[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, June 1, 1995
.0909 
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Ladies and gentlemen, we'll get started again. The order of the day is Bill C-68, An Act respecting firearms and other weapons.
We're going to continue with clause-by-clause consideration. We'll go through until12:30 p.m. Last night we were starting on clause 82.
.0910
On clause 82 - Destruction of records
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): On clause 82, LP-8 is the amendment I see in my papers.
Ms Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): Excuse me, I don't want to move the amendment. I'd like to withdraw my amendment.
This is about storing records. I was concerned that there were no regulations for it. After speaking with the departmental people, I've learned that the regulations will set out the manner, the time limits, and how they will be destroyed, so I'm satisfied and want to withdraw my motion.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): It was never tabled so we don't have to have unanimous consent. So LP-8 is withdrawn.
Ms Meredith.
Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): Not having had an opportunity to talk to the departmental officials - maybe they could share with us what they have envisioned for the regulations as far as destroying records is concerned?
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. Mosley.
Mr. Richard Mosley (Q.C., Assistant Deputy Minister, Criminal and Social Policy, Department of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. At present there are some problems with the existing restricted weapon registration system. There is no provision for the destruction of records. That has caused some problems, even where it has been established beyond any uncertainty that the need to maintain a particular record no longer exists.
Working with the RCMP, we will draft up regulations which would set out the circumstances under which records can be destroyed, time limits, the periods of which - There could be a periodic review of the record holdings by the registrar so that from time to time unnecessary, dated, stale records that are still on the system could be removed from it. Essentially that's the purpose for this provision. It's just to be able to maintain the integrity of the system over time.
Ms Meredith: So just for clarification, the incidents I believe Mr. de Savoye brought up the other day, where if he were to have his gun stolen or lost and it's registered to him and he dies, then that registration certificate is transferred to his heirs but there isn't any gun to go with it - in those circumstances, would these regulations allow for, at some point, that information to be removed from the record?
Mr. Mosley: About a firearm that has been stolen or lost, the fact of the theft or the loss would have to be maintained perhaps indefinitely. But certainly the registration in the name of an individual - it would be noted that the firearm was no longer in the possession of that individual and the registration itself could be revoked or let lapse after a time. If the firearm is recovered and returned to the true owner, at that point the registration could be revived or renewed in the name of the true owner.
Clause 82 agreed on division
On clause 83 - Other records of registrar
Ms Phinney: Madam Chair, I withdraw my amendment for the same reason as for clause 82.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): LP-9 was never moved, so we are now going to clause 83.
Clause 83 agreed to on division
Clause 84 agreed to
On clause 85 - Records of chief firearms officers
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): LP-10 is next. Is LP-10 withdrawn?
.0915
Ms Meredith: I notice here again in clause 85, when we're talking about the firearms officer keeping records of - and it goes down the list, they have ``such other matters as may be prescribed''. Can you give us some idea of what things you feel are missing from (a), (b), and (c)? Or is this just a catch-all clause?
Mr. MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Mr. Mosley, Madam Chair.
Mr. Mosley: This is a provision that would pick up on any matters that were not clearly covered within (a) through (c), which, at the time of the drafting of the regulations, or subsequently if it was felt necessary to draft and present a new regulation - where a particular record was believed to be necessary but it had not been contemplated in this list of (a) through (c), (d) would permit the government to draft a regulation to cover that unforeseen matter and present it to Parliament for its consideration.
Ms Meredith: So I would be fair in saying that's a catch-all clause.
Mr. Mosley: It's a basket clause, yes.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mrs. Venne.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne (Saint-Hubert): Mrs. Chair, I simply wish to ensure that we be consistent with the approach we took for section 81. At that time, we said that, in order to make sure that the French and English versions be compatible, the French version of subparagraph (d) should read ``tout autre renseignement réglementaire''. That was already agreed to yesterday. Consequently, I move that we should agree to this particular subparagraph as such.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): So this is an amendment to the clause in the French version only, and it is Mr. MacLellan or Mr. Roy -
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Roy (Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy, Department of Justice): It simply is a matter of ensuring that the French version of this subparagraph be compatible with subparagraph 81(d), which was agreed to yesterday.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): On the amendment as just moved by Mrs. Venne, shall it carry?
