EVIDENCE
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, May 30, 1995
.1936 
[English]
The Chair: I call the meeting to order.
[Translation]
We continue our clause by clause study of Bill C-68, an Act respecting firearms and other weapons.
First, I must ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he brought the government amendments requested by Mrs. Venne during this afternoon meeting. The clerk is telling me that he has a copy on hand.
[English]
The clerk has a packet of the amendments but he only has one copy. He's going to see if he can have them photocopied right now. If he can, we'll distribute them right away.
Would it be helpful, if he has limited copying facilities, to begin with, to get one for each party and then get the rest tomorrow? He must put on the numbers of the amendments, i.e., G-25, G-26, but he can give maybe one copy to the parties to allow you to look at them. Tomorrow you will get them in a package that will be put together with the other amendments.
On clause 32 - Authorization to lend
The Chair: This is the clause dealing with the authority to lend firearms. We've received no amendments in advance to this clause. Are there any comments or questions?
Mr. Wappel.
Mr. Wappel (Scarborough West): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you quite rightly point out, this is a clause regarding lending. Subclause (2) thereof provides that:
- (2) A person to whom a firearm is lent...may return it to the person who lent it.
Not only does it confuse me for that reason, but if there is no positive obligation to return it, why is this subclause even here - because of course a person to whom something is lent can return it if they so choose.
If, however, the intent is that the person to whom the firearm is lent must return it at some point, then I would think there should be obligatory words such as ``shall return it'' to the person who lent it; otherwise, the subclause doesn't make any sense.
.1940
I would like to ask the officials what the purpose of subclause (2) is and then maybe I'll have some comments after that.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wappel's question is a good one. On the face of it, one could ask why indeed it is there, because it doesn't seem to be necessary. However, this provision is in the Criminal Code at the present time, and because of that we require it to be in the Firearms Act.
Mr. Wappel: [Inaudible] ...is now?
Mr. MacLellan: It's subsection 97(2), Mr. Wappel. It's not exactly the same, but I think you'll see the similarity.
Mr. Wappel: My point, Mr. Chairman, is so what? If it doesn't make sense and it's in the old act, then somebody missed it the last time around. If it makes sense, do we have an explanation?
Mr. MacLellan: It's just that we're trying to put the same provisions in the Firearms Act that were in the Criminal Code. I have no major objection if you want to take it out. I don't think it makes too much difference. It doesn't seem to add anything, but it's there for continuity purposes.
The Chair: I want to follow up on my colleague's question. Why would it have ``may return''? Do you have any idea?
Mr. MacLellan: It has to do with the terminology in ``may'' and ``shall''. The fact is that it's innocuous. There's no question. If you're going to put a term like that in, ``may'' is a better word.
The Chair: Why don't we ask the legislative counsel if they have a view on that article.
Ms Diane McMurray (Legislative Counsel): This is a complete enigma to us.
Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, under those circumstances I'm going to move an amendment. The only question is which one would be preferable to the government. Either I will move that we remove subclause (2) in its entirety or that we change the word ``may'' to the word ``shall''.
Mr. MacLellan: What we're doing is changing words in something when we don't know why it's there in the first place. So it seems strange to make that change.
Mr. Bodnar (Saskatoon - Dundurn): May I suggest that probably the reason for that particular clause was to comply with the laws as we now have them. A person may lawfully have a firearm now without a firearms acquisition certificate, and if that person lent a gun to some person who does have an FAC, he could not get it back because he does not have an FAC. That clause is there for that purpose, so that it could be returned to the lawful owner who does not have an FAC, because that is not a requirement to possess a gun now, simply to acquire a gun.
Mr. Wappel: You mean that's why it's there now, as opposed to why it's in the bill?
Mr. Bodnar: No. That's why it's there now in the Criminal Code. But in the future it won't be necessary because of the possession certificate.
Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, I do move that the bill be amended in clause 32 by striking lines 5, 6 and 7 on page 19.
Amendment agreed to
The Chair: Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Hill inadvertently has not provided the necessary documentation to be a voting member here at the table. So I would ask the consideration of the committee, that it would grant unanimous consent for that for the next hour and a half.
.1945
The Chair: They may allow him to speak and ask questions, which would be an exceptional thing, but he cannot move amendments or vote. It would be up to the committee.
We try to take a strict line, as you know, with respect to this bill because we all have in our parties many members who are not members of the committee who would like to come, participate and ask questions. The committee could be strung out for a year. If he wishes to speak he will have to ask on each occasion for unanimous consent. Can you not phone your whip's office and get a form? That would be the best thing to do.
He was on the committee this afternoon. They took him off again, I understand.
The Chair: We go back to clause 32.
Clause 32 as amended agreed to
On clause 33 - Authorization to lend firearms, etc., to the Crown and to the police
The Chair: We have received one amendment, which is government amendment 20. Is somebody prepared to move that amendment?
Ms Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): Mr. Chairman, I will move that amendment.
What we are doing here is adding ``restricted weapon'' because it was omitted in the original writing of the bill.
Mr. MacLellan: I think what Ms Phinney says pretty well covers it, but I think it is significant to note that when one gives or lends a firearm to Her Majesty, we don't have to check that Her Majesty has a licence.
Amendment agreed to on division
Clause 33 as amended agreed to on division
On clause 34 - Authorization for non-residents who do not hold a licence to import firearms that are not prohibited firearms
The Chair: We have received one amendment, G-21, in advance.
Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, before we get to that amendment, I wonder if I might ask a question with respect to clause 34.
The Chair: Yes. Proceed.
Mr. Wappel: In subparagraph 34(1)(c), a non-resident will be required to produce an authorization to transport the restricted firearm in order to be able to import it. From whom is he supposed to get the authorization to transport?
Ms Irit Weiser (Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice): The authorization to transport is issued by the chief firearms officer and can be delegated to firearms officers as well.
Mr. Wappel: It's not contemplating some kind of authorization from a foreign government?
Ms Weiser: No, it is not.
Mr. Wappel: All right. Well, how can he produce an authorization to transport when he is standing at the customs office?
Ms Weiser: The current system does require non-residents to get authorizations to transport restricted firearms before they come into Canada. That is the situation now. In the event that someone honestly forgets to do so, we have provided in this clause for the customs officer to be able to detain the firearm while that person gets the necessary authorization.
.1950
The Chair: Are there any further questions or comments? Those are preliminary questions about the clause in itself.
