EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, February 3, 1997

.1007

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, for being here this morning.

All members of the committee, I hope you had a very fine weekend. It's a pleasure this morning to renew the hearings on the proposed firearms amendments.

We have with us this morning from Yellowknife, via video-teleconferencing, Mr. Erasmus. We want to welcome you this morning, sir, and thank you for participating with the committee. I know it's a little earlier in Yellowknife than it is here. We would like to hear your presentation, following which we would appreciate it if you would allow us to ask some questions. So please, sir, begin whenever you're ready.

Chief Bill Erasmus (Dene Nation): Thank you. My name is Chief Bill Erasmus. I am vice-chief of the Assembly of First Nations and also the national chief of the Dene Nation.

The Dene Nation constitutes the people from roughly the Alberta-Saskatchewan-Manitoba border up north to the Beaufort Sea, and we cover roughly 30 communities. Traditionally we are hunters and gatherers, people who have always used the land. In our language, the land where we live we call Denendeh, which basically means the land of our people.

I want to talk about concerns that have arisen from the way Canada has gone about proposing the legislation and now the regulations that are to guide the implementation of the legislation. I want to talk about that, and then I'm prepared to answer questions.

.1010

I just want to let you know Gary Bohnet from the Métis Association is not present this morning, at least not at this time. If he is unable to be here, I'm quite prepared to carry on the discussion a little longer, because there are quite a number of things I'd like to say and time constraints will probably limit us.

The Chairman: Well, certainly if he comes, Chief Erasmus, we'll hear his presentation. He could come in anytime during your presentation and we'd allow him to speak, but if you feel there's something he would have said that we won't hear if he's not present, feel free to add it.

We have an hour. We'd like to leave at least half an hour for questions, but we would like also to get the benefit of the concerns, certainly of the Dene Nation.

Chief Erasmus: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I can't see the other participants in the room, but I welcome them in this discussion. I know they're members of the other parties in Ottawa.

Our people are concerned that the consultation method provided throughout the hearings has not satisfied our peoples, primarily because we were not guided through the process in a cooperative way, meaning Canada and we never really sat down and said we both have a problem that needs to be addressed. Rather what happened was - and we all know the reasons the gun legislation has come forward - Canada came to us and presented us with a package, a method. Basically it's been forced upon us.

There are countless letters, motions, and directions from our communities that make it very clear we're not happy with the way it's come about. I would like to talk about an approach that might work, something that can help us have a meeting of the minds. I don't believe it's too late to do that.

We recently went through a court case in the north here. Earlier I mentioned we are hunters and gatherers. We are also people who are party to Treaties No. 8 and 11. Those are historic number treaties. We also have people who are party to recent modern treaties, such as the Gwich'in agreement and the Sahtu Dene and Métis agreement, which is more recent.

We have people also who are in discussions with Canada trying to work out the land and the self-government arrangement that we're going to continue to have with Canada. The whole idea is we're supposed to cooperate.

We were forced to participate in a recent court case called R. v. Benoit Noel. Benoit Noel is the name of an elder who lives just outside of Yellowknife. He's a member of our community here; he lives in Dettah. He's an old-age pensioner who went hunting for caribou and was apprehended because he shot the caribou within a specific corridor that was set up by the territorial government.

The territorial government did that without adequately working with us, and we went through the court process - a lengthy, time-consuming process that we didn't like, but in the end we were able to convince Canada that our treaty and our own laws that we have always had ought to prevail. We won the court case at the Supreme Court of the NWT level. The territorial government has refused to appeal it to the Supreme Court of Canada, so the ruling stands.

.1015

Basically, our rights are still intact. Our right to govern ourselves, our right to take care of ourselves, our right to work and cooperate with Canada are still there. That is why we call ourselves nations.

Our treaties are international. As you know, Treaties 8 and 11 are with the British Crown, which represented Canada at the time. In those treaties there were two nations of people meeting, and there was a list of agreements that would kick in at that time. Treaty No. 8 occurred in 1899, and Treaty No. 11 occurred in 1921. They're within living memory of some of our elders. Those people tell us - and these are written into the treaty - what the provisions are for our traditional economy.

Now, I'm referring to our economy because hunting and trapping are part of our economy and a big part of that includes the use of firearms. We were one of the last peoples whom Canada approached to have a relationship. It was clearly understood we would always maintain our way of life and that our mode of life - the wording in the treaty - would not be interfered with. That means Canada cannot impose upon us legislation or regulations that are going to change our relationships, both among ourselves and with the subjects of Canada.

With that in mind, look at the approach taken in this instance. Canada assumes we are Canadian citizens. Canada assumes you and I are the same kind of people in this country, and Canada wants to take a blanket approach to gun use.

I may be simplifying the approach Canada has taken, but broadly that's what they're doing. In the final instance, they say: They may have some kinds of rights, but we're not quite sure what they are. The courts haven't really defined them. We really haven't spelled them out in negotiations. The treaties are vague, they're old, we need modern ones. Somehow we're going to take care of your rights. We may have a non-derogation clause that says if you do have rights, they will not be abrogated.

It's got a twist that doesn't really give it the kind of language necessary to prolong and preserve our existence.

I want to talk about something I think can work. The royal commission recently came out with an extensive report. The parties within the Canadian parliamentary system have commented on it. Some say it costs too much money and some want to shelve it. Some say that if they're going to recognize the rights we have and implement them and work truly as partners, it's going to cost too much money. Others like some of the ideas, but are not quite sure how to implement them.

Essentially the report says that as nations we have rights. It says we have our own economy, our own language, our own land base, our own history, own values, and our own decision-making and that Canada is obligated to live up to them. Canada has to work with us.

It says that if the treaties say we gave up rights to Canada, we gave up our land, we ceded, released, and surrendered, the intent was never there. I'm saying that because Canada has one version of the treaties and we have the other. It says if there is an oral understanding, that oral understanding has to be taken into consideration. The oral understanding has to be on par with the written.

.1020

Expert witnesses before you, for example, and before Canadian courts, can also be oral...people who may not have a doctorate in the western sense.

It recognizes the Canadian institutional way of doing things, and it recognizes the Dene institutional way of doing things. The beauty of it is although it says we've had a poor relationship in the past, for whatever reason, that relationship now can be brought together if there's mutual understanding and mutual trust.

For example, if you believe the guns we possess are for hunting purposes and if you believe we've always had safety measures and have always been concerned about the use of firearms... We learned as children, for example, that you never point a gun at a person and you never point a gun at anything unless you're prepared to shoot. When you do shoot you don't go out and slaughter whatever. You make sure that you know what the animal is and you then take only what you need. If you believe that and you believe we are not possessing guns to form some kind of revolution or whatever - if you're not afraid of us - the trust factor is such that we can work something out.

I think we have to understand that the legislation cannot supersede our treaties. You have to understand that. The legislation can't supersede them and the regulations can't, and the policies that guide the legislation cannot be weaselled in such a way that they do not recognize us.

The approach you have to take is recognizing that we are two separate peoples and that we have an obligation to work together. That's what the royal commission talks about; it says we can do it. There has to be some reconciliation; we basically have to kiss and make up.

I stress that because I think Canada, especially when it was most convenient, tried to make us part of you. We're not part of you and you're not part of us, so why try to make us into the same? We're different. But those differences can be recognized, and I believe there are more commonalities than clear differences that separate us. I'm not talking the language that Quebec is talking, about sovereignty and not being a part of Canada and so on; I'm not talking that. We have treaties with you that clearly say - and Great Britain was your representative at the time - we allow you access to our lands and in return you respect the way we live and we will always work together. They're peace and friendship arrangements.

So don't confuse what I say with what Lucien Bouchard and other people are trying to say and do in a country called Canada.

Those are my initial comments. I don't want to go on too much longer because I think I've made my point. I'm prepared for questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Chief Erasmus.

We will now go to members of the committee for questions, and we will begin withMr. de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye (Portneuf): Chief Erasmus, I listened closely to what you said and took note of the point that your perspective should not be confused with that of Lucien Bouchard. Rest assured that I will not get the two confused because I'm very familiar with Mr. Bouchard's views and I'm also very happy to learn about yours.

.1025

I understood from what you said that you have rights as nations and that relations between Canada and your nations must be based on understanding and trust. You also say that regulation should not take precedence over treaties, that we are two different peoples and that we must work together. You feel that Canada has tried to make you a part of us, when in truth we are different - all of this, of course, within a firearms regulations context. I think, however, that what you are saying extends beyond this concept.

Chief Erasmus, I would like to know what you see unfolding within a climate of trust and understanding. What would you suggest that the Minister of Justice do in order to reconcile your interests and ours, that is ensuring public safety.

[English]

Chief Erasmus: Thank you very much. Merci beaucoup, monsieur.

Not to get into the specifics of what might be done - I just wanted to make my position clear and I'm glad you understood clearly what I was saying - I think what can be done in a world that could be... It's a global approach, because gun law is just a small part of what we're talking about. I think what we have to do - and the Assembly of First Nations has been talking about this. Ovide Mercredi, le grand chef, will most likely speak to it later this morning.

We're asking, as the royal commission also asks, that leaders from our people sit down with leaders from Canada and forge the relationship the way it should have been forged in the beginning - or the way it was. At one time we didn't fight one another. When the treaties were made our people got along quite well. This is the way I understand it. I spoke with one of our elders yesterday. He's almost 100 years old; he was alive at our last treaty and was a young man then. He said that we had a good relationship and that you wanted our furs, we needed your staples, and we worked together and intermarried.