Amendment agreed to
Clause 85 as amended agreed to
Clauses 86 to 90 agreed to on division
On clause 91
Mr. Hill (Macleod): On clause 91, Madam Chairman, I was just wondering if the government would care to respond on the possible intent or meaning of the phrase, ``as soon as possible after the end of each calendar year'', just for further clarification on how soon you expect that reporting would done.
Mr. MacLellan: I don't think it would take too long. It's more or less an annual report and I think it could be done fairly quickly. I wouldn't want to say exactly how soon, but it would be in the interests of all to get it done as quickly as possible.
.0920
Mr. Hill: But you have no timeframe in mind, such as within the month of January.
Mr. MacLellan: I would say it would probably take a little longer than a month. But certainly it will be before the end of March.
Clauses 91 and 92 agreed to on division
On clause 93 - Possession at unauthorized place
Mr. MacLellan: Madam Chair, we're preparing an amendment for clause 93. The problem is the minister is in Toronto and we haven't been able to consult him about that. We're waiting for him to return. We'll have approval on it this afternoon. So if we could stand clause 93 I'd appreciate it.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Do you wish to stand it until Monday? We're not sitting this afternoon.
Mr. MacLellan: Yes, if we could.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mrs. Venne.
Mrs. Venne: I have an amendment on this. I suppose we will stand the amendment in order to see what the government will bring in.
[English]
Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): We're still standing some of these clauses, are we?
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): For the ones that are drafted and here we have not abrogated the right to ask for standing. It depends on the unanimous consent. They're drafted clauses and everybody can raise it.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: For the sake of discussion, when we'll come up to this amendment again, it is identified as BQ-7. It happens that we've agreed to amendment BQ-7 under section 24. In order to ensure that we understand each other when we come back to that, we might call it BQ-7.1, maybe, but we've already agreed to BQ-7.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I think it would be appropriate to make it BQ-7.1 right now so we have clarification for everybody's notes. The amendment is here. A representative of the minister has asked for clause 93 as a whole to be stood. We also have the request to stand BQ-7.1 until Monday at the same time. Is that when the government amendment comes in?
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Yes. I ask that my amendment be allowed to stand, because the government asked that clause 93 be stood, that's all.
[English]
Clause 93 allowed to stand
Amendment BQ-7.1 allowed to stand
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Clerk, please note that this one will have to come back on Monday.
Clause 94 agreed to on division
On clause 95 - Exemptions
The Chair: We have a number of amendments. The order is going to be LW-5, G-38, LW-6, LW-7 and G-39.
Mr. Wappel, are you moving LW-5?
Mr. Wappel (Scarborough West): Madam Chair, I want to advise committee members that I will not be bringing forward LW-5, LW-6 or LW-7, and I wanted to put the reasons why on record.
Clause 95 deals with the provincial minister making exemptions for businesses. My amendments would have had the effect of requiring the provincial minister to give reasons and to permit clause 95 appeals to the provincial court in the event of an exemption.
.0925
The government is not quite ready to decide whether or not they're prepared to accept that. So I'm not moving them. I will move them in the House at report stage.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): So we move to G-38. Do I have a mover there?
Mr. Bodnar (Saskatoon - Dundurn): I so move.
We're asking that this clause be amended by striking out lines 2 to 9 on page 41 and substituting the clause that's indicated on G-38, in particular the underlined portion.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. MacLellan or Mr. Mosley, do you wish to comment?
Mr. MacLellan: Madam Chair, I would just like to clarify that it applies to prohibited weapons, prohibited devices, and prohibited ammunition.
Mr. Ramsay: After the expiration of the one-year period, are provisions provided for the extension of that exemption?
Mr. MacLellan: Yes. They can just apply for another exemption.
Mr. Ramsay: Under the authority of this same clause?
Mr. MacLellan: Yes, the same section.
