[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, May 31, 1995
.1908 
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Ladies and gentlemen, we will commence our evening session. We're going to go until about 9:05 tonight. This is clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons.
Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): I have a point of order, Madam Chair.
In order to come to some sort of conclusion on the issue we were debating before the break, we considered bringing in the rough draft of the amendments we sent to the drafting team and using those.
But in weighing that, we have decided that since we're not drafters and since many of these may simply be rejected, as was Mr. Lee's yesterday - he had a good, well-intended amendment, but it was torn apart because of the wording - we will withdraw those amendments and will not ask for any clauses to be stood because of it. We will work towards getting those amendments before the House at report stage.
.1910
In saying that, I want to ensure we dispel any suggestion that this was a delaying tactic or that we have any intentions of doing that. On April 21, 1995 I sent a memorandum of concern addressed to Warren Allmand, who is the chairman of our committee. I sent copies to Mr. MacLellan, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice; to Mr. Richard Dupuis, the Clerk of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs; and to Mr. Robert Marleau, the Clerk of the House of Commons.
On page 2 I addressed this very issue of our concern. I'd like to read a short paragraph from it:
- As well, the two days, May 30 and 31, scheduled for clause-by-clause amendments, are
virtually impossible. Members of the committee simply will not have sufficient time between
finishing hearings on May 19 and May 30 to review all witnesses' testimony, read the numerous
written submissions and then prepare amendments accordingly. Legal counsel does not have
the resources to handle in a week's time the number of amendments we anticipate, given the
complexity of C-68 and the opposition to many parts of the bill.
These are the copies of all our draft amendments that went forward to the drafting team. There are 268 of them, but many are consequential. Nevertheless, because of what transpired just before the break, it seems there is not the willingness to have clauses stood because we have amendments that will be forthcoming.
We will proceed with the amendments we have had returned to us and see if we can't get them into a draft form that will be acceptable to the Clerk of the House of Commons. We'll proceed at report stage with those amendments.
Thank you for your time.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. Ramsay, as I understand it, you're still free to ask for unanimous consent for anything, as is any other member of this committee. I will be dealing with the clauses in exactly the same way, but I thank you for your enlightenment tonight.
Mr. Hill (Prince George - Peace River): I would like to make a couple of quick points on the same point of order dealing with our amendments, if it's acceptable with the chair.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Please go ahead in a fairly rapid manner, because I thinkMr. Ramsay has already put your position on the table.
Mr. Hill: My concern is about a couple of statements that were made before the break. One was that we could have used our own resources; the second was that we could have used the justice department, as have some other MPs. I'd like to briefly address those if I may.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I think this is out of order because I'm sure not all of that was on the record. We've dealt with the point of order and I would like to proceed to the clause-by-clause.
Clause 68 agreed to on division
On clause 69-Revocation of registration certificate
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): On clause 69, we have amendment G-35.
.1915
Mr. Wappel (Scarborough West): This particular amendment initially renumbers clause 69 so that there are subclauses (1) and (2)
The second subclause deals with the automatic revocation of a registration certificate if there is any alteration in a prohibited firearm. In other words, if you alter an altered weapon, you will automatically have your registration certificate revoked.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and to the Attorney General of Canada): The same exists in section 109 of the Criminal Code.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 69 as amended agreed to on division
On clause 70 - Notice of refusal to issue or revocation
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): There are two amendments to clause 70, LP-7 and G-36. I think we'll deal first with LP-7.
Ms Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): I would like to remove my amendment, LP-7, since the government amendment includes the spirit of my amendment.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Okay, thank you.
Ms Phinney: G-36 is concerning a notice of refusal of issue of a licence. On the fourth line of the amendment it says ``must include comprehensive reasons''. I'd like to scratch out the word ``comprehensive''.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Okay.
Ms Phinney: This amendment reads:
- That clause 70 of Bill C-68 be amended by striking out lines 38 to 40 on page 32 and
substituting the following:
- must include reasons for the decision disclosing the nature of the information relied on for the
decision and must be accompanied by a copy of sections 72 to 79.
- It continues, giving four reasons in (3), (4), (5) and (6) for when there would be non-disclosure
of this information.
Mr. MacLellan: Again, it's just to correspond with the Criminal Code. When someone is refused or revoked, we must have good reasons. In subclauses (4), (5) and (6), we want to assure the firearms owners that their firearms, weapons and ammunition certificates are not allowed to be revoked without reason. What we're proposing is now in section 112 of the Criminal Code.
Ms Torsney (Burlington): I'd just like to point out that in the French version of course détaillés would have to be removed as well.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 70 as amended agreed to on division
Clause 71 agreed to on division
On clause 72 - Reference to judge of refusal to issue or revocation, etc.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): On clause 72, we have amendment G-36.1.
.1920
Ms Torsney: I'll move it, and the witnesses can give further explanation.
Mr. Wappel: I have a point of order. I wish to move from the floor an amendment to paragraph 72(1)(a). If we deal with G-36.1 first, will that preclude me from doing so?
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): The clerk tells me there will be a problem if Mr. Wappel goes second.
So Mr. Wappel, you're going to do an amendment from the floor without notice, which is perfectly within your rights. Do we have some written material?
Mr. Wappel: Yes, I have it in writing, but before I do that, I have to confirm something with the government witnesses. We passed an amendment in which a provincial minister who refuses a licence to a shooting range or shooting club or revokes the licence of a shooting range or shooting club has to give reasons. I just can't remember whether that revocation would be subject to review under clauses 72 to 79.
I'm sorry; what were you showing me?
A voice: It's dealt with in amendment G-36.1, under (c).
Mr. Wappel: So that will be dealt with in this particular one? All right.
It doesn't affect my amendment; I just wanted to know if I had to broaden my amendment.
Madam Chair, I move that clause 72 be amended by inserting, after the word ``certificate'' in line 9 on page 33, the words ``authorization to carry''.
This comes from our discussion yesterday of clause 55. At that time we found out that those authorizations to carry are fairly rare, but there is apparently no appeal procedure.
