EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 18, 1995

.0917

[English]

The Chair: [Technical Difficulty] ...by questions or Standing Order 31s and other means at their disposal, but because this is a bill with a great deal of interest there were requests from members of Parliament to appear before the committee and the committee has agreed to hear from them. We limited the time available to each member to five minutes because there was a large number and the chair will have to be strict on that.

I have a time clock which I not only use for the witnesses but also for the members and for myself when we're questioning witnesses. As we approach the last 30 seconds of the five minutes I will indicate with the gavel that you have 30 seconds left and you will, hopefully, bring your remarks to conclusion. If you have a longer statement that you will not be able to finish or you had no intention to finish, you can file it with the Clerk of the Committee and it will be part of our documents on record.

We have a staff that is examining all the briefs and letters that have been sent in. These are being tabulated as to whether they are for or against the bill; whether they are for certain sections, against other sections. So the views of all those who submitted briefs, even though they weren't heard by this committee, are being considered and will be summarized and put before the members before we deal with clause-by-clause.

I have a long list of members and we're going to start with two members dealing with the same brief. First, we have Diane Ablonczy from Calgary North and Lee Morrison from Swift Current - Maple Creek - Assiniboia, Saskatchewan. Ms Ablonczy will proceed for five minutes and then Mr. Morrison will take up his five minutes, but continue, I understand, on the same brief.

Ms Ablonczy, you have the floor

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy, MP (Calgary North): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We would like to take just a few minutes of your time this morning to give you some information that we believe will be very helpful to your assessment of Bill C-68 and your decision as to whether its provisions are fully in the best interests of our fellow citizens and our country.

.0920

I will use my allotted time to begin presentation of the study, ``A Statistical Comparison of Homicide Rates in the Prairie Provinces and Four American Border States, 1978 to 1992''. Is there any member of the committee who does not have in front of them a copy of this study, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: It was supposed to have been delivered to them, but I suggest we leave that to the clerk and you not use your five minutes for that.

Mrs. Ablonczy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So far, most of the debate on Bill C-68 has focused on three issues: civil rights, constitutionality and the practicality of universal registration. This study will help you step back and look at the utility of gun control laws in general.

In our opinion, this study is a small example of the sort of work that should have been undertaken on a large scale by the justice ministry before it started writing more gun control laws. That would also have been responsive to the concerns expressed by the Auditor General about the last round of gun control legislation passed by the 34th Parliament.

Homicide rates and regulations pertaining to firearms vary widely throughout the United States, as you're likely aware. Four states, Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana and Idaho, are compared in this study with the Canadian prairie provinces. These four states were chosen not only because of proximity but also because of social, economic and cultural similarities. In fact, it is probably fair to say people in these states and provinces have more in common with each other than they do with people of New York or Toronto.

Gun control laws on the prairies are, of course, the same as throughout Canada. Regulations in the four proximate states in this study are among the most permissive in the U.S.; nevertheless, this study clearly shows that per capita homicide rates on the U.S. side of the border have been significantly lower than on the Canadian side for many years. This is based on data obtained from Statistics Canada and U.S. Department of Justice uniform crime reports.

The study provides you with computer-generated figures, which are presented on the last five pages of this report. They show homicide trends for each province and state; for the four states combined; for the three provinces combined; and for Canada as a whole.

To ensure valid representative results, the study spanned a 15-year period from the initiation of gun control in Canada in 1978 until 1992, when the most recent figures were available. This is in contrast to the two points on a curve trick sometimes used in this debate to provide spurious support for someone's point of view. This unfortunately common practice is not necessarily motivated by deliberate dishonesty but often as not by the ignorance of people who believe sharp annual variations in random acts of homicide are meaningful.

I refer you to the brief foreword of this report, just over from the cover page, and to the introduction, two pages over from that. Both are very brief. The study clearly shows that although the four states in this study permit almost unimpeded possession and use of firearms, rates of homicide there are significantly lower than in the prairies of western Canada. This contradicts the assumption that crime increases where guns are most readily available.

I invite you to look over the brief summary and conclusions set out right at the beginning of the report. My colleague, Mr. Morrison, will continue to examine some of the interesting conclusions arrived at in this report.

I thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you. Your timing was great. Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Lee Morrison, MP (Swift Current - Maple Creek - Assiniboia): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to go right into the summary and conclusions on page 1 of this report.

Of the 8 jurisdictions studied, it was found that Montana had the most homicides per capita over the 15-year period with an average of 3.8 per 100,000 citizens; Manitoba was second highest at 3.6; followed by Idaho at 3.4; Saskatchewan and Alberta each at 3.1; the Dominion of Canada as a whole at 2.7; Minnesota at 2.4; and North Dakota at only 1.3.

The first seven of those averages are in the anticipated range, but the rate for North Dakota is one of the lowest in the world despite the abundance of guns in the hands of its citizens.

.0925

The 15-year per capita homicide rate for the three provinces combined was 3.2 per 100,000 compared with 2.7 per 100,000 in the four states. In other words, it was 16% lower on the U.S. side. That is a weighted average that takes into consideration the size of the samples; 635,000 people in North Dakota were assigned approximately one-sixth of the weight that would have been assigned to Minnesota with more than 4 million. Coincidentally, in this case, the arithmetic average is the same, because Montana balances out North Dakota.

Since 1978 homicide rates have been decreasing in seven of the jurisdictions, most notably in Idaho. But there has been a steady increase in Minnesota and because Minnesota has a population greater than the other three states combined, this is reflected as an increase for the four states for which the 15-year average of 2.7 equalled that of Canada as a whole.

To show you the type of work we've been doing, I would like to show you figure 4. I would like to make a few observations about those graphics. I mentioned that random variations are basically meaningless when you're studying random acts. For example, if you look at this figure, it would be quite easy to take the 1985 figure for Montana of 5.8 per 100,000; look at the figure for 1992 and say, my goodness, there's been a decrease over that period from 5.8 to 2.9 per 100,000 per year. But those figures are totally meaningless.

On the other hand, if you were trying to prove the opposite with respect to a particular state, you could say, well, for Idaho in 1985 it was 2.2, and look how it rose to 3.5 in 1992. This is just sleight of hand. You have to do a long-term average. That's why when in the House I occasionally hear someone rise and say, well, in one year our rate was such and such and in another year it was such and such, I feel like jumping out of my chair. They're just not clear on mathematical concepts.

Another interesting thing on this particular figure is that there's a very dramatic decrease in the rate of crime for the State of Idaho during the period of study. That reflects two things: a small population where one or two murders makes a big difference in the annual rate. The rate was very high in 1978 to 1979; it was very low in 1991. So you get that extremely steep fall in rate. But if you ignore those three, if you remove them, you still see the rate decreasing in that state despite the fact that there are no effective or no meaningful gun control laws there.

I think this small study indicates that the regulation of possession of personal arms by private citizens has little or no effect on homicide rates. If that is a valid conclusion, it follows that murder has sociological roots and that the imposition of restrictive regulations on the general population is a futile exercise.

I wanted to go into the guts of the report. Obviously, I don't have time, so I'll just give you a small conclusion. You might wonder why I bothered to come here today. Well, I guess it's because I've only been an MP for 18 months and I haven't completely lost my political naivety. I truly believe legislation should be predicated on facts and not on emotionalism or prejudice.

This small study certainly doesn't prove that gun controls may not serve some useful purpose in some other context, but on the other hand, there's certainly no empirical evidence to show that these laws are beneficial. In my view, this committee should recommend an independent scientific study of all aspects of the problem. It would be costly and time-consuming, but so are these hearings and so, for that matter, is Parliament. The cost would be minimal compared with the cost of administering and enforcing all the new regulations in Bill C-68.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

.0930

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I call to the table Paul Zed, the member of Parliament for Fundy - Royal in New Brunswick.

Mr. Paul Zed, MP (Fundy - Royal): Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I would like to begin by thanking you and your committee for giving me this opportunity to appear and share my position on gun control.

As you may know, last July, when Allan Rock came to New Brunswick, I formed the Fundy - Royal Advisory Committee on Gun Control as a means of determining the views and feelings of my constituents on this subject. This is a very serious issue in New Brunswick; in fact, there are more hunters per capita in New Brunswick than in any other province in Canada.

I would also like to submit the final report of the Fundy - Royal gun control committee, which contains a number of amendments they feel are important to consider.

Despite reservations about this bill, I voted for it at second reading because it is only here that we can get the necessary changes to improve this bill.

Mr. Rock, I believe, has consulted widely with Canadians, and I believe he has consistently demonstrated a willingness to be flexible and fair.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to offer the committee eight changes that will improve this bill and I believe improve support in the province of New Brunswick.

First, the existing gun law already provides for the proper care and control of firearms. I have not seen convincing evidence that registration will improve public safety. Although I do not like the idea of universal registration, if we must have it, it is essential that it be extremely affordable. I would suggest that we offer to gun owners free registration if they register their firearms within the first two years and stress that the fee is only a one-time fee.

Second, I worry about turning law-abiding Canadians into criminals because they inadvertently forget to register their firearms. There must be provisions in the bill to allow for a first-time offence or to allow for inadvertently forgetting to register not to become a Criminal Code provision.

Third, many handguns of a low calibre are expensive firearms used by target shooters in legitimate sporting competitions. They should not be confused with the so-called Saturday night specials. The total ban of all small-calibre handguns is too Draconian in nature, and I would suggest an exemption for handguns being used for competitive purposes.

Fourth, in addition to the grandfather clause in the legislation, I feel it is important to establish a category for relics and heirlooms. In many instances firearms that are inherited are relics and are family heirlooms, which are prohibited under the currently proposed legislation. I feel that people should be allowed to inherit and trade within similarly categorized groups.

Fifth, I believe we as a government should do everything to promote Canadian heritage. I am also asking that the committee include an amendment that would allow for black-powder firearms to be used in historical re-enactments. Many important cultural events in New Brunswick could be jeopardized if this isn't considered.

Mr. Chairman, as a lawyer I feel that my remaining suggestions need to be given some serious consideration to ensure that some fundamental rights of Canadians are not interfered with.

Sixth, as the proposed legislation currently exists, the Minister of Justice has the power in emergency situations to amend or create legislation by an Order in Council, not by the approval of Parliament. I feel this aspect of the proposed legislation is fundamentally flawed, and I would urge the committee to restore the supremacy of Parliament.

Seventh, with regard to the issue of confiscation, paragraph 1.(a) of the Bill of Rights goes one step further than the Charter, section 7, which recognizes the right of an individual to the enjoyment of property. What happens when someone turns in a prohibited weapon? At common law there is a presumption that the property of individuals will not be taken without compensation. I would urge the committee to reconsider this aspect or issue.

Finally, I wish to raise the point that deals with the broad powers that police are granted under the current search and seizure provisions contained in the proposed legislation. Section 8 of the charter, in my view, is clear, and the powers that are being proposed are too broad and affect the fundamental privacy and liberty issue. I request a change to amend or clarify this section.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, as far as I am concerned, current gun control measures are adequate for the safety and protection of the citizens of New Brunswick. I recognize, however, that more can and must be done to combat illegal smuggling of firearms and the criminal misuse of firearms in other parts of the country, especially in larger centres.

This criminal activity, coupled with the cry for help from law-enforcement officials and a fearful urban population, has forced our government to act. Because we have one set of criminal laws that apply to the entire country, law-abiding guns owners in Fundy - Royal and New Brunswick are faced with more stringent ownership requirements even though they are not the target of this new legislation.

.0935

Mr. Chairman, the residents of Fundy - Royal are, above all, upstanding Canadians. They understand they must do what is right for the country as a whole. Indeed, they are willing to do what is right for the benefit of their fellow citizens.

Nevertheless, there are limits to our generosity. We seek changes to the plan, specifically those I've just mentioned, and those included in the Fundy - Royal gun control committee's report. I believe that will make this piece of legislation more consistent with the general policy aim of a safe, healthy public, and as a result, more acceptable to the people of Fundy - Royal and New Brunswick.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good luck with your deliberations.

The Chair: Thank you.

I want to suggest to the members that follow - the next member is Garry Breitkreuz from Yorkton - Melville, Saskatchewan - that I can appreciate that you want to get in as much as possible in the five minutes, but our interpreters have to translate what you're saying from English to French or from French to English.

Mr. Zed, you accomplished almost a record in getting in so many words in five minutes.

So I would ask you to slow down a wee bit so that our interpreters can translate everything properly for those who are listening in French.

[Translation]

There is a point of order.

Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I realize how fast witnesses have to make their presentations and I also realize that there is an incredible backlog in the editing of our proceedings.

I would like you to make sure that, at least a few days before we start clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, we can get the translation of the presentations that we are hearing today, so that we can read them more slowly and understand what they all mean.

The Chair: You have a good point, Mr. Langlois. I hope that before clause-by-clause consideration, you will have the translation of all our proceedings. We will do the same thing if there are presentations in French; we will have to have a translation in English. We will do it for both languages.

Mr. Langlois: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz, you're on now.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz, MP (Yorkton - Melville): Mr. Chairman, an essential part of Reform's platform is more democracy. Today I appear before you to stand up for that ideal on behalf of more than one million Quebeckers, almost all francophone.

The organizations I have the honour of representing today are: Quebec Outfitters' Federation; Le groupe sentier; Quebec Shooting Federation; Quebec Controlled Exploitation Zone Management Federation; Quebec Trappers' Federation; Quebec Wildlife Federation; and Northern Quebec Outfitters' Association.

To the shame of the government and the official opposition, Mr. Chairman, these people could not find one single Quebec MP - Liberal, Bloc or Progressive Conservative - willing to stand up and speak for them. Over a million Quebeckers, Mr. Chairman, more than 10% of the population, and they could not be heard. They had to turn to Reform.

I have to apologize, Mr. Chairman, for my inability to make my presentation in French, but that's nothing compared to the apology these groups and the million Quebeckers they represent are owed by the MPs of Quebec, of whatever party, who would not speak for them.

My fundamental reason for presenting this is my conviction that these Canadians have a right to be heard. I'm proud to give them a voice when their own MPs would not.

The document I'm distributing along with my remarks, both in the original French and in translation, presents the views of this coalition and also of its individual organizations. They run to some twenty pages, and I cannot possibly do them justice in five minutes. But I'd like to touch on a few of the key points they make, and here I'm quoting directly from their presentation.

They list the following reasons for asking me to make this presentation:

The Prime Minister and his party are sponsoring the bill, and no Liberal MP from Quebec wants to represent us for fear of reprisals from the leader or the party. The leader of the official opposition, also from Quebec and elected to represent our aspirations and to consult us before deciding what he thinks is good for us, has taken a position in support of the bill, and none of his MPs will go against the dynamic trio of Bouchard, Duceppe and Venne, and dare to represent 1.2 million wildlife enthusiasts and voters, and the Progressive Conservative leader, also from Quebec, did not answer our letter asking for his position on this matter.

.0940

In the introduction to their presentation, the groups I'm representing here today speak of the use of emotion rather than reasoned argument to support Bill C-68.

They say:

The arguments that are advanced to support Bill C-68 push aside the ideal of individual responsibility on the part of citizens and place the blame, and therefore the responsibility, on an inanimate thing, a firearm, thereby giving it a power it does not have. This perversion of reality, this denial of personal responsibility, is also characteristic of some of the politicians who support Bill C-68 and we consider it far more dangerous than a responsibly used firearm.

They also warn of the extent to which this bill increases the power of the state over citizens. They warn that the bill infringes on Canadians' privacy rights. They question the security of the computer files that will be generated. They warn that Bill C-68 will discourage many youngsters who would otherwise be interested in the tradition of hunting.

