The Terrace Standard, Wednesday, September 16. 1998 - AS Gun registration offers security DO YOU really want to own a gun that may have been used to commit a crime? That is Chris Beresford's ques- tion to gun owners who vow to dodge the impending firearm registration process. The chief spokesman for B.C.'s ministry of the attorney general says registration assures law- abiding gun owners that they don’t have to constantly worry about the history of their guns somehow im-* plicating them in a crime, “You know when you get it there’s no suspicion that’s attached to that particular firearm,’’ Beres- ford says of purchases under a registration system. *T’m not sure that buyers will really want to buy out of the back of somebody’s truck,’* B.C, is negotiating with the feder- al government towards an apree- ment that would see B.C, provide siaff on the ground to oversee licensing and registration — paid ' for by the federal goverament. Beresford stresses the arrange- ment is to be revenue-neutral to GUN STORE owner Terry Morris and others hope political pressure could yet prompt the government to back B.C, — it Won’t cost the province money or serve as a source of new revenue. Even if B.C. were to opt out of the legislation — as has Alberia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba — it wouldn’t mean registration won't take place in those areas. He noted federal agencics are to directly oversee registration in those provinces and would alsa do so in B.C. if an arrangement is not concluded. ‘The law is going to apply every-_ where, The question is just who is going to implement it,”’ he said. What is B.C,’s defence of why it’s preparing to take the job? ‘We think we can implement it better frankly than the federal goverument because we think we know what firearms owners’ and affected businesses’ needs and con- cerns are better than the federal government does,” Beresford says. There are an estimated 400,000 British Columbians who own an estimated I million unregistered long guns and another 250,000 al- ready registered handguns. But he: noted there’s also 700 businesses that cither sell or use guns. They inclide everything from armoured car services whose em- ployees carry weapons to museums whose historical display guns must also be registered. The province hopes it can put to- gether a system that’s more friend- ly to those businesses and individu- als than Ottawa might otherwise impose. ‘"We want to help people da what they’re going to have to do,’’ he said. The new system will consist of registration forms that are filled out by the gun owner and sent to the central registrar in Ottawa. But there are also to be verifiers in place to check those weapons to ensure the registration is accurate, That’s because some guns can be difficult to identify, and some have identical serial numbers or no serial numbers at ail. Licensing is to be conducted by provincially bired workers. They’ ll do the job of checking criminal records and compicting paperwork now performed by RCMP officers in local detachments. That’s ex- pected to free up some RCMP time for other matters, The provincial staff may also play a role in verification. “A number of issues still to be resolved with the federal govern- ment,’’ Beresford noted, He says the end result, however, should be a system that's more effi- cient, assures gun owners their reg- istered firearms are free of links to criminal activity, and gives the po- lice a much more advanced ability to trace Weapons used in a crime. Beresford also says an Angus Reid opinion survey of gun owners Suggests most gun owners will eventually comply with the require- ment to register. “According to this poll about half of firearms owners said not only would they register their firearms, they would register in the early introductory phase,’’ Beres- ford said. “About 20 per cent indicated no intention of registering firearms at all before the deadline came in." down from its plans to register all guns under Bill C-68, Rules expected to drive gun trade into the black market GUN SHOP owners like Terry Morris are bracing for the full brunt of Bill C- 68. ; a They’re expecting gun sales to dry up next month after registration of all guns sold in stores takes effect Oct. 1. Morris, owner of Brass and Bullet on River Dr. in Thornhill, believes very few people will register weapons they already own, And people who buy from like- minded private owners will likely continue to acquire new firearms without becoming part of the zegistra- tion system, - The result will be a huge ‘shift in transactions from gun shops to the pri- vate market, Morris says. “Tt will go so far underground it will look like it’s dissappeared,”’ he says. ‘It won’t do a thing for me. But it will enhance the profitablity of the criminal dealer.”’ Once a registration system is in place, Morris expects the next step will be requiring payment of GST and PST on private gun sales, the same as is in place now for private car transac- tions. That will be easy in dealing with registered guns. The registration must be changed on a federal computer sys- tem and bureaucrats can refuse that until fees and taxes are paid. ‘*That’s the kind of thing that will drive it underground,’’ Morris said, *‘They’ve basically created a great black market,’’? adds Brian Patrick, owner of Misty River Tackle. and Hunting. ‘Prohibition did the same thing for booze. And it didn’t stop anyone from getting it.”’ Morris says he’s already secing the beginning of the drop in his business. Sales are way down — partly at- tributable to the economy, but also due to the concem many gun owners have about ihe coming changes in rules. *‘T have far more people wanting to sel] guns than to buy,”’ he said, Store owners Like Morris and Patrick are also expected by government to volunteer to become ‘‘verifiers’’. They'd handle the job of identifying and classifying each type of weapon they deal with, and handling the registration procedure. Expertise in the form of existing gun dealers is needed because to reduce the amount of other officials Mortis and Patrick see it as an at- tempt’to turn them into unpaid federal bureaucrats — the ones who'll take’ the brunt of public anger over the changes. Patrick and Morris aren’t sure whether they'll agree to become verifiers — they may not have much choice if they want to stay in business. Some gun lobby campaigners are calling on buyers to boycott stores that agree to be verifiers. But with the target date for the change just two weeks away, neither store owner believes it’s going to hap- pen on time. *‘T suspect the regulation is going to be delayed,”’ Morris said. ‘I don’t think they’re ready for it.’’ Morris says he’s not opposed to all parts of the legislation. The licensing provisions that require gun owners prove competency and safety is a good thing, he says, as are Inandatory safety instruction and tougher penalties for criminal use of guns. But he doesn’t see the registration system as workable. By 2003, Morris says, if the legisla- tion is not repealed, he predicts the result will be ‘‘either anarchy or a po- lice state so pervasive it will make Hitler look like a school kid.’’ There will be thousands, maybe mil- lions of Canadians across the country at that point with illegal stashes of weapons, he says. Morris’ nightmare scenario is that the authorities become aware of some- onc hoarding illegal and unregistered guns, try to confiscate them, and en- counter opposition. *‘Somebody somewhere’s going to make a mistake,”’ he says. ‘And there is going to be a tragedy somewhere along the way.” Net sites tell how to bury guns THE INTERNET hums with Canadian gua owners comparing notes on how they’re going to hide their stash of weapons in the wake of Bill C-68, One web site contains diagrams prepared by a Ca- nadian group called the Firearms Freedom Founda- tion showing precisely how to bury guns underground. Instructions are provided on how to build a series of Subterrancan Arms = and Munitions (SAM) sites. The ‘‘original Sas- katchewan SAM” describes a conlainer built out of a five foot long metal culvert, welded shut at each end and sealed to eliminate moisture. A detailed article on the same site entitled ‘Advanced Storage and Countermeasures”? advises that SAM sites be located off your own property. That, it says, makes it har- der for searchers to. find, And it also limits your legal exposure to prosecution un- der Bill C-68 if itis found... - The site also details com- plex ‘countér-measures that can help protect a site from discovery by metal detec- tors, dogs, radar and sonar. But it concludes such measures are likely overkill. “The search capability of the police in Canada is in- adequate ta cope in any way with the developing situa- tion,” it says. “There are thousands of ‘guns in the ground now and we know of no occasion where the authorities have been able or inclined to mount this kind of intensive operation only to locate a personal arms cache.’’ “With persistence and preparation, let us face the outrageous plans and puni- tive laws of our unbalanced and ballistophobic nilers,’’ the site states. ‘(Remember the golden rule of the arms cacher: If they don’t know where to look, they don’t know where to find."’ a “économic order are branded ‘alarmists, obstructionists Treaty raises fair questions By MEL SMITH If the Nisga’a Final Agreement is the template for the fifty or more Jand claim agreements or treaties yet to be negotiated in this province as the Premier says it is, then I suggest that at the end of the exercise, British Columbians will wake up to discover that the federal and provincial governments have substantially altered forever the econemic, social and political fabric of their province, We will discover that those governments have greatly diminished the public land and resource base of the province —- the greatest source of our wealth; they have turned over much of their taxing power to native bands; they have paid out billions of dollars in cash compensation; they have constitutionally entrenched a native-only commercial fishery; and they have author- ized and financed an array of filty or more ethnic-based governments, whose laws in some instances will sup- plant federal and provincial laws. Senior governments will have done all of this for less than three per cent of the population, while confirming to the native people covered by these apreements their right to participate in the programs available to all other Canadians and their right 10 continue to receive the benefils from the hundred or so special programs for native people only, which annually cost the Canadian taxpayer in ex- cess of eight billion dol- Jars. The federal land claim policy first established in 1973, originally designed to compensate natives for the loss of their traditional activities, has been ex- panded into a policy that now provides a comucopia of economic and social benefits, land, resources, taxing powers, and self-government — all financially backstopped by the Canadian taxpayer, One might well ask what motivation drives govern- ments to give to 5,500 Nisga’a, only 2,000 of whom actually live in the Nass Valley, ovtright ownership of 1,930 sq. kms, of publicly-owned land (17 times the size of the City of Vancouver or 1/2 the size of the Okanagan Valley) including timber, mineral rights, water rights, and cash payments well in excess of $275 million plus a major say in wildlife resource manage- ment in an area 1/3 the size of Vancouver Island. Part of the answer is that the whole process is driven by the unrelenting efforts of what has been called the “Tndian Industry’’: the national native leadership, the many lawyers, consultants, advisers and academics — all government-funded — who would keep it going in perpetuity. Over-zealous bureaucrats and compliant’ politicians complete the loop. But the Canadian public is out in the cold. Paternalism --- telling us what is good for us — is now being visited on ordinary British Columbians. Those who raise legitimate questions over this major restructuring of British Columbia's social, political and : or worse. “All of this has‘ shades” of the Charlottetowsi'|* Accord debate where those. who questioned what was -going Of ‘Were branded by the Establishment as ‘the enemies of Canada’’. I propose to consider the following and other con- cems in a series of columns. Is there any legal justification for the wholesale dis- tribution of wealth that treaties will bring about? Will treaties like the Nisga’a Agreement really bring certainty and finality? Are treaties just about ‘‘minority rights’’, as the Premier suggests, and therefore the majority should not have a say as expressed in a referendum? ‘What are the full costs of the Nisga’a deal? Is it true that Nisga’a will become full taxpayers like other Canadians? Is a ‘‘free vote’’ in the Legislature on this deal a suf- ficient expression of the public will? — Is the proposed Nisga’a government purely municipal in nature or is it something much more? What about the democratic rights of non-Nisga’a who reside on Nisga’a lands? Will the Nisga’a agreement achieve the desired result of remedying the discredited native policy in Canada of the past 130 years? Stay tuned, Mei Smith was a lawyer, senior bureaucrat and con- stitutional adviser to @ series of Social Credit govern- ments in B.C., retiring in 1991. He’s the author of Our Home or Native Land?, ltves in Victoria and ts a columnist with B.C. Report. This column and subsequent ones were comiis- sioned by the company which owns The Terrace Stan- dard. - Treaty is founded on democratic principles By HELMUT GIESBRECHT MLA for Skeena Skeena MP Mike Scatt’s September 9 opinion piece presents a fundamentaliy flawed analysis of the Nisga’a treaty. . He starts by introducing a number of key principles in which British Colum- bians rightly believe — equality; indi- vidual rights and freedoms; democratic ideals — and then distorts the treaty to make it appear diametrically opposed to those principles. This is simply not the case, and I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight. © Equality: Under the treaty, the Nisga’a will be subject to the Canadian Constitu- tion, the Charter of Rights, and the same Canadian and B.C, laws as other Brilish Columbians, They agree to give up the special, race-based