REBUTTAL
TO GOV’T RESPONSE TO Q-98
By
Garry Breitkreuz, MP – January 30, 200
House
Of Commons Debates
VOLUME
137, NUMBER 134, 1st SESSION, 37th PARLIAMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICIAL
REPORT (HANSARD)
Tuesday,
January 29, 2002
Speaker:
The Honourable Peter Milliken
Mr.
Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the
House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 90, 91, 93, 96
and 98.
Mr.
Garry Breitkreuz: Concerning
the implementation of the Canadian Firearms Program: (a) what is the projected
cost to fully implement and operate the program and enforce the legislation; and
(b) what is the cost to the Canadian economy including the projected impact on:
(1) the number of firearms owners; (2) the number of hunters; (3) the number of
visitors to Canada; (4) tourism and outfitting operations; (5) wildlife
populations; (6) aboriginal people, communities, business and employment; (7)
international trade; (8) shooting sports; (9) Olympic and international shooting
competitions; (10) firearms and ammunition manufacturing, sales and service;
(11) sporting goods sales and manufacturing; (12) recreational vehicle sales and
manufacturing; (13) gun shows; (14) gun clubs and shooting ranges; (15) firearms
collectors and museums; (16) movie and television production; (17) heritage and
historical re-enactments; (18) employment in all impacted industries and
activities?
Mr. Geoff Regan
(Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): I am informed by the Departments of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade and Justice as follows:
GOV’T
RESPONSE:
(a) The firearms program is a national investment in public safety that
is supported by the vast majority of Canadians. Over the first six years of
operation, $487 million was invested in this program. Even when adding in the
estimated investment of $139 million for this year, the total for seven years
would still represent less than $3 per Canadian, per year of operation.
This investment comes with the public safety benefits of a licensing and
registration system that helps keep firearms from those who should not have
them. Since December 1, 1998, over 4,000 firearms licences have been refused or
revoked by public safety officials. To date, there have been 32 times more
revocations than over the last five years under the old program.
REBUTTAL (a): We specifically asked for “the
projected cost to fully implement and operate the program and enforce the
legislation.” The government
only provided the current cost of the program and they didn’t even get this
right. According to Treasury Board
officials appearing before the Standing Senate Committee on Finance on November
21, 2001, the current cost of the Canadian Firearms Program was reported to be
$689,760,000 (See Attachment #1). The
Treasury Board officials did not answer Senator Stratton’s question: “You
said it was $600 million more than originally forecast.
How can it be that wrong from the original?
Where will it end? Do you
have any forecast? I am sure you do
not.”
GOV’T
RESPONSE:
(b) As to the projected impact of this program on the economy:
REBUTTAL
(b):
If
this is really the answer to our questions on economic impact, why did the
Department of Justice declare their entire 115-page report on economic impact of
the gun registry a Cabinet secret (August 16, 1999 – Dept. of Justice ATI
File: A99-00034)? (See Attachment #2)
GOV’T
RESPONSE:
(1) While certain members of the recreational firearms community suggest
that active firearms owners are leaving the shooting sports as a consequence of
the individual licensing and firearms registration requirments included in the Firearms
Act, there is no indication that this is true. There are some indications that individuals who owned
firearms but no longer use them have chosen to dispose of their unused firearms
rather than apply for a licence and register firearms they no longer want, use
or need.
GOV’T
RESPONSE:
(2) Nothing in the Firearms Act precludes Canadians or non-residents from
hunting in Canada. Any decline in
hunting participation rates may reflect changing Canadian demographics and
increased opportunities for Canadians to actively participate in other
recreational activities that were not broadly available in the past.
Many hunting and outdoor organizations understand that cultural attitudes
towards hunting and the shooting sports have changed significantly and are
expending significant resources to attempt to bring new entrants into the
hunting and shooting sports.
REBUTTAL
(2):
Since
the government started introducing gun control laws targeting law abiding
firearms owners in 1979, the number of hunters in Canada has been in a steady
decline. While some of this drop
may be due to “cultural attitudes towards hunting and shooting sports” much
of the decline can be attributed to government red tape.
For example, between 1966 the number of Migratory Game Bird Hunting
Permits issued was 380,059 reaching a high of 524,946 in 1978 and dropping to
just 191,444 in 2000 (See Attachment # 5).
Also attached is a column from the October 2, 2000 edition of the Ottawa
Citizen titled: “Hunters approach extinction thanks to federal gun laws”
(See Attachment #6). The government
also failed to provide evidence of another significant drop in the number of
hunters since the January 1, 2001 deadline for obtaining a firearms licence.
In Quebec’s Lebel County alone there was a 50% drop in the number of
deer licences sold and triple the number of deer killed in car accidents between
2000 and 2001. This must be having
an equally dramatic impact on tourism and outfitting operations and we should
hear from them directly.
