EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 9, 1995

.1530

[English]

The Chair: Order. We are continuing our examination of Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons.

We're pleased to have with us this afternoon the Honourable Doug Phillips, Q.C., Minister of Justice for Yukon, and Jonathan Parker, policy analyst for the Yukon government.

Hon. Doug Phillips (Minister of Justice, Minister of Tourism, Minister of Public Service Commission, Minister Responsible for Women's Directorate, Government of Yukon Territory): First, Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to present the Yukon perspective on the proposed gun control legislation.

Yukoners have a lot to say about this bill and it is very unfortunate that your committee did not travel north to hear it firsthand. I think it would have been a useful education for all members of the committee.

To begin with, this bill is supposed to prevent crime. Our view is the major effect in Yukon will be to make criminals out of law-abiding citizens. Perhaps more distressing, the bill is so unpopular in Yukon that it will have no legitimacy in the eyes of Yukoners and will only erode public confidence in the law, the federal government, and politicians.

This will be made worse by the fact that the consultation on the bill was staged and rather insincere. When Minister Rock came to Whitehorse to consult, his meetings were closed to the public. The only meeting of any size was organized by the local Liberal Party and was by invitation only. Some local MLAs from other parties who tried to attend were barred from entry.

At a time when cynicism towards our democratic institutions is at an all-time high, we simply cannot afford the selective consultation and pursuit of legislation that people do not want.

This is a bad bill for Yukon. It's unacceptable to both the people of Yukon and the Government of Yukon. The Yukon's opposition to the bill in itself would be enough to influence further thinking on the matter. However, there's also widespread agreement that the universal registration will be ineffective and fraught with problems.

It's important for the committee to recognize that the illegal use of firearms in Yukon is not a problem in the same way as it may be in the south. Our primary concern here with this bill is the universal registration. This proposed scheme will be costly, intrusive, and ineffective.

Other concerns relate to the forfeiture of firearms without fair compensation and the enhancement of police officers' powers of search and seizure to an extent that civil liberties may be threatened.

.1535

Before getting into specifics on these and other problems with the bill, we'd like to make it clear how strongly Yukoners oppose this legislation and the reasons why this is the case.

Bill C-68 is opposed by a broad coalition of Yukoners from all parts of the territory. An indication of this was a motion that was introduced in the Yukon legislature on December 14, 1994, by Johnny Abel, the MLA for Vuntut Gwitchin, who represents Yukon's northernmost community of Old Crow. A copy of the debate is attached to the formal submission.

Mr. Abel moved:

That it is the opinion of this House that the proposed amendments to the federal government's firearms legislation to be presented to the Parliament of Canada in February 1995 do not accommodate the needs of northern Canadians and their lifestyles; and that the Yukon Legislative Assembly urges the federal Minister of Justice, the Hon. Allan Rock, not to proceed with the proposed firearms amendments until such time as the needs of northern Canadians are met.

This motion was supported unanimously by all members of the legislature, including the leader of the Yukon Liberal Party. In addition, the Yukon's member of Parliament, Audrey McLaughlin, is also on record as opposing Bill C-68. This unanimous opposition among politicians is merely a reflection of the position held by the vast majority of Yukoners.

There is much concern among Yukon first nations and the Council for Yukon Indians, which is made up of the chiefs of the 14 first nations in Yukon. The council will be presenting its views this evening.

The public opposition to the bill is active. We've recently seen the formation of the Responsible Firearms Owners Coalition of Yukon in response to this legislation. This group has made a presentation to the committee, along with the Yukon Outfitters' Association and the Yukon Trappers Association. Other groups have concerns and would be here as well if the expense and the inconvenience of making the trip from Yukon to Ottawa were not prohibitive. Again, a much more effective way for the committee to truly gauge the feeling of the Yukoners would be to come to Yukon to meet us.

In short, the people of Yukon represent a virtual united front against the bill. If the committee and the federal government are supportive of democratic principles, this must be given strong consideration when you debate this bill.

Strong opposition to the bill comes from many areas. The first is the high rate of firearms ownership among the Yukon population. An Angus Reid poll suggests 67% of Yukoners own firearms, compared to 23% in southern Canada. I believe that in our more remote communities it's probably more like 95% to 100%.

Such a high rate of ownership in Yukon leads to a population that is very knowledgeable about firearms and how to use them responsibly and safely. One would think that the views of such an informed segment of the population would have more influence with legislators and polls from southern Canada, the results of which are driven by respondents with little firearms knowledge or interest and little understanding of the contents of the proposed legislation.

As the well-known survey conducted by Dr. Mauser from Simon Fraser University reveals, the more one knows about the firearms registration the less one has support for Bill C-68. The Yukon is excellent proof of this relationship.

Throughout our history, both before the arrival of Europeans and after, Yukon's wilderness and wildlife have been the dominant themes of Yukoners' lives. Since the introduction of firearms to the territory hundreds of years ago, firearms have been inextricably intertwined with these themes. As such, firearms are perceived very differently from the way they are in other parts of the country. In Yukon they're necessary tools, heirlooms and dependable companions on trips into the wilderness. It's not hard to find people in Yukon today who will entertain you with stories about how firearms saved a life, perhaps when meeting a bear or working on a remote placer claim or on a hunting trip or when charged by a moose while running a team of dogs.

This is very different from the south, where firearms are, to the vast majority of people, weapons of criminals. The dominant values and realities in Yukon serve to establish a powerful bond between men and women of Yukon and their firearms. Firearms are an explicit strand in the fabric of our way of life: how we work, provide recreation, and feed ourselves.

While it may be too easy for politicians in Ottawa to dismiss this rhetoric and ignore our reality because it's not consistent with their own, we implore the committee to take an open-minded approach and look at how foreign this legislation is to Yukoners.

Firearms are also important to the economy of the north. In Yukon hunting is an important means of deriving sustenance. This is particularly the case for aboriginal Yukoners, many of whom exercise their sustenance hunting rights as a primary means of feeding their families.

.1540

Many non-aboriginal people also rely on hunting as a means of supplementing their household grocery budget. For people who make their living in the wilderness, game is often a diet staple. In general, the Yukon wild meat offers a critical source of affordable, nutritious food, and comprises a substantial, though unrecorded, contribution to the territorial GDP.

Two other key areas where firearms are used are the trapping and the guiding, hunting or outfitting industries. As you've heard from representatives from these industries, firearms are vital to both. For trappers, firearms are a necessary tool for harvesting their fur-bearers efficiently and humanely, for personal protection, and for hunting for food. Firearms are an obvious necessity on guided hunting trips.

The close to 400 trapping concessions spread throughout the territory provide rural residents with a needed source of income and a vital connection with the land in communities where unemployment is always high. This industry contributes millions of dollars annually to the territorial GDP, and the imposition of complex firearms registration requirements can only serve to hurt the industry and raise the costs of doing business.

Outfitting also spreads economic benefits throughout the territory and into regions where there are few meaningful economic prospects. Outfitters, hired guides, horse wranglers and cooks can purchase local services. The industry also contributes millions to our economy.

Bill C-68 could have dire implications for outfitters because of the potential boycotts of Canadian hunting trips by American hunters if they're required to register their guns while in Yukon.

The impact of a boycott will be much greater in Yukon compared to the provinces because of the relative importance of the industry to the territorial economy. For instance, Bill C-68 will impose new registration procedures on foreign hunters entering Canada. I might point out that these foreign hunters have been coming to Yukon for over 40 years and we do not have one recorded incident of a client using his or her firearm in a criminal activity.

The question I have to this committee is why do we need that law?

Firearms are an important source of recreation in the Yukon. This includes recreational hunting, target shooting, biathlon and collecting. As well, enjoyment of Yukon's abundant wilderness is an important pastime. A firearm helps ensure personal safety when hiking and backpacking in remote areas. These activities provide incalculable social benefits.

The new initiatives are being pursued despite the fact that there are problems with the existing gun control legislation that are not being addressed. No evaluation has been done of the existing measures to determine whether or not they have any kind of deterrent effect on crime. We do not even know if the current measures are working as we plunge ahead with more.

There's a widespread ignorance of gun control legislation and what is required of gun owners now. The federal government has done a very poor job of educating the public on the existing regime. This is not an encouraging sign for the even more complex and comprehensive regime under Bill C-68. The existing measures are not adequately enforced. There are many firearm owners right now in Yukon who are not in compliance. How can we expect compliance with an even more intrusive and expanded system?

The result of a firearms program that is legislatively driven by Ottawa but administered by the territory has been a proliferation of costs that accrue to the territory but that are the responsibility of the federal government. This trend is surely to continue.

For these reasons, we feel it's highly premature for the federal government to be embarking upon yet more changes to gun control legislation. The government should focus on evaluation and improving what it already has instead of getting even further ahead of itself by trying to do more.

The proposed universal licensing and registration system will make the ownership and use of firearms more expensive, more complicated and more difficult. In general, it will discourage firearms use and thus directly diminish the associated economic and social benefits to our territory. It will also turn many honest and law-abiding Yukoners into criminals and lead to increased enforcement to track non-compliance.

There is no evidence to suggest that forcing law-abiding firearms owners to register their guns will in any way prevent the criminal use of firearms. This is one of the fundamental premises on which Bill C-68 is based, but it simply isn't logical.

Aside from the blanket critique that the bill will not work, there are many other problems with the federal government's gun control efforts. I would ask the committee members to examine the comprehensive presentation on Bill C-68 provided by the Government of the Yukon to determine more detailed concerns. I would ask you, when you're examining that brief, to refer to page 10 of our submission, where we lay out concerns about this legislation contravening our recently signed land claims agreement.

.1545

We have attached a legal opinion by the nationally known expert on aboriginal rights, Ian Binnie, Q.C. I also understand that you will be hearing a brief this evening from the Council for Yukon Indians expressing their strong concerns. Page 15 of our detailed submission lays out other areas of legal concern.

It is obvious from the many problems associated with this bill that alternatives must be found. The fundamental goal, crime prevention, is laudable; the means of achieving the goal is not.

As stated earlier, the Yukon does not have a problem with the illegal use of firearms, as they may have in southern Canada, and the statistics bear this out. Crime statistics show that serious offences involving firearms, such as armed robbery and assault with a firearm, are few in number. In 1994 there were only two armed robberies in 6,089 criminal offences in the Yukon, and one assault involving a firearm.

The Yukon has very few homicides committed with firearms. Between 1986 and 1994 there were ten homicides in the Yukon, of which three were committed with firearms. There is no evidence to suggest that any of these three homicides would have been prevented if a universal registration system had been in place at the time.

The types of crimes that cause day-to-day concern in the Yukon are property crimes and vandalism. Recently the crime that has been most often raised as a public concern is snowmobile theft. We're also very concerned about family violence and forms of violence against women and children. These are the kinds of crimes that are directly attributable to alcohol and drug abuse.