Mr. Ramsay: Not to antagonize anyone here, but there are four instances of ``prescribed'' in this section: prescribed manner, prescribed form, prescribed information, and prescribed manner again. I am wondering if there are any regulations in the present regulation similar to these that we could refer to to give us some idea of what the regulations will mean.
Ms Weiser: No. The whole importation and exportation system is relatively new in this bill and they are not applicable regulations now.
Mr. Ramsay: Would you be in a position to provide any information as to the intent of these provisions?
Mr. MacLellan: I'm not sure I understand Mr. Ramsay's question.
Mr. Ramsay: What is the prescribed manner in subparagraph 34(1)(b):
declares the firearm to a customs officer in the prescribed manner and, in the case of a declaration in writing, completes the prescribed form
- of course, a form is something that will come forward -
containing the prescribed information,
In particular, the first one, the prescribed manner, where it says ``declares the firearm to a customs officer in the prescribed manner'', is it going to be anything different from simply coming forward and saying, well, here's the firearm? What is the purpose of this regulation?
Ms Weiser: We had lengthy discussions with customs on this issue. They face a variety of situations now where, for example, somebody crosses Lake Ontario in a boat from the United States to Canada and they radio in their declarations. Similarly with private planes, they have to set up systems to allow for declarations.
It is for that reason that they asked us to put in ``the prescribed manner'', to ensure that they could in regulations accommodate the various ways in which people come into Canada.
The Chair: We will go to amendment G-21 of clause 34. Who was to move this amendment?
Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): I so move.
This is an amendment to clause 34 and it deals with customs declarations of firearms that are neither prohibited nor restricted. It enables a customs officer to refuse to confirm a declaration made under the conditions prescribed in paragraphs 34(4)(a) and 34(4)(b).
Mr. MacLellan: This is, I think, an important amendment. It was something that was left out initially. It was picked up by customs as an oversight and they asked us to put this in.
It takes into consideration somebody who may not want to bring a firearm into the country, and customs wants the right to be able to refuse this. I think it makes a lot of sense and I think it would be a very worthwhile addition.
Mr. Ramsay: I understand the purpose of this amendment. It has to do, of course, with the whole of the registration system provided for by Bill C-68.
Does the department have any evidence that the transfer or the bringing into Canada of firearms that are legally owned and until now did not require this process was causing any problems? In other words, does this amendment address a problem or is it simply here because the bill has to fit all aspects of firearm ownership in Canada?
.1955
Specifically, I'm asking is there evidence, cases where there was a problem with non-residents coming into Canada with firearms, that this particular clause is designed to deal with, together with other sections that are applicable to non-residents bringing in firearms?
Mr. MacLellan: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think there is that concern. In fact, it's an obvious concern. We have Mr. Mark Connolly from Customs here. I think it would be appropriate to let him respond to that.
Mr. Mark Connolly (Director, Law Enforcement, Revenue Canada Customs):Mr. Chairman, yes, we have had some problems with this in the past.
Under the present system when non-residents arrive at the border, whether they're going hunting or coming in transit through Canada or whether they are just visiting today, if they declare their firearm, if they are going hunting, we let them go unless we find anything else wrong with their declaration.
In the past, we've had circumstances where people have come forward with firearms and later on we found out they had been involved in crimes or other matters. If we had gone further in our examination or had the authority to go further in our examination - this bill will provide us with that authority - we would have been able to say no, you can't come forward with your firearm or we would have the authority to detain the firearm.
The answer is yes. We think this will adequately allow us to turn back those people with their firearms who pose a threat to Canada, particularly those where we've done the criminal background check, the CPIC check, as they've come in and we've found that in fact they've had a previous conviction or a record or, through any other check that we've made, determined that in fact they may have a prohibitory status for a firearm in the United States.
Mr. Ramsay: Is this occurring with individuals who are declaring their firearms now at the border or is this involving individuals who are crossing the border and not declaring their long guns?
Mr. Connolly: As for those who cross the border today, as I mentioned, unless we have done a check on them or have a reason to do a check on them, we wouldn't know if in fact they were the type of person who shouldn't be in possession of a firearm. The bill provides that when we do a check today, if in fact there is a record on this person or a record comes forward indicating that this person had been convicted of a violent offence, for example, in the United States.... Obviously we wouldn't want this person coming forward with a firearm into Canada.
Mr. Ramsay: Do you do those kinds of checks now?
Mr. Connolly: We only do those kinds of checks today where we have reasonable grounds or we've found something else out of the ordinary during our examination process. We don't do those checks today on most individuals.
Mr. Ramsay: Do you do those checks on individual hunters who come across the border and declare that they are either going hunting or they do have a firearm on them? Do you do those checks today?
Mr. Connolly: We would only do those checks today if, as I've mentioned, we have reason to believe or we've found something in our examination of the vehicle or in our interview with the person that in fact there was a problem or something that we believe may be a problem. We would either go further in our interview or we may conduct checks, depending on the circumstances of the examination.
Mr. Ramsay: Do you feel that with the new legislation in place that procedure will change at all, where an individual comes in, has to get a temporary registration for his firearm, unless there's probable grounds or some reason to do a background check - or will you be doing a background check on them all?
Mr. Connolly: Initially, for every person who arrives in Canada and who does not have a pre-authorization, for their first visit, certainly when they arrive and they make a declaration that they have a firearm, whether for hunting or other reasons, they will complete the form. We will, of course, have taken a declaration from them, and when we go to enter the form or confirm the form through the systems that we will have in place, a CPIC check will automatically be done as will a check with NCIC in the United States.
If the person has a record, we will do a further examination at that time to make a determination on whether he's admissible himself. He may be prohibited or fall into a prohibited class or an inadmissible class under the Immigration Act. We will have to make a determination, first of all, as to whether he should go forward, and then secondly, depending on the circumstances of any offence he may have committed, as to whether he should in fact go forward with the firearm.
.2000
At that time we will give him the option of returning the firearm to the United States, and he can go on with his trip if he's admissible to Canada. That does not preclude him from going further later on, if he wishes, to make a formal application through the regular process to a registrar of firearms within Canada.
Mr. Ramsay: I have one final question. Why do you not now do a CPIC check on a non-resident coming into Canada declaring firearms?
Mr. Connolly: First of all, we don't do it because we don't have the systems in place to do it today. We don't have a system at all locations that gives us automatic access to CPIC. Secondly, we do it today only, again, as I've mentioned, when we have reason to believe they have committed an offence or they may commit an offence and we have some other evidence on hand.
