[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Monday, May 29, 1995
.0904 
[English]
The Chair: I'd like to call the meeting to order. We will continue with our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons.
While we have received a good many amendments in advance, this is only a courtesy to members so that they can examine each other's amendments and be ready to respond to them. But the amendments still have to be moved. They're not officially before the committee until you've moved them as I approach each clause.
So when I call each clause, if you have amendments, you would then move them in the order in which the clerk has set them out in the package he has delivered to you.
I should also point out that despite the fact that you have given us amendments in advance as a courtesy, the rules do not require it. Any member can move amendments when we come to a clause even though prior notice hasn't been given.
.0905
I have another important announcement to make. The Clerk of the House of Commons has received a call from the Department of Justice. The department's drafters have offered their help in getting amendments drafted. This means that a good portion of the Department of Justice drafting team will assist our two legislative counsels.
Since you are the clients, those of you who have given amendments to our legislative counsel will have to decide to talk to them, perhaps take back a certain number and give them to the proper person in the Department of Justice.
They cannot decide to give them to the Department of Justice themselves, but if you have a discussion with them.... They are working on them now and will decide, with your consent, whether to refer some of those amendments to the Department of Justice for drafting purposes. Is that clear?
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne (Saint-Hubert): Thanks a lot to the drafters of the Department of Justice who are willing to help the members, but I think that they have problems themselves since we haven't yet seen all the government amendments. Why haven't we yet received all the government amendments this morning?
[English]
The Chair: I don't represent the government.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: I know, but I would like to know why the government hasn't tabled its amendments.
[English]
The Chair: We're waiting for Mr. MacLellan. I understand they are ready. They just had to correct some points, so they should have them. They promised to have them this morning.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: They promised us to have them yesterday and they are again promising them for this morning. We'll go on waiting.
[English]
The Chair: You can question them, but I understand those amendments are for clause 95 and following clauses, and we're nowhere near clause 95. But you'll have those in good time prior to clause 95. It's up to Mr. MacLellan to answer on behalf of the government.
I'm also led to believe that for the moment the legislative counsel has finished drafting all the amendments submitted by government members on the committee. So they don't have any more amendments from the government members.
The only amendments they have left are opposition members' amendments. Among those are ones that could be transferred to the Department of Justice.
By the way, many of the people who will be doing the drafting worked on the original bill, so they know the bill very well.
But as soon as Mr. MacLellan comes in...and we'll have to chastise him for being late.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Chairman, you said that the legislative counsels of the Department of Justice could draft some amendments on behalf of the members. I see a serious problem there. The legal counsels of the Department of Justice are there to advise the Executive Branch of Parliament. They know the intents of the Department and the Minister with regard to the Parliament. However, our legislative counsels are the counsels of parliamentarians. We have no business mixing both groups. The principle of the separation of powers couldn't tolerate such an accomodation even if, at first sight, it is done in good faith and in order to help everybody. There is always the risk that by mixing the executive and the legislative, we could increase the domination of the former on the latter and God knows that we don't need that now. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: I am in complete agreement with you. I mentioned yesterday that I thought it was deplorable that we had only 3.5 drafters helping 20 committees of the House of Commons. I've already given notice to the Speaker that I think this is a horrible situation.
.0910
When we finish this bill I would hope that we would pass a resolution making a recommendation to the authorities in the House of Commons and indicating that this is not an acceptable situation.
Even though the drafters from the Department of Justice are on the government side, they have to follow the instructions of the.... I agree with you, it's second best, it's not the preferred option, but it's certainly going to help us.
They have to follow the instructions of the members. When you give them instructions on drafting they can't simply twist your instructions around to serve the government. But you will be the best judge of that.
In any case, we're trying to dig ourselves out of a hole, and that's the best we can do.
Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): My concern is that if we don't get our amendments back - and I appreciate the help being offered by the justice department, although I hear my colleague's concern from the Bloc - I would sooner have our drafting done by.... We are in fact the opposition to the justice department on this bill, and I'd sooner have it drafted by those who are working for the members of Parliament.
Nevertheless, my concern - this is a question we raised yesterday and I raise it again today - is that if we do not get our amendments back in sufficient time to meet the committee's deadline, then the only alternative we have is to move those amendments into the report stage.
Yet if we do not have them back in time for report stage, which could follow right on the heels of the conclusion of this committee's clause-by-clause study of the amendments, then we still will not have time. I am seeking some means by which we can have assurance that if we cannot get our amendments, those we wish to bring before the committee for clause-by-clause....
Will time be granted to ensure that our amendments are back in time to present them at report stage?
The Chair: I'm not the House leader. I don't have control over the House and I can't give you that assurance, but I certainly have sympathy with what you're saying. Considering the situation we're in, I doubt whether the government - even if this bill is reported back to the House - would call the bill immediately and not give time for people to....
Anyway that would be my recommendation to the House leader; I'm sure they would try to give you enough time. But I would urge you, with the assistance of the Department of Justice, to try to get all your amendments drafted as quickly as possible.
I think we should proceed. We decided we would proceed yesterday and today and see where we stood at the end of today; then we'll move on. In my view there is no doubt we'll have to carry on tomorrow, because we aren't going to finish by today.
So let us carry on. I have sympathy with your position, but I can't give you the assurance because I'm just the chairman of this committee.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Now that Mr. MacLellan has arrived, I'll make a Point of Order.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. MacLellan, before you came I was announcing the fact that we had been offered some help from the Department of Justice in drafting amendments. Madam Venne raised the fact that we haven't yet received the second package of amendments from the government.
We said that as soon as you came in, we'd ask you when we are going to get these amendments.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): We should have those by this afternoon. at the latest. They're drafted; it's just that a few changes have to be made. We'll have those definitely this afternoon.
The Chair: Thank you. Before I launch into our next phase of clause-by-clause, I notice the former minister of justice, Ron Basford, in the room. In 1976 he and I introduced the peace and security package, which included some very significant amendments on gun control. I guess Mr. Basford is here to see whether we are carrying on in that great tradition.
.0915
I'm told that there will be two lawyers from the Department of Justice over here within a half hour or so. So while we are working in committee, they'll be available at the end of the morning for you to discuss the amendments you might wish to transfer from our legislative counsel to the Justice lawyers, but there will be a number of them here this morning to discuss what you want done and to help out.
On clause 9-Businesses
The Chair: I'm looking for Mr. Lee because yesterday we finished our day by passing an amendment proposed by Mr. Lee, LL-1. I should point out that we are on clause 9, which deals with businesses involved in the business of firearms. We dealt with and carried amendment LL-1. We are now at amendment LL-2, proposed by Mr. Lee.
Mr. Lee, you have the floor to introduce LL-2.
Mr. Lee (Scarborough - Rouge River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Colleagues, you will recall the context in which I proposed amendment LL-1 yesterday. The same historic context is the derivation for this particular amendment, which is an additional subclause added to clause 9.
The purpose of this derives from the previously manifested lack of good faith - in my opinion - on the part of the executive branch of the government in Ontario in dealing with the good faith exemption provisions in the legislation we're now replacing.
The subclause essentially would state that:
- (5) In making a determination under this Act a chief firearms officer should not place any
restrictions on the operations of a bona fide business that are not necessary to achieve the public
safety objectives of the legislation.
- Prior to this, if this subclause were not in the legislation, it is my view that there would be
no criteria, no basis and no direction for decisions or determinations of a chief firearms officer
in dealing with licensing, determinations and decisions on restrictions to be placed on
businesses. That is the reason I have put it forward.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lee.
Mr. MacLellan, do you have any comments on Mr. Lee's proposed amendment?
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, there are just some problems with the subjective test with respect to what is a business and a bona fide business. I will let Mr. Mosley discuss it further.
Mr. Richard G. Mosley (Assistant Deputy Minister, Criminal and Social Policy Sector, Department of Justice): This doesn't go to the object or the intent of the proposal as much as it is just some concern about the form.
It would put the chief firearms officer in the position of having to make a decision as to what is or is not a bona fide business. That in itself is a very subjective assessment of the merits of the business.
Second it would call for the chief firearms officer to again make a subjective assessment of what is or is not necessary to achieve the public safety objectives of this legislation. There's nothing in the bill to define what may be meant by that.
So I don't think it offers a great deal of guidance to a chief firearms officer. At the same time it in effect invites litigation by providing another basis on which any decision by the chief firearms officer can be contested by the business owner by taking a reference to a provincial court judge under clause 72.
.0920
Those are just considerations. That doesn't go to the intent or spirit of the proposal, but I think it would be difficult for a chief firearms officer to apply it in practice.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mosley. Mr. Breitkreuz and Mr. Bodnar want to comment.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton - Melville): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a question for Mr. Lee.
In this clause I do not see any criteria that the chief firearms officer would use in determining legitimate public safety objectives. There's been a lot of debate even on this bill on the effectiveness of registration.
What guidelines would he have to go on to determine whether or not the restrictions are valid? This is a very subjective evaluation on his part and would end up in the courts. It could produce a lot of litigation that way.
I don't agree with a lot of the legislation we have before us, but even this is very questionable. Is it really going to improve public safety? How would this improve public safety in any way? Would it meet the objectives of the bill?
The Chair: There are two or three others. Maybe you could just take notes, Mr. Lee, and then respond to several at the same time.
Mr. Bodnar (Saskatoon - Dundurn): I find the drafting of this clause a bit difficult to go along with. It's drafted in the negative, telling people what they should not do, and I have a difficult time with this. In other words, I raise this because maybe we should have a comment from legislative counsel on this proposed amendment.
As well - and this is more of a question to counsel - I wonder if anything is being achieved with this particular subclause. Does it achieve anything by simply saying that the chief firearms officer shall not place any restrictions? The remedy is to go to some tribunal or court, but that is the same way the remedy would have to be utilized if this subclause was not in existence. Is anything at all even being achieved by it?
The Chair: I'll let the legislative counsel answer after I've taken the next few questions.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye (Portneuf): I see that reference is made to the definition of a ``bona fide'' business, and it is on that point that the Minister of Justice didn't agree. Now, in the legislation before us, reference is made to businesses and the need to asset their ``bona fide'' character was never felt. Why was this qualification added to the word ``business''? In order not to simply talk about ``business'' as in the rest of the legislation?
Mrs. Venne: The legislative counsel are going to enlighten us later. I would like them to tell us for how long we haven't been using Latin anymore in bills. Considering that we took the habit to make texts easier to understand by not using Latin, it would be important to do the same thing here by substituting a French or English expression for the Latin term.
[English]
The Chair: Okay. I'll go to the legislative counsel and then to Mr. Lee, who can answer several questions.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis-Philippe Côte (Legislative Council): I could talk first about the expression ``bona fide business''. As mentioned by the honourable member, we haven't been using any more Latin words in the legislative language for at least 10 or 15 years. Secondly, I think that the expression ``bona fide business'' would create another definition. I'm not sure of what is meant by this in this case. The word ``business'' is already defined in the legislation and we would add the expression ``bona fide''. I don't know anymore what kind of business is referred to.
[English]
The Chair: Were there two questions there? Was there another one as well? Was there a question from Mr. Bodnar?
.0925
Ms Diane McMurray (Legislative Counsel): I have a a little problem with this particular amendment. I know where Mr. Bodnar is coming from and I think he's on the right track. He's in the church. He might not be in the right pew, but he's in the church.
Mr. Bodnar: Amen.
Ms McMurray: The problem is that it says ``in making a determination under this act''. The determination that appears to be made under this act is essentially for purposes of eligibility.
Eligibility is not a restriction. Eligibility is something you have to determine. Suddenly I see determination. I see a firearms officer making a determination on eligibility and then I see the word ``restriction''.
Quite frankly I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. If I take it in a global sense, essentially this is what I see or what could be read as being a Henry VIII clause. This is a clause that allows an amendment to the act, or in this case an opting-out of the act.
You're saying that the normal requirements that would be applicable to a business.... You're now going to say to a CFO, you have a roving mandate to do good. This is what academics refer to as a ``go forth and do good'' clause that essentially allows business to be lifted out of the act. That could be the effect.
If that's what you want, then fine. If that's what you want, I think you should be more precise as to what you mean by a determination. Are you talking about a determination of eligibility or about a restriction placed on somebody after that business is determined to be eligible? There's a difference. You may just want to put your mind to that.
The Chair: Mr. Lee, there were a number of questions.
Mr. Lee: Yes. First there is the issue raised by Mr. Breitkreuz about there not being any apparent criteria for purposes of this subclause. The question he raises points out the reality: there are no criteria anywhere for any of these determinations, let alone for the proposed subclause I am proposing.
So if he has a problem with the subclause because there's no criteria for this determination, maybe he'd better have a look around and see all the other clauses for which there are no criteria.
In this amendment I am simply articulating the thrust of the report of the committee in the last Parliament. It was dealing with regulatory efficiency. A major theme of that report was that when the Governor in Council makes regulations, they should be done with a view to keeping restrictions on business at the lowest threshold.
This particular amendment says that where determinations are made, any restrictions on the operations should only be those necessary to achieve the public safety objectives.
The second point was about the use of the term ``bona fide''. Our legislative counsel said that the term hadn't been used for ten or fifteen years. Did I get that right?
Mr. Côté: That's right.
Mr. Lee: Are you prepared to confirm that?
Mr. Côté: Yes. In terms of drafting, we're always trying to -
Mr. Lee: No, I don't need your reason. I just need your confirmation that the term has not been used in this Parliament for ten or fifteen years.
Mr. Côté: I haven't used it for ten or fifteen years.
Mr. Lee: No. You said it hasn't been used in Parliament; you didn't say whether you had used it.
The Chair: Ask your question, Mr. Lee.
Mr. Lee: Mr. Chairman, I'm just trying to get some firm, crisp advice that I can rely on.
The Chair: I agree with you. There were two people talking at the same time. I just wanted to make sure you had fully put your question.
