EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 18, 1995

.1530

[English]

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

The committee is continuing with its examination of Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons. This afternoon we are continuing with our examination of officials, as we did last week.

Today we have with us from the Department of Justice Richard Mosley, Q.C., assistant deputy minister of criminal and social policy. With him are many other officials from the Department of Justice who are knowledgeable with respect to this bill.

We also have from Revenue Canada Mark Connolly, the director of enforcement operations, and other officials from Revenue Canada who are with us to deal with questions of smuggling and related matters.

From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police we have Inspector Mike Buisson, the officer in charge of the special registries branch, and other members of the RCMP, again who are familiar with this legislation and the administration of it.

Now I have a point of order from Mr. Ramsay.

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

I'd like to move that the committee ensure that the chairman uphold all rules and practices of this committee, in particular a member's privilege to debate each issue before committee, as provided for in the Standing Orders; a member's right to question witnesses; a member's right to seek advice from legal counsel; a member's right to request input from committee research staff; and a member's right to move motions in his or her language, pursuant to Standing Order 65.

The Chair: I'll receive the motion and consult with the clerk as to whether it's in order or not. My only doubt is all these things are already provided for in the rules. If the chair does not uphold the rules of practice of the committee, it's presumed that he would be brought to order by the committee so the rules would be enforced.

It's the same with all these things. If the chair did not allow the member to question witnesses, seek advice from the legal counsel, request input from the research staff or move motions in their own language, he'd be called to order. But I'll seek the advice of the clerk.

Also it seems strange to me. If I have violated any of these rules up to this point, I certainly should have been called to order, and having been called to order, I should have been obliged to rule on the issue right away.

In other words, if I ever prevented somebody from using their own language, English or French, I should have been called to order. If I ever prevented somebody from seeking advice of the legal counsel, I should have been called to order. The same for their right to question witnesses.

Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): The reason for this motion is not because of what's happened in this committee, and we would like to suggest that this committee has been more than generous and the chair has been more than fair.

But we have experience in another committee where the rules were put aside and were changed at the last minute. The opportunity to present amendments at clause-by-clause was denied the members. The ability to discuss the amendments was denied the members.

We just wanted it to go on record that the members of this committee believe in the rules we have established, as we have in the past. The members of the Reform Party on this committee would like to reaffirm that we have no problem with the present chairman and the way he has conducted the meetings up to this point.

We just want it to go on record that this committee will recognize, as it has in the past, the rules we have agreed to work by. We did run into difficulty with another committee of the House, so we feel perhaps it is necessary to get it on record that we will be operating under the rules.

.1535

The Chair: Well, 48 hours have to be given anyway. I'll ask the clerk to give me some advice on this after he seeks the advice of people who are more familiar with these things.

As far as I'm concerned, I intend to most rigorously enforce all those rules. If for one moment we should divert from doing that, I would hope to be called to order. In any case, I will seek advice and come back to you within 48 hours on the point.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellemare (Carleton - Gloucester): Are we allowed to talk about this motion?

[English]

The Chair: It's not being put to a vote now. Under the rules of this committee, when a motion is presented it cannot be debated or voted on until after 48 hours. We adopted a rule to that effect.

I've already introduced the principal witnesses at the table. We will do as we did last week. We would like you to call to the table anybody from your respective departments who you think is best able to answer the question.

Mr. Richard Mosley (Assistant Deputy Minister, Criminal and Social Policy Sector, Department of Justice): Just for clarification, Mr. Chairman, you referred to Mr. Connolly from Revenue Canada, Customs and Excise. Actually I'm joined at the table by Mr. Allan Cocksedge, who's the assistant deputy minister of border services, and Bill LeDrew, who's the director general of enforcement. Mr. Connolly is not available today.

The Chair: Very good. On the notice of meeting they had Mr. Connolly's name, but I see on the updated notice they do have the names of Mr. William LeDrew, Kathie Pomarankie and John Kiefl.

Anyway, we have people here from Customs who can answer the questions on smuggling and enforcement at the border.

Mr. Mosley: Indeed.

The Chair: That's very good.

I also understand there have been some consultations by members of the committee to the effect that for this afternoon's meeting they want to suspend the ordinary rule that we have an opening round of ten minutes for each party. They want an opening round of five minutes for each party and an exchange of five-minute rounds from then on in order to get more questions in. Is that correct? Is there a consensus on that? If not, we will stay with the usual rule.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: So we will go five minutes, five minutes, five minutes, and then go back and forth for five minutes in order to get more questions in.

Mr. Mosley, I understand there's no opening statement. This is an opportunity for us to ask questions of you.

Mr. Mosley: There is no opening statement, Mr. Chairman. However, we do have a document to distribute that responds to a question from Mrs. Venne on the last occasion on which we appeared with regard to the organization and functions of the Firearms Control Task Group. I believe we've made that available to the clerk for distribution.

The Chair: I don't see a copy myself, but I would hope the clerk would distribute it if he hasn't already.

[Translation]

Mr. Caron, you have five minutes. You can ask questions not only to people at the table, but also to all technicians and experts who are here today for technical matters.

Mr. Caron (Jonquière): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will pass for now.

[English]

The Chair: Very good. We can return to you afterwards.

Mr. Ramsay for five minutes.

.1540

Mr. Ramsay: I'd like to ask Mr. Mosley how the tabling of the Revenue report on smuggling is coming. Do we have any hope of seeing that before we leave for the recess at the end of the week?

Mr. Mosley: I'm pleased to advise that we expect the report to be released tomorrow. I should clarify that it's a report of the several federal departments involved, including the Department of Justice, the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Revenue Canada Customs and Excise, together with the several provincial police agencies that were involved in the working group. Our expectation is that it will in fact be released tomorrow.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.

When you were here last, Mr. Mosley, I asked if you would table supporting documentation indicating that consultation had taken place in the prescribed manner with the James Bay Cree as well as the Yukon Indian delegation.

Mr. Mosley: My understanding is that Mr. Rock will be prepared to speak to that matter tomorrow morning and will bring with him the documentation that relates to that question.

Mr. Ramsay: Will he be tabling those documents tomorrow?

Mr. Mosley: My understanding is yes.

Mr. Ramsay: For the rest of my time I would like Mr. Murray Smith to come to the table.

Mr. Smith, of course I'm still troubled about the mail-in registration system. Have you appeared in court on firearms cases as a professional witness?

Mr. Murray Smith (Chief Scientist of Firearms, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Yes, I have. I've appeared in court hundreds of times over a period of fifteen years or more. In fact, in my current position I am a trouble-shooter for the other firearms examiners across the country. If they have some difficulty or expect some difficulty in approaching the courts with a certain kind of examination, they will often consult with me for advice.

Mr. Ramsay: When was the last time you appeared in court in your professional capacity?

Mr. Smith: It was about a year and a half ago.

Mr. Ramsay: Would you at any time recommend that either you or any other forensic scientist go into court with evidence that had not been verified as far as the identification of firearms is concerned?

Mr. Smith: The firearms examiner who appears in court as an expert witness is obliged to answer questions dealing with fact and with professional opinion. Sometimes those opinions are based on hypothetical information. So in some cases the expert will deal with factual matters and in other cases they'll deal with things that have not been established as fact.

Mr. Ramsay: From your experience, would you, as a forensic scientist, be prepared to submit in court testimony with regard to the identifying features of a firearm that you or a professional had not verified? I'm referring of course to information that has been mailed in on a document from an owner. Would you be prepared to submit that as valid evidence in a court of law?

Mr. Smith: In terms of firearms information, certainly I would have no difficulty dealing with questions concerning whether the make was compatible with the model, whether the serial number was in the correct range or things of that nature, but obviously I wouldn't want to speak to things I had no personal knowledge of and could not offer a professional opinion on.

Mr. Ramsay: So if I understand what you're saying, and I think I do, until such time as you had personally examined a firearm, you would not be prepared to submit testimony before a court as to the identifying features of a firearm simply taken off a form that had been mailed in.

