question of what they think their rights are and how their rights are going to be implicated and the fact that there are other jurisdictions and other places to which they can take their tourism dollars. We want to bring them, in particular, to Ontario, but if not to Ontario, then at least to Canada. That's what I think is important.

As far as Canadians are concerned, I represent only my operators. I don't speak for all people in Canada or Ontario.

No, $10 isn't the issue. Once again, it's rights, which they feel are being violated, and they don't see any useful purpose in having any form of gun control legislation for the kinds of firearms they possess. I don't want you to feel that it's an issue of money; we are talking more about personal rights.

Mr. Romanuik: In Bill C-68, unless I missed something, there is no reference to the dollar values that will be charged. That is left under clause 110. The dollar values for registration or any of the fees will be regulated through Order in Council. Clause 112(1) states:

No proposed regulation that has been laid pursuant to section 111 need again be laid under that section, whether or not it has been altered.

That allows for a fairly quick shuffling through of regulations.

The Chair: Once a regulation is in committee, under clause 111, the committee can determine the business with respect to that. Once it leaves the committee, what you just referred to would be the result. A committee could conduct, as we are doing now, very wide ranging hearings.

Yukon, would you like to talk about the question of the costs that Mrs. Venne brought up?

Mr. Bolster: No. I think it's pretty well covered. These gentlemen stated the way we feel about it.

The Chair: Very good.

Mr. Ramsay for 10 minutes.

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): I have received letters from groups in the United States, sporting groups as well. It's one thing for the president of an organization to make a recommendation to the members not to go hunting in Canada for various reasons, but what impact will that really have on the membership? That's what we have to ask.

When we were discussing the witnesses in the steering committee - we had to pick and choose witnesses because we have such a time limit on bringing witnesses before the committee - we wanted to learn the economic impact of this legislation. In spite of what the heads of those organizations have said to their membership, if I was down there and I wanted to hunt in Canada and if this didn't bother me, I'd be hunting in Canada.

So my question is: to what extent do you feel these regulations are going to impact on your business economically, and what evidence do you have to support that?

.1505

Mr. Romanuik: In Saskatchewan, this boycott scenario that has unfolded came into play around April 1 of this year. Through February and March of this year, because of the good times, I guess, in the States and the inflated American dollar compared to ours, our inquiries and bookings were up dramatically from past years. It was looking as though it would be a banner year.

Since April 1 we have seen inquiries alone drop by as much as 50% through most of our bird hunting sector, which is this time of year. They book through February, March, April and May. That's when they get their inquiries. They are down by as much as 50%.

In the hunting sector, my own telephone went dead shortly after April 1. I talked to my booking agent in Pennsylvania. He says his telephone has almost gone dead since April 1. We have several outfitters who have experienced cancellations already. These are fellows who have already paid deposits to come hunting and who are requesting their deposits back because they're going to boycott if this legislation passes.

It seems that it is a reality in Saskatchewan, no doubt, and we expect it to affect our industry by 50% over the next couple of years.

Mr. Ramsay: Could I have comments from the other witnesses.

Mr. Bolster: I don't know if our businesses are exactly alike, these gentlemen and ours. The northern and western outfitters who have concessions have hundreds of thousands of dollars invested, and we're like any other business in this country. You run on a gross income with a profit margin in there. It isn't the threat that we feel that 100% of the Americans aren't going to come. But if enough of them don't come and it reduces our income by 10%, 20% or 30%, then that's enough of a straw to break the camel's back right there. We can't viably operate, like any other business.

Mr. Ramsay: Do you have any evidence or information you can leave with the committee today as to any cancellations, or any evidence of cancellations, that would reduce your normal flow of business?

Mr. Bolster: I have nothing with me. One of the outfitters I talked to just before I left has been in the Yukon for 30 years. I asked him, ``Do you have any views on this because as the president of your association I have to go to Ottawa to try to convince these people how serious this is''. He said the poll he's being doing with his clients shows that 90% of them are not in favour of gun registration and will seriously consider not coming back. That's how serious he thinks it is. Once we have a client list, we constantly talk to them on the telephone. I have no reason to disbelieve him, but I have nothing with me.

Mr. Ramsay: I would like it if you could give us an estimation of the dollar value involved,Mr. Grayston.

Mr. Grayston: From our perspective, no, I couldn't tell you how many cancellations we've had either. I can tell you, though - and I alluded to it in my speech - that a year and a half ago Ontario put through conservation legislation to protect the fishery on Lake of the Woods and Rainy Lake in northwestern Ontario.

People from Minnesota, who primarily are the guests who come to that part of the country, reacted very negatively. We faced almost 50% cancellations from our Minnesota fishermen based on that particular legislation.

My point is that we know they perceive it as negative - and that's the message they're getting now - they might not come. As the gentlemen said here, it's a question of, is it the beginning or the end? How many more States are going to do something similar? What will be the impact? If it is 20% or 30%, or 15%, that may be enough to kill some businesses.

Mr. Bolster: Is the government prepared to gamble with the future of our industry? We're not. We don't want to. It's too damned risky. But if the government enacts it, it will indeed be gambling with the potential of hundreds of millions of dollars into Canada. We don't have the force to stop it, but we sure as hell don't like it.

Mr. Ramsay: We on this side of the table don't have the force to stop it, either, and it appears as though the registration requirement is going to go through, because it's a central feature of Bill C-68.

.1510

Mr. Romanuik, you stated at the top of page 7:

Domestic violence is almost always the end result of the stress caused by today's financial demands and alcohol abuse. There's absolutely no evidence to prove that registering a firearm will change the outcome of domestic violence. There is evidence to show that stress management and alcohol and drug counselling can reduce suicide and family violence.

If there is a negative economic ramification to this bill, to what extent is this going to aggravate the financial factor, the stress factor and the domestic violence factor? For the benefit of the committee, could you respond to that portion of your brief?

Mr. Romanuik: That's a question I never thought about. That's an answer that would have to be left to be seen. Many of our businesses are already running at a capacity rate of only about 60%. A loss of 20% of our guests, in any one year, would be a devastating blow on a business that's trying to pay a mortgage and taxes and to run a business. I think it would only lead to exactly what's causing so many problems, which is more alcohol, more violence, and more crime.

Mr. Ramsay: Would it create unemployment, and if so, to what extent?

Mr. Romanuik: In northern Saskatchewan alone, much of our aboriginal community depends solely on its ability to work through the spring, summer and fall months in the outfitting industry. The demise of that industry would take away the livelihoods of the entire population there. With the loss of trapping in northern Saskatchewan, we have a large number of people who have nothing to do now. With the loss of the outfitting industry or any portion of it, we would only have more people in areas where poverty, suicide and drug and alcohol abuse are already at staggering figures. I think we'd be much better off to target that rather than this.

Mr. Ramsay: I'd like comments to that question from the other witnesses as well, with regard to the domestic area, the unemployment, and the stress that might be caused. Let's start with unemployment. What impact, if any, would it have in your areas?

Mr. Bolster: If the industry was to go to pot, as the expression might be, then there could be a lot of people out of work who don't have the education and background to do anything else. We're talking about trappers, backwoodsmen, native people, and small communities I mentioned like Ross River and Mayo. There isn't anything else. There's a little bit of fishing in the summer, outfitting in the fall and trapping in the wintertime.

You, as government people, have to consider what happened to the trapping industry when Europe and other parts of the world did that anti-fur lobby. Those people in the north have suffered a great deal from that. It's slowly starting to come back and now we're going to add things like this to it.

How are these people going to register all these guns, and will they? I don't know anybody who is registering. So how many criminals are we going to make whenever this thing gets enacted? It's unbelievable. What's the point of it? We have people working for us who cannot read or write. What the heck are they going to do with them?

Mr. Grayston: Our 1,600 businesses in northern Ontario have a payroll of approximately $131 million annually. For many small northern communities, that's a critical payroll.

Our Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation has done studies indicating that every American dollar coming into one of those communities circulates five times before it leaves. We're talking about anyone from the local bread man, right up to the local hardware store, to the guy who pumps the gas. American tourists spending $100 million in Ontario is critical to us. We quite honestly can't see any of that eroding, or we see a demise in these businesses in that level of payroll.

As far as the domestic violence is concerned, I'm not one to comment on it. I don't know much about it. But if we look at the suicide -

Mr. Ramsay: Would you comment on the unemployment?

Mr. Grayston: On the unemployment, there are no other jobs in northern Ontario. The forest and mining industries have declined. We are resource based in northern Ontario. There isn't any other place to work. So that form of tourism is critical.

.1515

The suicide end was interesting. My vice-president advised me when he came down. He has a native reserve in northwestern Ontario, about 200 miles north of him, with 1,000 people in it. In the last six weeks, four between the ages of 20 and 30 have committed suicide, all of them using rope. None of them used a firearm and firearms are available.

If someone wants to commit suicide, they don't necessarily have to worry about a gun.

As Mr. Romanuik said, we could be dealing with a lot of other issues to correct some of those problems rather than worrying about spending the money and worrying about crime control or gun control.

Ms Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): Thank you, gentlemen, for coming today. We appreciate very much you're letting us know a lot of things that we need to know before making final decisions.

I still am not totally clear about why there is resistance by Americans coming into Canada. They are not going to have to do anything more except fill out this special declaration form. We have tens of thousands of Americans coming into Canada every year to hunt. Millions of Americans own guns, but the Americans aren't concerned enough about these millions to have them register the guns. What possible interest would the American authorities have - with the tens of thousands who come over to hunt, which is just a small group of those who own guns in the United States - in the little bit of information they are putting down on a piece of paper at the border, when they are not interested enough to register the guns in their own country?

Mr. Romanuik: There is a lot of interest in the United States, as we all know, about registering guns. They have an anti-gun lobby there that is stronger than the one here, and registering guns is an ongoing battle.

The fact of the matter is that in the U.S. criminologists at many universities have done studies and they have evidence and proof that shows that gun registration will do nothing for crime control. Different sociologists who have done studies have proof that there is -

Ms Phinney: That's not my question. I understand that side of the argument. I am asking what these individuals fear is going to happen to them in the United States when they go back because they have registered in Canada? What is going to happen?

Mr. Romanuik: They fear the same thing we do, that registration means inevitable confiscation. By registering their gun at the border with our customs people....

It will not be a simple form. If the form was here for us to see, we would know for sure, but if they fill the form out, immediately it can be sent by computer back to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the FBI. They are then registered in their country. For the same reasons we don't want to be registered. A computer hacker can then get those registrations and know where those guns are. If the FBI chooses to confiscate, then it will know where those firearms are.

Ms Phinney: But they don't have that authority now to confiscate just because somebody has a gun.

Mr. Romanuik: If they decide, some day, to enact such a law, they can. Because of the bombing last week, which was a terrorist bombing, they are looking at some very startling ways to undermine and come up with who those people may be and look at that.