I'd like to quote again directly from the remarks:

The Quebec Outfitters' Federation is outraged by the attitude of the federal government and of the Bloc Québécois on this matter. Hunters are not criminals. Hunting is a part of our heritage and is a tradition in most of Quebec. Our grandparents hunted for sustenance and have passed to us their love of the sport of hunting.

The Bloc Québécois was elected to represent the aspirations of the people of Quebec. All they have been doing since they got to Ottawa is to take care of their personal agenda. We are being represented by an MP from another province, an anglophone, which will surely make René Lévesque turn in his grave, because nobody, nobody elected from Quebec, has the guts to represent us here.

We don't need this law, and we probably won't need the Bloc in the future.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I want to quote from all the groups in their entirety:

We were not asked our opinion in Quebec about firearms. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, Lucien Bouchard and Jean Charest are all leaders of their parties. They are acting more like dictators than leaders.

We ask the committee to recommend that the registration of all firearms not be implemented in Canada. We suggest, as stated above, an independent royal commission to review C-17 and the implementation of an education program to inform the public of the rules and regulations surrounding safe storage, transportation and use of firearms.

We want to make known that for Mr. Rock to use the Oklahoma City bombings as an example was considered sick and tasteless, and we would like to be able to stoop as low as Mr. Rock, but we are not ambitious politicians, just law-abiding citizens, for the moment.

My final personal observation -

The Chair: No, you're -

Mr. Breitkreuz: - is that Quebec -

The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz, to begin with, I was going to call you out of order. You've gone beyond your time.

I want to make this clear, because in the future I'm going to interrupt and call people out of order. We allowed this sitting for members of Parliament to give their comments with respect to the bill, to discuss the clauses of the bill. Up until your presentation that was done properly.

Members of Parliament can make political statements in the House in a debate of that kind, but this committee is to hear your views with respect to the bill, not to attack other parties or other members of Parliament.

I let you complete your time, but I want to make absolutely clear that when members of Parliament appear before this committee, they will appear as other witnesses and make comments with respect to the bill, how they believe the bill is defective.

This was done, for example, by Mr. Morrison and Mrs. Ablonczy. They indicated what they felt was wrong; they put statistics on the record. Mr. Zed did the same, and so on.

But I don't think we should use this time to launch political attacks on other political parties, whether it's your own party.... I would not allow it on the Reform Party. I don't intend to allow it on the Bloc Québécois, the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party or on the leader of the Conservative Party.

This is not the forum for doing that. This is a forum to discuss the good or the bad about the provisions of the bill.

That's my ruling on this subject with respect to the rest of the morning. You've already completed your hearing, but I intend to rule out of order anybody else who continues in that same vein.

I next call -

Mr. Breitkreuz: Mr. Chairman, I was simply representing the group from Quebec.

The Chair: If people want to do that, they can do that in the House of Commons. I might say that nobody from those groups ever even approached me to present anything in the House. Maybe they didn't because they know my views, but they certainly didn't even ask me.

I can't speak for other members from Quebec, but to accuse us of turning them down when they didn't even approach us is a bit much.

In any case, for those types of statements there will be a debate on third reading in the House. There will be a debate on the report stage of the bill. If any members want to make those political-type statements with respect to other parties, they can do it at that time.

.0945

This morning let us discuss the measures that are in the bill, the good and the bad in the bill.

I call on Bob Mills from Red Deer, Alberta.

Mr. Bob Mills, MP (Red Deer): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I represent the riding of Red Deer, Alberta. Sixty-three per cent of my riding is urban, and the rest is rural.

I have received an overwhelming response to this particular issue and I felt, then, it was imperative that I appear before this committee and carry these views.

At this point well over 10,000 people have contacted me either by writing, telephone or through personal contact. I have attended trade fairs, service clubs, all kinds of get-togethers, all kinds of rallies, and generally I can tell you that 99% of my constituency is saying one thing. It couldn't be more overwhelming. In fact, it reminds me of the days of the GST when we had rallies of 6,000 and more people. The member of Parliament for our area said he could not change his point of view.

So certainly I take notice of that message, and that message is overwhelmingly that they oppose violently Bill C-68.

They oppose it for a number of reasons. I should make clear that they do not oppose gun control. They are in favour of the control of certain weapons. They are in favour of law and order. Most particularly, they are in favour of some kind of crime control.

They have seen absolutely nothing in this bill that has shown them that crime will be dealt with, or will in any way be inhibited by this legislation.

They are concerned about the powers of entry, clauses 98 to 100. I would say that is 100% Even those people opposed, of which fewer than 20 have contacted me, are very concerned about that.

They are concerned about the registration process and the fact that it will not affect crime. They, of course, have stated very clearly that handguns have been registered since 1934. Of course, you know all the statistics there.

As well, the provincial government survey done in my riding is pretty indicative. Fifteen people were contacted - eleven females and four males. They found a basic reaction: 20% said there were already too many restrictions; 60% said they were adequate if they would just enforce the law now; and 20% - three people - said there were not enough laws, but did not particularly demonstrate much understanding of the legislation.

For the committee's interest I am holding a television phone-in show. I have that every two weeks. This Friday - tomorrow night - there will be one, and the topic is gun control. I have a person who is opposed and a person who is in favour, and I believe I know what those phone calls are going to be like. Certainly we'll make the results of that phone-in poll available to the committee.

I think as well that if I were to summarize what the people of my riding want to tell you, it is certainly this: enforce the laws that are already there. They're not opposed to locking up guns, they're not opposed to certain restricted weapons and they're not a bunch of gun-toting westerners. They would like to see strong crime control introduced and they are very much supportive of any kind of crime measures.

They suggest splitting the bill so that you deal with crime on the one hand and gun control on the other.

They feel this is bad legislation. It will be bad law. It cannot be enforced and as a result will lead to all kinds of people not registering their firearms.

I have a hand-out, Madam Chairman, that basically deals with the cost. They're very concerned about that.

.0950

If 1% of the gun owners decide to disobey the law - and there are only 3 million gun owners - we will create 30,000 new criminals. Our jails are already full, and what will you do with 30,000 new criminals, most of them farmers and ranchers, certainly from my constituency, who have their guns and will not register them?

So they're very concerned about that. They're very concerned that this legislation could become law. They see that as government pushing something on them that they have very clearly said they do not want.

That central authority.... They have spoken out. Certainly they spoke out on the Charlottetown Accord, during the 1993 election and on the cable television issue; they will speak out again.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Thank you very much, Mr. Mills.

I call upon Ovid Jackson.

Mr. Ovid Jackson, MP (Bruce - Grey): Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

Bruce - Grey is one of Canada's most blessed ridings, with an abundance of clean air, pure water and excellent people. It is located in southwestern Ontario on the beautiful Bruce peninsula. My riding has one of Canada's first underwater parks.

I am pleased that I have the opportunity to address you on Bill C-68 and to bring forth some of the concerns of my constituents.

My riding is primarily rural. The people have a strong work ethic and traditions run deep. Hunting still plays a very important economic role in my region and almost every farmer owns a firearm, not only for hunting but also for the protection of their livestock from predators.

I've received close to 2,000 letters, cards and calls. I've held several meetings with hunting and shooting organizations in my riding, and I've met with many individuals regarding Bill C-68. While the majority of those from whom I have heard do not favour universal registration, it is my belief that the majority of my constituents do favour universal registration.

I will not take up your time mentioning the positive aspects of Bill C-68 - and they are many. However, there are three major areas of Bill C-68 that I feel would make it more palatable, even for those who do not favour registration.

The first is the penalty for non-registration. As I understand it, it will be a criminal offence not to register your firearm; that is clause 91.

I don't feel we need to be this harsh. A progressive fine will suffice. We certainly would not want to have an elderly person who has owned a rifle for 40 years get a criminal record for non-registration.

I hope the committee will see fit to recommend an amendment in this area so that inadvertent non-registration would not be a criminal offence.

The second is a ban on handguns in the prohibitive class that are used in recognized target-shooting competitions. I have a constituent who has won several national and international championships for Canada. I'd hope the committee would find some way to accommodate this particular sport.

Third, there is the passing along of relics and heirlooms to other family members as part of their estate.

I have several constituents who have guns from the First and Second World War. Some of the guns captured from the enemy and have special significance for them. I am told that a lot of these guns do not function, but are sentimental pieces.

Again, I would hope the committee can find a solution so that these relics and heirlooms can be left to the children or other family members, if they so desire.

Members of the committee, I truly hope you can find ways and means of recommending amendments to accommodate my concerns. I do believe my suggestions would take nothing away from the strength of the bill. These amendments will dispel much of the concerns of my constituents.

I thank you for listening to me and I wish you well in your deliberations.

Finally, Madam Chair, since I have a little time left in my five minutes, I'd like to say that perhaps the most important thing about this bill is the debate. People have to know that we need to very careful with guns in a society, with the way we store and use them. Each generation needs to be reminded of that.

Canada is a different country from the rest of the world. Canada is known to be one of the best countries in the world. Part of the question is, what kind of country do we want to live in?

Thank you for hearing me.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Thank you very much.

.0955

I call now on Mr. Philip Mayfield.

Mr. Philip Mayfield, MP (Cariboo - Chilcotin): Good morning, Madam Chair and committee members.

I'd like to begin by stating how disappointed the people of Cariboo - Chilcotin are in this process. From the initial consultations to the draft proposals to the tabling of Bill C-68, Cariboo - Chilcotin's views and concerns have either been dismissed or ignored. Driven by a big-city agenda, this government has disregarded the needs and wishes of rural Canada, Cariboo - Chilcotin included.

Many have seen the justice committee's refusal to hear personally from constituents as a snub of the grassroots in favour of special interests. The fact that their elected representative has been given five minutes to present their views with no time for questions further reinforces this impression.

The region I represent is one of the more diverse in the country. It holds 32 first nations communities, many cultural groups, cattle ranches, forest industry, mining towns and dozens of small villages. One would think the views on gun control would be just as diverse. In fact, the contrary is true. According to a recent poll, there's strong support for common-sense gun control, like limiting the sale of ammunition and valid FAC or hunting licences. But when it comes to handgun bans or firearms registries, the results are clear: the people of the Cariboo are against such measures.

When asked whether further restrictions on law-abiding gun owners would reduce crime, 85% said no. So far my office has received over 700 letters from people in the riding against Bill C-68. I can count the number in favour on one hand; I believe it's four so far.

The reason for such widespread opposition is simple: firearms registration is seen as both a measure against law-abiding gun owners and as a first step towards even tighter restrictions or outright confiscation.

The current government may insist that this is not on their agenda. Many in the Cariboo - Chilcotin find this hard to believe, especially when the justice minister talks of a Canada where guns are only held by the police and the army. Bill C-68 gives either this government or another in the future the power to fulfil such an agenda.

I don't want to fan the flames of paranoia, but we must be honest: Bill C-68 gives the power to follow through on this type of confiscation plan.

There are also concerns being raised about privacy protection. The government has insisted that the existing handgun registry has been hacker-proof and that the new firearms registry will be just as secure. I recently met, however, with Canada's privacy commissioner, Bruce Phillips, as part of my work in the field of privacy protection. While Mr. Phillips avoided getting involved in the firearms debate or discussion, he did tell me an interesting story.

The U.S. Department of Defence recently hired a group of computer hackers and asked them to try to break in to every major computer system in the U.S. military. These people were able to break past every security system, measured as a 95% success rate. No system, the military learned, is hacker-proof.

When the military tried to detect and track these violations they were able to do so only 3% of the time. If the U.S. military can't guarantee data-base security, how can the justice minister?

Mr. Rock's promises of security are hollow. He's putting gun owners' lives at risk, since their names, addresses and complete gun inventories will be on file for any capable hacker to see.

I'm less than optimistic on what will happen to Cariboo - Chilcotin if Bill C-68 passes as it is. Despite the claims of Mr. Rock, my riding will not be a safer place. Questions surrounding the first nations and this registry will further heighten tensions that already exist in my riding. Many constituents will simply refuse to register their firearms, and have told me of their intention to do just that.

Police will be reluctant to enforce these measures for many reasons, including budgetary restraint. As one officer told me, the day he has to go out to confiscate an unregistered firearm is the day he calls in sick. Cariboo - Chilcotin has nothing to gain and much to lose from Bill C-68.

To conclude, Cariboo - Chilcotin is strongly opposed to this bill. It is seen as another attempt by government to force an anti-gun agenda on the Canadian people. This is nothing less than a government-knows-best mentality, a mentality the Cariboo - Chilcotin people have had enough of.

.1000

With the many federal intrusions in our private lives - licences, registries, data bases, tax files - and nothing to show for them, I'm afraid my constituents will lose their faith in government, a faith that has been further strained by plans for a mandatory registry.

The will to disobey the law is strong in this instance and could spread to other fields, such as tax collection, that depend on widespread, if not universal, cooperation.

Without the public will to voluntarily comply with our laws, the justice system cannot function. Bill C-68 may be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Thank you.

The next person is Mr. Bernie Collins.

Mr. Bernie Collins, MP (Souris - Moose Mountain): Madam Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here and I want to commend the committee on both sides of the hearing. When the task is easy, we can all be here; when it's tough, you have to be here. So I commend you for the decisions you'll have to make on behalf of all of us.

I didn't bring a prepared speech, because I think that what I have to say, I'm going to say right from my concerns from Souris - Moose Mountain.

As you know, I was a member of the committee that, on behalf of the Liberal side of our House, was asked to serve. We put forth 24 to 25 recommendations. I think those recommendations were reasonable. With regard to registration, we said a five-year, lead-in voluntary period. After the end of the first year, we'd take a look to see if it met the four criteria: effective, efficient, affordable and enforceable.

If it couldn't meet those criteria, then we had some really strong reservations about whether we should proceed.

Right now I have some reservations about registration, but I would say to everybody that I don't think it's our choice, as members of Parliament or citizens, to say, if the legislation comes in, we'll disobey it.

I say here, we must obey it. If, as we go along in life, we can pick and choose everything we want to do and don't want to do, it would be a sad commentary on how we would run this government.

I remember years ago in the province of Saskatchewan there had to be mandatory seat-belts. Along with many others I objected to that. But today we realize we're saving the lives of many people because we introduced that very effective piece of legislation.

I say today, I object to registration. But if down the road someone can show me that it is the right thing to do, I will recognize that and say that you were right. But at this point in time the people of Souris - Moose Mountain, who have asked me to come here, do not support registration. They do not support search-and-seizure provisions. They do not like the idea that heirlooms and relics should be abandoned. They have many problems with regard to this bill.

So I say to you that coming from Souris - Moose Mountain, I've weighed all those things. It isn't easy for me. But I do know that those people who have much involved in the way of money tied up in the business of running handgun shops or who have been collectors.... If you're going to confiscate, I say compensate. At least give the people money back for what they've invested.

I do have some worry about those people who are handgun owners of the shorter-calibre rifles or guns. They would lose that opportunity if this law goes forward.

I look at the Wildlife Federation, and let me say one thing, Madam Chair. On behalf of the people of the province of Saskatchewan, I would like to say to this committee that we would want to take the responsibility in the next two years of ensuring all of you that we would store our guns safely. We would do it through the Wildlife Federation, the handgun clubs and the collectors. That would be our challenge. So before we get into 1998 and registration, we could show on the books of the House of Commons and to the people of Saskatchewan and to all of Canada that we are a leading province in terms of our safety and commitment to the public good of everybody.

I think it is an important feature. We have to take on the responsibility. I've been a member of the Wildlife Federation for years. I own quite a few guns, and I am a hunter and a member of the firearms safety group.

