EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, February 4, 1997

.0904

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. I want to resume our hearings on the proposed amendments under the Firearms Act.

.0905

I want to welcome to the subcommittee this morning, from the Grand Council of the Crees,Mr. Brian Craik, director of federal relations, and Philip Awashish. I believe there are others as well. Perhaps you gentlemen could introduce the other people with you at the table.

Mr. Brian Craik (Director, Federal Relations, Grand Council of the Crees): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I represent the Crees in their relations with the federal government.

With me today I have Deborah Friedman from the firm Mainville & Associés of Montreal; the former deputy grand chief of the Crees, Mr. Philip Awashish; and Mr. Rick Cuciurean of the Cree Trappers' Association.

I'll turn over the presentation to Mr. Awashish. This is an issue very close to the hearts of the Crees because it concerns their ability to carry out their traditional way of life.

The Chairman: I'd like to welcome all of you here this morning on behalf of the subcommittee and thank you for the time you took to come and make your presentation. Following your presentation we hope you will entertain questions from the subcommittee.

Mr. Awashish, the floor is yours.

Mr. Philip Awashish (Adviser and Former Deputy Grand Chief, Grand Council of the Crees): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am making this presentation on behalf of the Grand Council of the Crees, Eeyou Astchee, of the Cree territory in Quebec, and the Cree Trappers' Association.

The Crees in northern Quebec, the Eeyou Astchee, number about 12,000 people living in nine Cree communities. We are beneficiaries of the modern treaty, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. It is in the spirit of the proper implementation of the treaty that I appear before this subcommittee to take into account certain provisions of that treaty and to take into account the rights, interests, and concerns of the Eeyou Astchee.

In 1995 the Grand Council of the Crees of Eeyou Astchee, the Cree Regional Authority, and the Cree Trappers' Association made a joint submission to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and to the Senate committee with regard to the firearms legislation proposed by the Minister of Justice. The government indicated that many of the changes we originally sought to the legislation could be dealt with through regulations adopted by the Governor in Council under paragraph 117(u) of the legislation.

However, a review of the proposed regulations indicates that those inconsistencies we first amplified between the act and our constitutionally protected aboriginal and treaty rights have not been corrected. In fact, the current regulations generally, and most significantly the provisions contained in the aboriginal peoples of Canada's adaptation regulations and the firearms fees regulations, to name a few, continue to represent a flagrant violation of the Cree aboriginal and treaty rights, and as such are unconstitutional.

Accordingly, we are here today to forcefully reiterate our concerns respecting the restrictions on our use of firearms, the protection of our traditional way of life, and most significantly the protection of our treaty rights as guaranteed under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

Mr. Chairman, we respectfully submit to you that the subcommittee proceed with the following five amendments to the regulations. These adaptations must be made if the proposed regulations are to be both constitutional and make any practical sense in the Cree communities.

.0910

First, the regulations must be amended to specifically state that any individual who is entitled to hunt, fish or trap pursuant to an aboriginal or treaty right be automatically eligible to hold an acquisition or possession licence and to obtain a registration certificate for his or her firearms for a nominal fee. The right to hunt, fish or trap is an inherent right of aboriginal people, which has always been recognized by treaty.

As the firearms fees regulations are drafted, only hunters who require a firearm to hunt in order to sustain themselves or their families are exempted from the fees payable for a licence and registration certificate.

The right to hunt, fish or trap under section 24 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement is not simply limited to those Cree who hunt and trap for sustenance but is a right that extends to all beneficiaries under the agreement. Such individuals may be working in the wage economy or actively participating in many traditional hunting activities in our communities. Therefore, the notion that only sustenance hunters, within the narrow meaning ascribed to the term under the regulations, are exempted from licensing and registration fees seriously undermines the scope of the Cree right to hunt, fish and trap.

As indicated, the right of the Cree to possess a firearm to hunt for personal or community use arises by virtue of their status as beneficiaries under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and not by reason of the fact that they may require a gun to hunt or trap in order to sustain themselves or their families. Therefore, although the firearms fees regulations provide a fees exemption to sustenance hunters, this adaptation does not go far enough to respect the intent, purpose, and nature of our people's aboriginal treaty rights.

Furthermore, the present fee structure would cause serious hardship on those aboriginals who do not fall within the fees exemption provision. Once the regulations are in force, the registration fee of $10 to $18 for any purchase, trade, gift or inheritance of a firearm would apply. Moreover, where an aboriginal individual has one or more guns on or after January 1, 1998, all of which are legitimately used and required for hunting and trapping, the cost to license these firearms shall range from $10 to $60. Such fees would clearly result in excessive costs to aboriginal hunters and trappers.

Moreover, the fees themselves do not enhance the Cree right to harvest and are not therefore congruent with treaty rights in the manner approved of recently by the Supreme Court of Canada in Cote. In that case, the Supreme Court held that regulations requiring aboriginals to pay a small fee to gain entry by vehicle to a hunting zone covered by treaty rights was properly chargeable against an aboriginal entry in such an area by vehicle. However, the court rooted its decision in the fact that the particular fee did not impose a financial burden since the revenue generated from that fee was to be used exclusively to maintain the roads in the hunting area, as distinguished from a fee that constitutes a revenue-generating government tax or administrative fee.

Therefore, we understand the decision in Cote to mean that the firearms fees for registering and licensing a non-restricted firearm amount to a prima facie infringement of our people's treaty rights on the grounds that these are administrative fees and not user fees that would be applied for the benefit of the Cree people.

.0915

In this light, we remind the standing committee that the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement specifically states that any restraint on aboriginal treaty harvesting rights by virtue of a permit, licence or similar authorization must be issued at a nominal cost.

The Grand Council of the Crees/Cree Regional Authority and the Cree Trappers' Association have always considered nominal cost to mean not more than $1. Consequently, any amount payable for licences and registration certificates that exceeds a cost of $1 is a direct violation of the foregoing aboriginal treaty right and is totally unacceptable.

To resolve this blatant violation of Cree treaty rights, we request that new provisions be inserted in the firearms fees regulations to ensure that the fee exemptions contemplated in sections 7 and12 are extended to aboriginal individuals, to whom the aboriginal peoples of Canada adaptations regulations apply.

Secondly, with regard to the requirement that individuals take and pass the Canadian firearms safety course, we recommend that the regulations be specifically adapted for aboriginal peoples by providing that where such a course is required, it shall be offered at a nominal cost.

The aboriginal peoples of Canada adaptations regulations provide for alternative certification, which includes an exemption from taking the course where it is:

not available

(A) to the individual within a time, after the individual has made the application for a licence, that is reasonable in the circumstances,

(B) in the individual's Aboriginal community or at a location that can be reached from that community without undue cost or hardship to the individual, or

(C) at a cost that is reasonable in the circumstances.

We strongly disagree with limiting the course waiver to only individuals that in the discretion of the chief firearms officer meet the foregoing criteria. As well, the criteria set out in the regulations are vague and will undoubtedly lead to inconsistent application. For instance, what meaning shall be ascribed to such terms as ``at a cost that is reasonable in the circumstances'' or ``without undue cost or hardship''?

Simply stated, it is our understanding that any cost for the course that exceeds $1 to any individual with harvesting rights under the applicable treaties is unreasonable and is an indirect violation of treaty rights.

Section 24.3.18 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement clearly states that ``the Native people shall receive such leases, permits, licences or other authorizations at a nominal fee...''.

Thirdly, we request that the Government of Canada go further in its adaptation of the provisions of the regulations dealing with the licensing requirements for non-restricted firearms. Specifically, we recommend that the government agree to provide funds to aboriginal peoples for those costs associated with the licensing requirements.

We draw your attention to section 24.3.30 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, which clearly prescribes that the federal government shall make regulations:

...with a minimum of impact on the Native people and harvesting activities by taking into account the impact of such factors as...Native cash incomes.

However, as the regulations are presently drafted, rather than causing the least interference with aboriginal treaty rights to harvest, they will in reality cause a substantial interference with the exercise of such rights.

For example, the regulations require that an individual who wishes to obtain either a possession or acquisition licence provide a photograph with the application. Most northern Quebec communities do not have ready access to photographic facilities in order to comply with this application requirement. In fact, of the nine Cree communities, only one has photographic facilities. For the other communities, the capital cost to acquire such photographic facilities would be $80,000.

.0920

Moreover, as the regulations now stand, many aboriginals will be required to take the Canadian firearms safety course as a prerequisite to obtaining an acquisition licence. Some may argue that the obligation to take the course is not an unreasonable restraint on the aboriginal right to hunt, trap, and fish. We strongly disagree.

For instance, there are no budgets for classroom space, instructor fees, or course materials in the Cree communities. We estimate it would cost an additional $500,000 to fund the safety course in the Cree communities.

Given the practical reality of remote northern Quebec communities, is the government prepared to provide the necessary resources and funding to facilitate the implementation of these regulations? Will the federal government undertake to provide photographic facilities that will comply with the Quebec government's photo identification standards? Will the government accept responsibility to fund the implementation and administration of firearms safety courses in the Cree communities?

These questions are posed because in the absence of available resources provided in a timely fashion, our people may be deprived of their right to hunt as the result of an inability to comply with all the registration and licensing requirements imposed by the regulations.

Accordingly, the amendment we are proposing could take the form of a provision that sets out the Government of Canada's responsibility to fund within aboriginal communities both the acquisition of photographic equipment and the implementation and administration of the firearms safety course.

Fourthly, we request that the Government of Canada modify the regulations so as to permit the Cree local governments to dispense the firearms safety course and issue firearms licences and registration certificates.

Insofar as basic firearms safety knowledge is a prerequisite for the possession and use of a firearm, the Cree local authorities are in the best position to dispense such knowledge and certify that same has been disseminated. Therefore, we urge that the regulations be amended to provide for the appointment of aboriginal firearms officers who shall have the same powers and authority as a chief firearms officer.

For the isolated aboriginal communities in northern Quebec, the appointment of a local aboriginal firearms officer would be the only realistic and effective method of ensuring the proper licensing of individuals and registration of firearms under the act and regulations as now conceived. Administrating from afar a general licensing scheme and in particular the process for alternative certification as provided for in the aboriginal peoples of Canada adaptations regulations is simply not practical.

Most importantly, we reiterate that the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement specifically provides that where the exercise of the right to harvest shall be subject to obtaining permits or licences, they shall be received through the respective native local governments.

Lastly, and in the alternative, we request the automatic and free licensing of all Cree communities. This recommendation constitutes the most practical means for the federal government to respect its particular obligation to the Cree in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

We remind the committee of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the landmark Sparrow case, where the court affirmed a special and historic role of aboriginal peoples in the Canadian Constitution and stated that the honour of the Crown depends on maintaining and protecting this fiduciary relationship.

For all the reasons we have highlighted today, the proposed regulatory scheme, with its excessive licensing and registration fees and licensing requirements, would cause undue hardship to our people. Based on the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Sparrow, this prima facie violation of our treaty rights cannot be justified, because the infringement amounts to an unreasonable limitation on our rights and effectively denies our people the preferred means of exercising their right to hunt, fish, and trap in the territory.

In the final analysis, we wish to stress that the recommendations we are proposing are fundamental if the government or Parliament wishes to ensure that the regulations are compatible with the aboriginal treaty rights of the Crees of Eeyou Astchee and therefore should be expressly articulated in the subordinate legislation.

