Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, June 5, 1995

.1400

[English]

The Chair: Order.

I want to clear up a small item of business. Tomorrow morning the committee was to continue its hearings on Bill C-72, which is the bill dealing with severe drunkenness as a defence to a crime. We had scheduled a panel made up of LEAF and the organization of Women and the Law. LEAF have advised us that they cannot appear, so we're left with one witness for the panel tomorrow morning. I have consulted with the various parties and there is some agreement that since we may stay late tonight, we should start the meeting tomorrow morning at 10:30 rather than 9:30, since we have only one witness.

Is there agreement to that?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: The clerk can advise the remaining witness.

Mrs. Barnes (London West): On a point of information, are they just postponing their visit or are they not coming, period?

The Chair: They are not coming, period.

Mrs. Barnes: Okay. So we don't have to make up time.

The Chair: We will now continue our consideration of Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons. More specifically, we will continue with our clause-by-clause consideration.

This morning we completed clause 110 of the bill, which is the clause dealing with regulations.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne (Saint-Hubert): On a Point of Order.

[English]

The Chair: Now we will go to clause 111, which deals with the requirement to lay regulations before Parliament.

Madame Venne, on a point of order.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: We passed clause 110 this morning but there was also the matter of amendment LT-002. What happened to it? It had been submitted by Ms Torsney.

The Chair: I am told that Ms Torsney will not be submitting this amendment.

Mrs. Venne: Very well.

The Chair: We go on to clause 111.

[English]

We've received a number of amendments in advance.

I'm sorry. On a point of order, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Do you not have a Reform amendment 110.1?

The Chair: Just a minute.

Would this be for a new clause?

Mr. Ramsay: Yes.

The Chair: Which one?

Mr. Ramsay: Amendment 110.1.

.1405

The Chair: Do you know what the number would be?

Mr. Ramsay: Mine is not marked. I don't know whether -

The Chair: The clerk tells me that if it's not marked he didn't get it. I don't know what happened here.

You may present it; there's no requirement for you to present it in advance. If this would come between clauses 110 and 111, we can deal with it right now.

Mr. Ramsay: One is, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I don't see it in here. I don't have it in the most recent package of your amendments.

Mr. Ramsay: I don't like moving an amendment without anyone having it. This is a short paragraph. I don't like moving it without people having it in front of them. But to this side of the table, at least, it's an important amendment.

The Chair: With permission of the committee - I don't know what happened here - could we proceed with clause 111 and come back to proposed clause 110.1?

Mr. Wappel (Scarborough West): I wonder if Mr. Ramsay could tell us if proposed clause 110.1 impacts in any way on clause 111.

Mr. Ramsay: No, it does not.

The Chair: Is there agreement to do that? If you could give the clerk your amendment, he'll make sure it's distributed around.

On clause 111 - Laying of proposed regulations

The Chair: The first amendment we have is LW-18. Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Wappel: I have a number of amendments to this clause - quite a few, actually. This one in particular, I think, can be discussed in isolation from some of the others that cannot be discussed in isolation but have to be discussed with respect to the policy reasons behind clause 111.

Colleagues, suffice it to say that I think this particular amendment tries to deal with the situation that may occur as follows: subclause 111(1) requires the minister to lay proposed regulations before each house of Parliament. Then a clock starts to tick, a 30-day sitting clock.

There could be a circumstance, for example, where one of the houses is sitting and another of the houses is not. It doesn't matter which house is sitting; the 30 days starts to tick.

It may very well be, for example, that if the regulation is laid before each house of Parliament on 23 June, 1995 - and we know that the House, in theory, is scheduled to adjourn on June 23, 1995, we know that the Senate is sitting, but we also know that the Senate usually sits one or two weeks after the House to finish up House business - we have a situation where a regulation might be laid on the last day of the sitting of the House, and we therefore are excluded from considering it even though we're only talking about sitting days. The Senate, of course, continues to sit. It may have its own agenda, it may not be interested in examining the legislation, or indeed it may examine the legislation while sitting, without the House of Commons ever having had a chance to look at it.

What happens - and I'll get to my other amendments later - is once the regulation has been laid, regardless of what either house does or doesn't do, 30 sitting days after the regulation is laid, it's made, plain and simple.

So this particular amendment calls for the requirement that the proposed regulation be laid before both houses of Parliament on the same day so as to ensure that there is no overlap, or no possibility of a frittering away of sitting days, and that both houses are seized of the regulation at the same time.

I know there was some evidence earlier on, I believe it was by Mr. Mosley, that this could pose a problem to the government of the day because of the different sitting agendas of the different houses. To that I respond that the government should, of course, be aware of that and table the regulations at a time when it doesn't pose a problem to them. In fact, they should propose their regulations at a time when both houses are indeed sitting.

That is the purpose of the amendment. In my respectful submission, in absolutely no way would it weaken the bill, compromise the bill, or do anything at all with respect to the actual workings of the bill. But what it would do is give some meaning to clause 111, some meaning to the House of Commons reviewing it and the Senate reviewing it, and would allay the fears of those who might think that a future government would use the parliamentary calendar in order to eat away potential sitting days and thereby not allow the representatives of the people to examine proposed regulations under this act.

.1410

For all of these reasons, I am encouraging members to support this.

The Chair: Mr. MacLellan, have you any response to this proposed amendment?

Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Yes, I'm just thinking about it. I don't really see any problem with this, frankly. I'm just trying to think. There has to be one, but I can't think of what it is.

Could I have a minute, Mr. Chair, to speak to officials?

The Chair: All right.

Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chair, I think we can work around this. We'll agree to this amendment. It's just a question of when it will be brought forward.

The Chair: Now. Was that the question? That's their problem.

Mr. MacLellan: If the Senate don't agree, then they can change it when it goes before them.

The Chair: Is there further discussion with respect to amendment LW-18?

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: Now we move to amendment BQ-13.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Currently, when a proposed regulation is tabled, it may be reviewed within the next 30 sitting days, whether the committee it has been referred to has reported it to the House or not.

So you have a 30-day deadline, and that is it, and on the expiration of the deadline, the Minister may simply decide that the proposed regulation may be made.

The effect of amendment BQ-13 would be that, from now on, the Committee would have enough time to report to the House. Subclause 3 says:

Further:

Subclause 5 says:

Subsection (6) states clearly:

[English]

The Chair: Before going any further, I want to point out that if this amendment is carried, we cannot put the next amendment, LW-19, or LW-0020, which cover the same territory as BQ-13. On the other hand, if you defeat BQ-13, you can consider LW-19 and LW-0020.

.1415

Mr. MacLellan, do you want to respond to Madam Venne with respect to this amendment?

Mr. MacLellan: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This would not be acceptable. It really directs an arbitrary requirement on the House of Commons, particularly with respect to the debate of no more than five days and that a proposed regulation that has been amended shall be laid again by the federal minister before the House of Commons. That would indicate to me that where it is amended it then has to be brought back to us in the House of Commons for another five days of debate. I don't think this procedure is the most effective way of dealing with regulations. Certainly, given the time requirements in the House of Commons, it isn't the best utilization of the time of the House of Commons.

Amendment negatived

The Chair: Now we can go to amendments LW-19 and LW-0020. That LW-0020 was among the ones we were given this morning in a new batch.

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, these two amendments stand alone. One doesn't depend on the other, so perhaps I'll explain the difference in the numbering of the next one when I get to it. I move LW-19, which stands alone. Again the purpose here is to provide some certainty.

The regulations as they are currently drafted specifically state that there is a clock ticking, a 30-day sitting clock, at the end of which certain things will happen. So as to ensure that there is no possibility, through inadvertence or through other business or whatever the case may be, that some of those sitting days get frittered away, if I could put it that way, the purpose of this amendment would be to indicate that in accordance with the amendments and the clause we just passed, when the minister laid the bill before both houses of Parliament, it would be a requirement that both houses of Parliament on that day refer the matter to the appropriate committee so that the matter would begin immediately, because the 30 days does not begin when the committee gets it; the 30 days begins when it is laid before the House.

So this amendment would ensure that on the day the regulation is laid before the House, the House would then refer it to the appropriate committee so that we can get on with the business of looking at it, and we would have the 30 days or maybe the 29 days that would be left. That's the purpose of this amendment.

The Chair: Mr. MacLellan.

Mr. MacLellan: The problem is with the coordination:

.1420

I'm just afraid that if we miss it by one day we're in violation, that's all. Basically I don't see anything wrong with it, but just knowing that Murphy's law sometimes works on the Hill, it may not be referred on a particular day, through no one's fault. It's just something that slipped through the cracks.

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to belabour it. I'll just answer that by saying that obviously it would be in the minister's interests to ensure that the act is complied with. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that his officials, when bringing this matter to his attention and advising him that the matter is going to be laid before Parliament, would ensure that the appropriate people were contacted in the House to ensure that the matter were referred to committee on the appropriate day. With great respect to Mr. MacLellan - and I know what he's saying - we can't legislate on the basis of Murphy's law.

The Chair: I hope we're not referring to our colleague who doesn't like this bill.

Mr. Lee and Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Lee (Scarborough - Rouge River): I hope, colleagues, you will forgive me for continuing with the discussion. This is very much an item of our business in Parliament and I think we owe it to ourselves to get it right, to get it nailed down with precision.

I can't answer the question, but it would appear to me that a laying of the instrument before Parliament would be done at a time during routine proceedings and in such a manner that when it was tabled it would also be stated to stand as referred to a particular committee.

I could be wrong and I don't even know who.... Perhaps our counsel, who would have reasonable familiarity with the rules of procedure in the House, would confirm whether my understanding is right or wrong. In other words, could you have a laying of the instrument before Parliament and not have a referral or a motion that the matter be referred to committee?

I am directing the question to legislative counsel, Mr. Chairman.

Ms Diane McMurray (Legislative Counsel): Your question may be somewhat academic, Mr. Lee. If you look at the French side, the French uses the term automatiquement saisi, which means that it's automatically seized of it. So the English is essentially just saying the same thing in other words.

It's already there in the French. The present English and French don't match. Mr. Wappel's amendment would essentially say the same thing. In English we don't normally talk about some committee being automatically seized. Rather than saying that, we just simply say it shall be referred in the same day. It's going to amount to the same thing in the end and it would make the English and the French accord.

We didn't have a lot of time to fool around with this to get the translation exactly right, but at least it parallels the French now.

Mr. Lee: The reply of our counsel clearly invites a reply from the government witnesses.

Mr. MacLellan: On the information of the legislative counsel, it's not a problem. If the wording Mr. Wappel proposes in fact brings the English and the French together and the meaning more in accordance one with the other, then I have no problem. Is that in fact what legislative counsel is saying?

Ms McMurray: Yes. Let me put it this way. The actual translation is somewhat different from the French. The French literally translated would say it's automatically seized of the matter, if you want to put it that way. We're not saying that in the English, but it amounts to the same thing because you're saying it has to be referred to a committee.

.1425

I discussed this with our translator at the time and asked him if there was any merit in making the English exactly parallel to the French and using the term, ``automatically seized of''. He didn't see any problem with leaving the French the way it was. You'll notice there's only an English version of Mr. Wappel's amendment. I discussed this with our translator and in his opinion there would be no problem because it would capture the same idea.

Mr. MacLellan: If that's the case, we'll agree with the amendment.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: Next we have amendments LW-0020 and LW-0020.1.

Mr. Wappel: Amendment LW-0020 is intended to replace LW-20. If anybody still has LW-20 in his or her package, which ends with the words ``(b) amends the proposed regulation,'' it is to be discarded in favour of LW-0020.

The Chair: There are two of them; one relates to clause 111 and the other to clause 112.

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman I would like to move LW-0020 and I'll explain why. There will undoubtedly be more contention here.

By the way, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for the consideration on the previous two amendments.