Ms Phinney: So their concern is mainly for something that may happen in the future.

Mr. Romanuik: Exactly.

Ms Phinney: It's not something that's going to happen next June 17 when they come in, go hunting, go back on June 29. Nothing is going to happen to them on the day when they step back over the American border.

Mr. Romanuik: Except that the FBI will know where that firearm is. They will know that the fellow owns firearms.

Ms Phinney: That's a problem within their own country if they decide at some point that they can't have registration.

I've just had something clarified regarding what customs is going to do. This is for Mrs. Venne, too. Customs has not decided yet how much to charge. When it does decide, you will be able to do the registration in advance. So you people would be able to send the forms to them and they could do it in advance. It would be much cheaper that way - this is the intent - and much faster.

I am presuming an answer with this question. If this bill is passed, in whatever form, would you people be informing your potential clients of the regulations? I'm asking this because one of your groups mentioned the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. I've got a lot of people in my office who, once they find out what the bill means, are surprised. They say, ``This is totally different information from what I received from my organization, the Ontario Federation of Hunters and Anglers''.

.1520

There's a lot of misinformation out there. People are scared of things they don't know and a lot of them are absolutely not true.

Would you be willing to be a source of information to these people? If you were given information about the bill that was correct, would you send it down to your potential clients?

Mr. Romanuik: We would have to. That's part of the job of doing business, full disclosure. When we sell a trip, we have to tell them what they're in for.

You say ``full of information''. You are exactly correct on that, because for the past few months we have been reading that a document called Strategy for Gun Control, with lists of all the guns that will be banned, those with four-inch barrels and on and on. In Bill C-68, there is nothing for us to read. That will all be done by regulation.

To pass Bill C-68 almost tells me we would be passing some sort of police state where somebody else could make laws without having really good reasons. That is the concern.

Ms Phinney: I wonder if you've thought about what it would do to your business or how much more business you would get if Canada ever had handgun hunting? Have you thought about this? Do you think it's something that we should do a study on? Would you be interested in that? They have it in the United States; it's very widespread there.

Mr. Romanuik: Yes, of course. We would do a study into it and see what potential there is. Without doing a study, we don't know for sure what potential there is.

Ms Phinney: I have a question about bows being used in hunting. With this bill, we have put some restriction on the crossbow. Do you feel we should do that? Do you feel that it would be better to restrict all bows, or no bows? Is anyone familiar with that?

The Chair: Do you deal with those people who do crossbow hunting?

Mr. Bolster: We are not in favour of gun registration or restrictions on our clients, so I can only say we won't be in favour of people restricting bows or crossbows. I don't have any crossbow hunters, but we do get several every year who hunt with a compound bow.

Ms Phinney: Anybody else?

Mr. Romanuik: The idea of putting a crossbow as a restricted weapon or completely banning a pistol or a one-handed crossbow seems ludicrous because we have no evidence to show that crossbows or one-handed crossbows contribute to crime. Yes, there is some evidence that an arrow can penetrate body armour, but you can't hide one under your jacket. They are hard to sneak around downtown. They are very big, and it's ridiculous to even think that people are going to start robbing stores or doing crimes with something that takes five minutes to reload and that you cannot hide.

Ms Phinney: I have just one more short question. The permit to hunt in Canada, according to the new bill, will be for 60 days. Do you feel that's long enough?

Mr. Bolster: It should probably be longer than that, because a lot of us leave to go to the woods and we're gone for four or five months and do all our paperwork in advance. It's only when we get notified of a cancellation....

This is one of the problems customs is going to have trouble with, getting our folks in. This winter I had a party of four cancel. If it had been on short notice, I obviously would want to fill up those places from a short list that I keep. I rushed by airplane to get out of the bush, to get to a telephone to start phoning to try to fill up the space. Sometimes I might have only four or five days. That gentleman who is going to come to hunt with me first has to travel for two days to get to me. So if there's no way for him to bring his gun and do the necessary stuff at the border and get through without a hitch, he's just not going to make it.

Ms Phinney: I don't think that was my question. The permit the Americans are going to get to come into Canada is going to be a 60-day permit.

Mr. Bolster: Yes, it's going to be valid for 60 days, but if I leave two months before the hunting season -

Ms Phinney: Yes, but you live here. I am talking about Americans coming into Canada.

Mr. Romanuik: She is talking about the import-export permit, not registration.

Mr. Bolster: Yes, but we have to orchestrate for our clients. We have to supply them with the documentation.

.1525

Ms Phinney: But he could do it at the border, himself.

Mr. Bolster: Yes, if he gets through and it's enacted. They don't stay here for 60 days.

Ms Phinney: They don't stay for 60 days.

Mr. Bolster: No.

Ms Phinney: So is 60 days long enough?

Mr. Romanuik: It would be long enough if we agreed with temporary registration and import-export permits. But we don't agree with temporary registration or temporary possession certificates, because you have no evidence to prove that those folks do any crime or contribute to crime. So what is the point?

Ms Phinney: I heard you, sir, but we want to make this bill as good as possible and we want to make it good for you people. I'm just asking you, is 60 days good, or you would like it longer or shorter?

Mr. Grayston: I agree with the fellows, but just to point out, we have people who come and go bear hunting in April and moose hunting in November.

Ms Phinney: And they stay?

Mr. Grayston: No, but they go back and forth, so they're going to fill out two permits on that plane. If there is 60 days, they'd have to do it twice. So then there'd be twice the fee and twice everything else.

Ms Phinney: Thank you.

The Chair: I just have one point.

When the customs people were here we asked them about that. They said that on the second application, since a lot of the material would be in the computer, it would be a much quicker approval. So on the second, third or fourth time it wouldn't take the same time.

The other thing that Ms Phinney was addressing was they said they were trying to facilitate the completion of the application form before they arrived at the border. If it was completed, it should take only five minutes or so. It would not take a long time. The problems would arise for the people who didn't have the information and didn't fill out the forms before they came.

I respect what you say. There are some who, in principle, won't want to do it. That's another question.

Mr. Romanuik: I have a hard time thinking it can take only five minutes, because I live in Saskatchewan and when I cross the border, where they almost know me, to do trade shows, etc., it takes me a lot longer than five minutes now. At an airport when you come in through customs, there is already a line-up.

The Chair: You're right. They're not talking about where there are line-ups. They're just saying that if all the paperwork was done in advance - which they would try to facilitate - it wouldn't take a lot of additional time.

Before I continue with the rounds, I want to ask the committee this. Audrey McLaughlin, the leader of the New Democratic Party and the member for the Yukon, is here. She's not a member of the committee. We require unanimous consent. She would like to do a five-minute round of questioning. Are you in agreement that I insert her at an appropriate time in the line-up of questioners?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Do you mind if she does it now? We would still go to the opposition next.

Audrey, you have five minutes.

Ms McLaughlin (Yukon): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I will be quite brief.

I think one of the things in this legislation that has been lost in the whole discussion is the issue of safety. The department's own statistics indicate that the people most at risk from the illegal use of firearms are women in their homes, and those who attempt or, sadly, are successful at suicide. I would agree with the witness who said those are not issues that are seriously addressed, in my view, by our society. They are issues for which you virtually cannot get any money, and in fact have been cut back in the recent federal budget.

My first question will be related more to your particular profession - again, though, related to the safety issue.

There are two issues. One is that of stolen weapons. I wonder if you have any anecdotal or statistical evidence in your business of weapons that are stolen by people who come to outfit. Is that a concern of yours or do you have any incidents of this?

Second, do you have any statistical or anecdotal evidence of people on outfitting expeditions or in the various professions that you represent, who have lost their lives through weapons. Are these weapons under discussion properly stored? Could you perhaps tell the committee what safety measures you take in your profession to store weapons and make sure that there is safety enacted on the trips that you take?

I would ask anyone who would like to answer.

Mr. Bolster: As to safety, the current regulations that we have to adhere to now as professionals are adhered to. Our clients and their guns are taken into remote areas to hunt. Other than the sportsman's type of safety that all hunters should know, we don't have anything special.

Concerning lock-ups, while these people are with us, they have their guns virtually 24 hours a days, so we're not aware of any that have been stolen. We're not aware of any crimes that have been committed with these rifles.

.1530

While I have a chance, I'd like the Liberals, if they're enacting this bill, to remember that there is a fortune in the United States in customized rifles. Most clients pack them, and they do not have serial numbers. They're worth many thousands of dollars, built specifically for hunting. So if they do this, I hope they will consider that.

Mr. Romanuik: In Saskatchewan most of us take special precautions with firearms because of safety. My safety is at risk when I have a fellow with me who has a firearm with which I'm not familiar. We take special precautions such as not letting them load their firearms until we deem it very necessary. Their firearms are stored so that they can't be stolen. We don't have to worry about that, because, as the fellow said, they are mostly customized rifles and those guys guard them very carefully. They want to take their rifles home, because those are prized possessions.

I do not know of a single firearm being stolen or lost in Saskatchewan, for as long as I can remember. There's no evidence of any crimes or accidents. In Alberta, I guess, there was one accident a few years ago where a foreigner was shot and killed, but that was a hunting accident. More hunters coming up here end up being injured or killed in a car accident than by firearms accidents.

Mr. Silye (Calgary Centre): And they were registered too.

Mr. Romanuik: And they were registered goods.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Grayston: I don't think we can add much to the safety issues, because it's quite similar in Ontario. But I will add that I also am not aware of any firearms being stolen from any of our 1,600 businesses. I certainly have never heard of any crime issues associated with them. It just doesn't happen, for the reasons they've said. These guns are very special. These folks are here for a week to do some form of hunting and they're very careful with their firearms.

Ms McLaughlin: I have a supplementary question concerning border points. In remote areas - in particular Mr. Bolster, as a pilot, will know this - I've received a lot of requests, some of them from British Columbia because of the shared border, some of them from the Yukon, not just from outfitters but also from other people who have tourism or recreational businesses during the summer, about the difficulties because of the arrangements that have to be made for border points. You don't have staff all the time and they have to be called in.

I wonder, Mr. Bolster, if you could comment on that. Perhaps that's not a problem in your business, I don't know. It certainly has been in other remote areas. There are border crossing points but staff have to be called in. It's not like going through in Toronto or Vancouver.

Mr. Bolster: In Dawson City they have to call people in to clear customs. In Whitehorse they call them in to clear customs and aircraft transportation. Almost all of our clients come by air.

Yes, it poses a problem. We've sat on the tarmac at times for two hours waiting for customs to clear our hunters. In the off season in Dawson City, our spring bear hunters for example arrive at the airport. They phone Beaver Creek, which is 400 miles away, and say, ``I'm a hunter going hunting with Lee Bolster. I'm in Dawson City and I will be coming back in two weeks''. The answer is, ``Thank you very much'' - bang. And that's Canada customs. It's legal, approved by them, and everything.

