EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, May 31, 1995

.1535

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Good afternoon. We'll commence with the order of the day, which is Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons, by continuing the clause-by-clause consideration. We'll be going until 5:30 this afternoon and again this evening from 7 to 9 o'clock.

Before we start where we left off yesterday, Mr. Ramsay has advised me he wishes to have a few words on the motion he tabled the other day, which comes due today after 48 hours' notice.

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): I have just a few comments on this motion. Mr. Allmand apprised us of the rules on Monday, and of course, what is more important is the application of those rules. Twice during the hearing of witnesses or during a business meeting following the hearing of witnesses we were assured that the drafter would have sufficient time to draft our amendments. However, on Monday we were advised that would not be the case. They advised us they needed about a week and a half to complete drafting all the amendments. That, of course, was the purpose of my motion.

I want to place it on record that at least from my point of view we are rushing the amendments. We have not had a chance to really review the amendments. We received the last of the government amendments last night and I was able to just quickly go through the first batch. I haven't had time to really appraise them, so that will have to be done as we go through them.

I have some concern about whether that is the best venue in which to create legislation for our country. Nevertheless, I understand the intent of the committee as far as the time allocation is concerned. We agreed last night that we would proceed today, again tomorrow until 1 p.m. and then again Monday. With that in view, and with our own amendments still with the draft team, I would like to know what the situation will be once we get to the end of our amendments and our draft amendments are not back in completion. What then would be the ruling of the chair?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): We'll do the ruling of the chair at that time. Right now you're speaking to your motion to adjourn until June 7, and I'm not clear whether you're withdrawing this because you agreed last night or you're wishing to have this voted on right now.

Mr. Ramsay: I don't know yet what our position is if our amendments aren't returned in time for consideration. Do we stand them over? Do have an adjournment until such time?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): We will continue to do what we have been doing all along. We'll stand down each clause at your request, as we've been doing.

Mr. Ramsay: At the end of that time, bearing in mind we've been advised by the drafters they would need a week and a half to complete what is just before them now, we may end up in a position where we are finished with what we have available and the drafters do not have time to get our amendments back to us for consideration.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): At that stage we'll have to deal with that, Mr. Ramsay. Right now we can have a vote on this motion. Last night all parties agreed to sit for the three sittings, and then Thursday afternoon, all day Friday, Saturday and Sunday will be available to the drafters who are here to work on your motions. We'll be sitting again on Monday morning, and then maybe you'll wish to give us an update on what we're doing.

.1540

Mr. Ramsay: Perhaps they could tell us where they are now compared to where they were when they reported last.

Mr. Louis-Philippe Côté (Legislative Counsel): Essentially, we haven't had time to draft.

I understand the Liberals had their amendments drafted by the Department of Justice, but as to amendments for the Reform Party, we haven't had a chance to draft.

I understand the committee will stop tomorrow afternoon, so we will be able to do some more drafting at that time.

Mr. Ramsay: I think knowing this motion and knowing the intent of this committee and from what we have heard from them on this subject earlier, Madam Chair, if it's in order, I would withdraw this motion at this time and we could continue.

Motion withdrawn

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

Now we will continue with clause-by-clause study, with amendment G-29 to clause 56.

On clause 56 - Conditions

Mr. Bodnar (Saskatoon - Dundurn): Madam Vice-Chair, I would like to move that particular motion on clause 56.

It's a motion to change some of the wording of that clause indicating that the firearms officer shall have a parent or person who has custody of the individual sign the licence, including any conditions. This changes it from what we have, which simply says he shall ensure that the person is aware.

It in fact gives greater certainty and gives protection to the firearms officer of having done what he or she should do, and also gives better protection for the parent. It's just greater certainty in this clause.

Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): This is from having a request from the chief firearms officer in Quebec, who felt that with respect to minors it is important to talk to the parents on conditions on giving licences to minors, but that ultimately it must be the chief firearms officer who would have the final say on the conditions.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Is there any further discussion?

Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Mr. Ramsay: On a point of order, we have an amendment that has not been returned from the drafters. So we would like clause 56 to stand, if that's in order.

Clause 56 allowed to stand

Clause 57 agreed to on division

On clause 58 - Issuance of registration certificate

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I see one amendment, LL-5. Now, this is something where we have to go back also. I believe we stood it down yesterday.

Mr. MacLellan: Clause 43.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Yes. Mr. Lee.

Mr. Lee (Scarborough - Rouge River): Madam Chairman, the clause that was earlier stood down was a clause relating to exports of firearms. This clause deals with the issue of registration certificates and authorizations to export. The part of it that I'm directing my amendment to is the issue of registration certificates.

Here I'm discussing the circumstances of the two manufacturers, Lakefield Arms in Peterborough and Para-Ordnance in Scarborough and Montreal, where they do a very high percentage of export of their product.

If you recall earlier discussions in relation to the Canadian manufacturing of firearms, there is a provision in section 43 that states that in order to get an export authorization, the requirement is that before an export authorization be granted, the person also have the registration certificate for the firearm. What that would mean is that the manufacturer, even though the arms were destined for export and even through there is a plethora of records at each establishment where a firearm is manufactured, would still have to await receipt in some fashion of a registration certificate.

.1545

I haven't even begun to mention the problem of whatever fees might be charged for registration. I have accepted that there will be some form of registration that takes place.

But my amendment here and the amendment that would go back in clause 43 would exempt, as the subclause reads:

firearms manufactured in Canada on the premises of a business licensed under this Act do not require a registration certificate until the firearm is carried, shipped, or otherwise moved outside the licensed premises.

That would first preclude the need for the manufacturer to have a certificate for each of the firearms as they are manufactured, produced, and placed in inventory on the premises.

Subclause 58(3) says that:

A firearm described in subsection (2) that is exported by its manufacturer in accordance with the provisions of this Act does not require a registration certificate.

So the combination of subclause 58(2) and subclause 58(3) would permit the manufacturers to manufacture their firearms and not have to go through the procedure of obtaining hundreds or thousands of registration certificates, recording them, managing them, and then exporting the firearm to a place where it wouldn't need such a registration certificate in any event.

Going back to clause 43, I suppose we'll get to that a little later, but the intent of the amendment is such in clause 43 as to say that when a manufacturer gets an authorization to export, if the firearm is one described in this clause 58, exempted from the certificate provisions, then you don't have to have the certificate before you get an export authorization. You can just go ahead and get the export authorization from the registrar or chief firearms officer. I think it's the registrar who provides the export authorization. So basically these clauses are intended to do away with a plethora of paperwork that I believe is unnecessary.

Mr. MacLellan: I guess we're talking about amendment LL-5 first, are we, Madam Chairman?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Amendment LL-5, and Mr. Lee, is it okay with you if we deal with LL-5, and then if LL-5 -

Mr. Lee: Then we go backwards.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Is that the order?

Mr. Lee: Yes.

Mr. MacLellan: Madam Chair, we can't agree.

I understand Mr. Lee's concern. I know the manufacturer in his riding would like to be able to do away with having to get the export permits, but the fact is, I think, that we have to work on a level playing field here. We're asking those who import firearms into Canada to have their imported firearms registered at the border, to have notification, and that they will be registered when they arrive at customs.

What sometimes can happen is that with an exporter there may not be enough firearms to be shipped at one time, and they may remain on the floor of the factory or warehouse for maybe sixty days. They could be there unregistered, and that just would not be acceptable. They could be moved from one place to another unregistered. There could of course be thefts, and we feel that frankly when it's a firearm that is manufactured, then it should be registered.

.1550

I think Mr. Lee certainly spoke very well on behalf of the manufacturers, but this simply would not be suitable if we are going to maintain a registration system that is to be consistent for everybody.

Mr. Ramsay: I think what Mr. Lee has indicated here is the impracticality of the application of the universal registration system as it is fleshed out to cover all aspects, in this case the export-import question.