The Chair: Thank you. With respect to amendment G-21, are there any further comments?
Amendment agreed to on division
Clause 34 as amended agreed to on division
On clause 35 - Temporary licence and registration certificate
The Chair: This is another clause dealing with the importation of firearms. We have two amendments, LP-5 and G-22. LP-5 is Ms Phinney's. I'm informed that the two amendments are similar.
Ms Phinney.
Ms Phinney: Mr. Chairman, I would like to withdraw my amendment since the government has wisely included the intent of my amendment in G-22.
The Chair: Who is responsible for moving amendment G-22?
Ms Phinney: Mr. Chairman, I'll move amendment G-22.
Mr. MacLellan: It's fairly self-explanatory, Mr. Chairman. It says:
(3) For greater certainty, an application for a renewal of the confirmation of a declaration may be made by telephone or other electronic means or by mail and a chief firearms officer may renew that confirmation by electronic means or by mail.
What is does is that if someone who is in the country on a sixty-day permit for hunting finds that they're going to overstay that sixty-day permit, so as not to go back to customs and renew the permit, they can by telephone or fax, or whatever, get a renewal from the firearms officer or some designate of the firearms officer. It just makes sense, is actually more efficient, and I think would be more in keeping with what the people in the more remote areas of Canada would want.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 35 as amended agreed to on division
Clauses 36 and 37 agreed to on division
.2005
Clause 38 agreed to
On clause 39 - Authorization for individuals who hold a licence to import firearms
The Chair: This is another clause with respect to the import of firearms. No amendments have been received in advance.
Mr. Ramsay: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we have an amendment that has not returned yet from the drafters, and I would like to stand this clause over for that purpose.
Clause 39 allowed to stand
Clause 40 agreed to
The Chair: Now we have amendment LP-6, which provides for a new clause, to be called clause 40.1.
Ms Phinney, this is your amendment.
Ms Phinney: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to withdraw this clause. With the explanation from the department, I've decided it's not necessary.
The Chair: You haven't moved it. It's not put, so it's withdrawn.
Mrs. Barnes (London West): On a point of order, don't you have to do the whole clause carried?
The Chair: We carried clause 40.
Clauses 41 and 42 agreed to
On clause 43 - Authorization to export
The Chair: Clause 43 deals with the authorization to import and export and related matters. We have received three amendments to this particular clause: LL-3, G-23, and LL-4. Who is LL?
Mr. Wappel: Mr. Lee. I'll be moving his amendment.
The Chair: All right, Mr. Wappel for Mr. Lee, you have the floor.
Mr. Wappel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, there has been a death in Mr. Lee's family. He's not here this evening because he's at the visitation, and he will be at the funeral tomorrow. Therefore he has asked me to move any of his amendments that come up either this evening or until he returns tomorrow - just so that's clear.
Secondly, amendment LL-3, which is before you and which has not yet been moved, I would not want to move, because Mr. Lee has designed a new LL-3 that he has asked me to move. I have the copy here. I would ask that it be distributed, please.
.2010
This would be what I would call new LL-3. What I propose to do is in effect ask the indulgence of the committee by moving the amendment and then asking that it be stood simply because it refers to an amendment that Mr. Lee proposes to make in subclause 58(3). It would seem to me more logical to explain the amendment of subclause 58(3) and then come back to this, because obviously if subclause 58(3) doesn't pass, what's the point of dealing with new LL-3.
So I move new LL-3 and would ask under those circumstances that it be stood.
The Chair: Mr. Wappel has moved the new LL-3, but he's now asked that it be stood, because it relates to other amendments that Mr. Lee will make in a later clause. Does the committee agree to stand this amendment LL-3?
Mr. MacLellan: With a qualification, Mr. Chairman, that when we deal with clause 58, we make a note that we do deal with it at that time.
Mr. Wappel: That's acceptable to the mover.
Amendment allowed to stand
The Chair: Next, I have government amendment G-23. Mr. Bodnar.
Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that particular amendment. It's an amendment that deals with goods that are in transit. The amendments would require no licence if goods are in transit through Canada where there is a non-resident business.
The Chair: Are there any questions or comments with respect to proposed amendment G-23?
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne (Saint-Hubert): I don't have G-23 in French. The numbering has been changed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: It looks like it has been changed.
Mrs. Venne: The numbering has been changed. It was number 24. Thank you.
[English]
Amendment agreed to on division
The Chair: Next, we have amendment LL-4, also an amendment by Mr. Lee, to be dealt with by Mr. Wappel.
Mr. Wappel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lee advises that he's again going to change the wording so I'm not going to move LL-4.
I am, however, going to move that line 37 be amended by inserting immediately before the word ``required'' the word ``reasonably''.
The purpose of this amendment is it would then read that it would provide the registrar with prescribed information - my friend, Mr. Ramsay, may ask about prescribed information - and any other information reasonably required.
The Chair: Identify the line again.
Mr. Wappel: Line 37, inserting the word ``reasonably'' immediately before the word ``required'', so that paragraph (e) would read:
(e) provides the Registrar with the prescribed information and any other information reasonably required by the Registrar.
The purpose of this amendment would be to make it quite clear that we're requiring reasonable requirements of the registrar and would, in the statute, indicate to the registrar that reasonableness must be a criterion.
You will note, colleagues, that this is under the title ``Businesses''. You will recall that Mr. Lee has made numerous interventions about businesses and the difficulties he has found dealing with the provincial firearms officers. Therefore, he asks us to consider, and I ask on his behalf that we consider, adding this word so we could have the words ``reasonably required by the Registrar''.
The Chair: Shall I identify this amendment as LL-5?
.2015
Mr. Wappel: Let's identify it as new LL-4, because I think he has an LL-5 later on.
The Chair: Mr. MacLellan.
Mr. MacLellan: I see no problem with that, Mr. Chairman. It's quite acceptable.
Mr. Ramsay: I am wondering if that couldn't be handled with this ``prescribed information''. The bill is saying that there will be a regulation that will provide instructions for the information that will be required by the registrar. Am I reading that right? Could the officials tell us what this means:
(e) provides the Registrar with the prescribed information and any other information reasonably required by the Registrar. Can you tell us what that means? Can you give us any information on that? Would it address Mr. Wappel's concern?