Ms McLaughlin: That one in B.C., I think, is the same.

Mr. Bolster: The same.

Ms McLaughlin: So, people are aware.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: To the representative of the Saskatchewan Outfitters Association, Mr. Romanuik, I would like to say that the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation encourages right, as we speak, the Americans to boycott Canada for hunting activities. Have you been consulted? Has that federation consulted you before encouraging Americans not to come?

[English]

Mr. Romanuik: No, they did not. The Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation felt, as we did - and we had discussed this with them before - that it was going to have a significant impact on the outfitting industry.

.1535

They recognized the size of our industry, so they sent letters down to the States indicating to them what this bill was about and to be aware. They wanted to be able to find some way to measure the impact it would have. They requested those hunting associations to try to indicate and measure what kind of response their members would have and to make it known to the government, and to them and us. They didn't quite expect them to use this method to indicate the ramifications.

They didn't directly ask them to boycott. They asked them to give them an indication of the ramifications and the effects, and we have it now.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Response! Let's be clear about it. There certainly wasn't several ways of doing it.

Don't you think it's a little bit illogical to say to people to boycott and to respond? Then you tell me that this boycott will have a disastrous and very onerous economical ramifications. I find it a bit illogical. Maybe you should discuss this with the Federation.

[English]

Mr. Romanuik: The boycott is bringing the economic ramifications to bear right now. The legislation itself would bring the economic ramifications to bear next year and the year after and the year after. This boycott that's going on is bringing that ahead right now, letting us see it right now, and it's showing us and the Government of Canada and to you folks what it can do.

The Wildlife Federation felt that it's better to see the damage it will do right now rather than wait to see the damage after it can't be undone. There is still time, hopefully, for this thing to be headed off and crime control to be looked at. Gun control can be shelved, where it belongs.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: I would like one of the outfitting representative to tell me if there is game in Canada that isn't hunted in the States? Are there any Caribous in the States?

[English]

Mr. Bolster: Alaska has all but stone sheep, and the lower 48 have all the other species that are hunted across Canada.

So does the Soviet Union, and its frontiers are just brand new. It is going to be our single biggest competition coming down the pike.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Theoretically, when I go hunting or fishing, I am supposed to know already the locations where I can hunt and fish certain kinds of fish or game. I can't go anywhere else. You tell me now that there are three locations where I can hunt: Canada, United States and Russia. I am not always going to hunt at the same place.

Don't you think that this care or this boycott is just to put oppression, knowing very well that their hunters are going to come anyway? As it was said earlier, their hunters are not going to be deterred by the amount they will have to pay for a permit. We are told that the fee would be around $50 or $60. Don't you think that their hunters will say: Unfortunately, we have to be subjected to this law but it will not prevent us to go? That is what I will do myself.

[English]

Mr. Romanuik: One of the most important parts that hunters look for when they come hunting is convenience, somewhere they can go with the fewest hassles, the least amount of time spent in the air and en route, because they are business people. They leave Sunday, they come here, they hunt for their days, they go home and they go back to work. If they're looking for convenience as well as good hunting opportunities, they can find it at home or in Alaska or Russia or Africa or several other places in the world.

.1540

It could be a two-or-three-hour wait at customs because you happen to have 10 or 15 fellows on an airplane who all had to fill out documentation and had to have a search done through the PAL system before these documents could be done. They don't just sign the form; they must be searched. I have to go through a search and they have to check my background. They will want to check these people's backgrounds too. What is the purpose of making them fill out documentation if you don't check on whether this guy is a known escaped convict.

They do not want to come here and be burdened with a whole bunch of paperwork and inconvenience. There are easier places to go to hunt for the same species. They come here because they want to come to Canada, but they may sacrifice that.

Mr. Bolster: To answer your question about other jurisdictions, the cost and whether the Americans will come here, I am sure that a good volume of Americans will still come here to hunt. My point in the brief states that in order to ruin our business, you don't have to take all of our hunters away from us. You could take 20% or 30% and have the same effect.

The Soviet Union, today, is a cheaper place to hunt in than Canada. We've had 70 years of practice developing an infrastructure and a quality of service and a client base, and that's the edge we have today. The more you hamper us, the more restrictions, the fewer clients, the more they go someplace else. It gives more economic opportunity for those people to get their ducks in a row so they'll take more of our clients.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: In short, the solution would be to facilitate access to customs. That is all I meant.

[English]

The Chair: We're going to have the wildlife federations here on May 15 and the one from Saskatchewan will probably be among them. The National Coalition of Wildlife Federations has been invited, so its representatives can answer themselves.

We'll go now to Mr. Bodnar for five minutes.

Mr. Bodnar (Saskatoon - Dundurn): Again just to deal with the question at customs and for American hunters to get into Canada, Mr. Romanuik, I believe you mentioned that they are sometimes required to sign a declaration, which includes declaring their gun and the serial number. This is for purposes of making sure that the gun that enters is also the gun that leaves. Correct?

I take it, then, that if such a system was put in place, or kept in place as it is now, and made no more stringent than it is now, that would satisfy your needs.

Mr. Romanuik: The system that's in place now is the same as yourself or myself going skiing. We have to fill out a little card to make sure we bring the same pair of skis home or the same camera home. That's what is in place now.

This bill is talking about registration. Registration -

Mr. Bodnar: Oh, I realize that, but, Mr. Romanuik, we can change the bill.

Mr. Romanuik: That's good.

Mr. Bodnar: What I am asking is how we can guarantee that the gun coming in today will be the gun that leaves a week from today and goes back to the United States, without causing concern for the hunter who is coming in and without disclosing any serial number to anybody else? How can we do that? Can we do it by keeping the existing system in place, or can a few changes be made? What can be done?

Mr. Romanuik: I think the existing system is plenty, but under this legislation and with the talk that has been going and the strategy for gun control, a major part of this thing is talk about controlling smuggling and import-export. That is all part and parcel of the bill. Leaving the system as it is entirely would make us all happy. Let's just drop Bill C-68 and concentrate on crime control.

Mr. Bodnar: That's what we're trying to do, but we have a different idea of crime control at times. But there are things that can be changed if they aren't good and aren't going to work. If they are going to put you out of business, then it's something we had better take a good look at. If it's going to discourage certain people from coming to this country who do no harm, and it's being done and it causes great economic effect, maybe we should take a look at it. That's why we're here.

.1545

I take it, then, that you're saying that if we leave it as is, then fine, with respect to the border controls that are required on hunters. Is that correct?

You've indicated in your brief, Mr. Romanuik, that more restrictive gun control legislation threatens to seriously erode your business. It talks about spending and the resulting jobs and economic benefits. Then it goes on to say that law-abiding gun owners should not be forced to jump through ever more bureaucratic hoops.

What do you mean when you're talking about law-abiding citizens in Canada jumping through more bureaucratic hoops?

Mr. Romanuik: The entire bill is a bureaucratic hoop where you talk about particularly stringent search and seizure and inspections of one's home for safe storage without a warrant. You talk about possession certificates and registration certificates. When I go hunting I cannot borrow another fellow's rifle because the registration certificate on the gun may not match the possession certificate I carry.

Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Romanuik, the search provisions do not allow the searching of a private dwelling without a warrant. You are aware of that. The bill requires a warrant for the searching of a home.

Second, if you wanted to borrow my shotgun - and I do have a gun, in case the other members are interested - I can now lend it to you as long as you have your licence or the FAC. I can give it to you and you can use it. There won't be any difference under the new legislation.

Mr. Romanuik: Under your direct supervision, you can give me the licence. As I read it, you have to be hunting with me and supervising me.

Mr. Bodnar: No, not at all. It'll be the same as now, except that the gun is going to be registered. That's the only difference.

Mr. Romanuik: With regard to bureaucratic hoops, I'm talking about the new possession certificate. We have the FAC in place. That has been in place since 1978. That requires instruction to learn how to use a firearm. In 1992 this was upgraded to where you would have to take another firearms course, which is not as good a course as the course that's presently in place in Saskatchewan. We had to downgrade our course to be able to qualify for the federal course.

This bill talks about more regulation and longer periods of time -

Mr. Bodnar: That's what I'm trying to get to specifically, because firearm courses are still going to be required. That's not being changed. Where is there more regulation, is what I'm asking. I'm trying to get down to the nitty-gritty on this, because I don't see it and I'm wondering where you see it.

Mr. Romanuik: Registration. That's the nitty-gritty. It says here that you will register my firearms by mail. Can anybody tell me how it is possible to register my firearm by mail? The present registration system already shows that each of the firearms has to be registered by a police officer who has to record those numbers. A good percentage, to the tune of 40% to 50%, of the serial numbers are incorrectly noted. To do it by mail, you're going to have to have me going to police officers to -

Mr. Bodnar: Your concern is that what is being suggested will not be easy to implement. If you have that gun for a lifetime, registration of that gun will be a once-in-a-lifetime registration. It may be by mailing a one-page certificate. If registration is once in a lifetime, and if you fill out a document once in a lifetime, regardless of what the government does - it's Mr. Rock's problem as to whether he can implement it properly or put it in the right system - it really doesn't have much, if any, effect on you. You can fill out that form while watching a hockey or baseball game or just generally doing nothing. You can mail it in and you never have to do it again. Don't you agree?

Mr. Romanuik: You must correct me if I'm wrong. This document says that I will have to register the firearm. It's how I register that firearm up to regulation. It doesn't say it's going to be a once-in-a-lifetime -

.1550

Mr. Bodnar: It will be.

Mr. Romanuik: Okay. When the FAC requirement was put in place by the Liberal government in 1978, that was going to be for a lifetime. Then it went to ten years. Now it's five years. This was all changed by regulation.

I cannot trust this enough to believe it's going to be five years. It could end up one year. I have seen nothing that calms my fears, that tells me this is going to be a once-in-a-lifetime thing for $10. The fee will be regulated after the fact, and that is left up to the bill.

Mr. Bodnar: I guess my fear is also that my income tax could go up to 90% of my earnings. I have to live with that fear. But that isn't the case now.

The Chair: You can answer the question, but he's finished.

Mr. Romanuik: Regarding registration, we have fears, but we know for a fact this is going to cost money. There is no doubt this is going to cost money. We don't know how much it's going to cost, and there is no evidence that you're going to get anything for your value. I don't buy anything that way in my business or my lifestyle. I look for value in what I buy. The Auditor General stated that before any further gun controls or registration systems are put in place, major studies should be done to look at whether they are cost-effective, whether they can do what they promise to do, whether registration of 20 million firearms is achievable.

We have no studies to prove that. We have nothing to prove that it can be done; that it's possible to do it. We don't have enough police officers in this country to register 20 million firearms.