Before we proceed with too much legislation, let's allow the public - we in Saskatchewan - to take on the challenge for all of you in Canada. I think we could do it. We could show that we are committed on behalf of all the citizens. Rather than legislate, let us publicly take on an awareness of our commitment to one another.

Let me say on record that I commend you and the members of the committee for bringing forth those elements that will deal with the criminal side. If it could have been a bill that had been split and the criminal element side...I would support it 100%.

.1005

Madam Chair, I've stood in the House of Commons on two occasions, speaking in opposition to this bill. When the times comes for me to rise in the House on third reading, I will do that again.

In my opinion, on behalf of the people of Souris - Moose Mountain.... They've asked me to represent them, and I take that responsibility very sincerely. I think it's in my best interest and the best interest of the people of rural Saskatchewan to bring forward those concerns.

I know you'll bring forward amendments, but unfortunately those amendments won't be enough for me to support the bill.

I want to thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Thank you.

I might just clarify that we haven't yet made the amendments, so we don't know what they are.

I go to Andy Mitchell.

Mr. Andy Mitchell, MP (Parry Sound - Muskoka): Thank you, Madam Chairman. In rural Ontario ridings, like the riding of Parry Sound - Muskoka, the debate over Bill C-68 has been very heated. Constituents, those both for and against stricter firearms control, want increased criminal control. They do not, however, want to forfeit their rural Ontario lifestyle, which includes the handling of firearms in legitimate recreational and/or economically valuable activities like hunting, farming, target-shooting and collecting.

I believe that prior to making its recommendations to the House of Commons, the justice committee must carefully examine the potential impact of the proposals and either determine there is a positive correlation between tougher firearms control and criminal control, or establish the means within the legislation for re-evaluating procedures if such a link cannot be established once the proposals become law.

The constituents of Parry Sound - Muskoka support and want to achieve the minister's objective of reducing violence in Canadian society, but they have valid concerns with respect to significant aspects of the proposed legislation, specifically universal firearms registration, the search-and-seizure clauses and empowerment of the justice minister by Orders in Council. I will take a minute to expand on these.

First, Madam Chairman, let me address the issue of registration. Significant concerns include a number of questions. Will it be effective in reducing violence? Can the cost be controlled? Will it be used either to directly confiscate additional firearms in the future, or make ownership so complicated that hunting and shooting will simply die out? Will enforcement place an unrealistic burden on local police?

With respect to this, I suggest a number of amendments. First, ensure that failure to register a non-restricted firearm will not be a criminal offence and that individuals will not be burdened with a criminal record for such an offence.

Second, enter into formal negotiation with the provinces and territories prior to the design and implementation of a registry system in order to take into account local conditions and lifestyle.

Third, incorporate a mandate of parliamentary review of the registry components of both the firearms act and the Criminal Code, to be automatically triggered five years after the system is in place.

Fourth, incorporate the specific costs of registration into the legislation, requiring legislative amendments to change these items.

Madam Chair, I will turn to the matter of newly prohibited firearms. Significant concerns include the fact that an individual's legally purchased property will be devalued and eventually confiscated. As well, the definition of handguns to be prohibited will include firearms regularly used in shooting competitions. These are longstanding components of legally acquired collections and in many cases represent valuable family heirlooms.

In connection with this I suggest some amendments. First, allow handguns scheduled to be prohibited by Bill C-68 and that were legally owned as of February 14 to be exempt from the prohibition.

Second, prepare a schedule of handguns regularly used in competitive shooting and exempt these from the prohibition sections of the legislation.

Third, allow for the designation of handguns as family heirlooms, and exempt these from the prohibition provisions of Bill C-68.

Fourth, exempt any handgun manufactured prior to 1945 currently in the possession of a legitimate collector.

Madam Chairman, with respect to regulations and Orders in Council, significant concerns include the fact that the power of the minister to regulate will allow administrative actions to be imposed that could be used to inhibit legitimate uses of firearms, without reference to Parliament.

As well, Orders in Council provisions give the minister the power, without reference to Parliament, to prohibit firearms used in legitimate hunting activities.

With respect to these I suggest a number of amendments. First, amend the legislation so that it would mandate a yearly review by the justice committee of all regulations introduced in the previous 12 months, with the power to recommend to Parliament that individual regulations be rescinded.

Second, do not provide the minister with the power to use an Order in Council to prohibit firearms normally used for recreational purposes.

Third, amend the legislation so that it requires all Orders in Council used to prohibit or classify firearms to be referred to Parliament for review.

Madam Chair, let me turn to the search-and-seizure procedures. Significant concerns include whether or not the provisions are contrary to the guarantees in the Charter of Rights and whether they would withstand a court challenge.

.1010

Second, the sections are too vague and could be interpreted in a manner that gives police unreasonable search powers.

With respect to this, Madam Chair, I suggest a number of amendments. First, require a search warrant to be obtained to search any place and not just dwellings.

Second, limit use of the search warrant procedures so they are only used to investigate suspected specific breaches of the legislation.

Third, I would suggest that section of the legislation be rewritten so that the powers are more specifically defined.

In conclusion, Madam Chair, the constituents of Parry Sound - Muskoka believe, as do many rural Ontarians, that effective firearms control must be efficient and not part of an unwieldy system. It must not be costly to individual Canadians, must not be costly to the general taxpayer and must meet the stated objective - to assist in controlling violence in Canadian society - without unrealistically or unnecessarily limiting the rights of Canadians to pursue legitimate sporting and recreational activities with legally owned firearms.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Thank you.

Keith Martin, please, you have the floor.

Mr. Keith Martin, MP (Esquimalt - Juan de Fuca): Thank you, Madam Chairperson, for allowing me to address the committee. I'll get right to it.

I circulated a brief if you'd like to read it at some time in the future.

I'm not a gun owner. I am an emergency room physician/general practitioner and I have had experience working as a correctional officer and as a physician in both adult and juvenile institutions.

At the outset let me say that my goal and the goal of the minister are much the same, that is, to make a safer society. That overarching goal should be remembered when we're dealing with this issue. Let's not deal with it on the basis of emotion; let's deal with it on the basis of fact. Therefore, I'll take this apart piece by piece.

The minister claims that gun registration will decrease homicides. There were 720 homicides in this country last year. A third of them, roughly 214, were committed with firearms. The number committed with legally owned handguns was 5, less than 1%.

Criminals do not register their guns at all. In fact, when you look back at the homicide rates since 1970, they've been virtually unchanged in spite of strict gun control regulations. Therefore, most homicides are in fact committed with illegally owned weapons.

The ministers claims there will be a decrease in suicides by registering firearms and forcing you to lock them up. Depressed individuals do not go out and get an FAC They do not go out and take the personality tests and they're certainly not going to go and register their firearms before killing themselves.

If a person is suicidal, they will kill themselves anyway. In fact, if you look at the facts since 1970, the suicide rate has virtually been unchanged. Between 28% and 33% of the total number of suicides are attributed to firearms. There has been no change whatsoever.

The minister claims that registration will prevent guns from lying around, as in the case of an impulsive gesture by a person to kill themselves. We already have strict regulations right now for storage. The fact is, they're not being enforced.

The minister claims that registration will prevent carnage like the incident at the École Polytechnique. Homicidal maniacs do not go out and get an FAC, they do not take the course, they do not go and get a character analysis and they're certainly not going to go out and register their firearms before committing an atrocity like that.

The minister claims registration will prevent stockpiling. I think he means that you don't want some psychotic individual stockpiling arms for criminal use. If they're going to stockpile, these individuals will do it with illegal weapons anyway.

A very big concern I have is the cost, estimated at between $85 million and $500 million. Let us understand very carefully that this money is going to be pulled away from another functional arm of our justice department. That means our police officers will have fewer of them, less equipment and training, and they will be less able to serve and protect us.

Most crimes are in fact committed with illegal firearms, and these individuals do not go out and register their arms.

We're not like the U.S., so any ejaculatory comments that are made, saying Canada is going to become like the U.S., is mere rhetoric. We don't have a Second Amendment, we are not like the United States, we have good regulations and gun control regulations now.

Lastly, I would just like to say that it's very important to understand that right now the existing laws we have in this country are not being applied. I can tell you that most firearms offences are either plea bargained away in order to get an expeditious conviction on another charge, or if they are charged and convicted, the terms run concurrently, not consecutively. This sends absolutely no message whatsoever to a criminal. In fact, I can tell you from those individuals who are incarcerated that they think it's a joke.

.1015

I applaud the minister and fully encourage him to increase the penalties for smuggling, in theft, in the usage of firearms. I would encourage him to have a minimum sentence for criminal offences in using weapons, that there be no plea bargaining associated with them, that the penalties run consecutively, not concurrently. This would send a clear message to those who are using firearms for illegal purposes while enabling law-abiding citizens, who manage to pass the extensive application process we currently have to get an FAC, to continue to do so and to live in peace.

If you look very carefully at the statistics it will become patently obvious that it is not the law-abiding gun owners who use firearms for criminal activities; rather, it is the criminal who does not abide by any laws who commits these offences. These individuals do not abide by the current laws and they're certainly not going to register.

Finally, Madame, I would just like to say, let's not be quixotic in our efforts to go and make this country safer. Let's deal with the facts, let's make sure the legislation we bring in is going to be cost-effective and effective and we're not biting our nose to spite our face.

That's why I oppose the enactment of gun registration and I would strongly urge this committee to opt for splitting the bill in two so that we can support the good efforts for gun control in this country, that is, to apply the penalties on those who are committing the offences while allowing law-abiding citizens to continue to live in peace.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Thank you.

Mr. John O'Reilly.

Mr. John O'Reilly, MP (Victoria - Haliburton): Thank you, Madam Chair. I've timed my speech to exactly four and a half minutes.

Madam Chair, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the justice committee studying Bill C-68, the infamous gun control bill.

In order to express my feelings on the impact of this bill on the rural area of Victoria - Haliburton, I would require more than five minutes allocated, so I'll capsulize my comments. I believe my evidence has been supplied to you in both official languages in a package.

My riding is a total rural riding, but it has a Toronto-area influence. From the east side of Lake Simcoe and including a large part of the Trent Canal system to the Highlands of Haliburton, many people come to our riding to relax, cottage, fish, hunt, swim, boat and all the things people do to help to enjoy life.

Bill C-68 has driven a wedge between rural and urban members of Parliament, but is also the topic of heated conversation in every area of my riding. No other issue has caused so much protest in Victoria - Haliburton, including the hated GST.

The protest includes over 5,000 letters, postcards and faxes to my office, not counting phone calls. People who are against the bill include the chief of police of the town of Lindsay, which is an 18,000 population, the Victoria County Police Association, and 90% of all the municipal councils - which I have attached - have passed resolutions stating they object to Bill C-68; in particular, forced registration and criminalization.

Who does this bill target and who is the justice committee looking for? The facts are clear to me that if you wanted to identify present gun owners, it would be very easy.

One, handguns have been registered since 1934. Two, let us assume that farmers have a gun or two or a couple as part of their standard equipment for predatory animals and rodents. Three, hunters have to purchase a hunting licence to hunt game and fowl, so they are already on a computer file in provincial ministry departments. Four, all new long-gun sales since 1991 are subject to a registration record at the point of purchase. Five, safe storage, trigger locks and FACs for ammunition are already in place in this country.

Who are we looking for? Can we not separate criminals on one side and law-abiding, god-fearing, taxpaying people who own a gun for legitimate purposes on the other side? Treatment should be quite different for both.

As my package shows the committee, a large part of the protest against Bill C-68 is driven by a Reform Party agenda - but not all the agenda. A large majority of rural Canada, including myself, oppose this bill. Why? I've completed two surveys of my riding and the results show that approximately 70% of the people who responded to my survey, which includes 3,000 replies, are opposed to Bill C-68.

On the coldest Sunday of this past winter, with a football game on TV, a crowd of 1,500 people came out to a gun rally in the high school in Haliburton. They object to becoming criminals because of their way of life.

.1020

They are not all members of the Reform Party. In the last election I won nearly all the polls in Haliburton County. There was a promise from me that I would oppose this type of legislation, and I continue to oppose the two items of forced registration and criminalization.

A proposal of voluntary registration would be more palatable to the people of Victoria - Haliburton. People who respect the law also abide by the law. A simple system of voluntary registration through provincial associations such as the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters would be quite sufficient.

Victoria - Haliburton is home to the immediate past president of the Ontario Cattlemen's Association, who opposes Bill C-68; to executive members of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, who oppose C-68; to the president of the Responsible Gun Owners of Ontario, who appeared before this committee; and to the president of the Military Re-enactment Society, which is severely restricted from holding historical events.

The Cadet Corps has also had to revert to old-style 303s because their rifles are not legal because of Bill C-68. The staff of our local museums now have to attain FACs to remain employees of a museum, because of a display of muskets.

Commonwealth Games medal winners and the president of the Ontario Small Bore Rifle Association are also from the riding of Victoria - Haliburton and are opposed. My list of people in the riding of Victoria - Haliburton is only partially listed above.

In closing, Madam Chairman and committee members, I ask you to consider recommending changes to this bill so that rural members of Parliament from all parties have their concerns taken into consideration. Look at the record of the members who showed their disapproval by being absent on second reading but who must now make a decision that will affect their ability to represent all the populations in their ridings.

There were 47 Liberals not in the House of Commons for the second reading, and without the support of the Bloc Québécois, this bill would have trouble surviving.

I thank you for your time and I wish you luck on the tough decisions you have to consider.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Thank you.

I understand Mike Scott cannot be here, so Garry Breitkreuz is presenting his remarks.

Mr. Breitkreuz: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

The presentation I have left with the clerk explains many of the ways in which Bill C-68 defies common sense.

I asked myself what I could possibly say in five minutes that would convince the government they are on the wrong track. Surely you see that this bill has divided Canada into two warring camps.

Why would the government wish to pursue a policy that divides us in our fight against violent crime? Why would the government want to alienate and criminalize million of law-abiding citizens who want to help us fight violent crime?

I believe there is a way to find a compromise. I believe it is time for the justice committee to find the courage to make the right recommendations to Parliament - no, not just the right amendments, but the right recommendations.

Many people seem amazed to find a fierce opposition to this bill not just from gun owners but also from provincial and territorial justice ministers, from lawyers, from doctors, from police on the street and even from groups that describe themselves as pro-gun control.

People are opposed to this bill because it doesn't make sense, because there is little or no logic to the arguments the minister makes. If you follow the minister's logic through to its logical conclusion, only the police and military would have guns in Canada.

The justice minister trusted the lawyers in his Department of Justice to draft a fair and just law, and they have drafted an unfair and unjust law. He asked them to draft a law that would withstand charter challenges, and we have learned from the Canadian Bar Association and others that it will not. He asked his lawyers to draft a law that would not intrude into areas of provincial jurisdiction and would respect aboriginal rights, and they've left him open to a constitutional challenge.

The justice minister trusted his staff when he should have trusted his instincts. Why would the justice minister risk his own credibility in the legal community by advancing such a poorly drafted piece of legislation that will be struck down in the courts?

The justice minister needs your help and our help to restore the faith of the people in the criminal justice system. With Bill C-68 he has shaken the trust of the very people governments depend on to uphold the law. He needs our help to unite all law-abiding citizens in our fight against the real enemy: violent criminals. He needs our help to fix this bill so we can spend our time and money getting at the root causes of crime.

It is time for us to help the minister restore the faith of the people in our justice system and our system of government. It's time for this committee to say that this proposed law has gone too far. It is time to send it back to the drawing board before the Senate does it for us.