I'm part French and proud to say I'm part French. My grandmother used to speak to me in French, so I can understand your language fairly well if you don't speak too quickly. I'm also proud of being Dene. I was brought up as a Dene person, but I appreciate the French and the language. It's very similar, I find.

I can't fight the French people, I can't fight Canada, and I can't fight my own people. My role is to bring people together. That's why I'm called le grand chef.

When we try to get through to the Minister of Justice...we tell them to get the executive arm of their government, which is the cabinet, to understand because they have a lot of discretionary authority. You don't have to make legislation. The laws of Canada, as I understand them, are such that you can delay legislation. You can do a whole number of things so that legislation doesn't kick in and offend anyone. There are reserve powers, there are ways to take a second look at this.

Many times in history laws are passed too quickly or with not enough insight or pure understanding of the issue. Canada's history and everyone else's history has gone through that. I think we can all admit it in this instance, because of pressure from people in cities, because of pressure from situations such as that in Montreal, where Mr. Lépine shot the students. That put a lot of pressure on Canada and Canada tried to respond, but I don't think Canada was clear in its thinking.

.1030

They don't understand the implications of all the nations we have. We have at least 52 languages among my people, for example. Now we have to explain this in our own language. There are five languages within my people. We have to explain what all of this is. English is not a dominant language among all of us.

If Canada neglected to handle all of this as they ought to - and the courts and our treaties say they have to handle it in a certain way. We're going into the 21st century. It's not as though we don't read and write. Our eyes are wide open. We know what we're doing. We know where we're going.

I think we have to sit down and ask what we both want and how we can get together, instead of having one trying to impose upon the other. We're always going to resist. I have a whole generation behind me that is much more articulate than I'm ever going to be. Those people are going to be much more radical in their approach because we've waited a long time.

Without posing a threat, why don't we bring onside all those young people, who think clearly, who know the computer world, and who want to assist Canada? Why don't we get those young people onside rather than bring up a whole generation of people who are going to fight Canada like I've had to do all my life? That's what I'm talking about.

So, Minister of Justice and our people, let's sit down and let's begin to talk long term. How can we assist the Canadian economy? How can we assist Canada's culture? How can we put our values together so that we have a better society? How can we work together so that when I go south I feel just as comfortable as when I'm in the north, where I'm part of a majority? I'm part of a majority here in my homeland. When I go south I'm in a minority situation. A lot of times I don't feel comfortable when I go south.

So how can we make this country a better place? That's what we're talking about. It's not fighting for the sake of fighting. We don't want to do that. I have children. I'm going to be a grandfather soon. I want to take care of my grandchildren and make sure they have a secure future.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Grand Chief Erasmus, I'm very open to what you have said and I hope that we will have enough wisdom to find a solution that meets these concerns.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. de Savoye.

[English]

Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chief Erasmus, thank you for your presentation this morning. Your concerns focused on a broad area of rights and concerns and did not focus very much on the specifics of this bill or the regulations, so let me ask you this. Did the Government of Canada ask you and your people about the threat posed to the public and personal safety by the use of firearms by the Dene Nation?

Chief Erasmus: I'm not sure that I understand your question.

Mr. Ramsay: In the creation of this bill, when the government moved forward to put the bill together, it did so on the basis of public safety, that this is a public safety bill and the regulations pertaining to it are directed at public and personal safety. My question is, did they consult the leaders of the Dene people to determine whether or not the use of firearms by your people was creating a personal or public threat to safety within your community?

.1035

Chief Erasmus: There are a number of ways I can answer this, but first I suppose I can say that Canada did consult. The question is how you define consultation and whether or not we really responded the way they wanted us to. There was an exchange of letters prior to the early drafting of the bill. We had correspondence back and forth.

We had some discussion at our assembly two years ago, in 1995, with one of the senators from British Columbia. Last summer people from the justice department attended our assembly, and we did have some discussion on the bill. It was very limited. There was not a lot of money available to bring people together and get their views.

I made a presentation before the standing committee in Ottawa before legislation was passed. They did ask us about public safety. But then again you have to ask who the public is. We have our own public, the Dene. We have our own members. We're responsible to our own public. That's what I was getting at earlier.

``Public'' has to be defined in such a way that it recognizes all the different kinds of aboriginal people that you have. There's an Inuit public, a Métis public, a first nations public, and each of those people is governed differently and have a different relationship with Canada.

The Canadian public is something else, and that's what I was getting at earlier. They're concerned about the Canadian public and so are we. We've always administered and led our people so that no one possessed a firearm if we knew they were dangerous. Our chiefs and our leaders always took care of that. We didn't need jails or institutions to take care of those people. We just didn't let them have firearms. If we had people who had major problems, we counselled them and took care of them. We took care of our own people. That's how we survived for thousands and thousands of years. Firearms are just a recent introduction to our lives, but there were other weapons, other means of survival. We've always had ways to take care of our own members.

If Canada were to approach us and say we know there are 1.5 million descendants of your people in this country, we want to work with you, you have your own institutions and they work, and then we need to work with the general population at large, so let's design a way, our leaders would be quite prepared to work with the courts and the Canadian institutions. We could tell you which people are dangerous. We could tell you who shouldn't get a firearms certificate. We can tell you whether someone's gun should be taken away for ten years. We know our members.

Public safety is a concern and Canada did talk to us about it, but as for coming up with solutions we haven't really had that discussion.

Mr. Ramsay: I thank you for that. Do the Dene people need Bill C-68 and its regulations to provide for public safety? Does this bill address a public safety problem with the way firearms are being used by your people? That's an essential issue as far as the bill is concerned with regard to providing for public safety. Do your people need the provisions of Bill C-68 to enhance public safety within your community regarding the use of firearms? That's basically the thrust of the bill.

.1040

Chief Erasmus: Thank you, sir.

I don't think we need Bill C-68. If you really want my legal view on it - I'm not a lawyer, but I know our laws and I know Canada's laws fairly well, from my political background - I point-blankly think the laws don't apply to us because of the legal situation that I mentioned earlier. I don't think the laws apply to us. As to whether or not the laws are going to help us, I think not, because in most instances we are not a threat to anyone in society. If you want the real truth, Canadian society is more of a threat to us than we are to it. It's been designed that way over the years. That's what we have to talk about.

Mr. Ramsay: All right.

I and my party oppose the bill for a number of reasons, and the lack of consultation with the aboriginal people is a very disturbing factor. Testimony about a lack of consultation is on the record. It seems the government's approach was to create a bill without your input and now the government seeks your participation to implement and administer the bill.

I have some concerns about entering into agreements and treaties, and we have some concerns about some of the recent ones, but after they have been signed I think we're duty bound and honour bound to abide by those conditions. When I hear testimony that there are consultative requirements within those agreements, which are now appendages to the Constitution of the country, and yet they seem to have been violated or not heeded in accordance with the understanding of both parties, I have a lot of concern.

We have heard from a number of groups of people who use firearms, and the discipline within those groups is such that they pose no threat to society, to public safety, as a result of the manner in which they handle those firearms. Yet this bill is going to regulate those organizations, and some of the witnesses claim that it will regulate them out of existence.

I would like to see a balance that represents the common sense of not only those organizations but also of aboriginal communities. Yet we don't see that. Group after group that appeared before our committee said there was a lack of adequate consultation about the impact the bill was going to have upon them and their lives and whether or not they really needed this kind of regulation to enhance public safety within their organization.

Now we're hearing your testimony, added to that which we heard when the bill was before the committee originally. It doesn't seem to me, from what you're telling us, that it's going to enhance public safety in the handling of firearms within your communities.

Am I correct in saying that, Chief Erasmus, or in coming to that conclusion?

Chief Erasmus: Mr. Ramsay, I think you're right on. I met you before, and I believe we talked a little bit about this. I forget which party you're from; I don't know if it's Reform -

Mr. Ramsay: It's the Reform Party, yes.

Chief Erasmus: - but I'm not really worried about what party you're from. All the parties in the Canadian system are the same to me, to tell you the truth, and I don't think it's important what party you're from. You're a person and you have concerns. You chose to live in Canada, or your ancestors did, and we chose to work with you. That's the way I look at it.

I think your analysis is right on. Common sense should prevail. I learned as a child and I've already taught my son... My boy is thirteen years old and he knows how to use a gun. He takes care of his gun. The gun is not in the house. We never bring it into the house. It's in the warehouse. It's always in the warehouse, under lock and key. He never points it at anyone. He knows how to use it when he walks with a gun, when it's in a boat - in all instances.

.1045

We're taught that from a very young age, and we feel... I don't know the word in English. I feel threatened, I guess, when someone suggests I'm a threat to society because I have that gun and that I'm going to take that gun and use it against someone else. That's not what it's for.

We are hunters and we are gatherers. We've always survived that way, and we know we're going to continue to survive that way in the future. We're dependent on caribou. We're caribou people, and if we don't have caribou in our diet, we're not going to survive. It's as simple as that. My boy knows that, and he and his friends the same age know that. They go out hunting together, and they bring back food for the table. They're already feeding our community.

