[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
.0949 
Wednesday, January 29, 1997
[English]
The Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen, we are ready to resume the hearings of this subcommittee into the proposed regulations under the Firearms Act.
I'm very pleased this morning to have with us, through videoteleconferencing from Saskatchewan, Mr. Hal Stupnikoff, executive director of the Saskatchewan Outfitters Association, as well as Mr. Cliff Blackmur, the president of the association, and Mr. Doug Montgomery, the chairman.
.0950
I don't know if all three are present. Can you hear us in Regina?
Mr. Doug Montgomery (Chairman, Firearms Legislation Committee, Saskatchewan Outfitters Association): The other two gentlemen couldn't attend this morning. I hope I can take care of any matters that need to be taken care of. Thank you.
The Chairman: Welcome, Mr. Montgomery. We're very pleased that you could be there this morning, and we are pleased that we have this technology to be able to speak with you. We would like to hear your comments, any comments you would like to make - your brief, whatever - following which we would like to be able to have the members of the committee ask you questions.
Mr. Montgomery: Yes, sir. I have a brief prepared - hopefully not too long, and hopefully constructive. Whenever you're ready to proceed...
The Chairman: We're ready right now, sir. Go ahead.
Mr. Montgomery: Thank you.
Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Doug Montgomery, and I am here on behalf of the Saskatchewan Outfitters Association. We represent the majority of the 500 hunting outfitters of Saskatchewan.
These regulations are of course of great concern to us because of their financial impact on our businesses. You are of course aware, and have been told many times, of the contribution hunting activity makes to Canada - over $2 billion, I'm told by Statistics Canada. Of that, at least $50 million is spent by non-residents of Saskatchewan, with the majority going to rural areas instead of getting stuck in the cities, as usual. Of course, we want our customers to enter Canada as painlessly as possible.
Recently, during a phone conversation with a Constable Cyr of the RCMP in Ottawa, who is the RCMP's man on this bill, he commented that there are over 150,000 border crossings with firearms during the fall hunting season, which quite frankly I was surprised at. That's a huge number of people, even allowing for some repeats. So everyone is going to have to be ready and set when this happens, so we don't handicap all of these people. Canada Customs will have to get involved in this very deeply and get some well-trained people.
I'd like to comment on some issues raised in the draft regulations, beginning on page 4, with the issue regarding non-residents' 60-day possession of a borrowed firearm. I'm not familiar with any times a hunter has come without a firearm. In my 26 years in the business no one has ever come without a gun, nor has this ever happened to any outfitter I know of. However, allowance has to be made for it, and the $30 fee or $20 fee perhaps sounds not unreasonable, considering the paperwork that's probably going to be involved.
One slight issue that could arise is that a hunter's firearm breaks while he's here and I lend him one. I'm not sure where that falls - if that falls through the cracks; if that makes me or him a criminal. There should be something allowing a temporary use of firearms in that case. Of course this would be supervised; he would be nearby at all times.
Then we go on to page 7 regarding a chief firearms officer revoking a licence to possess if he becomes aware that the individual has been involved in an act of domestic violence. We certainly approve of that. If it wasn't there before, we are surprised. Certainly it's an excellent idea.
.0955
Next, on page 34, the chief firearms officer shall revoke because of an individual's deteriorated mental state. Again, if it wasn't there before, it's probably long past time. We don't want idiots out there with guns. We have no problem with that.
Then we get to page 35, on carrying restricted firearms and certain handguns. We have some concern about this and the interpretation of who can carry and why, because in reality an outfitter cannot carry a handgun while dealing with dangerous animals. We feel this falls directly under the intent of this, but the fact of it is the outfitter would have to be dead to be eligible.
We would like to see that looked at, to allow an outfitter not unreasonable use of this. If we were workers in a shop, no one would object to our using the best protective devices. The reason police don't carry long arms at all times is that they are not handy. The same applies to outfitters. We have a right to a safe working environment.
Don't take this to mean I suggest we wear our guns to town. But we would certainly appreciate the opportunity to do this.
Also, a side issue. I'm a farmer. I'm wondering why there is no provision such that as a farmer I can use a handgun on my private property, on the assumption that I've been properly vetted and trained, perhaps, and approved. This discriminates against rural people who want to shoot a handgun. Often the only registered range is 80 or 100 miles away.
This should be looked at. We could jump through any number of hoops to gain this eligibility. Again, I'm not suggesting we wear our guns to town.
Many other things are mentioned here, most of which we as outfitters don't need to comment on. Other people will certainly take issue or be concerned with them.
Further along we come to the consultation table for the fee proposals. Again we mention the non-resident borrowing firearms at a cost of $30. We don't have much to say on this. By all means make allowances for it. It's so unusual that I can't comment very much on it.
Then we get to a non-resident bringing in firearms, six days. The fee is too high and the valid period is too short. These are critical points. Game management agencies look long and hard at a $10 to $20 increase in a hunting licence. As the licence fee increases the number of hunters drops, even at that low rate of increase, $10 to $20. So the $50 will be seen as adding to the price of a hunting licence. That's extreme. That will reduce client numbers, which, of course, reduces our income, and then it becomes a personal issue to me.
.1000
I forwarded a letter to you, which I hope was distributed. It was from Mr. Allan Rock to Mr. Lee Morrison regarding a letter I wrote:
I have a severely handicapped son, Ryan Hunter Montgomery. This is him. He's almost four. He still can't crawl. He will never walk. I'm responsible for him at a time when the government is cutting back on assistance. I cannot afford to lose income. What I make from outfitting will give Ryan the help and opportunities he needs to make a life. It's that simple: electric wheelchairs, modifying our house, getting a van that's wheelchair accessible, and getting computers, which will be the salvation that he will need. I have to give him that, and the money to do so will come from outfitting. This is very personal to me. I cannot have this affecting my income.
Mr. Rock assures me in his letter that it will not. He in fact says:
- I believe that the hunting/tourism industry will continue to prosper in Canada and that tourists
from all parts of the world, including the United States, will not be dissuaded by the new
firearms legislation because it will not impede their hunting activities.
I'm suggesting a fee of perhaps $20 and registry for five years. Many hunters come back year after year, and, if necessary, they could add firearms to their list, or, as I understand it, the initial fee allows for registration of up to 10 firearms. Maybe someone would care to register all the guns they own at once in anticipation.
Crossing the border could be simple. A customs officer could simply note which firearms are actually being brought in at that time. Also, giving some number of years for registration appears to be good value.
Mr. Rock said there will be a method of pre-registration so that the registration can be instantly read at the border and the hunter can quickly carry on. That sounds excellent.