I would like to ask the officials this. What is the situation today? We've had handguns registered for a long time in this country. What has been the situation when handguns have been imported into Canada? Have they had to undergo a form of registration when they are imported by a dealer?

Mr. Richard G. Mosley (Assistant Deputy Minister, Criminal and Social Policy, Department of Justice): Not until they are sold at the retail level to a purchaser.

Mr. Ramsay: Will that change as a result of this legislation?

Mr. Mosley: Yes.

Mr. Ramsay: How will it change?

Mr. Mosley: The importer would be required to register the firearm on import into the country.

Mr. Ramsay: And so in the case of the situation that I understand described by Mr. Lee, the manufacturer of firearms in Canada is going to have to obtain a registration for every firearm that's manufactured, even though it's destined to be exported out of Canada a short time after its manufacture. Is that understanding accurate?

Mr. Mosley: Yes, but as I pointed out yesterday, that could be done through electronic means directly from the manufacturing plant to the registry, wherever that may be located, and the registration may not necessarily require the issuance of an individual certificate for each firearm. However, the registration of each firearm is an important component of the overall plan that's outlined in this bill. The same rule that would apply to the importer bringing a firearm across the border would apply to the manufacturer constructing a firearm in this country.

Mr. Ramsay: Obviously this requirement is designed to deal with a problem that's been identified. What is that problem? In other words, we have these two companies - or particularly the one that I think Mr. Lee is referring to - manufacturing firearms and exporting firearms. What is the problem with the present system? What danger or risk to society has been identified? Are there any statistics to indicate problems that arose that posed a threat to society as a result of the present system?

Mr. Mosley: Even with the best of security measures, manufacturers can suffer leakages. The same is true, of course, for importers. It's been a particular problem with importers and the leakage of firearms from the warehouses in which they've been stored. That's been the subject of an examination by the Sécurité Publique in Quebec, where they have traced a series of leakages, some of substantial quantities - hundreds of firearms in several instances - from such warehouses.

As I mentioned yesterday, in the case of one of the companies that Mr. Lee referred to earlier, the parts for a firearm in the course of manufacture were in fact stolen by an employee and used subsequently to commit a homicide.

The concern is primarily with the leakage of firearms before they are in fact registered. It undermines the integrity of the system to have a registration system in place for all firearms in a country when firearms may be present that are not registered and can be lost, stolen or leaked into the hands, perhaps, of criminals. That is the essential concern that underlines the application of registration at the point of manufacture and at the point of import.

.1555

Mr. Ramsay: The definition of a firearm, according to my understanding, is that it can be a portion of a firearm. When it reaches the definition of a firearm sometime during its assembly, I would assume that's when legislation would require the registration requirement to be fulfilled. When will the registration of a firearm take place, after it has been partially or completely assembled? Bear in mind that if a person is found in possession of a barrel, the main cylinder, or frame without the other parts, it can be considered a firearm. When would you have the registration of a firearm under these conditions take place?

Mr. MacLellan: When a firearm is capable of firing ammunition, it has to be registered, whether or not it's completed.

Mr. Mosley: Another concern about Mr. Lee's motion is the fact that it refers to ``within 60 days of its manufacture''. Now, the meaning of ``manufacture'' is not clear. Does it mean when the firearm is substantially completed or finally completed? It is possible that a manufacturer could evade the 60-day limit in this proposal by completing a firearm to the point where just one or two little things needed to be done to it before it was shipped and then storing it indefinitely in that condition until an order had been received to ship it offshore. That is, I think, a concern with the wording of the motion as it is framed.

Mr. Ramsay: If I understand what you're saying and what Mr. MacLellan indicated, the registration would take place after it was assembled and capable of being fired. Then this would not stop the leakage of parts and the assembly of parts. This would not address the leakage of parts from the factory and the assembly of them.

Mr. MacLellan: No, it's not going to completely stem the leakage of parts, Madam Chair. It's going to do a lot to reduce it. If someone's going to assemble a firearm, then over a period of time they're going to have to sneak a lot of parts away, and they're going to have to know how to put the firearm together. Sneaking parts here and there adds a lot more chance of detection than if in one effort you're going to take a firearm that's capable of firing ammunition. If you're going to take parts, you're going to have to take them over a period of time.

As Mr. Mosley said, we don't have a definition of ``manufactured firearms''. We refer to 60 days for manufactured firearms, but if the plates on the handles were not inserted, is that a manufactured firearm?

Mr. Wappel (Scarborough West): I have a point of order. Madam Chair, I don't know what the witnesses are talking about when they refer to 60 days. I have a motion in front of me, LL-5. There is no reference to 60 days. No days are mentioned in LL-5. Am I looking at the correct or incorrect LL-5? This is the second or third time 60 days has been mentioned.

Mr. MacLellan: I was talking about subclause 58(3), Mr. Wappel, ``a firearm described in subsection (2) that is exported within 60 days''.

Mr. Lee: Madam Chairman, as the mover of the motion, I want to state that there is no reference in this motion to 60 days.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): As I understand it, the 60-day referral is in the bill, not in Mr. Lee's motion.

Mr. Lee: No.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): There is an amendment to this motion -

.1600

Mr. Lee: Madam Chair, I'd like to clarify what's happened here. Originally, the motion I had prepared for introduction contained a phrase ``within 60 days of manufacture''. The motion that's presented today and the one I have in front of me and the one I think Mr. Wappel has -

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I noticed the 60 days reference in this one.

Mr. Lee: That is correct.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): This is the one I got today, so let's make sure we're all playing with the same deck of cards.

Mr. Lee: This particular set of amendments was distributed to me before we began today. I assume that all of the parties here were singing from the same hymn book.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): There was a new set distributed. I got mine today and mine doesn't refer to 60 days.

Mr. MacLellan: This is the first, Madam Chair, that I've seen of the amendment.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Do we have an extra copy? Why don't we just take my copy.

Mr. Lee: For the record, I would like to clarify that the clause that used to have in draft form a 60-day reference doesn't have it any more. It simply reads:

firearms manufactured in Canada on the premises of a business licensed under this Act do not require a registration certificate until the firearm is taken off the premises.

Subclause (3) says:

A firearm described in subsection (2)...in accordance with the provisions of this Act does not require a registration certificat.

So there's no reference to 60 days.

Mr. MacLellan referred to two things that he may have misunderstood and that were not accurate. Number one, there's no intent here to not have registration. These subclauses only make reference to the registration certificate.

Number two, he made reference to a desire to avoid the export authorization provision. That is not the wording or the intent; all exporters in Canada will have to comply with the export authorization provisions of the act. This clause only refers to the registration certificate.

Colleagues, you will recall there are at least three thresholds involved. There is registration, a registration certificate and an export authorization. These subclauses only make reference to the registration certificate requirement. It has nothing to do with 60 days. It simply says a firearm that is manufactured here and exported by a business licensed under the act and exported under the provisions of the act, i.e. with an export authorization, does not need a registration certificate.

Mr. MacLellan: I think this a much better amendment. I apologize, I was going by the old amendment. I didn't have this one.

I still think if we could say when the registration needs to take place, that would be helpful.

Mr. Lee: Mr. MacLellan will know that registration is going to take place whenever the act says it has to take place. In my view, the statute has not defined the birth of a firearm. I don't necessarily call that an omission; it just wasn't foremost in the minds of the drafters because we don't manufacture that many in Canada.

But there is a point in time when a firearm is born. It is not otherwise defined anywhere in the act. I didn't think it was my job to do it. At whatever point in time a firearm is born, that would be the time when it would have to be registered. But I would point out that the amendment colleagues adopted a couple of days ago would have made clear that a partially completed firearm is not yet a firearm for purposes of being a firearm.

Mr. MacLellan: I would like to study this, Madam Chair, just to make sure the act is clear as to when it has to be registered. I'm not absolutely sure.

.1605

Mr. Lee: It could be stood down, then -

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Are you asking to stand it? Okay.