The number of offenders involved in the Yukon Department of Justice family violence prevention program is high for a jurisdiction the size of the Yukon, and it is growing. These are the crimes we need to take action against in the Yukon. Unlike in many urban centres, acts of random violence committed by persons with smuggled and stolen guns are almost unheard of.

Implementing universal registration in the Yukon could cost as much as $500,000. Spending this amount of money on a system that will have very little effect on only a handful of firearms-related crimes is indefensible. If this money could be made available for meaningful crime prevention, a real difference could be made. We could enhance programs tackling youth property crime, and we can always make use of the additional resources in our efforts against family violence and the related problems of drug and alcohol abuse.

To make this possible, the Yukon and other jurisdictions should be allowed to opt out of the application of the universal registration and licensing scheme. This would allow the true scope and costs of implementation activities to be assessed and the effectiveness of the system to be evaluated. Jurisdictions that opt out could then review the appropriateness of the system at a later date.

To conclude, this is a bad bill for Yukon. While we're supportive of a tougher stance on crime, the gun control measures in Bill C-68 are bad for Yukon. We want justice to be swift and decisive whenever a firearm is used for illegal purposes anywhere in the country. As for the universal registration, perhaps this is an appropriate legislative objective for southern urban centres. There may also be provinces that support universal registration province-wide, but we're not experts on southern Canada, and we leave it to you to decide that for yourselves. Just as we're not experts on what's best for the south, please recognize that you're not experts on the north.

The gun control aspects of Bill C-68 are bad for Yukon. They are unpopular, undemocratic and intrusive. They're difficult to comply with and almost impossible to enforce. They will be expensive and will drain vital resources from effective crime prevention activities. They will contravene the Yukon land claims agreements, and no thought has been given to how they fit in with the Yukon self-government agreements. Finally, and most important, they will not achieve any meaningful results.

In its present state this bill is one of crime creation in the north, rather than crime prevention. This bill will put myself, as the Minister of Justice, and the RCMP in a very awkward position. I have been told by many of my friends they will refuse to comply. Will it now be my responsibility to report these individuals? Will we be spending thousands of dollars tracking down these individuals in the future, prosecuting them and tying up our courts? These individuals a few months ago were law-abiding citizens.

In the last few years the Government of Yukon has spent hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars in consultation with our communities and the RCMP in building support for community justice initiatives. This bill will set that trust back years when the RCMP will be forced to charge some of the very individuals who have worked for these crime prevention measures in their communities.

.1550

The head of the RCMP in Yukon has expressed to me the very grave concern of the time the administration of this bill will take away from his officers regarding regular duties in the community. Registration will be an absolute nightmare in our small communities, where officers have no clerical help and will have to carry out all this new work and at the same time be out in the community working with the people. I might add that in many of these small communities we do not have the technology to automate the registration system that you have in the larger centres.

You also have to remember that in these small communities the RCMP know who has firearms. Probably over 80% or 90% of the people in these communities have firearms. They do not need a registration system to tell them that. They, like me, will be forced to turn in their friends, and that will do nothing to instil confidence in our justice system.

The only realistic solution is to allow Yukon and opposed jurisdictions to opt out of the application of universal registration. I implore the committee to consider this alternative carefully.

Before I conclude, I'd like to talk briefly about some of the positive aspects we see in the bill. I want to make it clear that our opposition to this bill does not mean that we oppose crime prevention measures such as the creation of new offences for specific kinds of crimes committed with a firearm, stiffer penalties for firearms offences, the creation of new smuggling offences, enhanced enforcement of firearms smuggling at border patrols and controls on replicas. In fact, Yukon would recommend to the committee that you postpone the decision and go with more public consultation on the registration system, but proceed this spring with the criminal portion of the bill. We think that would be something we could accept. But we certainly feel that the registration system is something the committee should learn more about and Yukoners and other Canadians should be made more aware of what's in place now, and this has to be done before you go any further.

Mr. Chair, that concludes my presentation. I'll be more than happy to answer any questions from committee members.

[Translation]

Mr. Deshaies (Abitibi): Mr. Phillips, thank you for coming from so far away to tell us about the views of the people who live in the Yukon.

I represent the riding of Abitibi, in the north western part of Quebec, and it's a rural region which is quite similar to the Yukon, since we have Inuit and Cree people as well as white people who hunt and trap there. The problem, as you mentioned in your presentation, is that people are going to find it very difficult to comply with the mandatory registration system.

Is it that the Yukon people are going to refuse to co-operate or that there are some technical problems in the Yukon which would make registration impossible?

[English]

Mr. Phillips: It's both. Some people will not comply. Lots of people have told me that they won't comply.

Another problem we're facing in the north and we're already experiencing with delivering existing firearms training programs is the rate of illiteracy in the north, how we have to change the scope of the program that was designed for southern Canada to fit a northern experience.

.1555

The other issue is the cost. I spoke in the supermarket two days ago to the firearms officer who delivers these programs. He was shopping for groceries. He was heading up to Old Crow in Yukon to deliver a program to some 20 first nations people in the Old Crow area. It's very costly for the individual to go there and spend a few days in the community, which is accessible only by air, and to deliver the program in a way to which the people of Old Crow can relate, at the same time keeping in mind their traditional values. So the program has to be delivered in the north in a way very different from that in the south.

This registration system will be very difficult. For instance, in Old Crow we have three or four members of the RCMP and no clerical support. So the members of the RCMP in that community will be forced virtually to do all of the registration by hand. It will be quite an administrative nightmare for them. They already know who in that community has firearms and who doesn't have them.

[Translation]

Mr. Deshaies: At the beginning of your presentation, you said that you support the first part of the legislation which establishes tougher sentences for the criminal use of weapons. I believe most Canadians support that.

The second part - the one you don't like as much - deals with registration and the fees imposed on weapon users. As you probably know, a Quebec policeman was recently shot as he knocked at the door of an individual who had a firearm at home.

Some people find it regrettable that police officers don't have any information on weapons stored at home. How could police officers know that and not run the risk of being shot when they go to someone's home?

[English]

Mr. Phillips: I have spoken to several police officers in the territory. I can't speak for what might take place in southern Canada, but I can tell you that their answer to me when I asked them that question was that they approach every home with a concern that there could possibly be a firearm in it. This is because in Whitehorse probably 70% of the homes have firearms. In the remote communities probably 98% to 100% of the homes have firearms. So they approach most of these situations with that in mind. This isn't anything new for them. As I said in my presentation, it's the way in which they operate now, so I don't think it would make a big difference.

[Translation]

Mr. Deshaies: Would you be in favour of having the provinces legislating part of the bill, that is having the option to enforce firearms registration in a way that would fit specific needs such as those of the Yukon, for instance?

[English]

Mr. Phillips: One of the suggestions that has been brought up, and I've heard some debate about it across the country and even here today, is the issue of motor vehicles and the relationship between motor vehicles and firearms registration. The comment made to me was that motor vehicles are the responsibility of the provinces. So make the firearms registration part of the legislation a responsibility of the provinces.

If we had that responsibility, I can tell you now that I would not implement a firearms registration system in the territory. I would take the money that Mr. Rock would give me for that registration system and I would put it into alcohol and drug abuse programs, into programs with respect to violence against women, and deal with youth and vandalism. That would do far more to prevent crime in the territory than would having hundreds and thousands of law-abiding citizens register their firearms.

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): I thank you very much for your presentation.

It seems that the laws are made so far removed from some areas of the country that they are impractical. Some of the laws contained in Bill C-17, for example, are extremely impractical. The example I use is the one that requires a person to lock their firearm in one room and their ammunition in another. We ask the question: how in the world can that occur when a person is living in a one-room cabin?

.1600

So the impracticality of the legislation is there. I think it is a result of the fact that those who are creating the legislation are not familiar with the environment on which this legislation is going to impact.

As a member of the Reform Party who is very much against expensive committee travel, I support the idea of travelling both to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory so that members of the committee will have a hands-on experience of what a territory is like and what the conditions are like. In that way, a degree of this impracticality might be eliminated from our legislation.

Since you're the justice minister of the Yukon, I will point out that we have some concerns about the constitutionality of the various aspects of this bill. We have written a letter to the premiers asking them to examine the bill from that point of view and if they have some concerns consider requesting that the federal justice minister initiate a court reference to ascertain the constitutionality of those questionable areas of Bill C-68. This would be if they have concerns in that area, such as clause 100, which ends the right to remain silent; the requirement to cooperate with the police under clauses 99 and 101; the presumption of guilt until proven innocent under clauses 99, 103 and 107; the assignment of guilt by association under proposed section 111; and allowing the continued confiscation of private property without compensation that's ongoing now under Kim Campbell's Bill C-17, which is furthered through the grandfathering touched upon by clause 12.

Do you have any concerns about the constitutionality of this bill, particularly as it reflects to sections 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Mr. Phillips: Yes, we do have concern. We are just in the process of investigating that. We haven't come to a conclusion as yet on whether we would go as far as a challenge.

We would certainly invite a committee recommendation that would urge the federal government to take it to the Supreme Court to get a ruling. We're a small jurisdiction and we don't have a lot of money and the Supreme Court becomes very expensive for us. But if the federal government were to take that out and test it, we would certainly be supportive of that, and we will be looking into it further.

The other area of court challenge may come with respect to the first nations' land claims and the recent agreements. I'll leave the legal opinion, which is in our brief, to speak for itself. Then this evening, when you're talking to the Council for Yukon Indians when they're presenting their brief, they may be able to get into more detail on their concerns on that issue.

Mr. Ramsay: I understand from your presentation that there was very little, if any, consultation between the justice minister and his department and your department when this package was being put together. Did I understand you accurately?

Would you tell the committee to what extent there was any consultation between the federal justice minister and yourself or anyone else from his department with your department prior to the presentation of this proposal before Christmas of last year?

Mr. Phillips: It was limited to a one-hour meeting I had with the justice minister.

Mr. Ramsay: And were you able to participate in the creation of this bill in any reasonable way?

Mr. Phillips: No.

Mr. Ramsay: Under clause 5, the chief firearms officer - and you mentioned you have one in the Yukon - will have to license all the gun owners in the Yukon. Before he can license the gun owners, he must do a criminal record check to see if there have been any violations under these various subparagraphs. Mostly they have to do with violence under the Criminal Code. Of course, if someone has a record of violence there's no question that the licence will be denied. To what extent is this going to eliminate the right of firearm owners now to own a firearm because of a possible criminal record?

.1605

Mr. Phillips: It's a rather difficult question to answer, because I'm not certain how many Yukoners have criminal records. Most Yukoners who have firearms now are responsible firearm users. It may have some effect in some other communities that are in more remote areas of the territory, but I can't give you an exact answer on that.

Mr. Ramsay: You see as well that the chief firearms officer will have to examine the medical file of each individual to determine whether they've been in a hospital or a mental institute for treatment of a mental illness. Do you have any concerns about that?

Mr. Phillips: He's going to be a pretty busy individual in the Yukon.

I suppose the technology for these things in the south is much easier to deal with here than in the north. We don't necessarily have the computer link-ups.