He says there will be opportunities for non-residents to apply in advance to speed up the process at the border, to facilitate the process for American clients. The hunter may apply for registration in advance through his local firearms officer. When done in advance, the authorization is machine-read after validating. That sounds excellent: just walk up, show your card, and go on your way. I'm sure there will be occasional checks to verify the accuracy, but that's not a problem.
I assume people have concerns about these firearms leaving the country. I really have no idea how you could do that. I don't believe the U.S. customs department wants anything to do with it. They don't check firearms out of Mexico at this time, so it's unlikely that they will bother with Canada. In fact, I expect almost 100% compliance in regard to taking firearms out. There are two reasons: if he has any thoughts of coming back, he doesn't want to cause trouble; second, anyone here wouldn't care to have the grief that would come with accepting a firearm that would be basically unregisterable in Canada because it's already registered to a foreign citizen.
.1005
I just feel that firearms will come and go and there will be essentially 100% compliance. I don't think you'll have a problem there.
The essence of asking for registration at the border, from non-residents of course, is to keep it simple and economical. I think the hunters will still come.
Please take into account how vital some of these changes are to our livelihoods and, in some instances, to our lives.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions?
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Montgomery. I think you've made your points very well and I think we've all noted them. As you suggested, I'd like to have our members ask questions.
I'd like to begin with Monsieur de Savoye.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye (Portneuf): Good morning, Mr. Montgomery. We can tell that you know what you are talking about. You have examined the impact the legislation and its regulations will have on your activities and you have indicated that foreign hunters in general will comply with the Act and regulations because they really want to keep hunting in Canada.
Can you tell me what percentage of your customers are American citizens, so that I can evaluate better the impact the licence fees for foreigners will have on your business? Do they make up 5 or 10 % of your customers? Can you give me an indication of that percentage?
[English]
Mr. Montgomery: Bonjour, monsieur.
Thank you very much. One hundred percent of my clients are American. I have had an occasional client from Bermuda and Italy in the distant past. All clients are foreigners. The clients of the majority of outfitters in Saskatchewan are essentially 99% foreign, so it would have an impact on every client we have.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: I appreciate this clarification, Mr. Montgomery, because it makes your concerns even more significant. Your business depends entirely on foreign customers.
Mr. Montgomery, how much do foreigners spend on average when they spend a few days with you on a hunting trip, that is between the time they cross the border into Canada and leave the country to go back home? Do you have any idea of their economic contribution?
[English]
Mr. Montgomery: An outfitted hunt in Saskatchewan, whether it's for birds or big game, would at a minimum generate $1,800 Canadian per client. There are certainly some hunts in the range of $4,000 and $5,000 per client for six days, but it's certainly very close to $2,000 per client.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: That's a lot of money and it is quite understandable that you want to keep those customers given the fact that their contribution to the global economy is not insignificant.
.1010
Mr. Montgomery, you say that you would be inclined to believe that if the licence fees were $50, some of your customers who are spending $1,800 on average would be less anxious to do it again. If the licences were less expensive, they would be more inclined to come back. Do you really think that a difference of some $20 or $30 would make a difference for someone who can afford to spend close to $2,000 to go hunting?
[English]
Mr. Montgomery: You make a valid point. To some degree, to some portion of our clients it will make a difference. I guess I was also taking into consideration the even larger number of people who come just on their own. I wasn't separating the two between non-guided and guided hunts.
Certainly you've made a valid point. It's difficult to gauge what the impact would be. That's all I can say on that.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Thank you, Mr. Montgomery.
[English]
It has been a pleasure to listen to your words. Certainly this will provide some light to this committee to better understand the challenges you're facing. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. de Savoye.
[English]
Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Montgomery, for your testimony this morning. We heard from the Guides and Outfitters during the original examination of Bill C-68. Because Bill C-68 is purported to be a public safety bill to enhance public safety, can you tell me to what extent your industry, through the use of firearms, creates a threat to public safety?
Mr. Montgomery: I have no knowledge of our industry creating any threat to public safety. In fact, in my conversation with Constable Cyr of the RCMP, when I asked him if he had any knowledge of criminal actions by legitimate hunters in Canada he said he had no knowledge of this.
So it's inconceivable, and I cannot understand why we would be considered to cause any harm to the public.
Mr. Ramsay: It's not only criminal activity but also the possibility that your clients are out there discharging high-powered firearms. Is there any threat to public safety with regard to accidental injury outside of any criminal activity that might be involved in your industry? I'm looking at the total threat that might exist as a result of your industry. In other words, if your industry simply ceased to exist would the public be any safer?
Mr. Montgomery: No, it wouldn't. I have not heard of any injuries caused by non-resident hunters.
Mr. Ramsay: No accidents or accidental shootings or anything like that, such as cattle instead of wild animals being shot?
Mr. Montgomery: I am not aware of any. The few instances of perhaps cattle being shot coincidentally happened when non-residents couldn't hunt. So they certainly couldn't have been involved.
Mr. Ramsay: Okay.
Have you noticed any decrease in your clientele since the proposals for Bill C-68 originally were tabled and the bill has gone through and so on? I ask this because we received notification from at least two hunting groups in the United States that if they have to register their firearms when they come into Canada, they will not come, and they will recommend to their membership that they not come.
Have you had any indication that because of Bill C-68, because of the regulations and so on, there has been a drop in the number of your clients?
.1015
Mr. Montgomery: My client base has not changed because of Bill C-68. There has been a lot of discussion regarding it, and I have tried to reassure my clients that this would not be a big problem. The majority seem to accept that if in fact it is simple and straightforward, and all our government wants to know is that this gun has come and gone from this country, and if the fee is not excessive.... The great majority of them don't have any problem, but a few have a philosophical problem, of course.
Mr. Ramsay: Have any of your U.S. clients indicated a concern about having to register their rifles when they bring them across the border? Is there any concern there?
Mr. Montgomery: The few people who have registered concern have a problem with it because they feel there may be information passed back to the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, for instance. They don't feel that would be proper at all.
Mr. Ramsay: Then do you really see any kind of a negative impact upon your industry as a result of the passage of this bill and its regulations? If there is a negative impact, where is it? If there is no negative impact, then what is the rationale for your opposition to the bill?
Mr. Montgomery: Until it actually is implemented and the reality of it sets in, neither of us will really know. As I've mentioned, certainly some portion of my clients have great reservations about it. People have had to register to take firearms into Mexico for many years. Some of my clients have stopped going there simply because the fee is too high and there is too much hassle to do it. It is not worth it. So they're concerned that may, or will, happen here.
Mr. Ramsay: Of course, I and my party oppose the bill and these regulations. We do so based upon the fact that, one, we don't see where it will enhance public safety. Two, it has a negative impact upon organizations - and not only your own. Representatives from other organizations have indicated that it will have a very powerful negative impact upon them. In fact, one organization yesterday said that if they are not exempted it could cause the extinction of their group.