Are you on a point of order?

Mr. Wappel: I want to discuss this amendment before it's stood.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. Lee, have you asked to stand the -

Mr. Lee: No, Mr. Wappel can probably make a useful contribution.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Well, Mr. Breitkreuz is first, then. Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton - Melville): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I've missed the definition of a firearm in the act. Is it defined? What is the definition of it?

Ms Irit Weiser (Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice): The definition of a firearm is subclause 132(2) on page 58 of the bill.

Mr. Breitkreuz: I have two questions. Is there a charge for registration? It is not indicated. Will that charge apply to all registration? My question in regards to this is this. Is there going to a fee or a charge for registration of all firearms?

Mr. MacLellan: There is going to be a fee for the registration. As the minister mentioned when he came before the committee on May 19, the registration fee is going to be more or less a group rate as it would be for the firearms that are imported into Canada. So it wouldn't be the same as if they were taking the firearms one by one.

Mr. Breitkreuz: What if they're exported? My concern is that it will reduce the competitiveness of a manufacturer in Canada if he has to pay a registration fee on something he exports.

Mr. MacLellan: Yes, but the importers also have to pay this same registration fee.

Mr. Breitkreuz: But his competitiveness would be reduced in the country to which he is exporting.

Mr. MacLellan: It's not going to be a sizeable amount and that certainly would be taken into consideration. The actual fees are going to be set by regulation. Certainly it's not the intention to handicap a manufacturer of firearms in Canada by setting a rate that would be exorbitant.

Mr. Breitkreuz: Could it be refunded if he exports it?

Mr. MacLellan: No, I think that the -

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Wait to be recognized by the chair. Please don't have an ongoing dialogue.

Mr. MacLellan: Madam Chair, I think it would be a moderate rate rather than a refundable rate. That is the intention right now.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. Breitkreuz, are you finished, or are you still asking questions?

Mr. Breitkreuz: I have one more question on another matter.

I think we discussed this previously, but I think it is worth raising again here. The word ``may'' is used rather than ``shall''. How will that be interpreted? Does that imply again that there will be some discretion on the part of the registrar?

Mr. MacLellan: Where is that, Madam Chair?

Mr. Breitkreuz: At clause 58: ``The Registrar may''. And also in amendment LL-5 they also use the word -

Mr. Wappel: On a point of order, Madam Chair, we're discussing the Liberal amendment; we're not discussing clause 58 in general.

Mr. Breitkreuz: But in the amendment it says the word ``may'', Mr. Wappel.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): It's in the amendment as subclause 58(1), the one I see right now.

Mr. Breitkreuz: I don't see your point.

Mr. Wappel: I apologize.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. Mosley, go ahead, please.

Mr. Mosley: Madam Chair, this issue came up yesterday on several occasions, and I think it is perhaps helpful to refer to the French version, which speaks of the permits sont délivrés. There may be a better way to phrase this to remove the implication that these are matters that will be subject to discretion.

The intent of both the English and the French here, as in other locations in the bill, is to empower the registrar to do what the clause refers to. The use of the word ``may'' in English leaves the impression this is perhaps something whimsical or discretionary the registrar may or may not choose to do. We have been looking at alternative wording that might assist and following the model used in French, which is a little clearer and more helpful in this regard.

.1610

Mr. Breitkreuz: Then can the clause be stood until we can find a suitable...?

Mr. MacLellan: No, we have that wording, Madam Chair. We wouldn't necessarily have to stand it on that basis.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): We're still deciding whether it's going to be stood or not. Mr. Wappel, though, wishes to speak.

Mr. Wappel: I do have a couple of questions about the clause, so I would ask that it not be stood before I have an opportunity to discuss it.

Talking about Mr. Lee's amendments for a moment, I want to identify a problem that is causing us to have a problem with Mr. Lee's amendment unnecessarily, if I understand it correctly, and then speak to his amendment.

I think there is an assumption in the bill that registration of the firearm and issuance of the registration certificate, which I take to be a piece of paper, are one and the same thing. If that is the case, that should be incorrect. What I think Mr. Lee is attempting to do in this amendment is not to not register the firearm but to avoid the production of the piece paper, which is the registration certificate.

If you have 5,000 firearms manufactured, for example, at Para-Ordnance, of course they would be registered. They would be in the system, they would be assigned a number. But because they are still sitting at the factory, they don't need the actual 5,000 pieces of paper. Since those same 5,000 firearms are then going to be exported to another country which couldn't care less about our system of registration, those 5,000 pieces of paper are not required.

As I understand Mr. Lee's amendment, what he's trying to do is avoid the production of 5,000 pieces of paper. He can tell me if I'm wrong, but that's how I read it. To put it in his own words, he's trying to avoid the plethora of paperwork. There's nothing in this amendment to prevent the firearm from being registered unless the department considers the issuance of the registration certificate to be the registration of the firearm, in which case, I would suggest, there's a conceptual problem. The registration of the firearm will be the placing of its information onto a database and the assigning of a number, while the registration certificate will simply be physical evidence of that registration.

If all of what I have said is correct, then I see nothing wrong with Mr. Lee's amendment for exporters. We're simply avoiding paperwork. All of the firearms will in fact be registered, and it's only the paperwork we're trying to avoid.

If I read Mr. Lee's amendment correctly and I've interpreted it correctly, then it's not Mr. Lee's problem if the bill makes no distinction between actual registration and the paper proof thereof. That's the government's problem. I think we should support the amendment.

Mr. MacLellan: There's no assumption that the registration and the certificate are to be one. But in the case of armed forces and police, we did make a distinction.

It's not the intention here to give Para-Ordnance or any other manufacturer of a firearm an individual certificate for a firearm that's going to be sold outside of Canada. The registrar would give a printout of the firearms to the manufacturer.

I acknowledge Mr. Wappel's point and accept what he's saying. But if it's possible, we would like to look at this to see if we can accommodate Mr. Lee's changes, and in our accommodation to be consistent with what we've done in the bill so far and what we hope to do in the future.

.1615

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye (Portneuf): We know that insurance companies advise us against leaving the registration certificate in the car, because if somebody stole it, they would have both the car and the registration certificate.

What Mr. Lee is proposing is a plus security-wise. If firearms were stolen from the premises of a manufacturing firm, since there is no certificate, the thief could not have possession of the firearm and of the certificate which legitimizes possession of the firearm.

That might be something interesting security-wise on top of that in Mr. Lee's proposal.

[English]

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

Mr. MacLellan: Mr. de Savoye makes a good point, Madam Chair.

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

Mr. Ramsay: I have a problem with this whole idea Mr. Lee's amendment is attempting to deal with.

The definition of a firearm that was read out to us, on page 52, is exactly the same definition as in the present Criminal Code. It doesn't state that a firearm becomes a firearm when it's capable of being fired; it states quite the opposite. It says in part III of the Criminal Code that:

``firearm'' means any barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person, and includes any frame or receiver of such a barrelled weapon and anything that can be adapted for use as a firearm

Just in passing, on a firearms case, the Hon. Donald Demetrick of the Provincial Court of Alberta stated in his judgment that this definition was so convoluted as to be ``legal fiction and twice removed from reality''. The main reason was because it uses ``firearm'' to define ``firearm''.

The point I'm making is this. Mr. MacLellan indicated that the registration of a firearm would only occur at the time when the instrument was capable of being fired. That's not the definition of a firearm under the Criminal Code. Do we have an inconsistency, or do we perhaps have an exemption for the manufacture of firearms in a factory?

Mr. MacLellan: Madam Chair, I don't want to get into the definition of a firearm. That's another clause. I wanted to deal with Mr. Lee's amendment and what we will do from here.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. Lee, do you wish to have this stood?

Mr. Lee: I would really like it to be dealt with and passed immediately, but if the parliamentary secretary and officials need time to consider the excellent merits of the amendment then I don't have a problem with it being stood.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): It's not up to me, it's whether you are requesting it.

