EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, January 29, 1997

.1306

[English]

The Chairman: We're now resuming our hearings into the proposed regulations under the Firearms Act. The subcommittee is present.

We would first of all like to welcome our witnesses. We have two witnesses here in Ottawa with us. Mr. Alex Gazale is the eastern Ontario regional representative of the Canadian Institute of Theatre Technologies. Mr. Andrew Campbell, president of Cold Blue Rentals, is on his way from Montreal and hasn't arrived yet, but he will be joining us. From Vancouver, via videoconferencing, I'd also like to welcome on behalf of the subcommittee Mr. Neil McLeod, who is with Six Angles Productions Inc.

We're going to be talking for the next hour and fifteen minutes this afternoon about the impact of the regulations on the movie industry. I want to thank all of you for being here and the ones who aren't here who will be joining us. We also hope there will be a good frank exchange of ideas.

Mr. McLeod, is Mr. Tom Adair going to be in Vancouver?

Mr. Neil McLeod (Property Master, Six Angles Productions Ltd.): Apparently Tom's documents said eleven, so he's still in his office and the people here are trying to connect him via speaker phone.

The Chairman: All right. We'll begin. We like to have the presentations first and then leave it open for members of the subcommittee to ask questions.

I will start with Mr. Gazale's presentation and then, Mr. McLeod, we'll be asking you for yours. Mr. Gazale.

Mr. Alex Gazale (Eastern Ontario Regional Representative, Canadian Institute of Theatre Technology): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a small clarification. I am with the theatre industry or the performing arts industry as opposed to the film and television industry. I'm here to represent the Canadian Institute of Theatre Technology. I'm currently the director of production at the National Arts Centre.

.1310

Honourable members, I'm here to represent the Canadian Institute for Theatre Technology. We're an all-volunteer organization of the people who toil behind the scenes in the performing arts in Canada. We are managers, craftspersons and technicians in large and small companies and educational facilities, as well as numerous dedicated amateurs and freelance professionals, which makes us a diversified group that shares similar concerns.

Unfortunately, the performing arts community in this country is fairly fragmented. There are organizations for professional and amateur theatre, dance and opera companies, but their members' needs and aims are so dissimilar that they work independently. Fortunately the back-stage people in these different disciplines form a common link, which is the reason I am here before you today.

As you know, the performing arts forms a vital part of the social fabric and economy of this country. This varies from large-scale commercial and not-for-profit productions to the work of dedicated community theatre organizations. Statistics Canada reports that in 1993-94 there were 38,698 performances, which were attended by 13,263,731 customers. Over $386 million was spent by performing arts organizations in this period, while earning $383 million. In 1994-95 in Ontario there were 36,300 people employed by the performing arts.

Do not confuse the performing arts with our cousins in the film and television industry. While we share a common goal to entertain, our methods of work and resources are quite dissimilar. For example, most arts organizations employ their own props craftspersons on a full-time or seasonal basis. In the case of community theatre, the work is done by volunteers who buy and make all of their furniture, set dressings and hand props, which include weapons.

Most film productions employ specialists in each prop category - set dressing, weaponry etc. The scale of the use of weapons in a single action film probably surpasses all of the weapons used in the performing arts in a year.

As I see it, the major impact of the proposed legislation on our industry is with regard to the new costs that will have to be borne due to licensing and fees, and the provisions dealing with replica weapons. The performing arts organizations that use weapons in their productions do so without drawing particular attention to it, as they are seen as just props. However, they must be safeguarded and used with care and diligence. The need for any weapons will also vary depending on an individual production's needs and the artistic vision of the directors, designers and choreographers.

Keep in mind that the financial means at the disposal of the hundreds of performing arts organizations vary significantly. I believe it would be a disservice to the performing arts in Canada if certain works became unperformable simply because weapons called for in the script or stage action were unavailable due to onerous cost and regulatory restrictions. As an example, the Nepean Players must be allowed to choose whether they will stage a murder mystery based on artistic and financial considerations, and not on whether they can get a convincing fake weapon.

Under Bill C-68, a replica firearm is a device that is designed or intended to exactly resemble a firearm with near precision, is in itself not a firearm, and is classified as a prohibited device. The very reason we use these items is because they are safer than real weapons while providing the look and feel required to convince an audience of their authenticity. It is ironic that they are deemed more dangerous than blank firing devices, which are capable of injuring individuals.

The requirement that businesses and individuals who would use these devices for prescribed purposes hold the same licence required for prohibited weapons seems excessive. Provisions should be made in these regulations so the performing arts organizations that would exclusively use replica firearms for the prescribed purpose of the performing arts be licensed to do so, without the need for individuals who are responsible for the items to acquire prohibited firearms licences.

Without this provision, an organization might as well buy real weapons, as they would be licensed to do so and real weapons would be more readily available than replicas. Clearly this is not the intent of the legislation.

The business activity of supplying theatrical productions or publishing activities is not clear to us. A performing arts organization that owns, acquires or makes its own weapons is not a supplier but a user. There seems to be no provision in the regulations for this practice, which is the norm.

As mentioned earlier, the use of outside prop shops is not widespread and is confined to larger metropolitan areas with substantial performing arts activities. The addition of ``use in'' in addition to supplying would remedy this ambiguity.

Under the proposed regulations, the making of a replica firearm by a business would require a manufacture and assembly licence for prohibited devices. The making of replicas is by no means widespread and only occurs sporadically. Once again, we strive for a realistic effect and the needs of the production may mean we will make a weapon such as a rubber handgun for a specific need. These may not be available or be too expensive in the market, so they are made by prop staff. This practice will likely disappear if an arts organization or prop supplier is required to hold a fairly expensive licence in case they need to make such an item.

.1315

Again, I would suggest that the regulations allow the manufacturer of replica firearms for the prescribed purpose of the performing arts and the licensing for this activity be included in the business activity licence of supplying theatrical productions.

The provisions for transportation of replicas as laid out in the regulations seem excessive with regard to replica firearms. Many performing arts organizations have numerous facilities for different purposes. It is fairly common for a replica or weapon to be moved from the rehearsal hall to the prop shop for painting, and then to the stage for a rehearsal in the same day. If these facilities are in different buildings, we would be required to notify the CFO of two moves during one working day, which seems excessively bureaucratic. Transport between business locations should be exempted from these regulations.

Our use of weapons in the performing arts has gone largely unnoticed and unregulated. We support efforts to bring some order to our activities, but ask that our circumstances be taken into consideration. There are more community theatre groups than professional organizations in this country. The people who participate in the activities of these groups do so as a hobby and for the enjoyment of participating in the process, rather than for any gain. A $50 licence may be beyond the means of very small groups, but seems reasonable to us. What would seem onerous to these people is the requirement to take an intensive course in the use of prohibited weapons simply to be allowed to use a replica firearm. Workable, inexpensive solutions to these problems must be found so that the performing arts can continue to thrive at all levels.

Thank you.

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

Mr. McLeod, would you give us your presentation please? Are you ready to make one?

Mr. McLeod: Good morning, members of the committee. My name is Neil McLeod. I'm a working property master in western Canada and in Washington State, and I provide firearms to the film industry in B.C., Alberta and Washington State. I've been in this business for about 25 years, and have worked on projects that include Legends of the Fall, in which we did a World War I battle scene involving 850 extras all shooting at each other through the mud with machine guns and various other explosive devices and firearms.

As quickly as I can, I will more or less just read from the brief I've prepared for this.

.1320

Honourable members, there are some aspects of the Firearms Act that will have a serious negative effect on the film and television production industry in B.C. and Alberta. We are urging the committee to reduce this effect by introducing changes to the regulations that implement the act.

In western Canada, as in the California industry, the prop master on each production is directly responsible for the weapons used. It is customary to use an independent, licensed business or armourer only when the weapons are beyond the prop master's technical expertise or legally outside the scope of his licence, i.e., prohibited weapons, full-automatic weapons, and that sort of thing.

The aspects of the new prohibitions have a serious impact on us. The creation of a new class of prohibited firearms and devices in chapter 39, section 84, on pages 70 and 71, means that as the regulations are now proposed, each working prop master in western Canada - approximately forty people - will require a $1,250-per-year business licence each year in order to continue his or her occupation. Production companies are accustomed to paying prop masters to provide firearms as props. There will be a loss of movie production if the companies have to hire the $300-a-day services of a licensed business to supervise the use of small-calibre pistols, short-barrel handguns and replica guns.

These newly prohibited weapons - small-calibre pistols, short-barrelled guns and replicas - are prohibited because they are deemed easy to conceal. In no other way are they more dangerous or any greater a threat to public safety than the long-barrel, high-calibre restricted handguns. The aspects of concealment are why they tend to be useful to the plot development of a movie.

The prohibition includes four-inch-barrel, police-duty revolvers. I'm frankly not sure if the choice of 105 millimetres was intended to do this, or whether it was an incorrect and arbitrary metric conversion. Changing the prohibition to 103 millimetres or less would leave the four-inch-barrel, police-duty revolvers in the restricted class. The difference of two millimetres becomes a large and expensive problem for us.

It seems that there must be some process by which we who use these items in a controlled environment on a daily basis could be protected from the rigorous regulations applied to society at large. If we are responsible for the safety and security of restricted weapons, it seems that we can continue to be responsible for small-calibre and short-barrelled weapons that are only prohibited because they are easy to conceal.

The second important aspect of this is the issue of replicas. I fully understand that the Canadian Firearms Centre is still grappling with the problems for the motion picture industry and the theatre industry when it comes to the prohibition of replica handguns. The specific regulations for replicas are still in development, and we are encouraged that a workable solution will be found. Some background on our extensive use of them, however - and therefore our problems with their prohibition - may be useful to you as we all work to implement these regulations.