Mr. Richard Mosley (Assistant Deputy Minister, Criminal and Social Policy, Department of Justice): Paragraph (e) deals with both prescribed information - i.e., the information the regulations will require - and also information that the registrar, in the exercise of his duties, may require which is beyond the scope of that prescribed by the regulations.
What Mr. Wappel is moving, on behalf of Mr. Lee, is a limitation on the scope of that requirement by the registrar which would impose a reasonableness standard. I've heard that it may not be grammatically correct as phrase, but the spirit and intent of the motion is to ensure that the registrar has regard to the reasonableness of the request when he's making it to the business.
Mr. MacLellan: It has to do with business as well, as to how much information has to be made available. Businesses can reasonably expect that they don't have to give information indefinitely or in areas of their operations that may be of interest to competitors or to other people who may benefit from what would otherwise be privileged and confidential information. They are very concerned about giving information over and above that information that would be reasonably required under the act and under the regulations.
Ms Phinney: I'm just wondering if its necessary, and if maybe the witness could tell us who's going to decide what's reasonable. Who decides what the registrar should be doing, anyway? Presumably when they're picked to do their job, aren't they expected to be reasonable? Aren't they expected to make reasonable decisions?
Mr. MacLellan: I think they would. It's generally expected that the registrar would make reasonable decisions.
The concern is the businesses. They are very worried that all of a sudden they are going to be asked for a lot of information that doesn't relate to what is required, and that somebody somewhere is going to abuse the information that they are going to ask for, and that's going to put them at a competitive disadvantage. That only needs to happen once for it to be very damaging.
Ms Phinney: Mr. Chairman, through you, wouldn't that then mean we'll have to have a definition in here somewhere about what the registrar is supposed to do in this case? They are going to have to define ``reasonable'' at some point.
Mr. MacLellan: I think ``reasonable'' is a well-defined term in law, and I don't think we'll have to define it further. I think it's more or less just to make businesses more comfortable in carrying out operations in Canada, frankly.
Mr. Bodnar: Are the words ``for the purpose of this Act'' superfluous? Is the registrar not a registrar pursuant to this act and therefore can only conduct inquiries under this act, and therefore he can only act under this act?
Mr. MacLellan: What words are those?
.2020
Mr. Bodnar: I'm looking at LL-4: ``for the purpose of this Act''.
The Chair: We're not dealing with LL-4. We're dealing with the new LL-4.
Mr. Bodnar: That's what I'm looking at.
Mr. Wappel: It's only adding the word ``reasonably'', nothing else.
The Chair: That was withdrawn.
Mr. Bodnar: That's news to me.
The Chair: There was a new LL-4 that involved the addition of one word.
Mr. Bodnar: That's fine. That solves that problem.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 43 allowed to stand
Clause 44 agreed to on division
On clause 45 - Authorization to import
The Chair: This clause also deals with the importation and exportation of firearms. We've received one amendment, G-25.
Mr. Bodnar: This is similar to G-23 except that this one now deals with import rather than export. It's identical otherwise.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 45 as amended agreed to on division
Clauses 46 to 48 inclusive agreed to on division
On clause 49 - Notification of Registrar
The Chair: This also deals with the import and export of firearms. We've received no amendments. Are there any questions or comments with regard to this clause?
Mr. Wappel: Clause 48?
The Chair: Clause 49. Clause 48 was agreed to. We just passed it.
Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, with the permission of the committee, I want to bring something to the committee's attention and maybe get an answer. I know we've passed it, but if you will note, Mr. Chairman, in the English version -
The Chair: Wait a minute. Are you going to discuss clause 48?
Mr. Wappel: Yes.
The Chair: Is there just a question you want to put?
Mr. Wappel: It's an observation I wish to put to the members, who then may decide to revisit clause 48. If they don't, so be it.
The Chair: In order to be in accordance with the rules of Parliament and the committee, I'm going to ask the committee if you have their permission to do that. Does Mr. Wappel have the permission of the committee to revisit clause 48?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.2025
Mr. Wappel: Thank you.
Very briefly, you will notice that the English version specifically refers to section 42. The French version refers to no section. To me, that seems like an anomaly, and I would think it would need to be addressed.
Mr. Yvan Roy (Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice): Mr. Wappel, I think in the French version it is implied that you refer to section 42. I think the English version is perhaps more precise, but the French version already includes, as part of the reading of the whole part that we're talking about starting with section 42, the fact that you're talking about section 42. That's a different way of drafting the statute, purely and simply.
I don't think there is anything missing in the French version. That's my reading, at least.
Mr. Wappel: [Inaudible] ...my friends in the Bloc, but I do remind everybody that the Barreau du Québec brought this up and specifically thought it was a problem.
[Translation]
The Chair: Madam Venne.
Mrs. Venne: Mr. Chairman, I believe that instead of saying that it is implicit, we could simply add it. That would bother no one, and Mr. Wappel is right. It would be a way of siding with the Barreau du Québec.
[English]
The Chair: I know when you report the bill back to the House you can make amendments such as this without the agreement of the committee, and it's suggested that you do so.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Why not do so right away?
[English]
Mr. MacLellan: I think we can do that.
The Chair: We'll now return to clause 49, which deals with the import and export of arms. No amendments have been received. Are there any questions or comments?
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Are we really at section 49?
The Chair: Yes.
Mrs. Venne: What have you done with section 48? You'll be tabling it with the House?
The Chair: It has been carried.
Mrs. Venne: So we're not going to be revisiting that section?
The Chair: No.
Mrs. Venne: Fine, we'll do it in the House.
The Chair: The parliamentary secretary tells me he would agree to having the French version changed as suggested.
Mrs. Venne: Thank you.
The Chair: We have received no amendments to section 49. Are there questions or comments concerning this section?
[English]
Clauses 49 and 50 agreed to on division
On clause 51 - Only at designated customs offices
The Chair: This clause also deals with the import and export of firearms. We have received an amendment, G-26.
Ms Torsney (Burlington): Mr. Chairman, I'll move this amendment. We want to make absolutely clear that with regard to import and export Canada should not be used for in-transit shipments of prohibited weapons.
I'm sure the officials have further comment.
The Chair: I'm told this is not an amendment to clause 51. It's new clause 51.1. Perhaps we could stand it for two seconds and deal with clause 51 first.
We received no amendments to clause 51 as such.
Clause 51 agreed to
The Chair: Now we return to amendment G-26, which proposes new clause 51.1.
Mr. MacLellan, you were about to add to the comments of Ms Torsney.