Mr. MacLellan: If we had the revised wording we might have been able to do that.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mrs. Venne has a question.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne (Saint-Hubert): I'd like to know if I missed something. When you say: ``no paper'', that is to say no certificate, does that also mean that there is no fee? Has this been said?

[English]

Mr. Lee: My amendment doesn't make any reference to the costs of registration. There is no charge that I know of for a certificate, although who knows what we're going to do in the regulations under this act. The fee would be payable for registration. Presumably for the rest of the firearms a certificate of some sort would be cranked out without any additional charge.

These subclauses simply provide for the waiver or exemption from the paper requirement, but not the exemption for the registration or whatever costs there may be. It's my hope that there would be only a nominal registration charge or a bulk registration charge for a manufacturer who would be exporting a firearm, but we don't know where we're going to get on that.

.1620

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: I have a second question. We know that in Canada there are only two manufacturers. What we have been discussing up to know involves two companies who manufacture firearms in Canada. That is what we have been told. Mr. Mosley does not seem to agree.

[English]

Mr. Mosley: It depends on what you mean by ``manufacturer''. There are some gunsmiths who build custom firearms. There are some businesses that import firearms from abroad and then make some modifications to them, and then they are in fact sold as Canadian products abroad.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Are they considered as manufacturers?

[English]

Mr. Mosley: I'm not sure what the meaning of ``manufacturer'' is in this context, but I think if the intent is to apply to somebody who falls into any of those categories, they would be covered and by the act they would have to register the firearm and could possibly take advantage of the proposed amendment to clause 58.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Those were my two questions.

[English]

Mr. Lee: Madam Chair, I would ask that the amendment be stood so that the parliamentary secretary could look into it more closely.

Amendment allowed to stand

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. Wappel, you indicated that you wanted to talk about clause 58.

Mr. Wappel: Thank you, just a question and a half, if I may.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): For clarification, this is clause 58 as it exists in our book, not the amendment.

Mr. Wappel: That's correct.

I have two points. I take it that in answer to the Reform Party you're saying the word ``may'' would be better expressed as ``The Registrar is empowered to'' (a) and (b), or words to that effect.

Secondly, in relation to the word ``may'' and its implications - if I may bootleg a comment about clause 58 also as it concerns clause 54 - suppose the registrar either refuses to issue a registration certificate or refuses to issue a licence. I am getting back to clause 54, but also under clause 58, so I can ask the question the same way.

Under subsection 106(14) of the current law it is mandatory that the firearms officer advise the applicant in writing of the refusal and the reasons therefor. Is there an equivalence in this bill vis-à-vis the refusal of a licence or, more particularly since we're discussing clause 58, the refusal of a registration certification?

Mr. MacLellan: I would just like to deal with the first part, first. What we have is proposed new wording. We can circulate this, as we have enough copies for all members of the committee. We'll probably be standing this clause, but I think it would be helpful to read it.

The new wording would be:

The Registrar is responsible for issuing registration certificates for firearms and assigning firearms identification numbers to them and for issuing authorizations to export and authorizations to import.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Do you wish to file that with the clerk?

Mr. MacLellan: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Is this going to be another amendment?

.1625

Mr. MacLellan: This is an amendment to clause 58.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Okay, so that'll be a government amendment.

Mr. MacLellan: It will be a government amendment and we'll stand it, of course. Also, Madam Chair, there are corresponding amendments for clause 55 and clause 54.

Mr. Wappel: Good.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Are you tabling those at the same time?

Mr. MacLellan: Yes, we are.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): So then we're getting three new government amendments.

Mr. MacLellan: Three government amendments, yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): We'll just maybe have some time for the clerk to get these numbered.

Mr. MacLellan: With respect to the clause 70 of the bill, subclause 70(1):

Where a chief firearms officer decides to refuse to issue or to revoke a licence or authorization to transport or the Registrar decides to refuse to issue or to revoke a registration certificate, authorization to export or authorization to import, the chief firearms officer or Registrar shall give notice of the decision in the prescribed form to the applicant for or holder of the licence, registration certificate or authorization.

Mr. Wappel: Thank you for the answer. We'll be getting to that shortly, I guess.

Clause 58 allowed to stand

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): As for the new government amendments, which are not yet circulated, shall we stand them also? Okay. What's the our last government amendment number? Perhaps the clerk can get back to me on that, so we can make our notations. They will be G-29.1 to G-29.3.

On clause 59 - Form

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): We move on to clause 59. Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Breitkreuz: Would it be possible to stand this motion as we have not yet received our amendment as per our agreement?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Are you saying that you are preparing an amendment?

Mr. Breitkreuz: That's right.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Do we have unanimous consent? This is clause 59, and there are no other amendments showing at the moment.

Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): Before we stand it, I would like to clarify something in it.

Mr. MacLellan: If we're going to stand it, let's stand it.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I think the request is to stand; otherwise we're going to be dealing with all of these things twice.

Clause 59 allowed to stand

Clause 60 agreed to on division

On clause 61 - Geographical extent

Mr. Breitkreuz: I have a question, Madam Chairman. Is there going to be any variation from province to province as to the obtaining of a licence? I'm thinking that may be of concern with subclause 61(1) here, because it states here that:

licences, registration certificates, authorizations to transport, authorizations to export and authorizations to import are valid throughout Canada.

But if the administration of this varies from province to province because of the local firearms officer having different methods or different ways of implementing the government's prescribed conditions, would this be a concern? That's the reason I'm asking the question. Do you think there will be a variance in the issuing of licences throughout Canada?

Mr. MacLellan: Madam Chair, there may be a variance in style or efficiency, but there won't be a variance in the actual regulations, because they will be issued through federal regulations and those federal regulations will be consistently applied across the country.

Mr. Breitkreuz: What about in the territories?

Mr. MacLellan: It will be the same thing in the territories.

.1630

Mr. Breitkreuz: There's been some discussion as to.... There may be exemptions for certain parts of the country and so on and certain regulations may vary. Then if you have this kind of a situation, where they may obtain a licence in one area, where it may not have the same regulations that carry it out, then maybe you would have some difficulties in this being uniform throughout the country.

Mr. MacLellan: Madam Chair, there's not going to be any variance for any parts of the country or any exception for any parts of the country. There may be some differences for remote areas or different situations, but those situations would apply anywhere in the country. We're not going to make any exceptions for any specific part of the country.

Clause 61 agreed to

On clause 62 - Term of licences

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): We have G-31 amendment. Ms Phinney.

Ms Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): I would like to move that clause 62 of this bill be amended first by striking out line 42 on page 28 and substituting the following:

(3) A licence that is issued to a business other than a museum

Mrs. Venne: On a point of order, we are talking about G-31? Where is G-30?

[Translation]

There is no G-30.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): No.

Ms Phinney: Then by adding, immediately after line 4 on page 29, the following

Museums

(4) A licence that is issued to a museum expires on the earlier of

And then (a) and (b) as written on your paper.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. MacLellan, did you wish to add anything to that?

Mr. MacLellan: Yes, Madam Chair. The licence would be issued to museums for three years, and that would make it easier for them. They wouldn't have to seek a renewal every year. I think it's safe to say - and I think it goes without saying - that the inspection of course could take place at any time.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: Could we have this government amendment stand since we have one very important amendment whereby we are asking for all museums to be exempted? This is quite contrary to what this clause says.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Before I deal with that, Mr. Gallaway was on the list before you. Did you wish to speak before standing -

Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): I just have a question regarding the wording of it. In the second part of the amendment, it says ``A licence that is issued'', etc. You refer to ``three years after...and...the expiration of the period for which it is expressed to be issued.'' Why is it not ``or''?

Mr. MacLellan: It's just a drafting convention, Madam Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Madam Venne has placed a decision here to ask to stand this. Mr. MacLellan.