The definition of a replica gun - Alex has detailed this, of course - as described in chapter39, section 84, on page 71, is applicable to what we use every day to simulate real guns. We simulate real guns because often a non-firing replica is obviously safer, less expensive, and not subject to the stringent controls of real guns. On-screen, uniformed policemen only carry real guns when they actually have to fire. At all other times, there are replicas in their holsters.

Stunt work cannot be done without safe copies of real props. Stunt people almost always use a rubber or plastic copy of a real gun when falling off horses, jumping out of windows, during car chases, or when hitting each other over the head. For all action sequences, if the stunt requires that an actor or stuntman be struck by an object, it is copied in rubber or plastic for the safety of all concerned. This includes rubber copies of knives to simulate real knives, and rubber copies of axes, pipe wrenches, frying pans, coffee pots, and even books.

.1325

The intricate choreography of certain stunts requires extensive rehearsal and practice. Therefore, it is quite common to issue rubber copies or replicas of guns to actors and stunt men for their use in off-the-set rehearsals. To use a real gun for that kind of work would be irresponsible.

Hopefully the camera can show you that I brought along some replica guns. Don't be alarmed. These are rubber guns. They are moulded copies of real weapons, but are made of rubber that's soft enough so that you can hit me over the head with them without injuring me. And if I fell off a horse or out of a car with this one in my holster I wouldn't get injured.

They are made in a wide variety of shapes and sizes. This one is a typical police-duty revolver made out of rubber. This one is a rubber version of an antique pistol, which is not a prohibited weapon because it's a replica of an antique, as is this little plastic one. This particular example happens to be a piece of a lamp in the shape of a Colt six-shooter. I brought these here just for demonstration purposes so that we're clearer on the nature and the purpose of rubber guns.

We manufacture our own replicas to suit the requirements of film action. At some point in the picture, the guns fire. Very often, that and loading close-ups - in other words, a close shot of a gun being loaded - may be the only shots that require a real gun. We use the real gun to make a mould that is used to cast various rubber copies in different degrees of hardness and weight. For ``struggle shots'' we use a safe rubber copy that won't hurt if someone accidentally gets struck with it. It's tough enough not to bend or tear in the action. It also floats, so that in case it accidentally goes into the water it can be retrieved. However, for a shot in which the gun goes into the water, of course it must sink, so some copies are specially weighted.

As many as ten or fifteen different copies of a particular gun can be required by one stunt sequence. As you can understand, to use real guns for all of this would be foolhardy.

The costs involved to pay the services of a licensed business to provide this material and then stand by every day for fifteen hours while it is being used would increase production costs by several thousand dollars, costs that would merely go to pay a ``babysitter'' for which the production company would get no other service or value. Therefore, classifying this material as prohibited and requiring a $1,250-per-year licence to possess it is destructive to our industry.

I think it is fair to state that we in the motion picture industry use a greater variety of firearms much more often in the ordinary course of our work than any other user group in Canada does. We have a serious responsibility to ensure they are kept secure and out of the wrong hands. However, as long as we're using them in a controlled environment, as long as the CFOs are aware of their location, and as long as the transporting, handling and security meet or surpass the CFOs' requirements, they are not in any way a threat to public safety.

At the risk of suggesting the easy way out, it seems to us that the most practical solution to the many different problems created by the act is to create a provision for permitting or licensing that bears the condition of motion picture or theatrical use only. This licence would provide an acceptable alternative to the responsible individuals who need to handle the newly prohibited materials, but who have no desire to form a business.

Over the years in western Canada, the prop masters, the CFOs and the RCMP have collaborated to create a very workable system by utilizing a variation on the permit to carry. Due to the flexible conditions, this is essentially a permit for motion picture use only. Conditions have to do with specific production location and schedule and always specify blank ammunition firing only. If any condition on the permit is violated, the permit becomes invalid, the permit holder is in violation of the Firearms Act, and the permit can be revoked.

.1330

We are urging the adoption of this type of system to work in conjunction with the other classes of licences summarized in the proposed regulations, section 9, schedules I and II, section10, schedule III, and section 13, schedule IV, on pages 64 through 72.

It is quite possible that a particular prop person may require three or more of these ``temporary'' permits over the course of a year. Another person may not require any for a given year but may need two or three in the next year, and so on. To reduce the administrative burden on the system, I propose the following as a workable system from the film industry's point of view.

First, a prop person would hold a possession and acquisition licence type (c), prohibited, as on page 65.

Second, an industrial licence, ``film industry only'', valid for two years at a cost of $160, would be available to them if they wished to apply.

This licence would allow for temporary transfers to them - not ownership - of prohibited weapons and devices, including crossbows and excluding fully automatic weapons and implements of mass destruction. This would permit these individuals to be in possession of items that in spite of being prohibited are inherently no more dangerous and require no more training and security than do restricted weapons, which they are permitted to handle and possess every day.

The above ``motion picture use'' licence would be valid only when accompanied by a notice authorized by the CFO or his delegate indicating that the licence holder is actually working at that particular time in the motion picture business. Therefore, if they were between productions or on vacation and so forth, their licence would not be valid and they could not receive transfers of prohibited materials. Proof of their working status would be provided in writing by their employer to the CFO.

I urge you to recommend the inclusion of a clause in the regulations that provides for this type of industrial flexibility. Essentially, it would allow an alternative to a situation whereby an individual person has to register as a business, pay a very expensive $1,250 annual fee and provide very sophisticated storage and expensive security systems to handle material that is no more dangerous than the material they would routinely handle with an $80 five-year permit.

I have a few other concerns, which I won't take the time to go into now. They are printed in my document, which all of you can get a copy of, so this concludes my presentation. Thank you very much.

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

Before we proceed to questions, I've been notified that there's another witness from Vancouver, a Mr. Adair, I believe. He will be making a presentation from his office in Vancouver.

Mr. Tom Adair (Business Representative, Motion Picture Studio Production Technicians): Yes.

The Chairman: Mr. Adair.

Mr. Adair: Yes, I'm on line here.

The Chairman: All right. We're glad to have you with us. Thank you very much for persevering and agreeing to make your presentation. Are you ready to begin with your presentation?

Mr. Adair: Yes.

The Chairman: Please do so. We're ready and we look forward to hearing you.

Mr. Adair: Thank you very much.

I've made my submission and I just wanted to make some comments on the submission itself.

On the first page of the submission, I'm trying to give you a general overview of our business so that you will understand that a very large ripple effect from the regulations is possible. In our overall business in Canada - and in British Columbia especially because of a large amount of United States production - firearms that are governed by the regulations are used in 75% of production.

.1335

The effect of regulations is to affect not just the firearm part of that production but the whole production, because they are essential to what they are trying to create. Even though it is a small part of an overall production, it is like having a car without lug nuts on the tires. If the tires fall off, the car will not run. So that's why we're very concerned about these regulations.

When I go into the major areas of concern, the regulatory authority, which I start on page 2 of my brief, what we are looking for is a set of guidelines. But if there is a policy and procedures for dealing with film and television that are developed in conjunction with the film and television and theatrical industry across Canada that we are able to be part of, which certainly the firearms centre has indicated as a direction they're looking at, we are looking for definition. We have a fear that with a different set of regulations across Canada it will affect the ability for production to film in multiple provinces, and without a set of policies and procedures in place CFOs will then use the regulations as their enforcement of the act, and we will not be able to know what to do. I believe the act gives the ability to form those regulations, but they have not been spelled out in such a way that we know how they're going to work.

As to my concerns within the regulations, for instance, section 11, page 30, which is how, when you are using a prohibited firearm, when you move from one location to another you need to report that to the CFO, a large number of locations on one show are not unusual and create an incredible amount of information flow. When you have multiple productions, that creates a choke point at that reporting procedure. I point that out because it seems that those procedures under the regulations, as they've been outlined, would be very impractical in our industry.

Our concerns with the licensing are that if there is only a licence that basically addresses the very top end of the prohibited types of firearms that are used in the industry but there's so much else captured by that licence that it doesn't practically work for us, we need a variety of licences to be able to address the other issues.

That may address, as Neil McLeod was mentioning, the prohibited firearm with a short barrel length because of its concealment. But the one thing that is distinctly different in our business is that many of these firearms are in fact rented. They are not owned by the individuals; they are rented from one central storage area. And someone like that would have the industrial permit, the expensive one. But the people who actually supply those on productions are not in the business of carrying that kind of stock and particularly don't want to. They are not allowed to possess and use these as individuals.

It may be that there is, as Neil suggests, a light-duty industrial licence that could be obtained by these individuals that could address that, and perhaps another form of licensing that could deal with replicas, which is the other really major issue that, because of the nature of the way the act is written, will become under the definitions in the act more dangerous, in my mind, certainly than other items.

.1340

So we're looking for a system of policies and procedures that addresses the ability to conform with the regulations, but we don't know what the regulations are and we are fearful of a set of regulations without definition, which will not allow us to be able to adequately service the business in the very tight time lines that are involved.

I think a big fear on our part is the fact of a peace officer coming across someone who's in the film business, they don't know all these other sorts of tie-ins that have been established, and they will be stopped and the production will be shut down because that individual cannot get those prohibited firearms to ship, or the transportation across the border when they're being ordered will be stopped because of a customs officer not having policies and procedures they're able to follow that will allow us to continue.

I think another great benefit that's possible here is that policies and procedures that would be across Canada, because they'd be the same, would actually be a positive benefit to the business.

So I think we need a variety of licences to deal with these problems.