We have subclause (3), which in effect says now that we have the regulations laid before both houses on the same day and then referred to the respective committees on the same day, the clock begins to tick. At the end of 30 sitting days the regulation can be made, period, full stop. That's what the subclause says.

It doesn't matter if a committee is in the middle of its consideration of the regulation. It doesn't matter if a committee is of the view that the regulation should be rejected. It doesn't matter if the committee is of the view that the regulation should be amended. The theoretical possibility exists in subclause (3) that at the end of 30 sitting days, regardless of what the committee is doing, the regulation can be made. That is the first possibility.

The second possibility is that the regulation can be made regardless of a recommendation of a committee, even if the committee recommendation was made within the 30 sitting days. Suppose, for example, that the committee recommends certain amendments within the 30 sitting days. There is nothing in here to indicate that the committee's recommendation need be accepted. Not only that, there's nothing in here to indicate that the recommendation need even be considered. It is, in effect, a meaningless subclause in my view. It is a token for those who are concerned that regulations will be made that ride roughshod over their rights as gun owners.

.1430

I applaud the government on the one hand for bringing in an amendment that would permit a committee to review regulations, because it's not normal, it's not the usual thing. Usually these matters are proceeded with and they're not brought before a committee. But if we're going to take the time and trouble, Mr. Chairman, to bring regulations before a committee, as this amendment proposes, then it might as well not be a sham. It might as well have some teeth. It might as well not be a toothless tiger.

I hate to come down so strongly on this, but as someone who has sat on the scrutiny of regulations committee for seven years and was a past chairman of the scrutiny of regulations committee, I know and have personal experience with the difficulty with regulations, with the difficulty with convincing departments that their positions are right or wrong, with the difficulty of convincing changing ministers that their positions are right or wrong, and with the difficulty of convincing changing ministers of changing governments that regulations are right or wrong. Sometimes these matters go on for fifteen and twenty years - and I'm not exaggerating one iota, Mr. Chairman, when I say they go on for fifteen and twenty years on occasion - without a resolution as to whether a regulation is ultra vires, intre vires, beyond the scope of the statute, whatever.

So if we know that subclause 111(3) really has no teeth and that's what we want, and if we want to refer it to the committee and we want to go to the committee to have a look at it, and we know for a fact that the government of the day doesn't have to accept the report of the committee or do anything else with it, then that's fine. If we know that, then let's state it on the record and let's indicate that we say this is better than nothing and it's more than in most statutes, all right? But let's not pretend it's something that it is not.

My amendment, LW-0020, would do the following, and I would like to carry it through specifically. In view of the previous amendments, we have the regulation laid before the committee, and subclause 111(3) of my amendment does say the regulation may be made at the expiry of the thirty days after it was laid - exactly the same as subclause 111(3). However, it is subject to subclause 111(4), and this is the key point:

So we have the same timeframes currently in the legislation - I couldn't support the Bloc amendment because it was too vague. We have the same time limit of thirty sitting days, but the regulation cannot be made if the committee recommends an amendment to the proposed regulation or recommends the rejection of the proposed regulation. In that case the regulation cannot be made. In that case it's time to go back to the drawing board, to examine the proposed regulation together with the committee's recommendations, and to then come back to the committee again.

Of course, if the committee chooses not to deal with the regulation, finds there is nothing controversial about the regulation, makes no recommendation or makes a positive recommendation, then the regulation is made. If after due examination, however, the committee is of the view that it should be amended or is of the view that it should be rejected, then the regulation cannot be made. The net effect would be that it would go back into the bureaucracy for an examination of the recommendations of the committee, an examination of the proposed amendments of the committee, and an examination of why the committee in that particular instance would have recommended rejection of the regulation - it would have been a very serious matter and obviously wouldn't occur too often - and the bureaucracy would then come back with another regulation.

I'm going to ask members to remember that thought - come back with another regulation - when we talk about clause 112, which talks about altering regulations laid before a committee. I don't want to go off topic, Mr. Chair, but I just want you to remember that concept of coming back to the committee after the committee has made a recommendation.

The long and the short of LW-0020 is this: it gives clause 111 some teeth. In my opinion, it does not - and my opinion may stand alone - in any way water down the bill or in any way compromise the proposals put forward in the bill or the underpinnings upon which the bill is set. It does give some power to the Houses of Parliament and the representatives of the people to review regulations that are proposed under this statute.

.1435

If we reject this regulation, that's fine, but then let us at least understand that by doing so we are in effect passing a regulation in subclause 111(3), which really has no teeth whatsoever, no substance whatsoever, and will not in any way bind any minister from proposing and passing any regulation at any time, regardless of what any particular committee or the House of Commons may think. For those reasons I urge members of the committee to seriously consider my amendment and give some teeth to the review of proposed regulations.

The Chair: Mr. MacLellan and then Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chair, if I'm not mistaken this is a form of a negative resolution where we'd have the power to terminate the regulation. As far as the minister is concerned, I think that would be going a little far.

I wouldn't want to say that the present format doesn't have any teeth. It may not have as many teeth as some members would like, but it does allow for debate. It does allow for a report. It does allow for referral back to the House of Commons. It does allow for questions of the minister. It does allow for publicizing the actual pros and cons of the regulation.

Frankly, I think that is quite a bit, and while this isn't the only bill where this can happen, it is one of the few. We've gone quite a distance by putting in what we have. I think to go further would be going too far, and it's certainly not something I feel the minister would be agreeable to.

Mr. Ramsay: I think it is essential that we support this amendment, and I think Mr. Wappel has spelled it out very well. If we do not support this amendment, what we are really saying is that the minister can make any regulation he wishes and that there is not a mechanism of Parliament to stop it.

Because this bill contains such an overwhelming number of authorities to create regulations - there are 76 areas where regulations can be prescribed - I think it's absolutely essential that we consider some kind of a review of the decision to initiate a regulation. There must be some check and balance on the power this bill grants the minister. In other words, right now there have been Orders in Council passed under Bill C-17 by both this minister and the former minister, and Parliament has not had a chance to examine it, to amend it or to correct it.

It seems to me that clause 111, as it stands now, is a pretence to create the impression that the regulation is going to be passed before the House. It's going to be reviewed by the House or by Parliament. We've heard the officials say that repeatedly, when my colleague Ms Meredith brought this up. They said, well, it'll be reviewed by the House.

Without this amendment, it will be meaningless. It will be reviewed by the committee, but the committee has no teeth. What's the point? The committee will have no power to amend it or change it. So we're giving enormous autocratic power to 76 clauses of this bill to the minister. It is essential that we carefully consider the amendment put forward by Mr. Wappel.

.1440

Mr. Lee: Just for the purpose of supplementing the current procedural discussion, if I'm not mistaken - and perhaps our witnesses have investigated the procedure that they have proposed here in the bill - one part of the procedure that isn't mentioned here, which could be a part of it simply on the will of a member of the House of Commons - and I'm asking whether or not this is their understanding of it - is that a report of a committee on a matter such as this would be tabled in the House, reported to the House. Following that, a member of the House could move concurrence in the report. It might be a positive report. It might be a negative report. The concurrence motion could be there and would be moved and debated at routine proceedings. I suppose that's the good news.

The bad news is that a minister of the Crown can, when taking the floor, move that a motion for concurrence such as this might be moved to government orders and the debate would terminate with the minister's interventions. The motion for concurrence would then lie on the Order Paper under government orders. If it were a negative report, it would sit in government orders until the government chose to do something with it.

Are witnesses prepared to confirm that additional supplementary procedures would exist in the House of Commons now under the existing Standing Orders?

Mr. MacLellan: I wouldn't want to say so categorically, but that's my understanding.

Mr. Lee: Perhaps parliamentary counsel could comment on that for me to reassure me that the procedure would be available.

The Chair: I don't know if they should answer questions on procedure.

Ms McMurray: I think it would be more appropriate for the clerks to answer procedural questions.

The Chair: This is not a legal question. It's a question relating to the rules and procedure of the House of Commons.

I had the clerk looking up another procedural question.

What is your question again?

Mr. Lee: I would ask that the clerk confirm that a motion for concurrence could, under the existing Standing Orders, naturally flow as a supplementary procedure to what is contained in this legislation in clause 111.

The Chair: He's not prepared to give an off-the-cuff response to that. It's too complicated. It would require a bit of research.

Mr. Lee: All right. Given that I feel the weight of procedure here as the minutes tick by, I won't wait for an answer. That's an understanding I have, but I'm obviously not confident enough in it not to ask the question. So unless colleagues around the table are not prepared to do so, I'm prepared to proceed without having a firm answer on it.

Mr. Ramsay: On a point of order, could this be a recorded vote? Is that in order?

The Chair: Yes, you can ask for that at any time.

.1445

Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 6

The Chair: We now move to amendment LW-21.

Mr. Wappel: This one is strictly consequential to the motion I'm moving in connection with amending clause 112. It is impossible to comprehend it unless I'm permitted to defer it until after discussion of clause 112. Assuming my amendment to clause 112 were to fail, there would be no point in moving LW-21.

On the other hand, if my motion to amend subclause 112(1) were to pass, then we could perhaps return to this.

In the alternative, I would have to explain my motion LW-22 -

The Chair: Maybe you should, because we've already carried two amendments to clause 111 and both of them were yours. The committee seems a bit reticent today to stand many more amendments. So please refer briefly to LW-22 to show how it links to LW-21.

Mr. Wappel: I'm not sure about the briefly part of it, but I will try.

Clause 112 as it currently reads provides that once a regulation is laid before the Houses it need not be re-laid, whether or not it has been altered.

I would like Mr. Mosley, if he could, to either confirm or deny what I'm about to say. The meaning of this is that it would quite possibly be able to circumvent clause 111.

How? Well, step one, you table a proposed regulation. All of a sudden it's getting some heat in the committee; there are some problems with it. So the drafters of the regulation add to it or revise it, substantially or otherwise. It thus becomes altered and subclause 112(1) says it need not be laid again.

Now, that is my interpretation. If my interpretation is correct that once a regulation that is before the committee is altered it doesn't need to be laid again, that's a clear way of working around clause 111, further weakening it from what my previous point was.

My amendment would require that every proposed regulation that has been laid pursuant to clause 111 would be laid again under that clause if an alteration were made to it in the substance of the regulation.

Obviously, if we're correcting a colon or some translation problem, or if we're changing a word like ``respecting'' to ``regulating'', that is hardly a matter of debate. But if there's going to be an alteration of the proposed regulation in substance, I want to make sure in this amendment that it follows the procedure in clause 111 and that clause 112 would not be used to avoid that by saying it had been altered. That's the purpose of the amendment to subclause 111(1).

For the purposes of clauses 111 and 112, ``sitting day'' would mean what it says in subclause 111(4). Right now there's no reference to clause 112 because clauses 111 and 112 are separate. If we were to pass my amendment LW-22, it would mean that if there were any alteration of a regulation in substance, it would have to come back before the committee. Therefore we would need to amend subclause 111(4) to ensure that the definition of ``sitting day'' corresponded in both clauses.

.1450

So that's why amendment LW-21 stands or falls with amendment LW-22.

So I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if we could get Mr. Mosley to either agree or disagree with what I've said about the alteration of a proposed regulation and thereby not having to relay it.

Mr. Richard G. Mosley (Assistant Deputy Minister, Criminal and Social Policy Sector, Department of Justice): The intent of clause 112 was to deal with the problem that arose post-Bill C-17, when regulations were laid before the committee subject to the time limits provided for in that legislation. Recommendations were made to change the regulation. Where those amendments were adopted, the question then arose as to what happens then. Does the regulation have to go back to both houses and does the clock begin to tick again? It's intended simply to avoid that problem.