Mr. Lee (Scarborough - Rouge River): I'm very certain that yesterday, in discussing the application of this bill to businesses, either Mr. MacLellan or Mr. Mosley made reference to clause 95 as an ``exemption'' clause. As I understand it - and I'm asking the question - would this amendment not narrow the availability of exemption to only businesses that deal with prohibited firearms, prohibited weapons, and prohibited devices?
In answering that, would you please indicate what the intent of this amendment is?
Mr. MacLellan: I don't think it would narrow the scope. I think it would expand the scope. But I'll ask Mr. Mosley to give Mr. Lee more detailed information.
Mr. Mosley: This provision is intended to be an exceptional procedure. The normal procedure applicable to businesses will be governed by clause 9 as amended by Mr. Lee's motion, which would be administered then by the chief firearms officer of the province on a regular basis.
Clause 95 would be an application to the provincial minister to exempt for up to one year and is intended to encompass companies that are producing or working on or need to acquire prohibited firearms, weapons, devices, or ammunition. This will work with clause 9 to cover both the ordinary businesses that would be dealt with in the usual course of events under clause 9, and this would be an exceptional procedure for those that need to deal with prohibited weapons.
Mr. Lee: As I interpret your answer, notwithstanding the way the clause was originally drafted by the government, the clear purpose of this amendment is to narrow the application of the exemption provision to businesses that deal only with prohibited weapons. In so doing, notwithstanding comments that may have been made yesterday that two firearms manufacturers...and keeping in mind that I think there are three...there's a prohibited firearms manufacturer in London: there is a restricted firearms manufacturer in Scarborough and Montreal, and a long-arm manufacturer in Peterborough, Ontario.
.0930
Those businesses, the last two I've mentioned, which would have been exempt in some fashion under clause 95 as it was drafted, would now no longer be able to receive any exemption the way this section has been amended. Have I got that right?
Mr. Mosley: I don't think they would need to be exempted if the circumstances under clause 9, as amended, apply to that. I should point out that there is an existing provision in the Criminal Code, at section 90, which allows the attorney general of the province to exempt persons from the restrictions on the possession and acquisition of prohibited weapons for industrial purposes. What's intended by the amendment to clause 95 is to replicate that existing provision for those businesses.
Mr. Wappel: I'm sorry, Madam Chair, I do not understand. If this amendment passes, in the case of a manufacturer manufacturing prohibited weapons, every employee will be required to obtain a licence unless exempted under this clause. Is that correct?
Mr. Mosley: I think you have to read this clause with clause 9.
Mr. Wappel: You do that and just give me the answer.
Mr. Mosley: Perhaps I could use a reference, a particular example. I'll use a company where this has, in fact, arisen. General Motors in London, Ontario, is not normally in the business of dealing with firearms of any nature, including prohibited weapons. However, they've obtained a contract to manufacture and equip armoured vehicles, upon which were to be mounted machine-guns. In that particular instance they had to deal with the machine-guns, which are prohibited weapons. They would not normally need to have any licences or to have employees who would be exempted from having licences under the amendment to clause 9 that was adopted by the committee. They were not dealing with the completed firearm at that time. But for the purposes of that particular contract, they would need an exemption.
The amended clause 95 would give the provincial minister the authority to exempt them from the provisions of the proposed act with respect to those prohibited weapons and/or ammunition, etc.
Mr. Wappel: That's a good example. But what I'm trying to get at is who has the right to appeal under clauses 72 through 79? That's what I'm getting at: a refusal of an exemption under clause 95 contains no possibility of an appeal, at this stage.
What I want to know is, for those manufacturers who manufacture restricted weapons and those manufacturers who manufacture long guns, with what we've done up to now, are those manufacturers capable of obtaining an exemption for their employees based on the amendments we passed? If the exemption is denied, can they appeal under clauses 72 to 79, for restricted and long guns?
.0935
Mr. Mosley: They can appeal from any decision made under clause 9, including from the amendment adopted by the committee from Mr. Lee's motion.