Our firearms officer is one and he will have to travel throughout the territory. I imagine the RCMP will be delegated this authority in some communities, but in many of our communities, other than four in the territory, the major communities, there's no clerical staff. So it will be left to the officers themselves to do all the legwork.

Mr. Ramsay: In his line of duty does your chief firearms officer now have the authority to examine medical files?

Mr. Phillips: I'm not sure of that.

The Chair: Jack, under the FAC requirements they must look into that. That has been the case ever since the FAC came into operation. That will be applied to the new licensing under the new legislation. So on the FACs they must be doing it now to a certain extent.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just as a matter of record, I think it's absolutely essential for us to have a few chief firearms officers appear before this committee so we may be able to get testimony from them that's pertinent to this bill. I'll be making that request during our meeting later today.

If we could turn to clause 110, this really concerns me. In your presentation you mentioned that you do have some gun clubs, target shooting and that kind of thing. Who has set the regulations for that type of activity within the Yukon up until today?

Mr. Phillips: That's our territorial firearms officer.

Mr. Ramsay: But who sets the regulations for that? Are those federal regulations, or do you set them as a territorial council?

Mr. Phillips: [Inaudible - Editor].

Mr. Ramsay: So those regulations are set by the federal government.

You're aware that clause 110 grants the Governor in Council the power to establish regulations ``respecting the use of firearms in target practice or target shooting competitions; respecting the establishment and operation of shooting clubs and shooting ranges'', and all the activities that are experienced in that kind of activity, including ``the keeping and destruction of records'' and ``respecting the operation of gun shows''. The Governor in Council may make regulations under clause 110 to govern all these areas by way of Order in Council. Do you have any concern about that?

Mr. Phillips: From a Yukon perspective, I certainly do. As I mentioned to you before in my presentation, we don't have a crime problem with firearms in the territory. It's just not a problem. We have very responsible gun clubs, gun owners, men and women from all walks of life.

.1610

We're much more concerned about the gun control aspects of this bill than about crime control. Crime control we can support. We're very nervous about the gun control.

Again, that's why it was so important for your committee to come north and talk to the people who are involved, talk to our firearms officers, talk to the first nations' people, not just in Whitehorse but also in some of the remote communities where they're so dependent on those firearms. That's what is so frustrating to us.

There was a comment earlier today about the universality of this: could one territory or province opt out? Would that create a problem? I don't think it would create a problem for us in the Yukon.

If this committee thinks it has to be universal across the country, then my recommendation to this committee would be to let the Yukon and the Northwest Territories redraft this bill. Then you'll see if Quebec, Ontario, and the other provinces along the border could live with it. I don't think they could, because we would draft it according to the issues and the problems with respect to guns and firearms in the north. I think that points out the absolute diversity of this country.

I came down here yesterday in six and a half or seven hours; that's at six hundred miles an hour. There's a big difference between what I'm seeing on downtown Ottawa streets and in Whitehorse, or even ten miles out of Whitehorse.

Somehow common sense has to prevail in this exercise. I don't know how, but it has to prevail. Someone has to look at what happens in the north, how we treat our firearms, how we understand what the laws are, and how people there are responsible users. I'm not sure whether the committee has seen that, or will see that just sitting here.

Ms Torsney (Burlington): Minister, there are some 40,000 weapons prohibition orders in Canada at the present time. How many are in the Yukon?

Mr. Phillips: I don't have that number for you.

Ms Torsney: Could you get that number for us?

Mr. Phillips: I could get the number for you. I'll make it available to the committee.

Ms Torsney: Weapons prohibitions orders are used frequently when there are domestic disputes in a home and we try to make sure that we take the guns out of there. Do you think it would be easier to enforce if there was a registration system in the Yukon?

Mr. Phillips: Again, in most cases the RCMP know who has the weapons. So a registration system could possibly enhance that. From the people I've talked to, the feeling is that we have prohibition laws in place now, we have other laws in place with respect to crimes committed with firearms, and we're simply not using those laws in the way we should be.

I think the committee heard about an incident in the Yukon where a fellow walked into a bar with a sawed-off shotgun and waved it all around in the bar, and the judge decided to give him one day in jail. This was a prohibited firearm. It was unloaded, but as far as I'm concerned there isn't such a thing as a gun that shouldn't be considered loaded. It should have been considered much more seriously than it was, and it would have sent a strong message to individuals out there that this won't be tolerated.

One recommendation the Yukon would make is to do away with the plea bargaining for firearms offences. Don't allow it to happen. They can plea bargain other things.

As responsible firearms users, we're now becoming the victims of criminal offences committed with firearms, because they're plea bargaining away the firearm for the criminal, but then they're coming here in a committee and bringing in all kinds of new laws and registration for me to comply with. I don't know anywhere in Canada where there's a group of criminals sitting around a table at the present time and saying, ``My God, how are we going to deal with this new registration system?'' They're not worried about it. We are.

Ms Torsney: Thank you. I've heard some of that rhetoric in the past.

So you are a gun owner?

.1615

Mr. Phillips: That's correct.

Ms Torsney: How much is it going to cost you to register your gun?

Mr. Phillips: I've heard conflicting figures from Mr. Rock. The last figure I heard was $10 or something for up to 10 firearms.

Ms Torsney: That's good. You're one of the justice ministers who has read the information. Some of the others hadn't.

Earlier you mentioned that you wondered what you would have to do when your friends suggested to you that they weren't going to obey the law of the land. When your friends tell you they drink and drive, when they're committing fraud, or when you find out that one of your friends has hit their spouse, do you enforce those laws of the land?

Mr. Phillips: I encourage all my friends to obey the law. The law is the law.

Ms Torsney: So we can count on you to enforce this legislation if it is approved and passed by the Government of Canada?

Mr. Phillips: That's my job.

Ms Torsney: With regard to the hunters and the target shooters, we've certainly heard about the concerns of American hunters who continue to come to Canada to hunt, and about the concern that we would lose millions of dollars. We know that several provinces have actually promoted this campaign to boycott Canada as a hunting area.

Non-residents bringing firearms into Canada are now required to declare them. Under Bill C-68 a prescribed declaration would be deemed to be a temporary licence and registration certificate. What are the essential differences between the current system and the proposed law that would discourage Americans to come and hunt in the Yukon?

Mr. Phillips: The concern I'm hearing from the outfitting industry is the fact that it's a registration system, that it will be compiled in a record somewhere, and then could be made available to authorities in the United States in the future so that these individuals would be known at that time in the United States as having possession of these firearms.

Ms Torsney: Is this a legitimate concern?

Mr. Phillips: It's sure a concern when the people refuse to come. It's sure a concern to the hundreds of Yukoners who work in the outfitting industry who will no longer have jobs. Many of these jobs are in remote communities, in areas of high unemployment.

Ms Torsney: Do you think it's a legitimate concern, Minister?

Mr. Phillips: It's an absolute legitimate concern if it costs jobs in the Yukon. I'm concerned about it.

Ms Torsney: I meant a concern if the information is going to be sent to the United States.

Mr. Phillips: Is that a legitimate concern?

Ms Torsney: Yes. Are you aware of other instances when we send information like that to the United States?

Mr. Phillips: I may or may not have a problem with that. The problem is, they have a problem. If they refuse to come, then it affects jobs in the territory.

As I pointed out, in forty years there has not been one incident. These people come to hunt and enjoy the Yukon wilderness. So why would we change the law with respect to them, if it hasn't been a problem? I don't know if it's been a problem in other provinces or territories. I can't speak for them. But in the territory we haven't had one of these fellows or women go berserk with their hunting firearm and create a crime. So that's the concern I have here.

Ms Torsney: I think you know what the concern is. There is a great problem with smuggling in our country and we need effective tools to deal with that. Perhaps it isn't a direct problem in the Yukon, but it is a problem in other parts, and we don't have laws that state that when you arrive in this part of our country you do one thing and when you arrive in another part of our country you do another thing.

In your presentation you submitted information on family violence and sexual assault. You mentioned, in a footnote of the information on the number of cases, a group called Support Group for Women. Do you have a letter or anything from them on their position on this legislation?

Mr. Phillips: No, I don't.

Ms Torsney: What are women's groups in the Yukon saying about this legislation?

Mr. Phillips: There were some statements made by one women's group who had strong concerns about the bill and its impact on women, but they didn't relate them directly to firearms.

I will leave the committee a study that was done in the Yukon. It's called ``Multiple Roles, Multiple Voices''. It's a survey of Yukon women, their concerns and their priorities. This is a recent study - September 1994. It's a study of some 1,200 Yukon women, which is probably quite comprehensive with respect to the number of Yukon women in the territory. Throughout this whole study it talks about alcohol and drug abuse. It talks about other problems for Yukon women. The number one concern for Yukon women is alcohol and drug abuse, and 21% chose violence against women. Throughout this whole document the issue of firearms is not mentioned.

.1620

Ms Torsney: So in developing this position you have presented to us today, you actively held consultations with women's groups in Yukon.

Mr. Phillips: I asked for representations from all kinds of Yukoners. I had two letters from individual women opposing our position. I don't believe I had any direct letters from women's groups opposing it.

Ms Torsney: Did you have any meetings with women's groups in the Yukon?

Mr. Phillips: No, I didn't.

Ms Torsney: Well, that's funny. You fault the minister for not consulting with you and 52%.... Well, maybe the numbers are slightly different in the Yukon. A significant portion of your community have been ignored in the consultations you've undertaken in this.

Mr. Phillips: No, I don't think you're correct there. That's why I think it's important for your committee to come to the Yukon. As Yukon politicians, Audrey and I probably know this more than anybody. We meet people every day in the street who know us. I talk to hundreds of Yukoners in a week. I am more in touch with my constituency than most politicians. I knock on every single door in my constituency once a year and talk to the people - each and almost every constituent over a period of two or three years.

I feel I have a fairly good handle on the concerns expressed by Yukoners. The concern is there about violence against women, but if Mr. Rock were to give me $500,000 to deal with that concern and I put it into drug and alcohol abuse programs and programs with respect to violence against women - and it's a priority of our government - we could do far more than by asking thousands of law-abiding citizens to register their firearms. That's my point.

Believe me, I strongly support the criminal aspects of this bill and I want to stop that kind of criminal activity. But in today's tougher times in governments and the deficits we all have, I think we have to spend our money wisely and look at how the bills affect everybody. This part of this particular bill is not the best way to deal with the problems in the Yukon.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Deshaies, for five minutes.

Mr. Deshaies: Mr. Chairman, I don't have any more specific questions, but I'd like to offer to the Yukon member the five minutes which have been allocated to me if the other committee members agree, to allow her to speak more at length.

The Chair: It is not allowed. She will have the opportunity to speak in due time.

Mr. Deshaies: Well, I don't have other specific questions.

[English]

The Chair: Audrey McLaughlin, I was going to slot you in after three rounds, with the permission of the committee. I will go to Mr. Wappel for five minutes and back to Mr. Ramsay. Then I will ask that you be allowed to speak.