The difficulty with making reference to substances proposed in the motion is that the Governor in Council may well accept a recommendation emanating from the committee of either chamber, which goes to substance. On the terms of this proposal, that regulation would still have to come back and the 30 days would still have to run again. It doesn't solve the problem.

I appreciate what Mr. Wappel is trying to deal with, but it leaves the government in the awkward position of having to retable something that has already been tabled and has already been examined. I guess this would be a question of a subjective matter as to whether it's a matter of substance or not, but assuming that it were, then it would still have to table that even where it was changed on the strength of a recommendation from the committee.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Wappel: Well, if that is the only concern with respect to my amendment, perhaps the government would consider we put, for example, ``where any alteration is made to the substance of the regulation in any way other than by a committee recommendation''. If that is the only concern, we can surely deal with that with the addition of a few words. Then in those circumstances where indeed a committee did look it over and it was changed in accordance with the committee's recommendation, it would not have to come back to the committee if that's the only concern and it would still deal with the potential to skirt around clause 111.

The Chair: I don't know.

Mr. MacLellan.

Mr. MacLellan: If members are not happy with the form of the regulation, they can always raise it in the House. I don't see what this is going to add, frankly.

Mr. Wappel: My last point is to respond directly to what it's going to add.

In my view, the Governor in Council will be able to make regulations which in substance may never have been tabled in Parliament. This could be accomplished by tabling a proposed resolution and then adding to it or otherwise revising it substantially by ``altering the tabled regulation''. The end product could bear no resemblance whatsoever to the tabled proposal. Where only minor alterations are made to a proposed regulation after it is tabled, I would suggest it seems reasonable not to require it to be tabled a second time. That's why I talked about substance.

But I think it is virtually unarguable that it is in theory possible to alter a tabled regulation sufficiently that it wouldn't have to be re-laid even though it deals with the same subject matter. I think it's also at least theoretically possible to circumvent clause 111 using the words of clause 112. I know that's not the intent.

I was trained in the common law, and the common law tradition is to try to anticipate every problem and plug every loophole before you get to court. That's why English contracts are so long as compared to civil law contracts, which take a different point of view.

That's my purpose here: to attempt to plug every loophole, particularly one like this. I'll say no more.

.1455

The Chair: Are there any further questions or comments on this amendment? We're talking now about amendment LW-21, which is in fact consequential to one that will come under the next clause. So if you defeat this, I suppose that you will want to defeat LW-22 as well.

Amendment negatived

Clause 111 as amended agreed to

The Chair: Now we go back to Mr. Ramsay's amendment, which in my package is R-23.1.

Mr. Ramsay, I had the opportunity, in the last several minutes, of examining your proposed amendment. Unfortunately, it's not in order because it attempts to define which weapons can be prohibited or restricted by regulation and that regulation power is in part III of the Criminal Code, which we haven't arrived at yet.

There is no power in the firearms act to ban or to transfer weapons from one category to another. You will find that power set out in proposed section 84 at page 61 of this bill, which defines a prohibited weapon and says that the government, by Order in Council, can make other weapons prohibited that aren't. It also defines on page 62 a restricted weapon and states that the government, by Order in Council, can add to the list of restricted weapons.

So if you wanted to make sure, as you do in this amendment, that guns used commonly for hunting or sporting purposes are not put on the prohibited or restricted weapons list, you would have to do that when we reach part III of the code, because there's nothing in the firearms act in this part of the bill that will allow the government to do that.

Mr. Ramsay: I understand. Thank you.

The Chair: But you have time. If you want to reword this for later, it would be acceptable.

Mr. Ramsay: Yes, or at report stage.

The Chair: Yes.

On clause 112 - Exception

The Chair: We've received eight amendments to clause 112. We also have a proposal for a new clause 112.1, which we will deal with at the end.

Ms Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): I'd like to withdraw my two amendments, LP-11 and LP-12.

The Chair: LP-12 was for the new clause. Is LP-11 yours as well?

Ms Phinney: LP-12 is not for the new clause.

The Chair: Well, I was advised that it was.

Ms Phinney: The new clause is 112.1, or something like that.

The Chair: That's what I meant.

Ms Phinney: I'm withdrawing LP-11 and LP-12.

The Chair: Yes, okay. The first one we have is LW-22. We just indirectly dealt with that.

Mr. Wappel, there's no need to put that.

Mr. Wappel: Well, I'd like to put it. There's no need to say anything about it, but I'd like it to be voted on.

The Chair: All right. You have the right to do that. LW-22 is on the matters that were just discussed under LW-21.

Amendment negatived

The Chair: Now we go to BQ-14.

.1500

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: We move that on page 50, lines 1 to 6, that is subsection (2), be deleted. Under that subsection:

We want that subsection deleted; otherwise, the federal minister will determine whether the changes are substantial changes. It would be left at his full discretion.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. MacLellan, have you any response to this proposed amendment, which would eliminate the paragraph at the top of page 50 regarding regulations that the minister thinks are so immaterial or insubstantial that he doesn't have to lay them before the committee?

Mr. MacLellan: This still has to be dealt with. I think we need something in the act that deals with these. If we delete this, we don't have that consideration.

Mr. Wappel: I'd like to speak against the amendment, only because I think it's logical not to bring regulations forward that are so immaterial that it would literally be a waste of everybody's time.

Subclause 112(4) provides that should the minister feel that it would be immaterial or should there be a matter of urgency, he will give reasons. So not only would we not have to waste our time, but the statute specifically provides that reasons would be given. The minister would indicate why he thinks it's very minimal and we shouldn't bother with it, or why he thinks it's urgent and we shouldn't bother with it. At least we would have the reasons without tying up the committee under section 111.

So I don't see the reason for BQ-14, and I think it's appropriate to have subclauses 112(2) and 112(3) if we have subclause 112(4).

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): It is the very logic underlying the powers of the committees which leads me to support the amendment moved by Mrs. Venne. Parliamentary committees are not consistories which elect a Pope once in 30 years; they are active committees made up of representatives of the people.

We realize however that Parliament, the legislative body, is clearly bypassed. There are 75 regulatory powers on which we have little or no control and here again we let go of another one. The minister has the power to decide what is substantial or insubstantial, what is urgent or not.

This brings to mind earlier legislations which fortunately have been repealed. We keep repeating the same mistakes. I'm of the opinion that as parliamentarians, we would be doing a great disservice to this institution to which we belong in devolving such powers to the executive branch which clearly has no need to be strengthened these days. Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Morrison (Swift Current - Maple Creek - Assiniboia): I don't quite follow Mr. Wappel's arguments at all. I read this paragraph, and to me it seems very clear that the minister would have absolute power on his or her own behalf to determine what is substantial and what is inconsequential.

Mr. MacLellan: There does come a point where a change is so inconsequential that it really doesn't need to be brought before the committee.

.1505

I think there were cases of commas and conjunctions that are not really meaningful changes but are changes nevertheless. Unless we have something that indicates this, then those changes have to come before the House.

I don't think this is something that would really concern the committee, particularly where the minister has undertaken to give reasons for the regulation or the changes not coming before the committee. If we see these reasons and feel the minister is wrong, we could certainly make an application to or request of the minister that, regardless of his position and his interpretation, we still want to see the regulations. I don't see any problem with that, but I don't think every inconsequential amendment should have to come before the committee.

The Chair: As I indicated earlier when we were hearing witnesses on this very point, if the minister felt something was inconsequential or very minor, he would have to table a statement in the House giving his reasons. Once he'd done that, I brought to the attention of the committee that any four members can force the calling of a committee to deal with a certain subject. It wouldn't even take the full opposition members on the committee to force the calling of the committee to hear the minister elaborate or to test him on his reasons, if the reasons weren't adequate.

I put that to you for your information, because some members may not be aware of that. Nevertheless, some members may not be satisfied with that.

Are there any further questions or comments?

Mrs. Barnes: I want to point out that during our testimony period on this bill, when I questioned this specific regulation I was told it was designed primarily to correct grammar and spelling errors. That's what we were told by the witnesses from Justice at that time. I'm prepared to keep this clause in, based on that information. When I first read it I was concerned. With the clarification given, I'm now satisfied.

The Chair: Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, I see Mr. Morrison's concern. If subclause 112(4) were not there, I would share it. I must remind everybody that we're talking about a federal justice minister who is going to be putting his or her name, in public, to written reasons as to whether he or she thinks something is unsubstantial or immaterial. The pragmatics of politics could very well ruin an otherwise unblemished reputation. If a person were saying a regulation that had the effect of exempting the aboriginals was immaterial, such a thing would destroy a person's career.

So I think any minister would be loath to try to pull a fast one under subclause 112(2) in view of subclause 112(4). In the absence of subclause 112(4) and written reasons, I could see what Mr. Morrison is after.

The Chair: Are there any further questions or comments?

Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: We move to amendment G-55, which is a government amendment.

Ms Phinney: I move that clause 112 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking out lines 8 to 16 -

The Chair: Ms Phinney, it's not necessary to read the whole amendment into the record since everybody has it. Do you want to make some comments?

Ms Phinney: Mr. MacLellan may make a comment if he wants to.

Mr. MacLellan: It gets rid of the urgency exception, Mr. Chair. If we get rid of this, then the section makes sense. If we don't, it doesn't.

.1510

The Chair: So what you're doing is getting rid of the right of the minister to withhold from the committee regulations that he considers to be urgent.

Mr. MacLellan: Yes.

The Chair: Are there any further questions or comments? Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: If I understand this right, we're striking out lines 8 to 16 on page 50. That seems, on my page, to include subclause 112(4) that Mr. Wappel was referring to as a safeguard against the need to.... Am I wrong?

The Chair: Yes. They're striking out subclause 112(3), which in the margin says ``Exception - urgency'', but then they're changing what is now subclause 112(4) to become subclause 112(3). In other words, subclause 112(4), which says that the minister -

Mr. Ramsay: Yes, I understand.

The Chair: All they're really doing is eliminating the exception for urgency.

Mr. Ramsay: Okay, I have it. Thank you.

The Chair: Are there any further questions or comments?

Mr. Wappel: I love this bill because sometimes it gets so complicated.

First, Mr. Chairman, this is one of the circumstances where I think the minister is being too generous. I'm not the minister, but if I were I would fight for this clause. I can certainly see circumstances where it may be necessary to act in an urgent manner. As I understand the effect of this particular clause, if we're to take this out, then all regulations other than minimal or unsubstantial changes would go through the process - whatever process it may be - of clause 111.

If there is a matter that the minister considers so urgent that it is necessary to proceed with a regulation, then I have no problem with that. I think we're unnecessarily tying the minister's hands.

The reason I say this is, of course, a matter of self-interest and logic, because I'm proposing amendments later on which in those circumstances would require more than a written laying of reasons as to why the minister thought it was urgent. In those cases, when it was urgent, my amendment would permit him to make the amendments and then go to the House and have them confirmed. However, I see no real reason to tie the minister's hands. There may be circumstances where it will be legitimately necessary to make an urgent regulation.

I'm asking Mr. MacLellan for the actual reasons why the department doesn't believe that this will ever arise or that they will need this leeway. If that's the case and if subclause 112(3) is out, then in effect it guts my other amendment. I will have to have just a few minutes to look it over so that I can redraft it to deal with what we're left with.

I want to assure the committee, though, that I'm not raising this question in order to support my amendment. I'm raising this question because I feel that it's unduly generous of the minister, where I see the possibility that matters of urgency could arise where regulation is necessary, only to be later on validated by the House.

Mr. MacLellan: There's no question that the minister's a very generous guy, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Would you like a resolution to that effect?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. MacLellan: Some other time.

The Chair: I think he discussed this when he was before us, did he not?

Mr. MacLellan: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Wappel has asked what the reasons were for taking out this exception.