Mr. Côté: It is my understanding that it is not used.
Mr. Lee: I am asking you if it was or was not used, not your understanding.
Mr. Côté: It was not.
Mr. Lee: You're saying it was not used.
Mr. Côté: That's correct; it was not.
Mr. Lee: Thank you. Now I'd like to ask Mr. Mosley if the term ``bona fide'' was used either in the statute amendments for Bill C-17 or the regulations made thereunder in 1992 or 1993? Was the term ``bona fide'' used?
Mr. Mosley: Not to my knowledge. I can confirm what legislative counsel have said. Since 1985 Latin terms have not been used in any of the federal statutes drafted by the government.
.0930
Mr. Lee: Mr. Chairman, it's my distinct recollection that the term was used. But if it wasn't, so be it.
The Chair: I notice there's a distinction. Mr. Mosley and the legislative counsel may be talking about government legislation. There could have been private bills or debate.
Anyway, Mr. Ramsay has a further point.
Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope we don't lose the intent of this amendment, because I support the intent of this amendment.
I would suggest that with the support of the mover we consider perhaps standing this over for amendments, if the mover would consider that. I think the intent of this amendment is needed in the bill. There has been criticism on the drafting, but I see the intent here, and I support it.
The Chair: I take your comments.
Once again I want to remind the committee that it's quite in order to move amendments at the report stage. The purpose of the report stage is to pick up things that weren't covered in the committee. It's up to the committee, but I don't think we can stand every clause to try to develop new wording.
The committee is yet to vote on Mr. Lee's amendment. But if the committee rejects it, it's in order for any member to put together an amendment with a like purpose at report stage without a standing on every occasion. But that's up to the committee.
Mr. Wappel (Scarborough West): My questions are for Mr. Lee and Mr. Mosley.
Mr. Mosley, I'd just like to ask you something in connection with making a point on Mr. Lee's amendment. Clause 9 deals with the application of a business for a licence. I need to know if a licence is rejected, would the business have recourse to clauses 72 through 79, i.e., application to a provincial court judge?
Mr. Mosley: Can I first correct my last answer, Mr. Chairman? It's been drawn to my attention that there is a provision in the existing gun control clauses of the code that does use the term bona fide. So Mr. Lee is quite correct about the use.
The Chair: Is that in the present law or the bill?
Mr. Mosley: It's in the present law.
I'm not sure whether that is a pre-1985 provision that was carried over. I do know that it is our practice today not to draft using Latin expressions, but there is an existing provision.
With regard to Mr. Wappel's question. that is the subject-matter of another motion in the package that we have before us, which may have been presented by Mr. Wappel, relating to the scope of the power to -
Mr. Wappel: Mr. Mosley, it is true that I have an amendment coming, which really deals with the arbitrariness of the provincial attorney general. My question is very specific. Under clause 9, a business is eligible to hold a licence for a particular activity only if...etc. Obviously that licence must be granted.
If the licence is not granted, under clauses 72 through 79 is there an automatic recourse to a provincial court judge for a review of that refusal and/or revocation? It's simply a yes or no.
Mr. Mosley: I'm going to refer that question to my colleague who has undertaken a particular study of the issue.
Mr. Yvan Roy (Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy, Department of Justice): My answer, Mr. Wappel, is yes.
Mr. Wappel: Thank you. Because of that, in subclause 73(3) there is the burden of proof - and the burden of proof is on the holder; that's another issue - but the holder can justify that the decision was not justified.
Now, my point, Mr. Lee, is this: since the business that might have been refused or revoked has an automatic ability to go to a provincial court judge to have the matter reviewed and to demonstrate that the revocation or refusal was not justified, are we not just gilding the lily with this amendment?
Mr. Lee: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wappel is quite right about there being an appeal under clause 73 in relation to a decision not to grant a licence to a business. That exists. There is not, however, any appeal for a decision of a chief firearms officer in relation to the requirement that all employees be licensed.
.0935
There is a provision in that clause that permits a chief firearms officer to decide who would be and who would not be licensed or licensable in the business. The clause requires that everybody in the business be licensed unless the chief firearms officer determines that someone need not be. It is this determination - that someone need not be - that is not appealable.
Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, if an employee is turned down for a licence, the employee can also use the recourse to 72 through 79, and obviously could be funded by the business. So I'm having a little difficulty seeing what would be achieved by your amendment.
Mr. Lee: Mr. Chairman, subclause 9(4) states that the subclause would ``not apply in respect of a person who stands in a prescribed relationship'' if the ``chief firearms officer determines that, in all the circumstances, the business should not be eligible to hold a licence merely because of that person's ineligibility.''
According to my reading, that decision-making process is not a determination that could be appealed under clause 72. In effect we would have left that decision-making process in the hands of the chief firearms officer. The business or the employee would not have the ability to appeal that determination. So we've left him out in the cold.
Mr. Wappel: As I understand it, Mr. Lee, you're going to move an amendment to ensure that the decisions under subclause 9(4) will be caught by clauses 72 through 79. I believe you said that earlier.
Mr. Lee: That's correct.
Mr. Wappel: So that has nothing to do with your amendment? I'm trying to figure out how this particular amendment is going to be helpful if you're already going to capture that concern in your subsequent amendment.
Mr. Lee: I have been concerned about decisions by the chief firearms officer, which take into account issues that may be collateral to but not relevant to the issues that I believe he or she should be taking into account. That is why I have attempted to focus determinations in relation to businesses, to restrict those determinations to those that deal with the public safety objectives of the legislation, and not because.... Well, who knows what other considerations might be taken into account?
My experience in this field, Mr. Chairman, is not the best in the world. I know that the chief firearms officers need some guidance. Otherwise, they're going to be listening to all the politicians and all the public advocacy groups who, for good or bad motives, will be inputting into the decision-making about this kind of determination.
I think there ought to be some guidance for the CPFO when he or she makes that decision. That's why I said you have to confine it to the public safety objectives and restrict the business as little as necessary.
That's the purpose of my amendment. With a friendly amendment I'm prepared to delete the term bona fide. I believe it was a criterion in the pre-existing legislation, but if it were to be deleted, it wouldn't materially alter the intent or purpose of my amendment
The Chair: Let's deal with that right away.
Is it agreed that the words bona fide be deleted from the proposed amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: I'm very much aware of my colleague Mr. Lee's objectives with this amendment, but, at the same time, I wonder where we want to insert this amendment. We're talking here, and that is the amendment's objective, about some conditions that shouldn't keep a business from operating normally.
.0940
It so happens, however, that those conditions are covered under section 56 of the bill, where we find that a chief firearms officer may attach to a license or an authorization any reasonable condition that he considers desirable. I believe it might be possible to redraft this amendment in a positive way, by adding it to section 56, maybe as a fourth subclause. I submit this to Mr. Lee, for his information.
[English]
Mr. MacLellan: I agree with Mr. Wappel. I think this may be totally unnecessary and in fact may very well do more harm than good.
There is a certain area in which you can help the firearms officer, but beyond that you are just going to make it more confusing. There has to be some discretion.
Clause 9 builds on what we have in clause 5. Clause 9 just adds to what is given in clause 5. Subclause 9(4) doesn't deal with employees. It deals more with those who.... Since some principal owner is ineligible, there may be a son or someone who can carry on the business. It does get behind the corporate veil to try to see what situation can be accommodated.
If we look at subclause 56(1), it says:
- A chief firearms officer who issues a licence, an authorization to carry or an authorization
to transport may attach any reasonable condition to it that the chief firearms officer considers
desirable.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I would very much like to get an answer from Mr. Lee. In fact, I think his amendment should much rather be added to section 56, which deals with the conditions and the restrictions that the chief firearms officer may attach to the license when he issues it, rather than to section 9. Therefore before we decide to add this amendment to section 9 rather than to section 56, under the general rules, I would like to hear what Mr. Lee has to say about it. It would allow me to make up my mind once and for all.
[English]
Mr. Lee: Where the clause would be located in the bill doesn't matter. It is possible to modify it and insert something similar in clause 56.
The area I had concern about is the determination made in clause 9. The determinations made there are not referred to in clause 56, which only deals with authorizations to carry, transport, or issue a licence, whereas the determinations made in clause 9 deal essentially with exempting or not exempting, making decisions about whether people have to be licensed or not licensed.
If there's some discomfort with having it in clause 9, then I would be prepared to withdraw it and try to fit it into clause 56 when we get to clause 56. But I can't determine a consensus.
I suppose we could put the question now and if it doesn't pass, I could work on clause 56.
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, maybe Mr. Mosley can offer some suggestions.
The Chair: Please ask for the floor, because Mr. Lee had the floor.
Mr. Mosley.
Mr. Mosley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I understand, the concern is addressed to any conditions or restrictions that a chief firearms officer may impose on a licence. That relates to the licensing aspect of whatever is done with regard to a business. If business is exempted, the issuance of a licence doesn't enter into question. But if licences are required and the restriction on those licences are particularly onerous.... As Mr. de Savoye pointed out, firearms officers have that discretion under clause 56.
.0945
Perhaps the answer to the concern would be to add something to clause 72 to make it explicitly clear that a reference could be taken to the provincial court not only as a result of the refusal or revocation - the refusal to issue a licence or the revocation of a licence - but also due to conditions attached to a licence. That might address the concern that has been put on the table through this motion.
The Chair: We have to deal with an issue right now.
Mr. Lee has indicated that he might be willing to withdraw his motion and introduce it later with respect to another clause.
Mr. Lee, you'd have to make that decision now, because if your motion was defeated I'm led to believe - although I'm going to check further - that you couldn't put it later in the committee. You could put it at report stage perhaps, but maybe not that either. I'd leave it to you to decide whether you want to put it now.
Mr. Lee: I think that's good advice, Mr. Chairman, rather than going down in flames. At this point time I think I'll look for a way to live another day with either clause 56 or clause 72. Thank you.
So with the consent of my colleagues, I'll withdraw the amendment.
The Chair: Does Mr. Lee have consent to withdraw his amendment, LL-2?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Now we have amendment G-8, which has been proposed by the government. Is there somebody ready to move G-8?
Who's going to move this amendment; otherwise, I'll move to the next clause.
Ms Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): Mr. Chairman, I move that clause 9 of Bill C-68 be amended by adding, immediately after line 36 on page 9, the following:
- Exception for museums
- Would you like me to read it, or can we just consider it as read?
Do you have any comments to make on it, Ms Phinney?
Ms Phinney: No, but maybe....
The Chair: Mr. MacLellan.
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, it's a straightforward attempt to try to help museums keep their costs down by.... It says that ``in the course of duties of employment'' that subclause 9(3) would not apply. It's trying to keep their costs down so as not to have the onerous qualifications on their employees.
I think it would meet with genuine acceptance. It certainly was requested by museum groups that came before us when we examined this bill.
The Chair: Very good.
Madam Venne, you have the floor.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: The Bloc Québécois has an amendment on museums which will be introduced later on. It's an amendment to section 129; we want a total exemption for museums. Since we're asking for that, it goes without saying that we can also ask for museum employees to be excluded under that amendment. I wish the government would understand that, even if we agree with this subsection, it doesn't mean that we won't ask later for the total exemption of museums.
[English]
The Chair: Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Ramsay: I would like to ask the officials what justification there is for including museums in this legislation. Following up on Madam Venne's statement, what was their intent in including an amendment that would exclude museums at all? Why? What is the justification for including museums within the restrictions in this bill?
.0950
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, subclause 9(3) states:
- A business other than a carrier is eligible to hold a licence only if every employee of the business
who, in the course of duties of employment, handles or would handle firearms, prohibited
weapons, restricted weapons, prohibited devices or prohibited ammunition is the holder of a
licence authorizing the holder to acquire restricted firearms.
We've also given some discretion to the provincial ministers in this matter. I think that is important because of their involvement with museums in their respective provinces.
Mr. Ramsay: That doesn't really answer my question. My question is, why are museums in this bill at all? Why aren't they exempted? What is the problem that has been identified by the government or anyone else that would include these kinds of restrictions for museums?
Have problems developed as a result of museums collecting firearms, exhibiting them, and so on in their normal course of business? What is the justification for including museums within the restrictive clauses of bill C-68? Are there any?
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, there are, but I think Mr. Mosley could probably explain it better than I could.
Mr. Mosley: There is a wide variety of museums in this country. Somebody can put up a display in their basement and call it a museum. The range of museums is so broad that it's really difficult to categorize them all as being of a similar type.
The bill and motions like this one attempt to tailor the restrictions in the bill more carefully to the particular circumstances of museums rather than to exempt them all, which, in our respectful view, would be an unacceptable situation.
There are concerns about how this will apply to museums. Having listened to the evidence of the various witnesses on that point, we've been trying to find out where there are problems and to try to address them through specific amendments.
Just to exempt them all leaves the door wide open to abuse. Yes, there have been problems. The chief provincial firearms officers have learned of them and brought them to our attention from time to time. These occur when museum management and operators have not always been entirely scrupulous in the observance of safe storage and other requirements relating to firearms in their possession.
Mr. Ramsay: I would like to be specific, and I'd like the answer to my question to be specific. Is the inclusion of museums within the restrictions of Bill C-68 the result of perceived problems in the future or actual problems that have occurred and have been identified in the past?
If there's nothing wrong with the way museums are functioning now, why are we attempting to fix something where there is not a problem, unless it's a perceived problem? If it is a perceived problem, I would like that perceived problem to be expressed before the committee.
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, it's really both. It's the result of problems we've had in the past and that we perceive could happen in the future. We're giving a provision to museums that do have innocuous weapons, as far as the danger to the public is concerned. We're also holding out the possibility that where a museum can be considered dangerous, we have to take that into consideration as well. What we have here really helps both cases.
.0955
r. de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple or three problems, and I'm quite sure that our Justice Department experts will have an enlightening answer for me.