.0925

Our point is that, as parliamentarians, you have a special responsibility to uphold the Constitution of this country and guarantee that Canada honours its obligations to the Crees of Quebec by taking into account our rights and interests articulated under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

In concluding, we hope the committee recognizes the spirit of compromise in which these amendments have been proposed. We are confident that these amendments will in no way undermine the overall effectiveness and purpose of the licensing and registration regulations. Far from it. They will in fact further the aim of the legislation by rendering the legislation, through its adapted regulations, more practicable and thus result in an increased level of compliance by aboriginal people.

Our summaries follow, but I think it's better that my presentation is completed on time. Thank you.

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

Mr. Cuciurean, did you wish to make a presentation as well, sir?

Mr. Rick Cuciurean (Special Project Coordinator, Cree Trappers' Association): No, it's all right.

The Chairman: We're now ready for questions. We'll begin with Monsieur de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye (Portneuf): Ms Friedman, gentlemen, thank you for coming here.

Mr. Awashish, I listened to your presentation closely. You raised a certain number of issues which will certainly catch the attention of this committee. Your recommendations are precise and easy to understand.

Mr. Awashish, other aboriginal groups have appeared before this committee and have also discussed their concerns. One group in particular indicated that it felt that its people rather than the Government of Canada should have the power to legislate in the area of gun control. I did not hear you make any mention of this in your presentation.

However, I believe that the Crees, to all intents and purposes, wish to oversee the enforcement of the law in their territory. Have I understood the scope and content of your comments correctly?

[English]

Mr. Awashish: Thank you. We hold as Crees that the right to self-government is an inherent right. We are exercising that right in Eeyou Astchee; that is, the Cree territory in northern Quebec. We have not in our brief suggested that the Crees have jurisdiction and responsibility for legislating such regulations or even a firearms legislation itself. It is not to be taken that we do not feel the Crees should not. We are presently faced with the firearms legislation itself, and now we are faced with the regulations that will apply to aboriginal peoples. The Crees have decided to simply respond to this particular situation, enabling the government to achieve its objective and the purpose of this bill and the regulations while also enabling the Crees themselves to have a role in administering the bill and the regulations in particular.

.0930

The Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act is federal legislation that applies to the Cree. It flows from the obligations of the Government of Canada to provide special legislation for the Cree for the administration of category IA lands and for local governments in particular. Cree government itself is enabled through this legislation.

The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement itself recognizes self-government, in our minds. We do not consider that our right to self-government flows from legislation of the Parliament of Canada nor from legislation of the Province of Quebec. As an inherent right, it is a right that predates the Governments of Canada and Quebec.

It is also important to realize that the Indian Act in general does not apply to the Crees of Quebec. It is the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act that applies. Indian Affairs up in northern Quebec do not have a particularly important role in the territory in administering our affairs. We administer our own affairs.

We have tabled our proposals concerning these regulations, with my comments to be taken into account also, that the Cree consider the right of self-government an inherent right. We've tried to also meet the Government of Canada's obligations and responsibility in the proper implementation of the legislation concerning firearms control and the regulations made subsequent to it.

[Translation]

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

[English]

I'm very sensitive to what you've just said about self-government. If I understand your recommendations, providing the Cree could apply the regulations and the application of the law and providing appropriate funding is made available to ensure your capacity to comply with the regulations, those would then be acceptable to the Cree nation?

Mr. Craik: I'll respond to this.

That's largely what's indicated in our submission. However, you understand that we do not want to see the application of this law as an encumbrance upon the exercise of the right to hunt, fish, and trap, which is a right held by all Crees, not just a right held by those who might consider themselves or might be considered by an outside observer as a subsistence hunter.

.0935

What we have as a spectacle now in the regulations is an outside firearms officer who does not really understand the Cree community at all sitting in judgment of who's a subsistence hunter and who isn't a subsistence hunter. We can't accept that.

There has to be in this regulation a recognition that the Crees have a right to govern themselves. The Crees have gone a long way in previous days, as Philip said, in accepting and coming to understandings with Quebec and with Canada as to how their inherent right of self-government would be reflected in the laws of Canada and of Quebec. So once again, in this piece of legislation we'd like to see a similar recognition of the Cree rights.

Is there anything you want to add to that?

Ms Deborah Friedman (Legal Counsel, Grand Council of the Crees and Cree Trappers' Association): Yes, I would add one thing.

As to what's being proposed here in terms of administering the Canadian safety arms course as well as the certification and registration of Cree aboriginals, presently the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement is very clear that any licences, permits, or other authorizations - which one could say would include a safety course, it being another type of authorization - must be dispensed by the Cree local communities, Cree local governments, or aboriginal local governments in general. That is consistent with the presently existing right of Crees in northern Quebec.

When we're talking about self-government and recognition of that, we're talking about an extension of what is presently existing, but it is very clear that what exists right now is the right of Crees to control the exercise and the administration of licensing and permit requirements.

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

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Ramsay.

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

I'd like to thank our witnesses this morning for their testimony.

It appears you have recognized the need for licensing of firearms users as well as owners in your communities, the need to register all firearms in your communities, and the need for training courses as stipulated in the act and by the regulations. Do I understand that correctly? Am I correct in that?

Mr. Awashish: We recognize the objective of the bill itself and of the regulations. However, it is subject to our aboriginal treaty rights. It is also subject to the state of the law in Canada - the law as it exists in the Constitution and also as stated by certain decisions of the Supreme Court.

The requirement for licensing and all other requirements must not infringe upon our aboriginal treaty rights. In particular they must conform to the Constitution, which recognizes aboriginal treaty rights.

Ms Friedman: Following on what Philip has just said, when we're talking about recognizing the need for licensing, the need for registration, or the need for a Canadian firearms safety course, there is no doubt that there is a need for it, but a program has to be put in place that is going to be consistent with the rights that have already been guaranteed by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and entrenched under section 35 of the Constitution.

So to simply ask if we recognize the need, and therefore our answer of yes, would be unrealistic. There must be consistency between the implementation of such a regulatory scheme and the applicable laws and treaty rights that presently exist.

.0940

I think by the fact that we have a regulation that entitles itself ``adaptations'', the aboriginal peoples of Canada adaptations regulations, it must be understood that you might have general legislation and general regulations, but they must be adapted to aboriginal peoples in light of existing aboriginal treaty rights.

Mr. Ramsay: The purpose and objective of the bill is to enhance public safety. What I gather from the presentation made to the committee this morning is that the James Bay Cree recognize the need to license gun users and owners, the need to register all firearms and the need to administer the Canadian safety course. Your concern is centred on the way these laws, which are directed towards public safety in these areas, will be administered so as not to negate or abrogate the existing rights of the Cree people. Do I understand that correctly?

Mr. Craik: I guess we're faced with the fact that in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, there is an acknowledgement on the part of the Crees that they would abide by certain general legislation that might come into effect respecting the use of firearms. That's subject to the proviso that it has to be in accordance with the other rights of the Crees in the treaty and that there's a certain role for consultation, with the means for that consultation set up in the treaty. The Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Coordinating Committee, for example, is a priority forum for Canada to seek advice on the application of such regulations.

Mr. Ramsay: I understand that.

Mr. Craik: Given all that, what we have encountered in this legislation, as we have encountered in other legislation in the past, is that the government has a tendency to ignore the treaty rights and the means set out in the treaty for consultation with the Crees. So we come to these forums time and time again to try to protect the rights under the treaty.

Do we think the legislation as it's set out specifically improves firearms safety? We think there could be better things put in place, frankly. We think the legislation is somewhat inappropriate, and this concern with licensing everybody in the Cree community to hold a gun is a little bit ridiculous. Are we able to go back and bring about the changes to the legislation that would make it a practical piece of legislation? We don't think so, because we've met time and time again with the inability of the people drafting this legislation to come up with something practical.

So we propose that the whole Cree community be licensed to hold firearms and all beneficiaries have that right. We don't say no to the legislation; we say we'll administer it, but you have to pay the cost of administering, which is going to be substantial.

As far as the firearms safety courses are concerned, we have been delivering those for years. We think they have been a benefit because they teach people about the technical aspects of firearms and remind people about the safety considerations. But if you look at the man-hours of firearms use in the Cree communities compared to the number of accidents, it's very low. People are fairly well taught through their traditions how to handle firearms. Does this legislation itself improve that, aside from the firearms safety course, which we're already administering? Aside from that, we don't think this legislation brings a heck of a lot into improving the safety of firearms in the Cree communities.

I could ask Mr. Cuciurean to speak to that.

Mr. Cuciurean: I think the trappers would say that licensing or registration is not needed. However, they accept what the white people want to do in Ottawa. They elect people and they create their laws and they do their own thing. The trappers would say that if they think they need it, then they need it - in Ottawa, Montreal or Calgary. That's their problem. Let them stew in their own soup.

.0945

What the trappers are saying is that they need guns and ammunition to hunt and trap and fish. They can't obtain them. The Crees have no gun stores that sell guns or ammo. The only place they can obtain that is Val-d'Or, which is a white centre, or Montreal or some other town, Mattagami. When they go into the Canadian Tire store in Mattagami and say they would like a .22, the man asks where their paperwork is. And you have to wait 28 days and take your course and have your forms and get your photograph and all that.

If the geese are flying or the rabbits are running and it takes three months to get all your paperwork worked out through the fax and telephone, back and forth, if you're a subsistence hunter or a trapper, you can lose six months waiting. So you break the law. You borrow your brother-in-law's gun. You have to break the law and run the risk of three years in jail under Bill C-17.

The Crees are not promoting Bill C-68. The trappers are not promoting Bill C-68. They don't think it's a wonderful law. I'd have to underline what Brian said: if you guys want to set up that kind of system in the south, the idea is to make it possible for the Crees to comply. If it's impossible for them to comply, then they're automatically criminals. They'll be criminalized overnight in2001, when none of them have licences and none of them have registered guns. Then it's three years in jail. And they can't buy any ammo. Where is the sense in that? It is clear that they have the right to hunt in their treaty. It's not fair.

The Chairman: Mr. Kirkby.

Mr. Kirkby (Prince Albert - Churchill River): Thank you for coming to the committee to share with us your thoughts with respect to the regulations under the Firearms Act.

It seems to me that much of what you are talking about is at a practical level. How are we going to effectively assist people to comply with the regulations?

My own riding is in northern Saskatchewan, and I know that in the past many governments have passed many pieces of legislation. The only way anybody finds out about it in the north is when six years after it's passed, somebody happens to get a charge.

I think it's certainly your desire and the desire of the government to avoid those types of situations, to ensure that people are fully participating in the program so that those types of things do not happen to people.

Are you willing to participate with the government in developing an administrative scheme? This will have to be negotiated with the province where it occurs, but are you willing to work with the federal government and the province to put together an administrative scheme, a training scheme, how we get registered - solving these practical problems to ensure that this type of situation doesn't occur within your communities?

Mr. Awashish: We are willing to cooperate with the governments concerning the implementation of these regulations insofar as they are practical to the situation in the Cree communities in the northern Cree territory, and also insofar as these regulations do not infringe upon our aboriginal treaty rights. We have made certain recommendations to the subcommittee. We feel the draft regulations should be amended to ensure these regulations are practical.

.0950

We've emphasized that in cooperating with the government in this respect, we envisage that the local communities, whether it's through local governments or through other forms of local authority, would have an essential role in the administration and implementation of these regulations.

Rick, do you want to make any comment? Or Brian?

Mr. Craik: I'll add one short thing and then I'll let Rick speak, because he's dealing with the practicalities of it.