Mr. MacLellan: The minister felt that it wouldn't come up, and if it did he could come to the committee, tell the committee and get the committee's approval. He felt that the committee would be forthcoming in approval if the urgency was that great. However, if there is a possibility certainly it could come up. There's no question about that.

The Chair: Nothing's that urgent?

Mr. MacLellan: The urgency isn't that urgent, yes.

.1515

Mr. Morrison: It sounds as though it's not necessary for me to get into a debate with Mr. Wappel. I'll pass.

Mr. Bodnar (Saskatoon - Dundurn): I agree with Mr. Wappel. I believe there are situations where there will be such urgency, and the clause should remain. If it can be foreseen - and it appears from Mr. MacLellan's comment that it can be - that there may be such situations, then I believe it should remain.

Ms Phinney: I have a concern with subclause 112(3) coming out. I would like to see subclause 112(2) not be there and subclause 112(3) left in. How could the minister go to the committee if it's the three months during the summer when the committee's not here? By then any urgency would be over, if it's two and a half months later. I would like to see subclause 112(3) left in and subclause 112(2) taken out.

The Chair: There's no amendment to take out subclause 112(2).

Ms Phinney: I had to get that on the record because that's what I had originally asked for.

The Chair: I want to ask the parliamentary secretary this, and I refer to the arguments made by Mr. Wappel. Mr. Wappel pointed out that with respect to things that were unsubstantial or immaterial, the statement to be tabled in the House would have to have some credibility or it could destroy a minister who would pretend something was immaterial when it really wasn't. It seems to me that with things that are urgent, this is not so clear cut. It's a more subjective thing, and what I may think is urgent nobody else would think is. The government thinks it's urgent to get this bill through before June 23, but some of our colleagues don't think it's very urgent.

I'm wondering if the minister wasn't convinced by many of the arguments put before this committee that wanted to keep as much as possible with parliamentary committees rather than having it done in the back rooms of Orders in Council. On balance, he thought it was better to leave it with the committee rather than have more power in his own hands. I have the feeling he was convinced to a certain extent by those arguments. What's your answer to this?

Mr. MacLellan: He was. The fact of the matter is that it is something the minister has offered. Frankly, I feel - and I've been rather convinced by the arguments of Mr. Wappel and Mr. Bodnar - that perhaps this is something we should leave in the bill.

The Chair: So you're withdrawing your amendment?

Mr. Ramsay: This is talking about a regulation made under paragraphs 110(i), (l), (m), (n), (o), (q), (r) or (s). If we look at those - (m) for example: ``...the keeping and destruction of records in relation to firearms...'' and ``...the keeping and destruction of records by businesses in relation to ammunition;'' - as we go through these, I don't see where any catastrophe could happen in any of these areas that would demand this kind of power. Basically, that is what we're asking for. The power is limited to these sections under clause 110.

I think the minister and his officials have taken a look at this and asked if we really need urgent or emergency powers to deal with this kind of thing. Maybe they do, but I surely don't see it.

The Chair: There's a motion on the floor, motion G-55 to amend. There's been a request to withdraw that motion. That requires unanimous consent.

Ms Phinney: I would like to withdraw this motion and ask for unanimous consent to do so.

The Chair: Is there unanimous consent to withdraw this motion?

.1520

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: We have a strange situation now where the opposition is supporting the government's motion and the government is opposing it. We'll have to vote on it because there's not unanimous agreement to withdraw it.

Mr. Lee: Mr. Chairman, as odd as the scenario is here, I think we should be keeping the subclause. Mr. Ramsay has properly pointed out that most of the areas that would have been subject to an urgency type of regulation are pretty low-profile, unimportant things if you look at the regulations involved.

However, I'd point out two things. First, this subclause doesn't have anything to do with the section that would permit the government to prohibit particular firearms. That section is in another part of the bill. Second, although it looks like it's not very important, one of these regulatory sections governs the area of moving prohibited firearms, restricted firearms, in and around the country, in and out of the country.

I'm thinking of a scenario involving, for example, a shooting competition where shooters have to bring what might otherwise be a prohibited device into the country for a shooting competition. They realize about a month before the August competition that they can't bring the X, Y, Z prohibited device and the minister doesn't have the ability to do a quick regulatory change. He could do it quickly, but he couldn't get it by the committee and start the 30 days running - unless of course the initiative happened in May or June.

So I'd like to see the subclause there for all it means in potential time savings in case we have a case that is urgent but not of national significance.

Mr. Ramsay: I think we should look more closely at this. If we look at paragraph 110(o), which is contained within subclause 112(3), we find that (o) allows for the creation of offences consisting of contraventions of the regulations made under paragraph (d), (e), (f), (g), (i), (j), (l), (m), or (n). If my interpretation is right, what we're in fact doing is granting the minister power to create offences under paragraph 110(o). I think that is a very extraordinary power we're granting in that he would have the power to make, without any scrutiny, offences under those particular paragraphs of this act. I just want that on the record, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Yes.

If there are no further questions or comments, we shall put the question.

Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: We now go to amendments LW-23, LW-24, and LW-25.

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might alert members of the committee that amendment LW-0020.1, as suggested by the chairman, replaces amendment LW-24, which is on pages 202 and 203.

.1525

The Chair: This is marked as amendment LW-0020, but it's an amendment to clause 112.

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, amendment LW-23 comes first, but again it's consequential to the acceptance of amendment LW-0020.1. If amendment LW-0020.1 were defeated there would be no point -

The Chair: We will proceed with LW-0020.1 first.

Mr. Wappel: Now that we have the minister in a position where he could make a decision under those clauses for cases of urgency, there has to be a mechanism to review them to make sure we keep the minister honest - any minister. At present a minister could declare something urgent, as you quite rightly point out, that others might not think is urgent. The minister then has to lay his reasons before the House of Commons under subclause 112(4).

In the case of a regulation that was made by a minister on an urgent basis, this particular amendment would permit the regulation to be made because clearly the minister considers it to be an urgent matter. Then the net result of my amendment would be that instead of having to table his reasons, the minister would give the committee an opportunity to examine the regulation he passed.

Again, by way of the use of negative resolution, if the committee were of the view that the matter was urgent, there would be no need to do anything; everything would be in order. If the committee felt there was a problem, it could indicate its opinion to the contrary. In proposed subclause 112(4.5) there would be a very specific mechanism whereby the House of Commons would be required to vote on the committee's report, which would in effect be an overruling of the minister's decision with regard to urgency.

I want to make it clear that I do not think the minister should have an unfettered ability to indicate whether something is urgent. I said when I was speaking against amendment G-55 that it was in conjunction with my proposal to make sure that, in the event the minister did use subclause 112(3), the parliamentary committee would have an opportunity to review the regulations he or she made on an apparently urgent basis. That is the purport of amendment LW-0020.

If the committee were of a view to pass that particular clause, we would have to amend subclause 112(4) to remove the reference to subclause 112(3). Then the only thing the minister would have to state reasons for would be unsubstantial or immaterial amendments under subclause 112(2). So that's the purpose of amendment LW-23. The substantive reasoning is in amendment LW-0020.

While the committee obviously disagreed with my proposal with respect to recommendations coming under clause 111, this is a different scenario. In this scenario the government has already made the regulation and the minister has already decided it is urgent. The regulation is already in force and the minister already believes it to be urgent. Therefore I'm asking that in those circumstances it be required to be brought before this committee. Should the committee disagree with the minister, I am asking for there to be a mechanism whereby not the committee but the House of Commons deals with the committee's recommendation.

I don't propose to read the amendments I've put line by line, other than to say the procedure to be followed would be identical to the procedure that would have been followed had we passed my previous amendment on subclause 111(3).

That was with the usual time limits, laying before each House 30 sitting days, and the requirement that in the event the committee did not agree with the minister that it was urgent, it be tabled in the House and the House must vote on the question either to, in effect, agree with the minister or disagree with the minister.

.1530

That was the purpose of my voting against the government motion to remove subclause 111(3), and it would be with that ability to review the reasons of the minister and his views for urgency that I would move this particular amendment. We're kind of coming at it backwards, but I suppose what we did the last time is the same. If we defeat LW-23, presumably we're going to defeat LW-0020.1, but that's the rationale for the amendment.

I remind the committee that it is slightly different because in this case there would have already been an amendment regulation, it would already be in force, and the minister would have stated that it was urgent.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): If there are no further questions or comments on this, I am going to call the question on LW-0020.1.

Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Now we move to LW-25.

Mr. Wappel: I presume we're not dealing with LW-23 because LW-0020.1 failed. In other words, I'm not even going to move it on that basis.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I thought that's what you said in your comments.

Mr. Wappel: Okay. That's fine.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): LW-25 was next.

Mr. Wappel: Madam Chair, I put this forward for the consideration of the committee. In my view, this clause serves absolutely no legislative purpose whatsoever where it exists. After I make my comments, I'm going to ask legislative counsel for comments.

The regulations we're dealing with in this particular bill are defined in subclause 112(2). This means regulations made by the Governor in Council under clause 110. The only regulations that we can deal with are regulations made under clause 110. You will note that subclause 112(6) does not deal with regulations made under clause 110. Rather, it deals with regulations made under a completely different act, which has nothing whatsoever to do as a statute with the Firearms Act.

There is a message here, of course, that the drafters wanted us to get clearly. It is to stay away from proposed section 117.15, and we'll get to that in due course. That's what they are basically saying here. Hands off 117.15, which is the proposed section that prohibits weapons. That's what they're trying to tell us here.

In my respectful submission, it's an improper use of legislative drafting. It is illogical because it refers to regulations under an act to which it has no business referring, and the reference to regulation should be restricted to the regulations as defined in the bill, which are regulations made under clause 110. Therefore, since it serves absolutely no purpose, legislatively or otherwise, it should be removed. That is the purpose of this amendment.

I would greatly appreciate it if we could hear legislative counsel on the point.

Mr. Louis-Phillippe Côté (Legislative Counsel, Legislative Counsel Office, House of Commons): Madam Chair, to put it very simply, we agree with Mr. Wappel.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Madam Venne is on my list and then I presume Mr. MacLellan will want to say something.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: I would like to thank Mr. Wappel and the legislative counsel for supporting my motion BQ-15, as it is exactly the same motion as this one moved by Mr. Wappel.

So I thank Mr. Wappel, as we seem to have the same kind of concerns.

.1535

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. MacLellan or Mr. Mosley.

Mr. MacLellan: Madam Chair, there is no question what's intended here, as Mr. Wappel has said, and what the government would like to have done. We thought the language was clear before, but there was a case in Alberta, of course, which is still not settled. We feel this is very important, and we would be opposed to LW-25.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. Ramsay, please.

Mr. Ramsay: My understanding of this amendment, which I support if I understand it right, is that it would prevent the minister from declaring unilaterally that a firearm be prohibited - I think we must not allow that.

We're seeing where, under clause 110 or the ones we've just gone through, we've taken great efforts and pains to ensure that regulations are reviewed by the committee. But when it comes to something as important as the minister declaring that a firearm is prescribed to be a prohibited firearm by way of regulations, without any consultation from the committee or review by anyone, I think this amendment is very important.

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, there are two things. I want to be crystal clear: this amendment has nothing to do at this stage with proposed section 117.15. This is a drafting point. The intent has nothing to do with whether or not I personally, or anybody else, may agree or disagree that any particular minister may prohibit a weapon. We'll deal with that when we get to part III of the Criminal Code.

This amendment is a drafting amendment. It would remove subclause 112(6) because it shouldn't be there from a drafting point of view, not from a policy point of view. It's simply poor drafting. I don't mean this in the sense that the drafters didn't know what they were doing. Of course they did because, as I've said, we know what the message is. But it shouldn't be there because it's not the proper way to deal with referring to other matters in another act.

I wonder if legislative counsel might help me out here with a proper explanation or a more legalistic explanation.