Mr. Grayston: The only point I'd add on this is that the tourist industry has a lot of permits we have to fill out. I'm telling you, there are a lot of permits. I don't know about the federal government, but the Ontario government has tried awfully hard for a cost-recovery basis, because it doesn't believe taxpayers should pay for permits. With the kind of overhead and the salary structure federal civil servants have, I can't believe they can do a permit for $10 and not cost the taxpayer something.

We look, for example, at a highway permit for a sign in Ontario. The Ministry of Transportation tells us that with the staff levels involved in doing that permit, it can't be done for $80. If you're trying to tell us that you can do this for $10 for a lifetime, somehow the taxpayers are going to have to pay additional moneys, because no civil servant works for that pay.

The Chair: Mr. Silye.

Mr. Silye: First of all, I'd like to compliment the witnesses for a very fine presentation. It's obvious your knowledge of the bill is certainly at an extremely good level, a level I think contributes to the committee. I think the Liberal government should be listening to some of the concerns you've brought up about how people come up to Canada and hunt, what kind of long guns they use, and the problems with the fact that the bill does not provide for them to be registered and therefore they'll have to go back home. I just wish, in some cases, that you could question the people who are in favour of this bill, and you could get some better answers, instead of them questioning you. It's obvious they're going to go ahead with this, notwithstanding what evidence you've put forward.

I represent an urban riding, Calgary Centre -

The Chair: As chair of this committee, I have to assure you and the Canadian people that we're going to take these presentations seriously. If they make good arguments - the minister has asked us to consider amendments. To suggest that we won't consider any amendments is not doing justice to the committee.

As far as I'm concerned, we're going to listen to the arguments seriously. If they're convincing - it's up to the committee, the majority - amendments may be made, maybe they won't. It depends on the argument. I want it to be absolutely clear that we're open to amendments. The minister has asked us to consider amendments in three areas.

Mr. Silye, you're not a regular member of the committee, but I want to make that absolutely clear. We're not just automatically going to turn down any amendment.

Mr. Silye: Then let's hope that with the testimony these gentlemen have given today - they are concerned about confiscation without compensation; they're concerned about having to turn a handgun over if it's registered for a specific use. If it's not used it would be taken over whether there would be compensation or not. These things you've indicated you're concerned about and you'd like them done.

.1555

The fact is that there already are current rules within the system you feel are good enough to monitor handguns, to monitor long guns and this then adds an extra bureaucratic burden. The real excuse the Minister of Justice is using to bring in this bill, the cause he is fighting, is that this bill will prevent crime. Registration will prevent crime. Tougher sentencing will prevent crime.

We haven't touched much on sentencing, but Bill C-68 is supposed to reduce the number of people who die from firearms. The numbers the government uses are 1,100 suicides each year, 200 homicides, and 100 deaths by accidents with firearms.

Gentlemen, do you believe this bill will prevent or reduce, through registration, the number of suicides, the number of homicides, the number of accidental deaths, and domestic violence, with the bill the way it is in its present form?

Mr. Bolster: I don't think so. If it's a heated family argument, whether the gun is registered or not won't enter into the fact of whether someone uses it for suicide, or to shoot their spouse. What it will do is have the opposite effect. It is going to turn a group of law-abiding Canadians into criminals.

We even have people in the remote portions of Canada who would love to register their guns. We have illiterate people who have no access and who come out once a year. I have people like that who work for me. Once a year they come to a community that doesn't even have adequate services. These people all have guns as part of their lives. Those people, under this thing, will be criminals because those guns will not get registered. They can't read the papers.

Mr. Silye: Mr. Romanuik, do you have any comments?

Mr. Romanuik: I don't believe it is going to have very much effect, if any at all, when we have facts to show - and these statistics are from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics - that alcohol and drug abuse is evident in 70% of males and 50% of all females accused of homicides in 1991. In suicide, between 50 and 60% of those people were under the influence of alcohol when they committed suicide. You also find that in all the domestic violence and suicides, firearms are used less than 30% of the time.

We are only looking at a solution to 30% of the domestic violence or suicide when that 30% is under the influence of alcohol. We would be far better off looking at a way to register alcohol and decide whether a man who beats his wife should be allowed to drink any more, or whether a man who has a record of domestic violence should be allowed to purchase alcohol. A very high percentage of those people are under the influence of alcohol and yet a very low percentage of them actually use a firearm.

Then, before you can say that by taking away the firearm you're going to prevent the crime, you have to ascertain how serious that person is about committing the crime. If he's only a little mad, maybe he'll only use a gun. But if he's really mad, he's going to find something even if it's his bare hands. How can you say taking away the firearm will prevent the crime? When that person has the intent to do the crime he or she will do the crime.

Mr. Silye: In your opinion here today or in reading the bill, has the government given any evidence that a new or additional registration system will reduce crime?

Mr. Bolster: No, sir.

Mr. Romanuik: No. In fact, if you go back and look through Justice Canada statistics you'll find that since the registration of handguns in 1934, and the increased registration again in 1977, it has been no deterrent to crime whatever. Crime has gone up.

The Chair: Perhaps we'll deal with that later, but now it's Mr. Wood's turn for five minutes.

.1600

Mr. Wood (Nipissing): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I have a question forMr. Grayston.

In your brief, you mention that the Kentucky Outdoor Organization, and possibly other state organizations, are circulating letters to their members urging them to boycott Canada if this gun control legislation passes. I wonder if this committee could obtain a copy of that letter or any of the other ones you might have.

Mr. Grayston: That's no trouble. I could send you copies of every one of those letters.

Mr. Wood: Would you send them to the chairman?

Mr. Grayston: Absolutely. We have all of those in the office right now.

Mr. Wood: Second, and it might have been touched on briefly this afternoon, I am interested in the reasons they give for calling for a boycott. Is it because they see the new regulations as a barrier to visiting Canada, or is it a question of principle, in that they oppose any legislation which restricts gun ownership?

Mr. Grayston: The letters I have seen are that it is just very restrictive in coming and the registration seems to be the key, the fact that they are going to be in a computer somewhere.

Mr. Wood: I am also interested in the issue of firearm safe storage and inspection. Nobody has really touched on this yet. Would you say the majority of your members comply with the existing regulations on safe storage?

The Chair: Mr. Bolster, please say yes or no, because we have a written record -

Mr. Wood: It will show Mr. Bolster nodded.

The Chair: We want to make sure the record contains your answers.

Mr. Bolster: Where I live and in the communities I travel in, I don't think so. In my home and other homes in Whitehorse, a bigger centre, yes, I would say they do.

Mr. Wood: What about you, Mr. Romanuik?

Mr. Romanuik: I would say some do, some don't; but the ones who don't are breaking the law. Already they are breaking the law so it's no use to making another law or making the penalty for the violator of that law higher, because we're talking about an unenforceable law in the first place. We already have laws in place dealing with safe storage of firearms.

Mr. Wood: Does anybody ever come around to check?

Mr. Romanuik: Not yet. At present they don't have the right to do that unless I am a registered collector of firearms.

Mr. Wood: I am just wondering if you think that this particular legislation, as is written, will encourage tourist operators like yourselves and individual hunters to store their firearms more responsibily?

Mr. Bolster: I don't really think so. As a professional outfitter, and living half the year in the wilderness with my family, I can tell you of one incident that saved my son's life. He was 11 years old at the time and was trained with firearms even at the young age. I leave a loaded shotgun in my camp, hanging there, for a very specific reason. Ever since he was born, he's been travelling in the bush.

He wasn't 200 yards from camp and he got chased by a big boar grizzly, he and his black dog. He ran, grabbed that shotgun and killed that bear, point blank. He would not be here today if I had adhered to those rules.

I am sure if you look, you'll meet lots and lots of people who have the same stories. So I wouldn't do what they tell me to do in those conditions where I live half my life.

Mr. Wood: Mr. Romanuik, you're talking about registration, the costs and everything else, I know there's been some talk about the registration of firearms. There's also been some talk of trying to make some changes to the bill. I doubt if this will come about, but it is a situation some of us have certainly thought about, especially in some of the rural ridings. I was wondering if you think - and anyone can answer this - your members would be willing to accept changes to this bill which would see all firearm owners register themselves personally on a one-time only basis for life as gun owners as opposed to having to pay to register each weapon they own? Would you register yourself?

.1605

Mr. Romanuik: That's currently what we have with the FAC, and there's really not a lot of opposition to the FAC. It's in place now. That system is in place, and we're willing to live with that.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent (Manicouagan): I would like some more information. Mrs. Venne wanted, amongst other things, that the legislative counsel confirm that the firearms acquisition certificate was issued for life in 1978? Apparently, this was mentioned earlier. Could one of the the legislative counsels provide me with that information?

The Chairman: From what I know, I remember that the certificate was issued for five years, but I am not sure...

[English]

Mr. William Bartlett (Research Officer): It was initially for five years; it's never been for life.

The Chair: I was the minister that introduced that bill.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: You just said it's not too bad. At the time it was attacked almost worse than this.

[Translation]

But I believe that it was for five years.

[English]

Ms Torsney.

Ms Torsney (Burlington): Thank you for coming today. Certainly it's been interesting to listen to your concerns. It's one of the issues that I am worried about and I will continue to address, but I really have to make a couple of comments on your brief and ask you a couple of questions.

Mr. Romanuik, I've been called a lot of things, but I've never been called a fascist until today, and I really do resent that.

Mr. Grayston, I have just a couple of things about your brief. You talk about the study Gary Mauser from Simon Fraser University has done on the cost of this bill. I ask you, have you read the briefs that were presented to us last week by the various groups that were concerned about public health in Canada?

Mr. Grayston: No.

Ms Torsney: I would suggest to you that you get a copy of them, because there are some specific costs in there about the cost of the current situation and about accidents and deaths in our community.

I'd also ask you if you are aware that Dr. Mauser is a marketing professor who is funded by the National Rifle Association for some of his various studies, that he is somebody who is very involved in opposing this legislation, that he has specifically advocated non-compliance with Canadian laws, that he is active on the Internet system with Canadian firearms, that his research work in the past has been called into question because it's fundamentally flawed in many areas. Are you aware of that?

Mr. Grayston: Whether I am or not, you haven't given me any figures as to what you think it's going to cost to register 21 million owners that I can live with either. Whether you feel Dr. Mauser's information is good or not quite honest doesn't carry any weight me at all, because you haven't given me....

You know, you want to sit there and ask that kind of question when we really can't get into a good debate on this, because we're not permitted to ask you those kinds of questions. But the bottom line is that the government, at $10 for life, as I said earlier, can't convince me.... We deal with permits every day. To try to sit there and tell me Dr. Mauser's work isn't any good and you can do it for $10 a person for life is ridiculous.

Ms Torsney: Sir, I was asking you if you were aware of these things. Have you read a copy of this report that was published by the department on the actual cost of firearms registration? It's actually $85 million over five years. We've never tried to hide those figures.