Canada should recognize that there's a young man who's already responsible, who's already putting food on the table, and who's already thinking, ``I want to know the land. I want to know what my ancestors have always known, but I also want to know the western world.'' That kid is a whiz at computers. He has a good mind, and he'll probably go to college. He's a good athlete, and he has a chance to make the NHL if he pushes hard enough.

What I'm saying is if common sense prevails, we can help the people in the cities who are afraid of one another, who have handguns and can't go to sleep at night because they think someone's going to bust into their apartment. That's where the concern is. It's not in our small, isolated communities, where we've always taken care of ourselves. The question is how do you get rid of the violence in the urban situations? How do you work with someone who doesn't have any food on the table, maybe is homeless, is in a desperate situation, and gets hold of a gun? We shouldn't have people in that situation to begin with.

Common sense has to prevail. We want to sit down and try to work it out with you.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Chief Erasmus.

Now we'll move on to Ms Whelan.

Ms Whelan (Essex - Windsor): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chief Erasmus, I want to premise my questions based on what happened in Bill C-68. One of the important amendments that did come out of discussions and concerns raised by aboriginal people is the amendment to subsection 2(3), which is often referred to as the non-derogation clause. It says:

For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Paragraph 117(u) of that same act talks about how the regulations that apply to any of the aboriginal peoples of Canada will be made, and we're here to discuss the regulations today.

I'm just not sure I understand what your concern is with the specific regulations that have been set out. Maybe you could outline that a little bit more. I understand you're concerned about the process, but in terms of the specific regulations, could you outline some of the concerns you have?

Chief Erasmus: Thank you, Ms Whelan.

What I was trying to get at earlier is precisely what you're saying. Canada tries to address the situation. Because they've been forced to recognize our people in recent years, through court cases, through lobbying, and because of the human rights situation that's taken place all over the world, they're trying to deal with that.

The way they deal with us is like this. They say ``Here's a piece of legislation. Here is the country, and there are all these people here. We're being forced into recognizing that aboriginal or first nations people have rights, so we'll throw a clause in there that says this is not going to derogate.''

.1050

Well, it's very little comfort. It doesn't give any comfort whatsoever. It's window-dressing to make the system look like they're indeed going to protect us.

What happens - and this is what I was talking about earlier - is we're still going to the courts. We're being forced into the courts to say the rights are there. And Canada recognizes them. Sections 25 and 35 of the Canadian Constitution say the rights are there, they exist, and they're firm. The only thing it doesn't say is that they have to be implemented.

That's what I'm talking about. How do we implement? How do we get away from just non-derogation? How do you take the next step and say ``We're not going to derogate, and this is what we're going to do: the first nations will work with us, and in the interest of public safety,'' or however you want to word it, ``their institutions will guide so this legislation doesn't conflict''?

Our chiefs and councils may put into effect their own legislation that amalgamates with Canada's.

Ms Whelan: The Minister of Justice tried to respond specifically to your concern when he tabled with the proposed regulations on November 27, 1996, a commitment to embark on discussions with the aboriginal communities regarding their participation in the very administration of the legislation, because many of the aboriginal communities and organizations supported and advocated community administration of the legislation.

That came about through the consultation process, which you were very much involved in from the beginning. From my understanding, you had one of the first meetings with the minister back in October 1994. Since then there's been a public meeting as well as letters in 1995 and a further public meeting or consultation process in 1996.

I understand there are not as many hours as we'd all like for everyone to sit around the table, but at the same time, you were part of the process. We're trying to deal with the regulations as they exist today and ensure that your concerns as they exist are dealt with.

I'm just wondering, again, if you have any specific concerns with the regulations as they're drafted.

Chief Erasmus: Thank you.

I'm glad you mentioned the meeting we had with the Minister of Justice. That took place in Yellowknife, and I think it was the day before my birthday, so I remember the meeting.

The minister is the same age as I am. We're young men who have lived in this country all our lives. He looked very ambitious at the time. I remember quite well. He had young staff with him who were energetic and wanted to make changes.

I welcomed him to our part of the world here and said ``Thank you for meeting with me. Thank you for recognizing that we have our own laws, our own system of justice, and our own way of doing things. I propose you sit down with our chiefs and find out what those laws are so we are not fighting with you.''

That didn't happen. I suggest you find the verbatim report of those meetings and check out what we said. That's entirely what I said.

What took place was something else. They did not recognize the laws of the Dene. They didn't. That's clear. They said ``This is what's going to go forward''. We said a lot, not only there, but in other meetings.

Now, after the fact, they're asking us to help them with the regulations. Well, we're not going to do that. That's been the problem in the past. Our people couldn't read and write in the past. Our people could not convey their view in the past. Today, I speak English, you speak English, you hear me clearly, and my view is not going to change.

Ms Whelan: Thank you very much, Chief Erasmus.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms Whelan.

Chief Erasmus, we want to thank you very much, sir, for taking the time to be with us this morning and for agreeing to take part through video-teleconferencing. You made your points quite clearly and we appreciate them. We will certainly reflect upon them. Thank you again, and we wish you well.

Chief Erasmus: Thank you. It was a pleasure to speak to you.

.1055

I think there is an opportunity for us to work this through. I know we're not the only people who are concerned. We have many non-aboriginal people who also bring their concerns to us. Generally we have a pretty good relationship with them up in the north here. I know they're concerned, we're concerned, and if the will is there, we can work it out.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, sir. Chief Erasmus, there's always been a good working relationship with you and with the Dene Nation, and we appreciate the frankness of the discussion. Thank you very much.

Chief Erasmus: Thank you.

The Chairman: We'll now take a five-minute break while we wait for our next witness.

.1056

.1103

The Chairman: We are now prepared to resume our hearings into the proposed regulations under the Firearms Act. We're very pleased to have with us Grand Chief Ovide Mercredi from the Assembly of First Nations.

Welcome, sir. We look forward to your presentation, and we thank you for the time you've taken to be with us this morning. Following your presentation, we hope you will grant the members of the committee an opportunity to pose questions to you. So in the interest of the time allotted, we would now like you to begin your presentation whenever it's convenient.

Chief Ovide Mercredi (National Chief, Assembly of First Nations): Thank you.Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I welcome the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the first nations of Canada.

Before I begin, I will ask this committee one very important question: Does the federal government intend to use the Firearms Act to further diminish our first nations way of life? If it does, then it is breaking the supreme law of Canada, which protects the treaty and aboriginal rights of first nations all across this country. By disregarding these rights, the Firearms Act is in direct contravention of section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982, which recognizes and affirms aboriginal and treaty rights.

.1105

In my presentation this morning, I must reiterate the assertions I made to the Minister of Justice that proper consultations never took place with first nations. Sending a series of letters and faxes, and conducting telephone conversations with the AFN staff and other first nations representatives do not constitute proper consultations.

Furthermore, the justice minister's so-called consultations with first nations groups and various regional tribal councils have been nothing more than mere information sessions, in which his department officials simply informed our people on how the legislation was going to be drafted, and how it was going to impact on first nations hunters.

I have met with the minister on several occasions to discuss the very real problem this legislation would create for many first nations communities. I have stated to him that the existing and current legislation was an unjustified interference with the constitutionally protected section 35 on aboriginal and treaty rights.

I also indicated to the minister that on behalf of the first nations of Canada, the AFN would not participate in any ``consultation'' process that would not discuss the issue of treaty and aboriginal rights and ensure that they were protected from this legislation.

The problem is the statute. It cannot be perfected through regulations, and the regulations cannot override constitutionally protected rights. This means the only answer is to exempt my people from the provisions of the Firearms Act. I reiterated these concerns in my letter to him of December 3, 1996, to which he has chosen not to respond.

Despite these concerns, the Liberal government has nevertheless chosen to unilaterally develop the current legislation without proper consultations with the first nations people.

The AFN has continually stated that it will not participate in any discussions to abrogate or derogate from treaty and aboriginal rights.

The non-derogation clause respecting aboriginal and treaty rights that is contained in the legislation will subject first nations hunters to unfair and needless prosecutions for activities that are not criminal in nature or intent.

The new, stricter gun control legislation is in direct conflict with the first nations way of life, and poses a serious violation of aboriginal and treaty rights. While we support the broad underlying objectives of the legislation, such as the reduction of incidents of violent crime and enhancing safety in the Canadian society in general, restrictions to paramilitary weapons, and the increase in mandatory minimum sentences for people convicted of using firearms in the commission of an offence, the interference and diminishment of constitutionally protected aboriginal rights is unjustified and illegal in any event.

You must not use the public safety concerns of your society as an excuse to take away our treaty and aboriginal rights. The first nations people of Canada have unique rights, which are recognized and protected in your supreme law. Aboriginal rights derive from our people, from our history, as self-governing peoples who occupied and used this land prior to the arrival of the European colonists. Aboriginal rights include rights to land, language, economy and cultural practices, and forms of law and government.

.1110

It is now accepted that aboriginal rights are unique. In legal terms they are sui generis. The sui generis proprietary interest gives first nations people the right to occupy and use the land at their discretion.

Aboriginal rights relate not only to aboriginal title, but also to the component element of the larger rights, such as the aboriginal right to hunt, fish or trap, and their accompanying practices, traditions, customs, as well as other matters not related to land that form part of a distinctive first nations culture.