The committee has the power to do the right thing, and I'm asking you today to do the right thing. Here's what I have asked the Prime Minister to consider.

.1025

I recommend separating the gun control provisions from the crime control provisions and holding separate votes.

I recommend early passage of crime control provisions with consideration of Reform amendments to get really tough on violent criminals.

I recommend a free vote on all gun control provisions in the bill. If public support for this measure is as great as the justice minister says, he should have no fear of true democracy.

I recommend a delay in implementation of a national firearms registration system to see if increased sanctions and new criminal offences crime controls proposed by the Liberals and Reform are effective in reducing violent crime.

I recommend an inclusion of a sunset clause amendment that would automatically repeal any gun control provisions that are not cost-effective in reducing violent crime or improving public safety.

I and other Reform MPs are willing to work with you and your government to make the Criminal Code really effective at combating real crime, violent crime, no matter what type of weapons criminals use.

The sides in this debate are too firmly entrenched to find solutions without true leadership. The committee must provide this leadership. I believe the recommendations I have proposed give us all the room to manoeuvre and still achieve the common goal both we and Canadians want - safer streets.

I feel this committee should be working to unite the warring factions we now have in society. We have the power to do it, and I would suggest that we should work and find ways to do that.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Réginald Bélair -

Ms Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): On a point of order, Madam Chair...[Inaudible]...Mike Scott.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): No, it was ruled earlier that Mike Scott was being represented by another member of Parliament.

Ms Phinney: Replaced by or represented by?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): That was the representation of the member of Parliament Mike Scott, as read by a colleague.

Ms Phinney: On these two lots of papers he gave us today it says it's his representation.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): There are two separate representations.

I can have the clerk deal with it.

Please go ahead, Mr. Bélair.

[Translation]

Mr. Réginald Bélair, MP (Cochrane - Superior): Thank you, Madam Chair, dear colleagues. First of all, I represent a rural area; I must tell you that my riding is the seventh largest in Canada. Needless to say, hunting as a sport and a means of survival for indigenous people is of paramount importance in our daily lives.

I must say also that to this day, I have received between 6,000 and 7,000 representations of all kinds from honest people in my riding who are concerned that they might be compared to real criminals who have committed real crimes with firearms.

So it is from that perspective that you have to understand - and I see that there is a majority of members of Parliament, almost all from urban areas - the difference between the urban and rural frame of mind in Canada.

[English]

Bill C-68 as a crime control bill responds to the wishes of every Canadian to strengthen the Criminal Code for crimes involving firearms. However, I have some reservations about certain clauses of the bill that would infringe upon the legal, human and property rights of law-abiding citizens.

I would like to briefly share my concerns and offer some recommendations.

First, on the criminal record element, with respect to failure to register a firearm or for the transfer of firearms without the proper acquisition or registration documents, the bill proposes no minimum punishment be applied to summary prosecution cases. The maximum penalties of six months or a $2,000 fine apply. In my view, this is extremely harsh.

.1030

A minimum punishment of one year will apply where the offence is prosecuted on indictment. Where a person receiving a firearm does not obtain the necessary permit, a fire-year maximum punishment would apply, with no specified minimum. It is common knowledge that the failure to register an automobile through the transfer of ownership would result in only, and I say only, a $100 fine.

Next are the recommendations on sentencing.

On first offence: If a person inadvertently or for any other reason fails to register his or her firearms, he or she would be given 30 days to register the firearms and be liable to pay a fine of $100. No jail term would be imposed, and the offender would therefore not have a criminal record.

On second offence: If for any reason a person fails to register a second time, the offender would be given 15 days to register his or her firearms and would have to pay a fine of $1,000. Again, no jail sentence would be imposed, and no criminal offence would be on the person's record.

On third offence: If beyond the shadow of any doubt a person fails to register a third time, this would be considered an instance of wilful civil disobedience. In this case the offender's firearms possession certificate should be revoked and a jail sentence of six months apply. In addition, all firearms would be confiscated with remittance allowed upon presentation of proof that the firearms had been duly registered.

Once the law is passed, Madam Chair, no one should be exempt from it.

On search and seizure, section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that ``Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure''. Clause 99 and subclause 99.(1) of Bill C-68 and subclauses 101.(1) and (2) are an infringement on the rights and freedoms of an individual. These subclauses do not clearly define what are the reasonable grounds that would motivate a search in a dwelling of a law-abiding citizen or what specifically is contained in the warrant for such a search. These subclauses are too vague and too subjective.

Here is a brief example, Madam Chair. A police officer who strongly supports the bill would make it a point to enter a house, whereas a police officer who strongly opposes the bill would make it a point not to enter the dwelling. That's a very simple example, but I guess, oh, yes, it illustrates it quite well.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Your time is up.

Mr. Bélair: Don't I still have one minute? I thought you were going to give me a signal.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I did. We'll take your written brief.

Mr. Bélair: It's just that I had some written notes. Could my notes then be photocopied, Madam Chair, for distribution to -

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): You can deal with the clerk.

Next is Harold Culbert.

Mr. Harold Culbert, MP (Carleton - Charlotte): Good morning, Madam Chair, and members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

I appreciate the fact that you have arranged for time for me and others members of Parliament to make a brief presentation to you on Bill C-68. Since only five minutes has been allotted to each member of Parliament, I will not spend valuable time with the normal formalities; instead, I will explain and comment on the concerns I and many of my constituents have with Bill C-68.

During the second reading of Bill C-68, I spoke in the House of Commons and noted many concerns and suggestions, and for time and simplicity I've attached a copy of that speech from Hansard, March 13, 1995, pages 10401 and 10402. For this reason I will not dwell on the areas I and many Carleton - Charlotte constituents support. I will only briefly state our support for the following elements: stronger penalties for the criminal use of firearms used in the commission of crimes; stronger penalties and initiatives to reduce smuggling and trafficking of firearms; and the banning of assault-type weapons.

The fourth part of the bill, which is the proposed national registration system for all firearms, including legal hunting rifles and shotguns, is the area that causes the most serious concern. I will also underline a few other questionable areas and allow the expertise around this table to consider properly worded amendments to correct these problem areas.

.1035

First of all, I ask the committee to review the federal government's authority to legislate on items of personal property. Firearms are personal property, which constitutes a provincial responsibility under the Constitution.

Secondly, the overlap between the firearms act and the Criminal Code is a major concern, especially from the standpoint of judicial interpretation and sentencing. If the act or all of its provisions were covered by the firearms act, the legislation would be viewed as a regulatory act. By overlapping the two pieces of legislation, certain offences under the firearms act become Criminal Code convictions. This would carry a far greater stigma, as it would criminalize the convicted person in the public's eye. I refer to the appropriate sections, for this committee's use.

A third area of concern is a process in obtaining a licence under the firearms act in that after the firearms officer has made the determination as to the issuance of a licence, the process for appeal of that decision goes to the provincial court, then to the Court of Queen's Bench, and lastly, to the Court of Appeal. This process is intimidating, costly, and may reduce the chance of having a decision overturned. A suggested approach would be for the first level of appeal to be a lay tribunal, as exists with other federal legislation such as the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Canada Pension Plan Act.

Failure to register a legal hunting rifle or shotgun due to extenuating circumstances should exempt that person from a criminal offence; at the very least, on the first offence.

Clauses 98 to 101 - entitled ``inspection'' but often referred to as ``search and seizure'' - quite obviously need to be re-examined and rewritten, as they are currently far too broad. There must always be checks and balances to ensure that individual rights are protected.

Subclause 101.(1) notes that:

A police officer may not enter a dwelling-house except with the consent of the occupant or under a warrant.

The definition of a dwelling-house should be clarified to ensure that it applies equally to a camp, mobile home, trailer or any other such building as may be used for residential purposes. The committee should review the definition of a dwelling-house in the Criminal Code to ensure that it covers all possibilities. I've notated the definitions section of the Criminal Code of Canada, for review.

Subclauses 102.(1), (2) and (3), under the title ``offences'', should have more work to clarify the onus regarding oral statement or statement in writing.

I am concerned by the definition of a relic firearm. Many firearms were returned from wars and conflicts over many years, were handed down to children and grandchildren, and should continue in this manner in the future. There should be a special provision for firearms that have special significance to families as relics or heirlooms.

Handguns that would be prohibited under the new legislation but are used in sporting competitions must be considered for exemption by the committee, as requested. Please also keep in mind that one could never aspire to be a competitor in this area without many hours of practice time. How in the future will we have Canadian competitors in these areas unless there is an exemption system such through the local authorized shooting clubs -

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Your time has expired. Thank you. If you'd like, make sure your brief gets to the clerk.

I would like to call upon -

Mr. Bélair: On a point of order, I noticed that Mr. Comuzzi has not made his presentation. Could I use 30 seconds of his time?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Unfortunately not. The requests are in, and Mr. Comuzzi withdrew his name.

Mr. Lee (Scarborough - Rouge River): On a point of order, clearly some of our colleagues are having difficulty fitting their presentations within the five minute timeframe. Out of fairness to them, I think it would be most appropriate to interrupt them with about one minute to go, to let them know there is just a minute left. It would serve our purposes better, as well.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I am hitting the gavel at one minute prior. Then I'm letting the gavelling close at the end of that minute.

Mr. Lee: Our last two presenters seemed surprised by the -

.1040

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Unfortunately, during the last two presentations I did exactly what has been done since the beginning, at 9 a.m., with the chair's ruling on this, and I have announced it periodically. I will tap very loudly, but I have not missed a gavel hit.

Mr. Lee: That's great, thank you.

Mr. Bélair: On a point of order, could I ask the indulgence of the committee and the chair for an extra one minute?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): With unanimous consent, you can ask.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): You have unanimous consent.

Mr. Bélair: I had basically three points left to make, the first one being the information on the magnetic band. Will there be something on the application form that asks for consent for that information to be included on the band?

Second, on the area of confiscation, as it is in the bill, it is confiscation by attrition. There are two points: a constitutional point in the sense that subsection 92.(13), the Constitution Act, 1867, states only the provinces have the right to seize property. This should be clarified in the bill.

Third, there should be a revision process - three years, five years. I leave this to my colleagues to deliberate on. I hope these things will be included in the bill.

Thank you. That's all I needed.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. Hopkins, your time will commence now. Go ahead, please.

Mr. Leonard Hopkins, MP (Renfrew - Nipissing - Pembroke): Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is the fourth time I've been through the ordeal of government bills dealing with guns. None of them have been simple and none of them have been easy. By their very nature, they have been divisive with regard to individual differences, geographical differences and cultural differences based on rural and urban attitudes.

It should not therefore be surprising that Bill C-68, like its three predecessors, is causing tensions and much controversy between rural and urban Canada, possibly more so today because urban ridings are increasing while rural ridings are getting fewer. We are talking about two different ways of life.

On the average Canadian farm, guns of one kind or another are a way of life, to protect animals and fowl from predators. Whether your sports clubs use handguns or long guns, they're very well run. Clubs lay down their rules and regulations for all members, and enforce them. Average, everyday citizens are not the problem, but they feel they are being picked on.

When we who have concerns about sections of the act talk about them, there is an immediate reaction that we are part of the gun lobby. In the House of Commons I said that I do not consider myself to be part of a gun lobby; I consider myself to be a parliamentarian who is trying to put something constructive into legislation. My decision will be based on my judgment, not on a lot of hype and rhetoric.

Compromise is most important in order to have legislation with which Canadians can live. Compromise is not a weakness, as some would have you believe; it is a strength. This entire nation of ours has been built on compromise to accommodate regional differences. Why should legislation be any different? This is basically fundamental to any controversial legislation, because it will produce more cooperation from Canadians generally.

I have several small gun clubs across the Ottawa Valley. They have never caused any harm. You've never seen one negative comment about them in the media at any time. They are well-run organizations.

What are some of the concerns rural Canadians have? They are concerned about Orders in Council, particularly if there is no parliamentary scrutiny. The search and seizure fear is out there, without warrant, and it must be clarified by the committee and in the legislation itself. It would not be in keeping with the Canadian tradition if it were not.

The banning of certain handguns is, of course, a big concern to handgun clubs. You've heard about collections so far. This is interfering with people's personal estates.

To really tackle smuggling effectively, practically everybody supports having more customs officers at the border. Sportsmen and rural people in general will support the sections of this bill that deal with criminal activity. If anything, they would rather see plea bargaining in the court system dispensed with in many cases, and hence would go further than the bill actually does.

.1045

The mental health problems of people in possession of or wanting to purchase a gun is tremendously important to any responsible society, addressed in Bill C-17 and here in Bill C-68.

Anti-smuggling measures, anti-criminal activities, downgrading plea bargaining and enforcing the law already on the books are major parts of the key to a better society. Guns bought illegally and sold illegally bring no tax returns and become a big dollar charge to the public.

Finally, I grew up and worked with many average citizens who owned guns and used them safely and responsibly. I do not want to see the Criminal Code used against these people for non-registration.

In conclusion, I want to emphasize that workable compromises should not be termed ``watering down''. It is simply practising common sense. Bill C-17s and C-68 talk about safe storage of guns and ammunition. Most Canadians have already complied with this law. Smuggling remains the biggest problem, and hence your criminal activity. This is a part of the fairness to Canadians if we bring in measures to correct some of the inequities in this law.

It is time to cool the rhetoric and practice the good old common values of common sense. I would ask the committee to bring those feelings to Parliament in their report in very valid and common sense form.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Thank you.

Roseanne Skoke, please.

Ms Roseanne Skoke, MP (Central Nova): Madam Chair and fellow colleagues, this submission is being presented to the justice and legal affairs committee today, in my formal capacity as a member of Parliament representing the constituents of the electoral riding of Central Nova, Nova Scotia.

I bring with me to this committee 18 years of experience as a practising lawyer, including the area of criminal law; therefore, my constituents rely upon my expertise to scrutinize and debate on their behalf. I have carefully reviewed Bill C-68, An Act respecting firearms and other weapons, which is 124 pages long and contains 186 legislative provisions. It includes amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada and creates a separate statute, the proposed firearms act.

In five minutes I cannot do a clause-by-clause analysis; however, in short, the bill reorganizes the gun control system, putting provisions of a regulatory type in the proposed new firearms act, while leaving the Criminal Code penalties in Part III of the Criminal Code.

The three pillars of the existing system - first, controls on access; second, controls on particular kinds of firearms; and third, criminal penalties - continue to exist, but their forms change. In particular, much of the balance of the system shifts to controls focusing directly on persons rather than types and usages of firearms. It is this shift to controls on persons rather than firearms that this committee must concern itself with. It is this shift focusing on persons that gives legitimate rise to the legal questions of constitutionality and Charter of Rights arguments.

The government when enacting Bill C-68 has a difficult task in achieving a correct balance between the objective of reducing violence in Canadian society on the one hand, and respecting individual liberties on the other. Bill C-68 contains provisions that are unconstitutional and offends the fundamental constitutional principles that apply generally to criminal offences and search and seizure powers.

My constituents support the basic principle that Canadians do not want to live in a country wherein the people feel they want or need to possess a firearm for protection. However, in light of this basic principle, consideration must be given to section 7 of the charter, which is operative and relevant to Bill C-68.

Although our Canadian Constitution does not expressly contain the provision that guarantees the right to bear arms, as is the case in the United States, in Canada section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights guarantees the right to life, liberty and security of the person. The right to security of person extends to the individual right to secure one's own person and property and law enforcement agents for security purpose.

.1050

It is understood that the universal registration of firearms is a fundamental strategy, a fundamental support system that the government intends to use.