The short answer is we'll do what we have to do in a practical nature to ensure the Crees can continue to have arms and ammunition and hunt, fish, and trap. What we'll probably do is cooperate with the government on a ``without prejudice'' basis while we're suing you.

Mr. Cucuirean: If anything, the trappers are very practical, and we've been trying to do this with Bill C-17. But it's hard to be very optimistic about the scene when for the past five years, whenever we apply to Indian Affairs for assistance, they say, ``No, we can't do that; that's Justice'', and then when we apply at Justice they say, ``Sorry, we can't do that; it's provincial'', and then when we apply to the province they say, ``Oh, sorry, we can't do that; it's federal''.

We've been given the runaround on simple things, such as translating the Canadian firearms course into James Bay Cree or getting a $1,000 camera. We've been thwarted for the last seven years on this.

I agree with you. The Cree Trappers' Association is extremely practical, super-practical. They're saying, ``Okay, if, when I go to Canadian Tire, I need an FAC, then what do I have to do to get one?'' But when you go back through all the steps, you find out it's really not as easy as it's all chalked up to be. A lot of hurdles are put in there that make it difficult for rural people who can't read or write English and don't have access to telephones and post offices to comply with all these weird and wonderful things.

In Quebec, for an FAC we need six letters of recommendation, not two, as in the other provinces. In Quebec it's six. In some of the generation groups, it's hard to find six people who can read that letter of recommendation in English. That means I have to sit down with the translator and translate that letter of recommendation. What is he signing? If the thing is one page, it takes15 minutes for each of those guys.

Mr. Kirkby: I understand in intimate detail all of the very practical issues you're faced with. I've had it in my riding, with people having to fly out of their community to go and get their picture taken. Things like that we need to find solutions to.

Mr. Cucuirean: It's the same in James Bay.

The Chairman: Mr. Kirkby, do you have further questions?

Mr. Kirkby: No.

The Chairman: Well, we have a couple of minutes. Do you have further questions, Mr. de Savoye?

[Translation]

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

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Ramsay?

Mr. Ramsay: Your willingness to comply is admirable, but I think your concerns go beyond the regulations and into the act itself.

.0955

For instance, in order to obtain a licence under section 5 of the act, the chief firearms officer must take into consideration any criminal offence involving violence, trafficking in drugs, and that kind of thing. I don't know what it is like in your communities up north, but what does that mean? How many members could be determined ineligible to hold a licence to use or own a firearm simply on the basis that they may have been involved in a fight, an assault, or an act of violence as stipulated under section 5?

So do you see that in order for your nation to comply, there may have to be amendments to the act itself rather than just to the regulations?

Mr. Craik: We've made submissions on the act. We weren't happy with the act as it was drafted. Many of our recommendations weren't accepted.

At each stage of this process we say what we can to extract from it what we need to proceed in a practical way. We don't believe we're going back to square one now to redraft the act. The government hasn't shown any will to do that.

Mr. Ramsay: Well, if there's no will -

The Chairman: Mr. Ramsay, we have to move on. Just the one question.

Mr. Ramsay: Yes, my final question is this. If there is no movement on the part of the government to accept your recommendations presented today, what do you do?

Mr. Awashish: The Eeyou Astchee, the Cree of northern Quebec of the Cree territory, will of course take all measures to protect aboriginal rights. There are grounds, which we have brought out this morning, on which we try to meet the government's requirements. There are existing provisions that clearly infringe upon the exercising of our aboriginal treaty rights. When I say we will take all measures necessary, that of course means going to court over the bill itself and the regulations.

The Chairman: We'll go to Mr. Cuciurean for a quick answer to this.

Mr. Cuciurean: There's just one other point.

Your example is a good one in the act. For example, just asking for an aboriginal firearms officer also implies.... You can't do that in the regs. You have to go back to the act and change the act to get an aboriginal firearms officer. Right now it's in the act that there's only one chief officer per province.

A lot of things in the act still need work, but we're not here today for that.

The Chairman: Ms Friedman, quickly.

Ms Friedman: I have one small point on what types of things can be done in the act as opposed to what things can be done within the regulations.

Within the regulations there would be no problem in exempting or waiving a fee for aboriginals with regard to licensing. That can be done within the regulations, and that is imperative at a minimum level if these regulations are going to be consistent with an aboriginal treaty right that presently exists under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. It is very clear that no licences or permits that are going to restrict the right to harvest can be for anything more than a nominal fee. That certainly is an amendment that can be made within the regulations.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms Friedman.

Ms Whelan.

Ms Whelan (Essex - Windsor): My question is about the fee. I'm not really sure if we all understand what the fee is.

My understanding of the fee is that you can register whatever firearms you have in your possession for $10 in the first year and get a firearms possession licence for $10 that's good for five years. So for $20 over five years, it works out to about 33¢ a month over five years. After that it's$45 to keep your possession licence, which works out to less than $1 a month. So when you talk about a nominal fee, I'm not sure what I'm missing.

.1000

Ms Friedman: You're referring specifically to possession licences.

Ms Whelan: Right.

Ms Friedman: An individual who wants an acquisition licence, however, is going to have to pay a fee for each and every registration certificate for each and every weapon they try to register.

On one level, sure, you're talking about weapons that are in the possession of an individual who is going to make an application and on that one application form is going to list all the firearms they wish to register. In that sense it's $10. But thereafter, any time an aboriginal member of the community wants to purchase a new firearm and wants to register it, they're going to pay for each individual registration certificate for each weapon.

With the exception of this one small window of opportunity that's being proposed, which you might characterize as being a nominal fee, it's very clear that the licensing fee itself is not nominal. The fee for the firearms safety course is not going to be nominal. You are providing one small opportunity in which perhaps we can characterize it as nominal, but other than that one exception, all other fees certainly exceed what one would characterize under law as nominal.

Ms Whelan: So do you agree that the initial fees would be nominal, and it's the later fees that would turn out to be not nominal and need to be dealt with?

Ms Friedman: I'm not prepared to characterize even that as nominal, because depending on the understanding of the individual in terms of.... That's another thing. Someone has to be able to understand the regulations themselves to understand that they're going to have a window of opportunity to fill out an application for registration of firearms they're presently in possession of, to list all those firearms, and then pay only the $10 fee. I'm not quite confident that all members of the aboriginal communities in northern Quebec would be able to interpret this regulation as such. In the event that the individual doesn't, they're going to be caught by having to pay for each subsequent registration certificate.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms Whelan.

I want to thank our witnesses this morning for their presentations. I know we speak for all members of the subcommittee - we've enjoyed the frankness and the proposals you've brought forward. What we'll be able to do, of course, is another question, but we will look at them very carefully. I want to assure you of that.

To be here at 9 a.m. is not easy. I know you've come quite a distance and we appreciate it. I want to thank each and every one of you: Mr. Awashish, Mr. Craik, and from the Cree Trappers' Association, Mr. Cuciurean and Ms Friedman.

We'll take a five-minute break while we set up for our next witnesses.

.1003

.1009

The Chairman: We're ready to resume with our next witness.

We're very pleased to have from Toronto, through the process of video-teleconferencing, from the Shooting Federation of Canada, Mr. Paul Shaw.

Mr. Shaw, can you hear us in Toronto?

Mr. Paul Shaw (Member, Executive Committee, Shooting Federation of Canada): Yes, I can.

The Chairman: With you is Mr. Ed Martin, the vice-president. Is that correct?

Mr. Shaw: Yes.

The Chairman: Welcome to both of you. It's our pleasure that you're with us this morning. We would ask that you make your presentation, and then hopefully we'll have the opportunity to pose some questions to you.

.1010

Is that all right with you, gentlemen?

Mr. Shaw: Yes, it is. Thank you.

The Chairman: Begin whenever you're ready.

Mr. Shaw: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, we appreciate the opportunity to address you with our concerns.

Mr. Martin is the vice-president of operations with the Shooting Federation of Canada. Mr. Martin has vast experience in firearms, in grassroots competitive participation and organization, in coaching. He's been with the Canadian International Muzzleloading Team for a number of years, and he's been on the executive for quite a number of years, as well.

I'm currently the president of the Shooting Federation. I'm a lawyer by background. I had an opportunity to prepare the position papers on Bill C-68 when it was before both the justice and legal affairs committee and the Senate. I actually had an opportunity to appear and make verbal presentation before the committee as well.

I have been active in representing numerous groups throughout this country that are involved with recreational firearms. I personally have been a competitive shooter in the sport of trap-shooting for many years and had the opportunity last year to represent Canada at the 1996 Centennial Olympics in the trap-shooting event. I can say for many of my colleagues in the shooting disciplines that when we have an opportunity to represent Canada, we are extremely proud of the opportunity to compete and represent our country.

I can say that within the shooting discipline, shooters who leave this country to compete for Canada are excellent ambassadors for this country in all respects throughout the world.

As you can see from our written presentation, the Shooting Federation has a broad mandate. It's partially explained in our brief, but our mandate includes the protection and promotion of our sport. We do have members at all levels, from those at the grassroots level to those with Olympic calibre. We have men, women, boys, girls, the able, and the disabled. We transcend all socio-economic groups. We have an immaculate safety record. This isn't by luck or happenstance, but because we, through this organization, our clubs, and our individuals, insist on safety - not just on some days, but every single day.

Historically we have operated very well from a safety perspective without Bill C-68 or the regulations we are currently working on. I can tell this committee that these regulations are not going to help us in our endeavours; they're going to put up barriers. They are going to be impediments as opposed to assisting us in any way.

We do speak for tens of thousands of responsible firearm owners across this country, who are concerned about the impact that Bill C-68 and these regulations have, and will have, on them.

In our written brief there are specific concerns. We talk about sections and make recommendations for some alterations that we feel would assist the overall regulations. We also endorse, in particular, the Ontario Handgun Association's position. We have worked closely with the Ontario Handgun Association and numerous other groups and organizations. Incidentally, they are affiliated with us and we do endorse the proposals they make in their brief. You will recall that they had an opportunity to have a teleconference with you last week.

I think it would be more productive to give an overview of three areas of concern with the regulations and their impact. Some of these aspects are ideological. You do not have the opportunity to address them effectively, except for those areas in which you perhaps could deal with the regulations by making them a little more user-friendly.

.1015

The overview covers, as I said, three areas. These areas are the criminal judicial system, the destruction of our sport, and the economic impact.

Some may be beyond the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. It certainly was within the jurisdiction of Parliament and the Senate. We did express our concerns, but nevertheless we have Bill C-68, which we feel will be very difficult for our members to work within.

The criminal judicial system is the mechanism by which Bill C-68 and these regulations are implemented. We have members throughout this country who continue to be outraged and insulted by the fact that, although they have operated within the law safely and without prejudice to themselves or anyone else for a great many years, they are now regulated under the criminal justice system.

Perhaps I could put it in terms that this committee might better understand and appreciate. We are told that gun ownership in this country is a privilege and not a right. We accept that because, as with any other property within Canada, property ownership is a privilege. It's not a guaranteed right. It doesn't matter what that property may be.

For those of you - and I would suggest that is most of you - who own and operate an automobile, that too is a privilege. Who among you or your friends or people you know can say at the end of their driving career that they've had absolutely no offences - not a speeding charge, not an improper turn, no parking tickets, not even a burnt-out tail light, an obstructed licence plate, a foggy or frosted window? Not too many people would be able to say that.

For the people within our organization, the people we represent, firearms are a part of life. They're used every single day in many cases, weekly in others, but they're used regularly throughout in competition, practice, and recreation. Yet our gun laws are much more complicated than the laws that govern automobiles. Any infraction, howsoever minor, results in the invoking of the criminal judicial system. We submit that is not fair.