First, in this amendment, we're talking about an antique firearm, or, in the French version, about une arme à feu historique. It seems to me that the term ``antique'' or ``historique'' isn't defined in the bill. For example, would a firearm that was used in Viet Nam be an ``antique''? Where technology is concerned, things tend to become antique rather quickly.
We are told that some museums might be located in the basement of a house, which might not be a sufficient guarantee that this bill's objectives will be met. That seems all very nice to me, but, as Mr. Ramsay was saying, do we really have a problem? If we have a problem, why do we not restrict the enforcement of the act to those museums which cause no problems? That's precisely the intent of the amendment to section 129 that the Bloc Québécois will introduce.
I'm waiting for our Justice Department experts to clarify the matter, but I submit that we might wish to stand this amendment and to discuss it only when section 129 is passed, if we still need to consider it.
[English]
The Chair: On that point, Madam Venne brought to our attention that her party will move an amendment later on that would exclude museums altogether. She asks that we stand this clause and hear the two together.
The committee can decide that, but knowing the purport of Madam Venne's amendment, you could either defeat this amendment and wait until you reach hers.... In other words, you can deal with this now or later. There are very clear distinctions between the two, but you can do either one.
Mr. MacLellan: On that point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to proceed with this amendment. I think it's an important amendment. If the committee wishes to support Mrs. Venne later on, then so be it. I think that since we're now dealing with this clause, we should deal with this.
Frankly we have to have something in the bill concerning museums, because we can't deal with unregistered firearms that are contained in museums. We have to have the firearms registered.
Also, we do deal with antiques within the bill, but we will be coming forward with an amendment that will offer a definition of antiques.
The Chair: Committee members, there are two courses open to you. If you want to support Mrs. Venne's amendment later, then you defeat this amendment. If you want something in the bill such as the amendment that has been proposed by the government, then you support this, and you will later vote against Madam Venne's amendment. If you want to postpone this and consider the two later, you can do that as well.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: If the Bloc Québécois amendment were defeated, I would agree to this amendment, which is more restrictive, but which would be a lesser evil. On the other hand, if I'm asked to vote on it right now, considering that I don't have a definition and that I'm promised one for later, I'll find myself in an ambiguous situation. I would suggest that we stand the amendment.
[English]
The Chair: You have the right to do that.
It has been proposed that we postpone this amendment until we get to clause 129.
Mr. de Savoye: And that we get the definition too so we know what we're voting for.
The Chair: I'm not sure at what point the definition would come. Anyway, that's the proposal of Mr. de Savoye.
Mr. MacLellan: In our definition of antiques all we've done is take what we have now on page 63 of the bill -
The Chair: You mean, in the present law?
Mr. MacLellan: Yes, and we have added to it the recommendations of the groups that came before us. So there is no major change.
.1000
The Chair: But it is a definition of ``antiques''?
Mr. MacLellan: It is a definition.
The Chair: You've heard the proposal of Mr. de Savoye.
Motion negatived
The Chair: If you want to support the Bloc amendment later, you have to defeat G-8 now.
Mr. Wappel: I have a point of order. Why do we have to defeat G-8 now if we wish to support the Bloc amendment later? If we pass G-8 and support the Bloc amendment later, which therefore totally removes all references to museums in the bill, then we've simply contradicted ourselves, but we can do that any time we want.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: All right, that's a good point. I was expecting it, but the committee might want to be logical. But you're quite right.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
An hon. member: Change your adversary.
The Chair: There could be a tremendous speech made before the committee that would convince you later that the Bloc is correct. So you're right, but we'll deal with this one now because it refers to clause 9.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 9 as amended agreed to
On clause 10 - Carriers
The Chair: This clause deals with transportation carriers as they relate to firearms. I have not received any amendments in advance, but there could be questions.
Mr. Ramsay: Have we finished with G-9?
The Chair: We were just dealing with clause 9. We had Mr. Lee's amendment number LL-1 yesterday, which carried; his amendment number LL-2, which was withdrawn; and amendment G-8, which was carried. Then I asked whether clause 9 as amended should carry, and it carried.
Mr. Ramsay: All of G-9?
The Chair: Not G-9, clause 9.
Mr. Ramsay: Oh, I'm sorry.
Mr. Breitkreuz: We just discussed the amendments. We didn't discuss the clause yet, did we?
The Chair: I said, shall the clause carry, and nobody said anything.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could just find out where we are. I have the new package.
The Chair: We were on clause 9. Mr. Lee's amendment number LL-2 was a proposed amendment to clause 9. We've been dealing with clause 9 ever since we started this morning.
After some discussion of Mr. Lee's amendment number LL-2, he withdrew the amendment. Then we dealt with G-8, which was a proposed amendment to clause 9. After discussion, it was carried. Then I asked whether clause 9 as amended should carry, and there was agreement.
Now we move to clause 10, which deals with transportation carriers.
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, we have some information from some of the aboriginal groups. They propose some changes to clause 10 that we would like to consider. We wonder whether we could stand clause 10 at this point.
The Chair: Mr. MacLellan proposes that we stand clause 10, which deals with transportation carriers. He says there are some amendments coming from some of the aboriginal groups. Is there agreement that clause 10 should stand?
Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, I'd like some clarification from Mr. MacLellan. What does he mean by some aboriginal groups bringing amendments? Either the government will bring them, or someone on this committee will bring them. To the best of your knowledge, is someone on this committee going to be bringing them?
Mr. MacLellan: Yes. We've received a letter from the Grand Council of the Crees, and we just want a chance to look at it.
Mr. Wappel: So you just want a chance to consider a suggested amendment?
Mr. MacLellan: Yes. We're not bringing them; we just want to consider them.
Mr. Wappel: All right, thank you.
Mr. MacLellan: In fairness, we have to give them due consideration.
Clause 10 allowed to stand
.1005
On clause 11 - Prohibited firearms, weapons, devices and ammunition - businesses
The Chair: With respect to clause 11, we have no amendments that were proposed in advance.
Ms Meredith, you have the floor.
Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): Yes, Mr. Chairman, in subclause 11(2) we see that prescribed purpose is again mentioned. It states:
- A business other than a carrier is eligible to hold a licence authorizing the business to
possess prohibited firearms, prohibited weapons, prohibited devices or prohibited ammunition
if the business needs to possess them for a prescribed purpose.
Mr. Mosley: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Ms Meredith: So we will be using the same prescribed instances that are already in legislation and regulation?
Mr. Mosley: If the regulation requires amendment or needs to be remade, then, of course, under the provisions of the bill it will be submitted to Parliament for scrutiny.
Ms Meredith: What prescribed purposes are already in legislation or in regulation that refer to this clause?
Mr. Mosley: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we could dig out the particular regulation and provide it to the honourable member.
Ms Meredith: Would you provide it to the committee, please?
Mr. Mosley: Of course.
The Chair: Are there any other questions or comments with respect to clause 11?
Clause 11 agreed to
On clause 12 - Prohibited firearms - individuals
The Chair: We have three amendments that were tabled in advance. The first is government amendment G-9. Is someone prepared to move it? Mr. Lee moves G-9.
Mr. Lee, you have the floor.
Mr. Lee: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a fairly meaty amendment, and it deals with three -
Mr. Ramsay: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we have an amendment to this clause that's not back yet, and the only recourse we have is to ask that this clause be stood over.
The Chair: What has usually been done is that we've passed or rejected amendments to clauses, but then stood the clauses because there were further amendments. You will recall we did that yesterday with respect to clauses that had anything to do with crossbows. We stood the entire clause, but we dealt with other amendments that might deal with the clause.
Mr. Ramsay: Can I make that request?
The Chair: After we've dealt with whatever amendments have already been received and before we deal with the clause as a whole, you could make the same request you are making now and then the committee could consider it.
So I return to Mr. Lee, who is moving G-9.
Mr. Lee: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are three general purposes sought in relation to these amendments.
The first subclauses - 12(2), 12(3), 12(4), 12(5) and 12(6) - deal with the issue of grandfathering individuals who are exempted from certain provisions and people who hold or possess firearms that would otherwise be prohibited. It's called the grandfathering class.
Those few subclauses make it very clear that in order to be grandfathered continuously, you must continuously retain a firearm in the class. If perchance someone were to sell all their firearms in the class, they would cease to be grandfathered in the class and could not re-enter the class.
As the bill is drafted now, that loophole would have been there. You could have continued to be grandfathered even though you had sold all your firearms. So those subclauses close that loophole.
The second thing is that it deals with a new class of heirloom firearms, handguns that would have been manufactured prior to 1946 and that can be passed on to a spouse, son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter, sister or brother. So this is an attempt to deal with what is called the family heirloom or the war trophy. The date 1946 is not a coincidence.
.1010
The third item deals with the last proposed subsection. It deals with a potential loophole that would have permitted people to continue to acquire firearms through dealers. It restricts the grandfathering for that purpose to particular individuals and doesn't permit people who would otherwise be dealers now to continue on dealing in that class of firearms.
I think I've got all that nailed down pretty well, but I would ask for clarification from the government counsel here.
The Chair: Mr. MacLellan or one of his officials.
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Lee has covered it very well.
The Chair: Are there any questions or comments with respect to these amendments?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I would like some clarification. Of course, in the nature of things, parents die before their children, but it might happen that children die first. What would happen if a son died before his father and left no descendant? Could he pass on the gun to his father, through a will, so that he in turn may pass it on to other children following the same prescribed rules or by making a donation? You seem to be following only the rule relating to age. This is the usual one, but it is not absolute.
[English]
Mr. MacLellan: I'd like Ms Weiser to speak on that, Mr. Chairman.
Ms I. Weiser (Senior Counsel, Human Rights Law Section, Department of Justice): In the example you gave, the person would be able to pass it on to a sibling, a brother or a sister. So that wouldn't cause a problem. However, the general rule is that you couldn't pass to a parent because parent isn't included in subclause 12(7).
The Chair: If there were no sons or daughters, could it go to nephews or nieces?
Ms Weiser: No, it could not. It is confined to spouse, brother, sister, child or grandchild.
Amendment agreed to on division
The Chair: The clerk tells me that in this case the two proposed amendments by Mr. Wappel, LW-1 and LW-2, now cannot be moved.
Mr. Wappel: Why?
The Chair: The amendment amends the entire section that Mr. Wappel's amendments are targeted at. Perhaps there could have been some amendments to amendment G-9. Mr. Wappel, perhaps I could hear some argument from you as to why you think.... I'm still open on this one. I haven't ruled.
Mr. Wappel: First of all, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I would have thought it would have been brought to my attention that this might occur.
.1015
Secondly, I would have thought that a subamendment or an amendment brought by a member that was going to amend G-9 would have been dealt with prior to G-9 and disposed of so that G-9, which would be the main amendment, would either have been amended accordingly or the subamendment would have been dealt with and disposed of accordingly.
So for whatever reason, we approached the thing ``bass ackwards'', if I can put it that way. We should have dealt with my amendment dealing with a subportion of the main amendment and dealt with the points that I would like to make, and then dealt with the main amendment as amended by my subamendment or, alternatively, as presented.
The Chair: That sounds reasonable to me, but I want to check with the clerk once more.
Generally speaking, what you say is correct. It was the way in which they were received. They put down the government amendment first. According to the procedure, you're right. I hadn't had an opportunity to read all of these amendments myself to see the contradiction. Even though the committee has voted to accept G-9, to the extent that your amendments are not contradictory - and they may not be - I will allow you to put them and argue your points on the amendments in any case. If you convince the committee, it would mean they would, to a certain extent, modify what they've already done in G-9.
Because of the way they were improperly put - yours should have been put first - we'll allow you to move LW-1.
Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of clarification. There is no doubt that if the committee were disposed to accept my amendments, they would definitely change the wording of subclause 12(6) in G-9, because we're talking about the length of a prohibited firearm, namely a handgun. So I want to be clear that I would like to move my motion -
The Chair: Because there was a mistake made, I'll give you permission to put and argue your case since you've gone to a great deal of trouble in preparing these amendments.
Mr. Wappel: Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Ramsay: I have a point of order. Bearing in mind the difficulty Mr. Wappel has had and bearing in mind that we have an amendment on this clause before the drafters that we haven't got back yet, what difficulty will we have when we ask for this clause to be stood? Could I get a ruling on that?
The Chair: No. You continue to ask me to cross bridges before I get to them. I'll be glad to deal with the issue when we get to it, but we're not there yet. These are legitimate questions. You're saying if this or that happens can you get assurance. We'll move along and when we get to your point, I'll gladly hear it.
Because you have further amendments, you're asking what will happen to clause 12. The same thing will occur. We'll deal with that at the time. I'll be consistent in this. Where we've made a mistake in putting the amendments....
The clerk says it was properly put. I think we should have dealt with LW-1 and LW-2 first.
In any case, I don't know the purport of your amendment. We haven't seen it. I can't deal with issues until they are before us. I will deal with them as soon as the time comes. Before we dispose of clause 12, you will no doubt ask for the floor and ask that this be stood because you have a further amendment. We'll deal with that at that time.
Mr. Wappel, you have the floor.
.1020
Mr. Wappel: Members of the committee, my amendments, LW-1 and LW-2, both deal with subclause 12(6) on page 12 of the bill, in the top left-hand corner. The effect of both amendments would be to change the definition of prohibited handgun. As I will explain in a moment, the reason I'm doing this is because I think the net is cast too broadly. I think I can demonstrate that that's the case.
But before I do that, I want to point out that this is an opportunity for this committee, and for the House, of course, to consider something that is normally only considered by the Governor in Council. That is the prohibition of a weapon in Canada. As we know, when weapons are prohibited, they're generally prohibited by the Governor in Council. Of course, each of us has our own constituents who rail loud and long about this, that they don't have the opportunity, the input, that this is a dictatorship, and that the Governor in Council is imposing things behind closed doors.