That's my basic presentation. I go into quite a bit of detail in my brief, but I'm certainly ready to answer questions as well.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Adair. It's very helpful.

What we'll do now is proceed to questions. Members of the subcommittee will be asking questions of all three of the presenters, as they wish. I will be begin with Mr. de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye (Portneuf): Messrs. Adair, Gazale and McLeod, I listened carefully to your presentations. In a way, they revealed the secrets of your profession. Those revelations may well take away some of the mystery surrounding your methods and detract from our pleasure in the process. Also, I think it's important to point out that our societies increasingly deplore the violence we regularly witness in films shown in theatres or on television.

I understand your concern, and I am sure that, like the members of the Sub-committee, you realize that the purpose of these draft regulations was not, and is not, to prevent legitimate businesses and industries from properly attaining their goals.

I was very interested in the recommendations made by Mr. McLeod, which deal more specifically with the film industry; perhaps they could also apply to the theatre. Just to get an idea of whether Mr. McLeod's recommendations could be considered universal, I would like to askMr. Gazale whether the suggestions he heard from film industry representatives would meet the requirements of theatre groups, or whether there are important differences that should be taken into account.

Mr. Gazale: The most important difference between film and theatre has to do with their use of firearms. In the theatre setting, the firearm must remain on the set for several hours - in other words, for the duration of the play. In the case of a film, however, it is only needed for a few seconds or a few minutes, after which it can be removed for safekeeping. That is why we very frequently use replicas, so as to avoid endangering people's safety.

Also, theatre companies have far more modest means than film production companies. As I pointed out in our presentation, in most small theatre companies, the prop man is also responsible for a variety of other things. In the motion picture industry, a company hired to provide props simply delivers them to a member of the crew. That is why we believe a theatre company or a company that provides props for such productions should be covered by the regulations, but that individuals, particularly those who use replicas, should not be subject to them.

.1345

In the case of actual firearms, however, it is essential that individuals who use them have the necessary permits and take responsibility for their use on site. We rely on replicas so as to avoid having to use dangerous material in our theatre halls and backstage. We do not feel it's necessary to require the same kinds of permits for replicas as for extremely dangerous firearms.

Mr. de Savoye: Thank you very much for those clarifications, Mr. Gazale.

Mr. McLeod, you explained earlier that in your industry, you could well require several different types of replicas, for various purposes, during the shooting of a single film. But if those replicas were to fall into the wrong hands, they could well be misused. What kind of precautions do you take to ensure that those replicas do not fall into the wrong hands and cannot be misused? And more specifically, what do you actually do with the replicas after the film shoot?

[English]

Mr. McLeod: As with all of our material of a sensitive nature, it is only ever visible to the rest of the crew and to the cast at the time it is actually being prepared to go on film, being put on film and shortly thereafter.

Once it's clear that we no longer need a particular item, in some cases it goes back into a locked drawer that is part of an ordinary toolbox, quite a large rolling toolbox. Shortly thereafter it would be returned to a five-tonne prop truck - in some cases, it's a 40-foot truck - that's on the set of every project. In that truck is a vault that is bolted to the frame of the truck in several locations. All of that material is stored in the locked vault in a locked truck. In most cases if there is something particularly sensitive, like fully automatic weapons for example, a human being stands outside the truck and no one is allowed in the truck who isn't a member of the prop department - not even the producer of the show.

To make one correction to something Alex responded with, my argument put forth in this document is really in support of individual people. I am a company; I am a licensed business in that sense. It is in support of all the other prop masters who really approach their work as individuals and who would need a special industrial classification licence. I just wanted to clear that up.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Mr. McLeod, you have just explained the precautions that are taken - which I must say seem quite thorough - to protect not only the replicas but the actual firearms. Are those precautions part of a set of standards you follow in your industry, or are the practices of other industry members less rigorous?

[English]

Mr. McLeod: The standards are a combination of our own standards, which are maintained throughout the property department, which includes everyone who works in that department. By property department in this case, I mean the members of IATSE Local 891 who service the film industry in Vancouver. Every member of the prop department for that union local is furnished with guidelines and procedures, which we all maintain for consistency throughout the industry.

In addition to our own practices and guidelines, we of course abide by all recommendations made by the CFO. We submit our security facilities to the CFO for approval every time we apply for a permit. If we're going to be filming in particular areas of the community that we perhaps need to be a little more diligent about, they may make recommendations for storage and security. We then would have to abide by that, by virtue of its being a condition on our permit, which I referred to in my document.

.1350

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Mr. McLeod, I believe I heard you say in your presentation that you also work in the State of Washington. Do American laws, at either the federal or state levels, have any impact on your operations? What laws have an impact on your business operations in the United States?

[English]

Mr. McLeod: Although the legislation is a little different with regard to procurement of the materials, the safety and security varies in exactly the same way it does in Canada. It ranges from individual common sense to protect the safety of our societies, all the way to various federal, state and municipal recommendations for that material. There is very little difference between security recommendations and supply of various weapons between Washington State and B.C. and Alberta. It can be a bit more cumbersome in Washington State, frankly, than it is in B.C. and Alberta right now.

Mr. de Savoye: Are there any licensing costs in Washington State? If there are, could you tell us how much?

Mr. McLeod: My permit in Washington is actually a U.S. federal firearms licence, which costs $100 a year.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank our witnesses from this industry.

To what extent does the use of firearms in your industry pose a threat to the safety of society? I'd like an answer from all three of our witnesses, perhaps beginning with the one present in our committee room.

Mr. Gazale: Do you mean the choice of whether or not plays that require weapons are staged, or in the use of the weapon on the stage itself?

Mr. Ramsay: First of all, I'd like you to tell us how long you've been in this business. Second, from your experience within the business, has the use of firearms in your industry posed a threat to the safety of society?

Mr. Gazale: I've been in this business for about 22 years, working my way up from a very small theatre in Montreal to where I am now at the National Arts Centre. In my experience the use of weapons has been very sporadic. I can think of maybe a dozen instances in total when we have had weapons on stage. In all but one case they were replicas or had been converted to blank firing. In only one case did we use a real weapon because for a very short period of time it was cheaper to rent it from a prop armourer in Montreal than to purchase a replica.

Mr. Ramsay: Could you tell the committee the economic impact of these regulations if they go forward with the bill unchanged?

Mr. Gazale: In the case of very large institutions with many uses, since we don't know more than a year or a few months ahead of time what shows we are doing, we would have to keep the licences alive for quite a long time. For the larger professional organizations it's probably not a large impact. For the smaller amateur and community-based organizations the impact might be quite large. Some organizations spend in the hundreds of dollars on an entire production. To keep$400 licences, which is what's envisioned in the act for procurement, alive year after year on the off chance that you may need a weapon for one particular production may seem onerous to those kinds of groups.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. McLeod, would you respond to that question? Could you tell us how long you've been involved in your industry and the extent to which, if any, the involvement of firearms in your industry has posed a threat to the safety of society?

Mr. McLeod: I've been in the entertainment industry for just over 25 years - in the theatre industry prior to becoming part of the motion picture industry about 15 years ago. I have handled weapons on and off throughout that whole period. I have never witnessed any particular incident or any potential incident that I would define as a threat to society in any project I've been involved in.

.1355

We tend to be people of reasonably low profile with regard to this material. We do not talk about it in the open community very much. People don't know where our storage facilities are. We don't publish our home addresses in any documents or lists of phone numbers and that type of thing. We purposely don't wish to involve the public in knowing what it is we do and what we do it with.

To reiterate, I'm not aware of any potential threat to public safety by a motion picture company's negligence, if you will, if that answers your question. If you need me to be more specific, I will.

Mr. Ramsay: That answers my question.

Have you done any estimate of the economic impact that Bill C-68 and its regulations will have upon your industry, from your point of view?

Mr. McLeod: I have personally not done a comprehensive estimate. I've done an estimate based on the particular details that I think can be averted by changes in regulations that have to do with the small calibre and short-barrelled weapons becoming prohibited.

In my brief presented to the Senate committee, I detailed the cost of a .32 calibre pistol, which is what some people might describe as a slightly larger version of a Saturday night special. It is a typical gun used for military purposes, for home protection and so forth. It has sort of a wide application in the general society and therefore naturally becomes somewhat of a useful prop for the motion picture business. You can purchase one of those items for about $100. A business that owns one of those might rent it to a movie company for $50 a week for the first week and then it goes on a negotiated scale beyond that.

With the new regulations it will now be prohibited unless that licensed business provides an escort to the set for that handgun every day it's needed. If one assumes that it's needed by a principal actor or actress, it has to be available, at least in the prop truck, every day that actor works. That means the escort has to be paid every day that actor works. The cost of a $50 to $100 rental can jump quite easily to a $400-a-day rental if it requires a licensed person to supervise it. I think that's a financial impact that's nearly unacceptable.

Mr. Ramsay: I guess what I'm asking is if the economic impact is so great that it might drive some members of your industry into the United States or out of Canada. Do you see it as that serious?

Mr. McLeod: Yes, I do. Traditionally, the industry here has grown up according to certain formats that tend to follow the U.S. west coast motion picture industry perhaps a little bit more than the eastern U.S. and central Canada. Traditionally, this has been the case where the prop master has the permits and licences that are required by the government, in either place, to provide the service on this equipment. When that changes to having each individual prop master having to have a very expensive licence in order to have this, that puts an undue burden on them and it will drive several people really out of their occupation. There's no question about that.