.1545

Mr. Smith: Well, I don't think that's completely correct. I would be prepared to speak on that information provided to me as a hypothetical question. I have no trouble dealing with that. But obviously if you, as a witness in court, are asked a question about something about which you have no previous knowledge, there's no way you can establish the accuracy or the reliability of that data.

Mr. Ramsay: My question is this. Can the court rely on information that has not been verified by a professional forensic scientist in terms of firearms identification? If this system goes through with mail-in registration, no forensic scientist or inspector of firearms trained in that particular area would have examined the firearm, as they do now with handguns in order to register them.

Do you not see any problem with that form of registration system as far as submitting testimony into a court of law goes?

Mr. Smith: In the normal course of events the firearms examiner would not be called upon to verify registration records. That would fall to someone from the firearms registry, who would swear out the appropriate affidavit or appear in court.

Where the firearms analyst comes into play has to do with classifying the weapon as to which legal category it falls into or discussing the characteristics of the weapon as to whether it's working properly or whether the description matches that which was given. Even now the details often do not match that which is given the analyst as a hypothetical question.

Mr. Ramsay: You've given me eight minutes. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I thought it was important that you complete that line of questioning.

Mr. Wappel (Scarborough West): I wonder if Mr. Smith would be kind enough to bring up to where he's sitting the Smith & Wesson, the Luger and the four .25-calibre firearms, please.

The stated objective of the minister in prohibiting certain types of handguns is to ban what are commonly known as Saturday night specials, easily concealable handguns. I wonder if you could describe for me the .25-calibre guns you have there in terms of their barrel length and overall length, first of all. Then describe for me the Smith & Wesson and the Luger in terms of their barrel length and overall length. Then, if you would, please hold up any one of the .25-calibres beside the Smith & Wesson.

Mr. Smith: I haven't measured the overall length of these weapons in advance. I could get my ruler and measure them for you.

Mr. Wappel: I'd appreciate it if you'd do that.

Mr. Smith: One of these handguns is a Bryco Arms .25-calibre pistol. Its overall length is approximately 125 millimetres. I have a Raven .25-calibre semi-automatic pistol, the overall length of which is approximately 120 millimetres. I have a Beretta .25-calibre pistol, and the overall length of that is approximately 128 millimetres. And I have a Sundance .25-calibre automatic pistol, the overall length of which is approximately 125 millimetres as well.

.1550

This is the Smith & Wesson revolver.

Mr. Wappel: Could you close the chamber on that? Is that allowable?

Mr. Smith: This particular one is a .44 magnum, model 629.

Mr. Wappel: Just so I can see what it looks like, could you close the chamber? Okay.

What are the dimensions of that?

Mr. Smith: The overall length of that is approximately 255 millimetres.

Mr. Wappel: What's the barrel length?

Mr. Smith: The barrel length is approximately 104 millimetres.

Mr. Wappel: So that firearm would be prohibited under this legislation because of its barrel length.

Mr. Smith: As it stands now, yes, because it has a barrel less than 105 millimetres long.

Mr. Wappel: Would you hold up the Beretta side by side with the Smith & Wesson, please? Can you tell us anything about the weight of those two weapons?

Mr. Smith: The weight of the Smith & Wesson is much greater. Again, I didn't bring the details of the exact weight.

Mr. Wappel: It looks significantly more substantial.

Mr. Smith: It's several times heavier.

Mr. Wappel: What about the Luger?

Mr. Smith: The overall length of the Luger is approximately 235 millimetres and it has a barrel length of approximately 100 millimetres.

Mr. Wappel: What is the age of that Luger?

Mr. Smith: This particular one is marked 1918. It's made by DWM.

Mr. Wappel: So that's virtually a World War I relic.

Mr. Smith: Yes.

Mr. Wappel: And that would also be banned under this legislation because of its barrel length?

Mr. Smith: That's correct.

Mr. Wappel: Would you hold that up beside the Beretta? What about the weight?

Mr. Smith: Again, the weight of the Luger is much greater.

Mr. Wappel: Okay.

Mr. Smith: I could get the exact weights for you if you like. I just didn't anticipate the question.

Mr. Wappel: No, that's fine.

In common parlance, would either the Luger or the Smith & Wesson be referred to as a Saturday night special?

Mr. Smith: Typically not, although that expression is very loosely defined. I would take a Saturday night special to mean a firearm that is relatively compact, easy to conceal and generally, but not always, inexpensive.

Mr. Wappel: Using your own criteria, would you characterize either the Luger or the Smith & Wesson as one of those?

Mr. Smith: No.

Mr. Wappel: There's no other reason, then, under your definition, that those would be prohibited, other than that they have a barrel length of less than 105 millimetres.

Mr. Smith: That's correct.

Mr. Wappel: How am I doing for time, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: You're in your last minute.

Mr. Wappel: I'd like to pass, then, until the next round, because my question deals with Order in Council banning of guns.

Thank you so much, Mr. Smith.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Caron, do you have any questions?

Mr. Caron: Yes, please. Is ther someone amongst the experts who could give me some information on the registration system that should begin in 1998? Yes? We know that it will begin in 1998 and end in 2003. Given your experience, would there be, on the logistic level, problems in beginning the registration operation in 1996 so that it could end two years earlier, that is to say in 2001, in order to speed up the registration process for all types of firearms?

[English]

Mr. Mosley: I think there would be considerable difficulty getting prepared for the registration of all firearms within 1996. The plan that was announced November 30 and that is reflected in the bill as tabled on February 14 provides for a staged, phased-in implementation that would be progressive, beginning with the licensing scheme in 1996, then the registration scheme in 1998 and then allowing for five years' implementation for each aspect.

To attempt to move up the registration of long guns to 1996 would probably be beyond our capabilities at this point in time without a substantial infusion of additional resources. Even then I doubt we'd be able to pull it off.

.1555

[Translation]

Mr. Caron: What would be the main difficulties? You would put into place a structure for issuing permits and, if I understand well, two years later, you will have a structure for registration. What is so difficult in organizing a registration system? Is it a matter of logistics, of computers, of automation, of staffing or funding? Why would it be so difficult to begin at an earlier date?

[English]

Mr. Mosley: It's a function of a number of variables, such as system design. We are in the process of doing that now. We then have to build the system to register all firearms and then implement it. That is a large undertaking and I don't think it's feasible to attempt to do so within the shorter timeframe.

[Translation]

Mr. Caron: You said that you already began to analyze all that, but without saying that you already carried out experiences. You know that it is impossible to begin before 1998 because it is impossible to do that at the community level and various services. What is the major obstacle? Is it designing a computer system able to standardize everything or determining who will take care of the registration in all those places? What would be the major difficulty?

[English]

Mr. Mosley: It might be helpful to call up to the table my colleague, Paul Trottier, who could speak at length about the system requirements.

Mr. Paul Trottier (Officer, Firearms Control Task Group, Department of Justice): The strategy to proceed with licensing in 1996 and have registration beginning in 1998 was to allow us sufficient time to establish infrastructure - to establish all of the communication links with all the police agencies that are ultimately going to be involved in the registration of firearms. The registration system is being conceived to simplify the processes that are in there right now.

In the planning stages, when we were preparing our strategic plans on this, it was thought it would not be feasible to establish it before 1998. The country is too big. There are too many police agencies. We need time to make sure we establish it and do it right the first time.

The Chair: I have one question now. I'll have some others later.

This morning I was surprised to learn - and I'd like to verify it - that during the Second World War there was a system of registration for all long guns, shotguns and rifles. Could you tell us a little more about that? How did you go about registering those guns at that time, under what authority did you do it and was it a success or a non-success? Can we learn anything from it at all?

Mr. Mosley: I can't answer that question completely and I have the impression that the RCMP are not in a position to. I have seen references to how that was done.

My recollection, Mr. Chairman - and I apologize for not being better prepared on that question - is that it was done under the war-related regulations that were in place during that period of time, that it was a purely manual, locally based system, that it was not very successful and ultimately was brought to a close even before the final days of the war.

The Chair: Thank you. Maybe I'll use a full turn.

Some people who came before us this morning brought up the possibility of joint ownership. They gave us examples not only of husbands and wives who own valuable guns together, sometimes for shooting competitions, but also of people who inherited them and therefore are joint owners.

