EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, May 15, 1995

.1032

[English]

The Chair: I'd like to call the meeting to order.

We are continuing our consideration of Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons. We now have with us the National Coalition of Provincial and Territorial Wildlife Federations.

We have a large number of people representing different provincial groups. We have Kate MacQuarrie from the Prince Edward Island Wildlife Federation; Claude Gauthier, Quebec Wildlife Federation; Rick Morgan, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters; Gord Gallant, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters; Ed Begin, Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation; Andy Von Busse, Alberta Fish and Game Association; Gary Mauser, British Columbia Wildlife Federation. I'm told that Terry Smeltzer from the Territorial Wildlife Federation couldn't make it, but still that's a pretty good turnout.

The procedure before the committee is that we ask you to make an initial 15-minute presentation. Of course, that can't be 15 minutes for every provincial and territorial group or we'd take up all the time, but we can be a bit flexible on that. In your opening remarks, I would invite you to try to stick to that so we can have enough time for some questions and answers and an exchange of views in the later part of the meeting.

I don't know if you've discussed among yourselves as to who will lead off. Mr. Morgan from Ontario will. That's fine.

By the way, during the question-and-answer period, if they feel there's a specific point relating to their province or whatever, others can add at that time or even after Mr. Morgan, as long as we can try not to extend it too long.

You have the floor, Mr. Morgan, for the opening statement to the committee.

Mr. Rick Morgan (Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, National Coalition of Provincial and Territorial Wildlife Federations): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We appreciate your indulgence in stretching the 15-minute time limit slightly. We are doing our very best to come as close to it as possible.

.1035

Our intention is for me to take 10 to 12 minutes for an overview on a couple of the topics. Then Dr. Mauser will talk briefly further on the aspects of registration and the costs thereof. Ms MacQuarrie will carry on with some of the other aspects of the bill. We hope to be done in about 20 minutes so that the committee can ask the kinds of questions they would like to.

I also wish to apologize to the committee because we were not able to provide you with the documents far enough in advance to allow for translation. There is a fair bit of it. Unfortunately we were working to a fairly tight time line. So we do apologize for that.

We also wish to thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you. Needless to say, we're pleased that you're interested in hearing the views of our members across Canada. We do represent some 500,000 dues-paying members across Canada. Our coalition consists of all of Canada's provincial and territorial wildlife federations and their members in turn.

As you listen to our comments today, we would ask - and I'm sure it's unnecessary to ask - that you maintain as open a mind as possible. On this subject it is very difficult for all of us not to bring some previous baggage to the table. We will do our best to be open-minded, as I'm sure all of you will be, and we appreciate that.

Membership in our organizations is voluntary. Members join our organizations individually or through organized local member clubs. They come from both urban and rural areas. They have varying economic status, different cultural backgrounds, but overwhelmingly they own and use firearms legally and responsibly.

Individual members come from both urban and rural areas of the country. In the more rural provinces, the vast majority of our membership base is understandably from the more rural areas.

In the provinces with large urban centres, however, the urban-rural membership division moves much closer to 50-50, indicating a strong and dedicated interest in conservation in the shooting sports among urbanites. There's not an urban centre in Canada without strong vocal, informed and active members and affiliated clubs.

As to gender, I can tell you that in my organization, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, some 22% of our members are female.

It is the position and submission of our national coalition that further amendments to Canada's firearms control regime cannot be justified. Although the government claims widespread support for the proposed amendments, polls of uninformed people are no basis to govern. Virtually everybody will say we need gun control or more gun control simply because there are criminals perpetrating crimes in Canadian society with firearms.

Support for firearms registration weakens as people become more knowledgeable about the issue. Canadians place a very low priority on stricter gun control laws as a method of combating violent crime.

To remind the committee - and I'm sure no reminder is necessary - in 1993 the Auditor General of Canada's report to the House of Commons contained a detailed review of our current gun control program and found that the gun control regime instituted in 1978 had never been adequately evaluated. The Auditor General felt that it was essential that the Department of Justice evaluate the effectiveness of the program. Members of Parliament and the Canadian public need to know whether the means the government has chosen already to achieve the program objectives are working. Those comments are still valid today.

The Department of Justice still has not publicly reviewed the effectiveness of Canada's firearm control regime. It therefore has no reasonable basis for further restrictions.

Statistical reporting by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics shows that two-thirds of all Canadian homicides do not involve firearms. Stabbing, beating and strangulation account for the majority.

Two-thirds of all accused murderers had prior criminal records, and 69% were prohibited from acquiring or possessing firearms due to previous violent offences. Adequate enforcement of existing laws was what was necessary to change those numbers - existing law enforcement.

Alcohol and drug use was evident in over 50% of all homicides in 1993. Historically alcohol abuse has been estimated as the most important contributing factor in two of every three homicides in Canada. Accordingly, efforts to reduce homicides should concentrate on reducing alcohol abuse.

.1040

Domestic homicides by firearms comprise only 11% of all the homicides in Canada. These crimes of passion are almost always preceded by a long history of domestic turmoil. In 1991, 44% of all domestic murderers had a previous record of violent conflict committed between the hours of 10 p.m. and 2 a.m. with any object close at hand and by persons under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Existing laws, properly enforced, should be used to prevent that 11%.

Between 1974 and 1992 over 60% of all domestic homicides in Canada involved weapons other than firearms, with alcohol and drug abuse a relevant factor in 64%.

The Department of Justice has already studied and reported on police responses to domestic disputes and the involvement of firearms. Homes with a long history of violent conflict are known to police agencies. Under the existing law, a police officer is allowed to immediately seize any firearm from such homes. The study documents that police are typically already in possession of information relating to the presence of firearms in those homes.

Reducing homicides in domestic situations cannot be rationally cited as a reason for proceeding with Bill C-68 without substantial proof that public and private moneys are better spent on firearms control than they would be directly combating domestic violence in general.

Between 1986 and 1992 two-thirds of all robberies in Canada involved weapons other than firearms. The armed robbery rate for the period 1974 - that is prior to the current restrictive gun control legislation - to 1988 remained the same. Any decrease in robberies involving firearms has been counterbalanced by the increase in use of physical force, knives and blunt instruments. These weapons require close personal contact, and victim injury is much more frequent and substantially more serious when armed robbery does not involve a firearm.

Between 1969 and 1991 suicides accounted for 75% of all gun-related deaths in Canada. However, two-thirds of all suicides are committed by methods other than firearms. Aboriginals are noted as being especially likely to select firearms as a suicide method, according to a recent research report. Aboriginals, however, are the single identifiable group that is most likely to be exempted from the majority of provisions contained in Bill C-68.

The same government report also notes that firearm suicide attempts are only marginally more successful than other methods such as hanging, carbon monoxide poisoning and drowning, all freely available methods.

The same study notes that restrictive gun control has had no effect on the suicide rate. The suicide rate in Canada remains higher than in the United States but is still substantially lower than the majority of European countries, which have extremely restrictive gun control laws. The government should look at the causes of suicide and not the implement used.

Section 85 of the Criminal Code of Canada already allows for mandatory sentences for the use of a firearm in a crime. However, a Department of Justice report clearly establishes that half to two-thirds of section 85 charges are withdrawn, discharged, stayed or dismissed. Those section 85 charges that do result in convictions most often lead to sentences that really don't contain any incremental imprisonment. The current laws need to be enforced.

Canadians are becoming increasingly aware that there's no basis, justification or need for further amendments to Canada's firearms control regime. This is amply demonstrated by the recent Maclean's/CTV poll that found that only 5% of Canadians believed their perceived increase in violent crime was caused by an absence of stronger gun control laws.

Now, some have said that this Bill C-68 model was promised by the Liberal Party in the last election, but that's not true. The red book stated:

To strengthen gun control a Liberal government will, among other measures, counter the illegal importation of banned and restricted firearms into Canada and prohibit anyone convicted of an indictable offence from owning or possessing a gun.

It didn't say anything about registration or licensing law-abiding firearms owners - nothing.

On September 29, 1993, the national Liberal caucus gave the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and Liberal candidates for election in Ontario a statement promising: ``We will ensure the criminal use of firearms is penalized but legitimate users are not''.

There is absolutely no indication in any of the Liberal pre-election platform that the government would proceed with the sweeping changes to Canada's firearms control system, as it now proposes. In fact, the proposals put forward in the draft legislation actually break the Liberal promise not to penalize legitimate firearms owners and users.

.1045

The National Coalition of Provincial and Territorial Wildlife Federations is opposed to the proposed mandatory licensing provisions on the basis that the provisions are an unjustified, expensive, ineffective intrusion into Canadians' lives.

The overwhelming majority of legal, legitimate, active use of firearms already occurs under government licensing arrangements, either federal or provincial hunting licences or permits to transfer restricted firearms from the place of storage to government-approved ranges for target shooting. The establishment of such a new government licensing system is an unparalleled intrusion into the private lives of Canadians, one that should only be allowed with the expectation of great strides in improvement of public safety and with the clear knowledge that the devotion of private and public moneys, resources and efforts is best spent in this manner. There is, however, neither the expectation of improvement of public safety nor the knowledge that this is the best way to expend resources. These deficiencies have been widely noted and documented.

The current Criminal Code allows all Canadians the opportunity to possess firearms that they have acquired legally in perpetuity, unless they pose a safety risk to themselves or to others. Already the current provisions of the code allow for the immediate confiscation of firearms from those who pose a risk and the establishment of prohibition orders.

To force legitimate, responsible firearms owners into a licensing regime that must be followed to maintain legal possession of firearms is costly, unnecessary and wrong, and it's completely contrary to anything done for any other item of private property. We believe the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs should oppose this change requiring mandatory licensing of all firearms owners. It is a waste of time, money and effort that will not produce measurable improvement in public safety.