Mr. Wappel (Scarborough West): What's the population of Yukon?

Mr. Phillips: It's about 32,000.

Mr. Wappel: If someone age 18 decides to buy his or her first .22 calibre rifle in Whitehorse today, what does he or she have to do?

Mr. Phillips: That person has to get an FAC. He or she has to comply with existing rules and regulations.

Mr. Wappel: With the elaborate procedure that is set out therein?

Mr. Phillips: He or she has to take the firearms safety course - the regular procedures that are involved with getting an FAC.

Mr. Wappel: And that is the law of the land today.

Mr. Phillips: Correct.

Mr. Wappel: So as far as that aspect of Bill C-68 is concerned, what we're really talking about are those people who currently own long guns but have not recently purchased a new one and don't otherwise have an FAC. Isn't that right?

Mr. Phillips: That's correct.

Mr. Wappel: You say, on page 5 in your conclusion paragraph:

The threat presented by a universal licensing and registration system is that an impediment to these private, law-abiding activities will be created.

Presumably, we have a universal registration system already insofar as new owners of firearms are concerned. Correct?

Mr. Phillips: That's correct.

Mr. Wappel: So you say the proposed system will make the ownership and use of firearms more expensive. I presume there you're talking about the ownership of currently owned long guns. Is that right?

Mr. Phillips: That's correct.

.1625

Mr. Wappel: How will it make the ownership and use of those firearms more expensive?

Mr. Phillips: First of all, there's going to be a fee.

Mr. Wappel: How much?

Mr. Phillips: The fee is currently set at $10, but in Canada have you ever seen a fee that stays the same forever and doesn't go up?

Mr. Wappel: How much is a driver's licence in Yukon?

Mr. Phillips: I think our driver's licence is $20 right now.

Mr. Wappel: Is that per year?

Mr. Phillips: No. It's for three years.

Mr. Wappel: What other expenses will be involved with the firearms, as per your conclusion on page 5? You said it would be more expensive to have ownership and use of firearms. We have already agreed you're talking there about currently owned firearms, so the people already have them in their homes. What expense will there be to their continued use?

Mr. Phillips: Well, sir, let me go back to the premise of why we have this bill in front of us.

Mr. Wappel: No. I would greatly appreciate it if you would answer my question. You said it would be more expensive to own and use firearms. I'm limiting my question to those people who currently have firearms. I guess your answer is that it will cost them $10 to obtain a licence, and it will cost them some amount of money, on a one-time-per-lifetime basis, to register their firearms. That's what you're talking about in terms of expense, aren't you? And there is no other expense, is there?

Mr. Phillips: Well, sir, if you believe that this cost for registering a firearm will never go up and the term of it will never change, I have some ice I would like to sell you from Herschel Island that will never melt.

Mr. Wappel: Within the confines of $10 eventually creeping to $20, and $60 eventually creeping to $70, just as the cost of a licence will creep from $20 to $30 over the course of time, I accept those as facts. Aside from that, what other expense will be involved in the ownership and use of currently owned firearms, specifically long guns?

Mr. Phillips: Part of the expense, of course, will be the expense of the Government of the Yukon to carry out the registration system, administer the registration system and -

Mr. Wappel: As I understand it, you send in a form.

Mr. Phillips: You asked me how this is going to affect Yukon.

The Chair: Excuse me. When a member asks a witness a question, please give him a chance to answer the question. Mr. Phillips can answer the question, and then if Mr. Wappel wants to ask another one he might.

Mr. Phillips: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The concern is that we are already forced to deliver the firearms safety programs for the federal government, and we do that. We are in no way compensated for our costs to do that. It costs us $140,000 per year, which is far more costly per individual than it is in southern Canada, simply because of the logistics of the north.

Our concern in the Yukon is that if the federal government doesn't pick up the full tab for this program, which it hasn't already, the Yukon taxpayers will have to pick it up. In one way or another it will be a cost to them. So there is a direct cost to Yukon taxpayers for these programs, unless there's an absolutely total commitment from the federal government that it will pick up the total cost of the program.

I want to go back to my point I mentioned earlier about the need. The cost to me is irrelevant. I'm trying to deal with the problem we have, and we don't have a problem of criminal activity with firearms in the north that we're not dealing with now under the existing legislation. Surely to goodness, sir, as legislators, as people who make laws in this land, we should make laws that make sense. In the Yukon, this law does not make sense, and that's my concern. I don't care how much the darn thing costs, we have a handle on firearms use in the north already. If you want to give us some money, we'll gladly accept it and apply it in the areas of crime, and we'll solve a lot more crime than this ever will.

Mr. Wappel: As I understand the initial registration system for current owners of long guns, it will be the simple filling out of a form. Admittedly, it could be argued that there will be language difficulties, but it's not going to involve any expense, as I understand it, to Yukon. It's not going to involve any officialdom or bureaucracy, because it will involve the actual current owner filling out a form and sending it to a central registration system.

.1630

So I fail to see how your point that it will become more complicated and more difficult is an accurate point with respect to the people with whom this bill deals, who are the current owners of long guns, because you're already doing the very things you're complaining about for new owners of long guns, and the issue of whether you get compensated for it by the federal government is a matter of finance and not a matter of justice.

Mr. Phillips: The other thing you have to consider in Yukon is the fact that there are 30,000 Yukoners living in Yukon, and not all of them live next door to the firearms registrar's office, wherever it will be. There's going to be quite an expense for some of these individuals, who, quite frankly, for one reason or another, may not be able to travel to various areas to obtain the necessary documents.

Mr. Thompson (Wild Rose): I hope to make it to your territory some day. I understand it's really beautiful. I have some friends up there and I would like to go to see them and the territory.

I would like your comments on some of the things I have heard with regard to concerns that have been shared with me. I'm going back to clause 110, which my colleague started on with regard to establishing Orders in Council.

Clause 110 goes on for four or five pages, starting with ``The Governor in Council may make regulations'' and listing (a), (b), (c), (d), all the way up to (v) and missing (w), (x) (y) and (z). There are a whole pile of things here concerning ``The Governor in Council may make regulations'', and clause 112 goes on to say that certain things can happen and that a regulation can be made. In every instance it states that they can be made without being laid before either House of Parliament if the minister is of the opinion that it should be done. Then the next regulations pertaining to several of these paragraphs state that they may be laid before the House of Parliament if the minister is of an opinion that it should be done, and on and on that goes.

People look at this and say that once this bill is adopted you will now have a select few - very few - who can make regulations as they go along from now to eternity, not maybe this government but maybe the one 10 years or 15 years from now. They see this and they view this as a dictatorship being set up within legislation. And there the people of the country would not have a say; one day they would wake up and there would be a regulation and it would be law. This has been expressed to me over and over.

Have you thought about those things and would you care to comment?

Mr. Phillips: Yes, we've certainly thought about them. It causes a great deal of concern, especially in light of what's gone on so far.

I spoke briefly in the opening of my presentation about the consultative process in Yukon. We believe when you're making changes such as this that there should be adequate consultation with the people affected. We, as members of the Northwest Territories, are probably going to be affected more than any other jurisdiction in the country. Yet Mr. Rock came to town and had a three- or four-hour meeting, restricted to certain people of course, and left. He didn't travel to any of the outlying communities that will be affected even more than Whitehorse. He didn't speak to any of those people, and no one has come back since. So when we see in the scope of consultation, which is limited to begin with, and now in the scope of the bill in front of us, that it's even more limited, to eight or ten people or maybe one person, it is a real concern to us. I think that's one part of the bill that we feel maybe has a little bit too much latitude for the government.

Mr. Thompson: In regard to the consultation then, just for the record, had there been any opportunity for you and your colleagues to have any input into this legislation prior to its being constructed?

.1635

Mr. Phillips: No, we didn't. Since the bill came forward, I have written a couple of letters to Mr. Rock and I spoke to him in Victoria asking for justification of the registration system as it would pertain to the north. I have had no replies to my letters.

Mr. Thompson: No replies whatsoever?

Mr. Phillips: I have had no replies.

Mr. Thompson: So we can assume that Yukon has been left out of the consultation process?

Mr. Phillips: Certainly Yukoners feel that way.

Mr. Thompson: Then I'll just seek a yes or no answer.

Taking into consideration what we just talked about, and looking at other areas of this entire bill, such as clause 100, where it talks about losing the right to remain silent and being guilty until proven innocent - and there are a couple of mentions of that and several other things along those lines that just do not cut any ice in terms of basic freedoms that we're so proud of in our justice system - in your view and in the view of Yukon Territory and the people you talk to, is it the view of your constituents that this bill is very close to being undemocratic and is an unacceptable item for the kind of country Canada stands for?

Mr. Phillips: In the view of Yukoners, I don't know if the bill would be described as undemocratic. I think the process of consultation would be described as unfair, and the input from the north is described as being unfair. In my view, the impact on the north is going to be much greater than that on the south. As I said, it doesn't recognize at all the diversity of this country, and that's so frustrating to us in the north. We do live a different lifestyle. There are things that are different in the north. Yet we can't just build laws. The Yukon faces it all the time when a law imposed from Ottawa sweeps across the country having a far more dramatic effect in northern Canada than in southern Canada, not just this bill but other bills.

In the last few years we've been able to attend and have input into more and more ministerial and other meetings. But when this happens again, especially with something as fundamental as the right to use firearms and be responsible owners and users of firearms, it's a right as fundamental as that which people look at. Having no consultation or being excluded is very offensive to us. So we're not very happy with it, to say the least.

I have to tell you that it doesn't matter where I go in Yukon, I hear this. I was at a friend's funeral the other day and between the service somebody leaned over to me and started to bend my ear on this issue. This is a very serious and emotional issue with a lot of Yukoners. People I've never met before or people I never realized had firearms have come up to me on the street or in the cafés, or wherever, and told me about how they're very concerned about what this bill is going to do. Their big question is ``Why are we doing it here? Isn't there a better way to do this?'' That's what we're suggesting to the committee, that there is a better way to do it in the north. We don't think a registration system is the means to the end.

The Chair: With the permission of the committee, may Ms Audrey McLaughlin have the floor for five minutes?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Ms McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Chair, I'll try to be brief and not impose on the committee.

I'd like to address my questions to some of the issues the minister has raised. As someone who doesn't have a firearm, doesn't want a firearm and couldn't use a firearm if I had one, my main concern is in how, as a Parliament, we enhance community safety and that the criteria by which one might judge such a bill or the proposal for a bill is who will be safer as a result of this bill. I have to assume that it was the government's intention to address that very basic principle of community safety.

.1640

In studying the statistics from the department, the two groups most at risk from the illegal use of firearms are women in their homes and those who attempt or complete suicide. Assuming it is the government's intention by this bill to enhance community safety, I'd like to ask the minister, who I know has long experience with these issues, what percentage increase in funding has the Government of Yukon received for programs for violence against women, suicide prevention, RCMP services, and alcohol and drug abuse? What percentage increase in funding have you received for these kinds of programs from the federal government?