The fact is that the Governor in Council is imposing nothing when it comes to banning these particular handguns. If these particular handguns are banned, they will be banned by each and every one of us in the House of Commons when we vote for or against this bill. They will be banned or they won't be in accordance with parliamentary democracy. We have an opportunity to take a very careful look at what it is we are doing as members of Parliament with respect to the type of weapons we propose to ban.
As we know, subclause 12(6) deals with handguns that are already legal handguns, already registered, and have been for 60 to 70 years. So we are dealing with private property that is legally registered and possessed. We are also dealing with something that is already very heavily regulated. At this stage, we are not dealing with illegal weapons. We're dealing with people who are going to be grandfathered because they've already come forward and been registered.
As the information from the Minister of Justice has indicated, this definition, which appears later in part III, will have the net effect of banning or prohibiting 58% of handguns currently legally owned in Canada. We may wish to do this or we may wish to ban only 50% or 45% or 40%, as long as we know what we're doing and as long we don't blame the Governor in Council for it, because we'll be doing it.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I want to examine the stated purposes of the minister in prohibiting these weapons. As I understand it, he propounded three reasons. First, for public safety purposes, he wanted to get rid of what would ordinarily be called Saturday night specials, in street parlance, and in particular illegal ones.
Secondly, he wanted to ensure that handguns not ordinarily used in international competitions, national competitions or in gun clubs would be banned because there is no other legitimate purpose for such handguns. If a handgun is simply sitting in a person's drawer and not being used in international competition or otherwise properly used, then it could be picked up in the heat of the moment to kill someone.
Thirdly, he wanted to ensure that we maintain an attitude in Canada that we do not need to arm ourselves to protect ourselves. Generally speaking, the job of the state is to protect the individuals in society, not each and every one of us.
On May 18, we had before us in committee Mr. Smith, who is the chief scientist for firearms at the central forensic laboratory of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. He has been such a forensic scientist for 18 years. As I am sure Mr. Mosley will confirm, he is an adviser to the government with respect to firearms. Indeed, he advised the government as to what firearms should or should not be prohibited.
For the members of the committee who were here on May 18, you will remember that I asked Mr. Smith some specific questions, and I asked him to show us some specific handguns. In particular, I asked him to show us the .44 calibre, Smith & Wesson model 629, which you will recall was a very large gun. There was certainly no possibility of concealing it without a major bulge in one's jacket. In comparison, he showed us some very small weapons that one could easily hide behind the palm of a hand.
.1025
I then asked him, as a forensic scientist, what his definition of a Saturday night special was. I wish to quote it into the record, Mr. Chairman. He said:
- Typically, the expression is very loosely defined. I would take a Saturday night special to mean
a firearm that is relatively compact, easy to conceal and generally, but not always, inexpensive.
However, colleagues, although it was a big gun, it did have a barrel length of less then 105 mm. In fact, it had a barrel length of 104 mm. So nothwithstanding that it would not fall within Mr. Smith's definition of Saturday night special, it would be banned because of its barrel length.
Since it isn't a Saturday night special, could it be taken care of, if I could put it that way, under either of the other criteria of the federal Minister of Justice? Yes, because if that weapon is not used in international or national competitions, then obviously it's going to be banned. Or if the person who owns it doesn't use it at a gun club in five years, or whatever the case may be, it's going to be banned. He's going to have to give it up because he doesn't use it in a gun club.
So in reality, with one fell swoop that particular handgun is being banned because of its barrel length, even though it does not fit the criteria of Saturday night special.
I asked Mr. Smith, as a forensic scientist with 18 years' experience and as someone who advises the Minister of Justice, what barrel length he thought would be appropriate to capture Saturday night specials and those easily concealed, inexpensive guns that the minister quite properly wants to ban. He said, and I quote:
- In the case of the so-called Saturday night special firearms, the type I brought today, for
example, an overall length of approximately 150 mm would serve to identify all of them, but
would not capture the larger-framed firearms, which I also displayed.
- Of course, he was talking there about the Smith & Wesson, which he displayed.
There is no question that this is a line-drawing exercise. It's 150, 140, 160, 105, whatever it may be. We can draw the line anywhere we want; there's no argument about that. But we now have the expert testimony of this gentleman, who indicates that 150 would do the job the minister wants on the so-called Saturday night special, but would leave the Smith & Wesson as a restricted weapon, legal under the appropriate regulations of restricted weapon, subject to the other two tests - I believe it was a .44 calibre - as to whether or not it's used in international competition or whether or not the holder uses it at a gun club.
That is obviously the intent of LW-1, which would change the definition of the firearm from a firearm having a barrel equal to or less than 105 mm, to one that has a total length equal to or less than 150 mm.
Lest someone ask what total length means - it's a fair question - I want to advise everybody that later on in part III, if this amendment passes - obviously if it doesn't pass, who cares what the total length is - I will be proposing a definition that Mr. Smith provided to me of the total length. It is basically a measurement from the end of the muzzle to the end of the gun, measured perpendicular to the end of the stalk, which would be the total length of the firearm. If the total length of the firearm is equal to or less than 150 mm, it would be prohibited by us in this section and in subsequent sections. If it is greater, it would not.
.1030
Amendment LW-2 is similar in scope. If I may, I would like to make my submissions on both amendments at the same time, although I'm not necessarily saying they would stand or fall together. But because we're dealing with the same type of weapon, what we're talking about in LW-2 is a refinement on the .25 calibre to .32 calibre cartridge criteria.
According to the current criteria it is designed or adapted to discharge a .25 or .32 calibre cartridge. Later on we'll see that those are banned unless they are for international competition.
So the amendment says that at the commencement day - whatever the commencement day of this act is - these particular .25 and .32 calibre weapons, which are not used in international sporting competitions governed by the rules of the international shooting union or in national sporting competitions, would not be prohibited.
You'll recall the minister said they are worried about phoney competitions. As soon as somebody finds out that a particular handgun is going to be banned, all of a sudden a competition is developed to legitimize the firearm and thereby get around the prohibition. I say that is very simply remedied by either stating the commencement date, as I have, or simply picking a date, such as January 1, 1995, before this bill was even introduced. If there were no national shooting competitions with respect to that particular type of weapon - and one would have to be a seer into the future to have figured that out - as of January 1, 1995 or as of the commencement date, this concern of the minister would be totally obviated because no one would be able to come up with, design or invent a shooting match to legitimize what would otherwise be banned.
In closing, the basic principle is that the net is too broad. I certainly support the minister's objectives to ban these easily obtained Saturday night specials, but the definition is too tight; it is unnecessary. We saw with our own eyes the inequities that would take place and the collections that might be wiped out. Whether they're wiped out today or 13 or 14 years from now and whether or not we deal with passing them on to heirs is another issue.
I want to underscore for the members of the committee and ask them to consider seriously, since it is we who will be prohibiting these weapons, that we know what we're doing, we understand what we're doing, and we prohibit those we wish to catch and not catch the small turbot, or in this case the big turbot in the small turbot's net, if I can turn it to the fishing example.
Those are the purposes of my two amendments. Of course, if they were to pass, they would amend G-9 because subclause (6) of G-9 deals with the definition as it currently stands. There you have it, folks. I hope you will consider it.
The Chair: I just want to bring to your attention right away that Mr. Wappel is correct that if you were to pass LW-1, LW-2 or both you would change, to a certain extent, not just one part of G-9 that we've just passed. But that's for you to consider.
Mr. MacLellan: I understand where Mr. Wappel is coming from and what he would like to do, but there are some very definite problems that I would like Mr. Mosley to elaborate on, if you don't mind.
.1035
Mr. Mosley: Mr. Wappel summarized the policy objectives the minister has expressed in tabling this legislation, but then I think, with respect, he tended to focus his remarks almost exclusively on that category of handgun popularly known as the Saturday night special. Perhaps I could just approach it in a slightly different way.
The Minister of Justice, in expressing the policy objectives, has indicated that the government's intent was to recognize the legitimate uses of handguns for target shooting, collecting and employment to tighten controls on accountability of users for those purposes, but to restrict access to handguns that don't meet those legitimate goals.
In terms of barrel length, barrel length is the common method of distinguishing between particular makes and models of handguns - firearms in general, for that matter. Four inches is generally regarded as the cut-off point for accurate barrels suitable for target shooting as opposed to self-defence guns. I would submit that the .44 Smith & Wesson revolver shown to the committee by Mr. Smith falls into the category of a self-defence weapon.
The intent was to clearly include the four-inch length - that is, between 101 mm and 102 mm - in the category of handguns that would be caught by this provision. The 105 mm is just slightly bigger to avoid the confusion around the exact barrel measurements, because tolerance can run plus or minus 1 mm or 2 mm.
There are a few guns manufactured with a barrel length between four and four and a half inches. It's an easier figure to administer, and exceptional target shooting handguns can be exempted via the proposal to prescribe firearms for high performance competition shooting. We'll speak to that issue later in the proceedings, Mr. Chairman, when we discuss proposals relating to that.
Mr. Wappel's second proposed amendment, LW-2, would in fact tie that exemption to rules that are administered by the International Shooting Union, or in national sporting competitions it would be impossible at any particular point in time to determine whether or not these apply to a particular handgun unless the rules were examined vis-à-vis that handgun and the rules in place at that point in time, either the rules of the International Shooting Union administered in Geneva or in any national sporting competitions that may take place.
To come back to the main point and the thrust of LW-1, the effect of that would be to exclude an extraordinarily large proportion of the handguns that would otherwise be affected by the provision within the bill. In terms of the numbers that are currently on the registry, the total of the .25 and .32 calibre handguns amounts to 215,625, but for all of the other calibres, 105 mm or under, the total is 339,614. In effect, the adoption of the motion would put in doubt whether many, if not most, of those 339,000 would be out of the scope of the proscription in the bill, roughly 60% of the total that would otherwise be affected.
There is no record on the existing FRAS system of overall length of the firearm. At best, we can draw from that database barrel length information about each individual handgun. In order to administer this change, the authorities would have to measure the overall length of every handgun in existence to determine whether or not it fell within the scope of the prescription or was exempted.
To conclude, Mr. Chairman, we're not simply talking about Saturday night specials. We're talking about handguns in general, and the thrust of the bill was to deal with handguns in general to exclude those that have legitimate sporting applications, but not those that are constructed for self-defence purposes, whether they are the cheap, shoddily constructed Saturday night specials or the more expensive and larger, for that matter, handguns constructed for self-defence purposes but as a result of that have short barrel lengths.
.1040
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): I just want to raise a point and that is with respect to Mr. Wappel's two amendments. These are in fact linked with proposed section 84, which deals with a number of definitions.
I would ask that perhaps we could stand these amendments on that basis, simply because I know I submitted an amendment with respect to that section that would then be in conflict with Mr. Wappel's if his were to pass or not to pass. In any event, it would be in conflict with this clause. I'm assuming there may be other amendments forthcoming from others or other parties with respect to proposed section 84.
That's obviously one of the problems of this bill. Certain parts are related to latter parts. Having regard to that, I'm going to be proposing an amendment with respect to the definition of prohibited weapons. There's already in the bill a definition in proposed section 84 dealing with barrel length.
On that basis, since proposed section 84 seems to be the primary section dealing with definitions, especially with respect to lengths of barrels and types of weapons, could we not just stand this until we get to that?
The Chair: You're asking that Mr. Wappel's amendments be stood. We've already had notice that there'll be requests to stand the clause. As I said before, that's in the hands of the committee.
But let me say this. I know this is a very complicated bill, but it's expected when we're going through the clauses that the members are familiar with the later clauses and the amendments of which notice has been given that will come later.
That's a very difficult thing to have in your head at all times, what's coming later and all the possible amendments, so that when you vote on an amendment on clause 12, which is the clause we're now at, you know what you're foreclosing later on. That's on the one hand. On the other hand, we can stand it, but you are going to have one hang of a lot to come back to if you keep standing all the clauses.
I'm going to put it to the committee whether or not you wish to stand L-1 and L-2. We only have L-1 officially before us now, but we've been considering the two.
Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, thank you for your comments.
This is, of course, a difficulty with the bill. There's no question we're going to encounter this kind of thing all the way through, but this is the first instance of this definition and it seemed appropriate to me that this would be the time to bring the definition.
I am, of course, aware of proposed section 84. I appreciate Mr. Gallaway's comments. Of course, I have exactly the same amendment to be brought forward when we reach the definition stage of part III.
The two sides of the argument have been clearly stated. It seems to me that if this amendment were to pass, I obviously would bring my amendment to proposed section 84 and then Mr. Gallaway might wish to make a subamendment or whatever.
If the intent of the committee is clear and it rejects my proposal, then I obviously would not be bringing any changes to the definition in proposed section 84 in part III because the principle I'm trying to put forward has been rejected by the committee.
Quite frankly, although I appreciate the suggestion, since it's my motion, I think we should deal with it now.
Mr. Ramsay: I appreciate the direction this motion is going in. I'd like to just add this.
.1045
As set out by Mr. Wappel, I think the underlying rationale for the government's proposal is not supportable. I'll go right to the nub of the issue: the reason for that is if these firearms with barrel lengths under 105 mm are dangerous to public safety, then why are they being allowed to remain in the hands of the owners? If they are dangerous and the objective is to enhance the safety of society, then why are they being left in the hands of the owners and in society? If the justice minister is right, then the danger that they pose is going to continue. The only thing this bill will do is not allow those numbers to increase by not allowing any more legal sales of those firearms.
The fact is that I have not seen any justifiable information or evidence to support this particular aspect of the bill. We were given the reason - and Mr. Mosley touched on it again - that a firearm, a handgun, with a barrel length under 105 mm is too short a barrel for accuracy. Yet I produced a target that was shot at 60 feet with a handgun with a barrel length under 105 mm and the five holes in that target were all within one and a half inches of centre. So they are accurate and they are being used for target shooting.