But beyond these considerations, the national coalition requests that the standing committee seriously and consciously consider the fundamental changes that this legislation would bring about in Canadian society. Never before have responsible Canadians faced the possibility of having to justify their need or desire for any other item on an ongoing basis just to be allowed to retain ownership. These concerns go far beyond the issue at hand and strike close to the centre of Canadian concepts of personal choice, rights and freedoms.

We have a number of concerns with universal registration.

I will leave the aspect of cost for Dr. Mauser to comment on.

The proposed registration system will also have other costs for every law-abiding firearms owner beyond the costs through the government system. By regulation, some firearms owners' costs will be higher than the cost of the system itself, and this stems from the requirement that all firearms must bear a unique serial number. Some manufacturers have used the same serial number year to year, while historic firearms and replicas rarely carry any serial numbers at all. Owners of these firearms presumably will be forced to have an arbitrary serial number engraved at some direct cost and, for the owners of historic collections, at great loss of value in their firearms collection.

In addition, any computer-based records system that allows access from several locations cannot be secure from hacking or tampering, and therefore the confidentiality of the system records cannot be assured. Presently, owners of non-restricted firearms across Canada feel reasonably secure that they will not be specifically targeted by criminals seeking firearms simply because their ownership is not recorded and is not accessible. An insecure government listing of all the firearms in Canada, along with their locations, will end this.

A list showing all the firearms in Canada, along with their location, will allow criminals to pick and choose which house to break into, with absolute assurance that firearms are not present or are present, depending on what is it they seek.

If they're after firearms, they'll have an immense shopping list provided through hacking government computer systems. This alone is reason enough not to proceed with the universal firearms registry and licensing system. It will make Canada less safe.

.1050

We believe the arguments put forward by the proponents of registration are shallow and specious. Handguns have been registered and their legal possession strictly controlled in Canada since 1934, yet the use of handguns by criminals continues unabated. Smuggling remains the largest source of illegal handguns in Canada, and there is absolutely no indication that Canadian firearms owners are not complying with the storage and transfer requirements established by law.

The claim that universal registration will assist in police investigations unjustly and incorrectly assumes that registered owners are the individuals who will be committing the crimes. The Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics reports otherwise. Less than 1% of the homicides that occurred in Canada involved a registered restricted firearm, and there is absolutely no indication that these firearms were used by the legal owner.

The claim that a universal registration system will allow police to better prepare themselves when responding to domestic disputes cannot be supported either by past study or by common sense. Police on the beat, the people who are forced to respond to domestic disputes, tell us that common sense and their training dictate against reliance on any registration system when they are responding to a call. To rely on such a system would create the risk of making a deadly wrong assumption that there are no firearms in the home when in actuality there are.

Prohibition orders already against a criminal should be enforced by the police by confiscation of firearms on hand, along with the strict prosecution of violations of prohibition orders and prosecution of the associated offence of wrongful delivery.

In addition, the draft legislation causes great concern that the refusal to renew licences and registration certificates will be improperly used in order to prevent law-abiding Canadians from retaining firearms they legally own and possess. Legislation that allows the usage of registration certificates or licence refusal to current owners of restricted firearms who acquired their firearms for the purpose of target shooting but for various reasons are presently unable to target shoot should not be supported by this committee. Provided that those firearms are stored safely and there is absolutely no indication that they're not stored safely in accordance with the current law, there is no reason for preventing their continued ownership and possession.

Forcing responsible Canadians to the courts to make them justify their continued possession of their legally acquired and possessed property runs against any common conception of fairness and decency. A universal registration system will not be beneficial. The proposed registration system will only be costly in terms of both a reduction in public safety and increases in direct financial cost.

Before moving to Dr. Mauser, I would draw your attention to the second binder you were given this morning, supplement 1. It contains over 130 municipal resolutions passed in the province of Ontario alone against firearms registration and Bill C-68. I'm sure there are many more our organization is not aware of, and hopefully they have been sent to various MPs and to the justice minister. But that is Ontario alone, and we understand the same thing is happening across Canada.

I would also like to leave you with one other piece of paper. We were asked by the Ontario Conservation Officers Association late last week to pass on to you a letter from them opposing registration and pointing out that they believe their jobs will be more dangerous if there is firearms registration in this country. We will give that to the clerk now or later for review by this committee.

Now I would move to Dr. Mauser for his comments, following which Ms MacQuarrie will close.

The Chair: Thank you.

Dr. Mauser.

Mr. Gary Mauser (British Columbia Wildlife Federation, National Coalition of Provincial and Territorial Wildlife Federations): Thank you.

As a Canadian I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the justice committee. I am a university professor and certified instructor in the Canadian firearms safety course. The B.C. Wildlife Federation has asked me to represent them before this committee, and I will confine my comments to those few points where I have some expertise.

In my capacity as a university professor I have conducted several empirical studies on issues related to firearms ownership and firearms legislation. The list is at the end of this paper that I had distributed. I have presented my research to a number of academic conferences, including the American Society of Criminology and the Canadian Law and Society Association, and have published my work on firearms in various academic journals in the pertinent disciplines.

.1055

In introducing legislation, particularly legislation as radical as Bill C-68, it is important to provide a solid evaluation of the potential costs and benefits. I am disappointed that such has not already been done by the justice department, and even though I do not have the resources available to the government, I still think it is valuable to present an outline, if only a back-of-the-envelope kind of an outline, to look at the costs and benefits.

It is particularly curious that it has not been done already, because by international standards Canada does not have a firearms problem. Despite having proportionately almost as many gun owners as does the United States, Canada has a homicide rate very well comparable with that of Europe.

The first part of the paper that I would like to discuss is the cost of firearms registration. There are three points here I would like to look at: the cost of issuing firearms licences, the cost of registering currently owned firearms, and the cost of re-registering firearms whenever they are sold or transferred to a new owner.

By anyone's reckoning, the implementation of universal firearms registration will tax the resources the police now have. Annually the police register about 83,000 handguns for law-abiding target shooters and issue a minimum of 50,000 firearms acquisition certificates. Bill C-68 would require the police to issue firearms licences to between 3 million and 5 million firearms owners, possibly more, and to register between 7 million and 20 million firearms, possibly more. Clearly, firearms registration would represent a sizeable addition to the police workload.

In my Fraser Institute paper, I focus uniquely upon the costs of firearms registration. This brief examination of the costs will expand that to look at the costs of issuing firearms licences as well as transfers. I've tried to be very conservative in my estimates and to use justice department information insofar as possible.

I've looked at the presentation of costs that Mr. Rock introduced, and while he talked about some of the charges that firearms owners will be asked to bear, he did not look at the cost to the government of processing the paper. I will try to compare both the government costs and the charges to firearms owners. Also, in order that the committee can see where this estimate comes from, I have presented alternative estimations for the numbers of firearms owners as well as alternative estimations for the costs to government.

For the costs of licensing firearms owners, depending upon whether the licence charge is $10 or $60 and upon the average of the cost to the government of issuing the licence, as you can see, it varies from rural Canada to urban Canada, from $55 to $185. We have picked an estimate of an average of $125 to government to issue the license. Therefore, there is a net cost to the taxpayer per license of $115 to $65 or, depending upon the number of firearms owners, a total cost to the taxpayer of between $195 million and $575 million.

.1100

With regard to registration, there is a wider variety of numbers of firearms in Canada, from 7 million, which is coincidentally the same as the 1977 justice department's estimate and the Angus Reid estimate, which was incorrect, as well as upwards to import-export estimates of $20 million or $25 million. The cost per registration of a firearm is in the $82 bracket, and the charge to a firearm, if the proposal of charging firearms owners about $10 for 10 firearms is accepted, is roughly $3.5 per firearm and possibly as low as $1 per firearm.

The government cost of registration, then, varies from $80 to $78 per firearm loss after the net income, or the cost to the taxpayer is between $500 million and $780 million.

We have a variety of estimates for the numbers of exchanges; that is to say, the government estimates 500,000 firearms are sold or exchanged each year. My estimate, as outlined below, is about double that, about 1 million a year.

If it costs $15 for the firearms owner to sell his firearm - I don't know if that's charged both or twice, that could be double that - then the government cost of registration is somewhere between $50 and $82, depending upon whether the firearm is already registered, whether the owners are already licensed or however. Basically the cost to the taxpayer per gun to be sold or transferred is somewhere between $30 and $70.

Therefore, depending upon the number of sales of exchanges, the net cost to the taxpayer is something between $17 million and $67 million for this, for a total cost to the Canadian taxpayer of somewhere between $750 million and $1.4 billion. This, of course, is not all possible charges for Bill C-68, merely a small subset.

According to my estimates, registering field and stream firearms is very expensive. The true costs are unknown, but to the extent that the justice department has underestimated the costs, the provinces and the municipal governments will be forced to bear the new financial burden. The provincial or municipal governments, if they are unwilling or unable to raise taxes, will have to force police departments to spread scarce resources even more scantily. This could increase the risks of criminal violence to Canadians.

What are the benefits? A review of countries across the world that are somewhat similar to us, the other Commonwealth countries, shows that we can find no official studies that support the usefulness of firearms registration in those countries. The available reports indeed support the contrary. Police reports in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand have all found that firearms registration is not cost-effective. Recommendations to terminate it have originated in all of these countries. Only New Zealand has dropped it.

The summary here is that it is unlikely that the federal government will increase support to the provinces sufficient to pay for the full cost of firearms registration, and that rural Canadians will be forced to pay for the costs of licensing and registration in urban Canada. So this is a proposal for siphoning money out of the rural parts of Canada and feeding it to job creation projects in Ottawa.

Finally, I would like to bring to your attention a graph at the end, which shows the impact of the 1988 registration of shotguns in the United Kingdom. As you can see in this graph, there was a direct and immediate impact upon law-abiding shotgun owners. The numbers are decreasing through this registration program, and it has absolutely no impact on the numbers of robberies in the United Kingdom with shotguns.