rights and privileges accorded them under the Indian Act, and will become the first aboriginal group in the province subject to the same taxes as every other B.C. resident. In addition, rights and protections will be enhanced for non-Nisga’a people living on Nisga’a lands, Currently, non-aboriginal people on reserves have no rights. = Individual. rights and. freedoms: Nothing in the treaty undermines or restricts the rights and freedoms of indi- vidual Nisga’a people. Like all other citizens of B.C., they will demacratically elect their local government, and bold that government accountable for its ac- lions. It’s true the Final Agreement does not direct land or resources to individual Nisga’a people, but that’s entirely logi- cal, and consistent with the system of land and resource ownership that opera- tes throughout B.C. and Canada, Governments own the vast majority of land (Crown land). They license private companies and individuals 10 extract resources from that land, and they have the right to lease or sell it as they see fit. Private property is not affected by these arrangements, nor will it be affected by Nisga’a government ownership. In no way is the potential for individu- al innovation and initiative restrained. On the contrary, this potential will be greatly enhanced as the Nisga’a move away from the system of dependence fostered by the Indian Act, and they build a stronger, more self-reliant com- munity. . I appreciate ‘Mr.’ Scott’s concern for Nisga’a people who may disagree wilh the Nisga’a government. But let’s put that concern in context. Our provincial government owns the majority of land and resources in B.C., and that certainly hasn’t stopped individual British Colum- bians — Mr. Scott among them — from criticizing my political decisions, or that of my government colleagues. Why does he think it would be any different for the Nisga’a? Political freedom: Scott is flat-out wrong when he says non-Nisga’a living on Nisga’a lands may be forced to pay Nisga’a taxes, but won't be able to take part in local elections. First, the treaty does not give the Nisga’a government power to tax non-Nisga’a citizens — no matter where they live and even if cur- rently living on fee simple land within Nisga’a lands. And, where the Nisga’a government delivers services such as health care and education to non-Nisga’a people, those residents will have guaran- teed representation on school and hospi- tal boards. The treaty does allow the B.C. and fed- eral governments to negotiate a future agreement that would see the Nisga’a government collect taxes from non. Nisga’a on Nisga’a lands. However, un- der no circumstances would the province agree to this arrangement unless the Nisga’a agreed to voting rights for those non-Nisga’a cilizens. In other words, there is absolutely no chance of taxation without representation. Scott’s opposition to the Nisga’a trealy is not only ill-informed, it strongly sug- gests the Member of Parliament is out of touch with this community. The Mayer of Terrace, the Chamber of Commerce and other local elected officials have al- ready said they support the Nisga’a Final Agreement. And, despite what Scott claims, the views of local residents were, indeed, sought and reflected in the course of negotiations. The province has conducted extensive and exhaustive consultations with. the public and interested partles during the negotiating process, More than 400 pub- lic meetings have been held, and an all- parly committee of the legislature held public hearings in 27 communilies in- cluding Terrace. Tt would be difficult to identify another set of negotiations during which more in- formation was available to the public about the process and substance of Jhose negotiations, And every British Colum- + bian will be represented when the Final It's ironic that Scott would claim the treaty will harm Nisga’a people. In fact, it will help them build an economic base and end a hundred years of dependency. On a broader level, it will also help the province move forward and deal with is- sues like jobs and economic develop- ment. I welcome informed debate on this, and other important topics, But fear-mongering serves no useful pur- pose. It's time to get on with the business of negotiating a resolution to all land claims in B.C, to end instability and conflict, to bring British Columbians together, to help resolve an injustice that’s gone on . too long, and to help aboriginal people build stronger, morc self-reliant com- munities, Full copies of the Final Agreement are available on the. Internct at www.aafgov.be.ca/aaf, or by calling 1- 800-880-1022. 1 belleve the more people learn about the treaty, the more likely | they are to conclude it is a fair, balanced - settlement that works for all British Columbians.