.1635

Mr. MacLellan: Madam Chair, I think this came up on one other occasion, and it was mentioned that it wouldn't be the first time a committee had reversed itself. In the interests of trying to keep things as straight as possible and to proceed with as many motions as possible, I think we should deal with this. If Mrs. Venne's amendment is passed, then so be it.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mrs. Venne, do you wish to withdraw your request to let it stand, or do you wish it voted on?

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: No, I would like us to vote on it.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Is there unanimous consent to let it stand?

Mr. Wappel: I have a point of order. Could I ask the clerk if there is any procedural difficulty if we vote for this and then subsequently are asked to vote on a Bloc amendment? Would we be precluded from doing so because we had already voted in favour of this?

The Clerk of the Committee: You will have to come back to each of the clauses.

Mr. Wappel: We would have to come back to them, but we would not be precluded from voting for the amendment.

The Clerk: No.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Is there unanimous consent to stand this?

Mr. Wappel: No.

Mr. Breitkreuz: I have a question for the government, Madam Chairman. It has to do with this amendment, but if I ask it for the entire clause, it'll save some time. I'm wondering why they chose three years for museums, five years for the holder of the licence, and age 18 for these various things. It seems to me that will create a lot of extra paperwork and a huge bureaucracy. I don't know why they've chosen five years, in some cases one year for things to expire, and at another point three years. What is so special about the age of 18? I would like some explanation as to how these figures were arrived at.

Mr. MacLellan: We've reviewed this, Madam Chair, and we looked at each category to see what would be the optimum period of time.

With regard to museums, I think we want museums to be part of this. We want them to register the firearms. However, we also have to look at the staff museums have and what they're really capable of doing, within reason. We thought that rather than having to renew every year, three years would best serve the situation.

With regard to minors and the five years, as Mr. Breitkreuz mentioned, it has to do with those under 18. What we're saying is that you issue a licence and you can't just let it go till they become 18. I think they're capable of obtaining a minor's licence at 12.

I would ask Mr. Mosley to give further information on this, because I think it's a very comprehensive question.

Mr. Mosley: Generally speaking, with regard to the duration of licences, we rely heavily on the advice of the chief provincial and territorial firearms officers as to the term they think is appropriate to review an authorization, a permit, or a licence. The age of 18 is simply the most common age of majority for most purposes across the country.

Mr. Breitkreuz: I have a supplementary question. Would it not make more sense to have a lifetime licence that would be revoked if there was a criminal charge or that would be reviewed only if there was some kind of reason for a review? It seems to me that having these provisions in there is going to create a lot of work for the police and the bureaucracy.

Mr. MacLellan: It's important with regard to the licence to look at the circumstances of the individual. The individual's habits may have changed, or they may have committed an offence. The individual may have had personal or certain stability problems over those five years that may not even have resulted in a court action but that may come up in an investigation. Also, we tend to change in five years, get a little greyer, so it's important to have an updated picture for the licence as well.

.1640

Mr. Ramsay: I have a concern about this. I'm going to be very interested in looking at the Bloc's amendment to this. I'd like to ask the officials a question similar to one I asked yesterday.

We had witnesses from the museums appear before our committee. As I recollect, there was nothing to indicate a problem with the way things are operating now. Are the museums simply being caught up in this net of registration because the government wants it to apply to everyone? Are we putting a criterion before the museums where there is no identified problem, or is there an identified problem? If there is, how will this affect museums? How will this make museums any safer as institutions within our society?

When we begin to regulate the activities of a museum, I have to assume it is because the existence of the museum and its activities are creating a safety problem to society. Otherwise, why regulate them?

What problem is there with the existence of museums today? If there is an identified problem with regard to society's safety, how are these regulations going to create safer conditions within our society?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Do we have an answer to the question, Mr. MacLellan?

Mr. MacLellan: Yes, Madam Chair. It's a little off the track of the amendment, but Mr. Ramsay's question goes right to the heart of why we're registering. We want a register for the firearms that are in the country, in society, museums included.

There are some museums belonging to a central organization which are well-known; other museums are just opened by any person who wants to open them. There's no restriction on who you allow to open a museum. The fact of the matter is that we want this legislation to apply to all aspects of society. Firearms that can be stolen or used illegally have to be registered, and that includes those in museums.

What we're also saying is that we're looking at museums, and the fees will be set by regulation. But there's no question that firearms have to be registered.

Amendment agreed to on division

Clause 62 as amended agreed to on division

On clause 63 - Terms of authorization

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): We have amendment G-32.

Mr. Wappel: Madam Chair, I'd be happy to move that. It is my second-favourite drafting amendment.

I move changing the word ``paragraph'' to the word ``subsection'' in line 17 and 18, for the reasons previously discussed on numerous occasions. This amendment is consequential to the amendment passed with respect to clause 12.

.1645

Amendment agreed to

Clause 63 as amended agreed to on division

On clause 64 - Term of registration certificates

Mr. Breitkreuz: I wonder if the officials could give us some examples for clause 64 to illustrate how this would actually work out in practice, especially for paragraph (b). Following on the discussion we had regarding how a firearm becomes a firearm, how does it not become a firearm? I'd appreciate a good explanation on that, because I can't understand how that would work out in practice.

Mr. MacLellan: If the firearm is sold to someone else and it's re-registered in the name of the other person or other party, then it ceases to be that person's firearm. Also, if the firearm is sold out of the country, and if the firearms is deactivated and ceases to be a firearm....

Mr. Breitkreuz: If it is deactivated, it would be just the same as if it were, as you explained previously, in a state of manufacture. It wouldn't be complete. It can be activated again if it can be deactivated, and often without very much difficulty. I'm wondering what the practical outplaying of this particular provision would be?

Mr. MacLellan: Madam Chair, if it's deactivated, it wouldn't be put back into service very easily. When we say deactivated, we really mean deactivated, not just disassembled; we mean deactivated.

I would ask Mr. Mosley to give more specific cases if he would like to.

Mr. Mosley: Well, there are standards for deactivation that effectively mean that the firearm is removed from the category of being a firearm. It no longer falls within the definition. That's been the case for many years. Many war trophies, for example, that were brought back from the various hostile conflicts were deactivated and were put up on the wall as a memento, a keepsake, and they're no longer considered to be a firearm. They're outside the scope of the current scheme and they'd be outside the scope of this.

[Translation]

M. de Savoye: You mentioned a few minutes ago, Mr. MacLellan, ``as long as it remains a firearm'' and you have given as an example the fact that a firearm could be de-activated. You also mentioned, if I heard you correctly, ``as long as it is not exported''. Is that really what you have said? I suppose you were referring to a definition of a firearm, meaning ``as long as it remains a firearm'' according to that definition. But the definition we have seen earlier does not refer to the Canadian territory. Is there a supplementary definition that we should use to understand the text?

[English]

Mr. MacLellan: No, Madam Chair, what we're saying is that a registration certificate for a firearm expires. We're talking about the certificate, the ownership. The ownership with a registration, of course, will be very, very easily understood and established. If a person sells a firearm, then it must be re-registered. A firearm only has to be registered once. If the person who owns the firearm does not choose to sell the firearm, deactivate it, or sell it out of the country, it only has to be registered once. If that firearm is sold to another person, then it must be registered by that subsequent purchaser.

Mr. de Savoye: If I understand you well, it's the fact that it would be sold out of the country and not the fact that it would leave the country.

Mr. MacLellan: Yes.

Mr. de Savoye: So if I leave the country with my firearm and re-enter the country later on -

Mr. MacLellan: That's right.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Excuse me, but I can't have the written record reflected unless you get authorization through the chair. Mr. de Savoye and then Mr. MacLellan.

.1650

Mr. de Savoye: Do you understand my point?

Mr. MacLellan: Yes. If Mr. de Savoye, Madam Chair, was to take his firearm to the United States, that would still be his firearm, because there was no record of it have left his possession or him having transferred it to someone else or it being re-registered. It would still be his firearm and still would be registered to him.