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chair, the alcohol and drug abuse side is in health, so I'm a little reluctant to speak on that. I don't think we've received anything directly related to those. We have received some actual cuts to the RCMP, which have caused us some concern, but our government has taken on many of those programs as a priority because they are the problem.

We have an alcohol and drug strategy, which more of our resources are going into. We also have a strategy with respect to violence against women, which more of our resources are going into as well. I'm not aware of specific programs, other than some recent money from the federal government with respect to maintenance enforcement. Other than that there's been none.

Ms McLaughlin: Would it be fair to say, Minister, that the federal government has cut funding for compensation for victims of crime?

Mr. Phillips: Yes, that program has disappeared.

Ms McLaughlin: Would it be fair to say, Minister, that in fact enforcement capabilities have been reduced with respect to a cut in funding for the RCMP, which is the only police force in the Yukon?

Mr. Phillips: It has strained existing resources.

Mrs. McLaughlin: Thank you.

Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure - Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Sir, you're quoted as saying you want laws that make sense, that you don't have any problems in the Yukon, that you have a handle on the situation. You also claim that common sense has to prevail. However, you're also telling us that such a high rate of ownership in the Yukon leads to a population that is very knowledgeable about firearms and how to use them responsibly and safely.

Well, once again, I have figures here that prove accidental firearm deaths are eight times higher in your province than they are Canada-wide; firearm homicides are three times higher than they are in the rest of Canada; other firearm deaths are nine times higher in your province than they are elsewhere.

The Chair: These are per capita, I presume.

Mr. Gagnon: They are per capita, but they're also adjusting....

Are you also aware - and I'd like to hear you on this - that the fee would likely be waived for sustenance hunters? What percentage of your population would not be subject to this kind of fee? What percentage of your population is composed of aboriginals and others who depend on hunting for sustenance?

Mr. Phillips: It's not only sustenance; it's lifestyle as well. Many first nations people in the territory have other jobs, but it's very much a part of their lifestyle to go out and spend time in the bush each year. I would be rather reluctant to give you a figure. I don't know if it would be 15%, 25% or 30%. That's sort of an arbitrary figure.

You raised the question of numbers in the Yukon. If we had two murders tomorrow in Whitehorse, we'd be the murder capital of Canada, if you take into account the number of people we have. So it's quite unfair to look at it in that way.

.1645

I think the other thing you have to realize is that where there is increased use, there are increased problems as well. Between 75% and 90% of our population use firearms and use them safely.

Mr. Gagnon: Firearm accidental deaths are eight times the Canadian national average. Now, we're saying the population is well trained, as you say, in firearm usage.

Mr. Phillips: Sir, I can't remember - I'll get the figure for you, but I'll give you the last time there was an accidental firearm death in the territory. It might have been two or three years ago. That's how bizarre those numbers can be when you look in relation to our population. You can't use those figures.

Mr. Gagnon: I look forward to seeing your statistics, but from what we've been told it's quite high and it's well above the national average.

I'd also like to know what you think of a law that would basically set up a fee structure of approximately $10 for 10 firearms. In essence, basically for the price of a pack of Smarties you can now register your gun. That's not very costly, is it?

Mr. Phillips: Well, sir, if we were all real smarties we wouldn't impose a registration system in the Yukon, because it's not needed. I can provide you with information about the types of crimes that are committed.

Mr. Gagnon: I won't get smart.

Mr. Phillips: Let me finish, please, sir.

Mr. Gagnon: Check those figures -

The Chair: Excuse me. We have a rule here. We try to get on the official record the full questions and the full answers. When both people speak at once, we can't do that.

Mr. Phillips, answer Mr. Gagnon's question as quickly as you can, and then he can ask a further question without interrupting you.

Mr. Phillips: I think I've said what I had to say, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Gagnon: That will be all, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Chair: Let's switch over to Mr. Deshaies now.

Mr. Deshaies, you have five minutes.

Mr. Deshaies: Mr. Phillips, do you think that the inspection powers that enable the constables to visit a private house without any valid motive or any suspected offence are acceptable?

[English]

Mr. Phillips: I'm sorry, the last...?

[Translation]

Mr. Deshaies: With the new bill, a police officer will be allowed to search, if not visit a private divelling without any suspected offence. Do you think it is acceptable, in this bill, that the police officers are allowed to visit a divelling without any suspected offence committed by the occupant?

[English]

Mr. Phillips: No, absolutely not. I think there has to be justification for any search of any home for anything.

[Translation]

Mr. Deshaies: I'd also like to come back to another point mentioned in the bill, namely the gun clubs and the firing ranges. At the present time, the attorney general of each province has the jurisdiction to issue the user licenses for firing ranges or gun clubs.

Clause 28 will submit those gun clubs to a whole series of additional federal constraints. Do you think that gun clubs presently have enough controls to be safe and to offer appropriate standards to the community?

[English]

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chair, I have been a member of a couple of gun clubs in Whitehorse. I've visited many of the others. I'm confident, from what I've seen, that they meet the standards. They just built a new range in Whitehorse. It was completed about a year ago. I understand they met all the federal standards and all the standards they had to meet in designing the range. Yukoners are extremely responsible gun owners and they do all they can to meet the requirements.

[Translation]

Mr. Deshaies: Thank you very much.

[English]

Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): Thank you, Minister, for coming today.

I think the population of the Yukon is an interesting number you've recited. If you were to tell me the square mileage of the Yukon, it would probably be difficult for me to conceptualize it.

.1650

You mentioned a population of 32,000 people. In your brief you've attached the McCarthy Tétrault legal opinion, for which I assume you paid a few dollars, which makes ample reference to the Sparrow decision. It finally states that in the opinion of the writer of this brief, in all probability Bill C-68, if passed, would not apply to certain aboriginal or native groups in the Yukon. That being the case, if we were to remove those who, by way of exception because of court decisions, would not be affected by Bill C-68, how many people would we be left with?

Mr. Phillips: At the present time the first nation population makes up about 25% of the total Yukon population. There are 186,000 square miles in the territory and 32,000 people.

I do have a concern I should tell the committee with respect to that opinion. If that proves to be true, it could create fairly significant problems for us in some of our small communities, because the make-up of some of those small communities could be 60-40 or 50-50. So half the community would be forced to comply with registration and half the community with have no registration. I don't know how there could be any integrity in the registration system if that were the case, especially in these small communities. Probably for the most part, other than Whitehorse and Old Crow, most communities in the territory would have a percentage split one way or the other.

Mr. Gallaway: So you're saying the affected population, based on the Sparrow decision, would be 8,000 people, or would there be others? I don't understand the demographics of the population.

Mr. Phillips: The Sparrow decision would involve all first nations eligible under their claim, so I think that's around 8,000.

Mr. Gallaway: So we're left with approximately 24,000 people living in communities where there are those to whom it may or may not apply. There's a mix.

Mr. Phillips: Yes.

Mr. Gallaway: This has been raised on several occasions as well as the whole question of the constitutionality of this bill. If there were a challenge to this bill based on the Sparrow decision, who would take that challenge? Would it be the Government of the Yukon or would it be certain first nations? Once again, that question is asked because I have no idea how it operates.

Mr. Phillips: Under the umbrella final agreement and the first nations self-government agreement, the first nations are now considered governments. Four of them are legitimate governments. Our position on that would be that we would sit down and consult with the first nations governments on any action they would take with respect to Sparrow, the UFA, or the self-government agreement. We would consider supporting any action they would take.

Mr. Gallaway: Okay. On the question of the constitutionality, we've heard a lot of questions from a whole continuum of individuals, those who are armchair lawyers and those with some expertise at the same time. Have there been any discussions within the Yukon government with a view to launching a constitutional challenge?

Mr. Phillips: No. It's just something we're starting to look at. I think some of the more recent comments by other jurisdictions have piqued our interest, and we're going to be consulting other jurisdictions on where they're at with it and taking a good look at it.

As I said earlier in my presentation, my preference would be to sort this thing out quickly and have this committee recommend that the federal government test it right away. Then little Yukon wouldn't have to pay all those big bucks to find out -

Mr. Gallaway: You're asking for a reference to the Supreme Court then.

Those are the only questions.

The Chair: I have a few short questions, Mr. Phillips. In the Yukon, do all Yukoners require hunting licences to hunt, or are first nations people exempted? Do you have hunting licences at all?

Mr. Phillips: Yes, we do have hunting licences. We have an extremely strict wildlife management regime in the territory. We have a wildlife management committee that's made up of 50% first nations under the umbrella final agreement and 50% non-native. They look at the policies and laws governing wildlife and hunting regulations in the territory.

.1655

At the present time all non-native people purchase licences. I think they're free for senior citizens and elders. They're free for first nations people. They're encouraged to get them and the first nations encourage them to buy them, and from what I understand, many of them do.

The Chair: Okay. Then what's your view on the provision in the bill that to buy ammunition you would have to show your hunting licence in the first place or maybe an FAC? The purpose of that, of course, is that we have about 3,000 guns lost or stolen in Canada each year. Maybe it's a very small number in the Yukon. The thing is it's easier now in many places to buy a pack of cigarettes than a box of ammunition. Would you have any objection, since everybody needs a hunting licence in the Yukon, to having to show the hunting licence when buying ammunition?

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chair, I'd suggest to you that maybe there should be more restrictions on cigarettes. They probably kill more people in the Yukon than firearms.

The Chair: That's not my question, though. I might agree with you on that one. We'll discuss that in another committee. I was going to say it's easier to buy ammunition than a case of beer, but....

Do you have any reaction? The bill provides that you will need a driver's licence, a hunting licence, or an FAC to buy ammunition once the bill's in force. The kid who did the drive-by shooting here in Ottawa stole his father's gun, went to the store and bought ammunition, and then did the shooting. If you can't get the ammunition the gun isn't good by itself, if you're going to do damage. If you're not ready to answer, I won't insist.

Mr. Phillips: I think there have to be provisions or at least some allowance made for some people who won't have any of the above, who won't have FACs, drivers' licences or hunting licences. They may be first nations people who live in Old Crow, for example, and just want to go to the co-op to pick up boxes of .30-.30 ammunition because the caribou are crossing the river. Those particular people have to be considered as well. That's the reality of the north.

The Chair: With respect to the proposal to opt out, both the Northwest Territories and yourself have proposed that we exempt the territories from the registration system. The problem with the United States is that it has criminalized state responsibility and some states have very strict gun control laws and the next state doesn't. Since there are no border controls between the states, if you're living in New York State, which has a strict law, you just go across to the next state, get your guns and shoot up a bank or whatever. That's why there's some concern about exempting whole provinces or territories.

I want to ask you this. If the government were to exempt the Yukon and the Northwest Territories from registration, would you then be prepared to accept that you couldn't bring the guns - let's say you're a Yukoner who has guns that aren't registered - into the southern provinces unless you got them registered, not even for a shoot? In other words, as long as you kept them in the Yukon, that would be fine. If the police found you bringing them into B.C. or where the registration system might be applicable, you couldn't do that. Would that hurt your Yukoners that much?