In the Sparrow case the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the Musqueam Band's practice of fishing for salmon was an integral part of their distinctive culture. The court also decided that the right to do so may be exercised in a contemporary manner.

More recently, in the Van der Peet case, the Supreme Court of Canada held that to be an aboriginal right an activity must be an element or a practice, custom or tradition integral to the distinctive culture of the aboriginal group claiming that right.

Aboriginal rights are considered to be inherent, because aboriginal people had these rights prior to the arrival of the Europeans in North America. Treaty rights, on the other hand, are those rights set out in treaties that have been negotiated between first nations and the crown.

The right to hunt is fortified by a number of treaties that require Canada to provide ammunition for the purpose of exercising first nations hunting rights across this land. Canada has no power under treaties to alter the way first nations hunt for game.

According to the Van der Peet decision, aboriginal title can also be found in treaties. Where this occurs, the aboriginal rights crystallized in the treaty become treaty rights, and their scope must be delineated by the terms of the treaty. A treaty, however, does not exhaust aboriginal rights. Such aboriginal rights continue to exist apart from the treaty.

The Supreme Court of Canada in the Sparrow case stated that the intentions of Parliament to restrict aboriginal treaty rights must be clearly expressed, and must be justified. It cannot extinguish or restrict these rights through ordinary legislation. The Sparrow case sets out the test that any legislation must meet when it seeks to restrict treaty and aboriginal rights.

The summary of the test used in Sparrow to justify interference with an aboriginal right is as follows. First, does the federal law interfere with an activity that is within the scope of an aboriginal right? Second, if there is an interference, the federal government must show, first, that there is a valid reason for making the law, such as conserving and managing the resource, or preventing the exercise of a right in a way that would cause harm to the general population or aboriginal peoples, or other objectives that are compelling and substantial. Second, the federal government must show that the law upholds the honour of the crown.

The legislation must be seen in this context. You cannot just make laws. The laws you make must uphold the honour of the crown and be in keeping with the unique contemporary relationship grounded in history and policy with the crown and aboriginal peoples.

Third, the federal government must be seen as having addressed other factors, such as whether or not the aboriginal rights are infringed upon as little as possible. It must also provide fair compensation to aboriginal people, as well as consult the aboriginal people concerned.

.1115

The federal government has failed to meet this important legal test. The crown has to exercise its legislative authority so as to avoid infringing on aboriginal and treaty rights. Unless there is a very good reason for passing a law that interferes with the right in the least intrusive way, then the law will infringe upon our rights, and will be declared unconstitutional.

The gun control legislation is a clear violation of aboriginal and treaty rights; otherwise, paragraph 117(u) of the enabling regulations would not have been inserted to be used as a shield in the violation of aboriginal treaty rights.

But these regulations cannot perfect a bad law. That is why we refused to cooperate with the Department of Justice in its efforts to undermine our rights by attempting to cajole our people into participating in the development of regulations of our rights.

The Government of Canada has the responsibility to act in a fiduciary capacity with respect to first nations peoples. The extent of legislative and regulatory impacts must be scrutinized to ensure that they are consistent with the recognition and affirmation of aboriginal and treaty rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada in Van der Peet recently stated that the crown has a fiduciary obligation to aboriginal peoples, with the result that in dealings between the government and the aboriginal people, the honour of the crown is at stake.

The Sioui case says that the consent of first nations peoples affected is required before a treaty can be altered. No first nation in Canada has provided that consent.

Aboriginal rights exist, and are recognized and affirmed in section 35 because of one simple fact: when the Europeans first arrived in North America, first nations people were already here, living in communities on the land with their own distinctive cultures, as they had done for centuries. This is what separates first nations people from all the minority groups in Canadian society, and that mandates their special legal and constitutional status.

Section 35 and subsection 35(1) of the Constitution Act, which recognize and affirm existing aboriginal and treaty rights, provide government commitments not to change the three parts of the Constitution - namely, section 91.24, and sections 25 and 35 dealing directly with aboriginal peoples - unless there has first been a constitutional conference to discuss the proposed amendments. Such a process has not taken place.

Aboriginal and treaty rights cannot be altered without our consent. Parliament per se does not have the power to unilaterally alter and dictate the nature of treaty and aboriginal rights in Canada.

The gun control legislation is aimed at restricting individual rights in a non-aboriginal society. Aboriginal and treaty rights are different, in that they are group or collective rights belonging to a community as a whole, not just to individuals. This means that first nations individuals may enjoy the benefits of these rights, such as hunting or fishing, but the rights belong to the indigenous people and their nations. Changes to these rights cannot be achieved without our consent. Your Parliament cannot unilaterally alter our collective rights.

In the Assembly of First Nations submission to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on May 15, 1995, we submitted the following recommendations for the committee's consideration. First, Bill C-68 should be amended to explicitly provide immunity for first nations people, based on their aboriginal treaty rights, from the provisions related to the licensing, registration and storage of rifles, shotguns and ammunition. Second, at the very least, this committee should recommend to Parliament that licensing, registration and related requirements concerning rifles and shotguns not come into force with respect to first nations until this legislation has been amended to comply with constitutionally protected aboriginal and treaty rights, following a proper consultation with first nations. Your committee didn't do that.

.1120

Again in our submissions to the standing committee on September 25, 1995, we reiterated these recommendations. We also recommended that the government include explicit immunity provisions for first nations and ensure that the government amend its proposed law to ensure conformity to the constitutionally protected aboriginal and treaty rights.

We also recommended that to ensure paramountcy of first nations laws, the legislation must recognize first nations' authority to develop their own laws. It appears now that the federal government and the Parliament of Canada have rejected repeated requests to exempt first nations from the application of the gun control legislation. This legislation therefore places an adverse restriction on aboriginal treaty rights, and as such is unconstitutional as far as it affects first nations peoples.

In summary, the position of the Assembly of First Nations with respect to the licensing, registration, and related requirements for rifles and shotguns remains the same. We believe they are unconstitutional because they unjustifiably infringe upon the constitutionally protected aboriginal and treaty rights for first nations.

These rights have been disregarded by the federal government in failing to properly consult with first nations on the real impact this legislation will have on them. By failing to do so, this legislation is in direct violation of those rights. Because the federal government has failed to meet the test laid out in Sparrow, the gun control legislation is therefore illegal and unconstitutional and must be amended accordingly.

We want to serve notice to the members of Parliament that if this legislation is implemented as law in Canada, the AFN will launch a constitutional challenge against the regulations and enabling legislation.

Our other option is to appear before the International Human Rights Committee under the optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Canada is a signatory.

We will not accept the violation of our aboriginal and treaty rights by any government.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Chief Mercredi. Before we begin the questioning, I wonder if you wanted to introduce your associate with you this morning.

Chief Mercredi: This is Keith Conn. He's our director of a number of divisions in the AFN, like health and environment. We also have some work having to do with the protection of the fur-bearing industry, and he's in charge of that as well.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, sir.

We'll now begin with Mr. de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to give my time to our aboriginal affairs critic, the Member for Saint-Jean, my friend Claude Bachand.

The Chairman: Welcome, Mr. Bachand.

.1125

Mr. Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Mercredi, I would like to congratulate you on the excellent speech that you made yesterday at the symposium at McGill University, where I was the day before you. Unfortunately, I could not attend yesterday but I read today in the papers that once again you were warmly welcomed in Quebec at McGill University, among other places.

I would first like to talk about consultation. I am the aboriginal affairs critic, and I know very well that the government is intending on making amendments to the Indian Act and that there have been consultation problems. Would you say that over the past few years there have been mock consultations by which departments - not only Indian Affairs, but now Justice and other departments - simply send letters to Aboriginals and conclude that they have consulted them? Is there currently a major problem in terms of consultations between the federal government and Aboriginals?

My second question involves the Crown's honour which, I think, has been severely compromised for several years now with respect to Aboriginal issues. Do you not feel that it is somewhat frustrating to have to come each time before House committees to attempt to defend your treaties and section 35 of the Constitution, which in the end are never respected? My impression is not only that there are mock consultations, but that the government is bypassing fundamental laws, treaties and the Canadian Constitution and is completely ignoring the issue of Aboriginal rights. This attitude must be quite frustrating and I would like to hear what you have to say about it.

Finally, would you be satisfied with an amendment to the regulation that would take into account what you have proposed to the committee today? I'm aware that you do not want to be subject to the regulation. Would you be satisfied if the government were to amend the regulation in order to allow Aboriginals to be exempt from the bill, acknowledging that hunting and fishing are part of your culture and your traditions?

[English]

Chief Mercredi: Let me first deal with the issue of consultation, and then I'll deal with the last part of your statement as to what would satisfy an Indian in Canada in terms of this legislation.

When the federal government was elected a while back, one of the initiatives that was advanced at that time by the Minister of Justice Allan Rock was to address the issue of violence in Montreal because of a serious problem that arose there because of a madman. He thought he had the answer, and that was a general prohibition to make it more difficult for people to own and possess guns.

At that time I questioned whether that was the answer, and I'm still not persuaded that by putting these restrictions into the firearms legislation you're going to reduce the incidence of crime in Canada.

I think the position of the Reform Party and others on this issue has to been to point out that fallacy in the argument of the Liberal government - that if you introduce this legislation, then crimes like in Montreal, Toronto, and other places will not be repeated.