Have any studies been done within your industry to indicate the impact of this bill upon your industry and the future of your industry?
Mr. Montgomery: No formal studies have been done. In my conversations with many other outfitters I have drawn the conclusion that an unknown number of people will not come because of this bill. It could be in the 10% to 20% range. But these are intangibles until they are facts.
Mr. Ramsay: On another point, are outfitters in Saskatchewan allowed to carry handguns now?
Mr. Montgomery: At this moment, I know of no outfitter who can. Supposedly the law reads that while engaged in one's lawful profession, one could reasonably get a permit to do so, but people have tried and been refused.
We'd like to see that looked at again. We can't understand what the big issue is about refusing to allow it.
.1020
Mr. Ramsay: Can you identify for the committee the need that exists now for members of your industry to obtain a permit to carry a handgun? Is there a need there? Is there a safety factor there? Is the difficulty in obtaining a permit to carry a handgun for members of your industry creating a public safety problem or an individual safety problem within your industry?
Mr. Montgomery: That would be creating an individual safety problem that would extend also to the customer who may be accompanying the outfitter. There's no question that going into dense bush after a wounded bear or even a moose is a dangerous occupation, and carrying a long gun at all times is, of course, not that practical.
Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Mr. Montgomery.
That's all I have for the moment, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Kirkby.
Mr. Kirkby (Prince Albert - Churchill River): Thank you very much. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome Mr. Montgomery. It's good to talk to somebody from back home, and would you pass on my regards to Hal when you see him again.
As to your basic concern, you say you don't know what the impact will be in the future, but your feeling is if the fee is reasonable, and if it's relatively hassle-free - that is, bringing the firearms across the border - that there will not be much impact in that case. Is that correct?
Mr. Montgomery: That is a fair reasoning at this time.
Mr. Kirkby: With respect to handguns, can you point to an instance where a handgun rather than a long arm would in fact have prevented an outfitter from injury from wildlife as a result of going through, say, the dense bush, or is this merely a hypothetical situation that's being raised?
Mr. Montgomery: I have no anecdotes regarding this. It's simply preventative medicine.
Mr. Kirkby: And it may be a matter more of convenience than safety. Is that correct?
Mr. Montgomery: It's a toss-up. I guess you would rather have the handgun with you than the long gun back in the pick-up truck when the occasion arises.
Mr. Kirkby: You've indicated that there are concerns possibly about the $50 fee. Would it alleviate your concerns at all if it were pointed out that Americans who came up to Canada on a regular basis could register their firearms and get firearm possession certificates themselves at the same cost to Canadians?
That is, if they came up for each of five years, they could register and do all the things that we do and not have to pay the $50 fee. That is a fact. Does that alleviate some of your concern, if you make your clients aware of that?
Mr. Montgomery: That sounds excellent. I was not aware that they would be able to do exactly what we do. That does not sound unreasonable at all. Quite frankly, it's an excellent idea...good value.
Mr. Kirkby: You indicated there was a problem with the duration of time that these permits are valid. You're aware that they're issued for 60 days, but they can be extended to 120 days. Were you aware of that as well?
Mr. Montgomery: Yes, I was aware that you could get one free extension. This would have hardly worked if your first trip was in May and then October. That was a fine idea, but I couldn't see that it worked very well.
.1025
Mr. Kirkby: Do you mean people would stay here the entire time, or would they simply go back home and, when they came back across, re-apply for another 60-day pass?
Mr. Montgomery: They would, for instance, come in May on a fishing trip and bring a shotgun for protection, which I believe would be allowed, or perhaps on a spring bear hunt, and then come back bird hunting in October. May, June, July, August...that's four months. They still come up a month short of their October hunt.
Mr. Kirkby: So all you're concerned about, then, is that if they come up twice a year they would have to register twice,
Mr. Montgomery: Right.
Mr. Kirkby: Those are all the questions I have.
Once again, thank you so much. I found your testimony very forthright and helpful to us. I really appreciate your being here today. Thank you.
Mr. Montgomery: Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Kirkby.
Mr. de Savoye, do you have further questions?
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: I have no more questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: Ms Whelan.
Ms Whelan (Essex - Windsor): With regard to the fee, I'm not sure I understood. You felt that what Mr. Kirkby said was that they could take the same course as Canadians and register the same way as Canadians and that would be satisfactory. People would be able to come back and forth to do that. I know in my area it's usually run on two weekends.
Mr. Montgomery: It's the first I've heard that they could get a possession certificate, just as a Canadian can. Quite frankly, I had not thought they would need the course. That throws a wild card in here, that it's very unlikely they could take the course.
So we come back to how we get them in here, get them registered for five years, and not have the course. Perhaps an equivalent to something they've taken at home....
You have raised a good issue. How do they get this? I don't know. How do we get these people here?
Ms Whelan: Do you know if they take equivalent courses in the United States - hunting or safety courses?
Mr. Montgomery: There are many states that offer and require, as we do here, a hunter safety course. Certainly a lot of people would have this. I'm not sure how involved our course is or will be, but anyone who has possessed a firearm for some time will now be exempt. We could probably grandfather any number of Americans in here over the age of 30 or so. We've hit a snag here.
Ms Whelan: With regard to the $50 fee, I imagine they wouldn't be opposed to it, but if there were a way that they would only pay a fee once a year and just register as they come and go from the country, under that same certificate, would that not make things easier? Would that not make a lot of sense?
Mr. Montgomery: That would not be a bad idea: a $10 fee for a year's registration, with the privilege to come and go. It's not unreasonable. That would work. On the government's part I guess it adds some paperwork for long-term, repeat customers. Instead of once in some number of years, it would be once a year, but fair enough, that would get them here.
Ms Whelan: The $50 fee seems to be quite a snag for you. You seem to think that $50 is quite excessive.
There's a lot of talk about how much money people pay to invest in the sport of hunting or to be involved in hunting. I take it there's a break-even point or a point where people will stop coming - and I relate that to the tourism industry in general.
If you look at cruise prices, for example, they haven't changed in 15 years for the very reason that if they increase their fee ever so slightly, people may not take them. I'm assuming you're almost at that breaking point now in the outfitting industry.
.1030
Mr. Montgomery: Yes. A $50 fee is noticeable. If not of major impact and significance, it's noticeable for any number of reasons. It makes most people think of finances. As you said, you're close to the limit, and that could put you over.
The Chairman: Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Ramsay: Just a couple of questions, Mr. Montgomery, and then I will be through.
Do you know of any situations where U.S. hunters have left firearms in Canada and that has created a problem or a threat to public safety?