Mr. Phillips: I don't think for a moment that if the Yukon and the Northwest Territories were exempt we would become the gun smuggling capital of Canada. I don't think that would happen. But it's a very legitimate question to ask what would happen to our biathlon athletes or our gun club athletes who wanted to go. I can't see any reason why a permit system couldn't be allowed. Many of these people travel back and forth now. I think that's something that could be talked about, but I don't think it should be the reason to include us in the total Canadian system. I think the reason we get excluded is because it's not needed in the north and because it won't do anything to solve the crime problem in the north. I think that's where common sense should prevail.

.1700

The Chair: The problem they have in the States is, as I say, because there's no border patrol between states and there is massive smuggling or illegal purchasing over the border. You go to New Jersey, you go to West Virginia, which is a neighbouring state - and it's only a few miles....

I know you've got problems with drugs in Yukon and Northwest Territories. Most of those drugs probably come from the south, and you would probably like to keep them out. You're the Minister of Justice in the Yukon.

Those are my only questions.

I want to remind the committee that we're going to deal with some matters raised byMr. Ramsay immediately after we dismiss the witnesses.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chair, just before I go, I would like to personally thank the committee for allowing us to come here and make a presentation. I think it's extremely important. I would like to invite the committee members, if not as a committee then as individuals, to come to Canada's best-kept secret, one of the most beautiful places in our country, to experience Yukon and talk to Yukoners, to learn a little more about our lifestyle, how we live and why this particular bill is so important to us.

I thank you for the opportunity of being here.

The Chair: Well, I fully agree with you. I would have much rather gotten to Yukon. I've never had so much fun in my life.

Mr. Phillips: It's 21 degrees there today and the sun hardly goes down right now.

The Chair: I think it would be better if we go there during Discovery Day in the summertime.

Mr. Phillips: I'm also the Minister of Tourism. I ended up with several hats. So I'll put a plug in here.

This is a very important era for us in Yukon. For example, 1995 is the 100th anniversary of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Northwest Mounted Police in the Territory. The year 1896 was the discovery of the great gold rush in Dawson City, and 1998 is the gold rush year. We have all kinds of parties planned between now and then, so come on up.

The Chair: Well, I must tell you, we were not able to go because there were too many witnesses. For example, yesterday we must have heard about seven or eight in one day. We just couldn't do it.

We have a mandate to do a thorough review of the Young Offenders Act and we have a mandate to travel throughout Canada. So we probably will be going to Yukon in the fall.

Mr. Phillips: Sir, if you wish to postpone a decision on this act until the fall, Yukon would be very pleased to host an evening for the committee in Whitehorse.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

The witnesses can leave if they wish, and I'll ask the committee to stay to discuss other matters.

Mr. Ramsay, I'm in your hands. Bring up the point you brought up the other day and we'll discuss it.

Mr. Ramsay: The point I brought up was if we hold meetings until the 19th and then we go into the one-week break, we'll leave for duties back in our constituencies that will call us there, and when we come back after that week there's going to be very little time for us to accurately prepare amendments to this bill under consideration. We will not have time to do the research on all the submissions that have been made, a review of what we consider to be the pertinent testimony relating to the amendments in which we're interested. We just won't have time.

Is legal counsel going to have the resources in order to handle all of these amendments in sufficient time to get them before the committee so that the members of the committee can study them and not have them come to us suddenly without notice?

.1705

I don't see how we can work in this timetable and allow a proper job to be done on this bill.

The Chair: Before we have a discussion, I'll just recapitulate what we have on our plate.

The last day of hearings scheduled so far is Thursday, May 18, which is the day set aside for members of Parliament. Nothing is scheduled for Friday, May 19. Then, when we return from the break on May 29, the plan is that we have the Minister of Justice and his officials in the morning. As soon as he's finished we start on the clause-by-clause, perhaps in the afternoon, and carry on the clause-by-clause on the Tuesday and the Wednesday, or whatever it requires.

Now, this is an important point and I'm going to ask Mr. Bartlett or Mr. Rosen to answer. Usually we get in the hands of the members a summary of all the evidence presented: who's for, who's against, the points they raised, and so on. So we'll have that in our hands for the clause-by-clause. I'm going to ask Mr. Bartlett how quickly that will be available. Maybe he's working on it already.

Philip's doing that. Maybe you could answer that question.

Mr. Philip Rosen (Committee Researcher): Yes, I can, Mr. Chair. We're working to the committee's deadline as it's set now, and we will be doing the summary of evidence slightly differently this time. We will have a first instalment of the evidence in English completed up to this Thursday by the end of this week and in your hands by the beginning of next week, and a second instalment containing next week's evidence in English shortly after that. So we have that well in hand.

It includes a summary of the briefs of the groups that have appeared before you as well as any points they've made in oral testimony. We've also examined all of the letters and briefs - and there have been hundreds of them - that have come in. It will include any substantive briefs and a list of those for and against the legislation in letters and various municipal council resolutions. So we're working to the committee's presently established deadline.

The Chair: The next question is to our two legislative counsel. We were going to discuss it today, but they actually told me a day ago that they're ready to receive amendments now if anybody has them. I understand they would encourage people to give them to them right now and they could start working on amendments to any sections, whether it's the search and inspection or the right to remain silent, or whatever. They would be willing to help now instead of waiting for the last minute. Those are the parameters within which we're working.

Mr. Bill Bartlett (Committee Researcher): I might add that I've also had some discussions with some committee members about their concerns and how these might take the form of amendments. I'm available to any committee member who would like that sort of help. I'll also be available to the legislative counsel to help with any kind of policy process they may need help with in formulating amendments.

The Chair: So those are the parameters within which we are working. You've heardMr. Ramsay's concern.

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully to Mr. Ramsay, both today and before, and I'm heartened to hear what our researchers have to say. Just today I've received draft amendments from one of my colleagues in the Liberal Party, who was already preparing amendments that he would ask us to have a look at and consider and move. So I agree that there is absolutely no reason why those concerned with amendments can't already be doing that and submit them for advice toMr. Bartlett or to the legislative counsel.

During the week we are off there will of course be things to do in the riding. There's no question about that. But in my view there will be enough opportunity to prepare whatever amendments one might want to prepare with this proviso.

.1710

If there is an alternative to Mr. Ramsay's suggestion, what I recommend, and what I hope the committee members would consider, is if we are in fact meeting with the justice minister and his officials on Monday, that's all we do on Monday, and we begin clause-by-clause fresh on Tuesday morning, having had Monday afternoon to finalize whatever thoughts we want, after having the final answers by the Minister of Justice and having an opportunity in the evening and in the afternoon indeed to do any final amendments.

In view of the answers of the committee staff, I really can't see the necessity for any major delay of any kind, or indeed any delay of any kind, other than what I've just suggested.

Mr. Ramsay: That's all well and good when you're sitting with the number of members on the committee the Liberals have. We're sitting with three members and we're responsible for bringing forward the amendments. We have to have time. When have we had time to bring forward an amendment since this thing started? When have we had time? Mr. Chairman, we can't even get the minutes of the meetings until days after the witnesses have testified.

The Chair: This morning we had Saskatchewan and Alberta and now the Yukon. When will the minutes be published? How many days' delay?

The Clerk of the Committee: It's supposed to be one day.

The Chair: But what is it?

The Clerk: It's about three or four days.

The Chair: It's a delay of three or four days.

Mr. Ramsay: That's the problem we've been experiencing. We can't even review the relevant testimony of witnesses in time to ask questions to other witnesses who are testifying on the same subject. That is a real problem we have experienced. Certainly from this side of the committee, I don't know how we're going to be able to prepare our amendments without a careful review of information that we do not now have.

If amendments are coming in, fine. Mr. Chairman, I think it's fair that we consider these points. We don't have the members on the committee who could be excused to work on amendments. We just don't have that.

The Chair: I don't disagree with you at all. I just want to point out that we have a few members in our own party who oppose the legislation just as much as you do, and they don't get any help from the Minister of Justice either. As Mr. Wappel pointed out, one of them, working himself, with legislative counsel I presume, has already prepared quite extensive amendments, which he's put into our hands.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, he's not sitting on the committee.

The Chair: No, he's sitting on other committees.

I was in opposition for quite a few years. One thing for you to consider, and you can take it or leave it.... I often used to withhold my amendments from the committee and put them at the report stage, because if you put them in the committee and they fail you can't put them at report stage. If you put them at report stage, you've got the whole House and national television as your forum. Sometimes it's more advantageous from a political point of view to put them at report stage. I suppose I shouldn't be giving this advice to the opposition, but they are probably getting to know about these things.

My point is that if you miss some high-profile amendments in committee, sometimes you're better off putting them at the report stage.

Ms Torsney has the floor.

Ms Torsney: Mr. Chair, I think the legislative counsel and the legislative research teams are able to help all of us. We have staff in our offices who are working on this. There are research people for each of the parties. If the Reform Party wants to advocate more research dollars for each of the caucuses to hire some more resources, they can continue to do that. But clearly each of us has the capability to work with the legislative counsel and the research staff to prepare these amendments. They're telling us they don't have a problem. They've got free time now.

There are certain themes that are coming up here. Clearly we have some idea about what kinds of amendments you want to put forward based on the witnesses here. You're here almost every day, if not every single day and every single meeting, in which case you do have a good idea of what amendments need to be made. So give the ideas to the research staff and the legislative counsel and get them to work on it. It's not a question of timing at all.

.1715

If you want to advocate for more research dollars and increased budgets for both MPs and caucus research, go right ahead.

Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): I'd like to ask the committee counsel, if they were given 20 or 25 amendments from the Reform Party, would they be able to prepare those amendments for presentation within say three, four, or five days?

The Chair: If you gave them to them today?

Ms Meredith: No. We still have witnesses to appear before us, and some very important witnesses on Friday. So I'm saying if next Monday or Tuesday they were given 20 or 25 amendments from the Reform Party members, would they be able to have them prepared for Tuesday, the 30th?

Ms Diane McMurray (Legislative Counsel): Obviously it would depend upon the complexity. It's difficult to anticipate without seeing the requests. But having worked for the House for five and a half years, and having spent that time essentially drafting, if you gave me 25 amendments I can almost tell you, without a doubt, that will lead to something like 60 or 70 amendments - that's a conservative estimate - because there will be a domino effect.

For example, in a bill that is as complex as this one, if you wanted to change the regulation-making power, I would have to go into every single section that deals with regulation-making power - find it, go into it, change it, make sure it makes sense, because that would have a domino effect.

So that one request could in effect lead to 25 consequential amendments, all of which would have to be drafted. That may sound very simple. If those 25 amendments are very clear, which is almost never the case.... I don't mean to cast any aspersions on members; they are not lawyers. More to the point, they are not drafters. We almost inevitably have to go back, sit down with the member - and that takes a great deal of time - and ask what is it exactly they want us to do. ``Oh, this is not what I meant; this is what I meant.'' It makes all the difference in the world on how you draft something.