While this particular clause does include authorization to transport, it does not include authorization to carry. It seems to me that if a firearms officer refuses to issue an authorization to carry, there should at least be recourse to a provincial court judge to review that authorization. That is the purpose of my amendment.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. Wappel, I just want to clarify something.
In your movement from the floor you're going to change something by adding those words, but if we do the government amendment next and it's accepted, those lines will be gone.
.1925
Mr. Wappel: Well, I don't know how to do it then.
A voice: You're amending G-36.1.
Mr. Wappel: Has G-36.1 been moved?
A voice: Yes.
Mr. Wappel: Then perhaps you would be so kind as to see it as an amendment to the amendment.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Okay. We can do it that way. I just wanted to make sure.
Mr. Wappel: Then you would forget the page number and the line number and simply insert in (a) of amendment G-36.1, after the word ``certificate'' and before the words ``authorization to transport'', the words ``authorization to carry''.
Mr. MacLellan: Are we dealing with Mr. Wappel's motion now?
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Yes, we are.
Mr. MacLellan: This is the one I really have problems with. I've always felt that the number of people who can carry handguns should be as small as possible, and that's the position of the government.
I said yesterday that I thought there were 100 people who were authorized to carry handguns in Canada. There are in fact 33. There is no appeal, as Mr. Wappel has said. Frankly, when I see what is going on in some states in the United States with the right to carry concealed weapons, it really concerns me. I honestly don't believe the minister would consent to this. I don't think he'd want it.
So I have to disagree with Mr. Wappel's amendment.
Mr. Wappel: Of course I'm listening very carefully to the parliamentary secretary, but we're talking about a legal proceeding whereby a provincial court judge would be bound by certain rules of evidence and by an examination of what the act says.
My concern is capriciousness, as always. My concern is an unanswerable bureaucracy. Am I hearing that the fear is if the matter becomes reviewable by provincial courts, suddenly there will be a flood of people carrying concealed weapons? I think that's paranoia.
Mr. MacLellan: If there is an unfair review, there is still the mandamus procedure that can be followed.
Another concern is if everyone who wants to carry a handgun is denied - and I'm sure there would be a lot who would want to if they thought they could - it would really clog the court systems in some areas.
I don't think they're being denied the procedure now. If there's an unfair hearing, they still have a mandamus application. I know it's not the same as providing in here for an appeal procedure. It's not as easy, it wouldn't be as effective and it wouldn't be granted as often.
If we granted this, we'd have to set down criteria for why a person should be granted the right to carry a handgun. Once we start that and grant the criteria, it will be open season on the applications. I think it's going to open the door.
Mr. Ramsay: I support this amendment, not because I think it would result in more applications or more firearms permits being issued for this purpose, but because it strikes at privilege.
Why is the government now issuing licences in this regard if there's no need? If there's a need for 35 people or however many there are, maybe next year there will be need for more. Why do we not have a criterion to be met, and once that criterion is met, why isn't is mandatory that the authorization be granted?
.1930
Mr. MacLellan: The more we issue, the more it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy that those who do have them will necessitate others being able to justify having them.
The fact of the matter is that carrying firearms in Canada is not allowed, nor should it be. We do recognize there are situations where people are in very precarious positions. Their lives are in danger. But they are unique circumstances on the fact situation, and they are granted on the fact situation. To bring out a criterion for this would change the whole complexion of this privilege.
Mr. Ramsay: There is a criterion, or they wouldn't be issued. The fact is the criterion has not been legalized or formalized in legislation to the extent that there is a mandatory requirement if a criterion is met.
So really what we're talking about is if I have a problem, I go in and see whoever I have to see. If they think the circumstances warrant it, they can grant me that right. If they don't think it's warranted, they don't have to grant it, although someone in a privileged position can come in with no other requirement greater than mine and be granted it.
First of all, is there a criterion spelled out somewhere, and if there is, what is that criterion? I'd like to know. We now have some thirty that have been issued. Based upon what criteria have they been issued?
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I'm just going to say that I'll allow this question, but we're straying a little bit. The clause is about the appeal provision that is to be implemented, and now we're getting back to the original criterion, which has nothing to do with what this amendment is about.
Mr. Ramsay: I think it's relevant, though.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): You can answer if you wish.
Mr. MacLellan: I can't tell Mr. Ramsay anything different from what I've said already.
This government takes a very dim view of people carrying firearms. We feel that the more people who carry them, the more people who are going to feel they're justified in carrying them for protection. That is not what we want to start, because it starts a cycle that just goes on and on until people are buying firearms for protection and carrying them, and you have laws for the privilege of carrying concealed weapons. That's not what we want.
The fact of the matter is the criterion is the urgency of the safety of the individual, and that has to be paramount. You cannot bring that forward, because it has to be dealt with on the fact situations, and there has to be an official who looks at this.
Frankly, I haven't seen many cases in this country of people saying so and so was shot because he wasn't allowed to carry a firearm. A lot of women are stalked by boyfriends and husbands and who are assaulted. If you were to start allowing people to carry firearms, I think you should start with them.
The government likes to think that if we can have safe storage and registration, we can stop those killings in another, more effective way.
Mr. Hill: Getting back to the clause, your concern seems to be that if we allow the insertion of this appeal process for the licence to carry, it would, to use your words, ``flood the courts''.
.1935
The other statement in there is ``authorization to transport''. Those authorizations are out there now. I don't know how many thousands or hundreds of thousands there are out there. Since the appeal process is already in place for the authorization to transport, could you tell us how often it's been used? If people have been refused an authorization to transport a restricted handgun, for example, between their home and their shooting range, how often have they appealed? That might give us some idea of what the chances are that the courts would be flooded.
Mr. MacLellan: The authorization to transport is really not the same thing at all. It applies to those who belong to gun clubs or who are going to gun shows and want to transport their firearms for those purposes. These are not firearms that are being allowed to be transported for self-defence. It's an entirely different category.
Mr. Hill: I think you missed my point. I'm not arguing that it's a different case between authorization to carry and authorization to transport. What I'm trying to get at is how often have people taken leave of an appeal process and flooded the courts because they were refused the authorization to transport a restricted firearm between their home and the shooting range?