Mr. Montgomery: No, sir, none at all. I can't even imagine it.
Mr. Ramsay: I think in your earlier testimony you indicated you're not aware of instances where U.S. or foreign clients leave their firearms in Canada. Is that right?
Mr. Montgomery: I'm not aware of that situation at all. Certainly if they did leave them here it would not be with the intent of a criminal act. They would perhaps leave it at a friend's to use when they return. But even that is just hypothetical. I don't know of that. I suspect they all take them with them; take them back and forth.
Mr. Ramsay: Do this legislation and the regulations provide any benefit to you or members of your industry?
Mr. Montgomery: None that I can see. It's well hidden if there is one.
Mr. Ramsay: That's all I have, Mr. Montgomery. The very best to your little boy. Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Maloney.
Mr. Maloney (Erie): Mr. Montgomery, what percentage of your clients return more than once a year?
Mr. Montgomery: None. I'm primarily in the bird-hunting business. I may have a client come two times a year or once every four or five years. With big game hunters the same person may come both in the spring for bear and in the fall for deer or perhaps moose, or perhaps he would hunt with me for birds. I don't know what percentage return. Certainly some 5% or 8% or 10%.
Mr. Maloney: You also mentioned the American hunters have stopped going to Mexico because the fees are too high and there's too much of a hassle. Can you enlighten us on what those fees are and on what the administrative procedures are that they think are too much of a hassle? I'm trying to compare that with our own.
Mr. Montgomery: As I understand it, you need to apply up to three months in advance, with, of course, the specific firearms you're taking. You need to be vetted by a local police force. About the fee, I hear varying ranges, from $125 U.S. to $150 U.S. Then when you arrive at the border - this varies wildly - its anything from spending the night in jail to being waved through with a smile; paying a bribe. You see what I mean by people getting worn out on that.
Mr. Maloney: That's a far cry even from what we're proposing here, isn't it?
Mr. Montgomery: Certainly. That's what I say. If we keep it simple, people will come, but you can't intimidate people and you can't charge too much.
The Chairman: Mr. Montgomery, I just want to get an idea - you might have given a figure, but I didn't get it - of the figure for a year on what hunters coming into Canada from outside mean to the outfitting business. Do you have a figure?
.1035
Mr. Montgomery: Non-resident hunters bring well over $50 million to Saskatchewan. I don't know the breakdown Canada-wide; I have $2 billion plus spent on hunting in Canada, but beyond that... It's more than $50 million and, as I also said, that also goes into rural areas. It doesn't stop in Regina or Saskatchewan. It gets out into the country, which is quite an exception to most businesses.
The Chairman: That $50 million would be a combination of people who use guides and outfitters and those who come on their own. Is that correct?
Mr. Montgomery: No, my $50 million comes in as somewhat basically guided hunts in Saskatchewan. We would guide somewhere in the neighbourhood of one-third to perhaps 40% of non-resident hunters.
I guess part of my concern with the cost of this is that $50 on $1,800 of my hunt may not seem like too much, but the broader issue is that many legitimate hunters come here and don't hire me. They come on a budget, but they support local motels, they buy gas, they buy meals, they don't cause anybody any problem; they just spend some money, enjoy themselves, and go home. To them, that $50 is probably a much larger portion of their budget than it is for some guided hunts.
The Chairman: Mr. Montgomery, on behalf of all the members of the subcommittee, I want to thank you very much for taking the time to be with us today. We appreciate your testimony. Frankly, we very much appreciate your forthright answers. We know it's a very important business to you and to Saskatchewan, and certainly that will not be forgotten by the subcommittee.
Mr. Montgomery: Thank you, sir.
The Chairman: We'll now adjourn until 11 o'clock, when we have our next witness.
.1037
.1110
The Chairman: We're now ready to resume our hearings on the proposed amendments to the Firearms Act. I'm very pleased to have three witnesses from Whitehorse with us today. I would ask that you gentlemen identify yourselves for the purposes of the committee.
Mr. Albert James (Regional Vice Chief (Northern Region), Yukon Assembly of First Nations): My name is Albert James. I'm the Vice Chief of the Assembly of First Nations.
Mr. Carl Sidney (Deputy Chief, Teslin Tlingit First Nation): My name is Carl Sidney. I'm the deputy chief for Teslin Tlingit Council. I'm here on behalf of the Council of Yukon First Nations.
Mr. David Joe (Legal Counsel, Council of Yukon First Nations): My name is Dave Joe. I'm legal counsel for the CYFN.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, gentlemen. We would be very pleased to hear your comments. If you have a brief that you wish to present, please do so. After that, we would like to ask questions, if that's all right with you.
Mr. Sidney: That's okay with us.
Mr. James: I have a brief that we'd like to read to you.
The Chairman: Please go ahead, sir.
Mr. James: By way of introduction, I would like to thank the members of this Subcommittee on the Draft Regulations on Firearms for allowing us this opportunity to address you on behalf of the Yukon first nations.
The citizens of the Yukon first nations have occupied the Yukon territory since time immemorial. Our traditional territory extends over the four modern jurisdictions of Yukon, Alaska, British Columbia, and the Northwest Territories. The Yukon first nations have established an extensive trade link between and among themselves and with the first nations citizens of Alaska. Through our customary methods of solidifying these trade links, all of these first nations have intermarried. The Yukon first nations are therefore comprised of citizens from the state of Alaska, as well as Yukon, British Columbia, and the Northwest Territories.
In the 1700s the Yukon first nations traded furs and other items to obtain guns and ammunition from citizens of first nations in Alaska. This was approximately a hundred years before the birth of the modern nation of Canada. Since that time, the use of firearms has become an integral part of our lives. The proposed regulations respecting the Firearms Act, as well as the Firearms Act itself, now purport to change this vital aspect of our culture. We do not believe that Canada has the authority to do so. Let me explain why, beginning with aboriginal and treaty rights.
The Council of Yukon First Nations are made up of fourteen Yukon first nations. We have concluded an Umbrella Final Agreement with the Government of Canada. This Umbrella Final Agreement was incorporated into four Yukon first nations final agreements, which were signed and given the force of law on February 14, 1995.
.1115
These modern-day treaties are contained within the Constitution of Canada under subsection 35(1). These four treaties address only aboriginal and treaty rights within the Yukon territory for the following first nations: the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations; the First Nation of Na-Cho N'y'ak Dun; the Teslin Tlingit Council; and the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation. These treaties do not deal with aboriginal rights in the province of British Columbia, the Northwest Territories, or the remainder of the Yukon territory that is not covered by those treaties. The aboriginal rights, titles, and interests of Yukon first nations are retained in those traditional territories without treaties and are retained in compliance with those treaties for those Yukon first nations with treaties. The negotiations and the traditional territories of the Yukon first nations in British Columbia and the Northwest Territories are ongoing.