If the costs are then passed on, or let's say borne by the production company, by saying the licensed business then has to be present any time any of this prohibited material is on the set - and of course we're talking about switchblades and large-capacity magazines and butterfly knives and so on - that will cost the production company a minimum of $300 a day for every filming day in which that material has to be there. And the day it doesn't have to be there, of course somebody has to bear the cost of moving it back and forth to its rightful home. That $300 a day, spread over a production schedule of 8, 10, 12, or 14 weeks, is a significant amount of money.

.1400

When location agreements are negotiated by the production companies with the province they're going to shoot in or the city they're going to shoot in, all of those factors are taken into consideration. The cost of shooting in B.C. and Alberta will be put parallel, side by side, with the cost of shooting the same project in Washington State or Oregon. Those figures will be analysed and decisions will be made based on that.

The Chairman: Mr. Ramsay, we want to hear from Mr. Adair.

Mr. Ramsay: Yes.

Mr. Adair, could we get your response? In your experience in the industry, have you seen any indication that the use of firearms in your industry has created a threat to public safety? Following that, would you give us your estimate, if any, of the economic impact, negative or otherwise, upon your industry?

Mr. Adair: I have no knowledge of any particular incident occurring here that has threatened public safety, because of the tightly controlled environment. What is being captured by the act is already controlled.

I've worked in the industry since about 1980, when I worked on my first film. I work as a business agent for the union, so I'm quite aware of the cost-sensitive nature of how productions are done. A large portion of the $600 million worth of production that was done here in Vancouver was for movies of the week. It would probably be 40% of the total; that's $250 million in direct production spending.

And 75% of those productions would at some point in their production use a firearm that would be covered by the act. If the procurement costs and the ability to get what they need - through the border, through customs, or available locally - changes significantly, they will go elsewhere.

Movies of the week, as a product in the marketplace, are financed by their licensing fees. Their licensing fees are fixed. They have not changed in eight years, basically. They've gone down. We compete against Pittsburgh, we compete against Washington State, we compete against California. In a $1.5 million, below-the-line production cost on a movie of the week, a difference of$20,000 will cause them to go somewhere else.

Larger-scale productions - features and series - which have larger budgets can more readily absorb costs, but the problem they have is we also cost ourselves against Los Angeles, New York, and other areas in the United States, because 80% of our production here is from the United States.

The problem in a lot of instances is not so much the cost, though it's a huge factor in determining where it ends up in the production budget; it is a factor of how much risk they perceive there is going to be to a production day because of a particular problem. If the licensing or the procurement of a firearm that they need is very difficult, it means they might not be able to make their schedule.

Their schedules cost them $60,000 to $80,000 a day on movies of the week and up to $250,000 a day for features. If they lose one day of production, that destroys their budget. If the risk is there, they won't come. They want reassurance, and we need to be able to give them reassurance, that they will not have that risk. We have to be able to give them a hard cost for the cost of coming here to do that, with the policies and procedures in place and manageable.

.1405

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Mr. Adair.

The Chairman: We now have with us Mr. Andrew Campbell, president of Cold Blue Rentals.

Mr. Campbell, you're joined here in Ottawa by Mr. Alex Gazale. I think you gentlemen have met.

From video-teleconferencing we have in Vancouver Mr. Tom Adair, who is not in the picture literally, but figuratively he is. We've just heard his response. We do have in the picture Mr. Neil McLeod.

So we have four presenters. They have made their presentations. We now invite you to make yours.

To the members of the subcommittee, Mr. Ramsay and Mr. de Savoye, although you didn't hear their presentation when you asked your first round, we will have a second round to allow you to ask questions.

Now we invite Mr. Campbell to make his presentation.

Mr. Andrew Campbell (President, Cold Blue Rentals): Thank you, sir, members, ladies and gentlemen.

My presentation is comprised of two parts essentially. The first section deals with specific questions and comments on the draft regulations. The second part deals with what my colleagues in Vancouver must, as I do, feel is the most important aspect of the impact of these regulations on our industry, and that is of course the use of replica weapons within the context of films, television, and theatrical productions.

Since January 1991 my company has been working with the federal government in the process of creating a comprehensive and fair system of laws to govern the possession and use of firearms and related weapons within this country. Although there has been much progress towards improving the firearms section of the Criminal Code, there have also been setbacks due to the tempestuous political climate in which we deal with the gun control issue, amongst the public and also in terms of its political ramifications.

Because of the passage of Bill C-17, the government at that time recognized the economic importance of Canada's entertainment industries and essentially legalized the profession of supplying firearms and other weapons to film, television, and theatrical productions.

We are a very small group of people, if you count only the industrial permit-holders at the present point, but we also deal with firearms suppliers, film armourers, and the vast legion of props people, who in many cases are also capable of handling firearms, with both their FAC courses and also specialized courses for the handling of firearms on a film set.

While a small part of the machine, we are in fact a very important part, because without us, many of the films that are made in Canada and that bring the dollars into Canada would frankly not happen. They would go to a right-to-work state such as North Carolina or they would stay in California or various other areas for filming.

We have had an explosion of film production over the last five or six years. The most visible growth has been in the area of Vancouver. Certainly it supports many very popular television shows as well as movies. Toronto has always been a centre for film production, but also television and theatrical productions. Montreal has grown within the last three years to become an important film production centre as well. We have our own Société Radio-Canada there, which produces entertainment, as well as the CBC, the National Film Board, and a myriad of independent film producers of which Quebec can be justifiably proud.

To various degrees they use firearms. Even a love story can occasionally have a policeman in it, and the policeman needs some sort of weapon in his or her holster. However, the replica issue, which I'll bring up a little later, affects even that holstered gun, because normally we would put a replica in it and not a real gun.

.1410

Although the implementation of Bill C-68 presented a comprehensive regulatory package implementing the new statutory scheme for the control of firearms and other weapons, it is a way to try to re-create section 3 of the Criminal Code into a firearms act. We do not always benefit from the advances, or what I feel were the advances, of Bill C-17, certainly in the case of the replica weapon issue.

I would like to refer to several of the pages within the structure of the regulations. In a general sense we, as a business, are allowed under the current Criminal Code to possess prohibited weapons, restricted weapons, and various other weapons for the exclusive use of film, television, and theatrical productions. However, while considered businesses under that aspect, we are not actually considered businesses in the definition of businesses at the beginning of Bill C-68 because it does not actually recognize the activity of renting out a firearm. Section 84 describes ``transfer'' to mean sell, provide, barter, give, lend, rent, send, transport, distribute or deliver. But the term ``transfer'' is not yet included within Bill C-68's definition of a business. I would just like to raise that.

Perhaps it is covered, but I have been operating in Quebec for almost ten years now with the understanding that I was not a legitimate business simply because the Criminal Code did not recognize the use of the terms ``rental'' or ``for hiring''. For many years I could only buy or sell restricted weapons.

On the hand-paginated page 10 of the regulations, when we discussed this with the Department of Justice during the consultations with firearms groups there was a debate over the content of paragraph 23(1)(a) that the business not depict or promote violence in an advertisement of a firearm or other weapon.

At the time, we discussed the fact that we were not necessarily able to enforce a specific code of ethics on the people to whom we were renting. In fact, sad to say, most of these firearms depict some sort of violence aspect, whether it be the hint of violence or actual gun play.

It was pointed out that it was not designed to limit in any way the depiction of film, television, or any entertainment production, but was to monitor the use of firearms in a potentially violent context in our own advertisements. I would like to point out it does not seem to be as clear here as it was explained to us at the time.

Reference number 2 is page 11. We refer here to paragraph 23(1)(d), subparagraphs (i) and (ii) on the keeping of inventory for all prohibited weapons, restricted weapons, prohibited devices and ammunition and components or parts designed for an automatic firearm.

This is not a complaint as much as it's just to point out that in the new regulations we are hoping there will be some way to regulate these pieces and components, but it's clear that right now the FRAS - the firearms section of the RCMP - has no capacity, either through its computers or its C-305 process, to actually register or record any large-capacity magazines or components of a prohibited weapon.

We are in somewhat of a grey area because we could be arrested for having those parts or components, but there's no way to register them with an official governing body. We have to register within our own books, but there's no way to have that officially recognized, let's say, by the RCMP.

.1415

The point is that once prohibited devices such as replica firearms are introduced into this system, replica firearms usually do not have serial numbers. If they do, they are cast in with the production plastic and it's a non-issue. They don't have actual serial numbers, so to try to register prohibited devices such as that would be very problematic.

On pages 11 and 50, subsection 23(3) requires that the CPFO of the province set maximum limits on the inventory levels of prohibited weapons. Presumably, this is to act in the interest of public safety by not allowing a company to have access to enough weapons to outfit a small army. However, this is precisely what the job of film armourer entails.

We never know what type of film will come our way in the next few months and we essentially add to our stocks whenever the opportunity arises. By setting a maximum limit, I understand the CPFO can have un accord with the holders of the industrial permit, but to legislate that there should be maximum limits can severely hamper our activities.

In some cases I may have weapons that another renter or holder of a prohibited permit might need. While I might have one style of weapon, let's say World War II weapons, that person may stockpile more modern weapons, and under the auspices of the new act we would be able to exchange them. It might seem there is more of one type of weapon with one group, but it may be part of a strategy of not needing to have every weapon in our possession for each of the industrial permit holders. I would suggest there be some elimination of that maximum limits statute.

On page 22, section 13 is clearly intended to not allow federal statutes to supersede provincial and municipal jurisdictions. However, since the entertainment industry regularly films on location and depicts situations that under regular circumstances would be illegal, this section could potentially ruin our industry. If local laws supersede federal laws in terms of their jurisdiction, this could open the door for local laws to potentially ruin our industry.