I would like to thank you for listening to me. I will be available for comments and questions. I would now like to pass over to Ms MacQuarrie.

Ms Kate MacQuarrie (Prince Edward Island Wildlife Federation, National Coalition of Provincial and Territorial Wildlife Federations): Thank you. I'll go through and discuss the remaining clauses of Bill C-68, beginning with the prohibition of currently restricted rifles.

.1105

Although this committee does not have the authority to revoke prohibited weapons order number 13, the committee should not give legislative substance to the order and therefore subclause 12(5) of Bill C-68 should be withdrawn.

Regarding additional handgun prohibitions, subclause 12(6) of Bill C-68 establishes through legislation an additional class of prohibited firearms, those being handguns with barrel lengths under 105 millimetres or in .25 or .32 calibre.

While current owners of these handguns will be allowed to retain possession, they will only be permitted to transfer ownership to other current registered owners of these firearms but not to their heirs. Effectively, these firearms will lose all their monetary value and any sentimental or cultural significance these firearms hold will be lost upon the death of the current owners. This is delayed confiscation without compensation of legally acquired private property.

The prohibition of .32 calibre handguns will also effectively destroy any future involvement of Canadians in Olympic and other international competition. Canadian shooters are currently among the best in the world, and shooting is one of the few sports where Canadians consistently rank at the top. It is unacceptable that the government should seek to wipe out the future of our competitive shooting sports.

We understand that this committee will be examining the feasibility of allowing some additional new acquisitions of .32 calibre handguns in order to allow the continuance of Canada's competitive shooting sports participation. The NCPTWF believes that this committee should go further than just exempting particular models of handguns and .32 calibre. This committee should strike out subclause 12(6) of Bill C-68 entirely as well as the proposed change in the definition of a prohibited firearm in the Criminal Code, proposed section 84.

The classification of .25 and .32 calibre handguns along with handguns with barrel lengths less than 105 millimetres as prohibited weapons cannot be supported. Registered handguns, including the 555,200 that would be declared prohibited, in the hands of legitimate legal owners account for less than 1% of the homicides that occurred in Canada from 1961 to 1991.

The prohibition of handguns with barrel lengths less than 105 millimetres cannot be justified with the statement that such handguns are not suitable for organized target shooting. These handguns have been used competitively for years. In fact, a specific competition is dedicated to the .38 calibre chief snub-nose revolver, which has a 2-inch barrel.

Dealing now with other prohibitions, reference to the proposed amendments to section 117.15 of the Criminal Code shows the intention to give the Governor in Council the ability to declare any firearm prohibited or restricted if, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, the particular firearm is not reasonable for use in hunting or sporting purposes.

It should be hunters who determine what firearms are reasonable for use in hunting and target shooters who determine what firearms are suitable for target shooting. Currently, firearms cannot be declared prohibited through Order in Council if they are commonly used for hunting or sporting purposes. Surely Canadians have the right to expect a logical, rational rule by their governments, not symbolic gestures.

Import and export by individuals: It is the position of the NCPTWF that the clauses of Bill C-68 that seek to regulate the import and export of firearms by individuals needlessly complicate the process of bringing firearms across the border for personal use. The existing laws and restrictions are sufficient to control the legitimate importation of firearms by Canadians.

For instance, many Canadians already check their photographic equipment and firearms with customs officials prior to leaving Canada so that they can prove prior ownership on their return. Firearms not so checked can be detained at the border. Non-residents are already prohibited from possession of restricted firearms without prior approval of the chief provincial firearms officer.

.1110

I'll deal now with gun collectors. The NCPTWF is concerned with the proposed formal definition of the term ``gun collector'', along with the conferring of increased regulatory power over collectors to the minister.

All collections start with a single item, and collections of restricted firearms are no different. Family heirlooms have great historical relevance to the individual involved, even though the particular firearm in the collection may not be particularly significant in terms of either technology or science.

The proposed regulatory power includes the authority of the minister to regulate collections of currently non-restricted firearms. The potential exists for the minister to declare, without public review, scrutiny and approval, that anyone owning more than a single shotgun or rifle is deemed to be a collector. The people affected could therefore be subject to additional rules forbidding additional acquisition without undergoing mandatory inspections or mandatory storage of the collection in a dwelling in some prohibitively expensive storage system.

The standing committee should not approve the formal definition of gun collector or the expanded authority to enact regulations regarding collectors. The documentation of need for such changes has not been provided by the minister, and the current controls on gun collectors are more than adequate to ensure public safety.

Powers of inspection granted to police officers: The NCPTWF is greatly concerned with the content and effect of the draft legislation respecting powers of inspection, search and seizure. The additional powers granted are not only unnecessary, they are an insupportable and dangerous intrusion into all Canadian civil rights and liberties.

Clause 99 of Bill C-68 would institute a major change in the search and seizure provisions in Canadian law and police practice. Canadians rightly expect to be considered innocent until proven guilty, and expect that their rights to privacy and security, to remain silent, and the right to seek legal counsel be maintained.

It has been stated recently that this draft legislation is about the type of country that we want Canada to be. This is exactly true. We do not want a country where responsible citizens are forced by law to render all assistance to police officers as they search without warrant for any sign or indication that there is a firearm or ammunition present in any vehicle or place where there is absolutely no indication that a crime has been committed.

In regard to the regulation of shooting ranges, the NCPTWF objects to the proposed formal regulation of government-approved shooting ranges and clubs as unnecessary and inappropriate. Clearly, the rules governing shooting ranges in rural Canada should indeed be different from the rules governing ranges in urban centres and thus should be a matter for each province to decide and regulate.

In addition, at a bare minimum, any revocation of a provincial minister's approval of a shooting club or range must be appealable to a court with competent jurisdiction for impartial judicial review, and lack of access to a government-approved shooting range should not be an acceptable rationale for not reviewing an individual's restricted firearms registration certificate.

As to governing by Order in Council, the NCPTWF is opposed to the sweeping departure from governing by legislation evidenced by the content of the regulations listed in clause 105 of Bill C-68. The legislation will allow Canadians' activities to be controlled through regulation, although most of these people will not have any access to the Canada Gazette, the only place where these regulations are published.

Failure by an average Canadian to read, understand and abide by a regulation that he or she has no access to, and often has a great difficulty understanding, could potentially result in criminal charges being laid which could result in a jail term of up to five years.

The draft legislation requires the Minister of Justice to lay before the House each proposed regulation, which in turn is referred to an appropriate committee that is empowered to hold inquiries or public hearings. The minister is not required to wait for the committee's report or even to heed the recommendations of the committee but is allowed to proceed to implement whatever regulation desired, notwithstanding the fact that the final regulation made is completely different from what was originally proposed.

.1115

The Citizen's Code of Regulatory Fairness requires the federal government to adhere and conform to certain principles, and with your indulgence I'd like to review those. It should only take a moment.

The Chair: Will you identify the code a bit more clearly, please? Is this a federal government code or a private code? What code is it?

Ms MacQuarrie: The Citizen's Code of Regulatory Fairness is the title.

The Chair: It's a federal code?

Mr. Gord Gallant (Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters; National Coalition of Provincial and Territorial Wildlife Federations): Yes, it's a federal code. It's attached to your document as appendix K.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

Ms MacQuarrie: The principles are: to interfere as little as possible with individual freedoms while protecting the interests of the community; to enable individuals, businesses and other governments to provide input to the federal regulatory process; to fully explain regulations and their effects in clear language; to ensure that the regulations do not affect particular people or groups unfairly; to match the penalties for not complying with the regulations with the seriousness of the violations; to ensure that the decisions of regulatory agencies and departments are made in an efficient, prompt and predictable manner; and to regulate only where there is clear evidence that a problem exists, government intervention is justified, regulation is the best alternative and the benefits exceed the costs.

We believe Bill C-68 violates all these principles.

On behalf of over 500,000 members of our component federations and associations, we ask that this committee request the dropping of all aspects of Bill C-68 that would impact upon law-abiding citizens.

Mr. Morgan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. That ends our formal presentation.

Questions can be directed to any of us, and hopefully you won't mind various others responding to the questions.

The Chair: I was going to mention that. Because there are many of you, I would ask the members of the committee to direct their questions to either one or several of you. If the question is asked to one, we have to restrict everybody jumping in, because we may never get to the second or third question. I'll try to be reasonable in this. Some members may want two or three people to answer the question.

Mrs. Venne for ten minutes.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne (Saint-Hubert): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I must say, ladies and gentlemen, that you have provided documentation such as even the Department of Justice has not provided to plead his own cause, namely Bill C-68.

You have really given us two huge piles and that must have been quite costly. I would like to ask my first question to the representative of Ontario regarding a booklet that you have published and in which you mentioned that the Minister of Justice, Allan Rock wants to banish all firearms in cities and store them all in rural places.

You are also telling your members or future members: ``Your rights will soon be cut into pieces by the Minister of Justice, Allan Rock''.

You also said in that document that you are seeking to increase the number of your members by 30,000. I would like to know if that is a good way of signing up new members, that is using scare tactics to frighten future firearms owners so that they will pay their dues and become members of your organization.

.1120

Is that how you do your recruiting?

[English]

Mr. Morgan: I'm glad you raised it, because I'd like the opportunity to set the record straight. I think if you check the date on that publication, it was many months ago and it was at the time when Mr. Rock was making public statements about lock-ups for firearms and gun-free zones and all of those sorts of things. It was our responsibility to get that message out because we felt the Government of Canada was doing a lousy job of telling Canadians what they really wanted or what the minister, at least, had in mind. I'm pleased to see that we did it somewhat effectively.

In terms of how we get members, yes, it is true that in one of our mailings - that particular one - we encouraged people to join us. It's important that Canadians have an opportunity to speak.