They asked why this law could not accommodate joint ownership. Is there any reason it could not?

.1600

Mr. Mosley: As you know, Mr. Chairman, each individual would have to be licensed in order to make use of the firearm.

The Chair: That's accepted. Let's say both get licences. Could they not have the firearm registered to them jointly?

Mr. Mosley: In terms of administrative simplicity, it's easier to keep track of one registered owner per firearm. That's the primary reason for the way the bill is currently structured.

The Chair: I think we'd better pursue that a bit further, because our colleagues gave us several examples of this taking place, not only through purchase or acquisition, but also through inheritance. Sometimes a whole set of firearms might be inherited from a father to brothers and sisters or whomever.

Mr. Mosley: I might add that my understanding is the current RCMP system does allow for joint registrations of restricted handguns.

The Chair: I see.

This is my final question on this round. We had an advisory committee following the legislation of, I think, Bill C-17, the last gun control bill. Some members have suggested that we resurrect a similar advisory committee.

Would you tell me how long the last advisory committee lasted? When was it terminated? Also, have you assessed its success or lack of success? Was it valuable in helping with the regulations in the implementation the last time?

Mr. Mosley: That advisory council was appointed for a three-year term, which expired, if my recollection is correct, in either December 1993 or January 1994.

In terms of its effectiveness, the council contributed advice to the former government about practical matters. They were representatives of firearms organizations, persons with an interest in firearms control and a variety of people from a number of backgrounds.

It did serve a useful function with regard to, for example, the point system that was used for the Orders in Council for the prohibition of certain firearms. That was developed in consultation with the advisory council.

For the most part, Mr. Chairman, I could describe it as a sounding board and a source of advice to the former government during that three-year period.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Mosley, perhaps you can help me. I've been searching for something in this bill and I haven't been able to find it. It may be there and it may not be.

If this bill goes through, if a gun owner - and there are about 3 million of them - applies for a licence to own a gun under section 5 and fails to meet the requirements, then of course that means he is not issued with a licence to own. What happens to his firearms?

Mr. Mosley: The existing provisions of the Criminal Code, replicated in part III of the bill, provide that by operation of law, an individual who is effectively unlawfully in possession of firearms has an opportunity to dispose of them with reasonable dispatch.

The precise parameters of what ``reasonable dispatch'' means have not been defined, to my knowledge. It provides an individual who finds himself in that position an opportunity to get rid of the firearms.

.1605

In the case of somebody who doesn't qualify for a licence and who is in possession, the options that would be open to them would be to deactivate the firearms; to turn them in to police; to sell them to somebody who did have the necessary qualifications; to donate them to a museum; or if possible to export and sell them offshore, abroad.

Mr. Ramsay: If those opportunities weren't available, then what would happen? Would his firearms be confiscated?

Mr. Mosley: Ultimately they would be subject to confiscation, yes, but in terms of when that would take place and how much time would be made available to them, it really would be at the discretion of the local authorities before such a step would be taken.

Mr. Ramsay: Of course, if he doesn't qualify to hold a licence under the provisions of the statute, I assume it's a prima facie case that he ought not to have them. Perhaps he's committed a violent offence or he had a mental illness or he has a history of violence around the neighbourhood.

How long would you leave the firearms in his hands in order to give him an opportunity to comply with the alternatives of selling them, giving them to a museum or exporting them?

Mr. Mosley: I think that would depend on the circumstances. If the reason for the disqualification suggested that the continued possession of those firearms by that individual was a danger or a risk to the public, then I think the time span would be very short. In fact the firearms officer would probably move to seek an order permitting the seizure of the firearms and a prohibition against the possession of firearms by that individual.

Mr. Ramsay: From that definition, it seems to me that would be the only alternative to take, because I don't know of any other factors that would disqualify a person from holding a licence.

The point I make is that if the person is not qualified to hold a licence because he may be a danger, as outlined under clause 5, then the only alternative the authorities would have would be to take those firearms from the possession of that person. By definition, it would be dangerous to leave them in his or her possession.

Mr. Mosley: For most cases that's probably correct. There may be situations that arise where the firearms officer is of the opinion that it's not desirable that the individual should have a licence to possess but where some arrangements can be made so they are allowed to divest themselves of the firearms or deactivate them without having to take the steps of seizure. But if there's a clear indication that there is a public risk, then I think the local authorities would probably prefer to move quickly rather than to leave that situation outstanding.

Mr. Ramsay: It appears to me, then, that this is one of the areas where there may be confiscation without compensation. Would that be correct? If an individual is found to be not eligible to hold a licence because he has a criminal record or a history of mental illness or a history of violence, the police would have no other alternative but to seize the firearms from that individual without compensation.

Mr. Mosley: That's correct insofar as it goes. I would stress that currently the status quo results in no compensation where there is a prohibition order against an individual and they have to get rid of their firearms. So in that respect there would be no change through this bill.

.1610

There is a significant number of prohibition orders outstanding at any given time. I forget the number, but I think it's in the neighbourhood of 30,000 to 40,000. Those individuals at present are similarly situated in that they have to get rid of their firearms quickly or they're seized from them and no compensation is paid.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.

Mr. Easter (Malpeque): Certainly one of the most controversial aspects of this bill, especially in rural Canada, is the issue of registration and the enforcement of same, the consequence being having a criminal record.

For the record, I wonder if you could outline the consequences of having a criminal record. What's the impact of that on an individual? I certainly know what it is for a truck driver trying to get into the U.S., but what are the consequences of that being the measure of enforcement?

Mr. Mosley: I don't profess to be an expert in this. Perhaps somebody from the RCMP may be of assistance.

There is a number of obvious consequences that relate to employment. In most circumstances you can't be bonded if you have a criminal record. It may relate to the actual opportunity to gain employment if you are asked by prospective employers whether you have criminal convictions. Also, as you point out, it relates to your ability to move to, or in some circumstances even to enter to visit, the United States or other countries.

Mr. Easter: That being the case, what other possible options could be available to encourage registration, other than a criminal record?

Mr. Mosley: I think we're getting into an area of policy. With your indulgence, I would prefer not to address that question.

The Chair: Mr. Easter, this afternoon is an opportunity to question experts, technicians and public servants regarding administration and questions of expert information. The policy questions - whether or not something is good politically - we're going to do tomorrow morning with the minister.

Mr. Easter: One of the points Mr. Ramsay raised was the whole question of deactivating weapons, and it's a question I'm asked often. Just when do you consider and what procedures do you have to go through to deactivate a weapon?

Mr. Mosley: I think Mr. Smith would be best suited to respond to that question.

Mr. Smith: There is no present legal definition of a deactivated firearm. A firearm is deactivated when it ceases to be a firearm.

To a large degree it's currently left up to the discretion of the local firearms officer as to when a firearm is sufficiently damaged that it no longer constitutes a firearm. However, the RCMP has published recommended standards in the National Firearms Manual that detail specific procedures for deactivating various types of firearms so they will be guaranteed to be viewed as deactivated weapons. The procedures are quite thorough.

Mr. Easter: Where would I go to access that information?

Mr. Smith: The individual would go to his local firearms officer.

Mr. Easter: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Caron, you have another five minutes.

Mr. Caron: Bill C-68 sets as a condition for obtaining a firearm possession licence that you do not associate with a person who is the subject of a prohibition order. Could you enlighten me on the meaning of the word «associate»? Would that apply to family, friendship or professional relationships? What do you think is meant by the word «associate» used in subsection 7(5)?

.1615

[English]

Ms Irit Weiser (Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy, Department of Justice): My name is Irit Weiser. I'm with the Department of Justice.

Normally in order to obtain a licence one must have taken an appropriate safety course. If someone has been prohibited, the safety course must be taken again before that person can obtain a licence to use a gun.

However, there are two exceptions to that. One is where the prohibition order is lifted for employment or sustenance purposes, and then the firearms officer has discretion as to whether or not to require that person to take the course again. The other circumstance where a safety course wouldn't be required is where somebody has been prohibited because they live with someone who is dangerous. The reason for prohibiting them is simply to keep firearms away from the person who is dangerous.