Mr. MacLellan: It's just that prohibited firearms cannot be transshipped through Canada.
Ms Cohen (Windsor - St. Clair): I was just going to add that there are a couple of policy reasons for that one.
One is that there can be a leakage problem from warehouses. We've already experienced that in a couple of areas of the country.
.2030
The second is that there's an agreement in existence between Canada and the United States called the Hyde Park Agreement, which was developed in I think 1941. It has to do with our relations during the Second World War.
It causes problems for the Americans as well as for us. If we didn't have this, it would allow American law to be breached by using... this prohibited weapons that are also prohibited in the United States to come through Canada from, say, offshore somewhere in order to be imported into the United States, because under the Hyde Park agreement they couldn't be opened and inspected.
The Chair: Do we agree to the amendment to create new clause 51.1?
Amendment agreed to
On clause 52 - Applications
The Chair: We're entering a new part of the bill. These clauses deal with licences, registration certificates and authorizations. We've received two amendments to clause 52, G-27 and G-28.
Mr. Wappel: I move my second-favourite drafting amendment, G-27, which would change the word ``paragraph'' to ``subsection'' because we're removing paragraph 12.(6)(a) in accordance with clause 12, as passed.
The Chair: Mr. Wappel likes to move these because he's a renowned international draftsperson. When he retires from politics he's going to sit over there.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Ms Torsney: I move amendment G-28.
The Chair: Do you have anything to say?
Ms Torsney: No. You should all agree, and that's the way it'll go.
Just kidding. The officials will comment.
Mr. MacLellan: This is a clarification. It relates to the whole question of when a person is acquiring or renewing a restricted firearm, and it relates to relics. It more or less specifically states that if it's a handgun and it's a relic, you don't have to show every five years the reasons why you have it. It excludes relics.
The Chair: In ordinary cases, when you renew your licence you have to show the reasons every time, but with relics you don't.
Mr. MacLellan: You won't have to.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Ramsay: We have an amendment that hasn't returned from the drafters, so I'd ask that clause 52 be stood.
Clause 52 allowed to stand
.2035
Clauses 53 to 55 inclusive agreed to on division
The Chair: We have an amendment from the Reform Party, amendment R-8, which would add new clause 55.1.
Mr. Ramsay: This clause is designed to return the entitlement for an individual to receive authorization from the chief firearms officer.
I move to amend Bill C-68 by adding immediately after line 3 on page 27 the following:
55.1 A chief firearms officer shall issue a licence, an authorization to carry or an authorization to transport to an applicant where the chief firearms office has determined that the applicant is eligible to hold the licence or authorization.
That entitlement, I understand from my research, is in the current code and is going to be removed by Bill C-68. So the amendment is to return the entitlement so that if all requirements are met, it is not a ``may'' but a ``shall''.
The Chair: Mr. MacLellan, do you have any comments on that amendment?
Mr. MacLellan: Yes. Mr. Ramsay mentioned that it is already in the code. Where is it in the code?
Mr. Ramsay: I'm not going to find it today. My code is in my office. Nevertheless, I feel that once a person has met the requirements, they should not be receiving their documentation at the pleasure; it should be an entitlement once they have fulfilled the requirements. That's what this is designed to do.
Mr. MacLellan: I find it somewhat unclear. It seems to be contradictory to clause 55. Not only that, clause 55 says a chief firearms officer ``may'' issue authorizations and new clause 55.1 says a chief firearms officer ``shall'' issue a licence. I think it removes any discretion on the firearms officer not to issue, and I don't think that's acceptable.
Mr. Ramsay: On the question of it conflicting with clause 55, I would ask for an opinion from our legal counsel.
Mr. Louis-Phillippe Côté (Legislative Counsel): I have studied the bill over and over and I don't see any obligation for the chief firearms officer to deliver any authorization if the person who requires such authorization fulfils all the criteria.
Clause 55 seems to indicate who is the person issuing the authorization. It's an enabling clause. So clause 55 and new clause 55.1 would be different. Clause 55 would say who gives what and new clause 55.1 would say what it is you have to do if everything is met. Otherwise there is no obligation for the chief firearms officer to deliver.
Ms Cohen: Has the Reform Party also drafted an amendment to set out what the word ``eligible'' means, and what are the requirements for eligibility? You can't just say somebody ``may'' do something and then say they have to, if people are eligible, without making some definitions here. It seems to me that what the amendment seeks to do is to go in through the back door and make something mandatory that this government intends to make discretionary.
.2040
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, we dealt with that earlier today. We dealt with cases from the province of Saskatchewan - I guess that's the province Mr. Breitkreuz was referring to - where all the criteria was met and after six months the applicant was still waiting.
This amendment gives the individual entitlement. They have to meet certain criteria. Once they're met, they should not have to wait on the pleasure of the official to grant them what they're entitled to. They have met the criteria. Why would we not provide that entitlement to the applicant within our legislation?
Mr. Bodnar: I am wondering about new clause 55.1, amendment R-8, where it indicates that the chief firearms officer shall issue a licence - and then it goes on - where the chief firearms office has determined. Is it the office that determines that an applicant is eligible or is it the chief firearms officer who determines it?
Mr. Ramsay: I believe that's a spelling error. That should be ``officer'' instead of ``office''.
Mr. Bodnar: In other words, the chief firearms officer determines that a person is eligible. If that determination is made, then there is a remedy by other proceedings, either by mandamus or whatever, to get that licence. Adding that clause in here isn't going to help at all because the remedy will be the same in law, will it not?
I don't think that paragraph helps at all. I think the remedy is still there and the remedy is the same in law.
Mr. Wappel: I have three points. First, I'm examining the Criminal Code under the heading ``Carriage Permits'', which I presume is roughly the equivalent of what we're talking about. I cannot at this point find anything that speaks in the word ``shall''. I can only find things that speak in the word ``may''. If I'm wrong on that, that's great, but I think I'm in the right section.
Interestingly enough, while quickly glancing, I do note the Latin words ``bona fide'' -
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Wappel: - in subsection 110.(3). That's just to come to the defence of Mr. Lee.
My other point is this. I note in new clause 55.1 that the mover would have the chief firearms officer issue not only an authorization to carry, not only an authorization to transport - which is all that clause 55 currently deals with - but also a licence. Clause 55 does not deal with a licence. It deals with only two things: an authorization to carry and an authorization to transport. Is that an oversight, or is that an attempt to put something in that wasn't there? If so, could the mover explain why?