The four Yukon first nations with treaties have also negotiated corresponding self-government agreements with Canada and the Yukon. These self-government agreements are part of the inherent right of Yukon first nations to self-government. Canada's recent pronouncement on the inherent right policy appears to agree with this perspective. Under the four Yukon treaties, Canada has agreed to consult with the Yukon first nations before interfering with any of the entrenched treaty rights. In particular, section 16.3.3.2 states:
- Government shall consult with the affected Yukon First Nations before imposing a limitation
pursuant to 16.3.3.
In our opinion, these common-law requirements have not been satisfied. In the event that any of the Yukon first nations are charged with an offence relating to the exercise of an aboriginal or treaty right respecting contravention of the Firearms Act or the proposed regulations, we plan to defend on the basis of our agreements and our existing aboriginal rights.
On self-government agreements, as previously mentioned, four Yukon first nations have negotiated self-government agreements. These agreements recognize Yukon first nations' exclusive right to pass laws for the management and administration of rights and benefits that are realized pursuant to the final agreement by persons enrolled under the final agreements that are controlled by the first nations.
We maintain that the regulation of guns or equipment used for subsistence harvesting is to be regulated by Yukon first nations. This has been the case for over 300 years. In addition, Yukon first nations have the power to enact laws of a local and private nature on settlement land in relation to the control or prohibition of their possession or use of firearms, other weapons and explosives. There is no question in our minds that we have the authority to regulate and control the use of firearms within the scope of aboriginal and treaty rights of Yukon first nations.
The Council of Yukon First Nations, following our general assembly in August 1996, has been authorized to pass concurrent firearms legislation. The resulting conflicts must be either resolved through negotiating conflict rules with the Government of Canada or ultimately by the courts. We would prefer negotiations, as we believe that the Firearms Act and the proposed regulations and the laws of the Yukon first nations could co-exist concurrently.
.1120
For example, in our past discussions with the Department of Justice we have made it known that the Firearms Act is a law that pursues an objective of overriding national importance. Our law will not derogate from the principle of public safety. Where the application of the Firearms Act can be justified under Sparrow, the Firearms Act will prevail to the extent of the conflict. However, we do not believe that Canada can justify imposing the Firearms Act in the Yukon.
The proposal of the Council of Yukon First Nations is this. As Yukon first nations and Canada both have the ability to pass legislation respecting firearms, it has been a stated position of Yukon first nations to pass firearms legislation parallel to the Firearms Act. We have provided an opportunity for Canada to negotiate a resolution to these potentially conflicting matters. We have offered the following proposal.
First, both governments should negotiate a set of interim regulations. These regulations must be unique to the circumstances of Yukon. The current proposed firearms regulations do not meet the requirements of meeting the unique circumstances of Yukon first nations.
Second, the Council of Yukon First Nations has developed parallel firearms legislation that we believe responds to the unique circumstances of our history and culture. The Yukon first nations firearms legislation will be concurrent legislation that we believe will not derogate from the overriding principle of public safety.
Third, the Council of Yukon First Nations has requested that Yukon and Canada enter into negotiations respecting the assumption of the administration of justice from the Yukon government. It is this matter that has been contested by provincial governments and the Yukon government as an unnecessary and unconstitutional infringement of provincial powers under the Firearms Act. We wish to assume the administration of justice to be able to enforce our firearms act in accordance with our law. As part of this proposal, Yukon first nations have contemplated and would likely support the immediate establishment of a territory-wide peacemaker first nations court that would deal with any firearms violation and matters that are consistent with public safety and the Yukon first nations lifestyle.
Last, the Council of Yukon First Nations has been willing to negotiate a protocol agreement with Yukon and Canada respecting the enforcement aspect of the Firearms Act and regulations. We believe this protocol agreement will rationalize between the Yukon first nations and the governments all matters that require coordination between the three orders of government.
The proposed regulations.
Notwithstanding our general concerns respecting the unconstitutionality of the Firearms Act and the accompanying proposed regulations, the regulations respecting aboriginal peoples of Canada, adaptation of the regulations is also deficient in a number of respects. First of all, the definitions section reverses the existing common-law placement of onus of proof. For example, the definition of aboriginal community now means a traditional collectivity of aboriginal people that has a distinctive culture that includes engaging in traditional hunting practice. This definition does not comply with our definition of Yukon first nations and implies a requirement of Yukon first nations to prove they have a distinctive culture that includes engagement in traditional hunting practices. This reverses the onus placed on the Crown in cases such as Fialka.
.1125
Second, the regulations make it clear that all of the regulations apply to aboriginal individuals. Paragraphs 4 to 22 of the draft regulations respecting aboriginal peoples of Canada adaptation regulations apply specifically to aboriginal peoples. These adaptations do not go far enough and generally only apply with respect to paragraphs 3, 8 and 9 of the firearms licences regulations.
Paragraphs 3, 8 and 9 of the firearms licences regulations respectively deal with possession and acquisition licences for firearms, possession of firearms, and possession licences for firearms by minors. There are no other major adaptations with respect to other portions of the Firearms Act, nor other proposed regulations.
Paragraph 18 of the aboriginal regulations has a deeming clause that is intended to ensure that an aboriginal individual who had, on the commencement day, a firearm that is neither prohibited nor restricted is deemed to possess a firearm for the purposes of subparagraph 7(4)(c). This is a good interim adaptation. However, the use of the term ``traditional hunting practices'' may be inconsistent with similar terms within the Yukon first nations treaties and inconsistent with the common-law usage of these terms.
The same comments would apply to paragraph 19 of the aboriginal regulations.
Finally, the storage of firearms under paragraph 21 of the aboriginal regulations still would, in our opinion, make the majority of our citizens potential criminals. The firearms in these circumstances are still required to be unloaded and the ammunition is not readily accessible. These circumstances generally do not recognize the lifestyles of Yukon first nations citizens.
In conclusion, the Council of Yukon First Nations will pursue the passage of its own firearms legislation. This Yukon first nations law will respond to those circumstances that are unique to Yukon first nations and are law to Yukon first nations to regulate the use of firearms in the exercise of their subsistence activities.
In the Yukon we are hoping that the relationship between the Crown and first nations will change with new treaty innovations. The continuing disregard by the Crown respecting first nations rights appears to be consistent with the historic mistreatment of Yukon first nations citizens.
We believe that the act of the Crown is inconsistent with our agreements and with our aboriginal rights in Canada. For these reasons we oppose the Firearms Act and the proposed regulations to the Firearms Act. Nonetheless, we have provided constructive alternatives for the Crown to adapt to our unique circumstances in the Yukon.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, sir.