[Translation]

Mr. Caron: You say that living with someone dangerous is what is meant by the word "associate" in 7(5)(b). It says:

(b) against whom a prohibition order was made merely because another person against whom a prohibition order was made cohabited with, or was an associate of...

The example you give is living with someone dangerous but the word "associate" is added. What kind of association is meant by this?

[English]

Ms Weiser: The reference to an ``associate'' was included because of situations we had where people ran a business together and one partner in the store had been prohibited. We wanted to make sure the other partner didn't keep firearms at that store. That is what is meant by ``associate''.

[Translation]

Mr. Caron: Don't you find that the word "associate" can have a very broad meaning in that context? It all depends on your interpretation. In your answers, you gave the example of someone living with someone else. Here you have the case of an associate but it could also be someone who has friends in that situation. It could be very broad indeed. I wonder about the exact meaning that can be given to this idea of "association".

[English]

Ms Weiser: A prohibition order in these circumstances could only be issued pursuant to subsection 111(1) of part III of the Criminal Code. A condition precedent is that the prohibited person, the dangerous person, would or might have access to that associate's firearms. So it can't be just any friend; it has to be circumstances where there is a likelihood that the prohibited person will have access to an associate's firearms.

[Translation]

Mr. Caron: So that's how this would be interpreted. We're to understand that it's someone living in the same residence. The interpretation of the meaning of this "association" does imply some closeness in the physical sense where the prohibited person might have access to a firearm belonging to someone else. It's not simply a professional, friendly, family or business relationship. It's going to have to be more specific.

[English]

Ms Weiser: That is right. It is a condition precedent that the prohibited person would or might have access to that associate's firearms.

Mr. McKinnon (Brandon - Souris): Picking up on Mr. Ramsay's last question, I'd like some clarification concerning the confiscation situation. If you can recall the sequence of events as outlined by Mr. Ramsay, were you speaking in your answer about how it would happen under Bill C-68, or were you thinking of under the current rules of Bill C-17?

.1620

Mr. Mosley: I was referring to how it would apply under Bill C-68, but that answer was informed by how I understand it happens under the current provisions of the Criminal Code.

There is some flexibility in situations where a person might have a valuable firearm and the economic loss from that would be considerable. Some means could be found to avoid simply destroying the firearm. There have been occasions where the police have applied for a prohibition order and the court has been prepared to grant it but has allowed the respondent time to dispose of the firearm - to sell it. That seems to have worked reasonably well, even if the firearm has to remain in the possession of the police for a short period of time while the owner finds a purchaser. That kind of arrangement has been worked out.

Mr. McKinnon: My comment would be that Bill C-68 may or may not impact on that situation. In other words, had there never been a Bill C-68, it would be happening regardless.

Mr. Mosley: The difference is that although we don't expect there to be a large number of refusals, because every firearms owner in possession now would have to apply for a licence, people who would not otherwise have come to the attention of the authorities might well be identified in that process. There will be more persons directly affected.

Mr. McKinnon: I've had some concerns expressed to me by constituents in my area regarding circumstances whereby they may have purchased or acquired firearms in their twenties, hunted with their friends and colleagues until they were forty, hung them up and haven't used them for twenty years. Where are they at in terms of safety courses and the grandfathering provisions that are currently in Bill C-68, as you understand them?

Mr. Mosley: My understanding is if they have no intention of acquiring any further firearms, they don't need to take a safety course. They need to apply for a possession licence and register their firearms, but that's the extent of it.

Mr. McKinnon: What if they don't have an FAC as we know it today?

Mr. Mosley: Even if they have no FAC at present, so long as their intention is not to acquire any more, at the very least they're at the bottom of the list in terms of the graduation of steps they must take.

Mr. Ramsay: To follow up on that last line of questioning, if someone has owned firearms for the last 25 or 30 years and they've never used them in an illegal manner, but through the check under clause 5 it is found that within the last five years that individual has been in two or three shouting matches with their neighbours where threats have been exchanged, then that person could be denied a licence to own under this act.

Going through the same scenario we went through on my last round, they could lose their firearms, which they have never used illegally, and they could lose all of them, whether there's a collection or just a handful or one.

I'd like you to address that as to whether or not you feel that a person caught in that situation, knowing they may be denied a licence if they apply, would be induced towards non-compliance.

.1625

Mr. Mosley: First I'd like to stress that the determination of whether somebody fits within subclause 5(1) will be based on the criteria that are laid out in subclause 5(2), but it's not an absolute process. There will be some discretion in the system.

I think we can rely on the common sense of the firearms officers, who know their communities and in many cases will perhaps even know the individuals who are applying, not to take isolated incidents out of context and to apply the criteria sensibly.

However, should there be a decision that the licence cannot be issued, then the subject would of course have recourse to the appeal provisions within the act and could apply to a provincial court judge to review the decision of the firearms officer.

It's discretionary at the outset and we believe it will be applied with common sense, but there's always an opportunity to appeal that decision if the person is dissatisfied with the result.

Mr. Ramsay: We always talk about discretion of a police officer. I was one for a while. I'm saying very clearly - and I want it on the record - that if you give a police officer the power to act, that power will be acted upon.

I'll give you an example. I just read an account of a lady over fifty who is living alone. She had her firearms hanging on the wall and a neighbour noticed them through the window and reported it to the police.

She supported herself by delivering papers. She was pulled over by two police cars while she was delivering papers, she was arrested and spent the night in jail. When she got home, all of her firearms had been taken, the door had been smashed in, her refrigerator was knocked over and the house was in an absolute shambles. It took her a year to get her firearms back.

When we talk about discretion and how peace officers will respond to certain situations, we should look at the example of the 67-year-old grandmother who suddenly finds herself facing a situation where she's in violation of the law. When we grant authority to peace officers, we had better realize the extent to which that authority can be used. I would like to put that on the record.

I'd like to come back to you and ask you something. Would it not be an inducement towards non-compliance if a person knows that if a check were done on him, they would find out he had a bit of a brawl in the bar or whatever and there was violence or perhaps there were threats of violence?

Would this not be an inducement towards non-compliance, because if they do comply, they're afraid they will not be eligible for a licence because of that and they may lose all their firearms or may have to get rid of them or put them into a state where they're no longer a firearm? Do you not feel that's possible?

Mr. Mosley: I can't really comment or speculate about how people might act in response to this. Presumably it would be human nature that some individuals might be concerned about the possibility of applications being denied. On the other hand, this might well serve as an inducement to many people who no longer wish to keep their firearms to dispose of them and not bother going through the process of obtaining a licence.

.1630

I think it's really difficult to say whether one or any of these situations outweighs the other without some experience with actual practice in the implementation and administration of these proposals.

Mr. Wappel: I wonder if I could have Mr. Smith back up for a moment, please.

Mr. Smith, you're the chief scientist for firearms at the central forensic laboratory of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, is that correct?

Mr. Smith: That's correct.

Mr. Wappel: How many years of experience do you have dealing with firearms?

Mr. Smith: As a forensic scientist, eighteen years.

Mr. Wappel: In your previous testimony you gave us three criteria you would consider to be required in order for a weapon to be described as a Saturday night special, generally speaking.

Could you provide this committee with an estimation of the average overall length of a weapon that you feel would fall within the definition of what would in ordinary parlance be a Saturday night special?

Mr. Smith: I'd like to point out two things before I answer. One is there is no generally agreed upon definition of what constitutes a Saturday night special. The definition I gave is one I believe to be widely held, but some may see it differently.

Secondly, a firearm's design represents a continuum. There is no way to group firearms into specific classes by size. They seem to follow one another millimetre by millimetre from something that's very short to something that's very large. So any number that you pick will inevitably be arbitrary.

Mr. Wappel: Yes, of course. This is always the case with line-drawing.

Mr. Smith: In the case of the so-called Saturday night special firearms of the type I brought today, for example, an overall length of approximately 150 millimetres would serve to identify all of them but would not capture the larger-framed firearms, which I also displayed.