Mr. Ramsay: The amendment would provide authority for the chief firearms officer to determine that the applicant is eligible to hold a licence or authorization. Once that is determined, the intent of the amendment is to grant an entitlement.
I don't understand -
Mr. Wappel: If I may explain, if you look at clause 54, which I think we have already passed, it says that a chief firearms officer ``may'' issue licences. We've passed that.
Now we go to clause 55, and we say that a chief firearms officer ``may'' issue authorizations to carry and authorizations to transport. I take it the amendment deals with authorizations to carry and authorizations to transport, because if you wanted an authorization to issue a licence mandatorily, you should have put it in clause 54, which is the clause that deals with licences, not the clause that deals with carry permits and authorizations for transport.
That's my point.
If I may say, I'm sympathetic to the mover because of what I just heard legislative counsel say.
That is, they have scoured the bill for a positive requirement on the firearms officer, if all conditions are met, to issue whatever it is that needs to be issued, and there's nothing there.
.2045
Do I understand you correctly?
Ms McMurray: That is correct, Mr. Wappel.
Mr. Wappel: So there is absolutely nothing in the bill that would require - require, mind you - a firearms officer to issue a licence or a permit to carry or a permit to transport if all preconditions have been met. I take it that is simply an assumption in the bill that if all preconditions have been met, that will occur.
I gather Mr. Ramsay is not happy with an assumption and wants to put something in as a fact. I'm not asking the mover, I'm now asking the officials if they would agree that there is no positive obligation in the bill, if all conditions have been met, that a licence must issue or a carry permit must issue. If so, why is that?
Mr. MacLellan: I think Mr. Bodnar has answered the question, as far as I'm concerned. I just don't see what needs to be there. Frankly, I just don't think what Mr. Ramsay has put forward really clarifies it to the extent that this is really going to be helpful.
The Chair: Mr. Hill is now with the committee.
You're legal.
Mr. Hill (Prince George - Peace River): It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that I always was legal, and that you had some misinformation.
The Chair: They told me originally you were not on the committee. Go ahead, you have the floor.
Mr. Hill: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think what we're talking about here, and what Mr. Wappel and my colleague were referring to, is an accountability for the bureaucrat, an accountability whereby if the criteria are met, the licence or the permit to carry or authorization to transport must be met. Certainly, given past history, asMr. Ramsay has indicated, there are instances where, for whatever reason, there are unnecessary delays once all the criteria have been met. What we're endeavouring to do here is put in a bit of accountability whereby there's a requirement - not that they ``may'' issue the licence or the permit but they ``shall'' issue it.
Mr. Bodnar: Just one point: perhaps legislative counsel can tell us whether that particular proposed amendment adds anything at all to the bill.
Ms McMurray: In my opinion, Mr. Bodnar, it adds a great deal -
Mr. Bodnar: What does it add?
Ms McMurray: - and I'll tell you why. First of all, Mr. Wappel made a comment about the current legislation. If you look at section 106, the FAC provisions say that if you jump through all the hoops, there's no matter that's brought to the attention of the firearms officer that makes it undesirable that you.... In other words, it wouldn't hurt you or anybody else to possess a firearm. It says that you ``shall'' issue an FAC. It says the same thing about a registration certificate. If all the hoops have been jumped through, you ``shall'' be issued a registration certificate; it's mandatory.
By making it mandatory you are at what I call the ``primary threshold''. The administrator, the chief firearms officer, knows he has a positive obligation under the act. Perhaps this is a fine line between policy and law, but as it stands now, there is no entitlement. It would mean that if, for whatever reason, I had jumped through all the hoops, I was clean as a whistle and for some reason, I don't know what, a chief firearms officer - there are going to be hundreds of chief firearms officers out there - doesn't give me a licence or a registration certificate, I'm going to have to go under clause 72 to a court.
My point is, the way the act is set up now, that is not the case. There is a primary threshold test where I'm entitled to something once I meet certain criteria. It's only after the fact, if there are some other problems, that I can go to court.
Also of note here is that under clause 72, and Mr. Wappel may be particularly interested in this since he directed his questions to clause 72 several times in this committee, an authorization to carry is not referable under clause 72.
.2050
In other words, there is no reference. If you are refused an authorization to carry, under this act there is no reference under clause 72. If I jump through all the hoops for an authorization to carry, because there would be entitlement it could lead to a mandamus application. The way it's worded now, I can't even go under clause 72 to get that authorization.
Those are just points of clarification.
The Chair: Mr. MacLellan and Mr. Mosley, how do you explain this particular matter? How do you respond to the points made by our legislative counsel?
If I understand correctly, in the present law it does say ``shall'' for FACs and now it says ``may''.
Mr. Mosley: That's correct, Mr. Chairman, with regard to section 106. As Mr. Wappel pointed out, however, under section 110, for authorizations to transport and so on it is continually discretionary. New clause 55.1 mixes both of those categories.
With respect to the reference under clause 72 to the permit to carry, permit to carry is an extremely serious matter. It is not now appealable to a provincial court judge. There is, of course, the option to proceed by way of an application for judicial review. If the individual who is faced with the refusal to issue an authorization permit to carry feels sufficiently aggrieved by that decision, he or she can seek a judicial review of the decision.
Ms Torsney: By way of explanation, Mr. Ramsay has identified that this is meant to address Mr. Breitkreuz's earlier comment about permits being held up for six months. There's still no timeframe in this clause. Even if you say they shall issue it, it still doesn't say there's accountability or they have to issue it within six months or a year or anything else, just that it has to be done. So I'm not sure the explanation fits this amendment.
I'd like clarification on that.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): With regard to the word ``may'' used in the English version of section 55, if we refer to the criteria established in Pigeon's Treatise on legislative wording and interpretation, it is clear that when ``may'' becomes ``shall'', when all conditions are met, there is no discretion left.
In my view, the firearms officer who is faced with an application that satisfies all conditions has not discretion to refuse the license or authorization applied for, he can only refuse for just cause.
Therefore I think section 55 is dealing with the issue. If we need to add on top of it section 55.1, that is another matter. But we've already dealt with the matter of delays, which would have been the most straightforward way to solve the problem. At any rate, proposed section 55.1 would only provide a mandamus recourse before a section 96 court and not before the provincial court considered in section 72. I don't know if the legislative counsel agrees with me on this last issue.