If we are to ban firearms because they are dangerous, then first of all we must have supporting evidence of that danger, and not just a perceived danger - I think that's wrong - unless even the perceived danger is supported with some type of empirical evidence. But for the government of this country to ban firearms on the basis that they're a danger to society and then allow those very firearms to remain within society I think refutes the underlying argument and justification in the first place.
So I think I would be willing to support both of Mr. Wappel's motions because I think they're going in the right direction, but I have grave concerns over the underlying rationale of doing this in the first place.
The Chair: Mr. Ramsay, was the target that you refer to produced by a witness before the committee, or did you say you produced it?
Mr. Ramsay: It was produced to me by a witness who appeared. But it wasn't produced by the witness at the time they appeared - together with the other relevant information that I have put on the record today.
The Chair: I see. It wasn't produced by the witness himself.
Mr. MacLellan: In relation to Mr. Gallaway's suggestion, there is some additional information that I think I'd like to get from the Department of Justice, so I'm quite prepared to have this stood until this afternoon. I don't want to stand it indefinitely.
The Chair: It should be stood indefinitely.
Mr. MacLellan: No. I would like this one to be dealt with soon because I think it's important. But I do want to get more information on the statistics that Mr. Mosley brought forward. So if we could stand 1 and 2, I'd appreciate it.
The Chair: I see. But there were also questions raised by Mr. Ramsay. Do you want to comment on those or not?
Mr. MacLellan: I guess the information would relate to both and I'd like a chance to comment briefly this afternoon on those.
The Chair: All right. We haven't made that decision to stand yet.
.1050
Mr. Breitkreuz: I really have a problem with this whole discussion.
First of all, I should preface my remarks by saying I don't agree with the registration system. If in fact the government believes that the registration system will improve public safety, this flies in the face of that because what you're doing here will discourage registration. Is it not obvious to you that...?
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Breitkreuz, we're not dealing with registration here. We're dealing with which handguns should be banned; in other words, prohibited weapons, not weapons subject to registration.
Mr. Breitkreuz: But my point is by banning the handguns of legitimate gun owners you discourage their registration.
The Chair: Guns that are prohibited aren't registered. Restricted weapons are registered.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Yes. In all of this discussion, we're tripping over the obvious thing, that it's the guns of legitimate gun owners that will be banned. In fact it will discourage people from coming forth and registering guns because of the fact that there's the possibility that the guns will be banned by this legislation.
The Chair: I'm trying to be very generous in allowing questions and discussion, but we have to have a certain amount of relevancy.
We're dealing here with an amendment by Mr. Wappel that deals with which handguns should be prohibited and the length of the barrels. We're not dealing with registration because prohibited weapons aren't subject to registration.
Mr. Breitkreuz: That brings me to my question. What studies have been done to indicate that the banning of these handguns of legitimate owners will in fact improve public safety? It ties in with what my colleague said.
The Chair: That's the question Mr. Ramsay asked.
Ms Torsney (Burlington): Mr. Chair, I just wanted to move that we do stand this now.
The Chair: There have been several requests that we stand these two amendments, although the proposer said he was willing to deal with them right away.
Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, in view of the parliamentary secretary's comments, I would be happy to stand the amendments.
The Chair: Does the committee agree to stand Mr. Wappel's amendments LW-1 and LW-2?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Amendments allowed to stand
Ms Phinney: I have a point of order. We have something that was given to us today that is a clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-68. It indicates that G-1 and G-2 were carried. I understood that G-1 and G-2 were stood.
The Chair: The clerk tells me that's corrected. I would ask that we deal with those kinds of things at the end of the meeting.
Ms Phinney: Would you give us time at the end of the meeting to do that?
The Chair: Yes, we'll deal with those at the end of the meeting.
Ms Phinney: We'll have to be sure that the clerk knows which ones were stood.
The Chair: I've already corrected some of those, but we will deal with any discrepancy that you see in that document at the end of the meeting.
We've dealt with the proposed amendments that were given to us in advance with respect to clause 12. We've agreed to stand Mr. Wappel's proposed amendments. Shall clause 12 stand?
Ms Meredith: Mr. Chairman, can I just ask for clarification on subclause 12(7)? Again, I see three issues where we're using prescription - ``prescribing a firearm'', ``prescribed in those regulations'', and ``prescribed by the provision''.
I have before me the consolidated regulations pertaining to part III of the Criminal Code where they're prescribing a firearm...where in here there are prescriptions for prohibited firearms. Is this what you will be using for prescribing a firearm, as mentioned on line 23 of page 12?
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Mosley has said that there may be some changes to that, but those changes will be brought before the committee before they come into effect. The committee will be made aware well in advance of any changes. We haven't really finished the consideration of the prohibited weapons.
.1055
Ms Meredith: There is also a reference to:
- possesses one or more of those firearms is eligible in the circumstances prescribed in those
regulations to hold a licence authorizing the individual to possess firearms prescribed by the
provision to be prohibited firearms.
Mr. MacLellan: There will probably be changes, and the prescription means they will be set forth in the regulations. I frankly feel that there will be further changes. We don't have them right now, but we will have them before the committee well in advance of their coming into effect.
Ms Meredith: I guess what I'm looking for then is an explanation of what the intention is of subclause 12(7). What is your intention with the way it's laid out?
Mr. MacLellan: I'm going to ask Ms Weiser to give an explanation. I think that would probably be best.
Ms Weiser: Are you referring to subclause (7) of the bill or of the motion?
Ms Meredith: I'm referring to the bill. I'm looking at page 12 of the bill, subclause (7), where it says ``Grandfathered individuals - regulations re prohibited firearms''. I'm trying to get an idea of the intent of the government in the way it's worded.
Ms Weiser: First of all, wherever prescription is used, or prescribed, that means it is something that can and will be done in the future by regulation. The regulations passed on to you deal only with the purposes for which businesses can have prohibited firearms or other prohibited devices.
Subclause 12(7) of the bill deals with the situation where in the future a firearm we are unaware of now is prohibited, and it would allow the government to grandfather that firearm to anybody who possessed it before it was prohibited.
Ms Meredith: But as I understand the way this is worded, there will be a list of people who would qualify, that there are going to be limitations, unless I'm misreading it. I guess that's what I'm looking for, where it says who ``is eligible in the circumstances prescribed in those regulations to hold a licence authorizing the individual''.
So there are going to be some individuals who are in a circumstance deemed not to be grandfathered.
Ms Weiser: The most common circumstance put into regulation is that the person possessed it as of the day the prohibition order was made. That's the kind of thing that would be put into a regulation. It had to have been owned before the date on which it was prohibited.
Ms Meredith: So then this grandfathering will not interfere or come into contact, I guess, with those who might inherit.
Ms Weiser: No, because the new subclause (7) that's been added to the motion would deal with that situation.
Ms Meredith: So these will just be regulations established to deal with the people who at present own something that is legal, that is going to be made prohibited, and how they will be grandfathered. So the prescribed circumstances will pertain to those individuals and the ``prescribed by the provision to be prohibited firearms'' will tie into the list of prohibited firearms along with the individuals who have them when this comes into effect.
Ms Weiser: That's right.
Clause 12 allowed to stand
Clause 13 agreed to
.1100
On clause 14 - Serial number
The Chair: Clause 14 also deals with registration certificates.
Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the officials, just really confirmation of what I believe to be the way I read the thing:
- 14. A registration certificate may be issued only for a firearm
- (a) that bears a serial number...; or
- I underscore the word ``or'' -
- (b) that is described in the prescribed manner.
If the answer to my question is yes, can you assure us that there will be, in the prescribed manner, following along with my friend Val Meredith, provisions to provide for those firearms that do not currently have serial numbers?
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very important question, and I'd like Mr. Mosley to give a detailed answer if he could.
Mr. Mosley: The question as to the interpretation of the clauses is yes, it's correct. Secondly, yes, there will be regulations as to how to suitably identify a firearm, which may be particularly valuable or unique or an antique, without actually having to stamp a number onto it.
I would like to point out that each individual firearm will of course, as part of the registration process, have a number assigned to it, whether or not it has a particular serial number on the face of the instrument itself.
Mr. Ramsay: The number you just referred to that will be assigned to a firearm, will that be placed upon the firearm itself?
Mr. Mosley: No, but it will appear on the card that will accompany every firearm.
Mr. Ramsay: Then my follow-up question is this. We have had testimony before the committee that there are perhaps thousands and thousands of rifles and shotguns without serial numbers. Will those owners have to have a serial number placed upon their firearm?
Mr. Mosley: What we're suggesting is that if it is a particularly valuable or unique specimen of the type of firearm and the value would be diminished by putting this serial number onto it, in those cases no. But if it's a common garden variety firearm that would not suffer any loss of value, it may be appropriate in those cases to have the new firearms identification number stamped onto the frame or the receiver of the firearm itself. But that will be addressed in the regulations that will be brought forward and will be subject to whatever position Parliament takes on those regulations.
Clause 14 agreed to on division.
On clause 15 - Exempted firearms
The Chair: Clause 15 relates to an exception for the crown. Are there any questions or comments with respect to clause 15?
Mr. Breitkreuz: I would like an explanation as to why this exception is being made. What's the rationale behind it? Why are these firearms that much different from...? I recognize the fact there are many thefts from police forces and so on. Why are these exempted?
Mr. Mosley: In our consultations prior to the bill being tabled, the Canadian Forces and police departments strongly urged that they not be required to obtain a registration certificate for each individual firearm, but they would of course submit a record to the national firearms registry of every firearm in their possession. So they will be recorded and inventoried, but an individual registration certificate would not be issued for each one of them.
Mr. Breitkreuz: I still don't have the rationale for that, other than that the police forces have requested it. Is there some underlying reason for them not to register their firearms?
.1105
Mr. Mosley: The reason, as I've indicated, is that the government was urged not to impose that requirement on the Canadian Forces because of the stock of firearms they have in their possession and on the police forces for a similar reason.
I draw your attention to clause 83 of the bill, which indicates that:
- 83.(1) The Registrar shall establish and maintain a record of
- (a) firearms acquired or possessed by
- peace officers, persons training to become police officers, persons...employed as public
officers, firearms acquired or possessed on behalf of police forces or departments of the
Government of Canada or a province.
Mr. Breitkreuz: I know they haven't given us the reason why the police don't want this in the public record, but are there not other people who would not want this information in the public record because it could be accessed by the wrong people and that information could be misused? Will there or could there be other exceptions made for other people in society who have similar feelings to the police in this regard?
Mr. Mosley: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, but the point about drawing clause 83 to your attention was that it will be recorded. It will be on the database. Every individual firearm held by these authorities will be on that database. The only distinction is that if you're the Department of National Defence with...I don't know how many firearms they have in their possession. They won't have to apply for a registration certificate for every single one of them. They will tell us and give the registrar the serial numbers and other identifying information about all of the firearms they do have and that will be recorded.
Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Mosley, again, two days in a row I tend to agree with Mr. Breitkreuz on something.
Would it not be important to have registration of these firearms - at least treat them the same as museums - so that upon a theft or disappearance of a gun, they must report it?
Many police forces - and I simply speak from the province I'm in - may be made up of only one or two people. I can point out to you two such police forces that exist where one member is a member of a police force of a small town. Would it not be important that if a gun were stolen from such an individual or lost by him that he should be subject to this act requiring him to report that gun stolen and the serial number so that all other forces could be on the look-out for it in the event that they came across that restricted weapon? The same would apply not just to municipal police forces but to ownership of guns by the province or by Her Majesty in right of Canada because it's more likely that such guns would disappear in such circumstances. It's more likely that such guns would disappear in these circumstances than they would from museums.
Ms Weiser: Could I please have a moment to find the offence I'm looking for.
There is a requirement in the act to report any theft or loss of a firearm and I just want to locate it.
Mr. Bodnar: But would the forces be subject to this act even though they're not registering the...?
Ms Weiser: Mr. Bartlett has kindly informed me that it's clause 105 at page 77.
Members of the military and peace officers are exempted from being subject to offence provisions if they do certain things in the course of their duties. But this particular aspect has not been exempted. So they are still required to report any loss or theft.
.1110
The Chair: Do you have the answer? There are other members who want to ask questions.
Mr. Bodnar: I have one further question to follow up on that, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: While the officials are looking for the answer, put your other question.
Mr. Bodnar: It appears that that section doesn't help. If a peace officer loses the gun, he's not required to report it because he himself is a peace officer. So reporting to himself isn't going to do much good, and there's the problem we have. I think it's a hole you have in the legislation.
Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, I take a different view of the purpose of this section. Perhaps the officials could help me out here.
As I understand it, every firearm will be recorded by the registrar, but every registration certificate is issued to a person. The registration certificate is issued to a person according to subclause 16(1).
Let's take the military. Presumably you would be issuing the certificate to Her Majesty in right of Canada. So you would be producing one million registration certificates, all identifying weapons that are already identified pursuant to clause 83, all carrying the name of the registered owner, all one million certificates having exactly the same owner.
If you have 15,000 weapons in the arsenal of the metropolitan Toronto police, the owner would be the metropolitan Toronto police or perhaps the police chief or whatever the technicality is. It isn't each individual police officer.
So if you issue a registration certificate for a police force, it would be the same registration certificate over and over with the same owner, except for the number of the firearm, which is already captured in clause 83. Am I right?
Therefore that's the purpose of not having to do this, and presumably that's why clause 15 is in there. Doesn't that sound like it's right?
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Wappel is right, Mr. Chairman. It's also a question of logistics on these registration certificates. It doesn't say that they won't be; it says they may not be. If the Department of National Defence feels, for instance, that they may not need them.... But Mr. Wappel is right in what he has said.
Mr. Ramsay: Inasmuch as other people whose line of work has them handling firearms, who have to have a registration certificate and who have to pay the cost of that and allied costs, is there not an inconsistency here in that these people are subject to that cost whereas members of police forces are not? Am I correct in assuming that?
Mr. MacLellan: I'll let Mr. Mosley answer that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mosley: I'm sure the police forces and the Department of National Defence incur costs in keeping track of their inventory and will incur costs in submitting that information to the registrar. There may well be fees imposed under the regulations for the receipt and processing of that information.