My initial meeting with the Minister of Justice was to point out to him that we had constitutionally protected rights; that he could not introduce legislation that would have the effect of diminishing those rights; and that whatever he intended to do must reflect his duty as a minister of the crown - a fiduciary responsibility to protect our rights under the Constitution.

My second argument to him was ``You are also the Minister of Justice. Your responsibility is to uphold the supreme law of the land. The supreme law of the land says our people have treaty and aboriginal rights that are guaranteed in this country.'' So I was very surprised when he proceeded to introduce legislation that would not exempt the first nations from its application.

.1130

At that time I think he realized he was in some trouble in terms of how he was proceeding, and he tried to create a consultation process. But he narrowed the discussion on his bill so it was not on the nature and scope of treaty and aboriginal rights.

So he was saying to us, ``We will consult with you only if the consultation is based on the four corners of the bill that I introduced, but you cannot bring into the discussion your rights as a first nations citizen under treaty or aboriginal rights''. That means the whole consultation process would be useless to us if first we had to simply accept the bill and see if we could modify it here and there.

The bill itself is flawed in that it does not respect our rights as first nations people, and it cannot be perfected by a consultation process that is not based on the Constitution of Canada, which says treaty and aboriginal rights are recognized and protected. He violated those when he introduced the bill.

But he must have some clever people working for him in the Department of Justice, so they came up with this idea: ``We'll take care of the Indians another way. We'll use a back door for the Indians, and that is paragraph 117(u). We'll tell them we can make regulations that will soften the impact of the legislation on their rights as indigenous people.''

My argument at that time was you can't perfect the law through the regulations, and in fact the regulations cannot condone the violation of the constitutional rights of our people. They cannot violate those rights.

If we get involved in drafting these regulations with you, we're conceding that you're right and that we're wrong. So to get involved in a consultation process that invites us to admit that we were wrong and that the Minister of Justice was right would be cutting our own throats. The Minister of Justice and his officials already did that. Why should we do it ourselves?

Therefore we refused to be involved in the cut-throat process that he established for our people. He did send his officials here and there to talk with our people, but when they arrived at these sessions, our people said ``This is not a consultation. Do not consider this a consultation.''

From our experience in working with another department of government, the Department of Indian Affairs, any time we sit down with a federal official, they consider that a consultation to justify what they want to do to violate our rights and freedoms as people.

That is the way Canada consults with us. It's not really consultation. It's more like, how do we manipulate the Indians? How do we make them look bad in the eyes of the Canadian public? How do we get the Canadian public to side with us and say ``What more do the Indians want? What more do they want?'' That's why this process is false.

The Minister of Justice himself appeared before the committee at the first instance when the bill was being considered to argue that he had consulted our people. But you will recall that at my first appearance I submitted correspondence to show there was no prior consultation about the legislation.

All they tried to do, and not to our satisfaction, was create a consultation process after the legislation had been tabled in the House of Commons. Since then we've been saying to you we don't accept the bill, so why should we get involved in drafting regulations that would soften the impact of the bill on our rights as a people?

From past experience we know that the bureaucracy and the Government of Canada is very strong-headed and that they will manipulate their own history of consultation. They're the best revisionists when it comes to giving an assessment of what they're doing. They will try to say to the committee, more to convince themselves, because they have a sense of guilt about what they're doing, that there have been proper consultations.

.1135

What I want to say to the committee is this. All you have to do is amend the bill to exempt the bill from applying to our people. That's all you have to do. Not in relation to handguns and not in relation to automatic weapons - let that law stand - but in relation to what we use to hunt as a people. We don't use handguns, as I said to you, to go shoot the moose. We also don't use automatic weapons to kill a goose.

The whole absurdity about this bill is that you're trying to reduce the potential violence by creating a law that would make certain guns less accessible, such as handguns, automatic or semi-automatic rifles, or whatever they're called - AK-47s, let's say...

We've said to the committee we don't have any objections to making the law more restrictive, because we don't use any of those types of guns to hunt caribou, moose, ducks, geese, and so on. But for some reason, the Minister of Justice and the members of Parliament on the Liberal side of the House always want things their way. It's their way or the highway when it comes to our people.

This is just another example of where there is a very simple solution, as you indicated: an amendment drafted in such a way as to protect the treaty right and the aboriginal right to hunt, an amendment that still preserves certain aspects of the bill when it comes to handguns and automatic weapons.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Chief Mercredi.

We'll move on now to Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chief Mercredi, thank you for your presentation. I was here when you appeared on the main bill. Your argument contained common sense at that time, from my point of view, and it contains common sense today.

What we see happening is an encroachment by the federal government on the rights of others who have legal or at least constitutionally recognized rights. In the case of the aboriginal people, not only are those rights recognized by way of treaty; they're recognized by way of court decisions.

Those rights have not been recognized in the creation of the bill. I understand very clearly your statement that you will not be drawn into a debate on the regulations when you oppose the bill. What's the purpose of that?

I want to touch further on the lack of consultation that occurred in the creation of this bill. I have a list here of at least nine groups that say they were never consulted. I won't go over them, because of the time it would take. We also had the attorneys general from three provinces and the justice ministers from the two territories appear before the committee and say there was no consultation, although the justice minister assured us there was consultation. So it's obvious there is a difference in understanding of what consultation means.

It's clear that for all of these groups, including your own groups that appeared before the committee and you, there was a lack of consultation in creating the bill. Nowhere in the bill or now in the regulations does there appear to be an expression of their concern. So we have, as you say, a bill that's simply being jammed down the throats of Canadians without their consent.

The encroachment of jurisdiction is a very important and serious one. When we look at what's happening to our country and the stresses that are forming between the levels of government, including your own aboriginal claims to your right to make laws for yourselves, we see that the stresses are becoming greater and greater. We want to see decentralization of these powers back to those groups, those governments, and those peoples who have a constitutional recognition.

In this bill for the first time, under sections 103 and 104, the federal government grants itself the right to initiate proceedings by the federal government in a clearly provincial jurisdiction.

.1140

Subsection 103(3) reads:

Any proceedings in respect of an offence under subsection (1) may be commenced at the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of that government.

And subsection 104(3) is exactly the same.

I was amazed when the members from Quebec supported this bill, because that's a further encroachment by the federal government into provincial jurisdiction, as stated clearly under section 91 of the Constitution Act.

So what do you do? What do the provinces do? Well, four provinces and two territories are opposing this bill and opposing it constitutionally in the courts. You have stated here, as hasMr. Adam from Saskatchewan, that aboriginal people will be launching a constitutional challenge. What more does the government need to take a second look at a bill? I do not know.

The problem is simply a lack of consultation. A bill was imposed upon the people of Canada without adequate consultation. When we get the levels of government that we have within the country, the only way we can run our country is through consultation.

In committee I saw what I thought was clearly a violation of the aboriginals' constitutional rights, so I moved a motion that would have stopped it until that area was addressed. That was defeated. I stood in the House and asked the Speaker for a special emergency debate on the issue. That was defeated. So I, as a member of Parliament, cannot protect the Constitution of this country.

It seems the government is saying ``If you think your constitutional rights have been violated, take us to court''. And that's what's happening. Four provinces are doing it, the two territories are involved, and now the aboriginal people are being told the only way they can defend what they believe to be their rights, guaranteed within the Constitution of this country through appendages by way of agreements, is to take the federal government to court. Well, I find this unacceptable.

We'll see what happens in the next election, but if we end up as the government, you won't have to worry about a constitutional challenge to this bill, because we will repeal the bill and bring in a crime control bill that will get tough on the criminal use of firearms while leaving the law-abiding gun owner alone.

I don't have any questions to you, other than to make that statement to you.

The Chairman: Chief Mercredi, would you like to comment on what Mr. Ramsay has said?

Mr. Ramsay: And then if I have time left, I have a point or two to make.

Chief Mercredi: I want to agree with Mr. Ramsay on one point. Our people should not be forced to defend their rights in the courts when Parliament itself and the parliamentarians who make up Parliament know from what we've said to you what our views are about this legislation and what changes we want. The ``take it or leave it'' approach to treaty and aboriginal rights doesn't work any more.

It may be costly to go to the Supreme Court, as we know from past experience; we had to withdraw some of our participation because we didn't have the money. But on this one it doesn't matter how much money it's going to cost us. We're going to go to the courts if we have to. You have a number of provinces already working their way into the court system to challenge your bill. You want to avoid that discord in Canada.

For our people, from a practical point of view, when it comes to some of our hunters who are in their 60s or 70s, they don't know why this bill is being introduced. Those people who are going to come and teach them gun safety could learn from them. Those people who are going to come and tell them how to store their guns could learn from them.

.1145

All these rules that are going to be contemplated by Parliament are unnecessary. We don't need to be told by your government what to do about safety and storage of firearms. Why are you going to put our people through this extra hurdle of getting a firearm, which they are entitled to as a matter of treaty made with the crown?

In the numbered treaties, from one to eleven, there are provisions that guarantee our people the right to hunt with firearms. Also, your country said you'd give us the ammunition for our firearms as a treaty right. It's in our treaties. So many of the old people are asking why you are doing this at this stage of the game. Do you see? From their perspective, it's just another example that you cannot trust the white man in terms of what he signs; he will always change it to suit his situation down the road.

This bill is not just about protecting legal rights; it's a lot about trust in the Government of Canada, trust in the crown. You should take steps to lessen the discord that's going to happen rather than just imposing your will because you think it's the right thing to do.