Speaking, unfortunately, costs money. You know that very well because you were unable to hear from the many Canadians who wished to appear before you. At any rate, Canadians have been most helpful in helping us raise the necessary funding to try to educate the public and bring our concerns to this committee.

I'll just repeat that what you read from is many months old.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: I see, thank you.

I'd like to ask you how much is the membership fee for your association.

[English]

Mr. Morgan: Mr. Chairman, I'm not too sure what this has to do with the legislation. I thought we came to address the legislation. However, having said that -

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: I think it's quite relevant.

[English]

The Chair: To be fair, sometimes we try to determine the representation of the groups and how they're financed because there's been some suggestion that foreign interests have funded some of the groups opposing the legislation. So we're allowing these questions.

Mr. Morgan: Actually, it's an excellent question. I'm glad to have it because I do want to set the record straight again.

Membership fees in the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters range from $35 and up. It depends on whether the person is joining as an individual member or whether they're signing their family up. As you can see, at $35, a person has to be concerned about the kinds of issues that we're concerned about or they wouldn't be joining.

To answer the extended question, we have not received any funding from anyone outside Canada for expressing our concerns on this legislation.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: No, what I had told you is that you did state in your pamphlet that ``the minister is shredding all the rights of the owners of firearms'', but you will comment on that some other time.

My next question is for Mr. Mauser. You have mentioned that you had made a number of studies and I would like to know if some of those have been funded by the National Rifle Association.

[English]

Mr. Mauser: Thank you very much for the question. If you will turn to the second to last page in my presentation, you will see a list of studies I have published or presented to academic associations. The only study on that list funded by the National Rifle Association is the last one, which is published in a local journal, the Canadian Journal of Criminology. The other studies had various funding arrangements.

Perhaps madam is aware of the concept of grant and contract. These are all grant-funded studies as opposed to contract studies. That is to say that the granter allows the researcher to do whatever it is they wish and the money is provided with no strings attached other than methodology.

For example, the fifth study down, the one with the co-author, Mr. Michael Margolis, which was published in Government and Policy, was funded by the Canadian government. Of course, as with the NRA study, it came as a grant, which is to say that there were no strings attached.

Does that answer your question?

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Yes. You are telling me then one of the studies in that list has been funded by the National Rifle Association.

In 1988, there was another one which was apparently funded by the same association.

.1125

This question is directed to the British Columbia Wildlife Federation who sent a letter to the Minister of Justice, Allan Rock. In that letter, you mentioned the fact that military semi-automatic weapons, like assault rifles, will be banned. You oppose the banning of those weapons. Why are military and paramilitary weapons such a big concern for your members?

[English]

Mr. Mauser: Our members are concerned about arbitrary lists of firearms, whether they're military, short, big, cute or ugly, that have no grounding in empirical facts as to whether or not they have been found to be dangerous.

Perhaps the lady is unaware that the Canadian government encourages its citizens - perhaps this is not true in Quebec, but I think it is - to participate with the military in target practice. Of course, to compete with the military, the use of semi-automatic versions of military rifles is encouraged.

It was my concern, and that of our members, that the government arbitrarily chooses weapons on the basis of being similar to those on television that scare members. It is not encouraged by me or anybody else to shoot rifle type one or rifle type two.

[Translation]

Ms Venne: This is my last question. The problem is that you give the impression that you represent hunters and that in the end one realizes that it's not quite the case. When you are advocating on behalf of owners of military and paramilitary weapons...it's not exactly the way you hunt. I don't hunt with a semi-automatic weapon, that's for sure.

In your presentations, you often use terms like ``law-abiding citizens and firearm owners'' to describe your members, the hunters. I would like to ask the representative from Quebec to explain how come that one third of firearm owners in Quebec have stated in a survey that they do not follow the secure storage rules applicable to firearms.

[English]

Mr. Mauser: Excuse me, I am not from Quebec. Mr. Gauthier -

[Translation]

Ms Venne: My question will then be directed to Mr. Gauthier.

Mr. Claude Gauthier (Quebec Wildlife Federation): Madam, you forgot to specify that the survey you mentionned was made in September. In Quebec, most hunters go hunting in September if I'm right. I therefore doubt very much that they were able to talk to firearms owners. It's like calling a maternity ward the day often to ask mothers if it did hurt.

Ms Venne: That's your answer?

Mr. Gauthier: What other answer would you like?

[English]

We talked to you in French. You didn't seem to understand what the message was from Quebec, so we will send it to you in English.

[Translation]

Ms Venne: I would ask you to be polite sir, we are not here to engage in shouting matches.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Before I go to Mr. Ramsay, I wonder if you'd just clarify something, Mr. Mauser. You said the Canadian government has a program to encourage citizens to participate with the military in shooting. I don't know of any such program. In the past, the federal government did fund certain rifle associations for shooting, but that's all finished. Could you specify the program I'm not aware of by which it encourages this?

Mr. Mauser: The program you refer to is the one I referred to as well.

The Chair: But it's been terminated.

Mr. Mauser: Yesterday?

The Chair: No, in the budget.

Mr. Mauser: This budget in this year?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Mauser: This is the first year since World War I.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Mauser: I'm very sad. Canadians should have such encouragement.

The Chair: I see. I guess a lot of Canadians think that if we have to restrict funding then maybe we shouldn't be funding rifle associations.

Mr. Mauser: I was speaking to encouragement.

.1130

The Chair: I see. That's something we could discuss in another place with Mr. Martin.

Mr. Ramsay, you have ten minutes.

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to begin by again pointing out something we've been wrestling with on this committee, which is due time for witnesses to make their presentations.

I just point out that we have seven members here who have to make their presentations and make time for questions and answers in a two-hour period. I'm just making note of that as we have struggled with this deadline of May 19, which has been set to finish with our witnesses.

I would just like to point out that I have a problem that has been voiced to me at meetings all across the country, including Newfoundland, which is where I was on Saturday.

It is simply this: if the registration of firearms - that is rifles and shotguns - will save lives and reduce violence, why is it not being mandated earlier than 2003?

On top of that, if 58% of the handguns being banned do honestly pose a threat to society, then why are they being left in the hands of their owners and in society?

These are some of the questions we try to answer and that the justice minister has to answer. There is no response I have heard from the justice minister to deal with this.

Look quickly at the minimum number of 3 million gun owners, which the justice department claims exist in Canada. If we look at the 1,400 deaths caused by gunshot wounds, that involves 0.046% of the 3 million gun owners. That means 99.954% of the gun-owners in Canada are not involved in those statistics at all.

So these are some of the issues that are raised as we talk to people across the country who are concerned about this issue.

I just want to perhaps make this statement and leave with you any comments you want to make. This bill goes far deeper in terms of raising concerns about simply having to get a licence and register firearms. There's a civil liberties aspect that has been discussed here. There's the ineffectiveness of the bill in terms of producing the desired results, which is a safer society.

The constitutional question has arisen as to whether or not the rights of aboriginal peoples have been violated in the process, in that they have not been consulted in accordance with their various constitutional agreements. I wonder if perhaps we could look at that particular area. We have Mr. Mercredi, the National Chief, who will be appearing before us this afternoon. I wonder if you have looked at the constitutionality of the various aspects of this bill.

Mr. Andy Von Busse (Alberta Fish and Game Association, National Coalition of Provincial and Territorial and Wildlife Federations): That has very much been an issue in Alberta for a number of reasons. Certainly our own members have serious concerns about the consultation. We have not been involved with it even though Allan Rock has suggested that we are.

But even more so, we've been approached by the Tribal Chiefs Association of northeastern Alberta. They have some very direct concerns and they've asked me to deliver a presentation on their behalf to this committee because they were not allowed to do so.

So in terms of the constitutional issues you're talking about, especially as far as aboriginal peoples are concerned, that concern is out there in various parts of Canada. You heard that earlier this morning from the Inuit Tapirisat.

I will be presenting those copies to the committee clerk later on. I'm not making any comments on them other than the fact that I have been asked to make the presentation to the committee because they could not do so as they weren't consulted.

Mr. Ramsay: Is there anyone else on the committee who'd like to make a comment on the constitutionality of this bill in the areas we've covered, or any other area they're concerned about?

Mr. Morgan: I think you're right, Mr. Ramsay, in indicating that Canadians are concerned about this bill in terms that go beyond just the firearms issue itself. It's in terms of their rights as Canadians in establishing new criteria and views and in having to justify their need for things when they're law-abiding citizens. We've tried to address those, while sticking to the basic firearms issue in our presentation.

.1135

I would ask for the members of the committee to not be scared off by the sheer volume of this presentation. Please read it. A lot of time and effort has gone into it. It has some information you'll find most worthwhile.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you. I would like to just move to another point. It has to do with the accusation that people opposed to this bill are responsible for the spreading of misinformation.

I point out, as I have pointed out to other witnesses who appeared before this committee, that in the beginning we heard the justice minister state on television - I saw the clip myself - that as far as he was concerned, only the police and the military ought to have firearms.

That, of course, was coming from our Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada. Surely in terms of response, Canadians who are interested in this subject could accept that as a form of intent as to what the justice minister was prepared to do. He also indicated the firearm-free zones and central areas for storage.

My concern is that there are going to be responses when these kinds of trial balloons are floated by people who are concerned. It is not justifiable for any member of this committee or anyone to accuse people of misinformation in responding to those kinds of statements coming from the highest level of government within Canada.

I'd like to just point this out. The justice minister has made the statement that he personally feels only the military and the police ought to have firearms.

Look at proposed subsection 117.15(2). I'd like your comments on this. My understanding and interpretation of this section indicates that this is going to give the Governor in Council, which means the cabinet, which means the justice department, almost autocratic powers to determine and prohibit any firearm that is not a prohibited firearm with regard to hunting or sport purposes. Could I have your comments on that?