Mr. Wappel: Thank you very much.

I'd like to ask Mr. Mosley a question I asked earlier.

Would you please walk us through the exact procedure that was followed in order to declare the Benelli M3 Super 90 pump/auto shotgun a prohibited weapon, from literally the genesis of the idea right to the final order? How did that happen?

Mr. Mosley: As I indicated earlier, the Canadian Advisory Council on Firearms, in consultation with the chief provincial and territorial firearms officers and, I believe, Mr. Smith, had recommended a set of criteria, with a set of weighted numbers assigned to each criterion, for the identification of firearms that would be prohibited under Order in Council.

This was first used with regard to prohibition orders that were made in the aftermath of Bill C-17. If a particular firearm accumulated a total of fifty points, it would fall into a category to be analysed to determine whether it would be prohibited or restricted by Order in Council.

Mr. Wappel: Who would make that determination with respect to the Benelli? How would it come to anybody's attention? Was it being marketed in Canada or was it a newly promoted weapon? How did somebody bring it to somebody's attention in order for it to get fifty points?

Mr. Mosley: It was identified in a number of publications as being on the market and available for import into Canada. For example, this is the International Law Enforcement Catalogue, 7th edition, 1995-96, which contains a picture and description of the Benelli M3 Super 90 convertible shotgun with a particular application.

.1635

This particular application - I don't know if you can see it from afar, but I'll pass it up for your examination - has a folding stock, and that's one of the criteria that would be used in determining the point total.

With regard to this particular firearm, my understanding is it was brought to the attention of the Department of Justice by the RCMP as a firearm that was designed for law enforcement operations and as a weapon for anti-terrorist squads. There was a discussion with the chief provincial and territorial firearms officers at their meeting with us in the summer of 1994, and a number of firearms were on the table for discussion at that particular point in time.

When we looked at the Benelli M3 Super 90, it accumulated points by reason of the fact that it was semi-automatic, it had a seven-round shell magazine capacity and in several configurations it had a rear pistol grip and a folding stock. With those configurations it totalled ninety points. So it was high on the scale of such firearms.

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Mosley, excuse me. I'm just comparing the two pictures, and when I say ``the two pictures'', what I'm looking at is the document issued by the Department of Justice, Weapons Prohibited by Orders in Council 1994.

What you've shown us clearly is a folding-stock, rear-grip, pistol-like shotgun. In my view, the picture of the weapon prohibited by Order in Council bears absolutely no relationship whatsoever to the picture you have shown. It looks like an ordinary shotgun; it has no rear pistol grip and no folding stock.

I'm interested not in the weapon shown in the picture, but rather in the weapon shown in the Department of Justice document, which you yourself released. There is no description of a six- or seven-shot tubular magazine; it's simply described as a semi-automatic, or manual pump, 12-gauge shotgun.

This is the particular firearm I'm asking you to describe. Would you not agree with me that it bears no relationship to the picture you showed me?

Mr. Mosley: Yes, I would, but it's a different firearm.

The Chair: I want to have these questions answered, Mr. Wappel, but you've finished that round.

I'd like to clear this up, though, so you can answer.

Mr. Mosley: Mr. Wappel had asked me about the M3, which is a different firearm from the M1.

Mr. Wappel: That's what it says: ``Benelli M3 Super 90 pump/auto shotgun. Prohibited. Owners compensated''.

The Chair: Perhaps we could clear this up before the end of the meeting. I'd like that cleared up. But we can move to something else.

Mr. Wappel: We're sort of in the middle. It got to ninety points, but I'm not sure if it's this one that got to ninety points or the one you showed us a picture of.

The Chair: Can you check on those two pictures and try to clarify it for us?

Mr. Mosley: I think I can clarify it fairly rapidly, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Mosley: The M3 is the one I've just referred to. The M1 is a different model of the Benelli shotgun. It, too, has a number of variants that are designed for tactical applications.

With regard to the initial prohibited weapons order, an amendment was issued on December 20, 1994 that identified those Benelli M1 Super 90 shotguns which were being exempted from the prohibition order. Those included a number of variants that were designed and intended for field applications as opposed to tactical applications.

The Chair: You said you got to the ninety points. How did you get to the 100 points?

Mr. Wappel: The rest of the question, Mr. Chairman, basically is once it gets to ninety points, what happens then in order to ultimately declare it prohibited?

The Chair: Right.

.1640

Mr. Mosley: As I indicated, we had consulted with the provincial chief firearms officers in the summer of 1994. Following that, we prepared and presented advice to the Minister of Justice, who then made his recommendations to the Governor in Council.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Caron, a supplementary?

Mr. Caron: There is indeed another issue relating to the inspection powers of the police officers, starting at section 98. Why do you think, as far as enforcement is concerned, that the Criminal Code searching powers are not enough? Why do we have to give more powers to the police, powers that, in some respects, seem to go far beyond what is provided for in the Criminal Code?

In other words, why do we need something more than what is provided for in the Criminal Code as far as inspection powers are concerned?

[English]

Mr. Mosley: If I understand the question - and please correct me if I've misunderstood - it relates to clauses 98 and 99 and following on pages 41 and following of the bill, relating to inspection as opposed to search and seizure.

As I indicated on the last occasion on which I appeared before the committee, the search and seizure powers per se are virtually identical in this bill to the existing search and seizure powers. What's new are expanded inspection powers that go beyond the existing inspection powers, which relate to businesses and collectors.

Because of the thrust of the firearms act portion of this bill, which is public safety-oriented and very much regulatory in nature, it was thought appropriate to provide for inspection powers comparable to those found in a considerable number of other federal and provincial statutes. We have a list of some fifty statutes with provisions that are virtually identical to these inspection powers.

These are not search and seizure powers. If the police have reason to believe that an offence is being committed in relation to firearms and that evidence of that offence can be found in a location, then they are required to apply for a search warrant and execute that warrant.

What's contained in clauses 98 and following is, rather, an inspection regime that would apply, for the purpose of compliance with the regulatory aspects of this legislation, to situations where the police do not have such information but are simply carrying out a routine inspection of the premises.

The Chair: I have a couple of more questions.

The provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta as well as the Yukon and the Northwest Territories have indicated that they oppose this legislation. Could you tell us if any of the other provinces have indicated, either in writing or verbally, that they support the legislation?

Mr. Mosley: Over the course of the past year we've had a number of meetings, both formal and informal, with provincial officials. The minister has met on two occasions with provincial ministers, at which times there were various statements made about the firearms proposals contained in this bill.

I don't think it's really for me to identify which provinces may have expressed support for the legislation. Those meetings were held in confidence.

The Chair: I see. So you would suggest that's a question I should put to the minister tomorrow?

.1645

Mr. Mosley: You may wish to put the question to the minister, but I think he might find himself in a similar situation.

The Chair: Mr. Bartlett reminds me that we received a letter from the Ontario Department of Justice, the attorney general's department, indicating they support the legislation. But I'll wait for the minister tomorrow on that one. I thought maybe there was something very specific and formal on record with the department.

This is to follow up on questions that were put by Mr. Ramsay and others relating to confiscation of weapons, where they were restricted and became prohibited or were neither restricted nor prohibited but became prohibited.

I understand that compensation has been paid in some cases. I believe there was compensation paid in 1993-94. Mr. Mosley is shaking his head.

Mr. Mosley: No.

The Chair: I'd like to clarify that. Before this committee in the last few weeks, somebody said there were some cases in which compensation was paid when weapons became prohibited and could not be disposed of in any other way. Is that true? If it is true, would you specify the situations in which compensation was paid?

In the examples Mr. Ramsay and others gave, where the weapon is now prohibited, would the department or the authorities in any way help that individual to sell the weapon outside the country in order that they get something for it in return?

In other words, they bought this gun legally at one point and now it becomes prohibited. While I can understand why we would want it prohibited in various circumstances, it would seem to me we also might want to help individuals recoup their losses, either by giving compensation or by assisting them in some way to dispose of it for some revenue.

Would you tell me what the department does, or whether there is anybody in the country who would help in that respect, at the provincial level or wherever?