We will at this point go to questions, beginning with Mr. de Savoye.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Gentlemen, I have listened intently to your presentation. As a member for the Bloc Québécois, I am very sensitive to everything that has to do with the federal government infringing on the powers of other jurisdictions.
I realize that you are against those draft regulations and that you will use all available means to challenge those provisions.
.1130
On the other hand, our sub-committee is considering those draft regulations. Therefore, I can't really help you directly. There is, however, something in your presentation that I find particularly significant for this committee and I would like to know more about it. You say on page 5 of your brief:
[English]
- ...the Yukon First Nations have developed parallel firearms legislation which we believe
responds to the unique circumstances of our history and culture.
Mr. Joe: Our position is that there are three things. One, we have the inherent right to pass laws with respect to firearms under our agreement. That is clear. Second, we have drafted a bill that has been shared with our law-making body, currently all the chiefs in the Yukon. Third, Yukon first nations with final agreements have the right to pass laws with respect to firearms, as noted, I believe, on page 4 of the brief we have presented.
As part of this we believe that Canada certainly has the exclusive right to pass laws over criminal law matters, but that does not necessarily mean this exclusive law-making power moves aside any concurrent law-making power for either first nations or the provinces. Therefore, we have advanced a law that we believe would still meet the public safety concerns as articulated in Bill C-68, as well as the unique circumstances of the Yukon. We believe we have met the national public safety standards as well as responded to soften the law to ensure both an understanding and a willingness by our people to comply with that law.
Mr. de Savoye: I believe it would be most helpful to this subcommittee to understand your vision of those unique circumstances of your culture and history that does apply to the firearms legislation. In your firearms legislation, in the bill you have prepared, what would be some examples that would best represent those circumstances that are unique to you? Could you give us examples?
Mr. Joe: For example, instead of a firearms officer being designated here in Yukon who has to meet and comply with the standards under the existing Firearms Act, we simply thought we could hire our own officer who would certify our own people in manners and in tests with respect to the use of firearms that our people have incorporated for at least the last 300 years here in Yukon. We thought these tests could still meet the public safety standards that are now being expressed by Canada and still comply with the cultural standards that are in place here.
Second, with respect to the use of firearms, throughout our hunting territories we know we have a culture whereby our people would give out guns at both potlatches and at funerals, for example. We thought there was no need in those circumstances for the recipient of those guns to have to meet the objective standard that is now expressed in the Firearms Act of Canada. In terms of the potlatch-giving ceremonies we have here, those cultural aspects could be articulated and fulfilled by our law. They certainly have not been addressed in the context of the Firearms Act.
.1135
Mr. de Savoye: To conclude my period of questioning, gentlemen, I understand that whatever is in the legislation and the regulations at this moment does not correspond to what you feel would be respectful of your way of life, but that's one thing. I also understand - and I think this is the main issue - you do not believe the Canadian Parliament has the authority to legislate on this matter on your behalf. Am I right in assuming this?
Mr. Joe: That's partly right. We basically say there is no denying that Canada has the exclusive authority to occupy the field in the criminal law context with respect to firearms. Secondly, it cannot use that occupation of the criminal law field to erode our treaty rights and our rights under subsection 35(1) without paying heed to what the common law tests and requirements are at this time. We think Canada is required by law to step over those hurdles, and it has agreed to do it in the context of the agreements it has reached with us. All we ask is that it respect what it has agreed to with us.
There should be no anticipation and expectation that Canada would simply accept that its laws, in the firearms context, are exclusive and therefore nobody else can pass laws in this respect. That is not the concurrent law-making system we currently have in Canada, and it precludes any law-making responsibility for, in this case, Yukon first nations.
Mr. de Savoye: I've heard you well and I thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. de Savoye.
Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to thank our witnesses in Yukon for their presentation and their response to the questions so far.
The Yukon aboriginal people had a delegation before the standing committee when the bill was first examined. It was clear, not only from their testimony but from testimony from other aboriginal groups, including the James Bay Cree, that there was a lack of a consultative process that is required under your agreements, which are now appendages to the Constitution.
Of course, the Reform Party and I have concerns about the bill, and we oppose the bill.
I'd like to ask you whether you have a problem within your community with regard to public safety in the manner in which firearms are used. Would the standard of safety in your communities now be enhanced through Bill C-68 and its regulations, which we're looking at today, or are you suggesting there's nothing wrong with the bill and the only problem is that it's being imposed upon you and administered by the federal government? In other words, you indicate in your presentation that you would adopt a parallel set of laws.
I have real problems determining whether or not this bill would add to public safety. The storage regulations are already there through Bill C-17, and I see that as a common-sense approach. Nevertheless, it impinges upon people in remote communities such as yours, or in areas where you need to have your firearm very handy and loaded in order to protect yourself against animals and so forth.
You seem to be willing to impose regulations yourself upon your people with regard to the use of firearms. Does that indicate there's a deficiency in the present standard that creates a public safety problem or a threat to public safety in the manner in which firearms are handled within your communities today? I hope I'm clear.
.1140
Mr. Joe: We think you're clear. We consider the standards that are presently in place to be high. We have been taught a hunting system that has incorporated the use of firearms from a very young age. I dare say that the standards that are in place - albeit not expressed in written legal format - are higher than the current standards now being articulated by Canada in Bill C-68.
So we don't have any sort of safety concerns in that respect. That is why we say, in the concurrent nature of the process, that we believe our laws will meet or beat the public safety standards now articulated in Bill C-68.
We recognize there has been a sort of coverage of the storage aspects in past bills; we are very cognizant of that. Likewise, the storage aspects in the concurrent law-making sense could be addressed better by us with the standard practices we have had, which are higher than the current standards now being articulated by the bill.
The point is that Canada, through this bill, is attempting to avoid the fact that there are other governments in Canada. There are 15 first nations in the Yukon. We don't want to make havoc out of a process whereby there should be different standards throughout, but for the purposes of Yukon first nations we've simply said there should be one common standard implied and adopted for all Yukon first nations that meets or beats the existing standards.
Mr. Ramsay: What I'm hearing you say is what we have heard from other organizations this bill will impact upon. In other words, you are saying there is basically no need for this bill in your community because your standards of firearm safety, through use and storage and so on, are higher than what would be set by the imposition of the bill. If that is what you mean, this bill will not mean very much to your community because your standards are in excess of the standards that would be set through the implementation of this bill. Is that correct?
Mr. Joe: Yes, that's basically correct.
Mr. Ramsay: Then this bill would be at the least a costly imposition upon your people, not only from your end but from the government's end as well. I understand you're saying this bill is not needed in your community. Is that basically the bottom line?
Mr. James: That is correct.