Second, you talk about all the various paperwork that your hunters from the United States have to do, and all these great inconveniences to them. I'd ask you, should we just take down the border? Would that be more convenient for them, that they wouldn't have to go through any restrictions at all? Would that make your life easier, their life easier?

Mr. Romanuik: That's much the scenario they used when the government had trouble cracking down on tobacco smuggling and law-breakers who were bringing in tobacco and stuff: well, what the heck, just drop the tax, so they're not breaking the law any more. That's the same scenario.

.1610

Ms Torsney: Excuse me, I was asking Mr. Grayston.

Mr. Grayston: I don't think anyone would agree we shouldn't have border crossings, because there are elements from the United States we don't want to come into Canada. The issue is how long they have to spend at border crossings and how detailed the search has to be and how much inconvenience....

You're asking me to answer that question, but what you should do is bring in some American hunters and ask them what they're prepared to tolerate to come across the border. Maybe they are. Maybe this won't be an issue to them at all, but we have dealt quite honestly -

Ms Torsney: Mr. Grayston, you have represented a position here that your American hunters are going to have some hardship and that we're going to lose dollars. You are representing, in some way, your business and those American hunters, your clients. That's why I am asking you whether it would be more convenient for you and for your hunters who come from the United States if we didn't have those restrictions, some of which you think are a good idea, apparently, and some of which you don't.

I would also ask you, while you're answering this question, if these same groups came before the committee on Bill C-17 and in fact opposed it and are now saying it's fine and they can live with it.

Mr. Bolster: Faced with what we have here -

Ms Torsney: No, Bill C-17. Did you oppose C-17 as well?

Mr. Bolster: I didn't know it was done until it was over.

Ms Torsney: So your group never came before the committee?

Mr. Grayston: I don't know if they did or not. I've only been with NOTO for a period of time. That was before my time.

Ms Torsney: Being a member of the government, I think the Canadian government has some rights and some ability to do some things for the protection of all Canadians. The American opinion is of interest but it is certainly not going to -

The Chair: This is your last question.

Ms Torsney: Fine. I would also just draw to your attention, Mr. Grayston, that in fact you identify on the second-last page of your brief that American tourists avoid areas of controversy such as Ireland. In fact, sir, Ireland was the No. 1 tourist destination for American singles last year.

Mr. Grayston: If you recall, when I read out the brief, I didn't include any of those three locations. I chose not to when I did the verbal portion of the brief. Were you not listening or were you not here?

Ms Torsney: I was here, sir, and I was listening, and it is on the record and we have received a copy of your brief. Why is it that you changed your mind on that point?

Mr. Grayston: Quite honestly, because I wasn't sure either, so I decided at that point that I wouldn't recount those three countries.

I know definitely the issues with the States, though. That's why I was very direct in the position dealing the state of Minnesota. We are dealing with that right now. We are dealing with the state of Minnesota and we know what the cancellations have been as the result of legislation that Ontario put through. It was more on a conservation issue, but we know how the Americans reacted to that piece of legislation. What I was trying to do is say that we have a specific situation where we know what's happened.

Ms Torsney: I would suggest to you that perhaps there's an opportunity to help communicate with your constituents.

Mr. Romanuik: Could I answer one question? You talked quite a bit about Bill C-17. During the discussion on Bill C-17 there were a lot of MPs who opposed it also. If you noticed, it was passed by a majority, but over one-third of the MPs did not vote on C-17.

Likewise, back in 1977, when Bill C-51 was passed, over one-half of the members of Parliament - it was a Liberal government at that time - did not vote on Bill C-51. You asked us if we opposed it then or not. Yes, we opposed it then. It passed regardless of what we thought. Now we can live with it. We don't like it, but we can live with it. We have to live with it, because we have no choice.

If that's the question you are asking us again, will we live with this if it's passed? I guess we have no choice. That's how Adolf Hitler and Joseph Staline ruled their countries too.

Ms Torsney: Back to that facist....

The Chair: I should point out that the bill in 1976-77 was an omnibus bill. It wasn't just on gun control. It dealt with amendments to the parole act, amendments to the prisons act. It was called something like the Program for Safety and Security. I forget the exact term. It dealt with a wide range of things. We did that so it would attract people who might not have liked the gun control but might have liked the other parts.

We go to Mr. Thompson for five minutes.

.1615

Mr. Thompson (Wild Rose): I would like to point out right away that the Mauser figures of $300 million or $500 million, and the little book Ms Torney held up, $85 million - those figures are just a wild guess, like everybody else's. Nobody knows for sure what it's going to cost because nobody knows for sure how many guns are involved. The cost is something that we know is going to be there. We know it's going to be expensive. I trust the Auditor General when he estimates $500 million. We could play that game all day and never really know what it's going to cost. I don't believe that book any more than I would my older sister if she came up with a figure.

I'd like to just get your comments on this. In this legislation rules are set that are different from those we have been accustomed to. The rules regarding search warrants are a little different from what we're accustomed to. You're guilty until you're proven innocent. There is confiscation without compensation. Then there's legislation. That thing would be passed and then it would be regulated by a small group of people called Order in Council. I want to ask you gentlemen point blank, does that sound like a good, clean, clear-cut democracy to you? Yes or no?

Mr. Romanuik: It sounds like a ruler, not a democratic government. It sounds like a ruler.

Mr. Thompson: Any further comments on those lines?

Ms Phinney: On a point of order, I don't know how any of our members can sit there and talk about confiscation in this bill when there is no confiscation in this bill.

Mr. Thompson: The government is already confiscating certain weapons, so we know it could happen. We know it could happen, but there's nothing to address it.

The Chair: We'll be debating this when we get to clause-by-clause consideration. Now's not the time for debate. We have witnesses before us. Proceed with the questioning, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Thompson: Under this regulation there is nothing to stop confiscation, with no guarantee of compensation.

Mr. Romanuik: There is no protection of the private property of the individual in this bill. Whether my gun has a four-inch barrel or a six-inch barrel or whatever it is, or it may be a scary-looking mini-14, there is no justification for anyone to tell me they should be able to take that weapon away solely because it's scary to look at. I enjoy my firearms as many people enjoy paintings. Maybe if we took away paintings so that art thieves wouldn't want to steal them, we wouldn't have art theft. This is along the same lines, I feel.

Mr. Thompson: As good sensible gentlemen, let me ask you a question regarding something that's actually happened in and around Ottawa in the last eleven months, I believe. Six women have been killed by their estranged husbands. It came out in the Sunday Sun, in case anybody wants to look at it. The latest one was shot with a 12-gauge shotgun. Two were strangled, one was bludgeoned to death with a club, and two were knifed to death. Just in your own frame of mind, would you say out of the six women, who were all killed by the estranged husband - I'm not sure what that means, but that's the word they use - one with a gun, five with three other methods, do you believe we have a gun problem or do we have a killer problem?

Mr. Romanuik: I'd like to see and know how many of those folks were under the influence of alcohol at the time. We definitely have a domestic violence and alcohol problem, not a gun problem, because if the fellow used a 12-gauge shotgun, he was obviously very angry and he might have completed it anyway.

Mr. Thompson: I agree, and I think we'd find, if we did some statistics, a lot of people wouldn't be in prison if it wasn't for booze. I think that's quite true.

One last question, down the line. Having visited with a lot of people, I'd really be interested to know how you feel about this, based on your conversation with different individuals; and you can be honest about it. If you were to have a referendum in Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Yukon, strictly on this bill, and if they knew all these little things that aren't little, how do you think the referendum would go?

.1620

Mr. Romanuik: I have no doubt in Saskatchewan it would not pass.

An hon. member: Not true, not true.

Mr. Romanuik: You have polls that ask questions. I have articles from Prime Minister Chrétien's speeches that say the Liberals want government inspired not by polls but by principles. The people of Saskatchewan recognize that crime control starts before a person buys a gun. Crime prevention is where it all goes. If you would ask in those polls whether they would rather see alcohol removed from many households, as opposed to a firearm, I'm sure they would say yes, the alcohol should go first.

In Saskatchewan, I have no doubt, there would be staunch opposition to this bill.

Mr. Grayston: In rural and northern Ontario they would probably vote against it. I think in urban Ontario they would vote for it.

If you went to the GTA... I use my mother in Toronto as an example. Before I came here I asked, Mom, if they put gun control through, how do you feel about that? She said, absolutely, as soon as possible. I talked to her about the gun I own and the hunting I do. She doesn't feel the same way about that.

But yes, I think in urban Toronto, they would vote for gun control. I think in Mr. Wood's rural riding - he happens to be my member of Parliament - he'd have a hard time finding a majority vote for gun control in Nipissing.

Mr. Thompson: Do you believe it might be okay with Canadians to regionalize registration, if for example the City of Toronto thought they wanted it, the people wanted it in Toronto, the council? Would it be okay to allow the city to register all the guns within their limits, in your view?

Mr. Bolster: If those are the people who actually want this, it would probably be fine. But for rural Canada to be subjected to the same laws, rules and changes, and have a great deal of personal and economic hardship, I can't buy that. I think they should be left alone.

Mr. Romanuik: I also feel that before you could ask Toronto and those places if they want this, you would have to make sure they're aware of the regulations already in place. Just asking a simple question, do you want gun control, might result in a nice, simple answer. But the fact is probably 80% of those people don't know we already have registration of restricted weapons and FACs. They only hear the horror stories about the things that happen, as in Quebec the other day. They have to be educated on what we have.

We hear about the injuries and the stuff the people talk about. The anti-gun coalition talks about the savings to hospitals, the savings in financial institutions, because if they got rid of guns and got rid of bullet wounds, well, it just doesn't even begin to tackle the amount of money that's used in alcohol, that is drug-related, in car accidents, and many other things.

In crime, we have Justice Canada statistics showing firearms are used in less than 30% of the crimes, in the 30% of the homicides. We would be doing nothing to solve the problem by introducing this legislation in Toronto. They would still have the same crime they had before you introduced the legislation in Toronto.

The Chair: Mr. Gallaway.

Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): I have a question for Mr. Grayston on a point of clarification.

You mentioned a $131 million payroll in northern Ontario. Is that a payroll related to hunting or is that hunting and fishing?

Mr. Grayston: That is hunting and fishing. That's the payroll associated with the 1,600 businesses that NOTO represents.

Mr. Gallaway: If you can give it to me, what would be the approximate breakdown comparing hunting and fishing?

Mr. Grayston: Of the 1,600 businesses, 56% are associated with hunting.

.1625

Mr. Gallaway: Okay, thank you.

Do you understand why an American group would boycott Canada for fishing purposes because of gun registration?

Mr. Grayston: They wouldn't.

Mr. Gallaway: They wouldn't?

Mr. Grayston: No. We have Americans who come to our resorts to fish and fish only.

Mr. Gallaway: Perhaps I can address this to other people, but I understand that the riflemen from the Kentucky Outdoor Association are suggesting to their members that they not come here. They are suggesting that they boycott Canada for fishing purposes because we have gun registration. Does that really make any sense to you?