So I'm not sure it's correct at this point to say they would be exempted from any costs. The question remains to be determined when the regulations pertaining to fees are tabled in Parliament.
.1115
In the case of the Department of National Defence, it would not make much sense to impose a fee on them that would be going from one pocket of the federal government to another pocket of the federal government to cover the cost of recording the inventory of firearms within the possession of that department.
Mr. Ramsay: I guess to be more specific, a peace officer would not be required to obtain a registration certificate for the firearm that that peace officer handles. Yet, someone working in a museum or in a firearms plant, I understand, will have to do that. So they're both employed in a situation where firearms are involved and yet one has to pay a fee and the other one doesn't. Am I correct in that?
Mr. MacLellan: What we are saying, Mr. Chairman, is that we're leaving it to the municipalities. They have to be able to account for the firearms of the police officers under their jurisdiction. If they feel that a registration certificate is in their best interests and they want to apply for them, then I think that's what they will do.
However, we're not saying at this point that there has to be a registration certificate. I think what we want to do is to leave some latitude with, for instance, the municipalities, with the provinces, with respect to provincial police on this.
The firearms themselves will be registered and the information will be there. We feel that perhaps more discussion has to take place with the municipal and provincial jurisdictions to decide whether we want to make this a cut and dried provision or not. Right now we don't feel it's in their interests to do so, and we certainly don't think safety standards will be jeopardized if we don't at this point.
Mr. Ramsay: I have a couple more....
The Chair: I will go back to your line of questioning.
Mr. Ramsay: It's a follow-up on exactly what I've been discussing.
The Chair: All right, go ahead.
Mr. Ramsay: I'm addressing the fairness of this legislation. On the one hand, a peace officer or anyone exempted under clause 15 is not going to have to incur the same costs as someone working with a firearm in another line of business. I understand from what you're saying that unfairness does exist within the legislation. Am I correct in assuming that?
The Chair: Mr. Ramsay refers to the peace officer. If I understand correctly -
Mr. MacLellan: It's not his firearm.
The Chair: No, it's not.
Mr. Ramsay: It's not the firearm of the person working in a firearms shop either.
The Chair: You said that as well, Mr. Ramsay. You said the employee of the museum must pay. It's not the employee who would pay; it would be the museum. It's the owner of those parts. This terminology must be used very correctly.
Mr. MacLellan: First of all, there are two features we have to look at here. We want the registration of firearms so that we know where these firearms are or be able to identify them if they're stolen.
The second feature is that we've said the registration system will cost approximately $85 million and we have to be able to fund the registration, at least in the initial stages certainly. So the question is, are we getting the funding for the registration system?
The firearms that may not have registration certificates would not be personal firearms of the individual officers. They would be firearms that belong to the municipality, to the province or to the federal government. We're talking about government-owned firearms in this case.
We feel there may not be the need in the case of the provinces or the municipality, where they would need the registration certificate or a registration certificate would be of any assistance to them. That, of course, would be subject to further negotiations with them.
.1120
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Section 15 has created a lot of confusion. Part of it has been cleared. Section 15 does not concern a person that owns a firearm nor the fact that firearms must be registered. It only refers to the issuance of a certificate after the registration of a firearm by an individual, a business, Her Majesty or a police force. We should therefore keep within those parameters.
Also, in the marginal notes of section 15 «itSa Majesté et les forces policières» is translated not by
[English]
``Her Majesty and the police force'' but by exempted firearms. Unless I don't understand it correctly, this is not about exempted firearms nor is it about Her Majesty. It's about non-delivery of a registration certificate.
[Translation]
If things had been made very clear to start with, we would not have had to beat around the bush, or «épivardés» as we say in French. How do you say that in English?
[English]
The Chair: Do you have any response?
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. de Savoye may have a good point there, Mr. Chairman, and we'll certainly look at that. Of course, that's not part of the legislation, but it's certainly something that could be corrected and I think we'll look at that, and I agree frankly that the change should be made.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Who will make the determination as to whether the firearms should be registered or not registered? I picked up the word ``may'' and I don't know who is going to make that interpretation.
Mr. MacLellan: Firearms have to be registered. There is no latitude there. It's just that we're talking about a registration certificate being issued. That's all we're saying. Firearms definitely have to be registered.
Mr. Breitkreuz: But how would this be interpreted by the courts? You use the word ``may''. You used it in the previous one and you have used it in the next clause. That to me is a term that could be interpreted in many different ways. Who is going to interpret the meaning of that term? Maybe we should have legal counsel comment on this phrase.
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, ultimately it will be the registrar who will decide who is the owner of the firearm and whether it's a municipal, provincial and/or federal firearm as opposed to an individually owned firearm.
The Chair: Does anyone wish to comment on this section?
Ms McMurray: No.
Ms Côté: No.
Clause 15 agreed to on division
The Chair: I'm going to suggest that since the legal draftspeople are here from the Department of Justice...they have asked us that we adjourn for a few minutes in order to consult with the leading people of the two opposition parties or whoever might wish to transfer amendments to them. So we'll adjourn for five minutes and then we'll resume. Please don't go away.
Pause
.1136
The Chair: I now reconvene the committee meeting.
If you look at your agenda, you will note there were some mistakes on the results of yesterday's votes. I'd like the clerk to go down the agenda so you can make the corrections in your margin, starting with amendments G-1, G-2, G-3, etc.
I'd ask the clerk to read out the numbers of the amendments so you can put in the correct results.
[Translation]
Please, go ahead.
The Clerk of the Committee: Section 2 stands. Amendments G-1 and G-2 stand. G-3 has been agreed to on division. Amendment R-1 has been defeated.
Clause 3 has been agreed to on division.
On clause 4, amendments BQ-1, LP-1 et R-2 stand. Therefore clause 4 stands.
On clause 5, LP-2 stands. R-3 has been defeated, BQ-2 has been defeated and G-4 has been agreed to. Therefore clause 5 stands.
On clause 6, R-4 stands. Therefore clause 6 stands.
On clause 7, BQ-5 stands, as well as G-5, BQ-3, LP-3 and G-6. G-7 has been agreed to and BQ-4 has been withdrawn. Therefore clause 7 stands.
On section 8, R-5 and R-6 has been defeated and LT-4 stands. Therefore clause 8 stands.
On clause 9, LL-1 has been agreed to.
That's it.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much. That was with respect to the matters that were dealt with yesterday.
Mr. Ramsay, we'll interrupt the proceedings at around 12:30 to deal with the motion you tabled saying that we should obey the rules. We were supposed to do it last night, but we didn't sit last night.
On clause 16 - Only one person per registration certificate
The Chair: Now we go to clause 16, which in summary says that a registered gun can only be registered to one person. We have not received any amendments in advance for this.
Are there any questions or comments with respect to clause 16?
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: In section 15, in the English version,
[English]
it says ``A registration certificate may not be issued''.
[Translation]
The Chair: I am sorry but we are finished with clause 15. We now are dealing with...
Mr. de Savoye: If a certificate is delivered under section 15, will it be delivered to a person or to a legal entity?
.1140
[English]
Mr. Mosley: If I understand the question correctly, it's about whether this could include a corporation.
Mr. de Savoye: Clause 16 says ``to only one person''. Are we talking about a physical or a moral person? To apply clause 15, you would probably need a moral person.
Mr. Mosley: With regard to the common law provinces, that would be broad enough to include a corporate person. I'll ask my colleague about the civil law interpretation.
[Translation]
Mr. Roy: Mr. de Savoye, I'm inclined to give you the same answer as Mr. Mosley, even in a civil law context, the concept of a person is quite broad and would include a legal entity.
Mr. de Savoye: I appreciate your explanations. Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Breitkreuz: The way this clause is worded, it could be interpreted to mean more than one person. Because of the word ``may'' rather than the word ``shall'', it doesn't seem to have any binding effect.
I'd like legislative counsel's interpretation of that. Could it in fact have a very wide application and be interpreted in various ways? To me, ``may'' means a variety of people. It's not binding on the fact that it should be issued to one person.
Ms McMurray: I haven't been called to the bench yet and I don't expect to be.
The court would have to decide. Normally the word ``may'' in the interpretation of an act is discretionary. ``Shall'' means shall. Unless the context of the act otherwise indicates, the court would have to look at the act in context and decide whether or not this ``may'' means ``shall''.
If I had to come down on one side or the other, I'd say it means it shall be issued to only one person. That would be my interpretation of it. However, it is certainly not crystal clear and a court may well give it another spin.
Mr. Breitkreuz: The point I've been trying to make in the last three clauses is I do not understand why it was drafted in this way.
The Chair: You've made your points. Maybe there's some disagreement. There often is in parliamentary committees and in Parliament. The majority takes responsibility for their actions.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Maybe we could have some explanation as to why it was worded in this way rather than with the word ``shall''.
Mr. Mosley: This is an enabling provision rather than a directional one. The intent is to have a registration certificate issued to only one person.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that in French it's clear, it means only one person. There is no problem whatsoever. I would suggest you look at the French version.
The Chair: I think there is an interpretation rule in Canada that says that one must look at both versions.
[English]
Is that not correct? In interpreting statutes, the judges look at both English and French versions in coming to conclusions on interpretation.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Mr. Chairman, that then begs the question as to why they are not both worded so that they both mean the same thing. It seems to me to be poorly drafted legislation if it does not mean the same in both languages.
The Chair: Our legislative counsel said the word ``may'' can have different interpretations depending on the context. She said that on a balance it must mean one person. If you look at the record, you'll see. ``May'' doesn't always mean ``may'' in the general sense; it depends on the context.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I think there is a cardinal interpretation rule which should supercede that rule: one does not interpret what is clear. If the wording is clear from the start, one doesn't have to use interpretation rules to the effect that one should compare both versions to understand what is meant. I think this should be cleared up. I quite agree with Mrs. Venne when she says that the French version of section 16 is quite clear whereas the English version seems to allow for a possibility that is clearly excluded under section 16.
.1145
[English]
The Chair: Do you have any response?
From what I understand, Mr. MacLellan and Mr. Mosley, the government has decided for its own reasons to use the word ``may'' in English rather than ``shall''.
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, the legislative counsel has said that ``may'' can be used in different ways. In the opinion of the drafter, if we use ``shall'', it means it absolutely has to be issued to one person. That's not necessarily the indication. I would like the drafter, Mr. Archambault, to comment on this.
Mr. Robert Archambault (Senior Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice): Even though clause 15 has already been dealt with by the committee, the same comments would apply.
If you had a ``shall'' in clause 16, the government might put itself under the obligation to issue a certificate to one person. Obviously it's the intent of the legislation to retain the discretion, so we could not use ``shall'' here.
I'm not an expert on the English language, but it's very well established in all the federal legislation that a ``may'' in these circumstances can have a stronger meaning than a ``shall'', depending on the context. So there is no automatic discretion when you see a ``may'' in the English language.
The Chair: Both Mr. Langlois and Mrs. Venne said it's absolutely clear in French. I know it's the practice now in the Department of Justice to draft separately in English and French, not simply translate. Does the French version have the same meaning you wish to convey in English?
Mr. Archambault: Yes.
I think Mr. Mosley expressed it best earlier on, when he said this is permissive. It's the authority on which the issuance of the certificate will rely. This says the government may issue a certificate, but there are criteria under which the certificate is to be issued under that legislation.
That's why it can't be a ``shall''; there are conditions to the issuance of the certificate. If there were a ``shall'' here, they would have to issue a certificate, which is contrary to the way this legislation is designed.
The Chair: Very good; thank you.
Mr. Wappel: On that point, does this mean that dual registrations will now be illegal? Is this the result of clause 16?
Mr. Mosley: Yes.
Mr. Wappel: In effect the purpose of clause 16, then, is to ensure there is only one name matched with each firearm. You cannot have ``A and B'' as the registered owners of a firearm. You can only have ``A or B''. That's the reason for the clause.
Mr. Mosley: Yes.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Could it not also be a corporation?
The Chair: Yes. That was already answered. ``Person'' includes an individual or a moral person, meaning a corporation, a municipality, etc.
Clause 16 agreed to
On clause 17 - Places where prohibited and restricted firearms may be possessed
The Chair: Clause 17 deals with the transportation of restricted and prohibited weapons. Two amendments have been submitted in advance, G-10 and one you got earlier this morning, G-10.1. Also there's a new clause 17 proposed with G-11. I want to make sure of the order.
Mr. MacLellan: Amendments G-10 and G-11 are consequential to the new clause.
The Chair: So we should deal with G-11 first; is that what you're saying?
Mr. MacLellan: Yes.
.1150
The Chair: You're saying G-10 and G-10.1 depend on the acceptance of new clause 17, which is G-11?
Mr. MacLellan: No, just G-10, Mr. Chairman.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Mr. MacLellan only talks about G-10 and G-11. G-10.1 has nothing to do with the rest; it's only a correction to the French version.
The Chair: But they both relate to the same clause. We must deal with the amendments in a logical order.
[English]
Should we deal with G-11 first?
Some hon. members: Yes.
The Chair: Who will move G-11?
Mr. Gallaway: I so move. G-11 simply introduces a new clause that removes from clause 18 the reference to prohibited firearms. It creates a new clause 17.1 and deals with the transportation of prohibited firearms.
The Chair: Mr. MacLellan, do you have any additional comments to make?
Mr. MacLellan: Yes. Mr. Gallaway's right. Clause 18 will now deal with the transportation of restricted firearms. We've added a few additional reasons. Of course, if anything is forgotten, we have the regulation-making powers.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: We will read G-11, please. What is the relation between the proposed 17.1 and the current clause 18? What will be left of clause 18 if we adopt 17.1?