We recognize that Bill C-68 is something that you cannot rectify, but it still leaves a very bad taste in our mouths. It's something that will not go away. What gun owner could ever hope to own and use firearms without being an easy target for some violation? Our people feel that they are being victimized for the sake of political expediency.

Now you people are intelligent, but did you understand every aspect of part III of the Criminal Code and its implementing regulations and of the Firearms Act and all of these regulations in front of you? Our members don't have the background, education, and intelligence in many respects to be able to understand these things.

They are complicated. I think you have to acknowledge that, but our people are deemed to know them. With all due respect, there really isn't much of a significant chance for them to know and understand all of these things. What is it resolving? Our members are outraged.

Many unfortunately will not comply, some of them because they unwittingly don't realize they are in violation. These people, however, whatever way you look at it, are the new class of legislated criminals.

.1020

Some of our members are scared. Some are terrified. Some are defiant. But to the last one of them, none can understand why they've been sold out, except for one explanation. Whether it be the correct explanation or not, our members believe it is the government's intention to eventually eliminate private ownership of firearms in this country. That's what they believe, and we see this in the Criminal Code, in Bill C-68, and in these regulations over and over again. One of the best and fastest ways to eliminate private ownership of firearms is to make regulations so debilitating to the sport that the sport is eventually destroyed.

Before you are regulations that currently do not deal with clubs and ranges, but those are being worked on right now. We have done an immaculate job at our expense and with impeccable safety results in trying to create infrastructure, facilities, and encourage members to participate safely at all ages and all levels.

We are currently several million strong within the recreational firearms community and have asked over the years for essentially nothing but to have government keep out of our faces. Maybe we made a mistake. Not seeking big bucks, as other sports did, for instance, may have resulted in our being out of sight and out of mind. We haven't asked for government handouts. Maybe that's a measure of worth; we don't know.

We try to administer a great many programs at the grassroots levels. By coaching and officiating we raise the money to do this. We have had some Sport Canada financing to assist with administrative staff and some of our team endeavours and programs. We think this is almost too coincidental to otherwise construe it, but Sport Canada has determined that as of March 31 of this year we no longer qualify for funding for our various programs because of the very complex ``pointing'' structure they have. It's tied to performance to a great extent. We didn't win a medal at the Olympic Games.

We had the opportunity to participate, fundamentally at our expense, in world cups, American Games, world championships, the Commonwealth Games, and other qualifying events to try to get our athletes qualified for the Olympic games. We didn't have an open invitation. The Olympic committee doesn't come to the Shooting Federation of Canada or Sport Canada, say they have an opening for a dozen shooters, and ask whether we would like to send them. We have to compete on the world stage, and we have to be able to earn the quota spots to send someone to the Olympics.

We had an opportunity to send nine shooters in total, but because we didn't win a medal we have been cut off. We tie that, as well, to the eventual destruction of our sport. We won a considerable number of medals at the Pan American Games. That didn't seem to count too much. At the Commonwealth Games, if we had taken our cumulative medals we would have ranked seventh in all the countries, just with our shooting medals.

We have found that our numbers predictably are declining. The cost of every aspect of these regulations is going to eventually come from our members. We're currently starting to find out that only those who have the financial means to do so will be able to continue to participate. Others will either unfortunately not comply and run the risk of prosecution or opt out of the shooting sports.

Cross-border competitive and practice opportunities are considerable in this country. In amateur trap-shooting alone, and that's only one of the many shooting disciplines we are involved with, one event in Vandalia, Ohio, called the Grand American, enjoys the participation of between 200 and 300 Ontario trap-shooters, each and every year. People go down with their families to compete and often take with them several firearms, because there are several events.

.1025

You will note from the fee schedules that every time you leave the country with the same firearm, you have an export and import documentation process, which costs $20 out and $20 back in. If you multiply that by a number of firearms on each and every occasion, it makes it cost prohibitive.

We have been told by our friends in the various shooting disciplines in the United States that they simply will not be coming to Canada. We have also been told by many of our members that the competitive opportunities in the States are important to them. They plan to leave their firearms outside the country and won't be participating in events we're trying to run inside this country.

Again it's a systematic elimination of competitive opportunities in this country, a reduction of our members, and it makes our whole existence not very viable.

Currently the government, through these regulations, although authorized by the Firearms Act...it's a drastic fixing of a problem that really doesn't exist. The wheel isn't broken and it really doesn't need to be fixed.

That leads us to the final aspect, which is the economic impact.

We've told you that we see our numbers declining. We see the competitive opportunities and the number of people who come into the country to compete in the various events declining significantly.

We've worked for years to build credibility in our events. We have some of the best officials and coaches you will find anywhere in the world. We have some of the most dedicated athletes. How do you think our athletes, with very limited funding except for their own, can compete on the world stage effectively without being very dedicated? These regulations are putting stumbling blocks before them.

Members of the committee, fees for all aspects of the regulations are going to make it very, very difficult for organizations like ours, and our affiliate clubs and organizations, to exist.

These regulations, as I said earlier, are not going to help us in any way. If the government feels that society requires all these regulations, I respectively suggest that perhaps society should be prepared to pay for the cost of these regulations. We already donate our time, our expertise on coaching and on officiating, both domestically and internationally. We spend our time with the youth of this country, teaching them not just shooting skills but the fundamentals of discipline, of responsibility, of principles.

You cannot undo what Parliament has done, but you can lessen the impact through these regulations by making them more user-friendly or you can exacerbate the situation. We've identified some areas. We support organizations such as the OHA in their position.

We would be pleased to answer any questions.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Shaw and Mr. Martin. We'd like to go to questions and start with Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: I want to thank our witnesses, Mr. Shaw and Mr. Martin, for appearing before the committee.

Of course we're hearing a message that we've heard over and over again since we began to examine the regulations. We heard the same message when the bill itself was before the whole of the committee. All I can do is ask the same questions I've asked at all the other committees.

.1030

You have by and large answered the main question, and that is whether or not the use of firearms within your organizations has created a threat to personal or public safety...which is supposedly the objective of the bill. You have said that you have an immaculate safety record; that answers that question.

You have pointed out that it seems as though there is a systematic encroachment upon the rights of your members and organization to participate in legal events and so forth and that it is moving towards the elimination ultimately of your pursuits. We've heard that before from groups who pose no threat to the public safety through the use of their firearms.

I have difficulty in understanding how the registration of firearms will enhance public safety. We take some of the unique and bizarre situations that happened in Canada, whether it's the Montreal situation or the recent one in B.C. How in the world would the registration of the firearms used in those two situations have reduced the impact of or prevented those situations from happening either at that time or in the future? I do not see the safety coming out of the bill that the proponents of the bill suggest.

Perhaps I could ask you this question. We have had proponents of the bill state before this committee that firearms are dangerous and everybody is at risk where firearms are present. Yet we've heard group after group testify to the contrary, that organizations such as yours can obtain$5 million worth of insurance for $4 a year. We've had other groups tell us that the insurance companies aren't concerned about a firearm being in the home if they're insuring the home or providing health insurance or whatever.

I'm opposed to the bill because of the enormous economic, social, and cultural impact it's going to have and the fact that it will not reach the societal safety objectives the proponents claim will be achieved. I think if there has ever been a misleading statement it's that somehow this bill is going to create a safer society where firearms are involved. I submit that is giving the people of this country a false sense of security, because it's not going to do that.

I don't know if you have any comments on any of the points I've raised. We will oppose the bill in the next election because we think it's wrong. We think it's not the right way to go. We would repeal the bill and bring in a crime bill that would get tough on the criminal use of firearms and leave the law-abiding gun owners alone. I look for the common sense and the balance in this bill. I don't see it.

If you'd like to comment on any of the points I have raised, I would invite you to do so and to put your feelings on the record.

Mr. Shaw: Let me comment in particular on something you raised. The endeavours you made through the justice and legal affairs committee and the positions you have taken have been appreciated. I would have thought any government truly serious about addressing crime and public safety would want to do its best to work with the user groups. We as the Shooting Federation of Canada represent one such user group, a considerable number of men and women in this country. I would think we would have a common objective, and that is to prevent criminal misuse of firearms. We believe in that. We don't want people who shouldn't have firearms having firearms. We endorse that. We applaud that type of move.

.1035

We are also obviously interested...and have demonstrated historically not only our interest in but also our ability to deal effectively with the safety aspect. Compare virtually any other sport. What are the tolerance levels of some sports with deaths in this country or with major injuries? Compare them with our sport and with the hundreds of thousands of people in our sport who every year participate in recreational firearm pursuits. Compare them.

I read in the paper just yesterday that in Ontario - and I mean no disrespect whatsoever for snowmobiling - there were three deaths I believe this past weekend. Last year or the year before, by the time Christmas occurred it was something like 30 deaths. I find that to be of concern. If you had that number of deaths in the recreational firearm community, there would be a public outrage. We don't, not because the government is there as the big brother overseeing us; we police ourselves, and we respect governments that respect us and our ability to do our job. We are doing our job. It's not going to be done better because the government has stepped in, thinking it can enhance the public safety aspect of our sport. It's not going to happen.

We would respect those of our political members who in turn respect us. We feel there's been a considerable amount of disrespect where our positions have been ignored by many of the parties in this country. There may ultimately be a way in the next election for firearm owners to show their appreciation for those who have worked in their interest and to show their contempt for those who trod upon them and their rights and the things they have done and think are important accomplishments from the public safety point of view.

Mr. Ramsay: What seems to be emerging - and as I said before, I've never been dogmatic on this whole question because, of the thousands of gun owners I've spoken to over the last two years, all of them are in favour of gun control. This bill is not gun control; it's just simply the registering of the firearms and the licensing of the owners. It seems as though the proponents of the bill are prepared to see organizations like yours sacrificed in order to bring forward a bill that, for the life of me, I cannot see containing the potential to bring about the social safety objectives that it claims will be brought about.

I will stop there, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses and leave whatever time I've got left to my colleagues on the other side.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Kirkby.

Mr. Kirkby: I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us today.

You brought up some points I would like some clarification on. You indicated that you were no longer receiving funding as a sport for an Olympic sport. According to certain criteria, your sport has now become ineligible for funding. Now you're not suggesting that there's any difference in the use of the criteria for judging your sport or any other sport, are you? You're all judged by the same criteria for funding, isn't that correct?

.1040

Mr. Shaw: Well, it's such a convoluted pointing system that I think it comes right down to the prospect that it's almost subjective in the eyes of those who are administering the criteria. I sent a letter incidentally, on November 28, objecting to this. It was a very detailed letter.

I have a copy of it here. I sent it to the Hon. Sheila Copps, complaining about the apparent arbitrariness. Maybe I can explain one aspect of the letter, which will give you an example of what we're concerned about.

I say on page 5 of the letter that although we have absolutely no quarrel with the sport of boxing, which we understand has been ranked in 16th place, we do take issue with what we are led to believe was a woman-in-sport allowance of 0.5% out of a possible 3% ceiling. We have a great many female shooters in all disciplines, from our domestic ranks to high performance. We have some advanced ranks that are exclusively for women.

A great number of women, including Sue Esseltine, who was the team leader at the Olympics, are in coaching and officiating, but we were awarded a meagre 0.3% out of this category.

This is information from people within the sport. We have not had official confirmation that this is the pointing system, but it's a pretty good indication. How could boxing, with virtually no female participation, possibly achieve a higher score than our sport in this category?