It is important to note that individuals should not have to rely upon the state and law enforcement agents for the security of their own person and they have the right pursuant to section 7 to the right to secure their own person.

The fundamental support system regarding universal registration of firearms is, at this point, that controversy and a divergence of opinion ensue in debate. Specifically, my constituents of Central Nova have expressed concerns regarding the effect and impact Bill C-68 and universal registration will have upon them as law-abiding, gun-owning citizens.

By letters, petitions and by 800 constituents attending two separate public forums, they've expressed their concerns, fears and apprehensions regarding the federal government's firearms control program. The concerns raised were: first, that registration would potentially lead to confiscation of their guns; second, that registration would interfere with property rights and Charter of Rights, specifically to the right to security of person and property; third, that the ownership of a gun is a right and not a privilege; and fourth, they fail to see the positive effects of gun registration in deterring and reducing crime in Canada.

I trust the constitutional validity of universal firearms registration and prohibition will be re-examined and considered by this committee.

Since it appears the government is committed to registration of firearms as a fundamental strategy of Bill C-68, then at the very least, the registration of firearms should be removed from the Criminal Code and incorporated in a separate regulatory statute that would not be subject to the scope of criminal enforcement.

As you know, criminal law represents the most serious sanction available to society, and therefore, it should be used in a manner that will not interfere with the rights and freedoms of individuals.

Another constitutional issue to be addressed by the committee is the constitutional validity of clauses 98 through 101 of Bill C-68, which deal with the powers of inspection under the firearms act. It's my position that powers of inspection violate section 8 of the Charter of Rights, that is, the right of a Canadian to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Furthermore, I'm concerned by the administrative discretionary powers provided in the licensing provisions. This is a power that cannot be regulated and therefore the door is open for abusive authority and abusive administrative discretion wherein the individual Canadian will be substantively denied their rights to natural justice, fairness and right to privacy.

As well, I'm concerned with the sentencing provisions in the bill. These are unacceptable. I'm also concerned with section 94 and subsection 108.(4), of the Criminal Code, as it offends the doctrine of presumption of innocence as guaranteed in the charter, paragraph 11.(d), and places the burden of proof upon the accused. All reverse onus clauses should be removed from the bill as they are contrary to paragraph 11.(b) of the Charter of Rights.

My remaining comments are in my brief. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Thank you.

Mr. Richardson, please.

Mr. John Richardson, MP (Wellington - Waterloo): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to begin my presentation by reaffirming my support for the concept of gun controls...[Inaudible]...saving lives. Without question, the logic that if only one life is saved, it would be worthwhile, applies to this issue. We know that for a fact. We've heard numbers of people who have made presentation here who have demonstrated that lives would be saved, and we've heard others who have said that but still will not support the bill. The logic is not very solid.

During the past year, I've had five town hall meetings in my riding. At each one of these meetings much of the debate concentrated on the issue of gun control and was given a thorough and lengthy examination. At the same time, I had numerous one-on-one meetings with my constituents on this matter. I probably have the most gun clubs in my riding than in any part of Ontario. Today I'll be placing a summary of the recommendations before you that were put forth to me during this meeting. Many of these recommendations have merit and perhaps will go a long way to making gun registration more acceptable to many gun owners in my riding.

I'll give you a summary of the recommendations. First is that the registration process be as user-friendly as affordable as possible. Canadians are tired and resentful of government red tape, and gun owners view registration as another needless form to fill out an accompanying tax grab. We should pay attention to that concern when we are drawing up the mode of registration.

If great effort is taken to create a simple, affordable yet effective registration system, the contents of Bill C-68 will be much more palatable to gun owners.

.1055

Two, it is important that Bill C-68 address the concerns of many owners of guns that are classified as relics and heirlooms, as mentioned by many of the people before you. These collectors have legitimate concerns that their possessions should not be subject to the same rules that apply to standard firearms.

Three, as a member of Parliament from my riding, many rural areas...and it is logical that one of the strongest concerns I have has been put forward by farmers. It is a traditional part of their proud heritage that farmers own and use guns to kill varmints that invade their property.

It is my recommendation that people such as them, who may not register a gun, be giving warning in writing or a caution on first offence and not charged and given a criminal record. I don't think it should be overlooked; it should be recorded. Simply put, farmers are not criminals and do not deserve to be treated as such.

Four, in my riding there are constituents who belong to historical societies who re-enact historical events, using reproduced guns that use blank black powder. It is my recommendation that these guns be allowed to remain in use.

Five, while I recognize that this issue has been addressed by other organizations, there have been many questions put forth to me by competitive shooters. Since I am not one, and I have fired many thousands and thousands of rounds, I can only ask that the committee give these concerns of competitive shooting associations the consideration they deserve. The concerns relate to the calibre and type of guns they would recommend be kept on the list because they are recognized for international competition, for example, Olympic Games, Commonwealth Games, Pan American Games.

Six, there is some alarm - strong alarm - about the invasion of one's home covered in clauses 98 to 101 and clause 107 of Bill C-68. I strongly recommend that this committee look at those provisions and see if these objections are well founded. There is a wealth of talent on this committee and I'm sure you can come with some alternatives to those clauses.

Many of my constituents echoed the concerns you've heard over the past week regarding the elements of fundamental rights to privacy. I do not have any definitive suggestions for the replacement of these sections, but I'm sure, as I mentioned previously, with the wealth of talent on this committee, a workable solution will be found to replace these sections.

Finally, there are a number of small museums in my riding. Those people who are responsible for displays of guns are seeking some relief and direction from certain aspects of the bill. A simple clarification could alleviate the concerns of this group. It could be included in the regulations that flow from the bill.

In conclusion, I would like to say that Canada became the number one preferred country to live in -

The Chair: I'm just notifying you you're in your last minute. You have to make it pretty clear.

Mr. Richardson: I was going to be within.

I would like to make the point that we have - and it is because of the lifestyle of Canadians - one of the lowest crime rates in the world, an advanced society, a compassionate society. As a former gun owner, if I owned a rifle, I would not be afraid to register. I don't know why people are afraid to register. We register our cars, our dogs, we have OHIP numbers, we have SIN numbers, we have every kind of number that's impeding our privacy. This is no more than an additional registration.

In the end, legitimate gun owners will be allowed to enjoy, if you put some of these regulations suggested into place, and farmers will be allowed to protect their livelihood.

Thank you very much for the hard work of this committee, and thank you for hearing me.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I now call on Harry Verran from South West Nova, Nova Scotia.

Mr. Harry Verran, MP (South West Nova, Nova Scotia): Mr. Chairman, colleagues, guests, I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today, to bring forward the concerns of some of the responsible gun owners of South West Nova. I want to inform the committee that I, as a member of Parliament, am pleased to have the opportunity to bring forward many of those concerns some of my constituents have expressed about Bill C-68.

.1100

I want to state at the outset that I am making this presentation on behalf of many responsible gun owners of South West Nova. Several of these individuals are not pleased with the proposed legislation as it now stands.

I have brought most of these issues to the attention of the Minister of Justice prior to the first reading of the legislation, and now I am very pleased to have this opportunity to bring further concerns to the justice committee.

Mr. Chairman, I have attended a number of rallys in my riding of South West Nova over the last few months. As a result, there are a few crucial points I have been asked to bring to your attention.

I want to make it quite clear that the constituents of South West Nova fully support crime control and the penalty sections of the legislation. In fact, many have expressed the opinion that if someone is convicted of a crime using a firearm, and that results in the death of an individual, a full sentence of 25 years without possibility of parole should be served.

There are five concerns that have recently been expressed by my constituents that I would like to bring to the attention of your committee. The first involves the possibility of a grandfather clause.

Everyone I have spoken to on this issue believes they have the right to pass down their firearms, heirlooms, antiques and others to the next generation. I know this issue has been raised many times by different individuals and groups, and I would hope this committee gives it due consideration.

The second point concerns the registration of firearms and the costs that will be associated with such registration. I am suggesting that the registration system be reviewed after five years. If at that time the initial goals have not been met, perhaps the system can be reworked or even abolished. The costs associated with registration is a very important concern to everyone involved in South West Nova. There is fear among the general public that the fees associated with general registration will escalate beyond reason and that cost will make it prohibitive for many gun owners to own firearms.

I would suggest that the table of registration fees be directly included in this legislation. This would ensure that such fees will not increase at the whim of some bureaucrat, and the members of Parliament will be able to exercise control on this very important issue.

This leads, Mr. Chairman, directly to the third issue of concern, the possibility of amending this legislation, if passed, through the House of Commons. It is imperative that Bill C-68 not be amended by Orders in Council. Any changes to this legislation must be dealt with directly by the House of Commons and subject to a full debate.

The fourth concern, Mr. Chairman, is that an individual who does not register his or her firearm would be charged and therefore have a criminal record. It is important that there be no criminal record for first-time offenders if individuals do not register their firearms for any reason.

Mr. Chairman, the final concern - and a very important one for the many responsible gun owners of South West Nova - is the section in the legislation dealing with powers that police officers have for search and seizure.

My constituents do not believe a police officer should have the authority to enter a person's home, to enter a person's kingdom, to inspect the storage of firearms and then have full search-warrant powers once they have entered. This will just not be tolerated by the citizens of South West Nova, and I suggest by most of the country.

The possibility of this taking place is very upsetting. I repeat: frankly, it will not be tolerated if it were to come into effect.

In conclusion, I ask that this committee examine closely all testimony presented to you in a fair and equitable manner. It is important that you take into consideration the suggestions I have brought forward today on behalf of most of the responsible gun owners of South West Nova. These concerns, Mr. Chairman, as I have expressed them to you, have a common theme, often expressed by other loyal members of Parliament.

Mr. Chairman, there is still room for significant changes to be made in Bill C-68 before final reading in the House of Commons. I hope you will give my suggestions as well as those of other witnesses due consideration.

I want to thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear here today, and I look forward to receiving your recommendations to the minister on this very important legislation in the near future. Please, Mr. Chairman, please, committee, take into consideration that I realize and we in South West Nova realize there is a great need for crime control.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Verran.

I now call Derek Wells.

.1105

Mr. Derek Wells, MP (South Shore): Mr. Chairman and committee members, thank you for the opportunity to be here. I must say, I do admire your stamina. I attended a number of your meetings and it's quite a task.

It's hard to be original at this stage of the game. I have a written presentation that has been circulated, but you could take some of the previous presentations, Paul Zed's or Andy Mitchell's, and put my name to them. Many of the same things are going to be stated.

In my community I formed a gun committee of 12 individuals. My written report comes out of that meeting. We did a clause by clause where we picked out some of the very real concerns we had, and some of those concerns have been expressed by others.

The most difficult issue - and I think it's generally accepted - is the question of registration. While I personally don't have a problem with registration, I know many in my community do. The committee I formed, a committee of 12, although not unanimous did not support universal registration.

My committee has given its approval to the portions of the legislation dealing with the criminal misuse of firearms, but the committee was not convinced, even after meeting with Vince MacDonald who came and appeared before our committee, that registration will be a cost-effective crime control measure. They were not convinced that the $85-million figure was an accurate assessment of the costs associated with registration and nevertheless felt that this money would be better spent on concrete, proven crime prevention measures.

I recognize that the registration is not likely to be dropped, but it's recognized by people dealing with it, and I think now recognized by the minister and hopefully by the committee, that we need flexibility, we need amendments, and in fact the legislation can be improved.

Again, the suggestions I'm going to make are not new. I won't go into them in any great detail. They're ones you've heard already, but they were identified by my committee and they were identified by other witnesses, including the Canadian Bar Association, and I think it's important to stress them.

The Order in Council provision is one I spoke very strongly against in the House and one I don't like. I'm not happy with Orders in Council generally, but I think the subtle change in the Order in Council power in this legislation has to be noted. The present wording talking about ``commonly used for hunting and sporting purposes'' is now being changed to ``not reasonable'', which basically gives more power to the minister.

My committee had two concerns about the Order in Council provisions in the legislation. First of all, by allowing for Parliament to be bypassed, this legislation effectively takes away the rights of MPs to debate changes that could be inappropriate in some cases. As well, a broadening of the existing provisions under the Criminal Code gives the Minister of Justice too much power.

The second one, and the one I feel most strongly about, is the criminalization of non-registration. I think it's wrong that it be a criminal offence. I've said that from the beginning, as a lot of people have, and I know the minister is now showing some flexibility on that.

When I attended the committee as an associate member and listened to the chiefs of police and the police association members, it was interesting to see the diverse views. The chiefs of police did not want it decriminalized, whereas the rank-and-file police officers themselves felt it should not be a criminal offence.

I went back and reread that testimony, and I must say that I fully support the view taken by the police association, which is against having first-offence non-registration as a criminal offence.

I also would like the committee to pay particular attention to proposed sections 91 and 92, proposed section 91 dealing with the unauthorized possession of a firearm, and proposed section 92, possession of a firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized.

I totally disagree with proposed section 92. It's a totally indictable section. There's no provision and no discretion under proposed section 92 to go summarily.

I think it is one that will leave too much power in the hands of the police and in the hands of prosecutors. It is a prime section to be used totally for plea-bargaining purposes.

.1110

That charges will be laid under proposed section 92 and then plea-bargained away to get a guilty plea under proposed section 91 is I think totally improper, and I totally disagree with that use of the section.

Let me skim over some of the others. On prohibition and confiscation, the committee and members of my riding basically have expressed the opinion that too many guns were banned by the minister when he introduced the government's action plan.

I bring your attention back to the testimony of Finn Nielsen, a forensic expert with the Province of Ontario. He testified that the decision to ban a weapon should not be based on barrel length, but rather on the overall length of the firearm. I hope the committee reflects on that testimony, because I think the mistake was made in the method of measuring and that has to be taken into account.

Search and seizure provisions are much too broad. I was very happy to see and read the testimony of the Canadian Bar Association yesterday on the question of search and seizure. That has to be amended.

The other sections are in the brief. I hope you take the time to read them. I know five minutes is certainly not enough time to give a full analysis. Again, I know you're aware of the situation and aware of the problems.

Thank you for your time.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wells.

Mr. Ivan Grose, MP (Oshawa): Mr. Chairman, colleagues, I support Bill C-68. That having been said, there isn't anything that can't be improved - well, maybe there are a couple of things, but this bill isn't one of them.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Grose: I'm here with what I feel are the legitimate concerns of some of my constituents.

A constituent in my riding purchased two short-barrelled pistols on February 16, two days after the February 14 cut-off date. He was not informed by the gun dealer about the effect of this legislation on the sale. He was allowed to register them by the local registrar of firearms. These pistols are now considered prohibited weapons. As he did not possess a prohibited weapon prior to February 14, will he now be required to turn them in without compensation?

The lack of advertising and notification given to dealers and the public must be taken into consideration in determining who should be allowed to retain recently acquired prohibited weapons.

In regard to the proposed ban on replica firearms, it has been brought to my attention that some firearms safety course instructors are currently using replica firearms as teaching aids. It would seem to me that this is more desirable than issuing them carrying permits to transport restricted weapons for the same purpose.

I've also been in contract with many of my constituents who are concerned about the impact of this legislation on cadets - this one particularly concerns me - who routinely use replica weapons for training and military-style colour guards who use them for parades.

I believe the committee should consider an exemption through special permit for replica guns used for firearms training and parade purposes. A similar special permit should also be considered for those with a legitimate use for starter pistols.

In Oshawa, the army, navy and air cadets require weapons for drill, competition, safety training and range work. Often cadet corps acquire weapons from sources outside the Department of National Defence for this purpose. The Oshawa District Council of the Boy Scouts of Canada maintains an indoor pellet and .22-rifle range for safety training and competition target-shooting purposes. Being dependent on volunteers, these groups are concerned about how these registration regulations will affect them.