Mr. MacLellan: I know I could go on with my logic in great detail, but I think it would probably be more convincing if we had Mr. Vic Rambaut of the RCMP give a little more of the detail of this.
Sergeant Victor Rambaut (NCO in Charge of Legislation and Regulations, Firearms Registration and Administration, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): The situations where these are issued are extremely rare. As you heard earlier, approximately 33 have been issued in all jurisdictions of Canada, including by the Commissioner of the RCMP.
The existing legislation covering that today, paragraph 110(2)(a) of Bill C-17, ``to protect life'', has to involve a threat assessment that the police would prepare. It would have to be convincing enough to show that they just simply could not provide the protection that normally would be given by the police to any individual. That's why it's extremely rare. You're talking about one in almost a million Canadians.
Mr. Hill: We're not talking about opening up the process to allow people to carry a firearm. What we're talking about is having an appeal process so that if they are refused, they have an avenue open to appeal to a provincial court judge. At least that's how I understand Mr. Wappel's amendment.
I understand there are now only 33 in the country. How many requests have there been to carry firearms? In other words, do we have some idea of how many have been refused and therefore what the chances are that we would plug the court system with appeals?
Mr. MacLellan: It's important that there be consistency in the granting of this privilege. In each province, the chief firearms officer or the Commissioner of the RCMP has the right to grant this permit to carry a firearm. There is a consistency with that group.
If you went to provincial courts, there are over 700 provincial court judges in Canada, and goodness knows what kind of record there would be - I wouldn't even use the word ``consistency'' - in granting these. I don't want to say that and make disparaging remarks on provincial court judges, because it's not really their role, per se, to be into this area.
But I would think there would be a lot of requests. There would be a lot of pressure on them to grant these, and I just don't think there would be the consistency necessary. I think it would get out of hand.
.1940
Mr. Bodnar (Saskatoon - Dundurn): You've indicated that there is a remedy of mandamus that goes to the superior court in whichever province. It's my understanding that once an order like this is made, the remedy is one - and we'll get into legalese here - of certiorari with mandamus in aid.
Certiorari is very restricted; you have to show a denial of natural justice. It has nothing to do with the merits of an individual case. In other words, if the firearms officer or whoever is issuing it agrees to give the person a hearing, the person appears, states his position, gives all the documentation, etc., and the firearms officer just looks him in the eye and says no, there is no remedy, because certiorari will not apply. Therefore mandamus is not available.
Therefore in effect there's no appeal procedure.
Mr. MacLellan: I'm not disagreeing with Mr. Bodnar. What we're saying is if the person does get a hearing and the chief firearms officer says no, then it should be no.
Mr. Bodnar: Perhaps there should be an appeal, if not to a provincial court judge, then perhaps, in these exceptional cases, because they're so few, to the chief justice of the province. In other words, if you want consistency, you'll have one of ten people deciding this.
I simply give you that as a suggestion you may wish to consider. As much as you and I don't want to see these permits around, I still would like to see that people aren't capriciously denied these particular licences. Let a chief justice look at it.
Mr. MacLellan: That's possible, Mr. Bodnar. I don't think it's going to warrant you any Christmas cards, though, from the chief justices in Canada.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Bodnar: With my success rate before our court of appeal, I haven't had any Christmas cards yet.
Mr. MacLellan: I wonder if any of the members do have any examples of capricious denial of this kind of request. I'm not trying to put members on the spot; I'm just saying I don't know that there's been a tremendous outcry in this country for the right to carry firearms.
It seems to me that as long as the criterion is very strict and those who can grant this privilege are few and are consistently applying it, Canadians are relatively satisfied. I don't have any examples to the contrary.
Mr. Lee (Scarborough - Rouge River): I'm pleasantly pleased to hear that there are only 33 permits to carry out there, but could I confirm something? The permit to carry is not the permit that would be used by the employee of an armed security company, is it? Is that a different class of permit?
Mr. MacLellan: Yes.
Mr. Lee: What's the name of that permit?
Mr. Richard Mosley (Assistant Deputy Minister, Criminal and Social Policy Sector, Department of Justice): That would be for use in connection with the lawful profession or occupation of that individual.
Mr. Lee: Okay, I understand. I was about to say I know a case of a denial, but that would have been a case involving an individual who was an employee of such a company. Ultimately right was done.
Can I confirm as well that there is an appeal for denial of a permit to an individual who is an employee? What this amendment is concerned about is arbitrariness and capriciousness, with the citizen not having any remedy at all other than the very sophisticated, costly remedy of certiorari with mandamus in aid.
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Lee is right; there isn't an appeal process for this category.
Mr. Lee: For the employee category?
Mr. MacLellan: That's right; there isn't.
As I say, in that category too, I don't know anyone who's lodged a complaint about not having the right. It's usually the employer who would be upset.
Mr. Lee: Keep in mind, Madam Chairman, that although I may be moving slightly out of order here because it may not apply precisely to the amendment -
.1945
Ms Torsney: On a point of order, the territory Mr. Lee is discussing is not in the clause we are considering, nor is it in the amendment being considered right now.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Correct.
Ms Torsney: I'm sorry, Derek.
Mr. Lee: I'll accept your apology, Ms Torsney, but I intend to raise the point as we continue consideration of clause 72.
Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Thank you.
The sub-amendment is what's on the floor now.
Mr. Hill: Madam Chairman, with all due respect, I didn't get any answer when I asked for some statistics or numbers that would indicate why the paranoia about allowing an appeal process for these people.
On one hand you were saying a minute ago, Mr. MacLellan, that you're concerned it would flood the courts if we were to have this appeal process in place. Now you're saying you don't know anyone and you've challenged anyone else to know of anyone. How can you have it both ways?
Here again, we're talking about accountability. Could you could give us some idea of the numbers? How many who requested a licence to carry were refused and subsequently murdered, raped or assaulted? Perhaps, had they been granted that or had there been an appeal process where they could have gone to the courts and had a firearm to protect themselves....