Mr. Ramsay: On the broader scale, Chief Mercredi, what bothers me so much is the fact that we, as a government, as a people, enter into agreements that both sides seem to understand at the time, because it's discussed, and then the government side acts in a way to violate the conditions of that agreement. To me that's the most disturbing aspect of the James Bay Cree agreement and the Yukon Indian agreement.

The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Ramsay. We're running out of time. I hate to disrupt your process, but if you have a question...

Mr. Ramsay: Well, if you want to shut me down, Mr. Chairman, you may, but I still -

The Chairman: No, no, I just want to -

Mr. Ramsay: How much time do I have left?

The Chairman: You're over now.

Mr. Ramsay: Okay. I'm over now, Mr. Mercredi, and to obey the rules, I will accede to the chair.

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

Mr. Kirkby.

Mr. Kirkby (Prince Albert - Churchill River): Thank you very much for coming to visit us today, Chief, to pass on your views as to the legislation.

This legislation is brought forward under the criminal law power of the Constitution, the power to legislate in that respect being given to the federal government. I'm wondering how in your view it's possible under the criminal law to exempt specific individuals on a blanket basis. How would that be possible? Would that be legal?

Chief Mercredi: I don't think that's an issue, myself.

First of all, Parliament took it upon itself in 1867 to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over Indians and Indian lands. The capacity to make laws for Indians and Indian lands is a federal power. As a first nations leader, I ask who gave you that power? Who gave you the power over my people? We didn't say you could take that power and make laws for us in the Indian lands; you just took it. What right do you have to do that? That is the fundamental issue when it comes to federal laws and the Indians. So don't play that game with me about criminal law and the Firearms Act. Don't play that game with me.

.1150

The fact of the matter is, we never agreed as a people that you could make laws for us. That's why we insist on treaties with the crown. That's why we have treaties with you - treaties that confirm our own sovereignty, our own self-government, and our particular rights as indigenous people.

Somewhere down the road you decided as a people that you could make laws for everyone, including our people. But even there, if we were to agree with that, your own Supreme Court had said that that is not an unfettered power. Your power to make laws can be subject to the Constitution, just as you can't make laws that would violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, unless you use a notwithstanding clause.

It's the same thing when it comes to treaty and aboriginal rights. You cannot make laws that violate section 35, and it doesn't matter if it's a criminal law or not. The fact is, all laws that you make are subject to the Constitution. Your own Supreme Court, in the Sparrow decision, told you: look, if you're going to make a law about Indians that's going to impact on their rights, we're going to review it, and if we find that it's not justified, we're going to say it's unconstitutional.

We have come to this committee to tell you that what you're doing is unjustified and unconstitutional.

The strategy that your government is taking is, as the Reform member said, ``Mr. Ramsay, take us to court.'' What I'm saying to you is yes, we are prepared to take you to court, because the initial position that we took is still the same - that this law is wrong, that it cannot be perfected by the regulations, and that our people will not comply with it. To protect them from prosecutions as soon as the regulations are passed, if the amendments we're seeking are not there, we will take you to court. We will challenge the constitutionality of the regulations and the act itself as it affects first nations citizens across the country. That's our position.

Mr. Kirkby: So what you're saying is that you do not want these issues determined on a case-by-case basis as is presently the case, but want an a priori determination that this legislation infringes your rights. Is that what you're indicating? Presently, it's more or less a case-by-case situation, and determinations are made as to whether the individuals' rights are affected. You're saying you want the determination made at this stage that in all cases this legislation affects the rights of aboriginal people.

Chief Mercredi: I'm saying the determination can be made at this stage, if you have the guts to do it. The problem is the Liberals don't have the guts to do it. That's the problem. It is that you're prepared as a member of Parliament who has many aboriginal people in his riding to support this bill when you know it's going to violate their hunting rights in your region, but you're still prepared to do it, because you're going to say to them: ``You can always challenge it as an individual case. If you get caught hunting with an unregistered rifle, you can always say to the RCMP that you have a treaty right.'' So you end up in court defending your right. That's what you're telling me.

What I'm saying to you is that there is an option, and the option is to exempt that kind of experience that our people are going to face if this bill goes forward the way it's drafted now - to make sure that they are not troubled by this legislation, because it will be enforced by the RCMP and the conservation officers.

You're not going to feel the impact of it because you don't have a treaty right to hunt and this law doesn't matter to you, but the first nations people in your constituency will be impacted by it. It's your duty as a member of Parliament to protect their rights as well, not to go along with your government in terms of the general intent to pass this bill, presumably on the idea they're protecting something called public safety.

.1155

Mr. Kirkby: Do you believe it is onerous or unreasonable that first nations people be required to register a firearm, in particular when it won't cost them anything and when the community will be involved in the administration of the regulation?

Chief Mercredi: I think it's not necessary.

Mr. Kirkby: But is it onerous or unreasonable?

Chief Mercredi: The issue is not whether it's onerous or unreasonable. The fact is it's not necessary. Our people don't want it. That's the only test. Our people don't want it.

Mr. Kirkby: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Do you have a short question, Mr. Ramsay?

Mr. Ramsay: With regard to that, do you think the derogation clause, section 2.3, is inadequate to protect the rights of aboriginal people?

Chief Mercredi: The non-derogation clause is meaningless.

Mr. Ramsay: Yes, the non-derogation clause.

Chief Mercredi: It's as meaningless as the non-derogation clause that was in the Meech Lake accord.

Mr. Ramsay: Okay. That's all. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you very much, Chief Mercredi. It's been a pleasure having you here this morning, and thank you for the time you've taken to be with us.

Chief Mercredi: Thank you.

The Chairman: We'll now take a five-minute adjournment while we get set up for the next witness.

.1157

.1203

The Chairman: We now resume with our next witness, which will be the Canadian Association of Police Boards.

It's a pleasure to have with us this morning Mr. Mike Badham, the president, and Wendy Fedec, the executive director.

On behalf of the committee I want to thank you both for agreeing so kindly to change your schedules so that we could begin later to accommodate travel arrangements for members of this subcommittee. We hope we haven't inconvenienced you too much. Thank you again. We welcome your presentation and hopefully we'll be able to pose questions following that presentation. Please feel free to begin.

Mr. Mike Badham (President, Canadian Association of Police Boards): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

It's a pleasure for us to be here. I am president of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. I'm also a councillor in the city of Regina for the City of Regina. I am the vice-chair of the Regina Board of Police Commissioners, and I chair the Saskatchewan Association of Police Boards. As you indicated, our executive director, Ms Wendy Fedec, is accompanying me. She is also secretary to the Ottawa-Carleton Police Services Board.

I'd like to thank the committee for providing the opportunity for the Canadian Association of Police Boards to comment on the proposed firearms regulations. Our submission to you this morning will be quite brief and will not attempt to suggest exact wording by way of an amendment to any of the regulations.

.1205

I will begin with a description of CAPB's role and its interest in the firearms legislation. I will then make three comments with respect to the regulations: first, specifically the acquisition licence regulations; second, the regulations of safe storage; and third, which will be of a general nature but very important to those of us with responsibility for municipal policing, a summary of our recommendations.

The CAPB is a national non-profit organization, which represents civilian governors of local police services. Our membership comprises police boards and commissions of varying sizes from across the country. We do include a number of first nations police governing authorities, which have been established under tripartite agreements.

Our board of directors, which met here in Ottawa over the weekend, includes representatives from British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and Nova Scotia. You can see that we definitely have a national scope.

The CAPB serves a valuable role as a conduit between local police governing bodies and federal ministries responsible for policing and law enforcement. During our meetings this weekend we had the opportunity on Friday to meet with the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice to discuss other issues of concern to them.

Our members, in conjunction with our chiefs of police, are also responsible for establishing police priorities, reviewing and approving police budgets, and ensuring that community concerns and interests are addressed. We CAPB members view ourselves as a bridge between police and the community. As such, we're staunch advocates of community-based policing and crime prevention as a means of ensuring that Canadians live and work in safe and secure communities.

CAPB believes that Bill C-68 provides significant preventative measures that will contribute to the safety and security of the Canadian public. Key among them is registration:

Without information about who owns guns, there is no effective gun control. Registration will help ensure that gun owners are held accountable for their firearms and do not sell illegally, and will also help ensure that guns are safely stored.

That is a quote from Chief MacDonald, a former president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

As the chiefs found out in a 1995 study, half of all firearms used in crimes are long guns and 40% of handguns used in crimes were once legally owned.

In addition, police boards have a responsibility to the men and women that we employ. Together with chiefs of police and executive officers, we work to ensure every reasonable step is taken to maintain the safety of our police officers. CAPB believes, as does CACP and the Canadian Police Association, the provisions of Bill C-68 will enhance officers' safety, assist in enforcing prohibition orders, and contribute to effective investigation and prosecution of illegal firearms.

It's within this context of support for preventative measures and greater officer safety that CAPB endorsed the firearms legislation and was delighted to see it passed into law in late 1995. I also take this opportunity to stress our unabated support for Bill C-68 and for the minister's ongoing commitment to improve public and officer safety.