Then there's hockey. My son is on a hockey team. I've been a hockey dad. My wife and I have travelled all over the place. It's a great sport, so don't get me wrong, but how could hockey, which is the second-place selection, with an allowance of 1%, the maximum under the heading ``athletes with disabilities'', hold a candle to our sport, when we have disabled programs? We have wheelchair programs. We were allowed 0.7%, when we have significant formal programs for disabled athletes and coaches who specialize in this type of thing. That's the type of thing we're concerned about.

Mr. Kirkby: Overall, sir, when all of the factors such as this formula are applied to all sports...you're not saying that a different formula is applied to you or anybody else. You all are subject to the same formula for determination, whether you get funding or not. You're not treated arbitrarily. You're not telling me that, are you?

Mr. Shaw: Perhaps the Hon. Sheila Copps could better answer that question. We are asking her to respond to our letter so we can make an honest determination as to whether we are treated subjectively, objectively, arbitrarily, or what have you.

It seems to us there's a methodology behind all of this that is in keeping with the elimination of our sport...from several departments within the federal government. That's our belief, and we've asked for clarification. We're still waiting for a response.

Mr. Kirkby: It's certainly not the government's position, nor is it my position or the position of anybody I am aware of, to eliminate shooting sports. And that brings up a very interesting point.

You indicate that your membership is going down. I think a number of people have asked me why they would want to get involved when the hunters and shooters themselves are going around saying their sport is dying, that all their firearms are being taken away, and that the sky is falling. Why would people get involved with a sport like that when you're saying that very thing - not government, but you?

Mr. Shaw: We're saying that because of what the government is doing to us through Bill C-68 and these regulations. We're simply being honest with our members.

Mr. Kirkby: The government is not doing that. Legitimate uses of firearms are still permitted. I myself hunt. After my rifles and shotguns are registered, they're going to shoot just as straight.

Mr. Shaw: Do you have opportunities to participate in hunting or target shooting across the border?

Mr. Kirkby: I've seen no need to go across the border myself, but the thing is, sir, when you're going around giving this negative message, do you not think it's going to have a negative impact on your membership?

.1045

Mr. Shaw: Maybe so, but why should we candy-coat something that is a bitter pill?

Mr. Kirkby: I'm not saying you should candy-coat it. I'm saying you should be a little more accurate about it so that people are not frightened off from investing a few dollars and participating in the sports.

Second, I would like you to indicate what specific problem you have with the registration of firearms.

Mr. Shaw: The fundamental problem I have is that it will not be effective for the stated purpose of reducing crime and enhancing public safety.

Mr. Kirkby: Then how would you suggest that prohibition orders, which are issued by the courts across the land to prevent people from owning or possessing firearms for a period of time or forever, be enforced without registration?

Mr. Shaw: There are all sorts of ways of dealing with this. The prohibition orders would affect individuals. The fact that individuals may have access to someone in the same household who would be a legitimate owner of a firearm...we went through that with the Bill C-68 concerns. I submit that if a person who is prohibited chooses to obtain a firearm on the black market or however, he or she will find a way of doing that. Just because there is a court order prohibiting firearms, that will not solve your problems.

A registration certainly is not going to solve the problem. Do you think a hardened criminal who is subject to a prohibition order is going to come clean with you and with the police and say, oh, yes, I have 15 guns and they're hidden in the following places. It's not going to occur. This is not a panacea for all the problems you envisage in this country, sir.

Mr. Kirkby: I've never suggested it will solve all of the problems, but I am suggesting it will solve some. When people are involved in matrimonial disputes, sometimes they do things they wouldn't ordinarily do. If they are in the process of issuing threats to a spouse and it is brought before the court and determined that this person should not have firearms for a period of time, unless there is registration there's no effective means of enforcing that prohibition order. There simply isn't.

Mr. Shaw: I disagree wholeheartedly. In fact, one of the best ways is for the spouse who considers herself under a potential threat.... Now they will provide information voluntarily to the police in relation to this sort of thing, and that will continue down the line. The fact that a person has registered firearms is not going to stop one who is intent on obtaining a firearm from obtaining a firearm. It's a simple fact of the matter; registration will not work for that purpose.

Mr. Kirkby: I disagree with you, sir, but thank you for your testimony.

You indicated that you were worried about non-resident competitors who bring firearms into Canada. These people will have to have a confirmed declaration, which is deemed to be a licence. Those people who borrow firearms require a borrowing licence. Thus they will all have a licence and won't require a prescribed document to transfer ammunition. Your concern seems to be based on a misunderstanding. Does that answer that particular problem?

Mr. Shaw: Are you restricting that to the ammunition aspect?

Mr. Kirkby: To transfer ammunition, yes.

Mr. Shaw: I don't think it's a misunderstanding; it's simply a concern we have for the1999 Pan-American Games. We will have people coming in from various countries who may not have the necessary documentation to be able to qualify under that category. That is one aspect.

.1050

What about the people who come in from other countries, particularly the United States of America, who wish to bring their firearms with them or to borrow firearms? I believe that a 60-day permit to borrow a firearm costs something like $50. There are other prescribed fees for bringing their own firearms in.

This is going to negatively impact on our sport across the country, with the eventual effect of eliminating many of our shooting events. We've been cautioned by people in Saskatchewan and Alberta, who know that their events rely upon at least a 40% American contingent for successful shoots, that these people will not be coming.

The Chairman: Thank you. We'll now go to Mr. de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Gentlemen, I feel that the bill which was adopted will help to reduce violence associated with firearms.

However, the bill would not be in keeping with its intent, in my opinion, if it were to have a negative impact on hunters, recreational shooters or businesses working in the field of firearms or ammunition.

I feel that the purpose of the subcommittee is to bring about, through its work, regulations that will better serve the interests of the various groups concerned.

I know that one of your concerns pertains to the transfer of ammunition, because transfer does not involve only the purchase of ammunition, but also involves loaning or trading ammunition, giving it as a gift, in a nutshell, everything that happens in the real world.

Could you clarify your concerns regarding the transfer of ammunition and clarify certain suggestions that would enable us to improve the regulations so that they would be more practical in the real world?

[English]

Mr. Shaw: Thank you for that question. On pages 4 to 6 of our presentation we elaborate on some of the practical examples of problems we envisage by the way the regulations are currently drafted. I've given a few examples.

When we are in a competition, there are rules that govern the competition. In handgun and rifle competitions there are range officers who can disqualify people and ask them to leave the competition if there are things like the disruption of the harmony of the competition. People are expected to bring their equipment, properly functioning, and enough ammunition, but from time to time there's a deficiency of ammunition or there are dud shells.

The honourable Mr. Kirkby has indicated that he is a hunter. If he hunts ducks, geese or other fowl with shotguns, how many times has he been hunting with a companion when he runs out of certain types of heavy loads and wants to borrow ammunition of that description? It happens all the time in the field. It's an incidental type of transfer between friends or acquaintances, people you don't even know. I've been in international competitions when I've had a dud shell or a deficiency of shells because I've shot at too many targets and missed them or what have you, and people from other countries will provide ammunition to me. It happens all the time. Will we have to stop the squad and ask for a prescribed document or some sort of licence or certificate to permit that type of thing? We've made a recommendation here about how you can get around that, and I think it's reasonable.

.1055

As far as buying ammunition at the source, that is really what these regulations address, in my respectful opinion: the buying of ammunition at the source. That's how these regulations can perhaps address that sort of thing. Once you get beyond that and into the practical realities of the use of firearms and ammunition, it's a different story. We've made some recommendations that we think are reasonable and practical to address the practical realities of competition and hunting opportunities in the field.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Maloney (Erie): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just one small question on the storage of unrestricted firearms.

I was reading your brief and your recommendation on paragraph 3(1)(c) that we add the words ``the same or a separate container''. Your concern is that paragraph 3(1)(c) as set out in the regulations does not allow that at this time. My interpretation would be that it would allow the storage of ammunition and non-restrictive weapons in the same container.

Mr. Shaw: Your interpretation is consistent with mine, but I can tell you this right now. I do a significant amount of litigation, both civil and criminal, and I've encountered numerous police officers and crown attorneys who do not share the interpretation you and I have of that. It is not clear.

I am simply saying, because I believe that to be the intent of the legislation, let's make it crystal clear so that it is permitted. With the recommendations I have made here, you can make it crystal clear. I wouldn't want to suggest to anyone that C-17, when it was initially drafted, covered all the areas it should have; it didn't. It wasn't drafted as well as it could have been, and this is one example of that.

There are crown attorneys and police out there who do not share that interpretation with you and me, I can tell you right now. I can give you the names of those people if you wish.

Mr. Maloney: I appreciate the position of the crowns and the police, but what position does the judge ultimately take, or have you taken any of these to court? Have there been any judicial decisions on this?

Mr. Shaw: There has not been a decision on that interpretation of the regulations that I am aware of or that I have seen reported. There may be an unreported case somewhere, but I have not seen any decided cases on that.

With all due respect, we have the opportunity now to tidy that up. I would hate to see the judiciary interpret that contrary to the way I feel it should be interpreted. Then what are we going to do? Now you have judicial interpretation on something that is contrary to what the spirit and intent of this legislation should be. You have the opportunity to tidy it up.

Mr. Maloney: We'll do our very best to tidy up that section. I think the intent is there and we're all on the same wavelength. If it's required to be a little more clear, then let's do it.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Shaw, did you want to say something else?

Mr. Shaw: With respect to the storage and display, as you know from our brief, nowhere are storage and display defined. I am concerned about our members and people throughout this country who store firearms in what they believe to be a safe fashion that complies with the regulations.

It is my belief, based upon talking to many people and their experience in talking to others, that probably still the most prevalent way that people store their firearms is either on a rack, a wall-hanging structure, or something of this nature, with probably something like a chain or a cable that goes through the trigger guards and then is attached to either the wall itself so it's an immovable structure.... The regulations as drafted don't seem to go so far as to say that, even though that's the way most firearms in this country are stored and the people who store them in that fashion believe they're being safely stored. I would like to see that cleaned up so there's simply no ability for the police to lay charges, for crown attorneys to prosecute, or for the judiciary to be creative in its interpretation of that.

.1100

We want protection for the people who store firearms in that fashion and believe they're storing them safely, and in fact are storing them safely, but they may be outside of some people's interpretation of those regulations.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Shaw and Mr. Martin, for being with us this morning. We appreciate the time you've taken to appear before us and we thank you for your brief, which is very comprehensive and should be very easily considered by this subcommittee.

Thank you again. We've appreciated your contribution.

Mr. Shaw: Thank you for giving us the opportunity.

The Chairman: We will take a five-minute break while we set up for the next witnesses.

.1101

.1107

The Chairman: Thank you very much. We're ready to resume our hearings.

At this point we welcome, from the Mohawk/Canada Round Table, Chief Jacobs; Chief Gilbert; Chief Phillips; Chief Two Rivers; Mr. Alwyn Morris, who's the coordinator of the group; Angie Barnes, assistant; Barry Bonspelle; and Don Patrick Martin.

I want to thank you for coming on short notice. It's important that we hear from you on this question. It's one that I know affects you quite a bit.

We welcome your presentation. Following that, we hope to be able to ask some questions, if that's all right with you.

You can make the presentation in any way you want; one person can make it on behalf of everybody or you can have two or three spokesmen, however you wish to do it.

Who would like to begin?

Chief Billy Two Rivers (Mohawk/Canada Round Table): Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Chief Two Rivers.

Chief Two Rivers: [Witness speaks in his native language].