The Oshawa Naval Veterans Club has a very active colour party that carries .303 Lee-Enfield Mark III - my, we remember those - on ceremonial occasions. This colour party uses these rifles, among other purposes, to fire ceremonial salutes, using blank cartridges, at the funerals of their veteran members. They feel it would be impossible for them to carry on this tradition if each person who might at some time participate was required to acquire and register his own personal weapon. Some provision must be made for organizations like this to mass-register those weapons to the organization.

I've written a large number of my constituents concerning the prohibition of the Ruger Mini-14 rifle. The Ruger Mini-30 rifle is a weapon nearly identical to the Mini-14 rifle, but using a much more powerful cartridge. This weapon is not being prohibited. I am further convinced that the Mini-14 rifle has a legitimate purpose as a hunting rifle. As a hunting rifle, it has little or no value to collectors. These hunters will have not only a $500 hunting rifle at home that is worthless to them, but in order to continue to participate in their sport, they also will have to invest in another less suitable gun at additional cost.

.1115

A large number of families share firearms amongst themselves for hunting and target shooting. It would be a great financial hardship for them to have to acquire firearms for every member of their family, when they do not use these weapons all at the same time. Provision for some form of joint registration is required in this case.

Many husbands and wives share the hobby of collecting firearms: that came as news to me. It would be very unfair if a couple, jointly in possession of a newly prohibited weapon, were forced to choose which of them would be the sole person who would register that weapon. If their marriage breaks up, there is no provision for transfer of this weapon to the spouse who did not possess a prohibited weapon as of the cut-off date. If the partner who was elected to register this prohibited weapon dies, the surviving spouse could be deprived of a potentially large amount of money because this weapon cannot be transferred to them and must be surrendered without compensation should no suitable buyer be found.

A number of the people contacting me are concerned about the requirement that they prove every five years that they still require a restricted weapon for a legitimate purpose. While most feel this is a laudable sentiment, there should be some type of grace period allowed. They will have spent a significant amount of money, first to join a gun club, and second, to acquire a restricted weapon for target shooting. If after five years, when they are required to justify their continued need for this weapon, they are not actively involved in a club for any reason, such as lack of funds, lack of spare time, or family obligations, they will be required to either surrender that weapon without compensation or sell it under duress to the highest bidder.

I've received hundreds of letters from gun owners across this country. I'm interested in the figures too. I've received 400 letters from my constituents who oppose this legislation. I've received a further 800 letters from across Canada echoing this theme. I have received less than 50 letters from my constituents who support this legislation.

If I were to go solely on the letters and calls I have received on this subject, then I would be firmly in the corner of those who oppose Bill C-68. I am not. I have studied the results of several polls conducted on this subject and am convinced it is the right way to go.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Grose.

Mr. Brent St. Denis, MP (Algoma): If I stay standing, will the clock not start?

The Chair: That's right - but don't stand too long.

Mr. St. Denis: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Colleagues, I'll get right to the point. I hope you have received a copy of my presentation. I've also taken the opportunity in this time slot to give you a copy of the presentation submitted by the Elliot Lake Sharpshooters Handgun Club. Some of their points I raise in my own brief.

I can't cover the whole thing in this short five minutes. I really encourage you to read it. I will speak to some or all of you privately on this over the next short while.

The principal point I want to make, Mr. Chairman - and I've also provided you with a copy of my recent householder - is that I think at all times we have to be respectful toward the legitimate gun-owning community in this country. I think the list of concerns my constituents have raised with me is testimony to the fact that we maybe have not been as respectful as we might have been.

On registration, I have listed 17 concerns. Let me read some of the highlights.

Some of my constituents believe the red tape they will face will be onerous and burdensome. Others believe it will be a serious tax grab in the years to come. Some of my constituents believe their privacy will be compromised. They don't want others to know which guns they own, and least of all, they don't want police radio broadcasts of gun ownership over the airwaves.

Some of my constituents believe the search and seizure powers proposed by this legislation are far too onerous. Some of my constituents believe this system will not be effective in dealing with crime. Others believe if criminals won't register and some of their neighbours won't register, how can the system possibly work? Some believe the household prohibition features are far too extensive and draconian. Many believe otherwise law-abiding citizens will become criminals because of inadvertent lack of registration. Some believe front-line police resources will be diverted from the streets to the office in order to facilitate the administration of a registration system. Some believe this will lead to intrusive and costly inspection by government officials or police, and there are other issues related to registration that send the wrong message to our gun-owning community.

I emphasize that I think we can deal with all those issues. I believe we can. I believe, though, we must do a much better job of informing the public, and I would call upon this committee to, among other things in their report, call upon the justice department to do a more effective job in communicating with the gun-owning community in this country.

.1120

On issues of property, it's hard to imagine the feeling of, say, an eighty-year-old gentleman who wants to pass down to his son or daughter a family heirloom, and I have many people in this situation. I think it's very important when the committee deals with the issue of relics and heirlooms that we don't presume the heirloom or relic is automatically disallowed for future generations. Let's put the onus on the registrant to make an honest declaration that this is an heirloom and let it go at that. I think that would be fair. We're calling upon Canadians to trust us; let's trust them.

I have listed a number of amendments and suggestions near the end of my brief. I'd like to highlight a few in my last few moments here.

I think we need to deal with the question of family ownership or dual ownership. The husband of the secretary of the Elliot Lake Sharpshooters Handgun Club, who made this earlier brief I referred to, is John Rochon, one of our leading national shooters. He recently shot for us at the Pan American Games.

Some day, if unfortunately he passes on before Donna does, he has prize pistols used in international competitions around the world that maybe in this system she won't be able to inherit. I think that would be a tragedy. These are important things to the family, and in fact to the community.

There are people who will lose their firearms because they can't re-qualify. Imagine somebody working overseas or who is sick and can't get out to a club on a regular basis. We have to make provisions for people to be away for a period of time from a sport where they use restricted firearms and provide that they can store those safely somewhere else and come back to that at some future time, possibly after a period of illness.

I think a more sensible approach, in fact, to the whole issue of the 300,000 or so grandfathered licences that will remain is to allow those licences to be passed on to other people through some kind of protocol. Rather than shrink that 300,000, let's leave it at 300,000.

There are many other important points that time will not allow me to cover. I think this committee should recommend a periodic review of this legislation. I suggest the first review be in the year 2003 and then every five years after that, and the government should be prepared to respond to those reviews in an effective manner.

I think the next two years before registration of rifles and other firearms starts should be a period of consultation, study and review. It shouldn't be two years spent simply designing a computer system; it should be used effectively to engage Canadians in determining the efficacy of this system, and I refer you to Mr. McKenna's comments on this, made yesterday.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, for this opportunity.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. St. Denis. I call on Mr. Maloney, but before Mr. Maloney starts his presentation, I want to repeat the rules we're following.

This morning the committee is hearing from members of Parliament on Bill C-68. It is of course recognized that members of Parliament also have the right to speak in the House on the bill and will again on report stage and third reading, and that they also have the right to make Standing Orders, ask questions and so on.

However, this is a special opportunity for them to address the committee. We've allocated five minutes for each member. What I've been doing is when we reach the beginning of the last minute, the fifth minute, I sound the gavel once so they know they're in their last minute. When the last minute is up, I will gavel again to let them know their time has expired.

Even though you're sitting down, Mr. Maloney, your time will only start now.

Mr. John Maloney, MP (Erie): Good morning, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen.

I thank the committee for this opportunity to speak on the issue of Bill C-68 today. I have previously spoken in the House of Commons on this issue, and I will limit my remarks to suggest meaningful amendments that respond to legitimate concerns from my constituents.

I would like to point out that the list is in no particular order and is not all-inclusive because of the time constraints.

On the issue of registration meaning confiscation, I would like to speak to a concern that is held by a great number of my gun-owning constituents. They are concerned that registration will lead to confiscation of their firearms, not today and not by this government, but further down the road by a successor government.

I would like to see this bill constructively address these misgivings and somehow assure law-abiding gun owners that registration will not be used as a means for confiscation in the future.

On the registration issue, I would also request you to consider a joint registration between family members that could avoid or postpone certain estate or inheritance complications. We have joint ownership of homes, motor vehicles, GICs, and so on. Indeed, family members do share weapons and collections.

.1125

On the inheritance issue, another concern is that there should be provisions for the inheritance of heirloom firearms. I understand the concern around wording such a clause so that it would not be abused. However, based on the extensive testimony I have heard, I urge the committee to seriously undertake assisting the minister to draft such a provision that allows for inheritance of weapons that would not otherwise be capable of devising in this legislation.

On the penalties for failure to register, I appreciate the differences between proposed sections 91 and 92 and the proposed changes to the Criminal Code; nevertheless, I'm very uncomfortable with these punishments existing in the code and not in the firearms act.

One of the common complaints I have heard is that the maximum penalty for failing to register exceeds the maximum penalty for use of a firearm in the commission of an offence. If an amendment to decriminalize the failure to register is considered, the committee must strike a difficult balance between an effective registration system and proportionate or prudent punishment for those who truly and inadvertently neglect to register their firearms.

The issue of replicas and black-powder re-enactments has serious implications for my riding, in particular the town of Fort Erie as well as the Niagara region. Each August, a rich and fascinating part of our history is replayed through re-enactments in the siege of Fort Erie, one of the most critical battles of the War of 1812. Similar re-enactments have taken place at Fort George and Niagara-on-the-Lake.

I do not have to impress upon members of the committee the importance of tourism to the Niagara region and the importance of attracting visitors through unique events such as this one. I understand the minister has explicitly asked the committee to clarify whether or not this bill is clear enough to provide for these historical re-enactments. I urge the members to seriously consider the importance of this task.

Further, in my region black-powder guns and muskets are used competitively and for target shooting, and I would not want to see this restricted.

On the legitimate use of restricted or prohibited firearms, I am concerned in terms of the legitimate use of firearms for sport and competition purposes. My interpretation of this bill is that a restricted firearm may be used for target practice or competitions. I also understand that grandfathered prohibited firearms, too, can be permitted for sport. I wish to state my concern that this information is accurate and that legitimate firearm use by our competitors can be safeguarded.

Of serious concern to me is the inspection provisions. I fear the inspection provisions are too broad and too intrusive. The requirement to secure a warrant before entering a dwelling-house goes part way, but I suggest one of two things.

One, there should be a requirement that the inspector have reasonable grounds to believe a crime was involved in order to get this warrant issued.

My second suggestion would be that of the bar associations yesterday, that we eliminate clause 101 and leave in place the search-and-seizure proposed section 117.02, as well as existing provisions of the Criminal Code.

I respectfully submit that these suggestions are worthy of consideration.

I would like to discuss briefly the issue of Orders in Council. These are very broad powers given to the minister. While each Order in Council must go to Parliament, I feel that the exceptions of clause 112 are far-reaching. I advocate amendments that would provide for fewer exceptions and more automatic scrutiny by Parliament and committee.

I thank the committee again for the occasion to speak to this bill. While I may not have added any new suggestions or material to the debate, I think it's important that I had the opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents and fulfil a very important democratic mandate.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Bob Speller, MP (Haldimand - Norfolk): Mr. Chairman, colleagues, today I'm not going to argue for one side of the bill or the other. I think as members of this committee you've received information from across this country, from constituents of mine, from people in rural and urban areas. I think you probably have all the information you need to make decisions on this issue.

But as chair of the rural caucus of my party, I want to give you a better reflection of what rural residents are saying, about what people in small-town Canada are saying about this bill, and I want to put forward some suggestions for change.

As you know from listening to the media, rural residents are somewhat cynical about this system. They're cynical about Parliament, and indeed they're looking to a committee such as this one to make some changes. They're looking to this committee to put faith in their parliamentary institutions.

I must say, to date, colleagues, I've not been impressed by the work of this committee. I've not been impressed by how this issue has been debated. I've seen a polarization of issues. I've seen partisan politics taking place.

As I see it, the public debate on this issue has forced the minister to somewhat cover his head and push forward with this issue instead of looking at some type of compromise position. I think that has been a result of partisan debate. I think it's been a result of misinformation put out into the public by all sides, and I don't think it does anything for this institution of Parliament.

.1130

In saying that, though, I believe this committee has a right, indeed it has a duty, to make some changes to this legislation, further changes than what Minister Rock has indicated in the media that he is willing to make.

I think these are changes that could better reflect some of the views in small-town Canada and rural Canada, and I think they will make the bill a better bill overall.

I know, colleagues, we have voted in the House of Commons on this already, on the intent of the bill, but I think under the rules of House we are capable of making changes prior to going back into the House. I don't think these are changes that are going to dramatically change this bill, but I think they are changes that indeed will help reflect some of the views of rural Canadians.

I talk in terms of questions on registration. We have to ensure that the failure to register a firearm on the first offence is not a criminal offence. I know the minister has indicated a willingness to move that way, and I would ask this committee to do that.

I believe we need to enter into formal negotiations with the provinces. A number of provinces are having a hard time with this legislation, and I think we need to sit down with those provinces to better reflect a registration system that can be regionally run.

I think we need to incorporate a mandatory parliamentary review of this issue. If the registration system is going to work, let's take a look at it five years after it's in place. Let's see whether or not it works. If it isn't working, let's get rid of it. But if it is working and there are ways to improve it, let's move forward in that direction.

In order to address some of the concerns of cost, because people keep claiming that the costs are going to be $500 in one year or in ten years, let's incorporate the costs in the legislation. Let's put it on paper so that if those costs are going to be changed, they're not going to be changed by some unseen bureaucrat but by parliamentarians. I think that would go a long way toward helping people with their concerns over the cost.

A number of people have concerns with the regulatory authority, with giving big government the ability to make changes without the changes coming forward to their elected representatives. So let's change the legislation so that it would mandate a yearly review by this committee, by the justice committee, of any new regulations. If they bring in new regulations, let the justice committee look at those regulations and make changes.

Let's not provide the minister with the power to make changes with Orders in Council. I think Orders in Council scare all of us as members of Parliament. I think if a change needs to be made, it should come forward to a committee like this. Let's amend the legislation to require all Orders in Council used to prohibit a class of firearms to be reviewed by Parliament.

I think the minister has indicated that he is willing to make some changes on search and seizure. Certainly we need to limit the power of searches of households without a warrant. Let's make sure that the Charter of Rights and those protections we gained under that charter are protected within this legislation. Let's rewrite provisions of this legislation to define the powers given for these areas. I think these need to be looked at seriously, and I would hope, colleagues, you look at these issues.

In terms of prohibited firearms, which is a problem for a lot of the shooting clubs, let's allow guns that are scheduled to be prohibited under Bill C-68, which were legally owned before February 14, to be exempted from this prohibition. Let's allow the designation of handguns as family heirlooms and exempt them from the provisions of Bill C-68. Let's exempt any handgun manufactured prior to 1945 - antiques.

I know the minister has indicated his willingness to look at the question of historical re-enactments, antiques, and those issues. I would hope these members look seriously at these issues. These historical re-enactments are a way of life in the rural areas, and I don't think anybody is going to take a musket loader, and rob a bank.

I think we can make those changes. You have the power to make those changes, and I would hope you would seriously look at making those changes that would better reflect some of the views in our rural areas.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Speller.

Mr. Peter Adams, MP (Peterborough): Mr. Chair, I appreciate this opportunity. I have received almost 1,600 written interventions on this bill and hundreds of phone calls. The split was that roughly 60% of people were in some way against and 40% of people were in some way in favour. Opinion surveys have shown that the majority of people in my area support tighter gun control.