[English]
Mr. MacLellan: What clause 18 will deal with now is the transportation of restricted firearms, not prohibited firearms.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: I'm comparing very quickly clauses 18 and 17.1 and I notice that there is a paragraph (c), unless I am mistaken, which has been added and that says:
- (c)in the prescribed circumstances.
[English]
Mr. MacLellan: I wonder if I could ask Mr. de Savoye to ask that question again, please.
Mr. de Savoye: In clause 17.1, there is (a), (b) and (c).
The Chair: There is no (c).
Mr. de Savoye: I have a (c) in the French version.
[Translation]
I even have another paragraph (b) that raised some questions in my mind. Clearly, the French is excellent, but we are not asking for all that.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. MacLellan, the French version is different from the English version. There's a paragraph (c) in the French version. Please explain.
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Mosley.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Mosley: Again, the drafting of the two versions is not identical in terms of the order of the structure, so the fact that there is an additional paragraph in the French does not mean they read differently. I think they have to be read carefully through to ensure that the two versions correspond, but the existence of paragraph (c) does not mean they have a different meaning.
The Chair: I wish to explain that point again. In the past, drafting was often done in English and then translated into French.
I understand that in recent years drafting instructions are given to drafters in French and English, then they draft the drafting instructions in their own language.
.1155
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, I have another version here that has a (c) in the English. If it isn't in the English version, it should be taken out of the French version. If it was initially in the English version and taken out, then it may have been meant to be taken out in the French version as well. I think we have to look at that.
Ms Weiser: There actually is a very simple explanation. I apologize; there is an error in the French. Originally both versions did make reference to ``prescribed circumstances''. It was later realized that there was in any event a regulation-making power to deal with authorizations to transport in unforeseen circumstances, and therefore we did not need to include ``in the prescribed circumstances''. So paragraph (c) should be deleted in the French.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. de Savoye, for otherwise we would have had two different versions of this legislation.
[English]
Mr. de Savoye: It's a good thing I'm bilingual, isn't it?
The Chair: Yes.
Are there any further questions on proposed amendment G-11?
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Now we have amendment G-10 to clause 17, moved by Mr. Gallaway.
Mr. Gallaway: Since a clause has been added, we now just bring this clause in line, recognizing that new clause.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Now we have amendment G-10.1, moved by Mr. Lee.
Mr. Lee: This is just a change in la version française. We want to change the words le local d'habitation to la maison d'habitation, substituting maison for local.
The Chair: Are there any questions on that?
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: I think this is to make it consistent with the definition of maison d'habitation which is found in the Criminal Code. Is that it?
[English]
The Chair: The answer from the officials was yes.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 17 as amended agreed to on division
On clause 18 - Transporting and using prohibited and restricted firearms
The Chair: We now go to clause 18, which also deals with the transportation of restricted and prohibited weapons.
I have two amendments, G-12 and then LG-1 from Mr. Gallaway. I'm told that if G-12 were to carry, we could not put LG-1, so maybe we should deal with LG-1 first.
Mr. Gallaway: I think under the circumstances I will withdraw LG-1, since G-12 includes the amendment I was proposing. I'll just move G-12 and point out that it changes the language in the act to include two or more.
.1200
The Chair: Does the committee agree to the withdrawal of LG-1?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Mr. Gallaway moves G-12.
Do you have any explanation?
Mr. Gallaway: This just deals with restricted firearms. It allows for the issuance of a transportation permit. Under previous provisions of the act it referred to ``places''; it didn't say ``two or more'' places. It was being interpreted to mean the places being your home and one other location. Under this provision, it will allow you to move between your home and those places as enunciated in subparagraphs 18(b)(i), (ii) (iii) and (iv).
The Chair: Are there any questions with respect to proposed amendment G-12?
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 18 as amended agreed to on division
On clause 19 - Carrying restricted firearms and pre-February 14, 1995 handguns
The Chair: We now move to clause 19, which deals with the carrying of restricted firearms. Two amendments were tabled in advance, G-13 and G-14.
Who will move G-13?
Mr. Wappel: I'll move that.
I have a short explanation. This is a drafting matter. I have been advised that in the English language, the usage is initially ``section'', then ``subsection'' and then ``paragraph''. Because it's proposed that we remove paragraph 12(6)(a) - in fact, I think we've done that with a previous amendment - we are no longer dealing with paragraph 12(6)(a), but rather with subsection 12(6).
That's why the word ``subsection'' is substituted for the word ``paragraph''. We're taking out paragraph 12(6)(a). It's a technical matter.
The Chair: Are there any further questions?
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Next we have amendment G-14. Who's moving it?
Mr. Lee: I'll move that.
This is a minor amendment again. We are altering the wording. As pointed out originally by Mrs. Venne, there is a slight difference in nuance between the English and French versions. We are correcting the English to reflect the original drafting in French. The English will read ``needs'', as opposed to the previous wording.
Mr. Breitkreuz: I'm just wondering what the nuance was.
Mr. Lee: In the previous English version - without getting it out in front of me - it was less specific.
Mr. Breitkreuz: It was ``requires''.
Mr. Lee: Yes. The French version, using the verb avoir besoin, is more reflective of the intent of the section.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Breitkreuz: I have a question on the clause itself, Mr. Chairman. I'm wondering if we can get some kind of explanation from the officials as to how you would demonstrate that you qualify for paragraph 19(a).
.1205
Mr. Mosley: This is normally applied when specific threats are made against an individual or they have been in circumstances where their life has been threatened and there's evidence of that.
In terms of evidence before the committee, you may recall - it was either on April 24 or at the subsequent appearance of officials - that we indicated there was no more than a handful of protection of life permits issued across the country. I forget the number, but I think there are about 100 in total.
Mr. Breitkreuz: That still doesn't really answer the question. What kind of evidence would you have to produce?
Mr. Mosley: It depends on the circumstances. That's a matter best left to the discretion of the local authorities. It may vary from case to case. The evidence in one case may not be sufficient. It's really impossible to set firm criteria as to how that decision should be made by the local authorities.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Is that how the decision is made at the present time?
Mr. MacLellan: That's right.
The situation has worked, as evidenced by the limited number that has been granted. Frankly, we have not heard any complaints from people who feel they have to have a firearm for their protection and have not gotten one. I don't think any changes to something that has worked this well would be a step in the right direction.
Mr. Ramsay: Individuals have stated to me that when they wish to purchase a firearm and go to their local police office, if they indicate they wish to have that firearm for self-protection, it's simply flatly refused.
Mr. MacLellan: Well, generally for self-protection it should be flatly refused. There has to be evidence that this person is in definite danger. For someone to have a firearm at home just for the purpose of self-protection is not a reason.
Mr. Breitkreuz: I can't understand what the rationale is behind that. The police are unable to protect many of these people.
Mr. MacLellan: They'd be less able to protect them if everyone had a firearm. That's the idea. What we don't want to get into is everybody getting a firearm because they want to protect themselves when in fact they won't be protecting themselves; they'll be creating more of a hazard for themselves.
Clause 19 as amended agreed to on division
On clause 20 - Definition of ``transfer''
The Chair: Next we go to clause 20, which deals with transfers and lending of firerams. I have no amendments tabled.
Are there any questions or comments?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: In clause 20, the definition of ``transfer'' refers to a civil law concept. There is one concept which is not mentioned, that of ``giving in payment''. The giving in payment is a type of transfer that is not covered here. With due respect, it could be a loophole for someone trying to go around the act.
The Chair: Can you answer that question, Messrs. MacLellan, Mosley and Roy?
M. Roy: Mr. Chairman, there are other possibilities in civil law which are not covered by the definition of ``transfer'', even here. However, I really doubt that the giving in payment would be used very often in connection with a firearm. This being said, the definition as it is given it designed to cover certain situations which are used frequently and, as such, it may be adequate, but it will be up to the committee to decide.
.1210
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I would agree that nowadays the giving-in-payment concept is certainly not used very often, but if we close all of the other doors, meaning selling, bartering or giving, and this is the only option left, this will be the one to which people will resort. It may be useful to mention it.
The Chair: Do you have another answer?
Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, what about the concept of loan or deposit, which are both civil law concepts that are not covered by clause 20. If we start making additions to the definition, where will it all end? I couldn't tell you.
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Chairman, neither a loan nor a deposit constitute an act of alienation, and the owner, although he does indeed turn over his property in the case of a deposit or loan, maintains his ownership rights, at least in terms of bare ownership, whereas in the case of giving in payment, he gives this up. I'm referring to a concept of disposition of property.
The Chair: It seems to me that the government has decided to provide only for these types of transfers. You're right: there are other concepts. If you wish, you may submit an amendment in order to add these other options. Otherwise, we will decide whether the government's amendment is acceptable or not.
Mr. de Savoye.
Mr. de Savoye: In the French text, we talk about ``cession'' whereas the English text talks about ``transfer''. The word used in the French version implies that we are giving up a right, that we are disposing of an object, as my colleague mentioned. In the English text, the word ``transfer'' is not as precise, so that what you said about a loan or a deposit would apply, in my opinion, in the case of a ``transfer'' but not in the case of a cession.
Once again, are we not faced with a situation where the French and English texts do not have the same scope? What scope do we want this provision to have? I would appreciate being enlightened by our learned resource people.
[English]
Mr. MacLellan: There is a more detailed definition of ``transfer'' under part III of the Criminal Code, where we're talking about transfer, transportation and so on. But ``transfer'' here just relates to the change of ownership or the giving of a firearm from one person to another for purposes of registration. It's very limited, and there isn't the need for the broader definition that is required in the Criminal Code.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, further to this erudite answer, I understand that the purpose of clause 20 is to cover anything that comes under the heading change of ownership. Does that mean that selling, bartering and giving are the only ways to change ownership or, as my colleague mentioned, are there not other ways to do so that are not covered by clause 20?
In other words, does clause 20 adequately cover everything we intended it to cover or is there not something missing that could provide a loophole to those who want to get around the law? That's the question.
[English]
Mr. MacLellan: What we wanted to do was make it different from the definition in the Criminal Code to reflect what is necessary in this portion of the bill.
The Chair: I notice clause 20 says ``For the purposes of sections 21 to 31, `transfer' means sell, barter or give.'' It's only with respect to those sections.
Mr. MacLellan: Yes, that's right. It's a limited definition.
[Translation]
The Chair: Are there any further questions or comments?
[English]
Mr. Wappel: I'm not quite sure if we have the answer to Mr. de Savoye's question.
.1215
Is there any reason the clause could not read, in English, ``For the purposes of sections 21 to 31, `transfer' means change of ownership''?
Ms Weiser: I have a couple of points in regard to that comment. We are looking at more situations than just a change of legal ownership here. It would also include the situation of lending a firearm.
The primary purpose for clause 20 is to limit the main definition of ``transfer'' that is contained on page 62 of part III of the Criminal Code, and for criminal offence purposes, includes ``transport, ship, distribute or deliver.''
Clauses 21 to 31 of the firearms act are not concerned with transporting firearms, and it is for that reason that the definition of ``transfer'' was limited for clauses 21 to 31.
Mr. Wappel: To follow up, then, let me ask this. If it also includes lending, which does not involve a change of ownership, are you saying there is legal interpretation, either by case law or in the Interpretation Act, to say that the word ``give'' includes the word ``lend''?
Ms Weiser: Yes, I am.
Mr. Wappel: Okay. Perhaps I could ask legislative counsel if they agree with that.
Ms McMurray: I'm not aware of it being in the Interpretation Act, but I have it with me and I can certainly check.
Mr. Wappel: It would seem to me, to be on the extra safe side, we could say ``transfer'' means sell, barter, give or lend.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: The word ``lend'' is indeed included in the definition of ``transfer'' that we find in the Criminal Code, and I'm referring to page 61 of the bill. It was added there. It says:
``transfer'' means sale, barter, give, lend, send... It is specifically included.
If you change the definition of ``transfer'', in section 20, page 14, we should add the word ``lend'' since in the other case it was not included in the sale.
I do not understand why in one case we say that lending is included in the definition of «transfer», whereas in the other case, it is specified. I think it would be just as simple to mention it if it reflects the government's intent.
[English]
Ms Weiser: I apologize. I was too eager. ``Lend'' would not be included in ``give.'' We have specific provisions for lending.
The reason we needed to divide them is when we're dealing with ``transfer'', there would have to be notification to the registrar to correct the registration system, but in the case of ``lend'', that wouldn't be necessary. So we had to divide the two.
Mr. Wappel: As I understand it, lending is found in clause 32. Is that right?
The Chair: And also in clause 21, the next clause. It says ``A person may transfer or lend''.
Mr. Wappel: So in clause 21, there's a distinction between transferring and lending.
The Chair: Right.
Mr. Wappel: So in fact ``transfer'' doesn't means ``lend''.
The Chair: Right.
Mr. MacLellan: Yes.
The Chair: Are there any further questions on clause 20?
Clause 20 agreed to on division
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: I just finished consulting with my knowledgeable colleague. You know that I am not a lawyer but I have a tendency to ask questions when I am intrigued by the wording, and in this case I'm sure that I will obtain clarification on section 20.
[English]
The Chair: You realize that we just -
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: You are aware that I was asking for the floor at the same time. You be the judge. I will make my submission.
Let us say that I own a firearm. A trustee could seize everything I own, including my firearm. At that point I am no longer the owner. A transfer has taken place.
.1220
The Chair: You're talking about a trustee in bankruptcy, right?
Mr. de Savoye: Yes. Is the trustee then the owner of the firearm? Does he have a licence? How is this covered here? I'm raising the question and I would like an answer.
[English]
Mr. Mosley: Rather than hold up the committee, because I think we do have an answer to that question which my colleague is searching for, perhaps we could come back to it and provide the answer to Mr. de Savoye directly or to the committee as a whole.
The Chair: We carried clause 20, but I repeat, as the committee goes on and the members find there are things that still need to be corrected, they can always be corrected at the report stage. And that goes for the government as well as the opposition. So we'll expect the answer to that question later today.