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Billy Two Rivers. I was just thinking back on how things have changed, how in the past, when your government wanted something from our people, you came to us and we had discussions and negotiations.

.1110

Now we must come to you. We must journey to your capitals, come over here, and talk about legislation, laws and other things that we consider an imposition on the relationship that we as Mohawk people have with the Crown. We have this not with the governments of the day - because they come and go - but with the honour and respect of the Canadian Crown.

Today we talk about C-68 and, as the chairman indicated, the concerns it may raise in our communities. Bill C-68 is a law for Canada and its citizens, and we don't object. We don't disagree on the right, the supremacy, of Parliament to make laws for its own people. But for centuries we have been regulating bow-and-arrow control, and now gun control. And we see that if it becomes necessary, we can work out an understanding with your government on the registration of arms that we possess.

In the late 1980s we enacted a law, a community law, where firearms were registered. We still think that we can be compatible in order to work out a negotiated process with your government on registration. But it must be said that the Mohawks feel the law is misdirected. Maybe the wisdom of government falls down by its own self in figuring out how a country should be regulated in certain areas, because the law should be directed at the lawbreakers.

The law should be directed at people who use arms to commit crime. That is supposed to be the spirit in which this government legislated this law, and we respect that. We understand that no matter how they grope to try to solve a problem, we can hopefully assist them in registering arms, in ensuring that when arms are used for a criminal activity, we will have the registration of those arms in our community, that if in some way are they are associated with a criminal act, this can be addressed and looked at.

We are already concerned about the imposition and intrusion of government regulations by way of cost-related laws. We think we have a say in the matter of governments passing a law, then charging the people for following that law, and then initiating a criminal charge associated with it if you do not participate in the legislation.

We don't think that the government has the legal competence to be imposing a fine or a cost attached to the registration of arms. We don't think that's right.

.1115

We have the ability and we have the necessary tools to register. We already began to register arms within our territories a long time ago. But we find that the law is misdirected. The law should be applying to criminal acts, and to people who use the arms for a criminal purpose.

If at some future time it would be possible to negotiate a relationship on how we could exchange information on registered arms, then we'd be more than willing to sit down. We do have forums now that are established to deal with issues and laws affecting our people. It's called the round table process, and we do put items on the agenda that reflect the concerns we have in our Mohawk communities. So the opportunity is there.

We have a long history of a relationship with your governments and your people. But we do have concerns about a law that is talking about a tripartite process and the fact that a commissioner would be appointed from a provincial jurisdiction. We do have concerns with that.

I think we can work it out and come to an understanding, because we can certainly initiate a bilateral process with the federal government. But we don't think the law is proper. We think that the law, in terms of what it's supposed to do, is not reflected.

In conclusion, as far as I'm concerned - there will be other speakers who will address the issue - we reject the imposition of Bill C-68 within Mohawk communities, because we have a corresponding alternative process. In that process we can work together and initiate a registration plan that will register guns. And if those guns are used for a criminal act, they'll show up on a computer or wherever we put them.

But the one thing I can assert is that we will not accept provincial jurisdiction coming into Mohawk territory by way of gun control or gun inspection. That is totally unacceptable to us. Hopefully, through a negotiated process we can continue to achieve the goals of peace, order and good government, not only within our communities, but in the communities this law is supposed to serve and protect.

The Chairman: Chief Jacobs.

Chief Phillip Jacobs (Mohawk/Canada Round Table, Mohawk Council of Kahnawake): I'd like to thank you for the time I'm being given here. There are a few issues relating to this legislation, Bill C-68, that concern me personally, but I know they also concern our communities.

Billy spoke about this round table process that has started. There are some key components of your government who are sitting at that same table. The purpose of this table was to iron out differences between ourselves and the government of the day, whatever that government might be.

Along with that process, on Kahnawake's side we also have the Canada-Kahnawake relations team. That process is working through the Minister of Indian Affairs, and it preceded Bill C-68. There are at least 23 or 24 different items on there, and one of them is firearms.

That started in 1991; that preceded this bill. We were just as worried about it as you may have been, but for different purposes. In our minds, I don't think it's a matter of regulation, but it's to control a criminal element that is there, and is there in every community. Bill touched on that.

.1120

I have no faith in the chief firearms officer of a province. That person doesn't know who he's dealing with in most cases. We see it every day on TV. Somebody who has a licence, and has been given a licence for whatever reasons, is committing an act.

If anybody is going to be issuing any permits to any of our community members, we feel that should be done internally, and it should come from us. If anybody knows their people, it's us.

We do have the systems in place internally in the community. We have our own policing service that's been there since 1979. We have a court that's been in operation since about that same period - actually it's been there longer than that. We have a complete justice system. These are the people in our communities responsible for taking care of these issues.

This regulation that could be imposed upon us is a threat. And if you know our people, all that will do is cause a reaction, and it will be a negative reaction. There are ways to do this, but it will come internally, not from applying external pressure.

Again, we're just as worried about this as you are, and how that relationship will work between our government and your government can be worked out. There's no question about that. I think we have the technical people. The political will is there to work out relationships.

We can all be comfortable in the way matters such as this are handled in those relationships. That has to be based on respect and a willingness to understand who we are, how long we've been here, and that we do have rights. I don't think those rights can be stepped on, or will be stepped on, by any government at this time.

We come here speaking for our people. I know that our people are 100% - if not more than that - behind us on this issue. Whatever we do is going to have to be worked out based on respect, and I'm here to offer that at this point.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Chief Jacobs. Chief Phillips.

Chief Lloyd Phillips (Mohawk Council of Akwesasne): Good morning. I come to you from the Mohawk Nation of Akwesasne. I represent the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, Grand Chief Russell Roundpoint, and the other eleven members of our council.

We have concerns about Bill C-68, much as Billy said he has. In particular, I hope most of you are familiar with Akwesasne, because it's a mishmash of the United States government, the Canadian government, the Quebec government, and the Ontario government. If you try to to take the principles of Bill C-68 and apply them to our community, it just doesn't work the way it's written.

We've always had these problems with legislation coming down. Try to apply it to our territory; you can't. So what we have to do is take those principles and make our own laws that govern, so that they protect our people.

We understand the basics, the principles behind Bill C-68. Obviously they're about concern for safety for your people. You know, we have those same concerns about our people too. We don't want to see anybody running around with loose guns, committing murders, or anything like that, with illegal guns, or any way. But as Billy has said, it really doesn't address that. Outside, and even within our territory, it wouldn't address that.

We have the law-making capabilities within our community. We've always had that. We've never relinquished that. Right from the origin of our people, the Mohawk people, from the confederacy, we've always had the laws that govern our people.

In the same way, we can take the basics of what you have here, and we can modify them. We can improve them. We can turn them so that they will be able to govern our people in Akwesasne.

.1125

You always have that cross-border aspect. I live right in the community in the village of St. Regis. A hundred feet beyond my yard is the border that runs across, the United States border, and it cuts through a section of my yard. So I can't see how the government is going to be able to govern that with Bill C-68, because there is a lot of hunting that goes on, particularly in the fall. We have all kinds of marshes within our territory. We have hunters from either side of our border who go into those marshes to hunt ducks. In the fall there are deer. So to try to regulate it.... I can't see it from the outside.

I believe we can do it within our territory. As Billy has said, we have the people who can do it, we have the knowledge, we have everything. And it won't be anything radically different from what you have. We understand the basis of Bill C-68, but it just doesn't work for our people within our territory.

We can take that, and we can work out something, and then we can have it sanctioned by our own governing body, the traditional council, which is then sanctioned by the Haudenosaunee, by the whole Iroquois Confederacy.

We've done that with our conservation law, again, because we were at odds with the provinces. They were imposing their rules and regulations within our territorial waters. So we had to take what they were saying to us and adapt it to our own, so that we have our own conservation law. That is sanctioned by the Iroquois Confederacy that applies to our territory.

As I said, we understand the basis of this, but to try to apply it to our people within the Mohawk nations just won't work. Allow us that opportunity, too. Like Kahnawake says, they have their own already in place. It wouldn't take us long to develop our own, but it may take a little bit longer, because we look at the whole territory when you're trying to sanction gun control.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Chief Phillips.

Chief Gilbert, did you want to say a few words?

Chief Tiorahkwathe Gilbert (Mohawk/Canada Round Table, Mohawk Council of Kahnawake): [Witness speaks in his native language].

My name is Tiorahkwathe. I'm on the council in Kahnawake.

I understand the push for Bill C-68. However, we have treaties and rights, and we are not a lawless community. We are brought up to respect gun control, and peace and respect for one another.

I'll go back a few years to when the European first got to our territory, starving and sickly. He came unto our ancestors, needing help to see another day. Our grandfathers assisted him with a conscious heart.

Today the same person who landed wants to dictate laws and regulations unto our people. But we have treaties in place, and as people said earlier, we have to deal with the government of the day, so it changes. We can't be held to a province.

So if we are to live in peace.... We do want to coexist with our brothers, and the only way you can coexist is by coming halfway and dialoguing on the issue. As our brother stated, each community has different needs. Nevertheless, we can work together through communication and dialogue, and come to a consensus by brainstorming with one another. But whenever one just tries to impose, and dictate to another person, there's always that possibility of things going wrong.

.1130

So I feel that we, as the Kahniakehaka Nation, have always sat around the fire, as you would call it.

[Witness continues in his native language]. We have sat around the fire and discussed issues: verbal, body language, and what have you.

I think this can be a process by which we can come together and give some feedback to one another on Bill C-68.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Chief. Mr. Morris.

Mr. Alwyn Morris (Coordinator, Mohawk/Canada Round Table): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think one of the aspects we see, as related by our chiefs and council members here, is that we feel we could deal with our own administration. That's an interesting point, because Minister Rock basically said the same thing, that he was interested in moving in that direction.

Now, interestingly enough, when you have the current regulations as spelled out, there is no context for self-administration. What does that mean? What did Mr. Rock mean? When we look at it, as put out today, we're open to that. We think we can come up with an intergovernmental agreement with you. I don't think there is any problem with that, but unfortunately at this time there's nothing in the form of context. We don't know what you're talking about. Are we talking two different languages here? We're coming, and we put our position on the table today, but we don't know what you mean.

If there's a fundamental point when you talk about community administration or otherwise, and you lay out your concerns, that you have to follow your constitutional rules and responsibilities in section 91 or section 92, then you have totally eliminated the possibility of any kind of intergovernmental agreement between the Mohawks and the federal government.

I caution you on that, because there has to be that avenue. It is not in your law, and it is not in your current regulations. Our recommendation to your gun control centre people was that there had to be an amendment to allow for that to occur. In other words, have it somewhere within your legislation, and have it allow you to talk and develop the relationship.

If the federal government, and in particular the gun control centre, is the administrative arm of Bill C-68 and the regulations, and is going to be a permanent place for all this to occur, then it seems very likely and very smart to move in that direction, to have somewhere in that, in your bureaucratic end, to be able to deal with this situation.

If, however, you say.... And in fact the gun control centre people are currently negotiating with provinces that may be in compliance. We know there are provinces that are not in compliance with Bill C-68.

So if you've already started to draft that agreement, and in this particular case with the Province of Quebec, then I think we have to be very clear here. We have to ensure that the agreement is not tripartite, but that we have a relationship with the federal Crown as explained by the chiefs today, and we want to maintain that through our agreements.

You are in an embryonic stage now of being able to do something like that. That's going to be new, and maybe it will fall in line with the inherent right the government espouses. If the inherent right is in section 35, then obviously there must be powers that accompany that.