.1135

The following more or less local organizations made direct representations to me: the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, which has its headquarters in Peterborough; the Peterborough Revolver and Pistol Club; the Peterborough Fish and Game Association; Lakefield Arms Ltd., which is located in Peterborough riding; the Peterborough Police Association; the OPP; the Ontario Handgun Association; Responsible Gun Owners of Ontario, which has its headquarters just outside my riding; the County of Peterborough; various townships and villages in the riding of Peterborough; and various farmers' groups. I am pleased that the minister and the standing committee were able to meet so many of these groups and some individuals from my riding.

I support the legislation. I believe tougher controls and more severe penalties will help to limit violent crime. If they save only one life, it's worth it.

But I hope amendments will deal with inadvertent failure to register and with the sweeping search provisions. I support amendments that would result in offenders not bearing the stigma of the Criminal Code for inadvertently failing to register hunting rifles and shotguns, and I stress rifles and shotguns, Mr. Chair.

It's my hope that the committee will frame all its amendments in such a way as to minimize red tape and costs for gun owners. In my view, red tape and costs would be greatly reduced if the administration of all gun-, hunting-, and fishing-related legislation were handled in each province by a single arm's-length-to-government agency.

With suitable inspection and control, the two levels of government would delegate all matters related to FPCs, registration, hunting training, hunting tags, fishing permits, etc., to this arm's-length agency. The agency would provide one-stop shopping for all hunters, farmers, and other gun owners. This would be a fair and efficient approach to these matters. It would keep costs to a minimum.

I believe most gun owners would find such an agency more acceptable than a multitude of government departments. This acceptance would produce more efficient regulation of hunting and guns. I believe such an agency would be the best way to deal with hunters and other sport shooters and anglers visiting Canada as tourists. I also believe such an agency would result in improved conservation of the environment through improving hunting and fishing statistics.

In addition, this approach would reduce the burden on the police. In the ideal case, working through these one-stop agencies, each gun owner would have a single Visa-like card. This would provide a record of all gun and hunting transactions.

Mr. Chair, I urge the committee to be as creative as possible in moving to a regulatory regime that involves an absolute minimum of red tape and cost. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Adams. You finished before your time. You are to be congratulated.

I now call on Dianne Brushett from the great constituency of Cumberland - Colchester, which is in Nova Scotia, not in Ontario, as is listed on the notice of meeting.

I want to remind the members who have recently come into the room that you are given five minutes. When we reach the beginning of the fifth minute, I will sound the gavel once so you'll know you're in your last minute. When you've finished your time, I will sound the gavel to indicate as such.

Mrs. Brushett, the floor is yours.

Mrs. Dianne Brushett, MP (Cumberland - Colchester): Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I thank you for the opportunity to appear here today to present views and alternatives to Bill C-68.

In its essence this bill follows a long tradition of maintaining the three pillars of our Constitution: peace, order, and good government. Bill C-68 also sends a strong message to other nations that we in Canada will not tolerate a lawlessness that threatens the safety and security of Canadians.

This bill also states a Canadian attitude we wish to promote, and that is we will not tolerate violence with firearms in our society. Overall Bill C-68 has more strengths than weaknesses, and I will support it.

.1140

However, I'm here to offer an alternative to the section of registration of long arms or long-barrelled rifles and shotguns. My riding is both rural and urban, and many citizens who maintain a rural lifestyle own long-barrelled guns for hunting purposes or simply as a way of life.

Many of these people belong to active fish and game associations that do good in rural communities, such as the environmental clean-up in the woods, being alert for forest fires, educational projects for youth to respect the forests and streams, and many more. When these people wish to buy a long arm, they must take a gun handling course through Lands and Forests, then go through their local police and apply for a firearms acquisition certificate, and then present the certificate to buy the gun. All of these steps are recorded locally in every province.

I am suggesting that registration of long-barrelled guns be maintained at the provincial and territorial level. Since a bureaucracy is already in place and Ottawa could access the information at any time if needed, all the paperwork could actually be completed at the point of purchase, in either a store or a gun shop.

I believe the rural, law-abiding long arms owners would be satisfied and would go out and promote Bill C-68. My constituents who are rural long-barreled gun owners tell me they want gun owners to be responsible, to be knowledgeable, and to treat guns with great respect. I believe they would do their part to sell this bill as a very positive piece of legislation if it didn't encumber them with great costs or bureaucracy.

Experience tells us that the further removed government is from people, the more inefficient it becomes. It is that much more difficult for a comprehensive bill like Bill C-68 to serve all the regions of this vast country effectively. I want to give you an example of a gun owner whose recent experience with registration and bureaucracy at the present time is a case in point.

Mr. Tony Dickie, a 33-year member of the Canadian Forces and currently a reservist, is a law-abiding family man in rural Nova Scotia. In 1988 he purchased a $100 Reising Model 50, a collector's gun, with approximately a 16-inch barrel. He registered it as a semi-automatic weapon under the restricted category.

In 1992 the Firearms Registration Administration Section in Ottawa determined that the above firearm had been originally manufactured as a fully automatic weapon and had been converted. Between July 1992 and October 1, 1992, there was an opportunity to re-register this gun in a new category of prohibited weapon.

My constituent was never notified of the change of registry required, although they had his name, address, etc. However, advertisements were put in newspapers across this country at great expense. My constituent didn't happen to read the newspaper that day.

In 1993 the RCMP in Bible Hill were contacted by the Firearms Registration Administration Section in Ottawa, who requested that the RCMP seize this gun. Mr. Dickie cooperated with the RCMP and voluntarily turned his firearm over for inspection. A forensic laboratory in Halifax examined the gun and determined that a gunsmith could probably alter it back to a fully automatic state.

On behalf of my constituent I asked Firearms Registration in Ottawa if Mr. Dickie couldn't appeal to have his gun returned because he wasn't properly notified; there was only the newspaper advertisement. In early 1995 Firearms Registration in Ottawa instructed the RCMP to make an application under a certain section before a provincial court magistrate in Truro, Nova Scotia, to obtain a ruling from the presiding magistrate on this issue.

A hearing was held before Judge MacDonald on March 15, 1995, and Judge MacDonald brought down a decision directing that this firearm be re-registered into the name of my constituent, Mr. Tony Dickie. This decision, with correspondence, was then forwarded to Ottawa to the Firearms Registration Branch.

It is my understanding that presently my constituent and also Sergeant Darrah of the RCMP in Truro understand that Ottawa will now be appealing this case against Judge MacDonald. Can you imagine how much this has cost and how much time has been lost by all this bureaucracy? I implore you to look at provincial registrations.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs. Brushett.

Mr. Paul DeVillers, MP (Simcoe North): Mr. Chair, I want to state that I support Bill C-68 in principle because I feel it contains many good measures to improve public safety. I also believe the bill enjoys the support of a wide majority of Canadians, including my constituents of Simcoe North, as well as groups such as the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association.

However, I support the concerns expressed by the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association over the inspection and seizure powers given to the police and I feel they need to be amended. I believe my role as an elected representative is not only to respect the will of the majority but also to represent the interests of minorities, and whether they like it or not, legal firearms owners in this case are in that category.

.1145

I also feel the committee should include in the purpose section of Bill C-68 a statement that there is no intention to confiscate all firearms. This is a very real fear experienced by many firearms owners.

With the assistance of Mr. William Bartlett of the Research Branch of the Library of Parliament, I have prepared and circulated some additional specific amendments. I see Mr. Bartlett here today as a researcher for the committee and I thank him for his able assistance.

The amendments I propose would partially decriminalize the current provisions of section 91 of the Criminal Code, which deals with unwilful failure to register firearms. The first amendment re-writes section 91 to make it apply solely to restricted or prohibited firearms because of the serious nature of these weapons.

The second amendment would be added to the firearms act. The first part of this amendment deals with punishment by summary conviction only for the first offence. The second part of the amendment deals with all subsequent offences and is punishable by either a summary conviction or indictable offence.

[Translation]

Technically it would still be a criminal offence, but it would not require the authorities to fingerprint the person or enter his or her name on the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC computer databases). Psychologically and practically it would not have the effect of a criminal conviction.

It is important to realize that the punishment method will no longer work because the police don't have the necessary resoureces to control and check registration in all households in the country. Therefore, we should do our utmost to favour voluntary observation.

These amendments will promote voluntary compliance of registration requirements because the law will be more appealing to firearm owners who rightly or wrongly are under the impression that the bill constitutes more of an attack on law abiding citizens than on the criminal element.

Another good reason to proceed with this amendment is that it legally protects people who are not aware of the existence of this law or simply do not know they possess firearms. The Canadian Police Association believes that there are enough safeguards in the system to avoid prosecution in the situation. Firearms owners want explicit safeguards.

[English]

These amendments also reinforce the constitutionality of Bill C-68 as explained in Mr. Bartlett's document entitled ``Notes on the Constitutional Implications of the Proposed Firearms Act''. By adding criminal sanctions to the firearms act, it confirms it is an exercise of the federal government's jurisdiction in criminal law.

Some people have expressed concern that decriminalizing inadvertent failure to register will result in a two-tiered prosecution system. I want to emphasize that in proposed sections 91 and 92, Bill C-68 already makes a distinction between inadvertent or negligent failure to register and wilful failure to register. In my opinion and that of many others, the current sanctions for the latter group of people are just too severe.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, your committee has a chance to improve this bill. If you truly believe in the importance and benefits of having all firearms registered in Canada, then you should make this legislation the least offensive possible to those people who, for whatever reason, have a problem with universal registration proposals, without weakening the national registration system or trivializing the issue, as alleged by some. In my opinion, these amendments will achieve just that without the concern of trivializing the bill.

I thank you very much and I thank the committee for the opportunity.

The Chair: I want to thank you very much, Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. John Finlay, MP (Oxford): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, for allowing me to appear before you today. I know you've worked very hard in your examination of Bill C-68.

Like many MPs from rural ridings in southwestern Ontario, I have received hundreds of letters and attended many meetings of anglers, hunters, target shooters, and farmers. I have read most of the material sent to me by both sides on this issue of crime control, arms control, and firearms registration. It is not my intention today to argue about statistics or polls or lobbies or what someone said or did not say.

.1150

My purpose is to have you understand where I am coming from on Bill C-68 and to suggest to you how important your role in the justice committee is in modifying this proposed bill so it will be acceptable to the vast majority of Canadians and not discriminate against some.

I believe we govern by the consent of the governed. I believe that, as Abraham Lincoln said, a house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe I can not and should not enhance myself at the expense of others. The government in a democracy is for all people and should be as non-intrusive as possible.

In short, I believe most people are honest, want to obey the laws of the land and want to do what they feel is right and fair. Surely that is the basis of a democratic, compassionate and just society. Some members have suggested to me that the people who oppose aspects of this bill are rednecks, militiamen or dupes of the American Rifle Associations. In my riding, and I suspect in most rural ridings, this is patently untrue.

I have personally taught and worked with many of my constituents who are opposed. They are not stupid, uncaring, wild-eyed anarchists. Many of them are good Liberals, some are good Reformers, and all of them are hard-working, law-abiding citizens. Why then are they so upset over some of the provisions of this bill? I suggest to you four main reasons, and most of them are perhaps emotional.

One, they fear their legal property will be confiscated. But there is no reason to think that, you say. Well, look at the situation from their point of view. First, years ago they had to register their handguns. Then handguns were restricted. Now, in this bill, over 400,000 restricted and registered handguns will be prohibited. What are they to think when they read comments from gun control lobbyists that society should be free of guns?

Two, many of the sporting gun owners own upwards of thirty or forty guns, for which they paid a good deal of money and which they cherish. They do not want them confiscated and they are afraid a registration system will cost them a great deal of money, especially when they renew their FPC every five years.

Three, they do not see themselves as anything but law-abiding citizens, some of whom need and use a gun as a tool, not as a weapon. They object strenuously to criminal penalties if they do not always store their guns safely, transport them properly, keep the ammunition separately or forget to register Grandfather's old Luger, which is in the bottom drawer of Grandma's wardrobe.

Four, they see themselves as the people most competent to own and use guns. They've grown up with them; they've been taught by their fathers, their grandfathers or their mothers. Yes, I know many sensible wives and mothers who enjoy target shooting and hunting. None of them are going to use their guns to hurt anyone.

I am prepared to give these citizens the benefit of any doubt you may have. They agree with tougher penalties for those who use guns in crime. They agree with stepped-up controls on smuggling and with penalties for firearms owners who do not store or use their guns safely. They have registered their handguns, bought the lock cabinets and filed their transportation permits. And they are not the crime problem.

You have an important and difficult task. You must amend this bill so that all law-abiding Canadians can support it and so that my colleagues and I can go to our constituents and say ``You see? Government does listen. MPs do have an influence.'' We can achieve a compromise that may not satisfy all sides but that will not be unfair or degrading to any legitimate group. We can try it for five years and then review it to see if it works.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Finlay.

Mr. Grant Hill, MP (Macleod): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say initially that I am for cost-effective gun control that reflects itself on crime. I want to express my feelings about why gun owners are paranoid about this legislation. Why are they concerned about this bill?

.1155

I have a buddy who is an instructor in the military. He's a crack shot. During his summers as a youth, he was given by our government a weapon called an FN FAL, a highly accurate, military, converted automatic weapon. He wasn't satisfied to use that weapon only during two months during the summer. He had an opportunity to purchase such a weapon. Its cost was $3,200 U.S. It's a rare weapon, a weapon he values.

He registered it, as the law required, some years ago. It was then a restricted weapon, converted so that it would only shoot one shot. That weapon became prohibited and today is grandfathered so that he has lost his $3,200 U.S. It will not be possible for him to sell, trade or do anything with that weapon.

He's paranoid. He says his government has let him down. He had property they asked him to get, by virtue of the fact that he was an instructor. It's gone. He says this bill is wrong and he and many colleagues of his will not comply. They would not register an FN FAL today.

Why is this issue emotional? For those who have never sat in a duck blind with a daughter in the early morning, that time cannot be understood. The mother and son shooting trap and skeet together, and having hand-loaded their ammunition together, fear they will lose that recreational opportunity in the future. That's what they fear with this bill. It turns those individuals into political activists. You've taken away, or at least given them the worry that you're going to take away, the most valuable recreational activity they have.

Those two reasons are why the individuals who so strongly approve of gun control disapprove of this legislation. They will line up against any political party that misses that information. I'm begging this committee to listen to them.

It's no good to come here and say to you this legislation will not work because it will not be complied with, but that's the truth.

What would be complied with? A registration system that would licence individual shooters in three classes - hunter, collector and instructor - with increasing education for each one of those groups. That would work. An individual could not get ammunition without that licence. They would have to present it to get a weapon as well.

Because I personally am a hunter, an outdoorsman, a fisherman and a climber, I believe I'm too biased to assess this carefully, but the officers in my home constituency, who are the individuals who deal with this issue directly, are not. They come from all over the country. I asked them if they thought Bill C-68 would be effective in crime control, homicide, suicide, domestic dispute and all the other things this bill is destined to do. Their answer to me was ``Grant, this bill will be ineffective in all those ways.''

I asked them - the officers who know best - what they would advise the justice committee. Their advice, my colleagues, was that if you strictly enforce the current laws on the book, your criminal problems with firearms will not be there.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Hill.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan, MP (York - Simcoe): I would like to thank the chair and the members of the justice and legal affairs committee for providing me and other members of Parliament with the opportunity to speak to you on Bill C-68, An Act respecting firearms and other weapons.