Ms McMurray: There are two points, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, Mr. Wappel is absolutely correct. There is no need for greater certainty. ``For greater certainty'' implies that there is a laying provision for regulations under part III of the Criminal Code. There is no such laying provision in part III of the Criminal Code in Bill C-68. Therefore, there is no for greater certainty. ``For greater certainty'' presupposes there's something out there already that is obligatory. There is no obligation under part III of the Criminal Code to lay any regulations made pursuant to the Criminal Code, part III, of any laying provisions.

Because Mr. MacLellan raised something about something in Alberta, I think I know what his concerns are and I don't think they are appropriate in this particular case.

Under the current act, there's a case called Simmermon and there's another case. It involved laying provisions under section 116 of the present code. There are laying provisions in the code now. Under section 116, you must lay those regulations. However, there is also buried in the code, I think it's in paragraph 84(e), under the definition of prohibited weapons, what's declared by order. The words ``by order'' are the magic words in drafting to make it a statutory instrument, something of the nature of a regulation.

The argument made in Simmermon is that we made this particular order under section 84; we didn't make it under section 116. Under section 84 there is no laying provision; under section 116 there is. Under which provision did we make it - that was the issue.

.1540

There is no such issue now, of course, because you've taken all of your laying provisions in section 116 of the code and transferred them into clause 110 of the Firearms Act. Proposed section 117.15 of the code clearly states that those regulations do not have to be laid. Therefore, you don't have a problem, in my opinion. In fact, Mr. Wappel is totally right - there's absolutely no necessity for this whatsoever. It's not even adding earrings to elephant ears, because there are no elephant ears to which to add it.

Mr. Lee: I want to pose the obvious question to our witnesses. Why are we including something in the bill that would at best be subject-matter for a footnote?

A voice: Not even a footnote.

Mr. Lee: Not even a footnote, if I hear parliamentary counsel right. What's the rationale for including a useless piece of baggage?

Mr. Mosley: The case was Simmermon that caused us some concern, if I may put it in those terms, given the fact that we had thought the previous act was clear enough as to the distinction between those that needed to be laid and those that didn't. In fact, there was a fair amount of debate on that very topic when Bill C-17 was going through the House and its predecessor, Bill C-80. Notwithstanding the fact that we had discussed it in committee at that time and thought it was clear enough, a court in Alberta chose to differ. That matter remains unresolved. It's before the Court of Appeal and hopefully they'll clarify the distinction between the two types of regulations.

For this subclause Mr. Wappel is perfectly correct. If it wasn't out of a concern that proposed section 117.15 in the code might be misinterpreted, there would be absolutely no need for this provision.

The Chair: Are there any further questions or comments?

Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[Translation]

The Chair: Next amendment, BQ-15.

Mrs. Venne: Mr. Chairman, this amendment BQ-15 is identical to LW-25.

The Chair: Yes, it is exactly the same.

Mrs. Venne: We could, nevertheless, vote again on the same amendment.

The Chair: I'd prefer not to, as we have a lot of amendments to go through.

[English]

Clause 112 agreed to on division

The Chair: I understand that LP-12 was withdrawn by Ms Phinney but she's putting forward a new proposal, which has been distributed. It has the name of Andy Scott on it, but she's moving it in place of Andy Scott. It will be a new clause 112.1 to 112.6.

.1545

I am going to take this under consideration because there's doubt in my mind about whether it's in order. The doubt arises from two things.

First, it entails the expenditure of money in setting up a Canadian firearms council, and as such it would require a royal recommendation. As you know, only members of the government - i.e., of the cabinet - can propose measures that entail the expenditure of money. They must have royal approval, if I can put it that way. This one, the setting up of a firearms council, would require the expenditure of money.

The other thing is that it is introducing - I'm not as convinced on this one, but it is suggested - a measure completely new to the bill, and you usually can't introduce amendments that bring in something entirely new. On that one, though, I have more doubt because I don't know if it is completely new. It's dealing with a lot of issues we've already had before us, but the first one is serious.

Ms Phinney.

Ms Phinney: I think you will find, Mr. Chair, that it says in here that the people are volunteering their services and are not paid.

The Chair: Despite that, even though they are not paid, I presume they are going to be called together to meet. Expenses would be involved and an office would be involved. I know that with the previous firearms council there was a certain amount of expenditure. It seems to me that this is one case in which the government would have to agree to it and introduce it at the report stage with the proper recommendation.

Ms Phinney: I think I handed this in a week or a week and a half ago, Mr. Chairman. I'm just wondering why I couldn't have had some suggestions like these from somebody earlier.

The Chair: It's because you usually don't deal with an amendment until it's put. As you know, a lot were given to us a week ago and they weren't put. Some were withdrawn. You can't make a ruling on it until it's put. It's up to you or Mr. Scott to seek advice on these things. The chair certainly can't rule on them until they are put.

This one replaced another one that you had, LP-12, but it's not lost altogether. I don't want to continue the discussion on this. We have a lot of amendments, but....

It doesn't replace LP-12. I made a mistake on that.

Ms Phinney: It has nothing to do with LP-12.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to move this new clause, clause 112.1, on behalf of the member for Fredericton - York - Sunbury.

The Chair: I thought you had done that, but okay, you can move it. Then I'll have to rule it out of order.

Ms Phinney: Okay, I would like to move it and put it on the table.

The Chair: All right, it's been moved. Now I have to rule it out of order. I'll rule it out of order on the grounds that it does entail an expenditure of money, but not on the other grounds. I don't think it's that new, but there is some doubt. It's a grey area, so I would suggest that maybe you or Mr. Scott....

I personally think it's a good idea. It was done in the last bill, Bill C-17, to try to convince the government to do it before the report stage.

We have another amendment proposing a new clause 112.1. It's by Mr. Wappel, LW-001.

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, I need some guidance from the chair on this.

The Chair: Let me find it.

.1550

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, the guidance I need is simply this -

The Chair: This is amendment LW-001?

Mr. Wappel: Yes. I don't think it's in the main package. It was in a package distributed a couple of days ago. Subsequently, legislative counsel have drafted the section for me and they've suggested that it be new clause 186, which is at the absolute last page of the bill. It's currently referred to as amendment LW-30. I don't want to withdraw it on the technicality that I might therefore be withdrawing LW-30.

The Chair: But you haven't put it yet.

Mr. Wappel: Good, but I don't want to be precluded from putting LW-30 if I haven't proceeded with LW-001, which is identical.

The Chair: I see no reason you couldn't put LW-30 when the time comes.

Mr. Wappel: I guess what we would say is that there is no LW-001.

The Chair: It's a proposed amendment here for distribution purposes, but it hasn't been put.

Mr. Wappel: It is now LW-30 for all intents and purposes. LW-30 is here, but it was in fact drafted by the legislative counsel after LW-001, which was drafted by Justice.

The Chair: You're changing LW-001 to LW-30 and you already have another LW-30. Which LW-30 should we keep - the one transformed from LW-001 to LW-30 or the other one that was in our package? Which one is the one you want?

Mr. Wappel: Now you've lost me, Mr. Chair. I thought there was only one LW-30.

The Chair: Well, there's this one here. I have one with ``LW-30'' on the top and then I have this one with ``LW-001''.

Mr. Wappel: LW-30 as I have it says ``New Clause 186, Page 124''. Is that right?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Wappel: Now, LW-001 is exactly the same, except that I gather the justice department thought the best place for the amendment was after clause 112, whereas legislative counsel thought the best place for the amendment was at the end of the bill. They deal with exactly the same thing. I would like to go with LW-30.

The Chair: So we will just get rid of LW-001?

Mr. Wappel: Yes.

The Chair: Okay, so there's nothing at this stage.

We've carried clause 112 and now we move to clause 113.

On clause 113 - Firearms acquisition certificates

Mrs. Venne: Was clause 112 on division, avec dissidence?

The Chair: Oui.

Now we come to a series of amendments that are transitional amendments. For clause 113 we have no amendments to the bill in advance. Are there any questions or comments?

Mr. Wappel: I have a point of order. I have Reform amendment 0016 on clause 113.

Mr. Ramsay: So do I.

The Chair: They were just distributed this morning. Okay, I have that one, too.

Mr. Ramsay, we have R-0016, an amendment to clause 113.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, right at the beginning, this is consequential to the passage of another amendment for a clause that has been stood over, but basically this amendment simply adds (7) after (6). It has to do with the allowance of the restricted firearms to be transferred within immediate families. Of course, as I said, this is dependent upon the passage of the amendment to a clause we have already stood.

I don't know what the committee wants to do with this. Well, I have an idea.

.1555

The Chair: I have to ask the committee if it wants to stand this. Are you requesting that clause 113 be stood? Do you recall which clause it is consequential to?

Mr. Ramsay: I think it's clause 12. It's a consequential amendment. In view of the fact that my other amendments we've asked to stand have not received very favourable consideration, I simply won't move this motion.

Clause 113 agreed to on division

The Chair: Next we have clause 114, which is a transitional provision with respect to minors. As far as I know, we have received no amendments in advance.

Clause 114 agreed to on division

On clause 115 - Museum approvals

The Chair: Clause 115 deals with transitional measures relating to museums. We have an amendment, G-56.

Ms Phinney: I move G-56.

The Chair: Mr. MacLellan, could you explain G-56, please?

Mr. MacLellan: By adding subclause 115(2) this motion transfers clause 118, with a change in duration of the approval from one year to three years, into clause 115. Clause 118 would of course be defeated if this and the related motion to amend clause 116 are carried.

The Chair: So I understand this gives museums three-year licences rather than one-year licences.

Mr. MacLellan: Yes, it's a convenience for museums. It's felt that with their activities, the way they move in various directions, the fact that many of the staff are volunteers and try to cope with as little expense as possible, we should make it easier for them administratively and require only the three-year period. They're there to serve the public and if we can be as reasonable as possible, I think we should.

Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 115 as amended agreed to on division

On clause 116 - Permits to carry on business

The Chair: Clause 116 deals with transitional measures with respect to businesses in the firearms field. We have amendment G-57.

Ms Phinney: I move G-57.

.1600

Mr. MacLellan: Once again, Mr. Chair, this motion transfers clause 118, with no changes, into clause 116. As I mentioned before, clause 118 would be defeated if this is in fact proved. It's the same thing as the previous amendment, only it relates to business.

The Chair: Are there any further questions or comments?

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: I am trying to see where is the change. If my understanding is correct, businesses have a year to obtain their permit. What was the previous period?

The Chair: A year. It's the same.

[English]

Mr. MacLellan: There's no change in the time period here. It transfers the period of the timeframe from clause 118 to clause 116.

Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 116 as amended agreed to on division

Clause 117 agreed to on division

On clause 118 - Expiration

The Chair: No amendments to clause 118 were received in advance. Are there any questions or comments?

Mr. Wappel: If I understood Mr. MacLellan correctly, he is looking for someone to move that clause 118 be struck. I'm delighted to do so.

Mr. MacLellan: Thank you.

The Chair: It's been moved by Mr. Wappel that clause 118 be struck. That's a motion before us. Would someone explain?

Mr. MacLellan: We've moved the information that was under clause 118, so there's really nothing left of it, Mr. Chair. It's been moved to clauses 115 and 116.

Motion agreed to

The Chair: That means clause 118 is eliminated from the bill.

On clause 119 - Industrial purpose designations

Mrs. Barnes: Because we've struck clause 118, do we have to do something to renumber the rest of the bill?

The Chair: They do that automatically.

Mrs. Barnes: Do we have to move a motion for that?

The Chair: No, they're supposed to tidy all those things up when we report the bill.

Any further questions or comments on 119?

Clauses 119 and 120 agreed to on division

On clause 121 - Registration certificates

The Chair: We're now going to a new area of the bill dealing with registration certificates, clause 121.

Do you have a question, Ms Meredith?

Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): Yes, Mr. Chairman. At the bottom of this, where they're talking about December 31, 2002, or such other date as described, are you talking about not setting down a date here? Can it be moved up? Can it be shortened? Or are you looking at it being there so that there can be an extension of the date?

Mr. MacLellan: It's just the length of the term of the registration certificate. That's the only reason it's there.

.1605

Ms Meredith: But I'm asking whether there is a chance that you're going to shorten the length of time of the registration certificate. Or are you only looking at potentially lengthening the timeframe?

Mr. MacLellan: There is really no intention to change the term. This is what we expect it will be, and there's no intention right now to change it.

The Chair: Mr. Lee.

Mr. Lee: I want to clarify here. As I understand it, once a firearm is registered it's registered forever. Is that correct?

Mr. MacLellan: That's correct, unless it's transferred to somebody else. Then it has to be re-registered.

Mr. Lee: This clause we're dealing with now provides for the expiry of registration certificates. Does that mean that notwithstanding that the registration hasn't been altered, a firearm owner would have to obtain a new certificate of registration in accordance with this clause?

Mr. MacLellan: No, you only have to register once, Mr. Chair. This is the period in which he or she has to register.

Mr. Lee: To clarify further, Mr. Chairman, this clause seems to say that a registration certificate that is deemed to be a registration certificate issued under clause 58 expires on the earlier of the date on the certificate or December 2002. Perhaps you could clarify this. There must be two types of registration certificates here.

Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Mosley will deal with this.

Mr. Mosley: That is correct. The distinction is that certain registrations will be deemed. The opening words of subclause 121(2) are ``A registration certificate that is deemed to be a registration certificate issued under clause 58 - ''

You then have to go back to subclause 121(1):

In effect, what this does is provide for the current registrations that will have to be registered under the new act. Once they're registered under the new act, they will be lifetime registrations.

Mr. Lee: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: According to what I see and what I hear, the French and the English versions do not fit. The French version says:

Do we have that in the English version?

Mr. Yvan Roy (Senior General Counsel, Criminal Policy, Department of Justice): The English version reads, and I think you will find the reference on top of paragraph 2:

[English]

[Translation]

So the reference to the earlier date in the French version is referred to earlier in the section than in the English version.

Mrs. Venne: That's alright. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Are there any further questions or comments with respect to clause 121?

Clause 121 agreed to on division

Clauses 122 to 129 inclusive agreed to on division

.1610

The Chair: Now we have amendment BQ-15.1, which proposes a new clause 129.1. Madam Venne.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: The purpose of this clause is very simple. It reads:

So the purpose here is to exempt the museums from the application of this Act. You will recall that earlier, we already voted in favour of an amendment to exempt some museums employees from the requirement to get permits to do their job. We voted in favour of that government amendment because we had agreed to discuss later BQ-15.1, if my memory serves me well.

Also, in other cases, earlier, we wanted some clauses to be allowed to stand before knowing if those would be submitted to the committee.

So the main purpose of this amendment is to exempt museums from the application of this Act because, as you know, we had witnesses who asked us to do that.

Paragraph 4 provides a definition of «museum», because we were already told that museums could sometimes only be a collection of three or four firearms somewhere in a basement, and that constituted a museum.

In this case, for the application of this exemption, we are providing a definition of the word «museum». Paragraph 4 reads:

So, Mr. Chairman, that is the amendment we are moving.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Venne.

Mr. MacLellan: Do you have any comments?

[English]

Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chair, there are thousands of firearms in museums that would be unaccounted for, and that just would not be practical under the scope of the bill.

I think it's also important to remember that a museum can be all sorts of things. There are ones that are well known and very well run and have a general application - I guess you could call them blue-chip museums - and are really national treasures. Some of them are private and not all that well known.

.1615

There has to be some control. It wouldn't be inconceivable, if we excluded them, that there would be a means of getting around the registration of firearms simply by saying you were a museum. That may be simplistic, but it's possible. We haven't looked into all of the ramifications where that may happen, but we really don't want to give anyone the initiative to do this.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: We are not dealing at all with private museums, and section 129.1(4) says this clearly. The museum is defined, and the museum must be designated by the attorney general of the province or the Attorney General of Canada in accordance with the Museums Act. So you do have some control and you would not have a firearms owner calling his private collection a museum. That museum must be recognized, at one point in time, by either one of those authorities.

I think that section 129.1(4) speaks to Mr. MacLellan's concerns.

[English]

Mr. Ramsay: I have pointed out - and I do again, with respect - that there is no evidence that the museums of this country are posing a safety threat to society. I support this amendment because of that.

It seems that now we're out painting, we're going to paint everything. If I could be shown evidence where museums have collected firearms and exhibited them and have created a danger or a threat to society, I would be prepared to support this amendment. But it doesn't make sense to further encumber these institutions with not only regulations but at least a degree of cost, so I support this motion. I would sure like to hear a rationale from the government or the officials as to why they would want to further encumber a museum that is well run and doesn't pose a threat.

The Chair: Mr. Bodnar first.

Mr. Bodnar: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe that museums should be subject to registration and there should be no exceptions and therefore no need for a clause like this. Primarily, with museums holding the many guns they do, it's important that they be registered. Second, it is important that when or if a firearm does go missing it be reported to the authorities. It's crucial because museums, with the large number of guns they have, will or can become nothing but a good source of such guns in the future to whatever individual or group wants them. The authorities should be able to have serial numbers and to successfully trace these particular guns if and when they are found. I will therefore not be supporting this motion.

The Chair: Are there other questions or comments? Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Thompson (Wild Rose): Correct me if I'm wrong, but did we not hear from these witnesses the extent to which these guns in museums are kept on file and recorded in computers and are available to authorities on request? If so, why would we need to go through the process?

The Chair: Mr. MacLellan, there were questions by Mr. Ramsay and now by Mr. Thompson.

Mr. MacLellan: Would Mr. Thompson repeat that question?

The Chair: He said that when we heard testimony from the museums, they said they kept a computer record of all their weapons, which in many cases was better than the record the government was going to keep, etc. He's therefore asking why the clause is necessary.

Mr. MacLellan: Some museums keep good records. Other museums don't keep good records, Mr. Chair. There's no requirement. There's no standardization on the records they're supposed to carry.

.1620

Mr. Ramsay said museums are well run. How do you tell they're well run? If they're registered in the registry system, then we'll know they're registered. It's a protection for the museums themselves. If those firearms are stolen, then there's a much better chance of getting those firearms back with either the serial numbers or the distinctive features of those firearms stated on a registration system.

I want also to mention the proposed subclause 129.1(3). It's generally worded. It says:

Some employees may need those in their job. But that aside, it seems this would say that anybody who works for a museum doesn't need these things, even in a private capacity.

I would say, Mr. Chair, that this amendment is not satisfactory. It is not eased by the fact that we have in the proposed subclause 129.1(4) the Attorney General of the province saying what is to be a museum. This would not be something we could support.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Mr. Chairman, I would like the legislative counsel to tell how we could avoid any confusion in paragraph 3 and how we could ensure that we are dealing only with specific duties.

Mr. Côté: I think that a simple amendment could be made to paragraph 3 so that you would be dealing only with employees working in a museum and who would be handling guns in the course of their duties. That would obviously eliminate employees in a private capacity. Therefore you would only have to add ``dans le cours de leurs fonctions'' or, in English, in the course of their duties, or any similar expression.

[English]

The Chair: Are there any further questions or comments on amendment BQ-15.1?

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: I would like to move a sub-amendment.

The Chair: Where? In the French version?

Mrs. Venne: In the French version, but also in the English version. In paragraph 3, you would have to add ``dans le cadre de leurs fonctions'', after the words ``ainsi que leurs employés'' in English, you would translate that.

[English]

The Chair: And in English -

Mrs. Venne: In the course of their employment.

[Translation]

That would come after the word employees.

[English]

The Chair: In the course of their functions.

Mrs. Venne has proposed a subamendment to BQ-15.1, in subclause 129.1(3). In English the amendment would come in the third line, after the word ``employees''. So it reads:

In French it would read:

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: That's correct.

.1625

[English]

Subamendment negatived

Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]

On clause 130 - Conditional amendment re Bill C-7

The Chair: We now move to two conditional clauses. They relate to other bills that are in process before the House of Commons.

Clause 130 refers to Bill C-7, which is before another committee. I received no advance amendments to this clause.

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chair, I have a question.

I wonder if the officials, Mr. MacLellan, can confirm that the amendments suggested in clauses 130 and 131 are consequential only and do not in any substantive way, however that may be defined, affect this bill.

Mr. MacLellan: I'll give that undertaking, Mr. Chair.

Clause 130 agreed to

On clause 131 - Conditional amendments re Bill C-41

The Chair: Clause 131 refers to our favourite bill, Bill C-41, which is back in the House at report stage waiting for debate. We received no proposed amendments in advance.

Clause 131 agreed to on division

On clause 132

The Chair: We move to the amendments to the Criminal Code. The first one is not to part III but in clause 132 deals with the definition of a weapon.

Clause 132 agreed to on division

On clause 133

The Chair: I want to explain. In clause 133 we're dealing with all of part III of the Criminal Code. The way we will deal with this is as follows.

You will note that under clause 133 we refer to the various sections of the Criminal Code. For example, section 84, 85, 86 and so on. We do not vote on those sections of the Criminal Code. We will vote on the amendments that we have to these various sections.

For example, I'll say that we have a series of amendments to article 84 of the Criminal Code and you will dispose of them, either voting with them or against them. For example, we start with G-58, then there's G-59, then LP-13, and so on.

Once we dispose of all the amendments under 84, we then don't vote on 84. We go to 85. If there are no amendments on 85, 86 and 87, we don't even deal with them. We will call them in case I get somebody who wants to move amendments that aren't given notice of.

When we finish with all the amendments under clause 133, we will ask if clause 133 as amended carries, but we don't carry the individual amendments to the Criminal Code. In other words, we deal with this the same way we dealt with all other clauses, only this clause is very long and refers to a large number of sections of the Criminal Code. We will start it, then I will ask Mrs. Barnes to take the chair for a while.

Under clause 133 we first have some amendments to section 84 of the Criminal Code. We start with G-58.

Mr. MacLellan: Maybe we could take a 5-minute break.

The Chair: Does the committee agree that we should take a 5-minute break?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

.1629

PAUSE

.1639

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): We are starting a look at clause 133 with amendment G-58.

May I have a mover for G-58, please?

Ms Torsney (Burlington): The amendment is quite clear. If the officials have any comments, they can make them. Everyone has it in front of them.

Mr. MacLellan: We are leaving the words:

Mr. Wappel: Does the definition as proposed not automatically include ``blank cartridge''? Is that why the part saying that blank cartridges are not included is automatically taken out?

Mr. MacLellan: Yes.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): We move to amendment G-59.

Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): Amendment G-59 adds the definition ``antique firearm'' to the bill.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. MacLellan, did you wish to add anything further to Mr. Gallaway's motion?

Mr. MacLellan: That's about it, Madam Chair. I'll let Mr. Mosley answer the question. He could probably do a better job than I.

Mr. Mosley: A caseless cartridge is a new kind of cartridge where the propellant is formed and does not contain an outer casing. With most cartridges you need the shell portion, which is made of brass, or in the case of a shot shell it can be made of cardboard. In this type of ammunition the propellant itself is formed and shaped and in the magazine. It doesn't require a case. This is just the result of an abundance of caution, ensuring that type of cartridge is included. It was developed by the U.S. military to cut down on the weight and cost of producing ammunition shells.

Mr. Wappel: I have just a quick question on the definition of antique firearm, because Mr. Mosley was winding up to give us one. What's the significance of 1898?