I know that Vancouver is facing those problems and so is Montreal. We're facing noise statute problems. These are local limitations that will curtail when we film gun-shooting, for example, at night. On the face of it this seems to open up a battle between local jurisdictions and the federal law. Since we are dealing with a federally regulated industry, this might create more problems than it hopes to help.

On page 29 I refer to regulation 11, prohibited weapons being transported by a vehicle. It requires that in the case of an automatic firearm with a removable bolt or bolt carrier this device be removed and transported in a separate vehicle.

There are several firearms in the world that create difficulty in trying to quickly and efficiently remove certain parts and components from them. The term ``field stripping'' is used to describe when a weapon can be easily cleaned by a soldier in the field. However, opening up some of these rifles can ruin the mechanisms within. I would suggest, if possible, the phrase be inserted ``and can be removed with reasonable difficulty'' after the words ``bolt carrier''. This is not to give us an escape clause, but to try to understand there are certain weapons for which that will create a mess. One example would be the Ruger fully automatic rifle. With the ratchet system contained within, it can spring out and we can spend hours trying to put them back together.

.1420

When I was originally dealing with this with Mr. Michael Zigayer of the law policy section back in 1991, he referred to fully automatic weapons as essentially the ones in which you could pull out the bolt and bolt carrier, thus rendering the weapon inoperable. But there are other ways already prescribed by law - i.e.. a cable-lock system or a trigger-lock system, which could in fact render the weapon inoperable without destroying the internal parts.

Page 30, in paragraph 11(3)(c), refers to exemptions for prohibited weapons transport regulations where the prohibited weapons have been ``converted to fire only blank cartridges.'' To my knowledge, no official regulations exist to outline the procedures for a conversion of a restricted or prohibited weapon to a blank-only weapon, or for forensic verification of these procedures.

I made a proposal in 1991 to the committee of a series of ways in which we could permanently render fully automatic firearms to be capable of firing blanks only. Nothing happened with that. Although there is a deactivation guide, there is absolutely nothing I know of that could tell me how to render a weapon that is capable of firing fully automatic to only fire blank. So there is a whole section of the regulations here that is based upon a false set of criteria for converting these to blank-only.

On page 42, paragraph 7(1)(d) describes the situation where the business must supply the address of any place in Canada where the shipment of prohibited goods ``stop over''. This is essentially, I believe, for carriers, but as importers of record, we may not know these stop-over points.

It may also create a situation where if a plane even transporting prohibited weapons through the country has to stop over, let's say from Vancouver to Montreal, because of engine trouble or whatever, and lands in a different province, or in fact ends up landing in a different state, we may not know these things - the locations, the set-down points. Yet it is requiring us by law to make out a manifest describing these areas of set-down points, which we, as non-carriers, might not know.

What I suggest is that we insert the phrase ``when known'' before ``the name and address'', so that on our behalf, when we have to present some sort of information to our CPFOs, we can give information with the best of our knowledge, but not necessarily information that, should something change, it's in our hands legally.

On page 43 - this is simply for the record - the proposed regulations regarding the disposal of forfeited goods to the RCMP for their use through the Canada Customs officers has ominous capability for potential abuse. Articles that we import into Canada we assume have already had the stamp of approval. And with the new proposed read-only machines and a system by which the customs people can okay a shipment for import or export, it's still within the law - we were discussing this during our meeting with the users group, that it just has an ominous sound to it - that these weapons can be forfeited within a reasonable time to the RCMP for their ``use''. I'm just raising that for the record.

The second section really unfortunately does not apply today, but it is something I would just like to raise, and then I'll be done. This is with respect, again, to the replica or imitation firearms deemed ``prohibited devices''. This is a huge difficulty for us. I have producers, if not props people, frequently calling me trying to find out the status of the law.

.1425

As of last information, it is being pushed back until we can come up with a resolution for it. To be blunt, since I myself was never consulted, and I don't think any of my colleagues were in terms of this, a lot of problems could have been avoided by just consulting with us - the people who have to use these replica weapons - at an earlier time. Since the law has been passed, we now have to come up with ways of solving a problem that should have never essentially come up.

Replica weapons present to me the possibility of renting to props people, to people who would not normally need a firearm. I base my business on the idea that I can rent a replica weapon to a props person, to a theatre person, to a student film-maker, to a television company, to professionals and amateurs alike, based on the idea that these weapons are not in fact firearms, and are not currently regulated. If I base it on the idea that if they actually need a gun to fire, I will then arrange for a replica weapon to be given to them for the duration of the shoot, and I come onto the set only for those times when the gun actually has to fire, or when there is close-up manipulation, etc.

Replica weapons are an important part of my business, and I know they're an important part of businesses for people in Vancouver and Toronto and everywhere else. They're a mainstay for most theatre companies.

I had a gentleman from the props department of Concordia University in Montreal call me up last week, needing pictures of a weapon. They were doing a play on the IRA crisis in Ireland and needed to make a copy of a certain type of firearm used by the British army over there. There currently exists no copy of it, so he came down to get pictures so he could make a wooden replica. Under the law that will take effect some time - I hope much later, but perhaps as late as the end of the year - he would be creating a prohibited weapon, and subject to imprisonment for I believe five years.

In the brief I have outlined 11 different types of imitation and non-firearm weapons, all of which have been designed or are being used to avoid the use of real guns in a theatrical or film situation. These are ways we can avoid using real firearms. They are also ways to prevent or hopefully dissuade theft. They are used, in the case of the rubber ones, for stunts - for the safety of the actors or the stunt people. Yet a rubber gun is now considered with the same legal weight as a large-capacity magazine.

Guns that were originally thought of as being potentially a threat - i.e., there's a series of Japanese one-to-one replicas, and you almost cannot tell them from the originals - are not touched by the law, because they fire a six-millimetre plastic pellet.

I know you will probably be dealing with this much later on during the tabling of those regulations. But I know for my colleagues and myself it's a very important issue. It stands to be the difference between a relatively easy passage of this law and one that is going to be quite an embarrassment, if we have to go to a producer and tell them that they have to now pay for a qualified professional to be on set to handle a rubber gun that sits in a holster for 12 hours in a day.

That again is something we will bring up. I wanted to make sure it was submitted in this brief so it can be read for that future tabling.

I thank you very much for your time.

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

Are you still with us, Mr. McLeod?

Mr. McLeod: Yes, I'm here.

The Chairman: Mr. Adair, are you still with us?

Mr. Adair: Yes, I am.

The Chairman: Oh, great. Thank you very much.

We'll now go back to questioning from the members of the subcommittee. Mr. Kirkby, I believe.

.1430

Mr. Kirkby (Prince Albert - Churchill River): First to Mr. Gazale, you've raised a concern with respect to fee categories for use as opposed to supplying. The theatres that possess their own firearms do qualify under business licence, category 18, for a $50 fee. Does that alleviate your concern?

Mr. Gazale: Yes, except that many of my colleagues who go to the web site read the word ``supplier'' and wonder if that means it's exclusive of owners. It says specifically ``a supplier to'' as opposed to ``a user of''.

Mr. Kirkby: Well, it does indicate that the theatre companies that own their own stocks can get this $50 licence.

Also, if a theatre with prohibited firearms or devices such as replicas requires a business licence with authority to possess prohibited items pursuant to the prescribed purpose in paragraph 21(c) of the regulations, the employee need only have a restricted-firearms-level individual licence. Does that assist?

Mr. Gazale: It assists us. The problem is that in the use of a replica, which is nothing but a rubber gun or a club essentially, to have any sort of licence seems quite unnecessary, especially if something will never fire, if the business itself is licensed.

Mr. Kirkby: This is a question to Mr. Adair and Mr. McLeod. Do you believe that licences other than those provided for in the act - that is, either individual or business licences - could be done through the regulations, or would it require amendments to the act? Is it purely a matter of revising the fee categories in the regulations? How do you see it having to be done?

Mr. McLeod: It seems to me that the CFOs would probably be better able to answer these questions because of their background in this.

However, my procedural opinion as to how it would really work is that it would just be a licence that would allow you to possess prohibited material on a temporary basis. In other words, you would not be able to own it; you could only possess it on a temporary basis. It would be owned by someone else, but it would allow the owner to transfer it to you based on your conditional industrial licence or permit that had to do with your working in the theatre or motion picture business. My recommendation was something like $160 for that licence for a two-year period.

That licence would be valid only if you were actively working on a motion picture project or in the motion picture business. In other words, it would require a rider to your licence that validated it for a particular time period. That's my notion.

I suggest this to reduce somewhat the application burden for licences like this in our area, which as I pointed out could be 40 or 50 people applying for some type of licence for what is now prohibited material. This would not apply to fully automatic weapons and implements of mass destruction. In that case I don't think a temporary licence would apply.

.1435

Mr. Kirkby: To all the witnesses, how many times has the Canadian Firearms Centre consulted you with respect to these regulations from the start until now?

Mr. Gazale: Personally, four times, and there was a bit of consultation country-wide with several other members of the CITT previous to that.

Mr. Campbell: It's about the same number for me.

Mr. McLeod: I believe it was three times that I was involved in a round-table discussion on this matter. It seemed as though we got involved a little late in the process.

Mr. Adair: I would say that in direct meetings with other people in industry it's been three times. I was on holidays the fourth time I was invited. There have been additional one-to-one conversations since that time.

On the replica issue, which is such a major problem to us, we sent an original letter to members in the House of Commons and our issue was not recognized at that time. Because of the way the act is written, it cannot be modified and the regulation cannot be written to exempt us. I understand that, and that's what caused us such a problem. I think we all understand that.