As you say, it's very rare. They're very few in number, and certainly we support that. We don't want to see widespread use of carrying permits out there. But are any of those kinds of numbers available to help us in our deliberations on this sub-amendment?
Mr. MacLellan: They're doing renovations on the Peace Tower. We haven't had one request for anyone to bungee-jump off the Peace Tower, but if we were to say that perhaps it could be permissible after the renovations, I would imagine we would get people who would want to do it.
I don't want to exaggerate, but this is how this sort of thing works. There's really no need for this procedure to be changed, Mr. Hill. I'm at a loss to understand why we would want to open this up.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): We're getting into the realm of the hypothetical here.
Mr. Hill: With all due respect, I'm sure you didn't mean to trivialize this matter.
What I was trying to ask is this. Have you any idea of the numbers of people who requested a licence to carry for their personal protection because they were being stalked or because they felt their life was in danger, were refused and were subsequently murdered, assaulted, raped or whatever? I'd like to know so that we can begin to understand if perhaps it's necessary, in extenuating circumstances, to have an appeal process to protect those citizens.
Mr. MacLellan: No, I don't know of anyone who requested to carry a firearm for that purpose and was refused. I agree, though; that is a concern.
From speaking with the police, I understand they believe they are able to handle situations like that. I know we have far too many situations where primarily women are not safeguarded, because they wind up being the victims of irate boyfriends or husbands. It's a tragedy.
We're going to have to look at tragedies like that in this country, perhaps with more determination than we have in the past, but the idea of giving them firearms to protect themselves does not seem to be the best way to approach it, nor would the police agree with that procedure.
Ms Torsney: Can we have the question?
Sub-amendment negatived
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Now we go to G-36.1.
.1950
Ms Torsney: It's already on the floor. I moved it previously. The officials were going to give some comment.
Mr. MacLellan: This clause provides an appeal reference procedure for a person whose licence registration certificate, authorization or renewal has been refused or revoked.
This motion is consequential to new clause 28, which requires that all shooting clubs and ranges be approved by a provincial minister. This motion would expand the reference procedure to shooting clubs or shooting ranges not given approval by a provincial minister.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Is there any further discussion?
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne (Saint-Hubert): I know that laws are not written in the same way in English and French, but I would like to know whether the "or" found in the English version, such as the one at the end of 72(1)b)i) and at u), i) and c) are also found in French. I admit that I did not have the time to look closely at all the amendments which we received last night, but I would like to know if we have the equivalent in French. I do not see it and we might have to add it. Have the legal advisors had time to look at that? They can perhaps tell us whether or not they saw these "or".
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. Côté.
Mr. Côté (Legal Advisor): They are not there but they are not always required. Moreover, we have been asked not to put any "or" in the French version between b) and c).
Mrs. Venne: They are not necessary.
Mr. Côté: They are not necessary and the meaning is quite clear.
Mrs. Venne: Fine.
The second thing I want to ask concerns the approval. I imagine that the word "agrément" in French is "approval" in English. What is meant here? Is this an addition? What exactly is meant by "agrément"? Is this the same as an approval?
[English]
Mr. MacLellan: It is an addition, and it's consequential to the change we made in clause 28.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: I have a problem with the translation of the word "approval" in French. Do you translate that by "approuve"?
Mr. Yvan Roy (General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy, Department of Justice): If you go to motion G-18 of the government, you will see that section 28 was amended to read as follows: "no person shall...except under an approval of the provincial minister...". This is the same approval as the one mentioned in section 72.
Mrs. Venne: I now understand what you mean by "agrément", but is the word used very often? Is it not generally "approbation"? Perhaps it is not very important.
Mr. Roy: I believe it is simply a matter of style. I could not say which word is preferable, but the word"agrément is used in French, even in federal statutes.
Mrs. Venne: I do not want to have a heated discussion on the subject, Madam Chair, but for me, "agrément" is something happy. I find it somewhat strange to see this word in federal legislation. That's all.
[English]
Mr. Lee: In the last line of discussion I had with the witnesses, it was indicated that there was a number of classes of licence and only some of them would be appealable here. I'm wondering if the current list of appealable licensing or authorization transactions in the new legislation increases or decreases the categories of appealable transactions as they are in the existing legislation before we amended. Is there an increase or decrease?
.1955
Mr. Mosley: There's an increase in one respect, and it's again consequential to the amendment to clause 28. In the existing appeal provisions of the Criminal Code there's nothing comparable to the refusal of the provincial minister to approve or revoke the approval. That's an addition. Otherwise it's comparable to the existing rights.
Mr. Lee: Just to confirm, an employee of a security company who is refused a permit to carry - or under the new legislation, authorization to carry - does not now under the old legislation and would not under the new legislation have any right of appeal under this clause 72, notwithstanding that the refusal might be arbitrary, capricious or without criteria. Notwithstanding the existence of those difficulties, we have not provided for any form of appeal.
Mr. Mosley: There would be no appeal under clause 72, but an arbitrary or capricious decision would be reviewable by way of a prerogative writ.
Mr. Lee: As discussed earlier.
Thank you.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Lee: Madam Chair, I think there's an amendment standing in my name in relation to clause 72.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): It's not listed on my schedule here.
Mr. Lee: It's not on your list?
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): It's not on our list and it's not in our package. Are you talking about LL-6?
Mr. Lee: Formerly LL-7, now called LL-6. Yes, that's it.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): The clerk advises me that there's a problem now, because what you have here has already been deleted.
Mr. Lee: It was never in.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): It has been amended. Are you now trying to amend this amendment now?
Mr. Lee: Yes.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): You will amend G-36.1, which we just passed?
Mr. Lee: Yes.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Okay.
Mr. Lee: Before we get too technical on this, on reading my proposed amendment for the eighth or ninth time and on reading the existing clause, even as amended, I'm wondering if I may have misconstrued the contents of clause 9.
My amendment would include in the list of items that would be appealable a determination made by the registrar or chief firearms officer clause 9.