Mr. Morgan: In our opening comments we drew particular attention to that proposed subsection. It is proposed that the Governor in Council - essentially the Minister of Justice - would be able to say what was reasonable for hunting or sporting purposes.

We object to that; it is a change in wording. What has been used in the past is ``commonly used for hunting or sporting purposes.'' As we indicated in our opening comments, we believe hunters and target shooters themselves are the ones who best know what is commonly used or a desirable thing to use in their pursuit of game or in target shooting. We don't believe that sort of thing should be left to the Governor in Council - the Minister of Justice - to prescribe on a reasonable basis. We think ``reasonable'' is a poor choice of words and a poor direction in which to move.

Mr. Ramsay: Would you address the power granted to the justice minister, the cabinet and the Governor in Council through this particular section? Would you address the difference in the power and authority to determine what firearms are going to be prohibited?

Mr. Morgan: In terms of the current legislation, I believe the basic change is going from ``commonly used'' to ``reasonably used.'' One could argue, however, that in this point, the current legislation is flawed as well, in that regulations of such an extreme nature are not in legislation as opposed to regulation. So changes in any category of firearm would need to go before the full Parliament for a review and a full act. We think that would be far more appropriate.

Mr. Bodnar (Saskatoon - Dundurn): I have before me a letter written on August 24, 1994 by the National Coalition of Provincial and Territorial Wildlife Federations. It's signed by Ed Begin, Executive Director, Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation.

.1140

It says that any further restrictions against law-abiding owners will affect the income of thousands of individuals and businesses in Canada. This is after discussing that U.S. sportsmen spend $488.3 million in Canada.

Then I have a letter as well from the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation dated August 24, 1994. This is the same date. It says that:

If in fact the Prime Minister chooses more gun control instead of crime control in any new legislation, we will do everything in our power to convince U.S. sportsmen not to hunt or fish in Saskatchewan in 1995.

I can indicate that I consider it absolutely despicable that a Canadian organization would be doing this to Canadian businesses. It's deplorable that this would be occurring.

I would like to know from Mr. Begin why the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation has taken this position. In fact, has the membership been contacted to verify the position that's been taken in this letter?

Mr. Ed Begin (Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, National Coalition of Provincial and Territorial Wildlife Federations): The position, of course, Mr. Bodnar, had nothing to do with the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation; it has to do with the legislation.

I've been married for 39 years and I have never passed a single piece of legislation in my little kingdom. So the results of what you're seeing there is legislation that is proposed by Allan Rock.

I'd like to read into the record, if I could, a very brief statement that explains that situation.

The Chair: Is this an answer to the question?

Mr. Begin: Yes, it is.

The Chair: Well, as long as it's not too long.

Mr. Begin: It's brief.

The letter from the National Rifle Association was mailed to the Prime Minister on August 5, 1994. It politely outlined the problems that could be expected from a universal firearms registration that impacted on U.S. sportsmen and sportswomen.

It pointed out that a negative reaction could be anticipated. It offered to assist in assuring that American hunters would feel welcome in Canada without undue bureaucratic oversight.

That letter was obviously ignored by the Prime Minister and by the justice minister. At the least, the justice minister should have asked the Canadian Wildlife Service for data on the likely reaction of American hunters, the income received from that source and the probable cost to the Canadian economy. He would have found from his own sources that the financial repercussions would likely be horrendous.

As far as we are aware, no considerations of these costs have been undertaken. Mr. Rock made no attempt to inform the House, the standing committee, provincial governments or the guiding, outfitting and touring industry of spin-off costs that could reach hundreds of millions of dollars annually and could be lost forever.

Because Mr. Rock simply ignored this situation out of hand, we were obliged to assume that he felt it was immaterial or that it would not occur. That is obviously an unbelievably dangerous attitude to take in regards to other people's livelihood.

Waiting until after the legislation had passed would only make the

The Chair: Excuse me, I thought it was going to be brief. I would be pleased to have that letter filed in the record.

Mr. Begin: We'll certainly do that, sir.

The Chair: If you give it to the clerk, it will be made part of the record so everybody can see it.

Mr. Begin: I simply want to bring the point forward that the problems with U.S. hunters coming in here is caused by the legislation and by no one else.

Mr. Bodnar: Okay. But, Mr. Begin, you indicated in your letter, under the letterhead of the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, that:

We will do everything in our power to convince U.S. sportsmen not to hunt or fish in Saskatchewan in 1995.

You are taking a proactive role to discourage Americans from coming to Canada and to support Canadian businesses and, in particular, Saskatchewan businesses. Why do you get involved in such economic sabotage?

Mr. Begin: We do that simply by making the American sportsman aware of the entry requirements in Canada that he is not going to abide by.

Mr. Bodnar: I've noticed that the materials and letterhead of the national coalition claims 500,000 members. I've also noticed that this organization was formed some time last year.

Have you ever gone to the membership to ask whether they approve of your policy position with respect to lobbying the government on this particular issue of gun control? Have you ever gone to the membership and said you wanted approval for what is being done here? Has that been done in the individual provinces?

Mr. Von Busse: I think that in Alberta I've very definitely had strong support for what we've done.

.1145

We've just finished a convention. It has unanimously endorsed the track we're taking. There is very definitely strong support from our clubs and memberships on the issue.

Mr. Mauser: I would like to say that the B.C. Wildlife Federation has also presented these positions to its membership at its convention last month.

Ms MacQuarrie: The wildlife federation actually went so far as to send a questionnaire to each and every one of our members to get their feelings on this issue. The response was overwhelmingly in support of what we've been doing, which we'll continue to do.

Mr. Bodnar: So it appears that you have the support of your organizations.

One point that's been made today, which was also made in your materials, is that what should be done is the enforcement of existing laws with respect to the firearms legislation now in the Criminal Code.

What representations have been made to the provincial attorneys general asking them to stop dropping the firearms charges, which require consecutive sentences of a one-year minimum?

Mr. Von Busse: Let me answer that, because we've dealt fairly closely with our attorney general and we certainly support the stand he took when he appeared here two weeks ago.

We've definitely discussed this situation as far as the additional sentencing. The problem he gave us and the problem we see in this legislation is that the additional sentencing is still subject to plea bargaining and it is also in Bill C-68.

So the problem becomes a matter at the prosecution level, at the plea bargaining stage, and that is exactly the same problem you still have here. You haven't addressed that problem.

Mr. Bodnar: He hasn't addressed the problem because the plea bargaining is done by his prosecutors in his departments. That's because the administration of justice is under a provincial jurisdiction and he is passing the buck when it's within his jurisdiction.

That's what's being done with all attorneys general. They're trying to blame the federal government for something they have not done for years.

Has he said anything about plea bargaining being under his direction alone?

Mr. Morgan: I think it's safe to say that all our organizations have approached their provincial governments and encouraged better enforcement of existing laws, which is the same message we've given to this committee today and to others. We will continue to do that.

Mr. Bodnar: It's good to hear.

There was a comment that lists of individuals who register will allow criminals to pick and choose because hackers, one assumes, will be able to get into the data banks.

We've had evidence in the last week that this has not happened with respect to the registration of restricted weapons. What makes you think that this will happen in the future if it has not happened in the past?

Mr. Morgan: I think it's safe to say that when the minister indicated that the records of the restricted firearms were not completely up to date, that would suggest that their ability to track whether their system has been hacked or not is probably not completely up to date either.

Having said that, I'm not so sure that you always know when your system has been broken into. You and I do know that some restricted firearms are stolen. Whether those have been stolen as a result of tracking them through the system or not, I don't think anybody knows.

Mr. Bodnar: There's one question I asked others. I'd appreciate it if perhaps Mr. Morgan or another member would address this. If, through this legislation, we can show that even one life would be saved, would you support this legislation?

Mr. Morgan: To complete my answer to your previous question first, I would say that it's important to remember that the current system on restricted firearms registration is not computerized in the same sense that the minister is talking about the new system being done. That will create the greater danger to the Canadian public.

In terms of saving even one life if this legislation is passed, if the same amount of time, effort and money was put into other initiatives, you would save far more than one life, sir, and that is where our support comes from.

Mr. Mauser: In response to the question of whether it would save even one life, the implication is that it might not cost any lives. If it does indeed cost as much money and divert as many dollars away from other things that are presently saving lives, this legislation may cost more than one life.

.1150

[Translation]

Ms Venne: You say that firearms are a big city problem. That's a statement we often hear you make. There is, obviously, some kind of agreement to say that this phenomenon is restricted to large cities.

I think that the rate of death and injury caused by firearms is higher in rural areas and in Western provinces than anywhere else in Canada. Those are the places where the rates are highest.

How do you reconcile that fact with the position you've just taken? I don't want to address my question to someone who has not answered up until now. It's either for Mrs. ...or for Mr. Gallant.

[English]

Mr. Mauser: With respect, my background in statistics and as an academic might qualify me to take a stab at answering this question.

A survey of the Canadian firearms homicide rate suggests that the problem lies in urban centres, not rural ones.

There is a university professor at the University of Toronto, Mr. Philip Stenning. He is not a gun owner. He is funded by the Canadian government.

He has a recent paper that he has distributed widely to his criminological colleagues. They are not criminals, please. In that paper, he argues persuasively that rural Canada has a very low homicide rate and a very low suicide rate from firearms when one exempts the aboriginal population.

As you realize, the aboriginal population is distributed unevenly across Canada and the non-aboriginal population in western Canada has a very low homicide, accident and suicide rate from firearms. Perhaps the lady is unaware of this.

[Translation]

Ms Venne: Unfortunately, I think we don't have the same statistics, but what can I say!

Our statistics clearly indicate that rural regions and the Western provinces have the highest rates of firearms related deaths and injuries.