We move to clause 21, which deals with transfers to individuals who have mental illness or problems with alcohol. No amendments have been received with respect to this clause.
Mr. Ramsay: I would ask that this clause be stood because we do have an amendment that has not been returned from the drafters.
The Chair: It may be helpful, Mr. Ramsay, in getting agreement from the committee, to give us just a few words about your proposed amendment. It will help the committee in agreeing or not agreeing to your request. You must have given instructions to the drafter.
Mr. Ramsay: Yes, we have, but I would prefer that the committee have the amendment before them.
The Chair: Yes, but you're asking that we stand the clause. It's up to you, if you don't want to give any reasons for -
Mr. Ramsay: I can give a reason.
The Chair: That might be better.
Mr. Ramsay: The reason there's no amendment before the committee has to do with lines 21, 22 and 23. It's just a change from the word ``desirable'' to a phrase that we think is stronger and safer, which is inconsistent with the protection of society.
The Chair: Mr. Ramsay has requested that clause 21 stand. Is there agreement to stand clause 21.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Clause 21 allowed to stand
On clause 22 - Authorization to transfer firearms
The Chair: I have two amendments on clause 22. I understand BQ-6 is for a new clause 22 whereas LW-3 is an amendment to clause 22, which deals with authorized transfers. LW-3 is an amendment from Mr. Wappel. LW-3 amends clause 22 as it is and BQ-6 would be a new clause 22.1.
Mr. Wappel: Since I did this amendment, now that we've found out what transfer means, I have another point that I think further explains my suggested amendment. You will note at the start of clause 22 that it says ``at the time of the transfer''. That's important now because we know we're talking about a change of ownership and not a lending situation.
The way you change ownership is through the delivery of the item. This clause now, as I understand it, talks about a time, at the time of the delivery of the item, of the giving up of the ownership to someone else, because that's what those words mean - ``at the time of the transfer''.
If the drafters really want it to mean prior to the time of the transfer, and you'll see what I mean in a moment, that's a different issue.
The clause says that at the time of the transfer, which is the time of the delivery of ownership, this is what the person who is the owner has to do.
.1225
First of all, he or she has to ensure that the person to whom he or she is giving it holds a licence. At the same time, he or she has to inform the chief firearms officer of the transfer and obtain the authorization of the chief firearms officer.
If you quickly turn to clause 26 you will see there is a positive onus or requirement on the part of the firearms officer to verify that the transferee, or the person who's getting the gun, holds a licence. So the firearms officer must verify that the person who is going to be getting ownership of the firearm holds a licence.
I see this as being unnecessarily intrusive of government because you're making the person who owns the gun check something that the firearms officer must check himself or herself before an authorization to transfer will take place. Therefore there is no reason to impose on the owner to do something the chief firearms officer is going to do in any event before an authorization is issued.
When I asked this question before, Ms Weiser said they thought it was a good idea. If a person comes to the counter of a Canadian Tire store, for example, there should be a positive obligation on the part of the clerk of the Canadian Tire store to ask the person who wishes to buy the firearm to show his or her licence. But since the firearms officer will have to guarantee that, in effect, before he will issue an authorization, what's the point of forcing the vendor to jump through an unnecessary hoop?
The vendor isn't always a Canadian Tire store. It could be a gun shop, a person at a gun show, or an individual within a class selling from one person to another. The firearms officer will automatically verify that the person to whom the gun is being transferred is the holder of a licence. That is the firearms officer's responsibility.
I have no problem with the transferer informing the firearms officer of the proposed transfer. Then it would be up to the firearms officer to verify it and issue the authorization.
That is the purpose of motion LW-3, which would then remove subparagraph 22(a)(i). That's all it would do. The person would still have to inform the firearms officer, the firearms officer would still have to do the things that are required, and the person would still have to receive the authorization from the firearms officer in order to effect the transfer. That's the purpose of my amendment and I hope I've made the point clear.
However, we still have the troubling words ``at the time'', and I'm going to talk about that in a moment after we dispose of this particular amendment. Those are my reasons for proposing the amendment. In a nutshell it's just another hoop somebody has to jump through, and an unnecessary one at that since the firearms officer will guarantee it by way of his authorization certificate. Why should we make citizens jump through unnecessary hoops? We make them jump through enough hoops anyway.
Mr. MacLellan: We're not making the public jump through hoops at all. Doing it this way makes the whole transaction much smoother and much more responsible as far as the public is concerned.
I would like to ask Mr. Mosley to describe it more fully.
Mr. Mosley: In terms of how the whole system would work - and I agree it has to be read in conjunction with clause 26 of the bill - somebody comes up to the counter who wants to buy a firearm displayed, has the money and is ready to pay for it. At that point the clerk would have to inform the chief firearms officer.
.1230
How is he going to enable the chief firearms officer to verify that the person in front of him holds a licence by which he can acquire firearms if there isn't a clear means of identifying that individual as the person who's the holder of the licence?
John Smith shows up and wants to buy a gun. If he has in his possession a licence, which hopefully will also bear his photograph and other indicia of his identification, the simplest and most convenient way to resolve the matter is for him to show his licence to the clerk, who then swipes it through a machine, a reading device, or conveys the information to the registrar in another form, who can verify he is John Smith, and the clerk who's looking at the individual can verify he's the man shown in the licence photograph. It's a simple transaction. It's over and done with in seconds.
If you take away that aspect of it with the licence at the front end and the clerk at the retail level, then it builds unnecessary complexity into the system as to how you do that verification. Do they have to access other databases? Does he produce a driver's licence, which may or may not have his photograph, as the case may be, in that particular jurisdiction? Do they have to go through other hoops to verify the identification?
With the greatest respect - and I understand the desire to avoid additional burdens or inconvenience - I think this actually works to the advantage of the purchaser because it's going to get that purchaser in and out of the store much faster than if it has to be done another way.
Mr. Wappel: This is a perfect example of government deciding what is best for business. Out of your own mouth you have indicated that the Department of Justice knows the best way for retailers to deal with their customers. I don't accept that premise. I think it's up to the retailer or the person who's transferring to decide the best way to do business. This is a positive onus requiring retailers to do business the way the Department of Justice thinks is most efficient.
It is no inconvenience to a retailer, if he or she wants to sell a gun, to tell Mr. Smith, ``Go to the firearms officer and tell him you want to buy this gun. Here's the number of it. You bring back the authorization certificate.'' Put the onus on the person who wishes to purchase the firearm, not on the retailer because the Department of Justice thinks in its view there is a particular way of doing business that is better or more efficient than another way.
That's what you're doing here. You're putting an onus on retailers to market their products or do whatever they want in what the Department of Justice thinks is the most efficient way. It is for the chief firearms officer to assure the vendor that the person holds the licence. There should be no obligation on the vendor to be put into that position when it's the job of the firearms officer to let the vendor know.
Indeed, that's exactly what the clause says. You can't transfer until such time as the chief firearms officer issues you an authorization certificate. I can't say any more than out of your own mouth you've indicated that the government is telling retailers how to do business.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Generally I have no trouble following the impeccable logic of my colleague, Mr. Wappel, but this time something escapes me. I wish he could clarify something for me and the rest of the committee.
Anybody who wants to rent a car has to produce a driver's licence. This is a precaution that serves the interests of the rental company because if it rented its cars to people who did not hold a driver's licence, it would expose itself to legal proceedings.
Moreover, I know of many businesses which, daily, ask for an authorization number before accepting their client's credit card. I do not see any particular problem with this clause.
However, there is one that you have not raised. Maybe you intended to raise it, so I will wait for your explanation.
.1235
Imagine that when a transfer takes place, Canadian Tire says «I checked and you have a licence. I am handing the firearm over to you since you have paid for it.» What happens if the officer, upon checking whether the licence is valid, realizes it is not? Who owns the firearm? Does it still belong to Canadian Tire or to the new purchaser who had no right to acquire it? How do we undo this? It is not covered by the bill.
We talked about Canadian Tire. Let us deal with an individual. Say I want to sell my firearm to a colleague. I would better check if he holds a valid licence because if he does not, I may have to cancel the transaction at a later date. What happens then? The bill is silent on this.
Mr. Wappel, could you share your point of view on this issue and arrange the pieces of the puzzle for my own understanding?
[English]
Mr. Wappel: There can be no transfer of ownership until the registrar issues a certificate of transfer. So it cannot occur. So ownership of the goods remains with the vendor until such time as transfer is complete and transfer is not complete until such time as the registrar issues an authorization to that effect.
Mr. de Savoye: Could I intervene here? The text is very clear: ``at the time of the transfer''. We're not talking about before the transfer or after the transfer, but at the very time the transfer does occur. So there's nothing else after the transfer is a done thing.
Mr. Wappel: That's the second point about the unnecessariness of the words ``at the time of'' - and I haven't got to this yet.
You're right, Mr. de Savoye. If we keep it at the exact time of the transfer and we keep the section exactly as it's written, at the very same time as he's handed an authorization certificate by the firearms officer permitting the sale, he will have to ensure that the transferee holds a licence. He will have to do precisely what the firearms officer has already done because of the words ``at the time of the transfer''.
What this section really wants to get at is that these things must be done before a transfer takes place. Before ownership is transferred these things have to occur, not at the actual physical time of legal transfer of ownership, but that's a different issue to the fact of whether or not we impose a positive burden on a vendor to ensure that someone has the licence when the firearms officer is already imposed with that burden and when we know that the vendor cannot transfer ownership until the firearms officer gives permission to do so after having verified the licence.
The fact that the words ``at the time of the transfer'' are there is a drafting problem, I suggest, but has nothing to do at this point with my amendment.
As far as the point about the driver's licence, I don't know this for a fact, but I did not know that it was a conditioned precedent to owning a car in Canada that you had to have a driver's licence. I don't think it is. Therefore, even if you do not have a driver's licence, you can purchase a car. You can't drive it, that's for sure, but you could certainly buy it, I would think.
Mr. de Savoye: I was addressing rental.
Mr. Wappel: Well, you can't rent obviously unless you have a licence, because the purpose of renting is using the car. You could rent on behalf of a designated driver, I would think, but we're getting off topic here.
The Chair: Yes, you are, and I'd like us to stick to the subject.
Mr. Breitkreuz: I have a question in regard to this, and maybe it's because I'm not totally familiar with the entire bill. What legal obligation is there upon that person who wishes to transfer? What does the word ``ensures'' mean in subparagraph 22(a)(i)? What legal obligation is there upon that person to determine that person does not possess a phoney licence or whatever?
I agree with what Mr. Wappel is saying here. You're putting the onus on the person who wishes to.... Does that clerk or does that uncle or does that grandmother who wishes to transfer a firearm to a relative have...? What's the obligation upon them? I think the obligation is on the wrong person.
.1240
Mr. Mosley: I think Mr. Breitkreuz has raised a point that may bear further examination. To be candid, I'm not entirely comfortable with the wording of subparagraph 22(a)(i). I wonder whether we might find a different way to express the point.
What I think is important - and to this extent I still part company with Mr. Wappel's motion - is the balance of convenience between the purchaser and the vendor. With respect, I don't think it is an acceptable answer to say that the purchaser should go off to the local firearms officer and get an authorization. In the vast majority of these cases, it could be done at the point of sale.
The point Mr. Breitkreuz raises is this. Does that person have to ensure that the transferee holds a valid licence? I'm not sure about the answer to that and I'd like some more time to consider it. But I think the section should capture that the vendor should request production of the documentary evidence of a licence, i.e., the physical licence itself, without having any obligation to go beyond what purports to be, on its face, a valid licence. If we can find a different way to express that, perhaps the committee would be inclined to consider it further.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest the committee's concurrence to stand that provision and take another look at maybe another way of drafting that.
The Chair: We're dealing with Mr. Wappel's amendment right now and not with the clause in general.
Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, under those circumstances, and in view of what was said, I would be happy, with the committee's permission, to stand LW-3 at this point until we see what's coming. If there's a change in wording, I might even withdraw my amendment.
The Chair: Is there agreement to stand amendment LW-3 and clause 22?
Amendment allowed to stand
Clause 22 allowed to stand
The Chair: It's almost 12:45 p.m. I said that at 12:30 p.m. we would deal with the motion proposed by Mr. Ramsay a few days ago - 48 hours' notice has been given. The motion is as follows:
- That the committee ensure that the chairman uphold all rules and practices of this committee
and in particular a member's privilege to debate each issue before a committee, as provided in
the Standing Orders, a member's right to question witnesses, a member's right to seek advice
and legal counsel, a member's right to request input from committee research staff, and a
member's right to move motions in his or her language pursuant to Standing Order 65.
On the other hand, although these rights are in the rules and in the practices - in some cases in one and in some cases the other - the advice I got from the clerk was that it's not out of order. It's in order. So you may wish to pass it. It simply says what's already there in a different way. If you reject it, it means the chair is bound by the rules of the committee and of the House of Commons.
Mr. Ramsay: This motion was brought forward not because of the conduct of the chair of this committee. It was brought forward as a result of difficulties that arose by other standing committees of this government.
.1245
I want to make it very clear that this motion has no reflection whatsoever - at least so far - upon the manner in which you have exercised your duties and responsibilities.
The Chair: Is the committee ready for the question?
Mr. Lee: I intend to vote against the motion, but not without some sensitivity to the issue raised by Mr. Ramsay. The incident that occurred a couple of weeks ago in one of the other committees of this Parliament was not a good example of how committee business should be conducted. I am informed that business was conducted without very much sensitivity at all to the needs of the opposition.
Although I accept the point made here by presenting the resolution, I will vote against it.
Motion negatived
The Chair: The motion is defeated, but I want to assure Mr. Ramsay that I intend to fully respect the rules and practices. I would expect him or any other member to call me to order if I'm not respecting such rules and regulations.
We are scheduled to return at 3:30 p.m. We will deal with the Bloc Québécois item number 6, which is new clause 22.
The meeting is adjourned.