Could I ask the parliamentary secretary or Mr. Mosley a question? On rereading clause 9, I'm starting to come to the conclusion that any determination a chief firearms officer could make under clause 9 could only benefit the business involved and would never be in the negative, so there wouldn't be much to appeal.
Would that be a fair reading of it?
.2000
Mr. MacLellan: Yes.
Mr. Lee: If that's the case, then I have misconstrued the clause and my amendment needn't ever have been made, because it tries to correct a problem that doesn't exist. I'm sorry it's there and I'm sorry for taking the committee's time. I withdraw whatever is there without moving it.
Thank you.
Clause 72 as amended agreed to on division
On clause 73 - Hearing of reference
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I have just been handed an amendment on clause 73; it is being circulated right now. It's G-36.1.1. We need a mover.
Ms Torsney: I'd be happy to move this amendment.
Mr. Bodnar: What is the difference between the two sheets of paper?
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I think we have two English versions stapled together.
Mr. Bodnar: That's what I have.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Do other people in the room have two French versions?
Some hon. members: No.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Is there a French version, Mr. MacLellan? Could you please advise us?
Mr. MacLellan: Oh, we have it here.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): There is one here; it just hasn't been distributed. It needs to be photocopied. We can either stand this down for five minutes and come back to it or move on to the next one, if it isn't consequential.
Mr. Ramsay: I have a very brief amendment to this clause, if we could go to that. Would that be in order?
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): May I have unanimous consent to stand amendment G-36.1.1?
Mr. Ramsay: No, no. I have an amendment that I'm prepared to make.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): An amendment to this one?
Mr. Ramsay: Yes. It's a very short one on page 34.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): It's not a subamendment?
Mr. Ramsay: No.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): So it's another amendment.
Mr. Ramsay: Would that be in order?
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): How long is it going to take for the photocopying - five minutes? We have the choice of having a five-minute adjournment, which I think might be less confusing for all parties concerned.
Mr. Ramsay: Agreed.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): We'll come back in five minutes to have the French version and then deal with it in the proper order. We have one without translation and one that's not in writing.
We're adjourned for five minutes only.
.2005
PAUSE
.2012
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): We'll resume the meeting. Does everyone have G-36.1.1?
Mr. MacLellan: Once again, it's just a consequential amendment to new clause 28 on the approval by a provincial minister of shooting clubs and ranges. The motion would expand the hearing and evidence requirements to shooting clubs or shooting ranges that were not given approval by a provincial minister, the same as before.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. Ramsay, you alluded to having another amendment before I go to the main clause.
Mr. Ramsay: Yes, Madam Chair. It's on subclause 73(3).
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): In the text or on the amendment?
Mr. Ramsay: I think the text is almost the same in the area that I'm making my sub-amendment.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Can I just make sure we're all in the right place? Amendment G-36.1.1, the one we just passed, is that where you wish to do your sub-amendment?
Mr. Ramsay: Yes. It's on subclause 73(3), which starts with ``At the hearing of the reference, the burden of proof is on''.
From that point on, I would like to strike ``the applicant or holder'' and replace it with the words ``the chief firearms officer''. That eliminates the reverse onus. The chief firearms officer would have to establish reasons for revocation or establish that it's justified.
Mr. MacLellan: Madam Chair, that just can't be done, because this is an appeal and the applicant is the appellant. We can't change it; it wouldn't be an appeal.
.2015
Mr. Ramsay: Madam Chair, I would ask for an opinion from our legal counsel on that question.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Is it true?
[English]
Ms Torsney: On a point of order, are we not amending something we have already passed? This should have been considered a sub-amendment to the amendment and we should have voted on the sub-amendment before we got to the amendment.
An hon. member: That wasn't approved.
Ms Torsney: Yes, it was. Amendment G-36.1.1 has already been approved and now we are having an amendment to the amendment, so it's academic whether or not the legal counsel want to comment on it. It's already too late.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): We tried to deal with it, and because of the confusion and not having a paper, we got this in front of us. If that has been done, it's been done with my permission and without the intention of my doing it. I followed the clerk's advice and this is what we did when we broke for the amendment.
It's very difficult for people, when they don't have pieces of paper in front of them, to approve something they can't see. That's the reason it was done in this order. This was not approved at the time.
Ms Torsney: We just voted on it.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Yes, the intention was to do that, so if you want to undo it properly in that order, I will require unanimous consent to go backwards to deal with that. I'm just going to verify with the clerk to see if that's the correct procedure.
Do we have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Now we will continue.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye (Portneuf): On a point of order, Madam Chair.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Yes.
Mr. de Savoye: I would like to have some clarification about the procedure. Amendment 36.1.1 was approved a few moments ago. Before it was passed, there was a possibilitiy that it might not be, that it might be rejected, isn't that so?
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): That's right.
Mr. de Savoye: So, it would not have been in order to amend something that had not yet been approved.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): That's the way I originally did it, but I see the technical point Ms Torsney makes.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: If you will allow me to continue my argument... So, clause 73 has not yet been approved. We have yet to approve it. Therefore, it can be amended.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): That's the way I originally did it, but Ms Torsney has raised a point about the normal order in which we do things, so I'm trying to accommodate everybody and be fair. The end result is exactly the same, but I realize both of your points to me.
Mr. de Savoye: [Inaudible]...the next time around.
The Vice-Chair: It was very difficult to get those because unfortunately one was verbal and one had no paper. I'm trying to do this in a manner that will get everybody with the information before them, but I agree that we did it in a manner that was acceptable before.
We are now dealing with the sub-amendment, as I understand it. Is that clear to everybody?
I'm just going to check with the clerk. Is that the correct procedure to deal with this?
The Clerk of the Committee: Yes.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Let's continue then, please.
The legislative counsel was in the middle of that point of order, so please proceed.
Mr. Ramsay: I asked for an interpretation from our legal counsel with regard toMr. MacLellan's response to this amendment. I don't know if they heard it, but that's I'm asking for.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. MacLellan gave his answer about the appellant.