We also applaud the government's decision to allow sufficient time for an effective and efficient system to be designed. When we presented our brief on Bill C-68 to this standing committee on justice and legal affairs in May of 1995 - at that time I was present as the vice-president of the association - we recommended that the implementation date for new possession permits be delayed until at least January 1, 1997. The CAPB felt it was critical to the success of the program that adequate time be given to design, test, and implement the new system, and we're happy to see this has been done.

Turning now to the proposed regulations, although there are a couple of minor amendments, we firmly support the regulations and urge the committee to proceed with them as soon as possible.

With respect to the one that deals with mandatory spousal notification under firearms licences regulations and the section that deals with acquisition licences for crossbows, CAPB is particularly pleased that the licensing requirements for firearms have addressed concerns about the escalation of domestic violence. Mandatory spousal notification will provide a significant safeguard to prevent people at risk of committing a crime from acquiring a gun. However, we wish to express our concern that this notification requirement does not also apply to applicants for crossbow acquisition licences.

.1210

I'm sure you'll remember the tragic death in 1991 of an Ottawa lawyer shot and killed with a crossbow arrow by her estranged husband, and also the 1993 case in British Columbia - a student at the British Columbia Institute of Technology who was murdered with a single shot from a crossbow. There is no question a crossbow can be just as deadly a weapon as a firearm, and the same notification requirements should apply.

Therefore our recommendation is that chief firearms officers be required to notify any spouse or common-law partner with whom the applicant has lived within the past two years, and that this be included as a requirement for the acquisition of a crossbow licence as it is for firearms.

The second point concerns the section that deals with storage of firearms by individuals and businesses. CAPB is pleased to see provisions included that will require gun owners to render guns inoperable by means of a secure locking device or by the removal of the bolt or bolt-carrier, or alternatively, to store their guns in a container, receptacle, or room that is kept securely locked and that cannot be readily broken into. We are also pleased to see that ammunition must be stored separately or in a securely locked container.

However, we would suggest that all regulations pertaining to safe storage of firearms should explicitly state that the keys or combinations to storage containers, receptacles or rooms be stored elsewhere, so as to render them inaccessible. This will greatly minimize the risk of intruders or unauthorized users such as children accessing them.

Aside from these two points we have no other comments or recommendations to make with regard to specific aspects of the regulations. We find the remaining sections reasonable and justifiable. In particular, the $10 flat registration fee during 1998, regardless of the number of firearms registered, is certainly moderate and should pose no financial difficulties for anyone.

However, we do have a third comment under ``costs''. This remaining comment is of a generic nature as it applies to the overall implementation of the legislation. In 1995 when our association presented our brief to the standing committee, we clearly expressed the willingness of police boards to absorb costs associated with reassigning and training officers to work with the new system. Even in this era of ongoing budget reductions and limited resources, we are willing to make this commitment because of our belief in a universal firearms registry that will save lives, assist police investigations, and ultimately save tax dollars through enacting preventive measures.

Our belief in the ultimate benefits of Bill C-68 to society and to police officers remains strong and unchanged. However, concerns have been expressed from our members that additional centralized costs of running the registration system may be downloaded to municipal police services. We would urge the committee to take into consideration the increasing financial difficulties facing local police services, and recommend against any further offsetting of costs to local governing bodies. I guess in short I would use the ``d'' word: no downloading.

In conclusion, the CAPB asks that the subcommittee give serious consideration to the following three recommendations.

Number one, that the acquisition licences for crossbows include the requirement that the chief firearms officer must notify the spouse or common-law partner of an applicant if at all reasonably possible.

Second, that all regulations pertaining to safe storage of firearms explicitly state that the keys or combinations to storage containers, receptacles or rooms be stored elsewhere, so as to render them inaccessible.

Third, that no costs of the new registration system beyond that of reallocating or training chief firearms officers be passed on to local police services.

Once again I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments, and for your attention this morning. As I previously indicated, we urge the committee to proceed with regulations as soon as possible.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Badham. Now, if you will agree, we'll have questions from -

Mr. Badham: Certainly, yes, you may have some questions and I'd be pleased to respond, as would Ms Fedec, our executive director.

The Chairman: All right, sir. Thank you very much. We'll begin with Monsieur de Savoye.

.1215

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Badham and Ms Fedec, I appreciated listening to your presentation. The three observations you made were very welcome.

You quoted your former president, Chief MacDonald, in your brief; he said:

[English]

Without information about who owns guns, there is no effective gun control. Registration will help ensure that gun owners are held accountable for their firearms and do not sell them illegally, and will also help ensure that guns are safely stored.

[Translation]

Your association has become knowledgeable in the area of public safety and I would now like to draw upon this expertise, in the context of this quote.

Various groups representing the industry sectors have testified before this committee, including SECUR, Brink's, Loomis, the film industry, museums, and people involved with historical reenactments. They indicated that the proposed regulations were problematic for them not only in terms of finances, but also in terms of their way of operating and their own safety.

Yet Chief MacDonald's quote refers to people who own a firearm or are in possession of a firearm, not to employees using firearms or replicas of firearms.

Given this, to your knowledge, are the film industry, museums, outfitters, transporters of valuable goods, for example Brink's, Loomis and SECUR, a risk to public safety? What should this committee make of the statements made by these industries' representatives to us?

[English]

Mr. Badham: In my response I'll respond as an individual, because it is not a particular position that we have taken as an association. However, in representing police boards, we also employ police officers. Those are employees, of course, who have guns. Therefore, the regulations apply for safe storage and all the rest that we would do with those employees. We would do this the same as anyone who would be licensed to be able to have firearms, such as those security companies you mentioned.

As for the other, for the making of films or using guns in a replica manner, I would assume there would be appropriate regulations that could be done. In my mind, those would not form threats to security, no more for the security companies you mentioned than for police officers either on or off duty.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: If I understood you correctly, your association has no indication that these businesses do not act responsibly. In other words, the policemen you represent and who are responsible for public protection do not feel that the industries just mentioned act lightly or irresponsibly in carrying out their duties. On the contrary, from what you can see, they are acting as responsible businesses should and there is no reason to be unduly concerned about how they handle their firearms.

.1220

[English]

Mr. Badham: Well, perhaps I've misunderstood, or... I would have serious concerns that anyone had a gun. I mean, I don't think guns are even necessary. I don't own one, and I don't see much need for them. But I'm saying that in instances there have been formal licensing approval for individuals who work in security. The same would apply in the screening of those individuals, not just to be able to own them, but to provide any kind of security.

So I'm not saying there aren't any problems with them. I'm saying that I think they should be treated the same as any other security person. Those who are private industry people should go through a very extensive screening before they would be allowed to have any kind of weapon they would carry on their person.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Do you recall any incidents that would justify your concern, i.e. that employees be very strictly screened?

[English]

Mr. Badham: Specifics?

Mr. de Savoye: Specifics.

Mr. Badham: I don't have anything that comes to mind as a specific incident, but I will just reiterate: anyone who has a firearm weapon for any particular purpose should involve themselves in extreme screening. This not just because of the fact that they have the weapon, but also becaue of the fact that they are employed for public or personal security and safety.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: To your knowledge, are the businesses working in these areas ensuring adequate screening?

[English]

Mr. Badham: It has not come to my attention as a member of a police service board in my community that it is anything other than appropriate screening. I do not have a position on that, nor does our association, but I will take it under consideration that we might review that.

As I say, our position is coming mainly from those officers we employ, and also, of course, from the public in general.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Do you think that the draft regulations you have seen would improve the way these businesses operate in this context, or is that already adequate?

[English]

Mr. Badham: In a general sense, I would say yes.

Mr. de Savoye: Yes, those corporations, those industries, are doing things in a proper manner? Or are you saying, yes, the law and the regulations will make their practices bona fide?

Ms Wendy L. Fedec (Executive Director, Canadian Association of Police Boards): If I might respond, the CAPB does not have an extensive knowledge of the procedures these groups have in place now, so it's not really fair for us to comment on them. However, we're very satisfied with the regulations proposed here. They will provide the safety and security we need to see for any persons handling guns.

I think that any persons handling guns - police officers, security personnel, or museum staff - have the same responsibility to ensure that their guns are safely stored and handled properly so that they're not easily accessible.

Mr. de Savoye: So if I understand you well, as a police association you don't have any data on those industries, and you wouldn't want to commit yourself too much.

Ms Fedec: That's correct.

Mr. de Savoye: Thank you.

.1225

Mr. Badham: If I might, you referred to us as a police association. We're not police associations, we're not police individuals. I'm a citizen who represents the community and has responsibility for governance of policing.

For the record, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ensure that this was clarified.

The Chairman: Thank you. That was a good point, Mr. Badham.

We'll now move to Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank our witnesses this morning for their testimony in the brief they submitted.

I understand that you folks are from Saskatchewan. I also understand that -

The Chairman: One moment. Mr. Badham is from Saskatchewan.

Mr. Ramsay: Yes, Mr. Badham is from Saskatchewan.

Of course you're aware that the Saskatchewan government passed an all-party resolution opposing the bill, that the Saskatchewan police officers association opposed the bill.

I will just follow up on my colleague's last question. You're supporting this bill, it appears, without extensive knowledge of the impact it's going to have on organizations such as museums, re-enactment groups, outfitters and guides, the film industry, the arts industry, all of whom are very well controlled and whose uses of firearms do not present, and have not in the past presented, a threat to either public or individual safety. Is this true?