Mr. de Savoye: Mr. MacLellan,

[Translation]

let us suppose my firearm is stolen. It is not in my possession anymore, but I am still its owner, am I not? The registration certificate is still valid, but for how long?

[English]

Mr. MacLellan: Indefinitely, Madam Chair.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: But I definitely will not live indefinitely. I would love to, but... So what is going to happen when I die.

[English]

Mr. MacLellan: At the time of.... We certainly don't want to talk about Mr. de Savoye passing on; it gives me a very queasy feeling, because I've come to know him so well the last few weeks. What would happen is that if anyone had a firearm registered in their name, it would become part of the estate, and in accordance with the person's will or with the probate determination, the firearm would be awarded to somebody, who would then have to re-register that firearm.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: We understand each other well.

[English]

Let's understand each other well. At that time, I don't have the firearm any more; it was stolen 25 years ago, and I still have this valid certificate. What I'm giving to my heirs is a certificate but no gun. They must re-register, or don't they? I don't understand the process.

Mr. MacLellan: Well, if Mr. de Savoye has passed on without the firearm and the firearm has been stolen, I guess it's a little later to charge him for not reporting the stolen firearm.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I think we're getting into other sections here.

Mr. MacLellan: Yes, but some accounting has to be made on the registration system at that time, as to what happened to that firearm. It just cannot be allowed to be registered as such, without some explanation.

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

Mr. Mosley: It strikes me as being a very interesting question for a law school exam. But if I may, the person from whom it was stolen must report the theft, in which case that will be recorded on the registry. Unless the firearm is recovered and the registration is reactivated, I don't think the registration certificate will remain valid. I think that's separate from the ownership of the property, so that the estate would still have a claim. If the firearm were to be recovered after the death of the registered owner, the estate would still have ownership rights in that firearm and could exercise them against any other claimant.

[Translation]

M. de Savoye: To understand that conclusion...

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): As long as it's not dilatory. We're getting on the same area again and again.

Mr. de Savoye: That's not my intent. Real people will have to live with these clauses, and it will happen, won't it?

[Translation]

If I understood correctly, the registration certificate will remain valid as long as the person who has registered the firearm owns it, unless - and this is not written in the bill, but it is what you have said - the registration certificate is nullified.

[English]

Mr. Mosley: I think the answer to that is that the registrar has the power under the act to revoke the registration in those circumstances. If the firearm is recovered and is available to be returned to the true owner, then the registration could be reactivated or a new registration would be issued for that firearm.

.1655

Mr. Ramsay: I have a comment with regards to what Mr. Mosley said about firearms ceasing to be firearms. Under the definition of firearm, which means a barrelled weapon and includes any frame or receiver of such a barrelled weapon and anything that can be adapted for use as a firearm, that means in order for that firearm to cease to be a firearm it must cease to be a receiver, it must cease to be a frame, and it must cease to be anything that can be adapted as a firearm.

Madam Chair, through you to Mr. Mosley, is my understanding accurate?

Mr. Mosley: The definition that is on page 58 of the bill has been in effect for a number of years. There's been a considerable amount of litigation and jurisprudence over the question of what constitutes a firearm, including litigation and jurisprudence involving the receiver or operative part of the firearm.

In effect, if deactivation is done properly and according to the standards, it renders the operative parts of the firearm to be a useless hunk of metal that looks like a firearm, or looks like the frame, or looks like the receiver, but is not capable of being used to discharge any shot, bullet, or other projectile.

I think that has been the common understanding for a number of years and has not caused much difficulty. The difficulty arises when that portion of the firearm that is the nucleus around which a firearm can be constructed remains capable of discharging a projectile when the other parts are attached. That has been the focus of the litigation, as to whether what someone is in possession of, when perhaps they shouldn't, falls within the meaning of firearm. But when it's been properly deactivated, that has not been a concern.

Mr. Ramsay: I have one final point. Madam Chair, is a deactivated firearm the same as in paragraph 64(b)? Does a deactivated firearm mean it's not a firearm, then, in that it cannot fire a projectile?

Mr. Mosley: Madam Chair, yes.

Mr. Ramsay: So a deactivated firearm does not need to be registered?

Mr. Mosley: Madam Chair, that's correct.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.

Clause 64 agreed to on division

On clause 65-Renewal

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): We have two amendments on clause 65, G-33 and G-34. Mr. Wappel, I believe, will move G-33, first of all.

Mr. Wappel: Yes, Madam Chair. Amendment G-33 is in effect identical to amendment G-32 in the sense that it's a drafting amendment to change the word ``paragraph'' to ``subsection'' for the reasons that I've stated numerous times before.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Mr. Wappel: Madam Chair, I move amendment G-34 for the same reasons and with the same effect.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Mr. Breitkreuz: Madam Chair, we still have that troublesome word ``may'' in clause 65. What are we going to do with that?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. MacLellan, will you please answer that.

Mr. MacLellan: Where is that?

Mr. Breitkreuz: It is line 13, the first line of clause 65.

.1700

Mr. MacLellan: There's no problem with it, Madam Chair, because it is discretionary, and that's the reason we're using ``may''.

Ms Meredith: I would like some information from the officials about paragraph 65(3)(a) at about line 42, where you're giving notice of a decision by the firearms officer. It goes on about ``handguns...that are possessed by an individual are not being used for that purpose'' and they shall give notice.

Have you given any consideration as to how you're going to give notice to people that they no longer can use that handgun for the purpose? Is it going to be by registered mail, or is it just going to be a telephone call? What is going to be the method by which people are going to know they no longer have the right to go to a gun club, target shoot, or whatever?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I am going to intervene here and say that will be on another clause of revocation.

Ms Meredith: Well, Madam Chair, under this it still -

Mr. MacLellan: Madam Chair, what will actually need to be done will be set out in the regulations, but it certainly could be by registered mail. But it won't be just a telephone call; it will be something in writing.

Ms Meredith: But, Madam Chair, will there be a due process set out in regulations that will give the owner ample time to address the issue? Will there be an appeal process?

Mr. MacLellan: Yes, that comes later, Madam Chair. The bill will be dealing with that later on.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Yes, in further clauses later on.

Clause 65 as amended agreed to on division

On clause 66-Licences and authorizations

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I have no amendments at this point in time on clause 66. Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Breitkreuz: To save time, I have the same question for clauses 66 and 67. So I'll ask it and it can be responded to for both clauses.

In clause 66 there seems to be the right to refuse a licence and, in clause 67, the right to refuse a registration certificate on the part of the chief firearms officer and the registrar. But there does not seem to be any mechanism or any entitlement on the part of the firearms owner to have a licence or to have a registration certificate. Is that addressed anywhere in the bill?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I think we dealt with this yesterday.

Mr. MacLellan: Yes, we discussed this.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I think the answer's already on the record, Mr. Breitkreuz, so I'm going to ask if clause 66 shall carry.

Clause 66 agreed to

On clause 67 - Registration certificates

Mr. Ramsay: I have a point of order. In spite of the fact that it's on the record, Madam Chair, I'm sure that just taking a short time to allow the officials to advise Mr. Breitkreuz of his inquiry would not be out of order. Would that be out of order?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I think that people sitting in your party, if you're going to circulate members in, if you want to be here for a much longer time.... But it's incumbent with three of you...and all of us have colleagues here and we understand that it's very normal to rotate people in for -

Mr. Ramsay: Is that your ruling, Madam Chair, that this intervention is -

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. Ramsay, could I finish first? If you do not feel it is something you can do by informing your colleague the question's already been asked and answered and give him the answer, then I will allow a short answer on this again.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I will allow it, but I want people to be aware of that. We have a very long bill here and we are on clause 67 of 186 clauses. If you want to deal with all of the amendments and all of the clauses, as we expect to do, and get the answers on those, then it seems to me it would be incumbent upon people to do what they can so we are not repeating ourselves over and over.