Mr. MacLellan: In subsection 106(17) of the Criminal Code, it says:
- In a hearing under subsection (16), the burden of proof is on the applicant for the firearms
acquisition certificate to satisfy the provincial court judge that the refusal to issue the firearms
acquisition certificate was not justified.
In subsection 112(12) it says:
- A provincial court judge shall dispose of an appeal under subsection (8) heard by him by
dismissing it unless the applicant establishes to the satisfaction of the provincial court judge that
a disposition referred to in paragraph (11)(b) is warranted.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Counsel is asked to comment on that.
Mr. Côté: The only comment I would make is that normally when there's an appeal, the burden of proof is on the applicant.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Does that answer your question, Mr. Ramsay?
Mr. Ramsay: Yes.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Are there questions on this sub-amendment?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): On 73(3), where does the burden of proof lie? I understand that it's being specified here. It is the first hearing that is held before the provincial court. And during the first hearing before a court of justice and not before an official, during the first hearing by a judge, in general, the onus is reversed. This deals with an appeal, but remember that what is being appealed is more or less a departmental decision taken by an official. I find that the burden placed on the applicant is rather heavy, since he must convince, in the first instance, a legally established court of justice that his request is justified. I find that the amendment has some merits. Obviously, if there is an appeal to a higher court where the judges are appointed pursuant to section 96, I could understand that the onus be reversed and that it be up to the appellant to prove his case against the decision. This provision deals only with the first stage and I find that this is a rather hasty reversal of the burden of proof.
[English]
Mr. MacLellan: It's an appeal.
Go ahead, Mr. Bodnar.
Mr. Bodnar: That's precisely it; it's still an appeal. It's an appeal from the hearing granted by the firearms officer, who is acting as a judicial officer under the act, and it's an appeal to a provincial court. Then it can go as an appeal to a superior court after that. It's still an appeal. An appeal is an appeal.
Sub-amendment negatived
Clause 73 as amended agreed to on division
On clause 74 - Decision by provincial court judge
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): On clause 74, there is one amendment that I'm aware of, G-36.2.
Mr. Wappel: Madam Chair, I'd be happy to move this amendment. This amendment in effect is consequential to G-18, which was passed and which requires the provincial minister to give reasons for refusing a licence for a shooting club or range or for the revocation thereof.
This provides the provincial court judge with the power to confirm the decision of the provincial minister or, in the alternative, to direct the provincial minister to approve the club.
.2025
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois.
Mr. Langlois: I will be very brief. In the French version, in 74.(b): ``d'enjoindre au contrôleur des armes à feu...'', the verb ``enjoindre'' is transitive, which means that it shoud be constructed ``d'enjoindre le contrôleur'' and not ``d'enjoindre au contrôleur''. I have my sources here, Madam Chair.
Mr. Roy: Madam Chair, it would be difficult to argue against le Robert and le Larousse. So, if it must be ``le'', it will be ``le''.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Shall we have that subamendment changed in the French only?
Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I'll call the question on G-36.2 as amended in the French version.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 74 as amended agreed to on division
On clause 75 - Appeal to superior court
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): We will consider amendment G-36.3.
Mr. Bodnar: I'll move that. You'll note from the proposed amendment of G-36.3 that it's the addition to paragraph 75(2)(b) of the words ``or to the provincial minister.''
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 75 as amended agreed to on division
On clause 76 - Notice of appeal
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): There are two amendments: G-37 and G-36.4.
I just want to check with the clerk as to the order. G-37 is called first, which is why I'm questioning it.
Ms Phinney: G-37 is an amendment in the French version on clause 76. We're going to strike out lines 18 and 19 on page 35 and replace ``du contrôleur des armes à feu'' with ``du directeur''.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Yes, madam Chair, there was no problem, it's just that the word ``contrôleur des armes à feu'' was repeated twice. This is just a correction; there's no problem.
[English]
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): We'll move to G-36.4.
Ms Phinney: The English section of that same clause 76 is amended by striking out lines 32 and 33 on page 35 and substituting what's written on the paper. What we're really doing is adding the word ``approval'' on line 33.
Mr. MacLellan: This a consequential amendment as a result of an earlier clause we passed, Madam Chair.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Madam Chair, do you understand what I'm saying?
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): About what?
Mr. de Savoye: You've taken five seconds between the end of my sentence and the end of the translation.
For us, it is the same in reverse, and we're still five seconds behind you. If you could just wait five seconds to make sure the translation is over, I'd appreciate it.
.2030
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I understand your point.
Mr. de Savoye: We're checking to see if it's equivalent in French. We're having a bit of a problem because the two clauses are quite differently phrased. Bear with us for 10 or 15 seconds, please.
Clause 76 as amended agreed to on division
On clause 77 - Disposition of appeal
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Do I have a mover for amendment G-37.1?
Mr. Wappel: I'll move that. This is an amendment to clause 77 on lines 44 to 46 on page 35 and lines 1 to 4 on page 36 that deals with directing the provincial minister to approve a shooting club or shooting range. This proposed amendment is directly consequential upon new amendment G-18, which was passed, and a subsequent amendment just very recently passed. Therefore I so move it.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 77 as amended agreed to on division
Clauses 78 and 79 agreed to on division
On clause 80 - Appointment of Registrar of Firearms
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton - Melville): The thing that concerns me about clause 80 is the word ``consulting''. I am wondering what the interpretation of that word is. What kind of a process is implied in this clause?
Mr. MacLellan: It's really just a courtesy that the Commissioner of the RCMP would discuss with the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General someone who is going to be appointed to a very senior position in the country.
Mr. Breitkreuz: My concern is that it may be a political appointment or that it could be subject to that kind of thing. Is the commissioner not appointed by the Solicitor General himself or the federal minister himself?
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I think we're talking about the appointment of the registrar of firearms here, not the...
.2035
Mr. Breitkreuz: What you have here is that the commissioner is appointed. He would be required to consult with the federal minister. I'm wondering if that's an arm's-length transaction.
Mr. MacLellan: The requirement is for the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General to know in advance. When you have an appointment like that, you are going to be asked questions on the appointment. It would give the two ministers time to know something about this person before the actual appointment becomes public.