If we're talking about a McDonald's, a quick fix, sure I can give you something that kind of looks sort of legal. It won't fly anywhere. If it ever did, I wouldn't want my name attached to it. It's almost an impossible task to draft something that quickly.

I'm not trying to suggest that this is rocket science, but it comes very close to it. This is an extremely complex bill from a drafting point of view. There is nesting, renesting, and then renesting again. To a drafter that's a nightmare, because you have to go in and find where all the nesting has occurred.

The Chair: I want to make sure that as the chair I understand. Ms Meredith said that if she came with 20 to 25 amendments next....

Mr. Ramsay: On Bill C-41 we had 32.

The Chair: Well, let's stick to this one. She said if she came with 20 or 25 next Wednesday or Thursday, a week and a half before.... You say you couldn't get them done.

Ms McMurray: We may have some great difficulties.

The Chair: The Bloc Québécois may have some amendments.

Ms McMurray: I'm sure they will.

The Chair: The Liberals will have some amendments.

Ms McMurray: I already have some.

The Chair: So there could be 50 or 60 amendments. Now the thing is I know some of those people will prefer to have theirs at report stage - from a strategic point of view, some of them who really know the rules - but they will probably still want them drafted.

Ms McMurray: Exactly. Like the crown prosecutor in a hybrid offence, they don't make the choice until they absolutely have to. They usually ask us to do them for committee stage and sometimes they don't move them.

The Chair: I've had amendments drafted on the budget bill. I didn't bother going to legislative counsel; I got them done by consulting with the journals branch.

Ms McMurray: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, they are not drafters.

.1720

The Chair: I know that. All I can say is that over the years I've drafted many amendments. First of all, I'm a lawyer and I've done a lot of drafting myself, but I'm not an expert in legal draftsmanship. For example, if it's to strike out whole clauses, you just move to strike out. I know lots of amendments will be to do that. Some people will want to strike out the whole registration section because they don't want to fix it; they want it out. So that's not a complicated amendment.

Ms McMurray: As I say, we don't know ahead of time until we get them. I'm just saying, based on the kinds of amendments I've received over the last five and a half years on far less complicated bills than this.... I also sat in on the last gun control legislation and drafted every single amendment for the opposition. I came about as close to death as I have ever come trying to get those done for members. It was an absolute and utter nightmare.

The Chair: So just the two of you are doing this, is that right?

Ms McMurray: Yes.

Mr. Lee (Scarborough - Rouge River): It should not surprise members of the opposition that there are half a dozen hot spots in the legislation that deserve some amendment, I think. It might be wise to take note in advance of where they are. You take note of these things by checking with your colleagues on the committee.

It would probably assist the work of our parliamentary counsel in the sense that it might preclude work if one were to know there were amendments coming down the pipeline in particular areas.

I sure hope the parliamentary counsel is listening. I think I'll just repeat what I said,Mr. Chairman....

A voice: What did you say?

The Chair: He said there are seven, eight or ten spots where we know there are going to be amendments. Perhaps if we all consulted we could facilitate it more or less by talking to you.

Mr. Lee: Mr. Chairman, that doesn't necessarily enhance the profile of the opposition as it attacks this terrible piece of legislation. But I'm sure there are many interstitial spaces throughout this legislation where the opposition can apply the appropriate finesse. I'm simply suggesting that the areas that are going to be amended are probably not the most productive places to put the opposition parties' energies. But at the end, the opposition may not agree with the kinds of amendments that might come from members on this side.

From this side, Mr. Chairman, I anticipate there will be amendments put forward by members who are not on a committee. Amendments may come forward from members who sit on the committee. Those amendments will either be the creation of those members or they may be recognized as having some support on the government's side. I don't think the exercise has to be quite as horrendous as it might otherwise be if you had 15 members plus others with paper airplanes filled with amendments attacking all of these sections.

I'm not as worried about the clock running on this as other members are. I would be able to start drafting amendments today, and based on the evidence we've had thus far, I'm sure Mr. Ramsay would too.

Mr. Ramsay: Are you going to cancel the rest of the witnesses?

Mr. Lee: No, but I'm sure you could start - I know I could start drafting amendments today. We're starting to get to the stage of what we would call, politely, repetition. All of our witnesses feel strongly about what they're telling us, but so have preceding witnesses, and we're starting to get the imaging and repetition. I have 18 items on the inside cover of my book, and I could start preparing amendments now on all of them.

Mr. Ramsay: You can go ahead and do that.

Mr. Lee: But you could do the same. You might also clear a number of areas out of the way and let your mind rest at ease that amendments will be coming along in a certain way just by consulting with colleagues around the table. It might obviate the need for you to spend a lot of time -

Mr. Ramsay: When do we get time to consult with our colleagues around this table? We have an hour and a half for supper and then we're back here for another meeting. We're out of here at 9:30 and we have to get back to the office to look after what has been piling up there.

.1725

The Chair: Although this is on a procedural matter, we're still keeping the rules of order. It's a meeting, so I don't want people interrupting.

Ms Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): I agree with Derek. I already know probably 20 things in the bill that I certainly want changed. I'm not necessarily going to come forward with all of them, but I've already spoken to staff about different areas where I want to make changes.

I don't see why, when you come in here and want to put two words in one paragraph or something, you can't come over and say ``Have you noticed this? Do you want to do an amendment on this, or shall I?'' I would probably say ``Why don't you do one?''

That is what I think Derek really.... Talk to us about amendments. We all want to make the bill better. We may say ``No, I don't agree with you. Do it yourself; I'm not going to do anything on that.'' But I don't think it's a matter of it being a big secret. I don't know, you may have 18 down and I may have six of them on my list. They won't have to do all of your 18 and my six because somebody will already be doing them.

The Chair: For example, we heard the museums group and the manufacturers. I think many of us were struck by the fact that the bill should not cover people who come in to sweep the floors at night. They shouldn't need firearms acquisition certificates and a course. I could write an amendment on that right away, and there are other things.

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, nothing precludes us, in the event that legislative counsel is close to death, as she described, from her coming back here and literally telling us that, and then at that point we can give her a 24-hour reprieve, or 48 hours, or whatever the case may be. It's not as if the world will stop spinning if these amendments don't get done by next Tuesday or something like that.

I don't see why we need to be rigid. We can leave it on the basis that if legislative counsel, doing their work as hard and conscientiously as they do, feel they need more time because they're just not able to get it done, they can come back to us, make those statements and we can decide at that time.

The Chair: Could I ask Mr. Ramsay or Ms Meredith - either one, because I'm going to give the floor to Ms Meredith anyway - having brought this up, what were you going to propose? Were you going to propose a change in the schedule or...?

Mr. Ramsay: I know the Minister of Justice wants to get this bill through before the summer recess, and I don't want to interfere with that. Yet we've set a deadline that I think is really cramping our ability to do our job.

I appreciate Derek's offer to let us know what amendments he and others are considering so they aren't repeated. From our side there's no point in repeating them, and I appreciate that. But I don't think a motion or proposal to extend the deadline we've set on this thing is going to fly in this committee. I think the writing is on the wall with regard to that. In order for us to do the best job we can, from an opposition point of view I'm asking this committee how we can work this in within the deadline. Mr. Wappel has suggested that perhaps we can move away from that deadline, and that is comforting to me.

It's not only that, Mr. Chairman. I think it's essential that we consider other witnesses we have not heard testimony from, such as the chief firearms officers who appeared on Bill C-80, which was the forerunner of Bill C-17. I've been in touch with them and they can't understand why they haven't been called. They have information for us that I think is vital, and they should be called.

We have a witness here who can give us information on the security of the registration computer system, which Ms Phinney has raised a question about. We've heard from people across the country about the security of the system. Yet every time I bring forward another witness I realize we're cramming this thing and working night and day. We're working against a deadline. I don't think,Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, it's fair if this bill goes through. I don't think it's fair to the country. I don't think it's fair to the people who have expressed their concerns about this bill. If this bill is going to go through, let's do the best job we can.

.1730

The Chair: With respect, both those individuals you've mentioned, I see no reason why they cannot come this Friday. The firearms officers are government employees. We're supposed to hear from senior officials of Justice, Revenue, and the RCMP from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. this Friday, and I think we should have the chief firearms officers there ready to answer questions. The purpose of the Friday meeting is to ask questions on various technical matters. Let's make sure they're there.

Who is the other one you said?

Mr. Ramsay: It's the security of the computer.

The Chair: Oh, yes. We've had them before.

Mr. Ramsay: I have a name here of a witness, and the résumé indicates that he's qualified to testify on that particular subject.

The Chair: We've already questioned the RCMP and they say that this is a new program they're going to have.

Well, we can make sure we have computer people here from the government on that subject, the chief firearms officers.

What about Mr. Wappel's suggestion that we carry on, see how it goes, and we encourage people to start getting in their amendments right now so there's no last-minute rush? We know there are many areas right now that have to be amended and there may be more coming. Then we ask her to report back to us near the end as to how the time's going, how the burden of work is, and all that, and if it's overwhelming then we'll have to reconsider. This is what Mr. Wappel suggested in response.

Ms Meredith: As this side of the table seems to be the only side concerned about time, if the opposite side of the table would allow counsel to give first priority to our amendments, seeing that we're the ones who are concerned that there isn't enough time, I suggest that it would certainly look after the problem.

The Chair: I know the amendments won't be that complicated, because from what I can see you're against the registration system, so you're going to want that struck out.

Ms Meredith: Mr. Chairman, I have always been concerned, and remain concerned, about part III. I have a private member's bill in the system and I will be doing a comparison. I've talked to people about part III, and regardless of what my colleagues think, I'll be putting in a good number of amendments to part III.

The Chair: I don't think we can say that priority should be given to anybody. It's how you get the amendments in. If you have yours ready before they do, they'll deal with yours. I think that's the way it happens, isn't it?

Ms Meredith: First come, first served.

The Chair: First come, first served. You've got a research bureau. By the way, we have less of a research bureau to help us than the opposition parties, if we don't rely on the government. I must tell you that. If you want to break with the government and put something in that doesn't.... We have to do it almost alone. At least you have a research bureau to help you - so does the Bloc - that is financed by the government.

Mr. Lee: Mr. Chairman, non-members of the committee would not be in a position to submit amendments, would they?

The Chair: No. They would have to do them at report stage unless we agreed. We could have a Liberal who may go to Mr. Thompson with an amendment. He'd ask him to put it in his name if we wouldn't do it.

I think you're going to see a lot of amendments at report stage. The people who are not members of the committee will submit their amendments there because they'll be able to make a speech when they introduce them. They'll get some profile and it will be defeated or passed. Who knows? I'm darn sure you're going to get a lot of amendments at report stage.

Ms Torsney: With regard to additional witnesses, is there some reason we have not signalled to people who want to come forward that they are able to send in written submissions?