I would like to ask another question. You mentioned that responsible and law abiding firearms owners will be penalized once again. Can you seriously argue here that registration of firearms will be punishment to a hunter or a firearms owner? I fail to see how one can say that asking people to register their firearms is to penalize them. Could you explain your position when you say that you will be punished by registering your firearms?

[English]

Mr. Morgan: I think it's clear that any Canadian who has been law-abiding and does not create a problem by his or herself but is required to go through a number of steps that will serve no good is being punished when they have to pay money to register and be licensed and spend time, effort and money, yet they aren't creating the problems. Then they are being punished.

Mr. Von Busse: I'll just pick up on that and stress the point that what we're talking about here is private property. We're talking about private property that has been legally acquired and used.

The question we and our members ask ourselves is: why are we the ones who are being pointed out?

We are not the problem; the problem exists elsewhere. It may exist in society. It may exist because of societal problems, but we aren't the problem, so why are we singled out? That's a question our members are asking us.

[Translation]

Ms Venne: I bought my dog legally, I paid for it and I registered it.

The Chairman: Complete your question.

Ms Venne: I will now go onto another question.

In one of its numberous publications, Ontario mentions that

[English]

police officers on the streets know that universal registration will not reduce crime.

[Translation]

That's what you mention in one of your publications. Therefore, I'd like to ask you why the Canadian Police Association supports firearms registration.

.1155

[English]

Mr. Morgan: That is very much a mystery to us.

We believe and certainly an overwhelming majority - in fact every one - of the police who have been on the beat, on the street, in the patrol car, with whom we have spoken, say that registration and licensing of Canadian gun owners will do nothing to make their jobs easier, or do anything about crime.

Why the police chiefs would say something different, I don't know, although -

The Chair: Not the police chiefs. The question was with respect to the Canadian Police -

Mr. Morgan: Oh, yes. Okay.

The Chair: - Association. Those are the front-line policemen.

Mr. Morgan: Thank you. I asked the very same question of some of the police officers.

Their answer to me - and you can judge it for yourself - was that their association is not in touch with them and they are not properly consulted in the development of their policies.

Mr. Von Busse: If I can pick up on that, I've asked some of the police in Edmonton to get an idea of their position. Certainly the poll Allan Rock refers to within that department has been commented on more than once in the House of Commons.

The particular fellow I'm talking about was for two and a half years the leader of the tactical team that may otherwise be known as the SWAT team.

He made some particular comments to me in a letter that we can try to get you later on. Specifically one of the things he says is that he feels.... Now here's a fellow who's been fired at and had the wrong end of the gun pointed at him more often than any other police officer. He's been in charge of the tactical team for two and a half years.

He feels registrations will do absolutely nothing to prevent further firearms violence. His concern particularly was about the erosion of public confidence and the cooperation that firearm owners and the police have at this point. He feels that if this registration comes into effect the way it's intended to in Bill-68, he has real concerns about that.

He further states that the more police officers are made aware of the other provisions of Bill C-68, as far as search and seizure and those types of things are concerned, those police have real concerns. These are police who previously favoured registration, but because of what they've seen - the details in C-68 - now are opposed to this bill.

The Chair: Well, before I go to the next questioner....

[Translation]

Mr. Gauthier: Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Gauthier: I'd like to complete this, for everyone's benefit.

Right now, in Quebec, we've met with the directors of various police forces. They themselves are in favour of registration. But when you talk to police officers on the beat and in patrol cars - not necessarily in Montreal, but outside the big city - they tell us that registration will give them a false sense of security.

It may be appropriate to mention that voutdrd in police technology are currntly taught in six Quebec cegeps, while Part XV of the legislation is given are currently courses in only two of them cegeps. Therefore, I think there are serious deficiencies in terms of the false sense of security that firearms registration can lead to.

[English]

The Chair: Well, before I go to Mr. Gallaway, I simply have to put on the record that we had before us not only the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which strongly supported the registration system, but also the Canadian Police Association, which represents front-line policemen.

The CPA had a convention here in Ottawa less than a month ago with representatives of all the provinces of Canada. There were policemen at the convention who opposed registration and those who were in favour.... They had a debate and a vote.

All these representatives were democratically elected from all the provinces and they voted approximately 80% in favour of the bill, including registration. Of course, they had questions with respect to costs. They didn't want the costs to come out of their police budgets, but they were in favour of the registration.

So all I can say is, for those of you who quote individual policemen with whom you've spoken, this is like.... I suppose if I went out and found some people who belonged to the wildlife federations.... I spoke to a wildlife federation back in my constituency and they don't agree with you fellows; therefore you're not representative. I don't think you'd think that was very fair.

I'll tell you, all I'm asking you is, are you saying that the Canadian Police Association is not a democratic association and it doesn't represent its members fairly when they elected delegates in every part of Canada to come here and they've had an open discussion?

Some have won, some have lost the debate, but they came out with a resolution in favour of the bill generally. Are you questioning their legitimacy, their fairness or democracy?

.1200

Mr. Von Busse: I don't believe anybody's doing that, but I do believe that one thing is clear. It is clear that from the people who are charged with enforcing the Criminal Code and other laws in this country there is some significant concern within that community on the effectiveness of this bill.

It is also clear that there is significant concern among members of Parliament of all parties about this bill.

An hon. member: Oh.

Mr. Von Busse: Further, what is very clear is that the vast majority of the people who are to be affected by this bill are utterly opposed to it.

Now, we're going through a situation -

The Chair: But that's admitted, so I don't want to give the impression-

The police themselves said there was about 20% or more in their own organization who opposed the majority position. They admit that. In fact there were two or three provincial associations.... The Saskatchewan association itself opposed the majority position in the country. So there's no doubt about that.

There are some policemen who don't support what the majority...but that's accepted, just as there is in Parliament. But when you were answering Madam Venne, I got the impression that you were suggesting that policemen on the street are opposed to the bill.

That goes contrary to their own organizations' way of doing things. They admit there's a minority, so there's no doubt about that.

Mr. Morgan: I think the answer to your question, sir.... You did ask a question and I would like to answer it.

The Chair: Yes, fine.

Mr. Morgan: I believe your question was, are we accusing the Canadian Police Association of not being democratic?

The answer to that question, sir, is that we are not, but some of their members are. I have actually been pulled over on the highway by police officers who wanted nothing more than to ask me how things were going and to tell me that their organization was not speaking for them, that they weren't being consulted.

So that is what the police on the beat -

The Chair: Oh, I can.... There are some Canadians who will not agree with this legislation. If we pass the bill as it is, it doesn't mean it's not being democratic. It will mean it has been passed by the majority of members of Parliament.

That's the way we do things in Parliament and in your associations probably. You said you had conventions. I presume you pass resolutions by a majority. Sometimes they're not unanimous. That's what we will do and that's what they did in the police association.

Mr. Morgan: I don't disagree with you, sir, except to say that this feeling is very strong among those people on the street. When they start stopping us to express their views, sir, there is a problem. Their views aren't being heard.

The Chair: Well, again, in my area of the country, the policemen on the street are telling me they're very supportive. So....

This is what we call anecdotal experience. As I say, anecdotal incidents can be used against your organization as well as against the police.

Mr. Gallaway, you have five minutes.

Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to follow up on this very briefly because I find it unusual that we would have the Canadian Police Association, which has appeared before us and has stressed in great detail how and to what great lengths they have gone to ensure the membership is represented when it came to passing this resolution....

I would just like to ask these gentlemen here then, if we apply the same type of logic, that we have someone stopping us on the street or on the highway and voicing opposition to a position taken by an association of which the individual is a member, how do we at the same time then know that your associations...?

You purport to represent, in the case of Mr. Morgan, 500,000 members. I suspect that some of those members subscribe to things as Ranger Rick; they really don't necessarily have a position on hunting and fishing.

If I apply the same logic, how do we know that you are indeed speaking for 500,000 people?

Mr. Morgan: That's a good question. First of all, as far as we know, none of the people we are counting apply to Ranger Rick. This has nothing to do with Ranger Rick, the Canadian Wildlife Federation or any of those sorts of things.

We are here representing only those people who have joined our organization through their provincial and territorial wildlife federation, paid a fee, had their democratic say through their organization.

I would say to you, sir, that if one of our members pulls you over on a highway because he's so worked up and he wants to tell you that he disagrees with what we have to say, you should be concerned about that, just as we are concerned when a police officer goes to the trouble to pull us over on the highway to say that he is very upset that he's not being consulted and not being represented by his organization.

I guess that would be the level playing field.

Mr. Gallaway: That's strictly the anecdotal approach to what the police associations are saying. Would you not agree with that?

Mr. Morgan: I understand completely what you're saying, sir.

Mr. Gallaway: Okay.

Now, Mr. Ramsay raised the question of expressions of intent. In the response of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters to some talking points, I assume, that were issued by the justice minister, you state that the chiefs of police, in supporting the Coalition for Gun Control, are following their own agenda, which may not solely be to reduce crime.

.1205

I wonder if you could tell us what you believe that agenda is then.

Mr. Morgan: Only the chiefs of police could tell you what their agenda is, and I'm sure much of it is very positive. It has been suggested by some that in their efforts in their own communities to get more staffing, they see the Bill C-68 proposals as a means to step up their own staffing.

Mr. Gallaway: But you have to agree with me that staffing is a provincial matter. For example, you're from Ontario. The federal justice department has no control over staffing. In fact it has nothing to do with the funding of police. That's the role of the Solicitor General of the Province of Ontario. The Solicitor General decides police complements with respect to municipalities.

Don't you find that reasoning somewhat peculiar?

Mr. Morgan: I don't know, sir, how the money is transferred from Ottawa to the provinces.

Mr. Gallaway: The money isn't transferred. It's a provincial matter.

Mr. Morgan: I think when you get into the area of issuing permits and other things surrounding firearms legislation, sir, there are some transfers of funding to make the system work.