Mr. Mosley: I'll address the first question on compensation, and Mr. Hayes may be able to assist me. I am virtually certain no compensation was paid with regard to the prohibition orders that were made by the former government.

With regard to the orders that were to take effect in January, there was a decision made to compensate the owners of firearms that were not being grandfathered.

The Chair: That's what I'm referring to.

Mr. Mosley: I don't think actual payment has been made yet.

The Chair: For how many firearms was it, and what amount of money was allocated for that?

Mr. James Hayes (Coordinator, Firearms Control Task Group, Department of Justice): On the prohibition without grandfathering, in his announcement at the end of December the minister did offer compensation, and the Department of Justice will pay that compensation.

The Chair: I see. Have the estimates allocated a sum of money for that?

Mr. Hayes: Yes. It will come out of the budget allocated for the firearms program.

There were approximately twenty firearms registered with the FRAS of the RCMP, and when that order was issued, a notice was sent out from the RCMP to all of the owners, advising them of the procedure they would take in order to get compensation for the firearm when it is turned in, and to provide receipts and documentation.

The other firearms included in the order were not restricted firearms. We will have to extend the period of compensation until there is a successful information program to advise all of those people who have those firearms to come forward in due course. They would be given compensation for their firearm.

.1650

As to any previous programs or announcements of changes of policy on prohibitions or restrictions, to my knowledge, certainly in recent years there has been no program of compensation, because there was no requirement in any of those orders to turn in a firearm.

The other thing I would add, Mr. Chair, is there has been a number of amnesty programs. At no time in those amnesty programs was there any compensation offered, despite the fact that 20,000 firearms came forward to the police agencies.

The Chair: You've noticed a concern by several members of the committee - and we got it again this morning when members appeared before us - about the possible loss somebody might endure as a result of moving a weapon from restricted class to prohibited class. Although it's grandfathered, eventually they lose money.

Of course, people keep forgetting that they can sell it. There's a possibility of selling it outside the country, into the States, especially if it's valuable. There was an example given this morning of a very valuable weapon.

I presume there's a market internationally, but would not the government help these individuals? We're forcing them to get rid of the gun. Would there not be the possibility of assisting them to at least recoup their losses and make this type of law more acceptable to the people?

I'm just thinking out loud here. I'm trying to think through some of the things that were told to me in the committee by members of Parliament.

Mr. Mosley: To the extent that an amnesty, for example, was adopted through Order in Council, it was in part to assist those who were affected by the January orders to deal with the consequences. To that extent, I think it is an option open to the government to declare an amnesty for a period of time to permit persons thus affected to dispose of the firearms.

Your point is well taken, Mr. Chairman. In many cases the market for these firearms is far better outside of Canada than it may be in fact within Canada.

The Chair: If it was prohibited, it would no longer have any market in Canada.

Mr. Mosley: If it's grandfathered, the rules applicable to that class may permit sale within the class itself, so you could sell it to someone else who already has one of that category.

I would stress that I think it would be very problematic for any government to get involved in the business of facilitating the sale of firearms. This has been a subject of much controversy. For example, when a police department decides to change its firearms, what do they then do with the old stock? There have been very intense debates about the merits of passing those on, say, to a distributor who would sell them in another country.

It's not for me to say what the government would or would not do, but I would just point out that there are some negative considerations to that.

The Chair: You've made some good points, and I can appreciate them. I was just trying to look for a way of assisting some of these people.

Ms Meredith: I want to follow up on Mr. Wappel's questions. I got lost at fifty points. I'd like to have a better understanding of who makes the decisions about the criteria that are measured under this point system.

You mentioned the Canadian Advisory Council on Firearms. How many individuals are there and how do they become members of this council?

Mr. Mosley: The council is no longer in existence. It was appointed for a three-year term at the time Bill C-17, or its predecessor, Bill C-80, was before the former parliament. Its term expired at the end of 1993.

One of the things the council did during its existence was to recommend the adoption of this point system. Fifty points is really the turning stage. If it's below fifty points, then it's not considered for prohibition or restriction. If it's above fifty points, then it is so considered.

The particular process that has been followed is we consult the RCMP and very often the RCMP will identify particular firearms they believe may be of concern.

We also consult the provincial firearms officers on their views about specific firearms. Advice is then prepared and presented to the minister, who decides on the recommendation he will make to the Governor in Council to seek such an order.

.1655

Ms Meredith: So we have 10 provincial firearms officers. How many people in the RCMP would be in the inner circle who would make the decisions on what they're trying to prohibit or restrict?

Mr. Mosley: I stress that none of those individuals makes the decision. The decision as to what to propose to the Governor in Council is made by the Minister of Justice.

Ms Meredith: One person then decides whether or not a firearm restriction is required. In other words, one person adds to or subtracts from the criteria of the point system.

Mr. Mosley: Ultimately a cabinet committee makes that decision, but it's on the recommendation of the minister.

Ms Meredith: What I'm trying to get at - and I'm not getting a very clear answer from you - is how many people are involved in a decision to itemize criteria? That ends up creating this point system that makes them prohibited, restricted, or whatever the regulations might be. Are we talking about the Minister of Justice, who may or may not know anything about firearms? Is he the one making these decisions?

Are we talking about 10 provincial firearms officers, who may know something about it? Are we talking about 10 provincial firearms officers making recommendations, plus a couple of people in the RCMP?

I'd like to know how many people are involved in making these recommendations, to which one person has to say yea or nay? Are all these people representing a well balanced position, or do you have 10 plus 5 plus 1 who are all thinking the same way, so they're not challenging each other's positions?

Mr. Mosley: It's not as subjective as that question might suggest. The point system relates to characteristics of the firearm. For example, if it has a magazine capacity for rim fire of 10 rounds, it would be accorded 5 points; 20 rounds would be given 10 points; and over 20 rounds would have 20 points.

Then there are other characteristics such as the overall length; the barrel length; whether it has a folding or telescoping stock; whether it has a bayonet lug or folding bayonet; and whether it has a flash suppressor, a carrying handle, a rear pistol grip or a forward pistol grip.

The firearm is examined and the points are totalled up. If the score reaches above 50, consideration is then given to a recommendation to the minister. At that point, while there may be some subjectivity to it, there's no single individual who makes those decisions. A collective consensus emerges as to what should be put forward.

Ms Meredith: But somebody makes recommendations, first that it's the barrel length rather than the length of the gun that's used to determine which handgun is going to be prohibited or not in the latest go-around. Somebody makes a recommendation that anything 120 millimetres long right up to 250 millimetres long is going to be included in this category of prohibited handguns. Somebody has to make those recommendations.

I'm interested in how well balanced the information is. Are the people sitting around and saying, gee, we should use 4 inches or 105 millimetres, rather than saying, as Mr. Brown recommended, that 150 millimetres is the average gun length that might be considered to catch all the Saturday night specials. Yet we have guns on this prohibited list that don't seem to fall into that category.

I'd like to know a little more about who's making these kinds of recommendations, whether they're well balanced, or everybody is agreeing with everybody else and saying, yeah, let's go for the whole lot of them.

.1700

Mr. Mosley: I should clarify that I've been talking about the rating system for military or paramilitary firearms. That system does not apply to the decision that was made on the handguns that would be subject to prohibition as a result of the proposals. That was a matter of policy that you would perhaps prefer to address to the Minister of Justice.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellemare: I am pleased to be on the committee today as a substitute. I am interested in the issue of borders. My questions will be on this subject.

The Chair: We have witnesses here to answer questions of this type.

Mr. Bellemare: Is Customs and Excise properly equipped to really control the borders?

Mr. A.J. Cocksedge (Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Customs Border Services Branch, Revenue Canada): Are you referring to control in general or to control of firearms?

Mr. Bellemare: Control of firearms. We're discussing firearms today.

Mr. Cocksedge: We have been targeting many prohibited goods, including firearms, for a long time. In the last three or four years in particular, we have designed radar and other technology to check individuals or, in the case of commercial imports, trucks or containers, for...

Mr. Bellemare: So you have the technology to detect firearms located in trucks or elsewhere.