I wanted to comment on the structure of the fee licences that you asked Mr. McLeod about, because we are looking for a way to deal in a similar fashion to the one now. The act itself does not allow individuals to be licensed to do what a business licence.... You're required to have a business licence to do prohibited firearms, which captures a good portion of what we deal with.

The possibility does exist that people could become a proprietorship, a business at a low level. To have a licence of $1,250 a year, which is what's contemplated under the licensing and which gives you a huge breadth of ability, is a financial cost that most people would not want. They basically want to be able to handle the prohibited firearms that are not the fully automatics and things like this that Neil referred to.

Maybe there need to be two subsections: one that deals only with replicas and one that deals with prohibited firearms transferred from an industrial permit holder.

Mr. Kirkby: When you're dealing with prohibited, restricted weapons, what are the requirements under the present law? Do you have to have people supervising? How does Bill C-68 change that? That is to Mr. Adair or Mr. McLeod.

Mr. Adair: Neil McLeod deals with these on the set, so he's better to answer.

Mr. McLeod: There is a licensed, authorized and technically qualified supervisor for what are now prohibited weapons. To be perfectly honest, I can't really extend that to things like butterfly knives and switchblades, but it's certainly in terms of fully automatic weapons and large-capacity magazines. For what has become a prohibited class today, yes, there is a licensed technical expert supervising this material.

The biggest concern is that now we have a new class of prohibited item, which is not inherently any more dangerous or any more of a threat to the public safety than restricted weapons. That's the hole in the net right now.

Mr. Kirkby: Wouldn't most movies that have replicas also utilize some of the real thing during the shooting of the movie and require the presence of the supervisor?

.1440

Mr. McLeod: Oh, certainly. If the real thing were a fully automatic weapon, then you would need a licensed individual - an industrial-permitted individual who is licensed to possess, own, and transport prohibited weapons.

Mr. Kirkby: In most cases, then, movies that require replicas also require the real thing, so it would not add to the cost of making a movie. Is that correct?

Mr. McLeod: The classification is where it adds to the production costs of the movie. The fact that simple, small handguns would now be seen as prohibited would remove them from the restricted class. As long as they're in the restricted class, you do not need an industrial-licensed supervisory expert to handle them, or a company that owns them.

Several prop people own their own firearms and several of them are in this category, particularly police duty revolvers. Many prop people own police duty revolvers, because they're inexpensive and they use them all the time. Then you have your own inventory of replicas, which of course match all of the real ones. But the fact that you have a combination of real weapons and replicas is not really the issue, so much as the fact that certain real guns that are very common in our industry will now become prohibited, and yet pose no inherent increase in threat of safety to the society at large.

It's ironic that one can be in possession of an eight-inch, .44-magnum hand cannon and yet is prohibited from being in possession of a .22-calibre pistol. In terms of our business, we have to see that as somewhat mysterious. In society as a whole I certainly understand the distinction, as I'm certain all my colleagues do, but in our business it's a little perplexing.

The Chairman: Mr. Campbell, did you want to comment?

Mr. Campbell: Yes, certainly.

I have to say in the province of Quebec we operate quite a bit differently and quite more stringently. We are not allowed to rent restricted or prohibited weapons to a third party. In other words, every restricted and prohibited weapon that is owned by my company is only allowed to be taken out by the owner of that weapon. We just have no legal authority under the law to rent a restricted weapon, because the term ``rental'' is not included in the Criminal Code now.

In certain other provinces, notably in Toronto and Vancouver, they have decided to apply the law in a more liberal sense, but Quebec is very strict about that. I've always had to operate under that condition.

Obviously it's better for my business, but at the same time I am in direct control at any time a blank weapon or a real weapon is discharged on a movie set, which means I can control a situation that is potentially dangerous, because that is my area of expertise, where it might not be for certain other individuals. That is unique in Quebec, but it's also not necessarily unique within the structure of the law.

If, for example, my company takes a restricted weapon to a film set for one day, that restricted weapon is usually meant to match something that's been on the film set for the last five weeks, in a holster carried by the lead character, who takes it out at the last moment and shoots the bad guy once or twice.

The production is not allowed to have a real firearm on set, unlike what would happen in Vancouver or Toronto. They have a replica weapon. That replica weapon is a non-functioning weapon, or if nothing else is available, a blank-firing-only replica, and then it is replaced by a real gun on the day of shooting. But that's a distinction we have within Quebec in terms of the application.

So no real weapons go out without having a qualified representative with them.

Mr. Kirkby: Mr. Adair, what is the average budget of a movie having firearms that you would deal with?

Mr. Adair: In television movies?

Mr. Kirkby: Or in motion pictures. Either Mr. McLeod or Mr. Adair....

.1445

Mr. Adair: For television movies of the week, budgets spent in Canada generally are in the range of $1.5 million Canadian to $2.5 million Canadian, depending on where they go. They could go to a mainstream network in the U.S. - ABC, CBS, or NBC. Those are for movies of the week on television.

Then you have mini-series. If they're two hours long it's about the same. If they're four hours long you double it and if they're six hours long you triple it. These are rough numbers.

Then for the feature films that have been shot here, such as Jumanji starring Robin Williams and Timecop starring Jean-Claude Van Damme, the total budget was approximately $40 million to$60 million. Of that, Timecop probably would have spent $10 million in the province and Jumanji would probably have spent $15 million.

There is a vast range of product in the marketplace. X-Files, which is shot here as a series, spends about $2 million U.S. per week. And there are firearms associated with that production as well.

Mr. Kirkby: So even accepting the figure of $300 per day, adding that to the cost of those types of films is really not very much. The fluctuation of the Canadian currency vis-à-vis the U.S.'s would probably have a far more significant impact, would it not?

Mr. Adair: The Canadian currency valuation to the U.S. dollar is the largest contributing factor to productions being here. The competitive nature within the market for movies of the week, which form 40% of the market, is based on very small differences in margins on how they spend their money. At $300 a day, with a 20-day or 22-day shooting schedule for a movie of the week, it approaches the amount of money that is necessary to move them somewhere else other than here.

Mr. Kirkby: I have just one other comment here.

The Chairman: Quickly, though. We have to move along.

Mr. Kirkby: Say they have a $2 million budget. In the last month we've seen the Canadian dollar move from 73¢ to 75¢. That's about $40,000. That's certainly a lot more than the few hundred dollars we're talking about, so why would that few hundred be significant and not the $40,000?

Mr. Adair: Well, on the significance of the dollar, they'll often buy money ahead to protect themselves. Any business that's importing and exporting does try to take that into account.

The costs they have below the line are pattern budgets, which they run on half a dozen different production areas in North America. When the pattern budgets are affected in one particular area, they can drive that cost to go to another area, because we all compete.

The other problem that is a risk aversion factor is that if people involved with the film and television industry hear a rumour about something, as Andrew talked about with replicas, they get worried, and the risk factor is enough to drive them away. Even though they don't know the answer, it's just another reason for them not to be here.

The United States production, which supplies a lot of work and employment in Canada, is culturally desirous of staying there, not coming here.

The Chairman: Mr. Campbell.

Mr. Campbell: I would echo those sentiments by saying the States has lots of right-to-work states, such as North Carolina.

The producers for our respective provinces or even for Telefilm are essentially selling Canada. We're selling a location or a particular province, our world-class crews, and our locales to producers from around the world.

.1450

Quebec is involved in many co-productions with Australia, France, and England. We just finished a film with a budget of $128 million U.S., Day of the Jackal, with Bruce Willis and Richard Gere. About $12 million was spent in Canada. But because our laws presently work in favour of prohibited weapons, they were able to transport a seven-foot, .50-calibre machinegun from the States to London to Canada and back to the States with relative ease. As I said, they did it with relative ease because the laws are well facilitated enough to allow the easy transportation of these prohibited weapons from one country to the other by recognized industrial permit holders.

At the same time, that being said, they weren't, in my case, able to bring the restricted handguns over the border because I had no facilities within the Quebec interpretation of the law to rent those guns to the same stars. I had to have my own handguns used for the production up here and they had to be matched in two other countries. That's simply the way the law is set up here.

But it comes down to the fact that producers sell locales and sell a production package. I can't emphasize enough that while we are dealing with large-budget films in many cases - and again, Quebec is in the same boat - we may have low-budget films of $600,000, and the majority of the people who come into my shop needing to rent things are low-budget, first-time, student film-makers, theatre people, or people who are doing print advertising or doing a photo layout. I've had uses as diverse as those of a company that needed to rent a couple of fake Thompson sub-machinegun replicas so their actors could dress up like Al Capone and do the launch of a new drug product line. The uses are diverse.

And we cannot forget that in some cases it's not a situation of economics and whether the dollar is beneficial to us. We're also dealing with the fact that our business entails a wide variety of potential customers, and some of them do not have the large pocketbooks to allow someone like myself or one of my assistants to go on the set and sit there and babysit a rubber gun for the day, even though it poses no physical threat to the public at large - other than a menacing threat.

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

Monsieur de Savoye, this is your second round.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: I would like to get back to the matter of consultation. I believe I understood our witnesses to say today that they had been consulted three or four times. Are the results of those consultations in any way apparent in the draft regulations that we have been asked to review?

Mr. Gazale: Yes, they are in some cases, but on the motion picture side, rather than the theatre side. They paid attention to the big guys, but not to the little guys.

Mr. de Savoye: And what are the views of the motion picture people - the big guys?

Mr. Campbell: Well, we believe the consultations were useful, although we were all of the view that they had been held too late in the process, as they were needed before the legislation was passed. As part of the review of Bill C-17, I was asked to take part, as a representative of Canadian armourers, in several days of consultations with the Criminal Law Policy Section of the Department of Justice. We were asked what we needed to be able to perform our work. The problem is that now this time is being used to try and patch things up.