Mr. Mosley: There is no particular magic to 1898. I believe it was a dividing point that was adopted by the U.S. some years ago and was then adopted by us. I may be wrong about this, but I believe in 1977 it was adopted in Bill C-17. There is no particular significance to that date. It could be a little earlier or later, but it is certainly a point of demarcation between the former or earlier generations of firearms and modern firearms.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Madam Chair, do you allow questions about G-59 or only on G-58?

.1645

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Amendment G-58 has been carried, Mr. Langlois, and G-59 is where we just had questions. This is where I'm calling the question now.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: My question is for Mr. Mosley. You said a date had been set because one had to draw the line somewhere. As far as principles go, you're perfectly right. But can you tell me, for example, why you did not choose 1919, which would have allowed us to include antique firearms weapons used during the First World War?

[English]

Mr. Mosley: Most of the modern firearms mechanisms were in fact developed before then, and are still in existence. In regard to the mechanisms currently produced, some of the patents preceded the First World War.

Mr. Lee: Could you indicate the significance of having a definition for ``antique firearm'', and whether or not it would address the concerns raised by those who do historic re-enactments of battles with weapons sometimes referred to as ``black powder'' weapons?

Mr. Mosley: In terms of clarity, I think providing a definition of what is an antique certainly helps. This particular definition is one we have discussed with antique arms collectors and it's one they readily understand. There is a clear demarcation between the types of ammunition. There are some older black powder firearms in which the mechanism was modified to permit breech loading, in which case they would in fact fire rim-fire or centre-fire ammunition. But most of the firearms actually used in black powder re-enactments, if they are true antiques - I should hasten to caution that many of the firearms used in those re-enactments are not antiques but are instead reproductions of antiques - would be distinguished by this definition.

Mr. Lee: Just to go further on that, this was an issue that caught my eye back when we were having our hearings. Is it possible that where we have a reproduction of a pre-1898 firearm it would have to be prescribed to be an antique firearm in order to benefit and protect from the regulatory ambit those who use these weapons in re-enactments?

Mr. Mosley: They could be prescribed to be antique firearms, but that's really going against the meaning of this provision. It was intended more for firearms that might not fit specifically within new paragraph 84.(a) of the definition but would be sufficiently old.

Those breech-loaded firearms that I mentioned were originally manufactured as muzzle loaders, but were modified to be breech loaded. They might well be prescribed as antiques under new paragraph 84.(b). I would think that taking a modern reproduction of an antique and classifying it as or deeming it to be an antique under this provision would go against the language of the section.

Mr. Lee: Thank you.

Mr. Wappel: Just briefly, Mr. Mosley, you brought to my attention that 1898 is in the current code because of Bill C-17. I know that a definition for ``antique firearm'' is in the code already. Since proposed section 84 was to replace section 84 of the current code, I'm interested in knowing why ``antique firearm'' wasn't there in the first place? Why do we have to deal with it by way of amendment?

.1650

Mr. Mosley: Perhaps you could look at page 63, lines 18 to 27, in the bill. Following tabling of the bill we received some representations to the effect that it would be more helpful to set it out as a definition and also to delete the last portion of what is found on page 63, the reference to``that is not commonly available in Canada''. That has caused some uncertainty under the existing provisions of the code because it's not entirely clear what it covers.

Does it cover the situation of ammunition that is sold in every Canadian Tire store or does it cover ammunition that perhaps may be imported solely for the purposes of the antique market? Because of that doubt we thought it best to delete that particular portion of the definition in the motion before you now.

Mr. Wappel: Would you be then having consequential amendments dealing with that particular proposed paragraph you referred to?

Mr. Mosley: Yes.

Mr. Wappel: Thank you.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I remember that when we had witnesses here who were part and parcel of the historical re-enactments, they were horrified to think that a serial number would have to be placed on some of their old muskets and firearms.

Will antiques require serial numbers, and if not, how will they be identified?

Mr. Mosley: Mr. Chairman, I forget the clause number, but we dealt with it last week. There is a specific provision in the firearms act that provides that in such cases the serial numbers need not be stamped onto the frame or receiver of the firearm.

Mr. Ramsay: How will those be identified?

Mr. Mosley: By reference to their other features that may assist in describing the firearm to the satisfaction of the firearms registrar.

I'm reminded by Ms Weiser that if it is a true antique, it need not be registered.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.

The Chair: Are there further questions or comments with respect to G-59?

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: Next we have LP-13.

Ms Phinney: I would like to withdraw LP-13, LP-14 and LP-15.

The Chair: LP-15 isn't on this article. It's much later on.

I understand we now have R-0017.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike ``crossbow'' from that particular proposed section. Of course, the reasoning behind it is that there is no statistical justification for the banning or prohibiting of crossbows that I'm aware of. If there is, then why does that same rationale not apply to longbows, particularly the power bows? We don't see the rationale in banning the crossbows because of the lack of empirical evidence that they're a threat to society or a danger to society. They fall, I think, in the same category as longbows.

Mr. MacLellan: We're not banning crossbows, we're just defining crossbows. I think it's very helpful to have a definition of crossbows, frankly, and I don't think we could function without it.

.1655

The Chair: Are there any other comments or questions?

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, maybe we should clear this up, because this is going to come up a few more times.

As I understand it, there are certain types of crossbows, like the one-handed trigger action, that are currently prohibited weapons, but there's no attempt to ban or prohibit the larger versions. The purpose would be that those who wish to buy them would have to obtain a licence. Would they then have a registration certificate for that crossbow as well? Is that right, or would they simply have to get a licence?

Mr. MacLellan: They'd have to get a licence, Mr. Chair, but they're not registered.

Mr. Wappel: So there's no attempt here in this bill to ban or prohibit the normal-sized crossbow, and the small hand-held ones are already prohibited.

Mr. MacLellan: Yes, exactly.

Mr. Wappel: Thank you.

Mr. Ramsay: Where is the justification for this requirement in terms of the crossbow? I go back to my original rationale. What is the rationale for the government to include crossbows in this bill? What's really the difference between the power and the threat of a crossbow and the power and the threat of one of those longbows, particularly the power bows? I don't see the rationale in it.

If the crossbow is a threat to society and a danger to society and has to be classified, then why are we allowing the longbow to go unrestricted or unclassified, if I can use that term?

Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Chairman, without indicating one way or the other, it's my understanding that crossbows can be purchased and used by virtually anyone who is inexperienced, while the use of a longbow or a compound bow requires considerable training and experience to use it effectively. That's the principal problem.

The other thing in dealing with crossbows is that it appears that even though crossbows have been used for target practice, their sales have increased quickly in very recent times because of people anticipating that they may be in a position of not being able to own firearms. Their alternative is crossbows as weapons rather than guns, and this is possibly some justification for it.

I'm not indicating one way or the other how I feel on this issue.

The Chair: Before you answer Mr. Ramsay's question, if I recall the evidence is it not true that the crossbow, first of all, can be loaded in advance and fired, whereas with the longbow you have to take the arrow out and load it?

Second, some of the crossbows are so powerful they can pierce armour. Their shafts can pierce armour, and they're more concealable than the longbow.

Would you mind commenting on those things in answering Mr. Ramsay's question as to why they're necessary and why it's necessary to have them in the bill?

Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Bodnar and you, Mr. Chairman, have hit on a few of the reasons. They are more easily concealable, and can be fixed in place and carried, whereas a longbow and a compound bow can't be.

As well, the shaft does pierce through certain protection. There is protection you can wear where it won't, but a lot of the lighter protection can be pierced because of the velocity with which the shaft travels. The range and the distance may not be any greater, but the speed at which it can travel over the shorter distance makes it very, very lethal.

There also is an increase in interest in the crossbow. We're not prohibiting it. All we're doing is saying that we wanted some idea of some of the people who have these crossbows to try to do some screening to determine whether crossbows may get into the hands of somebody who really should not have them. We feel that's a protection we should offer to society.

.1700

Mr. Ramsay: I have one final comment. I have not heard any evidence at all that these crossbows are a danger, that people are having accidents with them and are being injured. No evidence has been placed before the committee indicating that. I think one witness indicated that to their knowledge, three people have been killed. I have attended many of the gun shows, and at the gun shows I have never seen a crossbow exhibited or put up for sale, but I've seen many of the longbows, particularly the power bows, and I just don't see the common sense in regulating one and not the other.

Mrs. Barnes: I would just make a comment. I think the number is, in actual fact, five, and I'd like that verified by the officials. I looked at the weapon and I think I could use one of these effectively. I saw something that showed how when it was shot, it penetrated a very thick piece of wood to quite a significant depth.

I changed my mind after seeing that, Mr. Ramsay.

Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: We next have government amendment G-60.

Mr. Lee: Mr. Chairman, it's G-60 and G-61. These will insert into the definitions section definitions for ``export'' and ``import'' respectively.

So I would move G-60, the definition of export, and immediately following that I will do the next one.

The Chair: I'll call on you then. Are there any questions or comments with respect to amendment G-60, which is a definition of the word ``export''?

Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Lee has explained it, I think, Mr. Chairman, but it's very important to have this definition, particularly the reference of ``in transit'', if we're going to reduce the use of Canada as an in-transit point.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: Mr. Lee, now it's amendment G-61.

Mr. Lee: I propose this definition of ``import''. It includes the references to in-transit shipments as well.

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments with respect to amendment G-61?

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: Next we have amendment LW-29.

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, this amendment goes back, in effect, to talk about the discussion we had very early on about length of the firearm. On page 60, the current definition talks about a handgun barrel.

This amendment would in effect remove proposed paragraph 84(1)(b) in its entirety, because it's talking about a handgun barrel, and later on we would get to amendments that would change the definition not to handgun barrel but to handgun length, and offer a specific definition of handgun length.

I'm going to move this amendment, but it will be obvious, when it fails, that the will of the committee is not to change the definition from handgun barrel to handgun length.

Therefore, assuming for a moment this definition fails, I will then propose not to move any of my other amendments that deal with length of handgun in total as opposed to length of barrel, because the will of the committee will be obvious, that is, to remain with barrel length as opposed to total length.

.1705

On the other hand, should the committee's will be that we deal with total length as opposed to barrel length, for the reasons I put forward and the reasons Mr. Smith put forward, and by some fluke this amendment should happen to pass, then I'll move the other amendments.

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments with respect to LW-29 that deals with barrel length?

[Translation]

M. Langlois: This question is directed to Mr. Wappel. I would like him to explain to me the scope of those various amendments. What does 250 millimeters change in practice? What is the purpose of this amendment? What will it allow?

[English]

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chair, I believe I put forward a very extensive argument on day one, with appropriate quotations from the firearms officer who was involved.

With great respect to you, Mr. Langlois, I don't propose to take up the time of the committee by making those arguments again. I get the feeling I was not successful in convincing my colleagues to go with such a definition and I see no purpose in reviewing the lengthy arguments I put forward at that time. I appreciate your question and the opportunity given me to do so again, but listen, I'm a pragmatist as well as a person who's hopeful. I can read the writing on the wall.

The Chair: Are there any other questions or comments with respect to amendment LW-29?

Mr. Ramsay: His argument was so good, I wouldn't mind hearing it again.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Wappel: Let me just say in conclusion, thank you, Mr. Ramsay. I do urge members to support this amendment. I'm not throwing it away by any means. I just don't see any need to repeat something.

I think there's a very good case to be made for overall length of handgun as opposed to barrel length. I've indicated it is simply a question of line drawing. This is not a matter of philosophy, this is a matter of simple policy and we can agree or disagree, but I would urge members to support the amendment.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chair, I just have a comment. Of course we see the will of the committee, but I want to point out that when the minister introduced his proposals, he had banned handguns used in international competition because of their calibre. To his credit, when he realized what he had done, even in spite of the fact that when we asked him in the House if he would exempt the .32 calibre, he has now made that exemption.