Mr. Gallaway: All right.

I believe you raised the whole question of breaking into the system. I want to give you an example, because I've heard this argument. We had a witness here who I believe told us that the CPIC system has never been broken into.

Mr. Morgan: To the best of their knowledge.

Mr. Gallaway: Yes.

Say I were a hacker and wanted to acquire firearms by breaking into this computer system. In my riding, as an example, there's a couple of gun clubs with the YMCA. I called up the YMCA one day and said I was interested in joining their gun club so could they please send me a list of their executive. I received it of course. There were twelve members of the executive.

If you really wanted to acquire guns, wouldn't that be a much easier method of doing it than breaking into some computer system that is very sophisticated? The number of people breaking into it certainly would be very limited.

Mr. Morgan: Obviously no, it wouldn't be a better way to go for a criminal. The newspapers and media have been full of reports in recent months, as you well know, of very sophisticated systems being broken into by hackers. In Canada and the United States even the systems of IBM, which should be secure if anybody's are, have been broken into.

For a criminal who wanted a shopping list of firearms to go to every single club across this country, if they could find it where they were, and ask who happened to be on their executive would take them forever. There isn't enough time to do it. But to hire somebody who's a computer genius to crack into a system, which some people are doing now for fun, never mind profit, would certainly be a much more simple thing for them to do. I'm sure you'd agree with that.

The Chair: Your time is up, Mr. Gallaway.

Mr. Morgan, I just want to assure you that if in a few days' time somebody is attacking your representativity, I will put to them the same questions I put to you today, because while we're here to listen to your views and the views of your members, I try to discourage people from commenting on the democracy or otherwise of other organizations. I would do the same for you.

Mr. Morgan: I'm sure you would. Being as democratic as we are, we aren't the least bit concerned about it.

Mr. Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Begin, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that in the city of Saskatoon, the largest city in Saskatchewan now I believe, 98% of the police - and they were all polled - oppose this bill. Is that correct?

Mr. Begin: That is correct. In addition to that, the poll was taken of the police departments in Weyburn, Estevan, Moose Jaw, Regina, Saskatoon and Prince Albert, and the lowest percentage of those police who opposed it was 86%.

Mr. Thompson: Are any of you aware of any other polls that are taken by the ground forces of the police departments?

Mr. Von Busse: I'm aware of the Alberta Fish and Wildlife Officers' Association. I'm quoting here from a letter written to Allan Rock on January 4. I'm just going to read one paragraph:

In our professional role as fish and wildlife officers, we interact with the general public in possession of firearms at a level far exceeding any other law enforcement agency. We find the vast majority of these persons to be conscientious, responsible citizens undeserving of the lawless image you and your government are presenting to Canadians. Unfortunately, many Canadians presently lack the necessary exposure to firearms which focuses on their legitimate uses to reach an informed opinion on the issue.

.1210

They have also written this letter to Jean Chrétien and to Brian Evans in Alberta. The Alberta Fish and Wildlife Officers' Association is adamantly opposed to this legislation.

Mr. Morgan: Just to further answer your question, in Ontario the Ontario conservation officers have come out against this legislation because they believe their jobs will be far more dangerous. Whereas right now when they approach a poacher they're approaching somebody who at best will get a fine or whatever related to a game and fish act type of offence, now a poacher may well be in possession of an unregistered firearm and may prefer to use that firearm as a poacher rather than face the criminal aspects of it. So the conservation officers as peace officers are very concerned about their lives should this legislation pass.

Mr. Thompson: I'm sure that most parliamentarians - I know my colleagues and I have - have received a number of letters from retailers in the sale of firearms concerned that the loss of business would be devastating, etc. Since the introduction of Bill C-68, the headlines in the Calgary Sun yesterday were an amazing pleasure. It was stated by the retailers that sales were up 15% to 25% and sales were going like crazy. That's since the introduction of this.

I stood back and took a look at that, and I was wondering if this is happening in other areas. If so, are there any opinions - Dr. Mauser, possibly - as to why suddenly sales would be on the increase to such an extent when they thought it would be the other way?

Mr. Mauser: I personally have no knowledge of the sales records in British Columbia. Perhaps it is - and this is pure speculation - due to people wishing to buy their firearms before the new regulations come into effect. That would not be surprising from looking at other jurisdictions from around the world.

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Rock has continually said what a broad consultation process has taken place; they've talked to everybody. Now we've had three provinces and the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, and the best statement we got out of them was that their consultation with the minister was at best extremely minimal. In other words, there was no consultation with the provinces at all.

You have a rather large organization. Is there anyone from your organization who can honestly say that they've had consultation, been part of the process?

Ms McQuarrie: [Inaudible]...to the contrary, but despite the minister's claims to have met with representatives in every province and territory in Canada, he has not met with anyone in Prince Edward Island at all. We have had no consultation whatsoever. We have requested a meeting with the minister and have yet received no response. There's been zero consultation in Prince Edward Island.

Mr. Thompson: That makes six.

Mr. Gauthier: In order to meet with Mr. Rock, the Quebec Wildlife Federation, which is a non-profit organization, had to go and meet him in Halifax within two days of advising. While the meeting was held there, nobody was taking notes. After that they agreed to meet with the Quebec Wildlife Federation in Dorval airport for half an hour. Twenty minutes of that was with the Coalition for Gun Control and the rest of it was with the Quebec Wildlife Federation.

The Chair: Are there any other answers to this question?

Your time is up, Mr. Thompson, but I'll allow the witnesses to answer your question.

Mr. Begin: We met with Mr. Rock in Saskatoon with quite a number of organizations, but it certainly couldn't be distinguished as being consultative. As a matter of fact, for the very first time in my entire life a man's arrogance made me so angry that I could not speak. I simply refused to say anything. There were no notes taken, no indication whatsoever that our answers were being taken down or that our concerns were being addressed.

The Chair: Ms Clancy has a point of order.

Ms Clancy (Halifax): Mr. Chair, I just want to say that I attended a meeting Mr. Rock held in Halifax at the beginning of the consultation period and there were people there who claimed to be gun owners from Prince Edward Island. I don't know; perhaps they lied, but that's what they said. There were representatives from Quebec, as this gentleman has suggested, and indeed notes were taken; copious notes were taken.

I was sitting in the boardroom at the Department of Justice in Halifax.

.1215

So I would just like to reassure both those members that this is what took place at that meeting.

The Chair: That's not a point of order, it's a question of debate, and we're not here to debate today. In any case, it's now on the record.

Ms Clancy: I have a couple of questions for you, Mr. Mauser. I'm looking at page 7, the bibliography, or your selected recent publications, and the second item, ``Do Canadians Need Firearms for Self-Defence?'' Could you tell me what the Canadian Law Society is?

Mr. Mauser: Thank you for the question. The Canadian Law Society is an academic group of people who teach law in society or who teach criminology. It is a member of the Learned Societies, which is affiliated with the Royal Society of Canada, where academics from across Canada in all provinces and territories in which there are academics participate and present their papers. At that presentation -

Ms Clancy: I just wanted to know what that group was. It's separate, then, from the Canadian Association of Law Teachers.

Mr. Mauser: Yes, I presume those -

Ms Clancy: It's not the same thing.

Mr. Mauser: No. These are -

Ms Clancy: It also is a member of the Learned Societies.

The Chair: You're not supposed to speak at the same time. If a question's asked, allow the questionner to finish asking. Then I'd like the member of Parliament to allow the witness to answer.

Ms Clancy: I just wanted to make it clear; I'm trying to differentiate.

The Chair: I know, but we can't have both witness and member of Parliament talking at the same time.

Mr. Mauser: That is an excellent principle. I thought she had finished, but she repeated her question. It was hard to know when she was finished. I will wait.

The Chair: Well, have you answered the question?

Mr. Mauser: The question is...yes, she is correct, those are different organizations.

Ms Clancy: And they're both members of the Learned Societies.

Mr. Mauser: I don't know, off the top of my head, all the societies that are members of the Learned Societies. I do know this organization is a member of Learned Societies.

Ms Clancy: Thank you very much.

Second, I believe Madam Venne raised the question of the funding you received from the National Rifle Association. During my time in academe, professors were frequently seeking continuing funding. Do you now have any applications before the National Rifle Association for funding for further studies?

Mr. Mauser: No, I do not. My study was limited to the one that's on that list, which was, as Madam Venne correctly pointed out, conducted in 1988.

Ms Clancy: Thank you.

As well, you mentioned in your presentation the words ``pertinent discipline''. Your own pertinent discipline is business and psychology. Is that correct?

Mr. Mauser: My pertinent discipline is criminology, psychology, statistics and business - marketing, precisely.

Ms Clancy: Do you have academic credentials in law and/or criminology?

Mr. Mauser: I have published in criminological journals.

Ms Clancy: Do you have any degrees in criminology?

Mr. Mauser: No, my degree is in psychology.

Ms Clancy: Do you have any degrees in law?

Mr. Mauser: I have no degrees in law.

Ms Clancy: Thank you.

The other question I have is for the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. Can tell me whether you are against the banning of assault weapons?

Mr. Morgan: I think one of the real problems we have in Canada is that we don't really know what this term, ``assault weapon'', is. If -

Ms Clancy: All right, if you want me to be more specific, then I'll be specific. If I have two kinds of guns -

The Chair: Ms Clancy, we really have to respect the rule. We have a written record of this.

Finish answering the question, because we're getting both -

Ms Clancy: But he said he didn't know, and I'm prepared to tell him which.

The Chair: Okay. But still, we have to be fair to to both the witness and the member of Parliament.

Ms Clancy: Okay. It's just that I don't want to mislead him, Mr. Chair.

Would you agree with the banning, for example, of private ownership of an AK-47 or an Uzi?