Mr. Romanuik: They are saying they don't want to put up with the hassle if they come, because they haven't committed any crimes. They say they are not criminals or thieves and they're not going to contribute to our crime rate. They want to make a point, and they are making a point. We're all here to make a point today.

Mr. Gallaway: As I understand it, in advance of entering Canada, an American carrying a revolver would have to fill out a form for a restricted weapon. Do you know if that has had any effect on Americans entering Canada for shooting competitions?

Mr. Romanuik: Bill C-17 restricted all weapons to 10-shot clips. That had a big effect on American competition shooters coming to Canada to compete with their handguns, because they had only 10 shots instead of previously having 15 shots in their guns. In some of the competitions, they need all they can get. It's timed events and accuracy events, as well.

In hunting, no, because they are not able to bring a handgun across when they're going hunting. They can bring the handgun across only in certain situations. That has to be a target-shooting situation.

Mr. Gallaway: Based on your knowledge of Bill C-68, could you agree with me that the conditions being imposed on American hunters - in other words, those hunters entering with long guns - will be no more onerous than those currently imposed on Americans entering with restricted weapons?

Mr. Romanuik: Yes, but I just told you that the fellows with restricted weapons aren't coming here any more. I can't tell you the percentage, but lots have stopped coming here because of the impositions on them from the last bill. They were told, we don't want you here, because you're a potential criminal. Imposing a regulation, extra restrictions, on any person who doesn't break a law is telling him you don't trust him. When Bill C-17 was enacted they quit coming here. There's no reason to believe they won't quit coming here when Bill C-68 is enacted.

Mr. Gallaway: Who's telling them that they're criminals? I'm fascinated by this topic.

Mr. Romanuik: You can read between the lines. You tell me if I have a firearm with a barrel less than 4 inches, I'm grandfathered. It is yet to be seen if the new regulation reads that way, but supposedly I will be grandfathered. But since my brother, who has never broken a law in his life, doesn't have a handgun with a barrel length that's shorter than 4 inches, he will not be allowed to buy one. Why is that? Since I had one before Bill C-68, do you say there is less chance of my committing a crime with it than him committing a crime with it?

You tell me what the messsage is that you're getting out. None of us have committed crimes, so why, for no apparent reason, is it necessary to restrict the type of firearms we can buy?

Mr. Gallaway: Last Thursday we had a group of experts here, including the Canada Safety Council, and also an interesting group of doctors from the Canadian Public Health Association. They could see all sorts of reasons and benefits flowing from the registration of guns. These are a group of MDs and PhDs and other disciplines.

From a person sitting in my chair, who do I believe?

Mr. Romanuik: I think we should believe the Auditor General when the Auditor General says not to go forward with any more gun controls or gun registration until you do studies that prove what it can do, will do and is feasible to do.

Mr. Gallaway: Presumably, these people in their expertise, have done that. Have you consulted with the public health units in Saskatchewan?

.1630

Mr. Romanuik: No, I haven't. I've read through statistics compiled by shooting organizations that have taken statistics from Justice Canada.

Mr. Gallaway: Other than anti-gun groups or the gun lobby, who have you consulted with? Other than gun clubs, who have you consulted with?

Mr. Romanuik: I've read all available information.

Mr. Gallaway: Where's the information coming from?

Mr. Romanuik: Well, I've read some of the other information too, whatever is made available to read.

Mr. Gallaway: By whom?

Mr. Romanuik: By the anti-gun coalition, by Wendy Cukier - I've read those articles - and yes, her articles. If you don't allow anybody to debate what she says, it can be construed to be all factual. But if you debate the articles...I'm saying there are far better ways to prevent crime than to focus on the end result of crime or the tool that may be used.

Mr. Gallaway: Well, that's our time.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. St-Laurent, do you have other questions?

Mr. St-Laurent: You have mentioned earlier, Mr. Romanuik, the history of the various bills dealing with firearms. You seem to follow that very closely. Given this historical perspective, can you tell us very briefly what your organization has lost or won - I would imagine that it has mostly lost a few things - with each successive bill. I don't need many details.

In 1977 and in 1980, what have you lost? Could you please elaborate a little on that?

[English]

Mr. Romanuik: It's a pretty far-reaching question. I didn't study the 1977 bill as well as I studied this one, so I'm not 100% sure what was in it. I don't know if we lost anything as an industry because that bill was targeted at the Canadian citizen. Bill C-17 in 1991, again, targeted the Canadian citizen; it didn't target the non-resident hunter.

The non-resident hunter at that time didn't boycott Canada simply because the government was putting further restrictions on Canada. Some of the non-resident target shooters did stop coming here because of some of the restrictions were put on their firearms.

This bill, though, does target them with the import-export permits, temporary registrations and possessions. This bill does not clearly indicate what all those restrictions will be because those will all be left to Order in Council after the fact. The ramifications will not be known until later, after the bill is passed.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: Mr. Grayston said earlier that hunters represented 56% of the tourist sector. On the whole, it's close to what you said. Using the same scale for Saskatchewan, what percentage should we be talking about? I see there are representatives of Yukon here. Could we have some information on that?

The Chair: Fifty six percent, is that true?

[English]

Mr. Grayston: No, 56% of the 1,600 businesses have hunting.

The Chair: Mr. St-Laurent thought you had said 56% of the tourism in Ontario was hunters.

Mr. Grayston: No, 56% of our 1,600 businesses.

The Chair: Of their business?

Mr. Grayston: Yes.

The Chair: Saskatchewan?

.1635

Mr. Romanuik: In Saskatchewan, about $12 million in export income a year is generated by fishing. The balance of $39 million is made up by hunting businesses. It must be close to 75% I would think. That is export income.

Mr. Bolster: In the Yukon, which has a little bit of mining but primarily it's a tourism-based place - and of course lots of government - 20% of the total tourism intake into the territory is brought in by out-of-country hunters. It represents a surplus of $10 million.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: My question is for either of you. Do you feel there is in Ontario, in Saskatchewan or in other provinces, this huge difference between urban and rural regions? Is there such a contrast across Canada? In urban areas, for example, the majority of the people is in favour of the bill. In rural areas, people are against it. Do you think there is some kind of rivalry between those regions?

[English]

Mr. Romanuik: No, I don't think it's that. It's just in the rural regions more people own firearms and understand and are educated on the present regulations in place. They feel we don't need any more regulations.

In the urban centres, far less people own firearms and know anything about the present regulations and the laws that are in place now. In fact most of those people don't know there's any sort of regulation in place. When you ask them if they want regulation, they say yes. It is largely a case of not being educated in the urban regions.

Mr. Grayston: I think when you get to some of the small northern communities - I lived in Kapuskasing for five years. I don't know if you know Ontario very well, but Kapuskasing is, as the crow flies, about 100 miles south of James Bay. It's on highway 11. It has a population of about 9,000 people. When you live in Kapuskasing, hunting and fishing is virtually all there is to do. Virtually everybody hunt and fish, whether they are male or female. When you start looking at those more isolated, remote communities, I think they would be very much against this gun control.

If you live in Toronto, maybe it's a different story, but I know that most of my constituents either reside inside or outside small northern communities and they're not in favour of it.

Mr. Lee: I feel like I have a lot of time for the outfitters and I'd like to focus on that rather than the general provisions of the bill, the House having already voted for the bill in principle. My goal is to make the provisions of the legislation a better fit for your business area.

I also accept that the bill has some rough edges and our job here is to smooth them out and make them more effective, viable, cost-effective, etc. I want to get into the business of clients coming from outside Canada to do business with outfitters.

The current regime, as I understand it, involves those people coming with firearms would make a short pit stop in some customs facility somewhere, usually filling out a form, but I gather perhaps sometimes they do not fill out a form. It doesn't matter too much to me, but for those who do fill out the form they put reasonable identifying features of their firearm on the form.

If I were to suggest to you that in the new system, under Bill C-68, that's all they would have to do is fill out a form - the form might have an extra couple of lines than exist now - and if the cost would be $10 or $20.... I heard $50, $60 earlier, but I don't happen to think that's a reasonable charge for someone coming into Canada to do business with the outfitters.

If there were a provision that said Canadian authorities may not share that information with a non-Canadian authority and may only use the information for the purpose it was submitted, would that satisfy the concerns with respect to privacy, cost-effectiveness and intrusion? Did I leave anything out?

.1640

Mr. Bolster: The closest thing that could come to acceptance would be the current situation, where a customs person hands the card to the guy, who fills it out and says, ``I've got one Winchester hunting rifle''. When he goes to leave the country, he produces the card saying, ``It's been stamped, I cleared customs coming in with this gun and now I'm leaving with it'', and there is no record. It is registration that they fear most.

Mr. Lee: Mr. Romanuik had raised, conceptually, the prospect of this person coming in, having to register the firearm, then deregister it on leaving and, in the process, arrange for an import permit and an export permit. I hear what he's saying, and in theory that could happen.

Mr. Bolster: Yes.

Mr. Lee: In the way this bill is worded, it could happen that way. He could have three pieces of paper and a CPIC search and an interview and all kinds of things. I think the goal here is to keep it to one piece of paper, a nominal fee, and get him or her out of there and into the camp as quickly as possible. Is there anything else you'd like to add to my short list?

Mr. Romanuik: I think you've hit the nail on the head in that respect. I am at a loss to know what the nominal fee is for other than a tax grab. We all know what Canada said and did when Bill Clinton thought about charging us a dollar every time we crossed the border. We threw a fit and he decided not to do that, and now we are going to say we're going to charge you $10 to fill out the piece of paper, the thing we never charged you for before.

Mr. Lee: I take your point; maybe there should be no fee. Certainly I wouldn't want to see anything more than nominal, but maybe $1 is too much. Who knows?

Mr. Romanuik: Anyway, we thought so.

You've hit the nail on the head. What is even more serious is when he reaches the border, and he may have flown from Timbuctoo to the border, to customs, under this he has to fill out the paper and then he has to be checked for an import-export permit. All that is left to the discretion of the registrar. We know some people have good discretion; we know some people don't have discretion. That's just as scary a thing as the government's opinion, to me.

Mr. Lee: The outfitters have to sell this business. Promotion is part of your business, and I would suggest at the end of the day what you'd want to have is one piece of paper that explained what was going on, another piece of paper that constituted the form, with or without the carbon copy, and I think you'd want to sell the package, whatever it was, for what it was - for what it really was - plus you'd want to be able to show that there was a minimum of interference. Would you be in a position to do that?

Mr. Bolster: It should be a way to assure your clients that this is a declaration to show you are actually taking that damn gun home. If you can do something like that from an industry standpoint, it will help a great deal.

Mr. Lee: I'd like to think that we might be able to do something in relation to the privacy issue. You might be able to refer to that as well.

Mr. Romanuik: I'd really like to see that it doesn't waste a lot of the customs officers' time because there are other things they have to watch for now.