.1705

Mr. Mosley: There's no provision in this bill that expressly provides for a right to have a licence issued to the applicant. The application procedures, the application criteria, and the considerations that the chief firearms officer must take into account are laid out in the bill. If the application is refused, the applicant can apply, on a reference to a provincial court judge, to examine the grounds for that refusal.

Mr. Breitkreuz: Would there be a fee he would have to pay in order to appeal that? Would that be a cost he'd incur if he had to go to court?

Mr. Mosley: I'm not aware of any fee for bringing a reference of that nature. There's certainly nothing in the bill that provides for a fee under those circumstances. There is an existing review procedure, but there are no fees for making the application. Of course, there may be associated costs if counsel is hired to make the application on behalf of the individual.

Mr. Breitkreuz: Would the applicant be informed of why he was refused his licence or registration certificate? The words ``good and sufficient reason'' are mentioned in the clause 67. Is there an obligation to at least inform him of why it's been refused?

Mr. Mosley: On the next page, under clause 70 of the bill, there is a requirement for notice to be given to the individual where there's been a refusal to issue or there has been revocation of the licence or authorization to transport, etc.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Shall clause 67 carry?

Mr. Ramsay: We have an amendment, Madam Chair. For that reason, I'd ask that we stand this clause.

Clause 67 allowed to stand

On clause 68 - Revocation of licence or authorization

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): On clause 68 I have no notice of any amendments.

Mr. Ramsay: On a point of order, we have the same condition. The amendment isn't back from the drafters.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Are you asking to stand the clause?

Mr. Ramsay: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): That's not a point of order, you're asking for standing.

Madam Venne.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: I realize that Mr. Ramsay says that he has an amendment to propose for almost all articles. I wonder if we could not just proceed as we have done for some amendments I have presented, and if he presents his one day, we will see to them or come back to them. That is what happened for one amendment that I wanted to propose earlier and that has been stood. We have decided to put it aside and come back to it if need be.

[English]

Ms Meredith: We stood the clause.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: So I wonder why we should constantly proceed in that way. I don't see why. I think he has amendments for most clauses.

[English]

Ms Torsney (Burlington): Similarly, yesterday we were given some idea of what amendments the Reform Party was proposing. In the cases where they said there was a Reform amendment coming, there was some context or some idea of what was going to be proposed. That would help us understand whether or not we're going to agree to stand them.

Mr. Wappel: With respect to the point of order by Madam Venne, the situation with respect to her was that an amendment was coming later in the bill.

She asked us to stand a specific amendment on a specific clause, because one of her amendments coming later in the bill would deal with that.

.1710

In this case, this is a specific amendment to the specific clause. If we pass the clause, then we've already dealt with the clause and we can't come back to it later on, as I understand it, without unanimous consent.

On the other hand, I must say it is getting a little bit frustrating to hear this constantly. We have all the Liberal, Bloc and government amendments, and we keep hearing over and over that we don't have the Reform amendments. It was amply possible to put forward amendments in enough time to get some of these amendments....

I have my amendments in. They deal with right up to the end of the bill, and I did them. I have refrained from commenting before, but I'm now beginning to get to the point where I am personally frustrated to continually hear this. At some point I'm going to get to the point where I'm not going to consent.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. Langlois.

Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): I understand it is a bit tiresome to be told for each clause that there is an amendment to come. I would like to ask Mr. Ramsay or someone else from the Reform Party when the amendments have been presented. Are these amendments going to be submitted to the legal counsel or have they already been? If so, when, so that we can have them here?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. Ramsay, do you wish to answer?

Mr. Ramsay: Yes, Madam Chair. This information is on the record, but I will repeat it.

We began to deliver our amendments to the drafters on the 19th and we completed delivering them, I believe, on the 24th. During the business portions of meetings of this standing committee in the past, it was made clear to us that the drafters would have time to complete the amendments. Because of the deadlines that were being set, we questioned whether or not the drafters would have time to draft all of the amendments. We've got some of our amendments back, and they're included here, but we don't have a large portion of them.

We agreed on Monday that this is the procedure we would follow, bearing in mind that we were going to adhere to the rules as described by Mr. Allmand. If we're going to change this procedure, that simply means that our amendments are not going to be considered. If that is what Mr. Wappel and other members are indicating, simply because they're getting a little bit frustrated in hearing that, then that means we're not going to be able to bring our amendments before this committee. That's what that means.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. de Savoye and then Ms Phinney.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: I understand that we have that problem because our legal counsels cannot do the work of four people. There are not that many of them; they have tried to respect the deadlines that have been imposed to them in order to meet the needs of the committee, but they have not been able to do it for everybody. Someone had to come last, and it was the Reform Party. One day, it might be the Bloc or maybe the Liberals; not in this committee, not for this bill, but for another one. I think that, in spite of all the inconveniences it is causing us, we must admit that it is not the Reformists who are at fault, but that it is simply because of the resources at our disposal. We must live with that if we want to respect democracy. Gagging the Reform Party is admitting that someone else can be gagged some other time, and I can hardly condone that.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): First of all, my list shows Ms Phinney, Ms Torsney and then Mr. Wappel. Then I'm going to call and end to the discussion.

.1715

Ms Phinney: We received some of the Reform amendments on Monday. Since it's now Wednesday, how many have we received since 9 a.m. on Monday?

For my second question, I would like to know how many other amendments the legislative counsel have received and are waiting to do.

Mr. Côté: I can only answer the second question. We haven't received any more requests from the Reform party after May 24. As for how many amendments we have received from the Reform Party, I think this is a question that should be addressed to the Reform Party, if they wish to answer.

Ms Phinney: I'm not sure why you can't answer that question.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): On a point of clarification, amendments can be brought forward at any point in time without notice. They could decide today to do another amendment, as could we.

Ms Phinney: I didn't get an answer to my first question.

We received in writing on Monday morning a certain number of amendments from the Reform party. How many amendments have been written by the legislative counsel and how many have we received since Monday morning? We've had three all day Monday and Monday evening, all day Tuesday and Tuesday evening. We're now at 5:15 p.m. Wednesday. How many more amendments have we received from the legislative counsel since 9 a.m. Monday?

Mr. Côté: Perhaps it is the clerk who should answer this.

A voice: We haven't received anything.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): The answer is that nothing more has been circulated. But again, other than this morning, the legislative counsel have been sitting with us.

Ms Phinney: So would that mean that as long as the committee sits, they will be doing no amendments?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Yes.

Ms Phinney: Then I think, Madam Chair, our decision is whether we're going to just continue.... Why would we continue to say -

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Because we are still making progress, Ms Phinney.

Ms Phinney: Oh, okay.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): That was a consideration earlier.

Excuse me, I'm going to stick to the order of my list. Ms Torsney.

Ms Torsney: Certainly we're interested in hearing the amendments that are going to be proposed by the Reform Party. But again, it's possible for all of us on every single clause to say we have an amendment coming. Without giving any explanation of what the amendment is, we can't make a decision as to whether or not we're going to agree to stand a clause.

First of all, if there is a Reform Party amendment coming, they should identify what type of amendment it is and then we can make a decision on it.

Secondly, to suggest that May 19 was the first time the counsel were given the information, and that between May 19 and May 24 they were given what amendments were being proposed, when we had discussed this for two or three weeks prior to May 19 and we had suggested that there were definitely areas that the counsel could have begun working on.... That we have to hold up everything because they didn't deliver anything between May 19 and May 24 is really quite unfair to the working of the committee - not to get the stuff in on time and not to get it prepared. If we are going to hold things up, on and on, that's ridiculous.

Since they had an opportunity to get them in beforehand for the counsel to work on them, could they please identify how many more amendments are coming, and on what clauses, perhaps for tomorrow's meeting? Then we'll have that information and perhaps some idea of what the amendments are, so that we can have a better working of the committee. Then we can make our decision as to whether or not we'll stand the clauses.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I think at this point we'll stick to the order. Because I have had an indication, I think it is only fair for Ms Meredith that I allow it. We are getting close to 5:30 p.m., so after I give a ruling on this I think we'll be adjourning for the day.