GOV’T
RESPONSE:
(3)-(5) This question is not in the purview of the Department of Justice
and should be directed to tourism and natural resources authorities. Nothing in
the Firearms Act precludes law abiding Canadians or non-residents from
participating in hunting and shooting sports in Canada.
REBUTTAL
(3)-(5):
The
reason we asked the government these questions is because the Department of
Industry, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Finance have
all responded negatively to our Access to Information requests (See Attachment
#7). When we last looked these
departments were part of the government and accordingly should have responded to
Q-98.
January
31, 2001
– Environment Canada (ATI File: A-2000-0248) - Responded, “no
records were found” to show how migratory bird hunting and bird
populations will be affected by the new firearms licencing and registration
regime.
February
8, 2001
– Industry Canada (ATI File: A-2000-00417) - Responded they have
“no records” that document how the Tourism Industry will be affected by
the new requirements for visitors bringing firearms into Canada.
January 8, 2002 – Department of Finance
(ATI File: A-2201-00133/dm) –
Responded “no records exist in the Department of Finance Canada concerning
this request.”
GOV’T
RESPONSE:
(6) Nothing in the Firearms Act precludes aboriginal Canadians from
participating in their traditional lifestyles. Nothing in the Firearms Act,
other than licensing requirements to meet public safety requirements, limits the
business opportunities for any Canadian to offer any service to any hunter or
shooter in Canada.
REBUTTAL
(6):
If
the government’s response is true, why then have the Saskatchewan Federation
of Indian Nations and the Territory of Nunavut launched constitutional
challenges of the Firearms Act. Wouldn’t
it be prudent to hear directly from these challengers to find out how the
Firearms Act is affecting their participation in their traditional lifestyles
and how it is affecting aboriginal employment in guiding and outfitting
businesses?
GOV’T
RESPONSE:
(7) The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade presently
controls the export and import of firearms and ammunition. When the export and
import provisions of the Firearms Act come into force DFAIT export permits will
be deemed as authorizations to export under the Firearms Act, while
authorizations to import will subsume DFAIT import permits. There should
therefore be no extra cost to international trade arising from implementation of
the Firearms Act.
REBUTTAL
(7):
The
government obviously hasn’t done their homework.
We have been in communication with the Canadian Defence Industries
Association and some of their members are predicting millions of dollars of lost
business as a direct consequence of complying with section 53 of the Firearms
Act which states: “No
business shall import a prohibited firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device
or prohibited ammunition that is to be shipped in transit through Canada and
exported.”
On March 7, 2001, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International
Trade responded to our Access to Information request (ATI File: A-2000-00375)
saying they could find “no records” to show how the implementation of
the Firearms Act will affect imports and exports.
GOV’T
RESPONSE:
(8)-(9) Nothing in the Firearms Act precludes Canadians or non-residents
from participating in shooting sports in Canada.
Any decline in shooting sport participation rates may reflect changing
Canadian demographics and increased opportunities for Canadians to actively
participate in other recreational activities that were not broadly available in
the past.
REBUTTAL
(8)-(9):
We
have received many complaints from American hunters and American shooting
organizations concerning the red-tape, delays and fees they encounter at the
border when entering Canada for their annual hunting trips.
Here’s a sample from Mr. John
Gosselin, Publisher of The Grouse Point Almanac of Fairfax, Vermont, “Dear
Minister McLellan: I am writing to voice my strenuous opposition to the new
procedure that will require law abiding sportsmen from the US to pay a $50
annual fee along with your Firearms Acquisition Certificate upon entering
Canada. This measure is punitive to the legitimate gun owner and will ultimately
be harmful to the Canadian outfitters' industry and ironically will result in
substantial revenue losses to the Canadian government. I am Publisher of a
magazine that appeals to upland bird hunters, primarily here in the US.
We also have a number of Canadian outfitters that advertise in our
magazine. I think I can speak for all of them in saying that this law is
ineffective and, like many we have here in the US, will punish law abiding
citizens, do nothing to curb gun-related violence, will be detrimental to the
Canadian outfitters' industry and ultimately will deprive the Canadian
government of significant tax revenue. Repeal this law before the damage is done!” (See
Attachment #8)
GOV’T
RESPONSE:
(10) The Firearms Act provides for the licencsing of firearms businesses.
Nothing in the Act precludes a business from operating within the terms of its
licence.
REBUTTAL
(10):
Documents available on the Department of Justice’s own website show
the number of Firearms Business Permits issued dropped from a high of 16,420 in
1979 to just 4,820 in 1998. Government
red tape has driven hundreds of thousands of hunters away from their sport and
consequently there has been a corresponding drop in the number of firearms
related businesses (See Attachment #9).
GOV’T
RESPONSE:
(11)-(12) The Firearms Act does not regulate the sales of such materials
in any manner.