.1455

Mr. de Savoye: If I understand you correctly, Mr. Campbell and Mr. Gazale, the consultations that took place resolved a certain number of problems, but basically we are now trying to fix something that should never have been broken in the first place.

Mr. Chairman, the role of our Committee is to hear the witnesses' testimony and to clearly identify the irritants contained in the proposed regulations. We have been hearing testimony for a few days now, and again this afternoon, we find ourselves dealing not with just irritants, but with industries that are being bled dry because their way of operating is being called into question by these regulations.

There is an old American saying that goes: "Keep it simple". My impression is that however laudable and desirable were the goals of the bill I voted for, it is having a number of perverse effects - and I'm talking not only about your industry, but many others who have made representations - to the point where the positive effects of the regulations may be affected. We are not yet at the stage where we are ready to make recommendations, but when we do, I would like to see the Committee ask the Department of Justice to do its homework over again, as far as consultation and simplification are concerned.

I note that these regulations are trying to cover a great deal of ground and to make everyone fit the same mould. It's like trying to square the circle; it just won't work.

We will have to find simple ways of allowing these industries and business people, who do have a sense of responsibility, as well as technical know-how and expertise when it comes to controlling firearms, munitions or replicas - without which they would no longer be in business - to stay in business and not be prejudicially affected by the legislation, in order that the latter may take full effect.

I am realizing now that over the past three days, there has been a great deal more discussion of things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the legislation's objectives, namely public safety and less firearms-related violence - the very things I fought for to begin with. However, I have been sitting here for three days, and I see that we are not really talking about those things at all, because these draft regulations have all kinds of negative side effects.

Mr. Chairman, those were the comments I wanted to make to both our witnesses and my colleagues on the Committee. If this legislation is to be a success, as we hope it will, it will need to be simplified considerably.

Would our witnesses like to add anything to my comments?

[English]

The Chairman: Just to respond to Monsieur de Savoye, let me add that we don't, of course, have a mandate to deal with the legislation itself, but with respect to the regulations we can make any recommendations we see fit to the Minister of Justice.

We will be finalizing our hearings next Thursday. Our last witnesses will be the officials from the Department of Justice. We can make certain recommendations and in fact we can ask any questions we want. We hope that those hearings with the minister's officials will go on for as long as the committee feels they are receiving some satisfactory answers to their questions and some benefit. So we're not finished with our questioning of the department. Following our witnesses, we will then have a period of drafting our response to the minister.

So I think the process is in keeping with what I think all members want to do. Whether we all agree is another question. But we don't have to report back until February 21, 1997.

.1500

Mr. de Savoye: My purpose here, for you and for my colleagues, is to state the importance of looking - at this very moment - for specific recommendations to the ministry that will have the effect of simplifying some regulations, those regulations that obviously have no effect on the purpose for which we voted in the law. Those regulations have adverse effects of magnitudes that are being actually exposed to us and which we must take into account. If we don't, it will be counter-productive for this very law we wish to see implemented.

The Chairman: We can certainly make those recommendations.

Mr. de Savoye: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: I'm not taking this out of your time, Mr. de Savoye. You have some time yet.

Mr. de Savoye: I really don't have any further questions.

[Translation]

I have no further questions. I think the witnesses and the briefs they have presented have given us food for thought. I can only conclude, however, that what we're doing here is what you would call patchwork. I must say I deplore that approach. That is why it is my hope that the regulations will provide an opportunity for the Department to simplify a number of things, so that we can avoid having to plug holes after the fact, especially since these problems should not have arisen in the first place. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. de Savoye. I also want to thank you for your comments regarding the Committee's conclusions and objectives. I will now recognize Mr. Maloney.

[English]

Mr. Maloney (Erie): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to address this question to Mr. Adair or Mr. McLeod.

I found Mr. Campbell's comments on the more restrictive regime in Quebec rather interesting. The situation hasn't frightened the movie industry out of that province. In light of that, why do you feel Bill C-65 and the regulations thereunder would frighten productions out of B.C. and Alberta?

The Chairman: Mr. McLeod.

Mr. McLeod: I'll respond to that first.

When we were talking earlier about the large-budget films, the $40 million adventure films, the Jean-Claude Van Damme pictures, a project of that size is not going to be frightened away by the relatively small amount of money it has to throw at the legislation enacted in the country in which it's filming. It's the smaller projects that have much tighter budgets to control that will weigh these costs much more seriously.

The combined effect of the changes in Bill C-68 for the small-budget television series, movies of the week and small feature films...the cost increases those changes will cause are significant to their budgets. They will consider those along with everything else there is to consider, along with all of the other costs involved, and that, coupled with any insecurity as to our ability to complete the project with regard to firearms - or anything else for that matter - will weigh heavily on the decision of where they're going to shoot.

Most likely, there will not be massive publicized outcries with people saying they are now filming in Texas because it's too expensive in British Columbia to pay for the rubber guns. That, of course, is not going to happen. It isn't going to be that silly.

It's just that the difficulties with the flow of goods across borders and to and from suppliers of this material.... Permitting for other people to use on set has become a tradition that is now going to be changed. That will send shock waves through the low-budget industry, and it will send shock waves through the high-budget industry, although it tends to be able to withstand those kinds of shocks.

The Chairman: Mr. Adair, do you want to say something?

.1505

Mr. Adair: I believe that Neil has captured the essence of what's going on. Bigger-budget pictures are here because of the location and the big-budget items that are involved. Overall, it will not affect their budgets. They can eat those costs. The problem is that those pictures form a small percentage of our business.

We did forty movies of the week here last year. We have done fifteen or eighteen series television shows. They are the mainstream of our work and are very budget-conscious.

As far as the cost factor, the way the regulations have been designed it's going to cost you more money and it's going to cause you more problems. And if the company is forced to spend the money and doesn't have a million dollars plus the extra money for the gun regulations, they still have a million dollars and they're going to spend the other chunk of money on the directors and the producers. They're not going to take it out of their pockets.

And the only place this money is going to come from is one person's pocket...and that's the pockets of the person who works in Canada or who is a supplier in Canada. It's redistribution of the money if we want to keep that production here. It's distributed to the licencing costs and the costs that are driven by the regulations, and it has to come out of that million dollars. It doesn't come out of an extra amount of money that's suddenly available because of a regulation process.

The Chairman: Mr. Campbell.

Mr. Campbell: I must clarify an issue that you brought up in your statement. In fact, the producers who come to Quebec are not scared off because they don't know what they're being scared off of. To clarify that, my business is unique within the province of Quebec and is in fact unique for the rest of the eastern seaboard. We have a structure that is different from that of the IATSE unions in Toronto and Vancouver. I can think of four props people out of perhaps thirty or forty in Quebec who actually have FACs. The rest of them are perfectly content to make sure that the length of the cigarette is cut to the exact size for each take. That is their job. They want to know where the cup and saucer is on the table and where everything is placed properly. Frankly, they have grown up with a system that is not my doing, but my predecessors'.

The problem is that because they do not have FACs they have come to depend on my services to provide the use of firearms on a set. Again, in Vancouver, for example, they are allowed to have a props person with restricted weapons on a set. In fact, they can - or they used to be able to - get a carry permit for a certain production for a length of time and use those weapons pertaining specifically to that production. In Quebec that just doesn't exist.

Productions that go to Quebec are going there for the locale or for the better budget or for whatever deal the producer has worked out. But it is my company's responsibility, in effect, to make sure that it is cost-effective for them to do so.

If I were operating under the same principles or in the same situation as productions in Vancouver, it would be more costly for productions to come to Quebec, and then it would be an issue of whether they were scared off or not. But right now I've structured my business around the fact that I can supply low-cost replica weapons, for example, to a production for the duration of their shoot. And only at the specific times when they need to shoot or when there's a close-up do I come on. I am cost-effective to the production.

Renting out real firearms might be another way of doing it, but I'm not allowed to do that. It's just that there's a different structure between the two provinces and there's a different structure in the way we operate respective businesses for myself, let's say, or for the two other companies that are industrial permit holders in Vancouver. It's not a matter of them being scared off.

I can give you examples of companies that have come here and were scared off by the fact that under the implementation of the last set of C-17 regulations in fact I had to close down two sets, an American production and a Quebec-France co-production. I had to close them down for two weeks because I didn't have the proper licences to use. I had access to Vancouver-supplied, fully automatic, blank-only weapons, but I didn't have the large-capacity magazines because they weren't available to me in that period of October. Because I had to close them down for those two weeks, it cost them a whole lot of money and I was in hot water for a while.

.1510

We also lost three productions to Vancouver around that time because out there they had another set-up that I did not have in Quebec, another way of structuring their work habits. So we have lost business in that respect, but the structuring of my business in Quebec has been specifically to be cost-effective.

Mr. Maloney: Perhaps I could direct another question to Mr. Campbell on another topic, dealing with section 13.

On page 2, reference number 4 of your brief, you deal with concerns about on-location shooting. By my reading of section 13, it would apply to an individual. But you are a business. Do you still have the same concerns? Am I misunderstanding something here?

Mr. Campbell: Yes, I was concerned that I didn't see the exemption for industries supplying firearms. That was what I was bringing up. Perhaps it is. Again, I'm not well versed in reading every section of it. My understanding was that it was an overall, blanket situation. Perhaps it does cover it in another place, but I just didn't find it. I was raising that issue in case it had been.