Mr. Wappel, Mr. Bodnar, then Ms Meredith and Mr. Gallaway.

Mr. Wappel: I feel it incumbent on me to put some facts on the record.

The Department of Justice offered to help draft amendments. I submitted approximately 34 amendments in two batches to the legislative counsel; 24 of them were able to be done because they took them as first come, first served; the other 10 were not. I took the Department of Justice up on their offer and I got my amendments in 24 hours.

There is absolutely no reason why the Reform party cannot do the same thing. In 24 hours they can get their amendments, quite clearly. With the greatest respect, if they are refusing that offer and insisting that the amendments must be drafted by the legislative counsel when they know the legislative counsel are sitting here, then there has to be some other explanation. That's why I am getting frustrated. I have not said I am frustrated, but I am getting there.

.1720

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Before we go on, my information is that some amendments are now at the Justice drafters. Am I correct?

Ms Meredith: No, I don't believe so, and I think I should ask Mr. Wappel if he would be prepared to have drafters of the Reform Party to draft government amendments. The Reform Party made a decision that the drafters who were presented to us were the originators of the legislation and therefore it would be a conflict of interest to have them do our drafting.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I'm going to call this to order. Mr. Bodnar, Mr. Gallaway, and then I'm going to make a ruling.

Mr. Bodnar: Madam Chair, to a large extent Mr. Wappel has made the point that I was going to make. Waiting until the eleventh hour to bring over 200 amendments to legislative counsel, when the Reform Party know that we only have 3.5 legislative counsel for 20 committees or so, is completely unfair, when they know it's impossible to deal with this matter.

Then when an offer comes from the Department of Justice, who are servants of this country - they are not servants of the Liberal Party - who have offered to make their services available for amendments.... These are amendments to be drafted, they are not amendments requesting that anything be done in a surreptitious manner whatsoever, of any sort. It's simply putting down in black and white what one wants to say. I suggest there has to be another agenda for the Reform Party in proceeding in this way.

Mr. Ramsay: Wrong.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. Gallaway, please. Mr. Ramsay, I'm not recognizing you at this point. Mr. Gallaway, please.

Mr. Gallaway: I don't want to attribute motives to anyone, but I think there's one factor here that we seem to be missing, and that is that the legislative counsel work for the Speaker of the House and there's no requirement that amendments be submitted to legislative counsel. I think it's been raised here previously that there are a number of avenues that can be followed to bring an amendment or to have an amendment drafted by a member of this committee.

Nowhere does it state that you must deal only with legislative counsel, and as members of various parties, we have access to resources other than legislative counsel. If an individual does not want to put an amendment to someone in the justice department who is capable of drafting it, that's fine. But certainly members of parties have resource people who are directly attached to their parties, who have the training and the background to formulate and draft amendments. To suggest that there is a problem because the legislative counsel is overwhelmed is, I would suggest, just ignoring the problem.

The problem is that they have selected only one avenue when there are other avenues to follow when you want amendments made. I don't think the work of the committee should be unduly stalled or halted in any way because individuals have selected one road to follow when there are many to follow. I think that's on the record, that certainly we all have research and staff to whom we can refer for help with amendments.

I understand why there is a problem within the legislative counsel office, but at the same time, they have all have representatives who meet with the Speaker, I understand, on a weekly basis, and if this is a problem it should be raised there. But I don't think it should impede the work of the committee or slow the work of the committee.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): There is a point of order. We're just about at 5:30 p.m. It's probably not a bad time to go and have some supper. Before that, I will deal with Madame Venne's point of order to me on whether it is the same type of motion. I think, Mr. Wappel, as he pointed out, it's very, very different, because there is another amendment later on.

.1725

Mrs. Venne: [Inaudible] ...the point of order we have just discussed.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): It wasn't on a point of order? That's fine. Then I don't have to make a ruling at this point.

Ms Meredith.

Ms Meredith: I would like to respond to something the member across the way mentioned about other resources. Perhaps he's not aware that our party does not have the financial resources the government or the official opposition have to hire drafters.

Some hon. members: Come on!

Ms Meredith: Madam Chair, I would also like to ask legal counsel whether the Reform Party was the last one in for amendments to be drafted. Were there other members putting in amendments at the same time as the Reform Party, or was the Reform Party the last one in? Did somebody put in amendments after the Reform Party?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): If counsel wishes to answer that question, they may. They may feel that's the business of individual members.

Ms Meredith: We're being accused of coming in at the last minute with ulterior motives.

Mr. Wappel: Do they have an answer?

Mr. Côté: Yes. Very briefly, Reform was not the last client.

Ms Meredith: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): At this point in time, we have now given unanimous consent to -

Ms Torsney: No, we're not going to stand it unless they give us an explanation of what the amendment will be.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I understood you to say we'd done that before. Do you wish to deal with this now?

Mr. de Savoye: I have a point of order.

[Translation]

Excuse me, Mrs. Chair.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I can't deal with more than one person at one time. Mr. Ramsay was talking, but you have a point of order, Mr. de Savoye. So on a point of order, you have the floor.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: When it is time to stand, pass or defeat an amendment, do we need unanimous consent or do we have to vote? Could you indicate what is the right procedure?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I will consult the clerk for an accurate answer.

In all cases, you need unanimous consent to stand something down.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Thank you, Mrs. Chair.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. Ramsay, it was your turn.

Mr. Ramsay: We have copies of the draft form of the amendments that we sent over to the drafters. From that information, I can give the committee some idea about what the amendment will be.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): That would be extremely helpful, Mr. Ramsay. I appreciate that, as chair of this committee. It is useful that you are acceding to the request of Ms Torsney.

Mr. Ramsay: This information has been available. We've had it here.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I don't think we have them.

Mr. Ramsay: Well, if you want them, you can certainly have them.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): In view of the situation we all find ourselves in, and in view of the fact that the agenda is that we all work progressively forward and not be stalled, to do this is a manner whereby we are getting things done but are not unfair to any party around this table, it would be very useful from now on, before asking for unanimous consent - and we did ask for it once last night - to give reasons where there was not something already on the thing. That would just be following what we did yesterday. I will take responsibility if I did not do that in the last clause.

Mr. Ramsay, would you like to give us the context.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The two clauses for which we've just asked for authority to stand, clauses 67 and 68.... While you're looking those up, Madam Chair, I might add that during the hearings we have expressed concern over the deadlines, but neither I nor my caucus have objected to them.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. Ramsay, we've dealt with that. I'm asking you -

Mr. Ramsay: There is no suggestion here of any reason why we would want to delay the deadline, as long as we can bring the work we want to do before the committee, whether it's witnesses or amendments.

.1730

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Very well, Mr. Ramsay. To facilitate that, can we get to the reasons you're -

Mr. Ramsay: Yes. I don't have the clause 67 amendment. But the amendment for clause 68 would delete the words after ``discharged'' in line 1.

The rationale for that has to do with the discharge of an offender. Section 36(3) of the Criminal Code deems the offender has not been convicted if he has been discharged, and yet they're referring to ``discharged'' in that particular clause. We are asking why this is held against those people under this clause.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): This would be on clause 68?

Mr. Ramsay: Yes. The amendment would remove the words ``or discharged''.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): With that explanation, do I have unanimous consent to stand clause 68 as requested?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mrs. Venne: No.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Not for that reason?

Mrs. Venne: No.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Okay, it's not stood.

I am going to adjourn now. We will be back at 7 p.m. We'll continue with calling the question on clause 68.

Ms Phinney.

Ms Phinney: Madam Chair, if all we have done is say we will not stand this, then we must pass it.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): That's right. That's what we will do when we are back here at 7 p.m.

Ms Phinney: Okay.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): The meeting is adjourned until 7 p.m.