Mr. Ramsay: That's very clear. I have always appreciated the testimony from aboriginal groups because you've always been so clear on where you stand. I think many organizations across the country are saying the same thing. If the museums, the groups that re-enact historical battles that have occurred within this country, the hunting associations, and the guides and outfitters have standards of firearm usage that do not pose a threat to public safety, why is this bill - which is supposed to be a public safety bill - being imposed upon these organizations, including your own communities, when there is no existing public safety threat?
.1145
I have real problems with the bill, and I have from the beginning, because it simply didn't make sense to me from those points of view.
Of course, we will oppose the bill and the regulations.
I want to thank you very much for your input. You've made a number of things quite clear to me.
I would like to ask you about this in my final minute. You seem to be willing to impose your own regulations that would be parallel to Bill C-68. Why would you do that? If your standards of safety are sufficient, why would you impose regulations if you don't need them?
Mr. Joe: The basic law-making system of Canada is unfortunate for us because we're basically a people with an oral tradition and we now have to write down on paper these laws we've always had. We have to articulate them in a manner that is understood by both our people and the general public. If we maintain, as we do, that we have rights under subsection 35(1), including the right to pass laws with respect to firearms for our people throughout our territories as they hunt, we basically have to write these laws down on paper. As we do so, we recognize that in some respects we could maintain that we have the exclusive law-making authority, and we recognize that our agreements on self-government have adopted a concurrent law-making system. As we write these laws down on paper, we recognize that as part of the current conflict tests in Canada respecting these laws we have to either meet or beat the standards expressed by Canada.
So we believe we now have to write these laws down on paper, and we are doing that. We believe that as we write them down, these standards will meet or beat the current standards that are expressed in Bill C-68.
Mr. Ramsay: I have just one final question. Has Bill C-68 pushed your government into formulating laws you would not otherwise have had to formulate?
Mr. Joe: In a word, yes.
Mr. Ramsay: Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Kirkby.
Mr. Kirkby: Let me take the opportunity to welcome the witnesses via the teleconferencing.
I have a couple of quick questions for the witnesses.
You indicated that no consultations have taken place with respect to the Firearms Act. Are you saying that at no time during the discussions that have been undertaken with respect to this act have you met with justice officials?
Mr. Joe: No. We aren't saying that at all.
We are saying we were not consulted in compliance with the common-law tests that are currently adopted as far as the Sparrow case goes, and we have not been consulted in compliance with the agreements we have and the defined terms of how Canada is to consult.
We do not deny that we've had discussions with Department of Justice officials about the bill itself. As a matter of fact, we admit that we've had a number of discussions with them. But in my opinion, and in the opinion of the Yukon first nations, that does not fulfil the need to consult on these matters.
Mr. Kirkby: It is indicated that consultations must be taken before imposing legislation pursuant to section 16.3.3 of your agreement. Could it be argued that consultations have occurred because the legislation has yet to be proclaimed and the department has been and continues to be willing to work with aboriginal people up to the implementation of the firearms legislation?
.1150
Mr. Joe: That could be maintained, but consistent with that, our view of being consulted is with respect to 16.3.3.2, for example, the Crown is obliged to consult. It's not enough for you and your officials, for example - that's not to say you, but the officials of the Department of Justice - to come to the Yukon and hear us out 150 times and go away and not do anything in the context of changing Bill C-68 - which has not been done - or in the context of now changing the proposed regs, which I doubt will be done.
On numerous occasions we have expressed the fact that we are unique in the Yukon and that the bill responds to public safety concerns in downtown Vancouver, downtown Toronto, and downtown Montreal, etc. It does not respond to the public safety concerns in downtown Carcross and downtown Teslin, etc., which are our communities in the Yukon.
We have made it clear that the requirement to consult requires more than simply saying: Here are the articulated whims of the Crown as conveyed in Bill C-68 and the proposed regs. What do you want, Indians? We hear you, but we're going to pass these laws notwithstanding the fact that we have heard you.
We think there is a need to comply and a need to listen to us and respond in a manner conducive to our concerns. That, frankly, has not happened.
Mr. Kirkby: You do not regard regulations that are designed to assist aboriginal communities to comply with the law - as well as a result of past and further discussions - as practical steps to ensure that aboriginal communities are fully participating in a meaningful way in the administration of the law. Do you not regard the regulations or the past and future processes as consultations?
Mr. Joe: In a word, no. We don't.
Mr. Kirkby: Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Kirkby.
If I may pick up on that, has the federal government given any indication that it will continue a dialogue to try to meet the concerns of the Assembly of First Nations and in particular the concerns of the Yukon first nations?
Mr. James mentioned that he hoped to be able to resolve this with discussion. There were two ways of doing it: discussion with the federal government, or discussion in the courts. Has there been an indication that there will be meetings to try to resolve differences?
Mr. James: At this moment, no, there has not been any indication as far as resolving this issue goes. We have put forward these proposals to the Crown. We are trying to look at initiating some sort of comment from the Crown so that we can work towards a resolution of the conflict.
The Chairman: You mentioned that your regulations are probably more comprehensive than the ones that are imposed by and being put forward by the government. Have you made any listing for the government of the objections that you have to the government regulations, and have you listed where yours may be more suitable?
.1155
Mr. Joe: Yes, we have. We've done that in the context of this brief and when we met with Department of Justice officials in December 1996.
The Chairman: Mr. de Savoye, do you have further questions?
Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Chair, I want to perhaps express a wish, if not a recommendation; that consultations with people from the first nations, when treaties do exist, do not proceed in a higher-to-subordinate manner, but, I would say, in a bilateral manner that would be more respectful of the communities, the aboriginal communities, that do have treaties and hence have rights that need to be respected. That's what I understand of what we've been told, and this is the wish I express now.
Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. de Savoye.
Mr. Maloney.
Mr. Maloney: Thank you.
Perhaps I could address this question to Mr. Joe, a clarification of some of the comments you have made.
Are you saying that aboriginal people in the Yukon have criminal law-making authority?
Mr. Joe: No, there is nothing within our agreements that have said that. It's debatable whether or not as part of the inherent right under subsection 35(1) we have a pseudo- or quasi-criminal law-making authority. I don't think that's debatable, but there's nothing within the agreements that would give us criminal law-making in the context of which we know it under section 91 at this point in time.
Mr. Maloney: It's my understanding that there are a lot of court decisions that have clearly stated that firearms legislation is within the criminal law-making authority of the federal government. Is that not correct?
Mr. Joe: We have made it clear and we've even had an opinion from Peter Hogg out of Osgoode Hall, who has advised us that this bill is valid with respect to an occupation of the field by Canada under section 91. We don't deny that, but we simply say that when Canada occupies the field in this respect, there are other agreements, other laws, that they have made with us that should be respected in the context of which those agreements and those laws were made.