I would first like to make it clear that I support the bill. I am also here to speak to the amendments proposed by my colleague, Paul DeVillers, the member of Parliament for Simcoe North.

I believe these amendments will encourage compliance across Canada by addressing concerns that have been raised by law-abiding gun owners.

.1200

Canadians, for the most part, hold a very different view of firearm ownership and use from that of their American neighbours to the south. From discussions with my constituents, I am convinced that the majority of Canadians believe it is a privilege to own firearms rather than a right.

I believe Bill C-68 reflects this principle and will address the issue of increasing public safety while not infringing on the rights of Canadian citizens.

I have spoken to and corresponded with many constituents on both sides of the gun control issue. Many supported additional gun controls: parents who are concerned for their children's safety; women who would feel better protected with stricter gun control; and community groups that have called to support the legislation. As well, however, many were concerned about the national registration system and the possible perception that all gun owners are criminals.

Much of the opposition to this bill came from local gun clubs who feel they, as innocent users of firearms, are being treated unfairly by the government. Over the past months I have visited the gun clubs in my riding and have been very impressed by the considerable care and seriousness with which their members regard firearm safety.

It is important to note that there are differences between those citizens who treat their guns with respect for public safety and those citizens whose intent is of a criminal nature. Mr. DeVillers' proposed amendments address these fundamental differences.

I would like to stress that I see this amendment as a complement to the bill and one that will reduce resistance to universal registration. I feel that, over time, registration by increasing gun control will decrease firearms violence.

Throughout this long and often emotional debate I have always supported an approach to registration that is rational and practical and that will encourage compliance. I believe this amendment will address the concerns of law-abiding gun owners.

The amendments proposed by my colleague would address the important difference between those who unknowingly or unwilfully fail to register their firearms and those who intentionally choose not to register their firearms. This difference in the intent of the gun owner would not, however, apply to persons failing to register a restricted or prohibited firearm.

The amendments would essentially partially decriminalize proposed section 91 by rewriting it to apply only to persons failing to register a restricted or prohibited firearm. Thus a person convicted under this section of owning a non-registered restricted or prohibited firearm would continue to be guilty of either an indictable or a summary conviction offence.

As well, two amendments would be added to the firearms act section of Bill C-68, which is primarily regulatory in nature. With these amendments, a person convicted under this act of owning a non-restricted or non-prohibited firearm without a registration certificate or licence would be guilty of a summary conviction offence only for the first offence. For any subsequent offences, however, the individual would be guilty of either an indictable offence or a summary conviction offence.

The amendments to the firearms act would thus partially decriminalize proposed section 91, because it does not require the authorities to fingerprint first-time offenders who have unknowingly or unwilfully failed to comply with the legislation, nor does it require them to enter his or her name on the Canadian Police Information Centre computer databases. Technically it is still a criminal offence, but practically and psychologically it will not have the effect of a criminal conviction.

I believe these amendments will be fair to law-abiding firearm owners while not threatening the essence and strength of the bill; will increase voluntary compliance; will address the feelings of law-abiding gun owners that they, rather than criminals, are the target of the legislation; and will protect citizens who are not aware of the existence of this law.

In conclusion, I believe these amendments will address the concerns of law-abiding firearm owners while not taking away from the legislation.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Andy Scott, MP (Fredericton - York - Sunbury): Mr. Chair, members, I first of all would like to state my appreciation for being allowed as a last-minute fill-in. Having gone through a rather tortuous social security review, I also commend the members of the committee for their hard work. I know what these things can be like.

I wanted to appear to bring to the attention of the committee some of the concerns that have been expressed to me in a number of meetings, including a public forum that was held in my constituency just two weeks ago.

I say this as someone who supports the fundamental concept of registration and the essence, I think, of the bill, but I share the concerns of some of my constituents about its application and how it would be administered and so on.

.1205

I would also point out that many of the objections to the bill as expressed by my constituents really don't speak to the essence of the bill and so on as much as to how it's administered. They talk about questions of cost, for instance. Essentially, their concern as to how much it's going to cost individually is being expressed as non-support for the bill when in fact it's really non-support for expense. I think that has to be factored in.

Similarly, questions of procedure - how burdensome the exercise might be - is also used as an explanation for non-support for the bill.

I want to bring these things forward in the hope that the committee will consider them because I think these both speak very much to the question of compliance. We might have a good bill with little compliance if we don't have a greater buy-in by the people on whom we'd count to comply.

That also speaks to the question of what I would call the ``slippery slope'' argument that somehow this is the first step in something more general. I would only say to the committee that assurances should be built in as much as possible, in the interests of compliance, to reassure people that this is not a first step in terms of the confiscation of their hunting rifles and so on.

I would also identify another area of interest or concern to my constituents as the one having to do with the search and inspection sections. I hope the committee will in fact be making amendments on the question of sentencing, as was put forward by the Canadian Police Association, on the question of the handing down of firearms as family heirlooms.

It happens that the coach of the Olympic shooting team is a constituent of mine. We've had a number of discussions. I hope his concerns are considered; I'm sure they will be.

I also would say that concerns expressed regarding compensation in the case of a registered firearm that is subsequently deemed to be prohibited have to be taken under consideration.

Mr. Chair, I'd primarily like to make the case for the need for, I would suggest, a ministerial advisory committee or some type of agency that could bring to this legislation the type of public support we're all speaking of so that gun owners, hunters, sports shooters, collectors, dealers and law enforcement officials and so on would be able to advise the minister and the department on the application of the essence of this bill.

I'm aware of the fact that in 1991 or so there was - and perhaps there still is - a ministerial advisory committee. I don't believe it still exists. In the interests of having maximum compliance, essentially, and in the interests of having better administration, I think it's important that the people who are involved in sports shooting and hunting and collecting are involved in making decisions that are yet to be made about how this might be done.

I think that speaks to the question my constituents are putting to me when they say they have trouble with the bill and then go on to mention something that is more administrative in nature than having to do with the bill itself.

With that, I hope to have reflected the views of the people who have appeared before me. I appreciate the time and your attention. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Scott.

I now call Mr. Julian Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed, MP (Halton - Peel): Mr. Chairman, since I have only five minutes I'll try to address the principles from which I believe amendments should spring.

First of all, it is a Canadian tradition that consensus be arrived at on any subject through the ability to dialogue and to effect some compromise on both sides of an issue. It is in that spirit that I make the following suggestions.

I do not pretend they are either perfect or complete. Rather, they will serve as highlights to the amendments that we all realize are necessary if this bill is ultimately to include the respect of firearms owners in that they too have a stake in making Canada's homes and streets safer places.

.1210

In Canada, we all recognize that firearm ownership is not a right but a privilege. The capability of withdrawing that privilege under certain special circumstances must always remain. However, there are elements in the bill that must change, not to destroy the principle of the bill but to recognize that the vast majority of gun owners are very responsible and thoughtful citizens; and secondly, that some fundamental principles of law enforcement as we know it today must not be violated by Draconian changes.

Therefore, the first amendment must deal with the right of law enforcement officers to enter a home under certain conditions. I submit that no change should be made to the existing situation and point out that the potential possession of an illegal firearm is no more lethal than the potential possession of a kilo of heroine. The imposition of Draconian measures in law enforcement, firstly, will alienate otherwise law-abiding citizens but, secondly, will aid in destroying the very fine relationship most law-abiding citizens have with their police forces, who are there for their protection.

My second proposal relates to the potential for the confiscation of private property. Admittedly, quasi-confiscation is practised by provincial and municipal governments through zoning and land control at the present time, but the actual confiscation of land through expropriation requires justification in the courts and reimbursement to the citizen. The best-case scenario would be to simply grandfather existing material, allowing it to remain legal, and permit no more to be manufactured, sold, imported or distributed. Failing that, special protection must be given to owners of collections or individual weapons that, by decree, albeit legislated, were legal yesterday but not legal today.

On the recognition and definition of ``relics'', many older firearms do not have ammunition available and therefore are useless to criminals. As well, reproduction weapons for use in pageants and re-enactments of ancient military activity need to be recognized and protected.

On the restrictions placed on minors, some of the safest airline pilots, some of the safest drivers, the safest shooters and hunters, are those who had the opportunity to learn at a very early age. The safest handlers of the sharpest knives in the world are the Inuit in northern Canada, who are taught to handle these weapons as they learn to walk.

It is our intention as a government to produce safer homes and safer streets. It is incumbent upon this committee to recognize that enlisting the help and support of firearms owners is far more important than seeing them as adversaries. If amendments are introduced based on the elements I have outlined, they will go quite a distance to accomplishing that.

Finally, I must point out that Canada had a long gun registry back in the 1940s. Many people are not aware of this, and had this been understood and properly communicated, the issue might not have reached the crescendo it has.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you. And thank you for bringing that last bit of information to our attention. Not many people know that.

I now call on our last witness this morning, Mr. Murray Calder, the member of Parliament for Wellington - Grey - Dufferin - Simcoe in the province of Ontario. It sounds like half the province.

Mr. Murray Calder, MP (Wellington - Grey - Dufferin - Simcoe): It's a big area, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank you very much for allowing me the time to come in here and speak to you today on behalf of my constituents.

As you've just previously stated, my name is Murray Calder. I am the member of Wellington - Grey - Dufferin - Simcoe, but I'm also a farmer and a gun owner.

My riding is an area of 9,000 square kilometres and 130,000 people. It is a rural riding with a large percentage of hunters and farmers.

First I want to establish that farmers don't own firearms, they have tools. They are tools that are used for predator control and dealing with sick livestock humanely. Farmers' concern right now is how effectively they will be able to use these tools for these purposes in the future.

Having travelled through my riding and listened to this issue of gun control and Bill C-68, I would now like to voice some of the concerns.

The first one I'd like to deal with is registration, which seems to be the primary cause of all the concern within the riding.

.1215

First of all, one of the questions I've heard is will it be effective in reducing violence? Can the cost be controlled overall? Will it place an unrealistic burden on the local police forces to enforce it? I'd like to give a couple of solutions to this.

First of all, failure to register a non-restricted firearm would not be in the Criminal Code on a first-offence basis. I think that would alleviate a lot of problems, especially for my farmers who may not have understood what the legislation is about or have not read it or whatever. There's no sense in making criminals out of them on a first-offence basis.

Also, I think it would be very important to have a parliamentary review to see if registration is in fact working. This could be done every five years by Parliament. Also, I would like to see the specific costs of registration set out in the legislation and any changes in the fee structure done through legislative amendment.

That registration means confiscation is something I've heard over and over again in my riding. I feel it would be wise to have something worded in the preamble of the bill to state the contrary of that statement, or somehow to have this written in the bill. However that would be done, I don't know, but I know it's something that has to be alleviated.

On a subject of prohibition, my constituents are concerned that what they have legally purchased in the past will now be devalued and eventually confiscated. Some of the handguns to be prohibited will include handguns that are now used in competition shooting, parts of legally acquired collections, all representing valuable family heirlooms. A solution to this, I believe, would be to establish a list of handguns regularly used in competition shoots and to exempt these from the prohibition section of Bill C-68, and also to establish a designation of handguns as family heirlooms and exempt these from Bill C-68. Another one would be to exempt all handguns manufactured before 1945 and presently owned by legitimate collectors.

On Orders in Council, I'm concerned that the administrative actions that are being created in this Order in Council are going to be the extent...of how effective I'm going to be as a member of Parliament in the future. As I see it, this will give the minister power to change provisions without consulting Parliament. Some of the solutions I would like to put forward for that would be to legislate a yearly review by the justice committee of all the regulations introduced in the previous twelve months, with the power to rescind any. All Orders in Council to prohibit or reclass firearms would be reviewed by Parliament.

Finally, there is search and seizure. There is a lot of concern about clauses 99 through to 101 and clause 107 in Bill C-68. My constituents think it is so vaguely worded that it could be interpreted in a manner as to give police unreasonable search powers. A solution to this, I believe, would be to limit the search of non-registered firearms to where there is evidence of unsafe storage and to where a person has been previously convicted of a criminal offence.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to see the powers defined under search and seizure to be very clearly defined.

Again, on behalf of my constituents, the people of Wellington - Grey - Dufferin - Simcoe, I would like to thank the committee very much for the time you've given me here today. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Calder.

That completes our list. We've heard 32 members of Parliament before the committee this morning. I would now like to turn to an item of business that has been scheduled for this morning.

We have a resolution or a motion that was put by M. Langlois, 48 hours' notice has expired, and it's in order for the motion to be put to the meeting. We need eight, so there's just a quorum.

.1220

The motion is that the Assembly of First Nations be invited again before the committee on Bill C-68, and that this meeting be held before the clause-by-clause consideration.

[Translation]

That the Assembly of First Nations be invited again before the Committee on Bill C-68, and that this meeting be held before the clause-by-clause consideration.

[English]

In that we had received this motion from Mr. Langlois, I asked the clerk to contact the Assembly of First Nations to see if they would be ready to appear if we pass this motion. I was told that they would. They gave us some days when they could appear if they were asked. They've given us Tuesday, May 23, all day; Wednesday, May 24, in the evening only; Thursday, May 25, before 11 a.m. or after 4 p.m.; and Friday, May 26, all day. I appreciate that many of you may have already scheduled things for that week, and that might be a difficulty.

In any case, I give the floor to

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois, to introduce his motion.

Mr. Langlois: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief because all of us witnessed the recent events we have lived through.

Given that the First Nations Chiefs made a presentation that was separate from that of another group that appeared with them last Monday, we found ourselves in the situation where each political party only had five minutes to put questions to the First Nations Chiefs. The latter have raised very important constitutional issues, matters relating to aboriginal rights that are just as important as well as issues regarding the current legislation, and many more questions remain to be asked. I for one have only been able to address Chief Erasmus very briefly.

Not only we should allow those people to appear before this Committee but in the case of such an important group as the Assembly of First Nations, I respectfully submit to you that First Nations Chiefs must feel that they have been heard and that we devoted the necessary time to their concerns.

Besides, Chief Mercredi clearly said that in three minutes he was not able to summarize the position of the group he was speaking for. I think that if we were to give them one hour, given the dates that they have suggested, it could take place immediately prior to the beginning of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

[English]

Mr. MacLellan (Cape Breton - The Sydneys): I would like to agree with Mr. Langlois in one area, that the Assembly of First Nations are very important witnesses. We did receive their brief. I think it was very helpful.

I don't think, frankly, that questioning them further is going to add a lot. I think we know their position. There were questions asked of them. The department certainly is going to be following up with them, and I don't see the need, Mr. Chair, for bringing them back a second time.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I support this motion, and I do it from the viewpoint that I've expressed here as well as in the House. The crux of the presentation I heard from Chief Mercredi was basically that there was a constitutional violation as a result of non-consultation. If that is true - and of course it echos the claims made by the Yukon Indians delegation as well as the James Bay Crees - I don't know where else we, as parliamentarians, can defend the Constitution of our country other than in this committee.

I think we we should be hearing from people who put forth what appears to be a prima facie case, that their constitutional rights have been violated.

.1225

So inasmuch as we were only given five minutes from each party to question and clear up some of the things that were said, I would like to know, for instance, what consultation means to them. That was not clarified in my mind. I would like that clarified.

So I think there are important matters that we should look at, and I don't think we can look at them from a brief. I think we can only look at them if we have at least Chief Mercredi himself back here to answer our questions.

The Chair: Thank you. Is there any further discussion? Then I'll put to the committee the resolution of Mr. Langlois' motion.

Motion negatived

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned until 3:30 this afternoon, when we will have the officials before the committee for questioning by the members.