REBUTTAL
(11)-(12): This is a ridiculous
response from the government to make. The
number of resident and non-resident hunters are in dramatic decline due largely
to onerous gun control laws. This
fact can no doubt be having an equally dramatic impact on sporting goods and RV
sales and manufacturing. The
Canadian Sporting Goods Association completed a survey in 1997 that revealed
that for men hunting was the second most important sporting activity among men
(See Attachment #10). We would be
well advised to hear the testimony of these organizations.
GOV’T
RESPONSE:
(13) The Firearms Act gun show regulations are not yet in force. The
changing demographics of firearms ownership may be reflected in the
participation rate at gun shows. However, it should be noted that these changes
may just reflect the result of other recreational opportunities being available
to all Canadians in all seasons.
REBUTTAL
(13): Gun shows have been directly
affected since the Firearms Act came into effect on December 1, 1998.
All firearms sales and transfers had to be approved before a sale could
be completed. Government appointed
firearms officers had to attend these shows to speed up the transfer process –
many times without success. The only way to assess the economic importance of hundreds of
gun shows to local economies and the economic impact of the Firearms Act is to
hear directly from the organizers and participants of these events.
GOV’T
RESPONSE:
(14) The changing demographics of firearm ownership may be reflected in
the participation rate at gun clubs and shooting ranges. However, it should be
noted that these changes may just reflect the result of other recreational
opportunities being available to all Canadians in all seasons.
Nothing in the Firearms Act prevents Canadians from participating in the
shooting sports. In fact, the Firearms Act requires that long gun ranges be
inspected and certified by a chief firearms officer to ensure that they meet
safety standards. This is the first time that long gun ranges have had to meet
any safety standard whatsoever.
REBUTTAL
(14): Many gun clubs and shooting
ranges have been driven out of business or have to pay for expensive renovations
to their range facilities as a direct consequence of the Firearms Act.
This despite the fact that the government has been unable to produce a
shred of evidence that any of these ranges represented any danger to public
safety (See Attachment #11).
GOV’T
RESPONSE:
(15)
The Firearms Act provides that Canadians can continue to maintain their firearms
collections and that new entrants may begin firearms collecting. Museums may be
licensed to maintain firearms in their collection.
REBUTTAL
(15): Museums have been complaining
about the Firearms Act since day one. For
example, The Alex Roberson Museum in Alonsa, Manitoba complained to his MP that
the fees alone represented 5% of their annual budget (See Attachment #12).
On December 10, 1998, Roy Bailey, MP for Souris-Moose Mountain reported:
"I
was talking with two brothers who own a gun museum," Bailey said.
“They told me that it takes a minimum of a half-hour to register each
gun. They have approximately 400 guns, so at that rate, it will take them two
months, working eight-hour days, to register their guns. And that's if
everything goes smoothly. One of the brothers told me it took 20 hours to
register just one of their rifles. "This
illustrates just how ridiculous this law is," declared Bailey. "This
is really forced labour, because, if they don't spend that time registering
their guns, the Government will consider them criminals."
(See Attachment #13)
GOV’T
RESPONSE:
(16)
The Firearms Act provides a framework to regulate movie supply companies.
Nothing in the Firearms Act prevents licensed production supply houses from
providing materials to productions.
REBUTTAL
(16): While C-68 was being debated
in 1995, movie production companies complained that the provisions in the bill
would negatively affect them. Isn’t
it time we heard from industry representatives to see what the economic impact
has been?
GOV’T
RESPONSE:
(17)
Nothing in the Firearms Act precludes Canadians or non-residents from
participating in historical re-enactments.
REBUTTAL (17): On Thursday, September 21, 1995, Mr. Richard Feltoe representing the British North America Living History Association appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs during their hearings on Bill C-68. He requested specific amendments to ensure that the Firearms Act would not negatively affect historical re-enactments. The Senate passed Bill C-68 without amendments. Isn’t it time to find out what the economic impact has been?
GOV’T
RESPONSE:
(18)
Nothing in the Firearms Act precludes Canadians from participating in activities
in which they participated in before the coming into force of the Firearms Act.
While the forces of demographic change and the free choice of other
recreational activities may have resulted in a decline in active participation
in hunting and shooting sports, there is nothing to indicate that any decrease
was the direct result of the introduction, passage, coming into force or
implementation of the Firearms Act.
REBUTTAL
(18): Just from the information provided above it is clear that the
implementation of the Firearms Act will have significant negative impact
on the economy, on specific industries and certain types of business. In just 20 years more than 11,000 firearms businesses were
closed. Of course, employment in
these impacted industries is affected and these layoffs have a negative impact
on other businesses in the communities where they operate.
Unfortunately, the government has chosen to declare their 115-page study
on economic impact of the Firearms Act a state secret and have chosen not to
study the issue.