I can assure you that the appointment is going to come from the public service; it's not going to be a political appointment. It's far too sensitive a job to make a political appointment here. It's going to come from within the public service.
Mr. Ramsay: Say I'm the Solicitor General and the commissioner has to come to me. If I say I don't like this guy, then what does the commissioner do?
Ms Torsney: He finds another guy.
Mr. Ramsay: I could say that I think he should be looking over here. Here are two or three names, or here's one name.
Mr. MacLellan: Madam Chair, frankly, I do not think this would be the first time that the commissioner would be speaking with the Solicitor General on this question. Evidently there would be a vacancy, and this would be a very obviously vacancy. The discussion would be on who was going to take this position.
Certainly the Commissioner of the RCMP would be in the best position to know someone who could handle this competently, not from the point of view of whom they voted for.
Frankly, a government that appointed the wrong person in this position could get itself into a lot of trouble if that person didn't know how to do the job. All the political expediency in the world would not make it worthwhile to appoint the wrong person in this position.
As I said, there would be discussions over quite a period of time. The consultation as to the appointment is to allow the two ministers time to know something about this person before it becomes public. I see that as the only reason for this provision.
Mr. Ramsay: I think this has to do with the separation of powers between those who create the legislation and those who are charged, at least in part, with the administration of it.
I would feel more comfortable - certainly back in the days when I was in the RCMP, there was a very distinct division of power - if the Commissioner of the RCMP, after consulting with his officials, would simply notify the minister and the Solicitor General of the qualified individual whom he had selected for that position. Rather than ``consulting'', I would feel far better about the word ``notify''.
Mr. MacLellan: This goes back to the principle of the RCMP reporting through the Solicitor General. This is one area in which the commissioner would be reporting through the Solicitor General.
The person who holds this position is not going to be an Order in Council appointment. It's going to be an appointment under the Public Service Employment Act. You could say there would be patronage in all appointments of the Public Service Employment Act. That just isn't happening at the federal level.
Mr. Lee: I just wanted to point out to Mr. Ramsay that the term ``consulting'' has been very fully judicially considered. At least in my experience, it has. It's a term that is used from time to time around this place in making appointments.
Consultation would be perhaps one notch above a simple notification, but one or two notches below a need to obtain the approval first or to put a veto with one of the federal ministers.
It is an enlightening provision and it enables the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to proceed with the benefit of any advice that may come from either of the federal ministers who are accountable in Parliament for the operations of this part of the statute.
.2040
Mr. Wappel: Since there is no amendment before us, I can only conclude that we are debating the merits of clause 80. If we're doing this, then there can only be two results: either we accept it or we reject it. If we reject it, then there will be no registrar of firearms, because there will be no clause. Consequently, I think we should get our heads around what we're doing.
On the second point, if we wished to make it political, we could have just have easily said that the Governor in Council shall appoint the registrar of firearms, but we didn't do that. We're really entering into a general debate on the philosophy of the bill. In the absence of some kind of a meaningful amendment, we can hardly reject it and leave a vacuum and no registrar of firearms for our registration system.
Mr. Ramsay: On a point of order, we have the right to intervene in this manner because we have the right to introduce amendments at report stage. If it is necessary for us to acquire information from the officials here as to our understanding of this particular clause, there is nothing wrong with that intervention. We do have the opportunity to introduce an amendment, although there is not one here.
Mr. Wappel is right that there is not an amendment on the table, but we have the right to seek information to guide us as far as any possible amendment would be concerned at report stage. So I think the intervention -
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. Ramsay, your point of order wasn't necessary at this time, because I had not limited debate yet. I already advised this group that I have taken speakers' lists. So if you had been cut off or I had called the question, I would have seen that you had a valid point of order. In this case, I don't think it was valid because I hadn't limited debate yet.
Ms Cohen (Windsor - St. Clair): My position has already been canvassed. I think I'll pass.
Mr. Jackson (Bruce - Grey): Madam Chair, I would just like to intervene briefly. Speaking from experience, when you have these positions, sometimes there's an old boys club. So there could be problems. So I think that kind of conferring is important. From my perspective, it's dangerous if the ministers can't confer on that appointment.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I especially dislike clause 80 because it is said that «the Commissioner shall appoint». This means he has the power to make the appointment after consulting the Federal Minister and the Sollicitor General. However, the Commissioner reports to the Sollicitor General. Can you imagine for one moment that the Commissioner will not follow the recommendation from the Sollicitor General? If he does not, he will create an awkward situation.
Second, and this point is even more important, I find that clause 80 provides an excellent opportunity to reaffirm the power of Parliament. In my view, the appointment should be made without the Governor in Council but after approval from a Standing Committee of the House. We would have the power to put questions to the person nominated as it is done for other appointments. In any case, I will not support clause 80.
[English]
Clause 80 agreed to on division
On clause 81 - Canadian Firearms Registry
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): We will be working on clause 81. I see no amendments.
Mr. Hill: I don't have an amendment, but a discussion.
.2045
My concern, Madam Chair, is with paragraph 81(1)(f). I would like some clarification as to what is implied or intended by:
- (f) such other matters as may be prescribed.
With paragraph 81(1)(f), it seems to me that you don't need paragraphs 81(1)(a), (b), (c), (d) or (e), because this covers anything that it wants to put in there.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): That was a statement. Is there a comment?
Mr. MacLellan: I would, Madam Chair. I will go back to Mr. de Savoye's case of when his firearm was stolen. There's the question of what one does when it is still one's firearm but one doesn't have it. Does one own it? Is one disenfranchised because it's been missing for five years?
I think it's important to have something on the record as to what has happened to that firearm so that, if it is found, it is returned to Mr. de Savoye. It's still his firearm, in effect, and it's still out there somewhere. Because it's been registered, there's a good chance it can be recovered. But if anything was to happen to him, there should be something on the record to say what has transpired. That's the sort of thing that would be in paragraph 81(1)(f).