Mr. Lee: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ramsay: I have just a couple of comments to begin with. If this bill is supported by the majority in Saskatchewan, why is the Liberal leader in that province opposing it? I would ask the same question in Alberta and I would ask the same question to the former leader of the Liberal Party in Manitoba. If he would have had another chance at taking a position on this bill, would he change his mind? The people did speak quite clearly on that.

.1645

I'd like to ask you this -

A voice: [Inaudible-Editor]

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, the birds are over here and are getting at me.

The Chair: I would ask other members of the committee to respect the rights of Mr. Ramsay to quietly put his question.

Mr. Ramsay: Under clause 5 the chief firearms officer of the province or the territories will have to do a criminal record check, a mental illness check and a check for the neighbourhood history, to see if there is any history of violent behaviour on the part of the individual who owns a firearm before they can license that individual.

If this turns up a criminal record within the last five years then that's grounds for that person not to be licensed. It seems to me the logical thing to flow from that is that if he can't be licensed then he can't hold firearms and he will have to turn in his firearms.

There's no room for compensation in this particular section or from what I've seen in the bill. Orders in Council might deal with that. So far, there have been firearms confiscated under Kim Campbell's Bill C-17 and her Orders in Council without any compensation - thousands and thousands of dollars according to some of the information I have.

In your areas, the people who work in the industry and would be required by law if this is passed to submit to these checks, would they pass? How many would not pass?

The background I'd like to give you is as a policeman. It seems easy for a lot of aboriginal people to simply pick up criminal records. I saw that. It used to bother me and it still does. Some of them are chiefs of councils. They sit on the band councils now, responsible people, but during their early years, or whatever, they got into trouble with a system of law that they didn't fully understand and they have a record.

To what extent, if this comes into effect, will any of the people who work in your industry not be licensed because of one or more of the three areas that has to be checked out and approved by the chief firearms officer?

Mr. Bolster: If you took that to the letter of the law right now, two-thirds of my guides would not be able to work for me, because you cannot do that job for me and not have a gun, both for protection of yourself and your client. I wouldn't be able to hire him. That's one of the things in the west and north that most concerns us about this bill: the loss of employment. It's a very real thing.

Mr. Ramsay: Would Mr. Romanuik or Mr. Grayston like to respond to that question as well?

Mr. Romanuik: I would guess that 80% or 90% of the aboriginals and Métis in northern Saskatchewan would not only not be able to comply, but they wouldn't try to comply for the simple reason that reading skills are poor. They won't have the ability to take firearms training courses. They are perfectly safe as guides, handling firearms for the protection of my clients, as long as they're not drinking. When they are drinking, it's another story.

Quite a few of them would not be able to comply with this. Economic opportunity and jobs would be gone.

The Chair: I should point out that it's not any criminal conviction that is the subject of the investigation, but only criminal convictions relating to violent offences. In other words, a conviction on embezzlement or counterfeiting will not count against the person, but one with armed robbery or assault with a weapon - those kinds of offences - and drugs -

Mr. Bolster: That doesn't have to be a firearm.

The Chair: No, it doesn't have to be a firearm but it has to involve violence.

Mr. Bolster: That would still lose a portion of my crew, I'm sorry. They're a pretty western bunch.

.1650

The Chair: You're right, anything to do with violence. It could be assault, it could be without a weapon - any kind of violence. But many property crimes would not be included. Break and entry, embezzlement, and counterfeiting would not be included. There are a number of offences that would not count against a person but those kinds, maybe they would affect the ones that do. I just wanted to make sure we knew what we were talking about.

Mr. Romanuik: In northern Saskatchewan we don't have much counterfeiting or embezzling. It's assault, break and enter; it's alcohol-related violence.

The Chair: Yes, break and enter wouldn't...I don't think.

Mr. Ramsay: A point of order on that. It also requires a background check into the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act. I don't know if that's referring to violent behaviour or just being involved in trafficking and -

The Chair: Trafficking in drugs.

Mr. Ramsay: Okay. My time is up?

The Chair: Yes. I didn't interrupt your time.

Mr. Finlay (Oxford): I come from a rural riding in southern Ontario, and, gentlemen, many of the things you've said have been said to me, not by outfitters, but by hunters and farmers and so on. I sympathize with a number of the things you've said.

However, I think, Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that misinformation appears in a number of these briefs. I've had to question it with my own Federation of Anglers and Hunters and I just feel it's too bad. We had a story about FACs that turned out not to be true and so on. I would like to stick to the facts and what the bill intends to do.

I must say, too, that your argument that Kentucky or Minnesota isn't going to come up here on the pretence of a police state, with registration and so on, leaves me very cold.

In your brief, Mr. Grayston, you say:

When Ontario passed conservation-based regulations to manage her own resources, a neighbouring state passed retaliatory legislation creating a controversy.

Are you trying to tell us that Ontario shouldn't pass regulations to conserve the fish in Lake-of-the-Woods?

Mr. Grayston: No, that's not my point at all. We passed that conservation legislation because we felt it was the only way to save that fishery. My only point in that was the reaction from the States. I was only trying to use it as a basis for standing behind the letters from the United States. The reaction from the Americans was retaliatory. In the end, most northwestern businesses saw a 50% reduction in their guests from Minnesota. It was the individual operators who faced the financial impact.

Interestingly, that legislation was on Lake-of-the-Woods; yet businesses that were operating out of Thunder Bay, even as far as Nipigon, were having cancellations from Minnesota guests, even though the legislation was 400 miles away from them.

Mr. Finlay: I take your point, sir, but if Mr. Tobin hadn't acted down east, we wouldn't have a turbot fishery in two years either. We either have to get hold of the conservation and the environmental aspects of this thing -

Mr. Grayston: I think, sir, you've missed my point. I said we stood behind the legislation for that resource. The Ontario operators took the financial beating to stand behind it. My only point is how the Americans react to Canadian legislation.

Mr. Finlay: My point is how they react will be something they'll have to learn to live with. Twenty years down the road, if we don't have those kinds of regulations, there won't be any business.

Mr. Bolster: Sir, we're not talking about conservation and wildlife here; we're talking about registering firearms for no apparent reason that we can see. This has an excellent potential for affecting my ability to make a living, feed my family and provide jobs for my crew so they can feed their families. It doesn't sound like it's going to affect yours a hell of a lot.

Mr. Finlay: Mr. Bolster, with all respect, Mr. MacDonald went over the business of the possibility of a simple certificate at the border, with which I entirely agree. I think government is too intrusive in some areas. I've said that in the beginning. I'm just pointing out that this argument is not one that is going to attract me one way or the other in supporting or not supporting this bill.

.1655

Two of these briefs say that Canadians have inherent rights and freedoms. They do, but it doesn't include owning firearms, as far as I understand our law. I'd have to defer to the chairman, who knows far more about it than I do. I don't think we should inflame the issue with statements that really aren't germane.

Mr. Bolster, you mentioned having a firearm obviously in the wild for purposes...and your family and so on. If I put you into an urban setting for a minute - it doesn't have to be Toronto; it can be Woodstock - would you agree that in order to prevent accidental death or problems with firearms there should be some rules about how they're stored? You were asked about this. In your situation I quite understand what you're saying. We certainly don't have the police to enforce this, so it has to be done because people believe it's a good thing. But in an urban setting, if I am careless with my firearm and my neighbour's child, who is playing with my son of 11 years, comes into the house and picks it up and injures somebody with it, do you or do you not think I, as the responsible owner of that gun, should be held somewhat responsible?

Mr. Bolster: I'm inclined to agree with you, because in my own home there are no loaded guns; they're locked up. I'm required to do that by law, and I think something like that is a practice that most responsible firearms people have always adhered to anyway.

Mr. Finlay: Bill C-68 has provisions for doing just that.

Mr. Bolster: That already exists.

Mr. Romanuik: Provisions for safe storage came in Bill C-17.

Mr. Finlay: Yes, but the penalties for crimes or accidents that occur and for charging people with not having safe storage are in this bill.

Mr. Romanuik: There are penalties for crimes of not having safe storage already. In Alberta a short time ago, maybe a year ago, there was a situation almost like the one you mentioned, and the owner of the firearm was found guilty of unsafe storage and criminal negligence causing death and is in jail, because his small child picked up a firearm that wasn't -

Mr. Finlay: But you agree with those aspects.

Mr. Romanuik: That is in Bill C-17; that's not -

Mr. Finlay: I want to ask about import and export, and this doesn't refer to hunters, because I think the whole point of that is that the hunter comes in with a gun and he goes out with the same gun; that's what one's trying to assure. I agree that probably happens now 99.9% of the time so maybe we're using a sledgehammer to deal with a fly.

But in the matter of smuggling and the control of firearms to the wrong markets - and I don't pretend we can absolutely control smuggling in handguns any more than we can in cigarettes or booze - I think our laws at the present time are fairly porous in that we seem to be, if what I read is true, a trans-shipment point for all kinds of arms. Once the container gets in here it moves around fairly freely because we simply do not do a good enough job of tracking it. Would you say that's something we should pay some attention to? That's also part of this bill.

Mr. Bolster: Yes. That's fine, as long as you make sure it doesn't beat up all the little guys along the way who have been doing nothing wrong. That's why we're sitting here.

Mr. Finlay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I have a few questions. First of all, I think I should clarify this bit on safe storage. Under the present regulations the rules on safe storage - and I'm reading from the regulations - do not apply to any person who stores a non-restricted firearm, that is, a long gun, a rifle, or a shotgun, if the person reasonably requires the non-restricted firearm for the control of predators or other animals, etc.

Mr. Bolster: So I'm okay?

The Chair: Yes. In other words, if you're out in a camp in the woods or a remote place, like the example you gave of your son, and there's a danger from grizzlies or from wolves or whatever, this allows you to not use.... It says ``for predators or other animals''. This is the law in force now, and it's going to be continued.

.1700

I should also point out that there's an obligation on the minister to table in the House all regulations and that those regulations be sent to a committee. It will be this committee, unless they change it. If he decides he's not going to do that for urgency purposes, he has to table a letter in the House giving the reasons why he is not tabling and setting out the urgency. But I should point out that this committee, if it felt the letter was phoney and the reasons weren't really strong enough, could deal with that. We have oversight responsibility for the Minister of Justice and for the Solicitor General.

We've done that before. We've called officials before us when we don't think they're doing the right thing. The minister either tables the regulations and we debate and discuss them, or he has to file a letter saying why he doesn't think he can do it. If we don't think it makes sense, we can call him.

I just want to ask you this. I know you're against the registration provisions, but I'm trying to find out what parts of the bill you might be in favour of. For example, are you against those provisions in the bill that deal with paramilitary assault weapons, putting more control on paramilitary assault weapons? To what extent would your hunters ever use rapid-fire automatic weapons?