Mr. Morgan: I am not a person who's familiar with all the numbers that apply to the various firearms. When we had a discussion with Mr. Rock, he asked a question about assault firearms. I asked him if he could please describe one for me. His answer was, well, it looks like what they use in Rambo. I asked him if that meant it's semi-automatic. He said yes. It's lighter than some of the other firearms, and somebody who isn't really strong might be able to use it, somebody who's light of frame. It has less recoil and it's more accurate. He said that seemed to be a reasonable description - but it looks bad.

I told him to bear in mind that there are some people who are light of frame, such as women, who might find it preferable to shoot that type of firearm, and we shouldn't be banning something based on appearances.

I think that principle applies. We shouldn't ban something based on what it looks like.

.1220

I do want to step back to your earlier comment about Halifax. The justice minister's release, which indicated the groups he consulted with as he developed his proposals, clearly states, ``Prince Edward Island: none''.

Ms Clancy: I merely make the comment, Mr. Chair, that I'd have to see which meeting it was. Clearly it's not the meeting I attended.

At any rate, I'm being quite specific now about AK-47s and Uzis. Would you recommend that women use an AK-47 or an Uzi in, for example, deer hunting?

Mr. Morgan: I'm certainly not aware of anyone who does that, and I certainly wouldn't recommend it, no.

Ms Clancy: Would you recommend it in any form of hunting in Canada, or anywhere else for that matter?

Mr. Morgan: I wouldn't.

Ms Clancy: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: My first question is for the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation. In August 1991, you launched a campaign working American hunters and anglers to boycott Saskatchewan during the 1995 season.

Did the number of reservations made by American anglers in your province go down a lot this year? I would like to know what was the result of your campaign directed against hunting and fishing in Saskatchewan.

Second, do you believe you are being honest when you engage in actions which are going to greatly reduce hunting and fishing in your province?

[English]

Mr. Begin: First of all, Mrs. Venne, the boycott was for all of Canada, not just Saskatchewan - all of Canada.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: In the letter I have in front of me, it says ``not to hunt or fish in Saskatechewan in 1995.'' This is what is written in the letter.

[English]

Mr. Begin: If that's the case, that was probably one that went out in Saskatchewan, but the boycott on hunting really was for all of Canada.

The fact of the matter is that we feel very strongly that the justice minister, when he puts legislation in place, has a responsibility to inform the people on whom that problem will have an impact.

Mr. Rock did not inform the American hunter or fisherman or anyone coming with a firearm to Canada that he would have to be entered into our national registration system. Had we waited until that individual came, he would have either turned around at the border....

We have a possible situation where at the border you're going to issue, for instance, a temporary firearms possession certificate. Canadian citizens must go through a federally approved firearms safety training program to get that certificate. They must have a police background check on their character and possibly a medical check on their mental state. To do that to non-residents would require months of time, a system to accomplish that or making that an exemption for them when they get to our borders.

Should we in fact have foreigners who come to our borders with guns be exempt from the regulations required by Canadian citizens? I don't think so.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: In fact, my question was about the results of your campaign. Did it work? Will there be less Americans in Saskatchewan this summer? That's what I want to know, for a start.

[English]

Mr. Begin: There are no hunting seasons in Saskatchewan.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: I'm talking about fishing.

[English]

Mr. Begin: We asked them, if this legislation passed, to boycott Canada. The legislation has not yet passed.

We understand from the Guides and Outfitters that the responses in Saskatchewan are down by 50% and that their bookings may very well be down by 20% right now.

.1225

Mr. Von Busse: If I can just supplement that, I've talked to the Alberta Outfitters Association, and they have had some cancellations.

[Translation]

Mr. Gauthier: The Fédération des pourvoyeurs du Québec has noticed so far a 14% drop in bookings.

Mrs. Venne: Your diffamation campaign has worked. Thank you, sir, that's what I wanted to know.

Mr. Gauthier: Or it is your Act that has worked.

Mrs. Venne: It has not passed yet.

[English]

Mr. Begin: No, the negative legislation did.

The Chair: As I said earlier, we're here to listen to your views, we're not here to debate with you. We're going to debate among ourselves later.

Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): I understand from your presentation, Madam MacQuarrie, that it should be hunters who determine what firearms are reasonable for use in hunting. In your opinion, what kind of firearms are we talking about?

Ms MacQuarrie: Speaking in terms of Prince Edward Island, we have no large game. The primary firearm for use in hunting on Prince Edward Island is shotguns. Throughout the rest of the Maritimes they would also be using rifles for larger game.

Mr. Gagnon: So that it's not mistaken, certain automatic and semi-automatic weapons would be regarded as correct for hunting use.

Ms MacQuarrie: Some semi-automatic shotguns, absolutely.

Ms Gagnon: But not automatic.

Ms MacQuarrie: Not fully automatic; that's correct.

Mr. Gagnon: So in your opinion, would a weapon such as the Ruger Mini-14, which was used in the killing of 14 women at Polytechnique and a number of professors at Concordia, be admissible for hunting?

Ms MacQuarrie: That is a semi-automatic firearm that is functionally no different from any semi-automatic firearm legal for use in hunting.

Mr. Gagnon: The firearm you're mentioning is the same firearm used in those murders in Montreal.

Ms MacQuarrie: Its appearance is different; its function is not.

Mr. Gagnon: How different would be its function?

Ms MacQuarrie: Its function is not different. The mechanism for firing, its rate of fire, etc., are.... A semi-automatic firearm is a semi-automatic firearm.

Mr. Gagnon: What I mean here is that the Ruger Mini-14 is commonly used for target shooting and to control predators in rural areas across Canada. You're basically saying here that the minister did it for symbolic reasons. Now, do you think we're reacting for symbolic reasons -

Ms MacQuarrie: Those were the words of the Minister of Justice. He said it was being prohibited for symbolic reasons.

Mr. Gagnon: And you don't agree.

Ms MacQuarrie: I do not agree.

Mr. Gagnon: Very well.

I'll go on to the other federations. I'd like to ask you a question about angling. Are you aware that the Atlantic Salmon Federation had to live with a number of changes with regard to the new regulations now imposed in salmon angling?

Mr. Morgan: There's no question that anglers and hunters across Canada are facing regulations all the time. In fact, they promote many of them.

Mr. Von Busse: Maybe I could just supplement that. We promote that very strongly, but they're for conservation reasons. The resource has to be taken care of first. It's not there because of the equipment being used.

Mr. Gagnon: So what did you think when they outlawed the use of spinning reels on rivers? After all, spinning reels are lighter than fly rods. They're easier to use. Why was there not such an outcry about the abolition of that type of use of a fishing ``tool'', if you wish?

Mr. Begin: Was that federal legislation under the Criminal Code?

Mr. Gagnon: Well, maybe I can pursue it further.

Mr. Morgan: Before you do, can I ask you a question? The fact of the matter is, I suspect that the organizations, the anglers themselves, were the ones behind that type of regulation.

Mr. Gagnon: And very well.

Mr. Morgan: As Mr. Von Busse has already indicated, anglers and hunters are the very first to ask for regulations and legislation that will protect our fish and wildlife stocks in this country. They are conservationists first and foremost.

Mr. Gagnon: Too bad you're not the same.

Mr. Chairman, I -

Mr. Morgan: Mr. Chair, I will not accept that statement. It was out of order, in my opinion - very rude and insulting.

The Chair: Yes, I think it was out of order too, Mr. Gagnon. There was no need to do that.

Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Chairman, we're not in the House.

The Chair: But we've invited these witnesses here to give testimony. We should listen to them. It's fair game to put other points of view and have them comment, but we shouldn't make remarks like that.

Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Chairman, we're talking about salmon fishing versus hunting. The Atlantic Salmon Federation -

.1230

The Chair: I thought your questions were good, but I think the remark was out of order.

Mr. Gagnon: I take it back if I offended anybody. It wasn't done for that purpose.

However, the Atlantic Salmon Federation has to live with certain restrictions, such as catch restrictions. We had to go from a maximum of 60 salmon fished per season to a maximum of 7. We now have the imposition of tags for salmon. If we don't have the presence of tags once a salmon is caught, a fisherman could be facing sever restrictions and fines.

As well, the demand by Americans to fish on Canadian rivers in eastern Canada has not abated. Excuse the pun, but outfitters in my part of the world are making a killing.

So I don't see why these new restrictions that were imposed on the Atlantic Salmon Federation has not decreased use...actually, costs have gone up in terms of the cost to the fisherman from the United States. In other words, more dollars are being poured into my area. Why can't we do the same with hunting?

Mr. Von Busse: I'll reiterate what I said earlier. These are conservation measures, measures we strongly support, but as Mr. Begin said, they aren't criminal offences. That is a huge difference - a criminal offence or a regulatory offence.

Mr. Morgan: It also goes to the question raised earlier about who determines the equipment used by people who fish and hunt. In this case, it was the anglers themselves who requested that change. It was something they wanted, just as in this case we are saying hunters should determine the hunting rifles for use.

Mr. Gagnon: In terms of restrictions, we're also told if you're caught with a fishing reel, with a spinner, 500 feet from the river, you can have your car impounded and you can be faced with severe fines.

Now, that had an impact on the anglers, and I can't see why some type of legislation as we're proposing to you could not have the same -

Mr. Morgan: If it was created out of respect for the fish, if it was necessary to conserve the fish stocks or the wildlife stocks, all of us here would be advocating those types of things. There will be no benefits to conservation in this country by any of these things proposed.

The Chair: I want to thank you for coming and for giving us your views. We are trying to get as wide a range of views as possible.

Before members leave, I have a short item of business. Tomorrow afternoon we had scheduled a panel made up of the National Association of Women and the Law and the YWCA. NAWL now cannot appear, but they've recommended the Canadian Federation of University Women, who have a brief already and who could participate on the panel, with the YWCA, from a woman's point of view.

Are you in favour of that?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned until 3:30 p.m.