Mr. Hill: What you're talking about is a loss. I assume that would be inclusive in paragraph 81(1)(e), which says:
- (e) every loss, finding, theft or destruction of a firearm
Mr. MacLellan: There's incidental information that would relate to those situations that wouldn't be covered under paragraph 81(1)(e). The fact of the matter is that you can't categorically say that's all we can put on the registry because, to a large extent, it reduces the value of the registry.
Mr. Hill: My point, Madam Chair, is we do hear - I grant that some may be paranoia - genuine concern among citizens about what will be included in the registry because of the security of that registry.
The more information we allow about Canadian citizens to be included in the registration, with the potential for hackers to get into the computer system and get that information out into the public.... I know it's supposed to be confidential, but there's always that possibility. By allowing paragraph 81(1)(f), we're really taking not only this government, but subsequent governments, at their word as to what may or may not be included in the registry. As I said, I think it's like handing the government a blank cheque as to what would be included in the registry.
Mr. MacLellan: Madam Chair, it wouldn't be handing the government a blank cheque because paragraph 81(1)(f) says:
- (f) such other matters as may be prescribed.
If it's felt those regulations were not proper, then I think the committee should deal with them at that time. But I think we should leave it open to be able to bring those possibilities before the committee in the form of regulations.
Mr. Bodnar: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm wondering if legislative counsel could advise us as to whether such a paragraph as 81(1)(f) is in fact limited by the content of the previous paragraphs. In other words, they're matters that are related to firearms only.
.2050
Ms Diane McMurray (Legislative Counsel, House of Commons): There are some constraints on the English side. There's a bit of a problem with the French.
Let me address the English. Say we go with the English, which says:
- ``such other matters as may be prescribed''.
The French on the other hand, does not say that. It says:
[Translation]
- ``les renseignements réglementaires''
If you want it to be in accord with the English version, in my humble opinion - I'm not a francophone - then I think you would have the constraints on both sides so it would be read equally:
[Translation]
- ``tout autre renseignement prévu par règlement'';
I think that would capture the English. Then neither side would have that problem of language; it would be equal. I think the constraints would be there, and the Reform Party's concerns would be addressed.
[Translation]
Mr. Roy: Madam Chair, without engaging in hypothetical discussion, I think we should apply the sui ejusdem generis interpretation rule to paragraphs a), b), c), d), e), and f), and the last paragraph, that is f), should be interpreted in the light of the first five paragraphs. Therefore, I think that the French version is totally in line with the English version.
This being said, if Committee members want to have an even clearer interpretation which reflects the English version, it is obviously always possible. But in my view, as the paragraph stands - once again, I respect dissenting opinions - it is fully in line with the English version.
[English]
Mr. Breitkreuz: I've been listening to the discussion. I don't know if I'm really reassured yet that this could not be misinterpreted in some way. It seems that gun owners are being singled out by the government for a much closer scrutiny than other members of society.
I have a concern for the privacy of Canadian people. I wonder if this wouldn't be an infringement of some of their human rights. I'm wondering if the minister has given consideration to the fact that it is actually singling out a group of people for much closer scrutiny in a lot of areas. Look at the rest of this bill. As for some of the information that they will be required to submit, I don't think I'd want it in a public registry.
Mr. MacLellan: I assure Mr. Breitkreuz that the minister has given consideration to the human rights issue and does not feel - I haven't talked to him specifically about this section, but I frankly don't see any infringement on the human rights of any Canadian.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Madam Chair, since there is no amendment at this time, I would like to table one on the issue that we have just discussed with the legislative counsels and Mr. Roy. Mr. Roy said that he wouldn't mind if we added ``tout autre'' and left out ``renseignement réglementaire''. As we often said when I was practising law, ``too strong, don't break!''
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I just want some precision. This going to be a Bloc amendment number, Mr. Clerk. We don't need that? Okay, fine.
Do you wish the wording that was suggested?
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: I would like to have some more information. What does Mr. Roy think about that?
Mr. Roy: Madam Chair, just a point of information for Committee members. It should be noted that the technique used in that section has been used elsewhere in the bill.
.2055
I will simply point to section 85 where this technique has also been used. Maybe there should be a series of amendments to ensure consistency throughout the bill, except that it is not useful to make the changes at this stage. Mrs. Venne may want to reconsider her position. Otherwise, we would have to make the changes as we move forward.
Mrs. Venne: I would not object to making the changes as we move forward. As I said, when I was practicing law, we used to say: ``Too strong, don't break!''
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I will deal with the amendment. Shall the amendment to the French version only given verbally by Mrs. Venne carry?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Hill: Madam Chair, I'd just like to return, if I may, to my concerns about paragraph 81(1)(f). Mr. MacLellan stated that this isn't basically giving this government or future governments a blank cheque insofar as the matters that may be prescribed. Therefore, they will be laid out in regulation.
It's our understanding, therefore, that those regulations will be laid before the committee under clause 111.
But I would like to point out and ask for assurances that this won't happen in this regard. In clause 112 we see this:
- (3) a regulation made under paragraph 110(i), (l), (m), (n), (o), (p), (q), (r), (s)
- (m) respecting the keeping and destruction of records in relation to firearms,
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): We're getting into the merits of clauses that haven't even been proposed yet. Restrict your question in a straightforward manner to clause 81 right now.
Mr. Hill: Well, I am, Madam Chair. Because he was trying to alleviate my fears about what could be encompassed by clause 81(1)(f) by saying that those regulations would have to be prescribed, as it says, and laid before the committee. I was merely trying to point out that the minister doesn't have to lay them before the committee, therefore it doesn't do much to alleviate our concerns.
Mr. MacLellan: I certainly would be glad to discuss this with Mr. Hill when we get to that section. There's no concern, though. This would not really affect subsection 81(1)(f).
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Shall clause 81 carry, as amended?
Clause 81 as amended agreed to on division
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: On a point of order.
[English]
It's on a point of order.
[Translation]
It is 9:00 a.m. Time flies when you are in good company, doesn't it? So I would like to remind you that we agreed to adjourn at 9:00 a.m.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): We will adjourn until 9 a.m. tomorrow. Thank you for everything.
The meeting is adjourned.