Mr. Maloney: Despite the criminal law-making authority of the federal government, are you saying that the government cannot infringe on your first nations rights?
Mr. Joe: No, we're not saying that. We are saying that the Sparrow case out of the Supreme Court of 1990 basically said that for Canada to infringe upon our treaty rights or our rights under subsection 35(1), there are two tests they have to jump through.
First, they have to justify or rationalize why they have to do it. The premise in this particular case is public safety. We do not deny that.
The second test is basically whether or not they have met all of their requirements, that is, to consult with us, and so on. Is it necessary? Can they justify it in the context of our hunting societies in the Yukon? In my opinion, they can't. In downtown Vancouver or Toronto, they could, but certainly not up in Old Crow, for example.
Mr. Maloney: In our treaty agreements, self-government, there are clauses dealing with conflicts of law and resolution thereof. Is it not the laws of general application that would take priority or precedence?
Mr. Joe: No. As a matter of fact, in the Yukon, if Yukon first nations laws are inconsistent or in conflict with laws of the Yukon, Yukon first nations laws are paramount.
On the issue of paramountcy with federal law, there is no agreement as to whether or not subsection 35(1) laws that are passed by Yukon first nations are paramount over federal laws. We are in the process of working out the degree to which federal law may be paramount with respect to the passage of Yukon first nations laws.
Mr. Maloney: Also - it wasn't clear - is or is not the department responding to your concerns in its consultations? Are we moving that way? Consultations have taken place only in December, did I hear you say?
Mr. Joe: They were up here in December, and they showed us the regulations that have been tabled in the House of Commons. [Inaudible - Editor]...in the past as well, and they travelled throughout the Yukon talking to our people. Our people basically expressed the common concerns we are now expressing to you.
.1200
Mr. Maloney: Will this be an ongoing process for some time to come, or is that just a one-shot affair?
Mr. Joe: We certainly hope so. It is our expectation that we will continue to pass the laws that we will pass, to basically occupy our law-making fields in respect of firearms. If the laws are in conflict or are inconsistent with the Firearms Act of Canada - the occupation of the field by Canada in the criminal law context - then we either cut a deal, work out an agreement on the issue of paramountcy with respect to the degree of conflict or inconsistencies, or we basically say, see you in court.
Mr. Maloney: I notice in your brief that only four of the first nations peoples have signed the agreement. What are we doing about the other ten, and how does that impact on the firearms legislation?
Mr. Joe: That's correct; only four of the fourteen have agreements. The other ten are concluding their treaties at this point in time. The expectation is that they will complete their treaties in the next two or three years. The basic contention here is that with respect to the agreements with the first four that have treaties, there is no doubt an impact vis-à-vis the strict requirements under their agreements. With respect to the other ten that do not have agreements or treaties, we simply say that the common-law requirements to consult have been ignored in their case as well.
Mr. Maloney: Thank you, Mr. Joe.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Maloney.
Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Ramsay: I'd just like to clarify a couple of things. When the aboriginal people, including the first nations from the Yukon, appeared before the standing committee originally, I was very upset, because it seemed that the constitutional rights of the aboriginal people - the Yukon and the James Bay Cree - had been violated with regard to the consultation requirement contained within both agreements. What bothers me is that the bill itself should have reflected the concerns of both groups. Because the consultation process did not follow the articles of both agreements where it clearly indicates - and supported by Professor Hogg - that consultation was required.... To me the purpose of those articles in those agreements is to have reflected within the original bill the concerns and the aspirations of the aboriginal people. Otherwise, why have it there at all?
Because the bill did not reflect that - and it did not reflect that because that consultation didn't take place - I was very concerned. In fact, I raised it at the committee level and in the House of Commons that there was what I thought to be, and our caucus thought to be, a clear violation of the constitutional rights of aboriginal people.
Now, David Joe, you have confirmed in my mind that yes, the federal government does have paramountcy, but it must be done in accordance with those agreements when laws are being passed that are going to impinge upon existing treaty rights. That was not done.
It's my personal feeling that had the government - the justice department - gone to the aboriginal people first and used your needs as a benchmark upon which to formulate this bill, there would be no difficulty across this country in moving this bill forward. That's my personal opinion.
My question I guess is this. You said, we'll see you in court. As you know, there's a constitutional challenge by some of the provinces with regard to certain aspects of the bill. Do you people intend to move at the head of this with a constitutional or a court challenge, or are you going to wait and deal with it perhaps as your members are brought into court for a violation of the bill? If you're willing to share your thoughts with the committee on that, is there going to be a court challenge or is it going to be a piecemeal effort as each member of your committee may be charged for a violation of this bill? Are you going to fight it that way or is there going to be a head-on confrontation over the bill at the beginning?
.1205
Mr. Joe: I think we are torn in that respect at this point in time. We recognize that we have three options. We could support the provinces that are beginning to challenge the bill currently as an unnecessary infringement upon the administration of justice aspects under clause 92. We have basically similar concerns in that respect. That's one option.
The second option we have, which is the one that we've always historically been forced into and have used, is basically to use our treaty rights and our rights under subsection 35(1) as a shield; that is, when the Crown decides to prosecute our people, we will defend on the basis that they did not consult and this law is an unnecessary and unjustifiable infringement upon our rights. We would use those rights as a shield at that point in time.
The third one is a bit more provocative, I guess. The concept is that we would occupy the field, pass our own laws, and challenge the legality of Canada in the context of concurrent law-making. At this point in time, we are embarked upon the third strategy, which is to basically occupy the field, that we have law-making power in respect of our rights to hunt and in respect of our rights to carry firearms while we are hunting. And we will occupy that field. If Canada decides to challenge that, that would be their choice. The third choice is basically that we would use our rights as a sword as opposed to a shield.
Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Joe, you've mentioned that you're presently in the process of writing down what you consider to be the laws and the regulations, as you see them. Is that correct?
Mr. Joe: Yes, that's correct.
The Chairman: When do you think that process would be completed?
Mr. Joe: I believe our Yukon chiefs are going to respond to the first draft that was put out in November of last year. That time period, I believe, is January 31 of this year. We have sort of a second-reading process as well. I would expect that process to be concluded sometime in the early spring.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you, gentlemen, for appearing before us today. I realize it's still quite early in Whitehorse and we've forced you into a very early start to your day, but we appreciate the testimony you have given and we will certainly consider it very carefully. Thank you again. It's been very helpful.
We'll be adjourning until 1 p.m., at which time we will be hearing from the movie industry. Our witness for 2:15 p.m. is not going to be with us, so we will be adjourning for the day at 2:15 p.m. Right now, though, we are adjourning until 1 p.m., at which time we will resume hearings.