Whether we have a section 55.1 or not, one will have to go before a section 96 court to get an interpretation as to whether ``may'' has been transformed into ``shall'' because all conditions have been met, and one will have to go before the same court to establish that the firearms officer must issue. One way or the other, he'll have to go before the same court. It might be easier to provide an appeal before a provincial court.
[English]
Mr. Ramsay: I was interested in the comment made by Mr. Mosley when the chair asked him to respond to the statement made by the legal counsel.
.2055
I wonder if legal counsel has anything to offer in terms of what Mr. Mosley has said.
Ms McMurray: I think Mr. Mosley was speaking about judicial review, that you would be able to have recourse to judicial review. Am I correct?
Of course, I would point out to the committee that the grounds for judicial review are narrow. The judicial review court just doesn't have a roving mandate to do good.
You have to bring yourself within either (a) to (f) of the provisions of the Federal Court Act, so there has to be something like lack of natural justice, which is a procedural issue that would probably be involved here, based on a decision or order of an erroneous finding of fact that was made in a perverse or capricious manner.
So if you can bring yourself within these limited grounds under the Federal Court Act, you're in like a dirty shirt. If you can't, too bad; you can't get anywhere under the Federal Court Act or for judicial review. So it's not an open door.
Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, I'm more than a little perturbed, because speaking for myself only, I have obviously missed the import, or the perceived import, of clause 54. I know we've dealt with it, but under the rubric of clause 55.
The current system is a mandatory system. If you comply, the firearms acquisition officer ``shall'' issue.
The Chair: I don't think for the permits to -
Mr. Wappel: No, I understand that. You asked the officials to comment on the response by the legislative counsel. I did not hear a response as to why there has been a paradigm shift in the new legislation from a situation where the officer ``shall'' issue, if all things have occurred - and by the way, that is probably at least a ten-line paragraph as compared with a five-word sentence - to a...which now means the firearms officer ``may'' issue.
As the counsel points out, what's the policy reason for this complete reversal from a mandatory requirement to issue, if you jump through the hoops, to speak colloquially, to one where there is now only a discretion to issue? This had to have been thought of.
The Chair: That's why I asked the question, as well. It seems as though I missed it too. It's a very important change. If there's an explanation, the committee should have it.
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, the question is in the criteria. This is a very sensitive area. Not a lot of these licences are granted. I don't think it can be -
Mr. Wappel: I'm sorry, I'm not talking now about permits to carry and permits to transport. I'm talking about a licence to possess, in general.
It is now ``may.'' It was ``shall.'' That's clearly different. Why has the government decided to change it?
The Chair: Would you like to take it under advisement?
Mr. MacLellan: No, I have my own understanding of it, but I would check with Mr. Mosley.
But I would just tell you, Mr. Chairman, that as I mentioned before, to make it absolute takes away any discretion, and frankly I don't believe not having some discretion is really in the best interest.
It is a very complex area. A lot of factors come into play. There is the course to judicial review. It's a political review as well. The firearms officer has to account for his or her actions.
Perhaps Mr. Mosley has some other position.
.2100
Mr. Mosley: I can't, of course, speak on behalf of the government, but I don't think there was a deliberate decision to change a policy.
If I may, I think what we're dealing with here is a different approach to how the new equivalent, I guess, of the firearms acquisition certificate is to be handled and issued.
Section 106 does give a great deal of discretion to the firearms officer. I think you have to read the whole thing through. I think it is perhaps...I don't want to say simplistic, but to simply say there's a mandatory requirement there, really you have to consider the context of section 106. The firearms officer can choose not to if, of course, the individual doesn't meet the criteria. That's really stated more in the negative than in the positive in subsection 106(2).
But it goes on in subsection 106(1) to say:
any further information that is submitted to the firearms officer...and such other information as may reasonably be regarded as relevant to the application
- again, both very subjective decisions by the firearms officer -
have notice of any matter that may render it desirable in the interests of the safety of the applicant or of any other person
So it's not quite as cut and dried. The firearms officer in those circumstances today has a considerable amount of discretion to choose not to issue an FAC.
Under this bill we have the statement in clause 5 that lays out a long list of criteria that have to be considered before you even get to the decision as to whether or not a licence should be issued. It's only after going through that, considering all of that criteria, that the firearms officer is left at the point of making a decision: Does he issue a licence or does he not issue a licence?
Then clause 54 says that the chief firearms officer may issue licences, etc., and then, of course, there are other provisions delegating the responsibilities down to the local level.
There's no deliberate decision to make a significant change in policy here. I think this is more a question of drafting style, and how this bill has been drafted aside from the authorizations where I think there is a clear distinction to be drawn between the status quo and what's being proposed.
Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, listening to Mr. Mosley I do, of course, note that there is a difference in that, indeed, a person refused a licence could appeal to the provincial court under the new bill under clause 72, so at least there wouldn't be a mandamus. They have a right under clause 72, in a refusal, to appeal to a provincial court.
I listened carefully to the explanation. I wonder if I might ask if there would be any comment by legislative counsel to the comments by Mr. Mosley.
Ms McMurray: Mr. Chairman, to be respectful to Mr. Mosley, he just hasn't answered the question. It's very clear under the current act. There may be a different regime - that may be all well and good - but the bottom line is that under the current law, if I am clean, I have taken my test, I have done all of the things I am supposed to do and I am of age, I ``shall'' be issued an FAC. That's what the law says. I've read this thing a million times, and that's what it says now.
It also says the same thing for a registration certificate. If I jump through all the hoops it ``shall'' be issued to me. I didn't make up the law; that's what it says.
That is not what this act says. Now, I'm not commenting on whether there was a sinister motive on the part of the government. If it was an oversight, it was not an oversight, that's not for me to say.
I'm simply saying I can't find it in this act. If someone can find it, I would like to see it. As a drafter, I cannot find it.
.2105
If I jump through all the hoops, I am as clean as a whistle. There is nothing in this bill that says I am entitled to be issued a licence or a registration certificate, both of which I need if I am not to be in contravention of the law and am in possession of a firearm.
That's it. That's all I can say.
Mr. MacLellan: As Ms McMurray said, there's no sinister move on the part of the government to deny anybody anything if they meet the criteria. It's just that we feel the firearms officer has to make the decision. As Mr. Mosley said, in section 106...there are areas that have to be looked at.
What is going to bring the firearms officer to that point cannot be stated in a cut and dried manner. There cannot be any arbitrary denial. If there was, there would be not only a judicial appeal and mandamus but also a political appeal and a political furor that would become an embarrassment to any minister. The fact of the matter is, this has to be able to act and has to be able to work on the ability of the people we put in place.