The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Ramsay. If I may, I think what Mr. Badham has said is that his association doesn't have information regarding those activities.

Is that correct in this course of...? Please feel free to ask when you like.

Mr. Badham: Yes, it was included in our presentation. We were not making those comments on it. We've remained silent on it because at this stage we do not have a position on that as an association.

Mr. Ramsay: Well, you're supporting a bill that we have heard is going to have very negative economic impacts upon these organizations.

Now, for the record, what I want to make clear is that you're supporting the bill without that knowledge, without the understanding of the negative economic impact it will have on organizations such as museums, re-enactment organizations, gun clubs, hunting groups, the armoured vehicle industry, including Brink's and Loomis, the two firearms manufacturing companies in Canada, guides and outfitters, the movie industry and the performing arts.

We've had testimony, not only before the committee when the bill was originally here, but since we've gone into the examination of the regulations, that some of these organizations may become extinct because of the impact of these regulations.

Are you aware that the re-enactment organization had a witness before the committee who said that if they're not exempted from these regulations, it could cause their organization to become extinct? Are you aware of this testimony?

Mr. Badham: No, not personally.

Ms Fedec: Maybe I could just reiterate that we're here today representing the interests of police forces across the country. I would suggest that the groups you mention are by far the best authorities to represent their interests here. That's why I would assume they were here making those particular comments.

Mr. Ramsay: Would you be prepared to support an exemption to these organizations from the regulations, where it could cause them to become extinct?

The Chairman: I don't think, Mr. Ramsay, that they're able to do that, not having heard or seen the testimony.

Mr. Ramsay: But from the brief statement they've given... I'm conveying to you what they have said to this committee. The re-enactment organizations, one in particular, said that if these regulations don't exempt them, they could become extinct. So in spite of the general support for the bill, would you be prepared to exempt those organizations who do not pose a threat to public safety through their use of firearms, and who may become extinct as a result of the enforcement of these regulations? Would you be prepared to exempt them, or consider an exemption?

Mr. Badham: I think that when you talk about exempting, why would we exempt anyone from the regulations? I guess that would be the point.

If we're talking about general regulations, the regulations are there. Are you talking about some form of special permit for some special occasion under certain controlled situations? Perhaps if you're going to do that, then maybe there are some possibilities to open discussion. But to suggest I am here to try to cause film-makers, museums, or Brink's trucks to go out of business is a stretch of comments I have not made.

.1230

The Chairman: Mr. Ramsay, without taking away any of your time, may I just put the question perhaps in another way to the witnesses?

If the witnesses would acknowledge that perhaps there are some changes that maybe have to be considered with respect to these organizations, and in the interest of their operations if these changes perhaps allowed a slight modification as to how these operations do business, would that affect the witnesses' support of the regulations?

I guess that's one way of... If the committee deemed that this could be considered...

Mr. Badham: Well, I think regulations, situations and decisions are just like people and society: we evolve. As I said, I speak from a general principle in support of these regulations.

Then there are circumstances that the committee is here to hear about from those who might be affected by those particular circumstances. They have not come to speak to our association.

I think this should be done and proceed as something evolutionary in nature. I would suspect that's the purpose of hearings.

Mr. Ramsay: Then I would end this line of thought by making a suggestion. You're supporting a bill, the ramifications of which you're not totally familiar with. Is that right?

Ms Fedec: As it applies to police boards, I think we're well versed in the implications. But as it applies to the groups you've mentioned here today, it is fair to say that, no, we don't know all the implications. If that's something you'd like our group to go away and look at, we'd be happy to do that.

Mr. Ramsay: Of course I oppose the bill because of the ramifications it's going to have on everyone. When people support a bill - maybe with due respect I should not come to this conclusion - I would feel that you would understand the ramifications and the impact it will have with everyone. You're not just supporting part of the bill; you're supporting the whole of the bill and the whole of the regulations. And I'll end on that.

Now, if I have a few minutes here, I'd like to say this: I've never been dogmatic on this issue, and I've always looked for the common-sense reasoning behind the claim that the bill and the regulations will enhance public safety. So I'd like to ask you this, and I think it's an area in which you have focused your attention: how will the bill control firearms if it is simply registering the firearm I own that's locked up in my cabinet? How will it control it if I lose my rationality, go to my cupboard, and wish to use that firearm against myself, a member of the family, or a member of the public?

Could you explain to me how you see registering and licensing me aiding in this direction? It leaves the control of the firearm in my control. Whether or not that firearm is used in a safe or an unsafe manner is dependent upon the rationality of the owner. So how will the simple registering of the firearm enhance public safety in the case of someone who loses their rationality and wants to use a firearm in an unsafe way? The regulations will not control that at all.

Mr. Badham: The registration... The fact that at one time a person had some apparent rationality to acquire the firearm is significant. What might occur afterwards... I guess that is true. It is an unknown at some time, how individuals will perhaps act. I think this is based on how most people will act, or can act. I think that's what we do with regulations.

.1235

Ms Fedec: If I could just add to that, you're absolutely right: if somebody is irrational and grabs a gun and kills themself and their family, these regulations won't stop that. But they will definitely reduce the number of people breaking into someone else's home and being able to easily get at their guns and stealing them. Also, if the safe storage regulations are followed, it should cut down on teenagers and children accessing those guns and taking their own lives or the lives of others.

Mr. Ramsay: Yes. However, those requirements are basically in Bill C-17; they're part of the law now and have been for some time. We're talking about Bill C-68 and the regulations to that bill.

My question is how will the regulations and the registering of a firearm safeguard society from that owner becoming irrational and using it? I appreciate your comments on that, that it does not have the potential to do that. If it does not have the potential to do that, then that is really the pillar of the bill as well as the regulations that will allow for the administration of the bill.

Let me ask you a quick question. There are three to six million gun owners estimated in Canada. The last statistic we have is that there are about 1,400 deaths caused by firearms; I think that was in 1994. That's a very small percentage of firearm owners getting involved in a situation where a firearm is used and a death occurs.

I would like to ask you, in terms of priority, if you had $100 million, which is approximately what the government will be spending on this, and if you had a choice, would you spend more money putting police officers on the street or in some other activity that you're aware of in terms of police service to the public and create a safer society, or would you spend it on registering firearms?

Mr. Badham: You're asking if my police board had the additional money what we would do with it?

Mr. Ramsay: Yes.

Mr. Badham: We believe there's more to enforcing rules, regulations, laws, and making communities safe than just putting more police officers right on the street. There are other ways to do that.

Mr. Ramsay: Do you have enough now on your streets?

Mr. Badham: It depends on the definition.

Mr. Ramsay: Using your definition.

Mr. Badham: In our community, I would say yes, because we have a responsibility for that and we want to ensure that the safety is there.

Mr. Ramsay: You have enough police officers on the street?

Mr. Badham: In my opinion, yes.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Ms Whelan.

Ms Whelan: I wanted to ask you a couple of questions with regard to the recommendations you're making.

One of the things you talk about is the requirement to notify any spouse or common-law partner. You would like to see that extended. Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but your boards would do a lot of the hiring or recommendations in local communities for police officers. Is that not part of your authority and part of your job?

Mr. Badham: Yes.

Ms Whelan: Do you deal with this issue when you're hiring police officers as well? Do you have that same type of questioning because police officers will eventually have the ability to carry a firearm? Is that part of the questioning that goes into that?

Mr. Badham: You mean to their stability?

Ms Whelan: Right.

Mr. Badham: That would be part of it. There are various psychological interviews and references that do take place, yes.

Ms Whelan: Okay. We had a couple of witnesses before us last week who suggested that perhaps this doesn't go far enough, that to notify the spouse or common-law partner within the last two years maybe isn't far enough because there are going to be circumstances where people will be paying support and maybe there are other areas that should be looked at. I'm just wondering if you have given any thought to that.

Mr. Badham: Not specifically, but we can.

Ms Whelan: Okay. The other thing I wanted to ask was with regard to the safe storage.

.1240

I think perhaps one of the things Mr. Ramsay was touching on - and this affects me directly with regard to historical re-enactors in my riding... And I know you're not averse to dealing with some of the specific issues. As they come before us, the committee is hearing testimony with regard to specific situations such as museums that have specific displays that couldn't meet the requirements as they're written.

Now I understand your rationale for wanting general principles, but I think we all have to accept that there are different circumstances out there that require different types of safety regulations. I don't think that necessarily one set meets all. I'm just wondering whether you've talked to the boards in your association that would have these different types of groups in their area. Has there been a lot of discussion among the boards on this issue?

Mr. Badham: Not specifically with the boards, because I think that with these regulations being federal in nature we're just providing our input here today, as all others are. I can indicate that in my home community it's fairly important now. They're starting to get very involved, for example, in film-making, and we know that's the case across Canada. But I have not had representation from them to our boards.

Ms Whelan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms Whelan.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye, any other questions?

Mr. de Savoye: No thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: I'd like to thank you both for taking the time to come here this morning. It's been very helpful. And we appreciate the fact that you've made those suggestions for changes, taken the time to do that. We appreciate your contribution. Have a safe trip home.

Mr. Badham: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And if at any time we can be of assistance in general support on this basis please let us know.

The Chairman: We certainly will.

Ms Fedec: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We will be adjourning now until 3:30 this afternoon, when we will be resuming in this room.

Return to Committee Home Page