Mr. Cocksedge: That is correct.

Mr. Bellemare: Under the Free Trade Agreement signed by the previous government, we may become more like the European countries, where customs no longer exist, and where there would no longer be any customs officers or people determining whether individuals crossing the border are Canadian or American. In Europe at the moment, people can cross borders as they please. Do you think that with the Free Trade Agreement, there might some day be no border controls?

Mr. Cocksedge: Even before the Free Trade Agreement, there was a danger of smuggling by truck and by plane. We have to strike a certain balance in our work at border crossings. On the one hand, we must promote trade, and on the other, we must focus on smuggling. The Free Trade Agreement gives us greater freedom in processing documents or inspections for commercial or tariff purposes, because there are fewer and fewer tariffs. As a result, we are increasingly able to free up our staff so that they can concentrate more on smuggling.

European countries are stepping up their efforts, using technology similar to that we use in Canada, to deal with smuggling, because there are fewer and fewer controls for commercial purposes.

Mr. Bellemare: But if trucks are allowed to cross the border at top speed, how could your equipment detect...

Mr. Cocksedge: First of all, there must be some targeting. Targeting is based more and more on better information about the movement of criminals and the sources of weapons that may be smuggled across the border.

Mr. Bellemare: One place that is very likely to have border problems is the aboriginal reserve close to Cornwall. I forget the name of the reserve, but I remember seeing some American reports in which it was said that even the New York State Police refused to go on the reserve. They said that both Canadian and American aboriginals had enough weapons to fight an army.

So the New York State Police refused to go on a reserve. How are you going to control the transfer or smuggling of firearms through this reserve? Before concluding, I should point out that the reserve straddles the borders of Quebec, Ontario and New York State.

.1705

Mr. Cocksedge: I should start by pointing out that the RCMP is responsible for border control between ports of entry. Revenue Canada, Customs, is responsible for processing travellers and commercial imports only at ports of entry and airports. Between ports of entry, the RCMP has sole responsibility, and I therefore think it would be better able to answer the question than I am.

Mr. Bellemare: Does that mean that someone else could answer my question?

The Chair: We already discussed these matters, Mr. Bellemare. Many members of Parliament have already asked these questions. You may perhaps ask them later on, but you'd be repeating questions that have already been asked.

Do you have any questions, Mr. Caron?

Mr. Caron: I've a question about the fees people have to pay to register their firearms.

At the moment, the Criminal Code provides that people who hunt for subsistance purposes are not required to pay the fees for firearms licenses. Will this provision of the Criminal Code continue to apply? If so, how many people in Canada benefit from this exemption because they are deemed to depend on hunting for food?

[English]

Mr. Mosley: The answer to the first question is, yes, it will remain in effect.

I don't think we can answer the second question, because it's a matter that is determined by the local firearms officer. I'm not aware that there are any statistics maintained about the number of times that has applied.

I've been advised that it may appear in the annual report of the RCMP. We'll confirm that and, if we can, provide a more comprehensive answer.

[Translation]

Mr. Caron: I've a question about clause 110(), which talks about the manner in which any provision of the act or regulations applies to the aboriginal peoples of Canada.

If I understand correctly, this provision does not exempt the aboriginal peoples from the act or regulations. It refers rather to the manner in which the act applies to them. I'm referring here to clause 110().

Second, I would like you to give me your definition of "aboriginal peoples of Canada". Does that refer to reserves? Does it apply to status Indians under the Indian Act?

[English]

Mr. Mosley: Our understanding is that the term is broad enough to apply to status and non-status Indians - including those living off-reserve - to Métis and Inuit.

[Translation]

Mr. Caron: So this means the act could apply to non-status Indians.

It is a lot. It is a lot of people. In Canada, it could be the entire population. If you take status Indians plus the Métis, plus non-status Indians, it means quite a few people.

.1710

[English]

The Chair: Section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982 says that aboriginal peoples ``includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.'' That's a very broad definition.

[Translation]

It's in the 1982 Constitution.

[English]

Mr. Wappel: How many people in the Department of Justice are currently charged with the responsibility of examining firearms in order to allocate points to them?

Mr. Mosley: At a guess there are 3 or 4, perhaps as many as 6, in the Department of Justice. Then there would also be input from the firearms registration personnel and the firearms forensic examiners in the RCMP. The total number would probably not be more than a dozen.

Mr. Wappel: Who makes the decision that it should be 50 points, or that we should perhaps lower it to 40 or 30?

Mr. Mosley: The point system is based on the characteristics of the firearm. They're just added up; there's no decision.

Mr. Wappel: But you've already told us, 50 points and we examine it further to decide whether we should prohibit it; if it's less than 50, we don't.

Who decides that it's 50? How fixed is that? Could it be 40 or 30 tomorrow?

Mr. Mosley: That advice is provided by the forensic experts in the RCMP.

Mr. Wappel: Thank you. Now, would you turn to pages 9 and 10 of Bill C-68. We will start with page 9.

Clause 10 deals with carriers, permitting them to obtain licences that enable them to carry various firearms. Then there is subclause 11(3) on page 10. What is the need for subclause 11(3) when you have clause 10?

Ms Weiser: All clause 10 does is deal with the situation of interprovincial and international carriers. Right now carriers that want to transport arms across Canada have to get a permit to transport from each province.

Under the bill we have provided a means by which interprovincial or international carriers can get a permit to transport for all of Canada. They can just go to one authority without having to go to each provincial or territorial jurisdiction.

Mr. Wappel: That's fine, but what is the need for subclause 11(3)?

Ms Weiser: Subclause 11(3) applies to all carriers. Normally a business cannot have prohibited things, unless they meet very defined purposes. Carriers are in special circumstances because we need them to transport things from one spot to another. They aren't usually handling firearms; they're simply moving packed boxes. Therefore we wanted to make sure that carriers could obtain licences to move prohibited things.

.1715

Mr. Wappel: But isn't that provided for in clauses 5 and 10? Perhaps clause 10 is only restricted to interprovincial and international carriers. If that's the case, why? Why not combine the two clauses? Why have two separate clauses?

Ms Weiser: I can give you more specific clauses once I've had a chance to look at them. We've set up a scheme for carriers and then when we had to....

Most carriers get licences from the provincial firearms officer. In situations where we're dealing with international or interprovincial carriers, we've simply said, all those clauses that apply when a carrier is operating just within a province also apply in the case of international and interprovincial carriers and the licence can be obtained from the registrar.

I can give you the clauses that simply say the registrar can issue licences in the case of international, interprovincial carriage in the same way that a provincial firearms officer would issue licences.

Mr. Wappel: Perhaps you could have those with you when we do clause by clause and we get to clause 10.

In clause 22 on page 14 we're talking about transfers. As I understand the transfer system, a person has to inform the chief firearms officer that a transfer is going to take place. Under clause 26 the chief firearms officer must verify that the transferee holds a licence and various other things before authorizing the transfer.

Why then is there a provision in the bill putting the onus on the person who wishes to transfer to ensure that the transferee holds a licence, when the bill specifically requires that the chief firearms officer must also verify that? Why put a positive onus on the transferer, when the transfer cannot take place and unless and until the chief firearms officer verifies that the transferee has a licence? What's the purpose of putting that onus on the transferer?

Ms Weiser: Part of this is administrative. It makes a lot of sense for Canadian Tire, when they're selling the firearm, when they have control of the firearm, to simply ask the buyer, may I see your licence? It would seem unnecessary to require Canadian Tire to run everything through a computer to a chief firearms officer instead of simply asking, may I see your licence?

Mr. Wappel: But you must do that under subparagraph 22(a)(ii).

Ms Weiser: They must do that once they verify that the person in fact has a licence. Then the purpose of going to the chief firearms officer is to make sure that licence is still up to date, that there hasn't been a criminal conviction in the interim.

It still makes sense for an entity like Canadian Tire to say to the buyer, may I see your licence?

Mr. Ramsay: I'd like Mr. Smith to come to the table, and please bring your ruler.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Ramsay: That is a target that was fired in competition about a week ago. When the justice minister tabled his proposals in the House just before Christmas he indicated that there were going to be handguns banned. The criteria was that the barrel length was under 105 millimetres.