Mrs. Barnes: I just wanted to make the point that we've already been going for 12 hours today. Having regard to the time, I suggest that we call the question on this or stand it aside until tomorrow, because we still have to deal with when our next meetings are.
The Chair: I was going to say that what we seem to be discussing, for the most part, is revisiting clause 54 rather than discussing new clause 55.1, which is the amendment R-8.
I bring to your attention that when we get to clause 58, which deals with the issuance of the registration certificate, we will run into the same discussion.
Since new clause 55.1 deals not only with the issuance of a licence but also the authorization to carry or authorization to transport, it's a bit of a different matter than the basic question. Because if I understand correctly, under the present law there's no ``shall'' with respect to carrying or transportation, whereas in this proposed amendment, ``shall'' applies both to the licence and the carrying and authorization to transport.
All I can say about this is that we've carried clause 54. Once again, that's what the report stage in the House is for, to correct or add further amendments that might have been missed in committee.
We'll deal with clause 58 later, but I'd ask that if there is further debate on new clause 55.1, amendment R-8, I'd be happy to hear it. Otherwise, we'll call the question on R-8. I don't want to continue discussing what we might have missed in clause 54.
Is there further discussion just on amendment R-8?
Mr. Bodnar: Just one point to finish this off. This is a matter of great importance, after hearing from legislative counsel on these matters, and the mandatory aspect that's in the present legislation is not present in this legislation. It causes great concern for someone like me who, having been defence counsel for 22 years, and having to go and apply for licences where the licences are virtually granted by police, I may fall into disfavour, and even though I meet all the criteria I may not be able to get it.
Maybe this is a little self-serving as well, but I can see other people in that particular position. That's a concern I have about ``shall'' not being included in the legislation.
Mr. Wappel: I can't support amendment R-8. It deals with licences, which we've already dealt with, and it makes mandatory authorizations to carry and authorizations to transport that are currently not mandatory.
.2110
Mr. Hill: I have a couple of quick comments. First, I don't really understand the argument as put forward by Mr. MacLellan, because I think we're saying there should be enough discretion in the criteria that once a person goes through that process there should be some onus placed on the firearms officer to issue the licence. It shouldn't be ``may'' or ``may not'', depending on what mood he or she is in that day. There should be an onus put on him or her to do that.
My second comment is that I don't see any reason why, in light of the comments made on this over the last 15 minutes, we couldn't move to revisit clause 54 because of the obvious disparity in points of view on it.
The Chair: It's a dangerous practice. There is a means of fixing it in the House.
I must say, you were again drifting back to the question that really comes under clause 54 and not this one. One could dispute that there never was a ``shall'' with respect to carrying and transport.
Mr. MacLellan: With respect to new clause 55.1, regardless of how we look at it - whether it's ``shall'' or ``may'' or ``will'' or whatever - I just don't think new clause 55.1 is suitable.
We will look at this whole question relating to clauses 54, 55, new clause 55.1 and clause 58. If we can find something we'll report back to the committee. If we feel it's something that needs to be opened up, then.... We can also do it at report stage. But we will look at this whole question.
Mr. Ramsay: It's my motion, so of course I'll vote in favour of the motion. I understand the comments from Mr. Wappel and Mr. MacLellan. If the government will take the intent of this motion to heart and look at the bill from that viewpoint, that will certainly satisfy me.
The Chair: Mr. MacLellan said they would do that and they would report back to us before we finish our deliberations on this matter.
Mr. MacLellan: If we don't open it up, then we may just report back that it's something we may want to bring in at report stage.
The Chair: Of course; that's understood.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: This afternoon I made the observation that we were a long way from finishing our work. I guess I'm an eternal optimist - eternal like the flame - thinking we might have finished by the end of today. But we need to have more meetings.
The rules say we agree that we should carry on until we finish the clause-by-clause. According to the rules the committee is at the call of the chair. Nevertheless, I want to propose to you that we meet tomorrow afternoon from 3:30 until 6 p.m.; from 7:30 to 10 p.m.; and Thursday morning from 9 to half past 12.
Then we follow our general practice, for people who may want to go home, and not meet Thursday afternoon or Friday. We will meet all day Monday and go back to the clauses that are stood and finish on Monday, if possible. We could start at 9 a.m. and go through the morning, afternoon and evening.
This will also leave Thursday afternoon, Friday and the weekend to help finish the drafting of amendments that might have been delayed.
.2115
I have sympathy for our legislative counsel, but I know I didn't have any time off last weekend and neither did a lot of other people. I have sympathy for everyone, but this is a tough job and we have to get it done.
That's my proposal for when we will meet. It will give us a bit of time on the weekend to put things together and also return to the clauses that have been stood.
Mr. MacLellan: I think we should sit until we finish.
The Chair: We have to.
In accordance with the decision of the committee we've scheduled the meetings on extreme drunkenness as a defence for Tuesday, Wednesday afternoon and Thursday of next week on the schedule we used to follow, not at night and so on. The witnesses we agreed to will come next week on that bill, Bill C-72.
Mr. Ramsay: Did you say 10 p.m. tomorrow and 10 p.m. Thursday?
The Chair: It could be 9:30 p.m., if you want.
Mr. Ramsay: If we're going over into Monday, surely we'll be able to wrap this up Monday. Why don't we knock off at 9 p.m. instead of 10 p.m.?
The Chair: Would you rather do 7 to 9 p.m. than 7:30 to 10 p.m.?
Mr. Ramsay: Yes.
The Chair: We could go from 3:30 to 5:30 p.m. tomorrow - you have caucus in the morning - 7 to 9 p.m., and then 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Thursday. That will be it for the weekend. Then we'll come back at 9 a.m. Monday.
Mr. Ramsay: I would support that.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: There's just a small problem, Mr. Chairman. You said we would have the government amendments government, but we didn't get them.
An Honourable Member: We got them.
Mrs. Venne: We got them? Thank you. Sorry, we have them.
[English]
The Chair: It seems someone has the second package of government amendments. Tomorrow afternoon you will have them, numbered, inserted in the schedule and so on.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: It's because we work nights, Mr. Chairman. That's why I'm asking for these amendments.
The Chair: Certainly, but you will get them.
[English]
I want to thank the members of the committee. They made good progress this evening.
The meeting is adjourned.