Mr. Maloney: As my reading of section 13 referred to it, it starts with ``An individual may load'', etc. Perhaps we can clarify that with the justice department officials before you leave.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would direct one more question to Mr. McLeod.

In response to a question by my colleague about whether your business or your props pose a threat to public safety, I think your answer was no. Is that correct?

Mr. McLeod: No, I would not have answered no, it poses no problem, or no, it has no impact on public safety. Of course any time material like this is in existence, is available, and is being moved from point A to point B, there is a potential threat to public safety there. I think the point I was trying to make, if I have your question correct, is that we do everything we possibly can to eliminate a threat to public safety on the one hand. On the other hand, some of the material that we are able to use and possess and that is classified as restricted is as significant a potential threat to public safety as material that will, when enacted, become prohibited. In that sense, the irony of that is just perplexing.

But in terms of answering the question having to do with public safety, of course real firearms are dangerous weapons, and we in our industry are self-policing. I think we police this material to a higher degree than certainly any other industry, any other user group, on a regular basis. Perhaps the CFOs could comment on that as well. I am not aware of any procedures that exist within our industry that I would say pose a threat to public safety, other than the obvious situation, that being that firearms are dangerous objects and they need that level of protection from the general public.

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

For our final questions, we'll go to Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: Yes, I'd just like to follow up on what Mr. Adair has said. I accept his explanation; it makes sense to me. What we're really looking at here is the potential danger that firearms represent. So we're looking at an act and regulations that will not remove those objects from society. We're questioning whether or not this bill will govern the handling of those objects in a way that will contribute to greater public safety.

.1515

So it boils down to the fact that as long as you don't go berserk, Mr. Adair, and you don't allow those firearms to get into the hands of people who have gone berserk or who have become irrational and would like to harm themselves or their family members or members of the public, you don't pose a threat to society.

Certainly your firearm locked up in your cabinet in an acceptable manner does not pose a threat. It only poses a threat when it's in the hands of people who have lost their rationality and wish to use it to harm someone. That's the whole intent of the bill.

The fact of the matter is we have heard testimony, not only on these regulations but on the bill itself, that indicates that museums, re-enactment organizations, gun clubs, hunting groups, armoured vehicle industries, including Brink's and Loomis, firearm manufacturing companies, of which we have two in this country, guides and outfitters, the movie industry, and the performing arts use firearms, but they're under extremely strict control. The control of those firearms does not impose any threat whatever to society, and the bill has not been designed or motivated because of a threat that comes from any of these industries.

So your industry is being regulated by this bill, and the negative impact of those regulations is what we have been trying to get at. Basically, that's the thrust of it. I don't support the bill because of these reasons and other reasons.

Nevertheless, I want to touch on and ask this question, and perhaps you could comment on it. It's more of a statement. If your consultations with the officials of the justice department have availed little or nothing - and I guess if it had availed what you wanted you wouldn't be here today - I doubt whether our recommendations that simply contain the concerns you've already placed before the justice department, and to no avail, will have any effect.

You're moving one step further away from the people who have the power to change these regulations to us. You've already placed your concerns and your requests before those people, and now you're coming to us. We're the final individuals who can make the recommendations, but inasmuch as they've already been made, probably as eloquent and as specific as you've made them here, I just don't see very much hope that our recommendations will have more impact than you in living blood had upon the officials themselves.

I hope I'm wrong and I hope the recommendations will come forward, because I think all members of the committee, regardless of our political persuasion, see there is a need for exemptions and for some amendments to the regulations or perhaps the bill itself that will allow the third party, and you people to me, all these industries that are swept into this picture simply because you happen to use firearms in your business and do so under very strict regulations, simply because you're there.... I don't think it's fair. In fact, I think what is happening is wrong.

Inasmuch as it threatens the economic stability and viability of some of these groups.... We were told this morning that the guides and outfitters represent approximately $2 billion in Canada - or at least the hunting that occurs within Canada represents that much - and some of this might be negatively impacted upon by the bill and the regulations.

.1520

We heard from the re-enactment organizations yesterday that if these regulations go through.... One individual said at least his organization would become extinct. He didn't say it may; he said it would become extinct.

So I have great concern over what is happening to what I call the third parties in this whole thing, where there is no motivation from the way you've been handling guns to bring about this kind of regulation of your industry. I do not see how the registration of rifles and shotguns will reduce the criminal use of them inasmuch as if the firearm is in my hands and I go berserk, the law is simply not going to stop me from going over and visiting Gordon Kirkby.

I don't know if you have any comments on that. I'm distressed over the bill, and as we hear more and more evidence of the concern it's going to cause within innocent industries that do not pose a threat to public safety, I become all the more concerned about it.

The Chairman: Well, we just hope that Mr. Ramsay never goes berserk. There are people in Canada who will say there have been members of Parliament from time to time who have done just that, but we won't get into that.

I would like to go to Mr. Campbell for a last word before we adjourn.

Mr. Campbell: I'll try to make it brief, sir.

I will try to be apolitical about my comprehension of this whole situation. When Bill C-80 came into the public view, there were a lot of groups such as myself or my particular type of movie industry group who made their voices heard early on in the process. Because of that, there were many groups who then became part of the process. I was fortunate enough to be part of that. In fact, certain propositions I made actually made it into the law almost word for word. I felt fortunate to be part of that.

When this new law came into effect, my feeling - and I don't know if it is shared by others - was that it was pushed through quite quickly. We have now come upon the deficits of that pushing process, let's call it. To be fair, I said a prayer when I found Carolyn Saint-Denis within the justice department, because here was someone who actually could give me answers. In that respect, what she and her group have done since that time is to try to make something out of what has essentially already been passed into law. But there's a lot of catching up to do. We now have to either re-create the law or go back and fix it up, because essentially it is patchwork.

If, as the statutes outline here, in their summaries, they are in fact trying to re-create section 3 of the Criminal Code and simplify it in its own way, perhaps that is what it's doing. I just know the impact on our industry, and as you found out with others, is that in fact it has created more problems than it has solved.

The entertainment industry is a cloistered industry. We do things that in any other aspect would be considered illegal, immoral, what have you. But that is the nature of modern teleplays, the modern story. Sometimes my job in fact entails helping out a director not to go a certain route that would seem more violent than another way and dissuade them against using a certain type of firearm, but that's the nature of the way I've structured my business.

The bottom line is that whatever the intent of the law, and certainly the intent is always to try to maintain public peace, I hope we do not present, as you have indicated, a threat to that public peace.

We use firearms as tools in our business, the same way a die-maker would use certain tools to create his manufacturing items. We now have to find a way.... Because our tools have a perception of being dangerous to the public, we are stuck within this law; we are stuck within a very difficult situation for us if the replica statutes come into effect. We are going to be in hot water with producers and the public, and then it will come back to haunt the people who passed the law.

.1525

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Campbell.

Mr. Gazale, do you want to say a couple of words?

Mr. Gazale: I think it's important to keep in mind that the live performing arts are very dissimilar to film in that the use of weaponry is extremely sporadic. It's usually driven by the needs of an individual production.

In answer to something Mr. Ramsay asked earlier, I've thought of at least four of the twelve plays that I've done where the message of the piece was anti-violence. The weapon in it was a means to an end, which was anti-violence or anti-weapons. And don't forget the vast number of people who are amateurs.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. McLeod, did you want to say a couple of words before we leave?

Mr. McLeod: Thank you very much. Yes, I would.

I wanted to comment a bit on the consultation process. Throughout that process I always felt that the people involved, the Canadian Firearms Centre, worked very hard and diligently to sort this out. However, my personal opinion has to do with the speed at which this act was pushed through and enacted, and the aggressive way in which it was driven through the government.

In fact, as I read through this, the language of the act itself is punitive. I feel that -

The Chairman: Excuse me. We're just dealing with the regulations today, Mr. McLeod. We don't have any power to deal with the act.

Mr. McLeod: I know that. The comment I want to make is that I believe the people involved in the Canadian Firearms Centre have worked diligently to sort this out, but the fundamental problem has to do with the language of the act itself. We will be working on a solution to the language of this act for a long time.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Adair.

Mr. Adair: I would echo the comments of Andrew, Alex and Neil. There have been significant changes to the regulations because of the consultative process. But the regulations are so all-encompassing and our business as an industry touches so many different aspects of the regulations, it's as if when you push one button in, you've fixed that and two others pop out. With the interconnection in the way the regulations are written, if there's not a problem here, there's one over there. That's why I would give high praise to the people at the justice department who have worked with us and recognized our problem.

We did not, unfortunately, make a big enough stink at the time the act was being presented. We did not see it as threatening, as I guess we should have. We did make the government aware of that. There was no action on it. Now we're trying to patch it together. I'm hopeful that a good patch can be made and am thankful to be part of the process. Any sort of guidance we've been given through this process has very much been due to the Canadian Firearms Centre and their working with us.

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

We've already had one break, which is that the witness who was to follow you was not able to appear this afternoon. We were able to go well overtime and get full discussion of this question as it concerns the theatre and the movie industry. You can be sure that we will weigh your comments. It's been most helpful, most interesting.

As Monsieur de Savoye said at the beginning, we thank you for sharing those secrets. Those of us who are fans of the X-Files will watch, Mr. McLeod, to see if the guns float on the next episode. I think we're all theatre and movie buffs here, and it was a pleasure. We know you spent a lot of time educating us. Thank you for your time and your attention.

.1530

Members of the committee, tomorrow we have two witnesses. We will begin at 9 a.m. and expect to finish at 11:30 a.m. Unfortunately I will not be able to be here, so Mr. Maloney will be in the chair.

We are adjourned until tomorrow morning.

Return to Committee Home Page