That one power has to be the ability to enact our own laws. And yes, by all stretches of the imagination we can provide this level of comfort and the intergovernmental agreements, therefore providing for the sharing of information. The ability to do that exists right now. If you close it down, then we are going to be in an adversarial condition, and we are going to have ongoing problems.

.1135

I urge you to consider that if you are dealing with self-administration, you'll look seriously at the avenues to develop not only the amendment to the law, but an avenue to ensure that there's a residual element of Bill C-68 that allows for intergovernmental relations between first nations people, in this case the Mohawk people, and the federal government.

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

We will now go to questions from members of our subcommittee. We'll begin with Monsieur de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Chief Two Rivers, Chief Jacobs, Chief Phillips, Chief Gilbert, Ms Friedman and gentlemen,

[English]

I don't speak your language, but we speak a common second language - English. Maybe one day I'll have the opportunity to educate myself in your culture.

Chief Gilbert: Actually, that is not my name. My real name is Tiorahkwathe. It means bright sun, high bright sun. This was, again, a name that I was given because the non-speaking person I guess who christened me couldn't say my name, so I was given an English name.

Mr. de Savoye: But you kept yours.

Chief Gilbert: Yes.

Mr. de Savoye: And you did well.

Chief Two Rivers, when you say that law is meant for criminals, I have to disagree. Laws, as are probably your laws too, are there to guide citizens towards socially acceptable and respectful behaviour. This Bill C-68, in my feeling, is meant in that manner. However, when you're speaking about self-government and self-administration, I am very sensitive to these words.

There are treaties. There are aboriginal rights. Rights and treaties should be fully respected and implemented. On those accounts you have in front of you someone who does understand your language.

Of course I believe you, Chief Two Rivers, when you say that no chief firearms officer from the Province of Quebec would be welcome on Mohawk territory.

I understand that your communities many years ago elaborated a firearm control law. I'm familiar with that law. Maybe you can explain it to the committee.

However, as are most citizens who read papers and who listen to the TV news, I am aware of...I don't know if it's reality or a legend about the Mohawk people, but maybe you can shed some light on this, because I think it's important at least for me to understand what your position is and how you apply your gun control laws. For instance, whether it's right or not, I've heard that gun smuggling, arms smuggling, is going through your territory. I have heard some AK-47 stories. I have never had the privilege of visiting your territories, so I haven't been there. I wasn't a witness to anything that I read or hear on the TV.

Could you shed some light on all this and explain to me and to us what your gun control laws are like, and how you feel about these stories?

The Chairman: Chief Two Rivers.

Chief Two Rivers: Well, I guess for the past several years we have to a large degree been victimized by the media, by the governments. We've been labelled terrorists, criminals, and smugglers; and many other adjectives were used to apply to Mohawk people. Unfortunately, I guess, like the Indian Act, it was applied with one blanket, one sweep, one brush. Everybody comes under it, and that's not right.

.1140

As Tiorahkwathe said, we come from a community that is law-abiding, that has law and order built right into its governmental system. The spirituality, the social structure, the government, the responsibility are all there, but that doesn't mean that 100% of the people abide by that.

That's where I guess you and I have a different opinion on the direction of Bill C-68, which we are both entitled to. Through dialogue maybe we'll get to understand the different points of view that we see, in terms of how the law should be directed - the criminal element.

Now we have certainly on occasions had people from Kahnawake who have dealt with the transport of arms, but they didn't come to Kahnawake. There's a lucrative business in arms sales. I think even Canada is involved in arms sales - I think number four or five in the international world to be selling arms to different people for the purposes of war. I can safely say that other than the criminal aspect of bringing illegal arms into Canada, any weapons that may have been brought to Kahnawake are for defence purposes.

We are not people that have aggressed, or attacked, or pillaged, or surrounded neighbouring communities. We have been on the defensive for centuries, trying to protect the postage stamps on which we live, and for this we are criminalized for defending our families, our homes, and our backyards. We have great problems with the way we have been portrayed. And to a large degree the continued threat of the bickering - the bickering of two societies that came from Europe - is still relevant in our backyard.

The argument that was born in the sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth centuries arrived over here on our shores, and still continues today. We still live under a threat of possible confrontation, which obviously is not supposed to be talked about in public, about secession, about the breakup of the country. We are right in the middle of that.

The questions that you bring forth on what Kahnawake is.... We have had registration for gun control, in 1988 or 1989, in that period of time. People came forth and they brought their guns to be registered at the peacekeeper's office. They said ``This is what I have. This is the registration number, and here it is.'' People brought it forth and there was a tremendous response. Like everything else, it's not 100%.

As a matter of fact, I didn't register my guns. I still have them at the house, but I don't intend to attack Lachine, or Chateauguay, or Valleyfield, or Montreal - no. But I'm sure as hell going to have something besides a peashooter and a slingshot to defend my backyard, because there are threats right here from government officials, from the likes of Brassard, that are making statements that threaten our very existence, and we have concerns about it. I have children, I have grandchildren, and I have to maintain a vigilance.

The realities of what has been stated in these documents maybe have no effect on people living out in the prairies, or living out in other parts of Canada, but certainly in our backyard it's a reality. It's a reality that is in our face every day.

.1145

Getting back to the issue of gun control, we have a process that is ready to - again, as Chief Tiorahkwathe has stated - coexist and respect and recognize that there are two realities here, ours and yours. We can build upon the purpose of Bill C-68 and bring it to a reality where there will be peace, order and good government, and harmony amongst ourselves.

We will register, but again it becomes a question of who is applying the law. We have law and order just like everybody else. If you go through our community and you're speeding, you'll get a ticket. Where do you go to pay it? You go to our courthouse. There are other crimes, breaking and entering. Our peacekeepers are the first law of the community. But that doesn't mean we don't follow the Criminal Code or the highway code. We do. But it's not some officer who was trained at Nicolet or somewhere else who is going to enforce the law in Kahnawake. We have our own people to do it.

The same thing applies with Bill C-68. We'll comply with it to the degree that we will be handling our own registration for guns. We still emphasize the fact that we will sit down and negotiate a relationship respecting that law.

Are there any more questions?

Mr. de Savoye: Do I have more time?

The Chairman: Just one small question, Mr. de Savoye.

Chief Two Rivers: Are they small questions?

Mr. de Savoye: But they're important answers.

Maybe I haven't heard you clearly. You mentioned a few moments ago that you hadn't registered your own firearms despite the fact that your own people's laws provided for that to occur. Could you explain more about that?

Chief Two Rivers: Yes. They are very old guns and they don't work. I have a musket, a powder gun, and I have a couple that are little musket-style things. They're antiques. I just mentioned that to see if you were paying attention to what I was saying.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. de Savoye: I always pay much attention to what witnesses are saying, and this morning I'm paying very much attention indeed. I thank you for the precision. I think it was important.

The Chairman: Chief Jacobs, did you want to say something as well?

Chief Jacobs: Yes. I'd like to elaborate a bit more.

In September 1995 we signed a policing agreement with two parties, both the feds and the province. One reason we did this was exactly what Mr. de Savoye was talking about, a lot of the negative press we've been getting. We wanted to change that image and show that we are indeed responsible and law-abiding and prove everybody wrong. We're used to doing that. We've been doing that all our lives and we'll continue to do that.

To talk about this so-called smuggling issue, it's there. It's not just happening in our communities; it's happening right across this big border that goes through this country. There's no question about it. It's always been going on. Some of the richest people in the world were smugglers at one point and now they're respectable and they're members of Parliament and everybody else. They became presidents of the United States.

This is an ongoing problem for us and we work hard at it. Our peacekeepers have excellent cooperation with the RCMP as well as agencies on the American side of that imaginary line that goes through our country. A lot of times we can get information faster than they can because we have a direct line of communication with several states and federal agencies. We know where a lot of these guns are going. We know who is buying them. There's organized crime out there that's everybody's concern.

.1150

Our people are worried about that, because we do have rights going back and forth over that border. If somebody from one of our communities is abusing that right, it's creating problems for the 99% of our community who are law-abiding and respect the laws of the land wherever they are.

We have other issues at hand with that imaginary line. We have brothers across that line who go back and forth. We go back and forth to hunt in their lands and they come to ours. There isn't anything in those draft regulations to cover those rights and areas of respect we've had for centuries before the, for lack of a better word, non-natives got here. We've been doing this since time immemorial and we'll continue to do it. It's a concern.

But to answer his question, I don't believe everything that's in the paper. If I did, I think almost all of us would be in some kind of trouble here.

The Chairman: Chief Phillips.

Chief Phillips: I'd like to take a second to respond to that too. As my colleagues here have said, the media like to play it up on us. As he said, it goes on; there's no denying that. But with our police officers back home, if you speak with the RCMP in the Cornwall detachment you will see a level of cooperation between our departments that is second to none in any area. The OPP, the RCMP, the border patrol, the state police and our police are all working in a concerted effort to address those areas. I think they've made substantial gains in that area.

But you are here to discuss Bill C-68 and I don't know if it even covers that area. From my understanding, it's for the person who's a hunter, a fisherman or whoever owns a gun. They register them and it's all legal and your guns are all registered. If you have a legal trade going through there, I don't see how Bill C-68 addresses that.

As they mentioned, it's organized crime that's running the whole thing. As Billy Two Rivers mentioned earlier, it's the criminals who are behind this. I don't know whether Bill C-68 really addresses it, unless you're going to take your illegally obtained guns and then register them with the government, which doesn't make sense to me. I know what you're saying and I know how we're portrayed in the media, but we're here on Bill C-68 and I don't really see the parallel or how the bill even addresses that concern.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank our witnesses for their testimony this morning.

If I remember correctly, we did not have representatives from your communities appear before the committee on the original bill. Of course, we're looking at the regulations now.

I'd like to begin by saying that if the justice minister or anyone else has convinced you that the non-aboriginal community needs Bill C-68 and its regulations, I would caution you on embracing that argument. Right now four provinces and two territories have joined in a constitutional court case opposing the bill.

During the last two years I've been all across the country on this bill, in every province except Prince Edward Island, and there are literally hundreds of thousands of people opposed to certain portions of it. Some portions are supported. I and the Reform Party caucus support some portions of the bill - the portion aimed at the criminal use of firearms.

.1155

We had two members here yesterday from Quebec representing 1,200,000 gun owners in the province of Quebec, just through their two organizations. They're opposed to that bill. We've been in Atlantic Canada. Thousands of gun owners are concerned about the bill.

Many people do not even understand Bill C-17 and are not complying with the requirements of Bill C-17. We had the aboriginal justice minister from the Northwest Territories tell us very clearly that the FAC requirements are not abided by in the Northwest Territories in some areas, because it's impossible for them to get a passport photo to send in with their application, which is mandatory. So they're simply ignoring it.

Why would you want to embrace this bill? Will it add to public safety within your communities? Will the licensing of gun owners and users and the registration of their firearms enhance the safety of your communities?

If I saw the potential to do so in this bill, I would support the bill. But I have to agree with Chief Two Rivers, who put his finger on this, and we've heard it all across the country.

Chief, you said you don't think the law is proper and the law should be directed at the lawbreakers. This is what we're saying. Leave the law-abiding gun owners alone.

So if this bill is going to regulate the use, storage, and exhibit of firearms in your community, then it must coincide with the objective of the bill, which we're told is public safety. Do you need this bill - the licensing, the registration portion of it - to enhance public safety within your respective communities?

Chief Two Rivers: Good morning, Mr. Ramsay. From the distant Reform area, I welcome you to Algonquin territory on behalf of the Algonquins.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.