So I think we should really look hard at Mr. Wappel's amendment here and the presentation he made on day one. I think it's common sense and it would do us all well to take a look at the direction he is taking and what it would mean to not only the shooting community but the competitors as well and those who collect these firearms. I'll be supporting the motion.

Mr. MacLellan: I, too, thought Mr. Wappel gave a very good argument in favour of using the length of the handgun rather than just the barrel length, but I guess it's like the Gettysburg address; it just wouldn't be quite the same the second time. As much as I admire what he did, particularly because he argues very well, I guess we're just not convinced we should move from the barrel length to the handgun length.

Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]

.1710

The Chair: Mr. Wappel, you said if this one was defeated there were a lot of consequential ones. Are they on this -

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, it'll be much easier if as we go along and come across them I simply advise that I'm not moving them.

The Chair: Very good.

The next one is LG-3.

Mr. Gallaway: As I proposed earlier, I won't be proceeding with that. Thank you.

The Chair: All right.

Next is LW-26.

Mr. Wappel: Here's one of them. I won't be proceeding with it.

The Chair: Then we have government amendment G-62.

Ms Phinney: I so move.

The Chair: Mr. MacLellan, this deals with calibre of cartridges.

Mr. MacLellan: It relates to taking the dots out. What we were going to do here, we haven't done in other places. So we feel we must be consistent. It was to follow up on G-9, but we have decided that we'll just leave it the way it is and we'll not proceed with -

The Chair: You're not moving G-62? It's been moved already by Ms Phinney. It's on the floor.

Mr. MacLellan: We withdraw it, if we can.

The Chair: Is there unanimous agreement to withdraw the amendment?

Mr. Ramsay: No.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: Wait until Mr. Rock hears about this: two of his amendments defeated by rebel government members.

Next we have LG-4.

Mr. Gallaway, is that another one you're not proceeding with?

Mr. Gallaway: Yes, it's withdrawn.

The Chair: Then we have LW-28.

Mr. Wappel, is that one of your consequential -

Mr. Wappel: No, this is a different one.

The Chair: Okay, you have the floor.

Mr. Wappel: This is a little bit different. This deals with the potential situation where someone has been using...and I say ``potential situation'' because I have no evidence to this effect, just some of the witnesses I heard.

By the way, we're on page 61, line 5.

The current definition talks about not including .25- or .32-calibre cartridge handguns where they were used in international sporting competitions governed by the rules of the International Shooting Union, which is fine. I've added ``or in national sporting competitions,''.

I've done that because it seems to me what we would be doing is banning all handguns unless they happened to be involved in the International Shooting Union. There may very well be - and the evidence would be up to the groups involved, not up to us - situations where there are national sporting competitions that don't go international. It seems to me that if there are in fact national sporting competitions involving handguns with .25- and .32-calibre cartridge weapons that have been going on for some time and are not put forward simply for the purposes of circumventing the act, which the minister indicated was a problem, they should be allowed.

One of my constituents has advised me that there is some sort of competition - and again, I'm not an expert on this, so I don't wish to be speaking as though I'm involved in these competitions or know about them - involving a .25- or .32-calibre cartridge that involves police weapons or former police weapons that were .25 or .32 calibre. I forget exactly what they're called, but there are national competitions where police officers compete with members of shooting clubs, with the .25- or .32-calibre gun.

.1715

Of course these would not be involved with the International Shooting Union, because they don't go outside Canada. These are competitions that are currently going on. They exist right now. They're not designed to circumvent the definition that is otherwise put into the bill, so I thought it would be appropriate that we recognize those that are in national sporting competitions.

Lest someone say that the amendment is too loose because somebody might come up with a national sporting competition between now and the time this bill will be passed, well, of course that could be easily remedied by a friendly amendment stating something to the effect of ``national sporting competitions that have occurred prior to January 1, 1995'', or something like that.

I hope that would not be an argument put forward in opposition to the amendment, because we could easily deal with that by putting in a backdate to ensure that nobody came up with competitions to circumvent the act. The purpose, however, is to preserve those competitions where legitimate competitions occurred before these proposals were brought forward but weren't necessarily international in scope.

Mr. MacLellan: On that last point on these national competitions, you're right. Without putting something to determine what was a national competition, a lot of them would be started up between now and when this bill will come into effect. Even if we set a date, say January 1, it would be difficult to verify, and administratively it would be tough.

We've asked the International Shooting Union to give us a list of the handguns that are used in international competition, but they haven't done so. They've given us just the parameters, and that's just not good enough. With that kind of a track record, to me it's very difficult to see how we could administer this. I don't think we could support it. As much as I can appreciate Mr. Wappel's intention, I just don't think it will work.

Mrs. Barnes: I would like to follow up on the point Mr. MacLellan just raised. When pressed, when the International Shooting Union was before us they said when they were questioned further about it that they were asked to give this information but they declined to do so. It isn't as though they weren't asked. They were asked before the bill was drafted, and they very clearly - because I wanted to make sure that was on the record - stated before this whole committee that they declined to outline the guns, with the idea that anything could have been used.

Mr. Lee: I understand that the wording of this clause would require a regulation that would exempt the firearm with the specific calibre. I wonder if anything beyond that is envisaged. For example, if the International Shooting Union were to come forward at some point at the behest of its members and provide in good faith a list of firearms that were then being used, may I assume that the government would, likewise in good faith, incorporate all or most of the appropriate descriptions of the firearms in an order exempting, prescribing? Is that a fair statement?

Mr. Mosley: Yes, I think it's a fair statement, and we could probably expect that once the bill has been passed by Parliament the cooperation that has been absent thus far will be provided and that a complete list of the firearms that should be exempted will be worked out with the cooperation of the Canadian representatives of the International Shooting Union.

.1720

We do have a number of those firearms identified to date, but it would be preferable if we could sit down and work with the shooting community. I think that will only happen after Parliament has adopted the bill.

Mr. Lee: I have one additional question. It says ``where the handgun is for use in international sporting competitions''. Of course, the competitive shooters have to practise and they practise outside of these shooting events. I assume they practise all the time to keep their skills up.

The wording of this section says ``where the handgun is for use in international sporting competitions'', yet that wouldn't seem to cover your basic Canadian doing his or her practise shooting at the shooting range. Perhaps you could tell me that I'm wrong in my interpretation and that a person who has one of these pistols now wouldn't have a prohibited pistol and could carry on practising.

Mr. Mosley: I think that interpretation is correct, Mr. Chairman, but that certainly doesn't prevent them from practising with the handgun they're going to use in the international competition, which would be exempted by being prescribed, or from using another type of handgun, such as a .22. The cost of practising with ammunition for a .22 would be considerably less, and .22s of course are not really affected by this. But if they have the firearm they're going to use in international competition, if that's been exempted, then they'd be able to practise with it.

I don't think .25s are involved in this debate at all; it's only the .32s that are used in these competitions. The competition Mr. Wappel referred to earlier is with the old police issue .32s, which are really a collector's item, not really a competitive shooting handgun, but they are used. Competitions can be created for just about anything.

Mr. Ramsay: I've been asked this question, and I haven't been able to answer it fully because I don't know what the prescribed conditions are going to be. How will Canada maintain its international shooters unless there are provisions provided for younger people to get involved in the sport? That's basically the question.

Under these clauses and regulations are there going to be provisions made for the acquisition of firearms or handguns of the type they use in international shooting? Are provisions going to be made for those who would like to get involved in the sport or are we going to see our international sport die out as those who are now involved simply retire?

Mr. MacLellan: I'm glad Mr. Ramsay brought that up, because I think it's a concern to a lot of members that the proud tradition Canada has in competitive shooting not be lost.

This was a concern of the minister's as well. What we've seen, certainly those of us who have talked to him about it, is his strong concern to maintain the quality of Canada's team capacity and individual capacity in international shooting competitions.

That's why we wanted the International Shooting Union to give us the firearms that are used and to work with us. I mean that very sincerely, because we don't want to see that diminished. All we want to do is to say that the irresponsible use of handguns is something we don't want to see continue.

.1725

I'd take it one step further, just on the basis of what we heard from some of the witnesses - and I think with a certain amount of justification and concern - that the young shooters who are coming up really couldn't manage the heavier handguns the adults use in competition. How would they be able to start competitive shooting with a firearm that is really so heavy they couldn't handle it? That's a point that should be looked into.

I don't know whether there are junior international competitions that may, for a certain age group, use a smaller handgun. But I'm hoping that we will get that dialogue with the International Shooting Union and that we can do everything we possibly can to do that, because the minister has said on many occasions that he doesn't want to interfere with sanctioned international competitions.

Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: We now have LW-27.

Mr. Wappel: I'm not too sure about LW-27. It deals with national sporting competitions, and the committee has rejected those, so there's no point in proceeding with it.

The Chair: LW-27 is not being put. Next we have LG-5.

Mr. Gallaway, is that another one you're -

Mr. Gallaway: It's not being presented.

The Chair: After LG-5 we have R-0018.

Mr. Ramsay: Unless the committee wants to hear my eloquent and persuasive argument on crossbows again, I'll not move this amendment.

The Chair: This is another motion to eliminate crossbows?

Mr. Ramsay: Yes.

The Chair: We've debated that at great length.

Members of the committee, this is a motion by Mr. Ramsay that would knock crossbows out of the legislation.

Mr. Ramsay: I'm not going to move it - unless you think there is hope of it passing, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I never judge those kinds of things in advance.

Next we have G-63. Ms Torsney is moving G-63, and she's about to give a long speech.

Ms Torsney: No, I prefer not to.

The Chair: Mr. MacLellan, would you explain G-63.

.1730

Mr. MacLellan: It just refers to replicas of an antique, which is not a replica, because an antique is a firearm but does not have to be registered.

The Chair: Are there any further questions or comments with respect to G-63?

Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: LP-14 was withdrawn. Next we have G-66 -

An hon. member: G-64.

The Chair: G-64 is not on my list.

Mr. Lee: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I just want to politely bring the chair's attention to the clock. We were scheduled to run until 5:30 p.m. I understand there are a large number of votes to be held in the House of Commons at 6:30 p.m. That would leave us only an hour for fuel and maintenance. I'll leave that with you. I've made my point.

The Chair: I thought this was the last amendment under Criminal Code section 84. I was going to complete that. But if it looks as though it's going to be a long debate, I'll adjourn.

We have G-64. Who's moving G-64? Mr. Gallaway?

Mr. Gallaway: I so move.

The Chair: Mr. MacLellan, what's the reason for the amendment? The word ``provide'' is the new thing in there.

Mr. MacLellan: Yes. That refers to outfitters. We think it's important to put it in there.

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments with respect to G-64?

Mr. Ramsay: I would like to know what it means.

Mr. MacLellan: It's the definition of ``transfer''. We're putting in two additional words, ``provide'' and ``rent''. We know what ``rent'' means, but ``provide'' is something that would be provided by an outfitter. It's a different definition of ``transfer'' from the one under clause 20 of the firearms act. Again, it's a different piece of legislation.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: Finally, I have G-66. Then we'll adjourn, if the amendment is not too complicated.

An hon. member: What about G-65?

The Chair: This list I have is out of date. Maybe we should adjourn.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Mr. Chairman, since we have a vote around 6:30 p.m., are we coming back afterwards? I do not know how long the bell is going to ring.

[English]

The Chair: I was going to ask you that. We were scheduled to be adjourned from 5:30 p.m. to 7 p.m. It could be that the votes may last beyond 7 p.m. Is that your understanding? I presume you want to wait until the votes are finished. Or do you want to all come running back here in the middle of the vote?

Mrs. Venne: I can come back at 7 p.m. I don't mind.

Mr. Ramsay: I would prefer to come back after the votes.

Ms Torsney: Immediately.

The Chair: Immediately after the votes? Okay.

The meeting is adjourned until 7 p.m. or soon thereafter.

;