Mr. Bolster: It's only an automatic shotgun, and you're allowed to put two shells in it for hunting birds.

The Chair: So most hunters would not use paramilitary....

Mr. Bolster: No.

The Chair: Do you object to the provisions in the bill that deal with paramilitary assault weapons?

First of all, I'll go the the Yukon. Have you any objection to those provisions?

Mr. Bolster: Not me, personally, no.

The Chair: What about Mr. Romanuik.

Mr. Romanuik: A firearm is a firearm. Just because it's a scary looking gun doesn't mean it is used more in crime. My clients do not need rapid-fire firearms for hunting. But there's no evidence to show that lots of those guns are used in crimes and that the people who use those guns would not use something else. A car going through a school yard full of children could kill just as many children as a Mini-14.

The Chair: Mr. Romanuik, I don't think it's the appearance of assault paramilitary automatic weapons. It's not the way they look that scares people; it's the fact that they can fire a large number of bullets at a very rapid pace and do great damage. They were not manufactured for hunting; they were manufactured for the military and the police. They were never meant to be in my hands. I don't know about yours, but....

Mr. Romanuik: The ammunition used in military firearms was not designed to kill, but to wound.

The Chair: Not the ones that I.... Not to kill?

Mr. Romanuik: Because for every man who is shot and killed, that's one man down. For every man who is shot and wounded, that's up to five men down because they have to take care of him. The ammunition in military firearms was not designed specifically to kill. A big game hunting rifle can do far more damage.

The Chair: I don't know if the armed forces would agree with you and start equipping their men with those types of weapons.

I'm trying to find out where there is some agreement with the bill. Do you have any objection in northern Ontario?

Mr. Grayston: I personally do not object to that either.

The Chair: What about the short handguns? I'm not talking about the handguns that are used in competitions; I'm talking about the so-called Saturday night specials. They were referred to byMr. Romanuik earlier. It's shown that these guns cost about $45 to $50 down in the States. They're not used in any international competition. They're mainly used for crime. They're not used for target shooting. Do you have any objection to the provisions in the bill with respect to them in the Yukon?

There are three groups here. I'll ask you all in turn.

Mr. Bolster: Whether I object to the restrictions?

The Chair: Yes, on those Saturday-night specials.

Mr. Bolster: I thought there were restrictions on all pistols and every one of them had to be registered.

The Chair: But they were only restricted weapons. They're not prohibited. They're going to prohibit the short handguns, the so-called Saturday-night specials and those types of guns. Right now they're restricted.

Mr. Bolster: I don't own any.

The Chair: Okay, then you're not obliged to answer.

.1705

Mr. Romanuik: Mr. Chairman, those are not in this bill. We're already beginning to deal with regulation that will come after the bill.

The Chair: We can amend the bill. I think the bill does deal with it but not with the detail. Anyway, I was listening to you earlier and I think you would be opposed to provisions on that.

Mr. Romanuik: Yes, because I don't own a Saturday-night special or a belly buster. I own a .22-calibre handgun with a barrel less than four inches. I get great joy from ``clinking'' at cans with it. If you've never tried it, you won't know what joy I get out of it. If you've owned one and tried it, you may feel the same. I do not own my gun to commit any crimes.

The Chair: Yes, I know. By the way, the bill does deal with it on page 61. It talks about handguns that have a barrel equal to or less than 105mm in length, or designed or adapted to discharge a .25 or .32-calibre...anyway, they deal with it. I have your answer.

Mr. Grayston: I don't have any opinion either on that. I don't own one.

The Chair: I know what you're opposed to. I'm trying to find out where there's some room for agreement.

You've made some good points today but when it's argued that the Americans are threatening us on what kind of laws we should have or not have, that leaves me rather cold.

You've got Mr. Gingrich who's trying to dictate to us what kind of trading policy we should have. I don't like him interfering in our trading policy and he wouldn't like us interfering. They'd be the first people who would be opposed if we said, if the Americans don't do this we're going to do this.

Mr. Grayston, did one of you suggest that so many American state governments had taken a position against the legislation, or was it hunters?

Mr. Grayston: No, it was just the hunting groups within those states.

The Chair: I think if the governments took a position it would be against our free trade agreement with the United States. State or provincial governments can't take a position. For example, the Province of Ontario can't decide to boycott California wine because it's against our free trade agreement. I don't think they could boycott northern Ontario because you have certain laws on hunting. Individuals could, but I don't think the government could.

Mr. Grayston: No, no. Our point was that it was the state organizations, not the states themselves.

The Chair: Those are the questions I had.

Mr. Thompson: When your clients come in from the States presently and they have to do certain things in order to continue their journey to join your camp, once they arrive at your camp, what follow-up is there with regard to checking to see if they've complied with all the things they need to do? Is there any?

Mr. Bolster: None. We have virtually no communications, just radio once in a while.

Mr. Thompson: So regardless of what they do at the border, there's nobody at the other end who says, now I'm going to check to see what you've done, to see whether you've registered, or whatever it might be. There's no follow-up to that. Doesn't that sound a little strange?

Mr. Romanuik: Conservation officers, I guess.... Under this bill they'll have to find somebody.

Mr. Thompson: Do you think that would have to happen? If you were going to bring in a law like this, whatever they did at the border, you'd have somebody at the other end to confirm that indeed they didn't slip them through the border, that they had to comply. Is that correct?

Mr. Romanuik: It's definitely going to take police officers to inspect or do whatever, to make sure the laws are being followed.

Mr. Thompson: They don't have to do that now?

Mr. Romanuik: No.

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Lee suggests that maybe there's something we can do to this legislation to make it easier for you fellows to accept the thing. If we could make it one piece of paper I think I heard instead of three or whatever it might be.

We heard from the Northwest Territories that if you could somehow ease up a bit.... They have to lock their gun in one room and their ammunition in another, and a lot of them live in one-room cabins. You have to take a break there a little bit. We heard the farmers talking about the predators and all that, and maybe they ought to be excluded. Then we start talking about those who do it for a source of food; they need their weapon. This starts mushrooming like crazy.

.1710

Mr. Rock has made it quite plain that the law as it's presented is exactly what they want to see.

When they start doing this kind of thing, in your opinion, is that going to be a satisfactory thing to do, to start picking who should be exempt? Maybe reservations should be exempt and farmers exempt?

Mr. Bolster: I think this is going to be one horrendous project and I wouldn't want the job.

Mr. Thompson: I think Mr. Romanuik said the research done on past registrations - was it you I overheard talking about other areas trying registration and they've all failed?

Mr. Romanuik: Yes, the study done by the shooting organizations of Canada, information they compiled from other countries, and their statistics came mostly from the Canadian justice system. They have found that many of the other countries have tried it and have given up on registration, saying it was futile. In England, where it has very tight controls, the crime rate has been escalating since the firearms were taken away. We see no evidence that it's going to be different here.

Mr. Thompson: For the record, did you get any information as to what Australia or New Zealand or others said was the main reason for the failure?

Mr. Romanuik: Yes, I've read it. It's in -

Mr. Thompson: Was it failure to comply? Was that the main thing?

Mr. Romanuik: I think I noted it here. I believe it was failure to comply, and they found it took too many people. It was not feasible to be able to register all firearms.

The Chair: What country was that?

Mr. Romanuik: That was New Zealand and Australia.

The Chair: New Zealand has given it up, but Australia hasn't.

Mr. Romanuik: They're considering it and are trying to decide whether it's feasible to go ahead.

The Chair: Yes, but they haven't gone ahead.

Mr. Romanuik: We are not even considering whether it's feasible to register 20 million firearms. We are just going to try to do it.

The Chair: It's a difference of opinion.

Mr. Thompson's not finished yet. Go ahead, you still have some time, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Thompson: Are there any others besides New Zealand and Australia?

Mr. Romanuik: I'm not sure. I know Switzerland has one of the most lax gun controls, where everybody belongs to the standing army once they turn 18, or most. They have pretty well no gun control. If you are part of the standing militia, you must keep your assault rifle and handgun in operating condition. They have one of the lowest incidents of burglaries and break and enter.

Mr. Thompson: Just to make it clear with me, your clients' objections are that they don't want their firearms on a registry of any type. Is that correct?

Mr. Romanuik: Right.

Mr. Thompson: Thank you.

The Chair: Before I go to Ms Torsney for the last round, I should point out that I checked with the Swiss government and if you're in the militia - by the way, they don't accept anybody into the militia. People who are irresponsible, drunks, don't get in. If you're in, then you're allowed to keep your weapon at home.

Last September, Swiss voters adopted a new article on arms to be added to the Swiss Constitution, and I have a photocopy, which seriously strengthens their control on weapons. So they're going in the direction that we are going in. If you want, you can get this from the Swiss embassy here in Ottawa.

Ms Torsney.

Ms Torsney: I just wanted to correct the record. There were some comments made about the situation in England and their murder rates. If you have specific studies or if it's just conversations on a one-way street that you want to table as your evidence, that's fine, but in fact England has very low murder rates and their system is very detailed and it's not such a hassle. I've actually gone through it with people who have guns.

The second thing is that the Australian government has always had a system, or has had a system or does have a system and continues to have it, that is very much like our FPC system, which would be a licence.

Third, four out of the many states, also have a registration system. We are looking at having a system similar to but better than theirs. So if you want talk about things, you'd better get it straight.

.1715

I have a question for you regarding something that seemed to come up at several points in your testimony. I just wondered, Mr. Romanuik, are you advocating prohibition of alcohol and drugs?

Mr. Romanuik: I'm saying that preventing crime may be a better place to start than to try to attack the guns, which are at the end of the crime.

Ms Torsney: So you would be happy if the government pursued a policy of prohibition?

Mr. Romanuik: I'm not saying prohibition. What I'm saying is the government should look at preventing crime before it starts. Obviously the government does not really believe what I have to say, so figure it out. Home violence begins 60% or 70% of the time with alcohol, as did the tragic event last week in Quebec. So deal with alcohol.

Ms Torsney: So you would support prohibition, then?

Mr. Romanuik: Well, maybe some folks need to be prohibited from alcohol.

Ms Torsney: I was just wondering.

The Chair: We have another meeting at 7:30 p.m. We asked you gentlemen to be with us from 2 p.m. until 5:30 p.m. It's now 5:20 p.m.

I want to thank you. You've come a long distance. Your testimony was important. We're going to have wildlife federations, we're going to have hunting associations, but you're the outfitters and we were pleased to have you give us your point of view.

I want to remind members of the committee that tonight we have the museums that deal with collections. We'll deal with the part of the bill concerning collections and collectors and museum collections. So I'd ask you to be here.

Mr. Bolster.

Mr. Bolster: May I put my hat back on?

The Chair: Yes, you can put your hat back on. By the way, I'm not too sure if it would have been against the rules - I would have had to consult - because we've had people wearing headgear in the House.

The meeting is adjourned.