The Chair: We've done that over and over. Mr. Rosen has just pointed out that they're all being catalogued. He's going to have a list for us, stating, for example, that these municipalities, which Jack referred to, are for it, these ones are against, and he'll have a list for us in the material.

Ms Torsney: Then I'd encourage all members of Parliament who come into contact with people wanting to appear before us to encourage them to use that process. They have a right to be heard, but they don't necessarily have to come here.

.1735

The Chair: We're not talking about amendments. These are briefs.

Ms Torsney: No. But other people raised other witnesses to come before us, and I would encourage them that they can send in written documents.

The Chair: To straighten out the point, has the committee agreed that we make sure that the chief firearms officers come on Friday to answer questions about the registration system, and so on? That's one thing. Okay.

Ms Meredith: Mr. Chairman, in response to Ms Torsney's comment, we're talking about the chief firearms officers.

A voice: Of the provinces.

Ms Meredith: Okay.

The Chair: No, no, we've agreed. We'll make sure he's here on Friday.

Mr. Ramsay: Who is that? Is there not a chief firearms officer for each province? How many are we going to have?

The Chair: They all have the same law. We're not going to invite 12 of them. How many are there? There's one for each province.

Mr. Bartlett: There's one for each province and each territory.

The Chair: Make sure we get one of them who's grappling with the part.... If we get Ontario or Quebec.... Again, I don't care who you get. Get one of them. They all have the same law.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, my executive assistant has talked to three of them today and they just don't understand why they haven't been called to this committee to testify. They want to testify.

The Chair: Maybe it's because nobody asked until now.

Mr. Ramsay: Well, I'm asking now.

The Chair: Maybe it's because we have so many members of the committee who are new.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chair, if I may, why can't we have two or three appear at the same time? Having only one appear bothers me.

The Chair: When would you suggest?

Mr. Ramsay: Well, that's a good question. I keep looking at this and I don't know when we can squeeze them in. We have Thursday at -

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chair, we have Thursday evening of this week open.

Mr. Ramsay: Thursday evening.

The Chair: I suggested we have more meetings on Thursday before, and it was in deference to people from the far distances of the country that we didn't have meetings because it was recognized that they have to go home.

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chair, my point is that we're going to be here Friday anyway. Normally we're not here on a Friday for committee meetings.

Ms Phinney: Mr. Chair, are there only two groups? Why not the 16th?

Ms Torsney: Well, we're here for Friday. The first priority should be to have them at the same time as the other government members. Identify, speak to them, and find out who's available. Then we'll deal with the other possibilities after you get in touch with them and find out who can come.

Second, any of the others who can't come are again certainly welcome to submit written submissions on what their problems or opportunities are with respect to this legislation.

We could drag up every person in this country who has ever had a gun and ask them to appear before us if we want.

Mr. Ramsay: There's one other point I'd like to make -

The Chair: We're going to make an attempt to get the firearms officers.

Mr. Ramsay: Yes. A written submission is fine and dandy if it's repetitive. But if it's a witness who is providing new testimony, surely the committee members should have an opportunity to ask questions. That's the importance of having the witnesses come.

The Chair: We've asked our staff, in examining these briefs that have come in, if there's any outstanding one with some different point of view or some unique approach, to bring it to our attention. We said we would call them if that was the case.

I've been looking at the ones that have come into my office and I personally haven't seen anything.... It's all very repetitive - either for or against, by the way. The ones that are for are very repetitive and most of the ones against are very repetitive, and they're well exemplified in what we heard yesterday and today, the ones that are against.

Do the members want to meet on...? Where are we here? We're here this Friday. Do you want to have a witness...?

Ms Torsney: We're scheduling dates without talking to the people. Why don't we talk to the people, identify if they can come on Friday morning and then go into a fall-back. I think our staff are well versed in how to schedule meetings with witnesses.

The Chair: Yes, but the firearms officers are officials of the government. We can ask them to come with other officials on Friday.

Ms Torsney: That's the first choice. The second choice is that we ask our staff, with their intelligence and their ability to make decisions, to find another slot in the schedule, and they're very capable of doing that.

.1740

The Chair: Ms Torsney, there's only one other slot and that would be this Thursday evening, because we have meetings on May 15, morning, afternoon and night; on May 16, morning, afternoon and night; on May 17 -

Ms Phinney: You only have three meetings on May 16 and you've had two Mondays now with four meetings.

The Chair: Wait a minute. On May 16 we have three meetings, from 9:30 to 12:30, 2:30 to 5:30, and 7:30 to 9:30.

Ms Phinney: That's three. Yesterday we had four meetings. Last Monday we had four meetings.

The Chair: Okay. You want to have four. Do you mean skip question period?

Ms Torsney: That would be the second choice. The third choice would be tomorrow evening.

Mr. Wappel: Besides that, Mr. Chairman, there's no reason why we can't schedule two witnesses for the evening of May 16. Why should we have only the National Crime Prevention Council? Every other witness has to share time.

The Chair: That's in the afternoon.

Mr. Wappel: It's from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. by my schedule.

The Chair: We decided it would be the only one because it comes with a large delegation, and it's the only group of criminologists who study patterns of crimes with guns. We haven't had that so far. That's why we agreed to have those two groups alone.

There are some empty times. I'm all for it if you want to try to fill them in.

I may as well put on the table that representatives from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which is very concerned about the search and seizure provisions and a few other civil liberties, have called me and the clerk wondering why they haven't been called. I told them we're hearing from the bar associations of Canada and Quebec and we've asked them to bring their civil liberties sections. They have made a request to appear if there's any possibility. That's Alan Borovoy and his team of people who have testified in the past. I explained to him we hadn't heard from him and we had a lot of witnesses.

If you want to hear additional witnesses, we can try to slot them in. Is that the feeling?

Ms Torsney: We've now identified three opportunities to get the firearms officers here. I think we should proceed and we can hear back from our clerk as to whether or not that's possible tomorrow.

The Chair: There's one other high-profile one that one might expect we should hear too, and that's the Auditor General's office. We had an opportunity to question the Auditor General on general matters when he was before us, but perhaps we could have someone from the Auditor General's office come on Friday too.

Ms Torsney: Let's deal with this tomorrow, please, when we've had some time to think about it.

The Chair: You can deal with it again tomorrow, but I must remind you we have witnesses all day tomorrow as well. I'm in the hands of the committee.

Ms Torsney: With respect, we have spent 45 minutes on this. We could have heard from one of the witnesses in that time.

The Chair: Okay. Will someone make a motion to do something? Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, have we decided whether the civil liberties groups are going to be heard?

The Chair: No. We've just heard that the chief firearms officers are going to be invited, so far. I'm in your hands. I'm expecting you people to be experienced members of a committee. If you want to move that we hear witnesses, move that we hear witnesses and we'll -

Mr. Ramsay: I move that we hear the civil liberties group.

Motion negatived

The Chair: It is defeated. We're not going to hear the civil liberties union. We have agreed to hear the firearms officers. Is there anybody else you'd like to propose that we hear?

Mr. Ramsay: I move that we hear an expert on computer program security. The name has been submitted with my letter to Mr. Moir.

The Chair: He's not a member of the RCMP.

Mr. Ramsay: No - someone who can testify on computer security.

The Chair: It's Bryan Moir, president of Moir and Associates. We dealt with this before. The only problem is, when we asked the RCMP about this, the conclusion was that it's getting a new program to do this. If Mr. Moir knows nothing about this program, what good will he be?

Mr. Ramsay: That's what I'd like to find out.

The Chair: So we're going to invite him and then find out he can't -

.1745

Mr. Ramsay: We have not heard anyone give us any testimony on the ease or difficulty of a computer hacker getting into the system.

Mr. Wappel: The RCMP gave us evidence.

Mr. Ramsay: It simply said it had never had an experience of it happening.

The Chair: Mr. Ramsay has proposed that we invite Mr. Bryan Moir, the president of Moir and Associates Limited of Markham, Ontario, to be called to the committee. According to Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Moir is an expert on computer security.

Mr. Lee: I would like to suggest that there ought to be - I'd be shocked if there wasn't - ample security expertise already existing within the department involving this.

When the government officials come from Revenue and Justice, could we not ask them to make sure their expert, whoever he or she is, is there to answer any material questions any of us have on this subject of the security of our data banks, especially in relation to the proposed registration system?

Mr. Bartlett: I've already asked the various government officials coming if they would bring their computer people with them because the topic has been raised several times.

Mr. Lee: On the issue of security.

Mr. Bartlett: I will specifically ask them to make sure they have somebody on the issue of security.

Mr. Ramsay: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my motion for Mr. Moir.

The Chair: Do you want the clerk to ask the people who put out the report from the Auditor General's office to show up on Friday too? We could have them there to answer questions. Is that agreed?

A lot of people have raised it at the meetings on the Auditor General's report. I don't know how many of you read it, but these people are paid by the Canadian taxpayer. There's one individual in particular who knows about that stuff. Could they not be invited?

Mr. Wappel: As a matter of courtesy, since we've rejected the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, I wonder if you might ask it to submit a written brief.

The Chair: When he called me I told him they could certainly do that. Mr. Borovoy has actually drafted an amendment to the section on inspection that he thinks even the government and the opposition might like. He wanted to appear and I told him it might be difficult. We voted on that already, but he has been invited to send his brief.

When we invited the Canadian Bar Association and the Barreau du Québec, we asked them to include in their delegation their civil liberties section. The clerk says they've agreed to do that, so they will be able to testify on that too.

Mr. Borovoy will submit his brief in any case because he said he would.

There were other things, but we'll leave them. We've carried on for quite a lengthy time now and I've missed the meeting I was going to at 5:30.

The final thing is this. I had mentioned at the beginning that we would have the minister Monday morning and start on clause-by-clause following that. Mr. Wappel suggests we not do that. I'm completely in the hands of the committee, but you may be without your chairman because in January I was asked to speak at an international conference in Vancouver on the rights of the child and to speak about the Young Offenders Act and everything surrounding it. I have to go to Vancouver on Wednesday to speak. So if the clause-by-clause goes beyond Tuesday, or unless we skip a few days, I won't be here, which is fine, but you'll be sitting with either of the vice-chairs on Wednesday and Thursday.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chair, in the minds of the members of the committee, would there be a problem if we skipped two or three days? It means we're not going to keep to our deadline, but I have no problem with that, while at the same time respecting the minister's -

.1750

The Chair: Maybe we could come back on this tomorrow. I'll talk to the minister about it and see what he says. If he wants me to be in the chair, I can't.... This is too big a conference. I made a commitment in January before the bill even came to the House. I have to go.

Mr. Lee: Send the minister.

The Chair: Send the minister? That would be great.

We'll come back on the schedule of the clause-by-clause. So it's been agreed that we're going to invite chief firearms officers, somebody from the Auditor General's office, and find a place for the chief firearms officers if they can't come on Friday. We're going to encourage people to get in the amendments they do have ready.

The meeting is adjourned.