Chief Two Rivers: It's important a lot of times to relate back to Mr. de Savoye's question of what makes us tick and talk. The whole issue of embracing another government's law is not what we are talking about. What we are talking about is the possible imposition of another government's law upon our people, if it's to be.

We don't interfere with your government process. We are not Canadian citizens, as deemed by John Diefenbaker when he gave us the right to vote. We don't vote. Whether it's provincial or federal, we don't vote. That's not our process. We have our own, and if you came to vote in Mohawk elections, we wouldn't allow you.

But the point is the law is yours, and we look at how it would affect us. When I say it's misdirected, I mean it is misdirected because of the general understanding of the law and its weaknesses. Parliament makes laws, and it's your Parliament. It's your process, and we have to live within that reality. What we try to ensure is that we are not again imposed upon by legislation that shouldn't even be imposed upon your own people.

.1200

We can't direct you to do what should be done in terms of readdressing, changing, or accommodating the law, but if that's going to be your law, then let's sit down and have a discussion on how we can all live with that law, based on where we're coming from and the legislative powers of your government in enacting it.

We don't embrace it, but we're not going to go to Parliament and say we oppose it and we're not voting for the next Liberal Party, because it's not our process. With all due respect again to the legislation, our concern is about down the road, when there's a gun control law, and through the agreement of the Province of Quebec and the federal government, we have a commissioner of firearms and we have to pay so much money for registering the things.

We say that's not applicable. The law is not applicable. That's where we come from.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.

In the last couple of minutes of my time, I'd like to ask you about your own registration system that you have in your community.

The maximum penalty for deliberately neglecting to register a firearm, according to the bill, is going to be 10 years. That's the maximum penalty - a pretty severe penalty. What penalty do you impose upon your people for failing to register your firearms?

The Chairman: Chief Jacobs.

Chief Jacobs: Right now the penalty we've put in place in ours is a monetary penalty. I don't think 10 years in jail is going to help other people to register. Overall, the justice system and the imposition of jail time for certain items just doesn't cut it with our people. There are different ways.

Our people are responsible to the community first. Our laws come from the community first. They come to us and say ``All right, council. This is what we need; this is what has to be put in place. You guys go ahead and do it.''

There are different ways to handle somebody who doesn't conform to the law. In this case, if somebody doesn't want to register their firearms, and if that's the law of the land in our community, it will hurt them more that they're not going to be able to use firearms at any time. To take away somebody's right - and again, we are talking about our right to have firearms - and for the community to keep an eye on a person and say they can't hunt because they broke this law and there's a reason it's there.... It hurts a heck of a lot more when it's your right to have firearms and you're not able to use them.

In our law, we're using the present system we have. We do have our own courts, and for us it would be considered a summary conviction. I know what your law is. You're trying to put more emphasis, more responsibility, on it, but again, you're going after the extreme lawbreaker. For somebody who just doesn't want to register, for political or spiritual reasons or because it's a God-given right, it goes a little bit deeper than that. That doesn't make him a criminal.

.1205

We do have different political backgrounds and we do come from a different culture. In those cultures I think we as a people have different ways of handling things. It's something that we do have in place, and it's applicable to our people. We're not going to force that on the non-native culture, but if they come onto our lands and somebody is handling weapons in an unsafe manner or has weapons that aren't registered, there is a system out there to take care of that. We do have to work in cooperation with police forces and the justice system to effectively handle those situations.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Chief Gilbert, did you want to say something?

Chief Gilbert: I would like to say a few words.

Values and principles. I know I'm speaking for myself. When I hear the word ``butterfly'', I think of beautiful things. Our language is very picturesque. When I hear the word ``gun'', I am startled, just like the next guy.

I have a gun that's registered. It was given to me as a house-warming gift, and I've never fired it.

We've been told, through our ancestors, through oral teaching, that the meaning of the word ``gun'' is a tool that directs an instrument through a barrel. There are consequences to that. You're taught that there's a time and a place for this tool.

There's not a dollar value put on it. I didn't have to pay $25 or $45, because the common denominator isn't money. The teaching is that only after the last lake is polluted, after the last tree is cut, after the last fish is caught - only then will we realize that we can't eat money. But we do have principles, laws, in place.

The community sees me as a reputable person. I've been personally asked to transport guns across borders and what have you. But it's because of the teachings and the values that I have...and I've told these people. They weren't necessarily always natives. There is good and bad in all barrels of people.

But I've always been told to look in the mirror, and when you look in the mirror, your face, your expression, will tell you whether or not you should do something. When you look into the mirror, you'll have to answer from the heart, and you have to live with that decision.

I just wanted to add that.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Chief Gilbert.

Now we'll go to Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Maloney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Perhaps I could address my questions to Chief Jacobs. Anyone else can add something as they deem necessary.

I'm very intrigued that you've had gun registration since 1988 or 1989. Why did you introduce it?

Chief Jacobs: For several different reasons. Number one, it was an issue in the community. They were worried about the stuff that was happening, again across these imaginary borders in our minds. There were problems, and it was a concern of our enforcement people, the peacekeepers. It was a problem within the courts.

.1210

On the safety side, we'd like to know who we're dealing with when we answer a call. We'd like to know who has what in certain situations. Again, it goes back to knowing our people. We know when somebody is having a problem and we know what kind of problem it is. There are cycles people go through when they're in a crisis. I think we can make the decision, if we know somebody has certain items in the house, to say, listen, we know you, we know what can happen and we feel in this instance that you shouldn't have these things in your possession. We're coming to get them and we know what it is that you have.

That's internal, but before it ever gets internal, if these items need to be registered - and they probably do need to be registered somewhere - it should happen at the source, where you buy them. The people selling these things are the ones responsible for that. If somebody is going to be registering them, and I think that happens now, maybe that's the area that needs to be strengthened a little more.

I understand the transfer of weapons between parties. In our culture it happens often that people transfer weapons to one another and say, here, you can borrow mine or you can have it; I don't need it any more. It gets passed down from generation to generation, like maybe in Bill's case. I don't know, maybe he was young when the things were new.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Chief Jacobs: But there is a need for it and it's our community that identifies that need. We're responsible. We have the systems in place. We have the people there to ensure that these things happen. We have our own legislators. I'm sometimes just as disgusted with them as I am with legislation coming from somewhere else. Oh my, it's another law. Here we go. What's the community going to say now? What will we have to do to get this thing through in its present state? What do we have to change? Then the whole consultation process happens.

But if there's a need for it, then it's worth putting in place. In our community in this instance, with firearms, there was a need for it. It was something we had to do and that's what was done.

Mr. Maloney: What is your compliance rate? How many of your people with guns have registered them?

Chief Jacobs: I heard Mr. Ramsay say that you had people come from Quebec representing1.2 million weapons or so. I don't think I'd be afraid to say that the people here probably represent a heck of a lot more guns than that, or could represent a heck of a lot more guns than that.

The turnout we have.... This was pretty well a one-time deal where we said, listen, there are things that are happening. We have foreseen possible legislation coming from the government. We'd like to have a jump on this. There were a great number of weapons or guns or tools, whatever you want to call them, that were registered with our police department. Nobody was forced to do it. It was voluntary. I think everybody was surprised at the number.

We do need to change the law that we have right now. We can do something cooperatively with the federal government on this issue to ensure that we get the rest of them registered. You can't get 100%. I don't care who you are or what kind of law you pass. If somebody doesn't want to, for cultural reasons or their beliefs or because it's a criminal, you're not going to get it.

I believe that 98% or 99% of our community is law-abiding and would follow this, but it has to be done our way. It's not being forced upon them. If they understand that there is a reason for it and what the reason is and that it will stop the outside pressure if that's what it might be in this case, they'd be a little more willing to register those weapons that aren't registered at this point in time.

.1215

Mr. Maloney: You've indicated that it was voluntary, but you also said there was a penalty for non-compliance in answer to Mr. Ramsay's question of monetary penalties. Also you talked about confiscation. If it's voluntary how can you do that?

Chief Jacobs: Voluntarily they can register their weapons at our peacekeeper station, but we still need a law because there are still people who break those laws. We still catch people doing certain things with these weapons. Depending on the severity of what it is they're doing, we can either fall back on the law we have in place or we can take it to a - I hate to call it a higher court - but either a provincial court or a federal court if need be, depending on the seriousness of the offence.

Mr. Maloney: Has your gun regulation, the gun laws in your community, had a positive, beneficial effect? Have you addressed the problems you had?

Chief Jacobs: I think it's an ever-evolving situation. There was a problem with what's being called smuggling. I think that's maybe an effective word for it. We did move in other areas such as our policing agreement. Hopefully we are moving in other areas with the justice department in increasing the powers of the present court system we have. We are putting the responsibility and accountability on the community to follow these laws they've been asking for.

Mr. Maloney: Have you had an opportunity to review these draft regulations? Is there anything there that you think is good or bad, something that you might follow in your own laws and regulations or something that you think is too intrusive or not good at all?

Chief Jacobs: Again, I think we're here and we're on common ground because we feel the regulations the way they are shouldn't apply to us. If we're going to make any rules or laws or whatever, it has to be internal and come from there.

Mr. Maloney: But would you be prepared to adopt those? I appreciate that, but is there anything in here that you feel is good and that you'd like to adopt for your own rules and regulations?

Chief Jacobs: We've looked at it and it's possible that there may be certain sections in there that we could use, but again there's wording in there that we find threatening and there may be some things that would have to be changed or need to be changed. Again, it's going to depend on the direction coming from the community and how far they want to go with this.

I think there can be either an administrative way that we can interact on this issue or some kind of political agreement can be made with our communities to effectively calm everybody's fears on this issue.

Mr. Maloney: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Chief Two Rivers, Chief Gilbert, Chief Jacobs, and Chief Phillips. Do you want to say something before we close, Chief Gilbert?

Chief Gilbert: Yes, if you don't mind. It's just something brief to answer Mr. Maloney.

As an example, in your documentation you state that an elder is considered to be a person45 years of age. Well, I have two boys. One is 17 and one is 14. If I brought my family to the James Bay area, let's say, and something happened to me by chance and I was taken into the spirit world, the elder in my family would then be the 17-year-old. He would have to help his mom and his younger brother get through.

I'll change the scenario. I'm with my oldest son and we're in a canoe or something and we tip and we drown. Now the elder statesman in the family is 13 years old. So that statement about elders in itself is ludicrous in native country.

.1220

The Chairman: Thank you very much, everyone. As I said at the outset, we appreciate your coming to this subcommittee on short notice. We appreciate your presentation. We certainly made notice and recorded your points, some very interesting points, I might add. We thank you for what you've gone through to put this presentation together.

Chief Two Rivers: As a last comment, we'd like to leave you with some comfort and some reassurances indicated by the questions you're asking. We certainly feel comfortable that we are in control of our community in terms of law and order and gun registration. It has helped our community to be able to have a handle on what is available in the community.

As a reassurance to CSIS, who'd be most interested in this process, we have no problems. We're a law-abiding community, and hopefully you guys can work out your differences in sharing our homelands and thereby continue the peaceful way we're looking to enter the next millennium. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Before I adjourn until 3:30 p.m., I want to state once again that at 3:30 p.m. we'll be meeting in Room 308 in the West Block. Also, our second witness is not going to be able to appear, so I thought we'd use that time at 4:30 p.m. for a short in camera meeting about how we are going to put things together following the completion of the witnesses.

We adjourn now till 3:30 p.m. in Room 308.

The meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page