Now that target was shot at 60 feet, with a handgun whose barrel length was under the 105 millimetres. What I'd like you to do is measure the grouping.

Mr. Chairman, that target doesn't resemble any human body I've ever seen. I'd like to just put that on the record.

The Chair: I agree with you. It doesn't look like anybody I've ever seen either.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

.1720

The Chair: But I haven't been to Wild Rose.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Ramsay: I'm going to tell him that.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Smith: One of the standard ways of measuring the group size is by extreme spread, that is, measuring the distance between the outside of the two furthest holes. It comes to about 72 millimetres, which is just under 3 inches.

Mr. Ramsay: At 60 feet is that pretty accurate shooting?

Mr. Smith: That depends on the kind of firearm, but yes, it's pretty good in the case of a handgun.

Mr. Ramsay: Would that tend to dispel the suggestion that a handgun with a barrel length under 105 millimetres is not accurate?

Mr. Smith: In an absolute sense the accuracy of a firearm is not strictly dependent on the barrel length. It cannot be said that the barrel of a firearm with one length will be more accurate than a barrel of a firearm of a shorter length. The general trend, however, is that the shorter the barrel, generally the less accurate the weapon, or the less capacity a weapon has to achieve tight groups, as you indicated.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you. I have one final question. We've had a pretty heavy week. In fact we've had a pretty heavy four weeks. I just want to lighten things up a little bit.

Is that all right, Mr. Chairman?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Any time you want to lighten it up, I'm all in favour.

Mr. Ramsay: This question is for Jim Hayes, because he's been sitting there for so long without anything to do.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Ramsay: I'm going to give you a quote.

For the 10 million long guns in Canada, I believe that a registration scheme would be unworkable and impractical in comparison with its potential benefits.

Instead I believe that we can accomplish most of the same ends by a different means: licensing users. With licensing we focus on the person rather than the object and we endeavour to ensure that he is not unfit to possess a lethal instrument such as a gun.

That statement was made on April 8, 1976 by the Honourable Warren Allmand.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

An hon. member: Who's that!

Mr. Ramsay: Now, do you -

The Chair: I...[Inaudible]...that time.

Mr. Ramsay: Do you believe that recommendation is so old that it's not worth considering, or do you think there's still merit in that recommendation?

Mr. Hayes: I think I would follow the lead of Mr. Mosley earlier. I think that is certainly a policy question. I'm sure the minister would love to comment on the merits of Mr. Allmand's views of firearms registration in 1976.

The Chair: Have you finished your question?

An hon. member: He could be a politician.

Mr. Ramsay: That's all for me, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I have a final round. We have until 5:30 p.m. My friend, Bob Speller, is not with the committee, but with the permission of the committee, he might want to put one question. I'll try to be quick.

By the way, I made that statement when I was introducing the bill in 1976. At that time they had not developed the modern computer techniques they have today. We went through the possibilities of registration and I was convinced that it wasn't cost-effective at that time. I've listened to the RCMP, and the new system sounds wonderful to me. I -

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: That was more than 10 years ago.

Mr. Smith, don't leave the table. I want you to hear my question and then come to the table.

I've looked at all the guns on the table. When you come to the table I'd like you to tell me whether, to your knowledge, any of those guns are used in competitions, either Olympic competitions, Pan American games or any type of international competitions.

The minister has said that as a principle of banning and not banning certain handguns he did not want to interfere with legitimate competitions. He did want to ban handguns that weren't used in competitions, that might just be used for criminal purposes and are not used by the police or the military. In other words, handguns that we more or less call Saturday night specials are more or less used for crime, not for competition, not by the police or the military.

.1725

Couldn't there be a better way of doing it other than simply having barrel length and calibre? Could we not consult with the main competition associations, find out from them the types of guns that are really used in competition, allow these to be used and ban those that are absolutely not used in competition? Wouldn't that be a better way?

From what you've said this afternoon in answering Mr. Wappel's questions we're drawing lines and sometimes we're catching weapons that are really not Saturday night specials; they could possibly be used in competitions.

Are any of those guns ever used in competition? Could there not be a better way of defining the exemptions for competition other than barrel length?

Mr. Smith: I'm afraid there's no exact answer to your question. With respect to the .25 calibre handguns I brought, almost no one would consider them suitable for target shooting, and they're almost never used for target shooting.

The .32 calibre handguns, the less expensive varieties I have on the table, typically would not be used for target shooting. The more expensive handguns, however - the Walther, for example - might be used by a shooter at the entry level in a competition, that is, not a shooter who is at the Olympic level of competition, but someone who is just starting out and can't afford the prices of the Olympic quality pistols.

There are lots of other .32 calibre handguns, however, in the same price range on the market today. They would not be affected by the ban, as currently proposed, and could be used by such individuals.

Some of the pieces I have on the table are collectors' items and as such would not likely be used for target purposes. They would more likely be owned for collecting purposes.

In terms of a better or different way to identify Saturday night specials, one of the possibilities is to consider the overall length as a means by which you can identify the weapon very readily with one measurement. as opposed to a variety of measurements.

On the decision whether to consult the shooting groups on the kind of firearm they're going to use or not use, I think the answer you'd probably get from the firearms groups is that they would use just about anything. They will use whatever is convenient.

In many cases they will design competitions to use specific kinds of firearms simply because they're there and available. It then becomes a chicken-and-egg question: whether the competition came first or the gun came along and then someone invented a competition to use that kind of firearm.

The Chair: Thank you. We have two minutes left before we adjourn. Does the committee agree that Mr. Speller could ask a question?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Mr. Speller (Haldimand - Norfolk): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to follow-up. Actually I was going to ask another question, but I'm interested in the ten million guns.

How have you determined the actual number of guns in the country? In 1976 there were ten million, as the then minister said. How will we actually determine how many guns there are in the country? That obviously relates to what it will cost the government. How have we determined that? Where have the missing guns gone?

Mr. Hayes: Well, that's an interesting question. Missing guns.... For purposes of parliamentary and departmental decisions the numbers we have used consistently.... First we did an Angus Reid survey in 1991. It was quite a large survey involving 10,000 households. On the basis of that survey we established an overall number, including restricted weapons, of about 7 million firearms in Canada.

In that same study our own statistics research people at the Department of Justice validated the Angus Reid conclusions against a survey that was done by Statistics Canada in conjunction with the labour force survey, involving a much larger database, as you know. That was done in 1976.

.1730

Our department was satisfied that the profile of firearms ownership in Canada, based on the 1991 findings, was validated and is quite representative.

One of the problems with the numbers that were used.... If the numbers they're referring to were in the mid-1970s, part of the calculation given to Parliament at that time included the military estimates of firearms. We're satisfied now that the numbers we're working with are good, solid and fairly accurate.

On that basis we made a number of assumptions about designing the program and developing the workload so that the cost of bringing this program into place would not be onerous but rather cost-effective.

The other standard we were very concerned with was the workload to administer the program on the part of the provinces and police communities.

Mr. Speller: I have just one quick final question, Mr. Chairman -

The Chair: We are now past our time. Is it a supplementary?

Mr. Speller: Well, it's a supplementary to an earlier question regarding the selling -

The Chair: Okay, let's hear it.

Mr. Speller: - of prohibited handguns that you mentioned.

Essentially what will happen then is that the number of people will gradually get smaller. How will these people then sell those guns? Are you expecting them to sell them out of the country, or...?

Mr. Mosley: I expect some of them will sell them out of the country. Others will trade among themselves. Some may -

Mr. Speller: But as people get older, they won't be there.

Mr. Mosley: - choose to donate to a museum. They may choose to deactivate the firearm and put it up on the wall as a keepsake.

The Chair: Once again, I want to thank all the officials from the Department of Justice, the Department of National Revenue and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for coming here today.

When we do clause by clause - of course we'll have to leave that to the discretion of the minister - some officials will have to be here to answer the questions. We expect there will be officials here to help us deal with amendments and the clauses.

The meeting is adjourned until tomorrow morning at 9.