Mr. Wappel: Under the provisions of clauses 72 through 79? So the only persons who could not now appeal under this bill as it stands now would be manufacturers of prohibited weapons who make an application to a provincial minister under clause 95 and are turned down. Is that accurate?
Mr. Mosley: Yes.
Mr. Wappel: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. Lee.
Mr. Lee: I hope colleagues will understand my persistence on this issue, and I want the record to be clear, and I want to understand it. Mr. Mosley has said an exemption is available to employees of businesses under clause 9. As I read clause 9 there is no such exemption from which one would appeal. Clause 9 provides for licensing and refusal to licence a business. There would be an appeal from a refusal to licence a business.
But the balance of clause 9 deals with determinations by the CFO; determinations that someone need not be licenced. A determination by a CFO that someone need not be licenced is not appealable, because that is a determination that someone need not be licenced and therefore it's in a sense favourable; it's relieving the restriction from the employee. But there is no exemption process, as I read it - and I'm asking Mr. Mosley to clarify this - for an employee licensing arrangement set out in clause 9. Therefore, with reference to Mr. Wappel's question there is no exemption available and no refusal to exempt to appeal from.
Clause 95 purported originally to provide exemptions for employees of a firearms business. The amendment we're now putting in place would remove the availability of such exemptions. All firearms businesses, with the exception of the businesses that handle the prohibited firearms...I think the government has in mind Diemaco and General Motors, which manufactures the machine-guns and automatic weapons for the armed forces and the armoured personnel carriers with the automatic weaponry on them.
Why is there an exemption for the big boys and not for the little guys? For the medium- and small-size businesses there just isn't one. Why are we narrowing the exemption? What is the compelling reason why we would remove the exemptions which were available yesterday and which the government now does not want to have there for the medium and small businesses?
Mr. Mosley: I don't know if this will be helpful, but I think we should distinguish between Diemaco and General Motors. Diemaco's primary business, I believe, is manufacturing firearms; in particular, restricted and prohibited firearms for military sales. The intent is that they would normally be governed under clause 9. So subject to the amendment to clause 9, their employees would normally be required to hold a licence.
Clause 9 does permit the CFO to make determinations. Mr. Lee is quite correct that those determinations would not normally be subject to appeal. But exempted under the amendment to clause 9 would be anybody employed by those committees and not handling the completed firearm.
.0940
Clause 95 is intended to apply to a big company such as GM. But it might also apply to a smaller company that has the need to be in possession of a prohibited weapon for a one-time or exceptional purpose. It could be a film company that is making a movie in a province and needs for that purpose to be in possession of prohibited weapons. They could get an exemption from the provincial minister for that one-time deal.
It's not limited to large companies. I think you would agree that on the face of it that's not the intent. But it is intended to deal with the exceptional circumstance as opposed to the normal course of business, which would be governed by clause 9.
Amendment agreed to
Mr. Ramsay: I would like to amend clause 95 by striking out lines 11 and 12 and substituting the following therefor:
- is inconsistent with the protection of society or any person, that the employees of the busi-
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. MacLellan, could you comment, please.
Mr. MacLellan: The wording Mr. Ramsay recommends I don't think adds anything. In fact, it could detract. The words ``not desirable, in the interests'' are words that we've used before. We've used the word ``desirable'' in other places in this bill. One is the general provision of clause 5:
- A person is not eligible to hold a licence if it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of that or
any other person, that the person not possess a firearm, a cross-bow
- - or whatever.
Mr. Ramsay: I would just add, Madam Chair, that these words ``inconsistent with the protection of society'' are in harmony with the wording used in Bill C-41 under the alternative measures.
.0945
Although Bill C-41 is not law yet, it has passed second reading. These two proposed acts then would be consistent in the wording.
Ms Meredith: Would the government representatives please explain what ``desirable'' means? It's not in the definitions. Also, whose discretion determines whether it's desirable or not desirable?
Mr. MacLellan: I don't think you have to define a word like ``desirable'' in the bill. I think it is the standard meaning and the Interpretation Act would give it the normal definition. To try to define it would be a step backwards.
Ms Meredith: The second part of that question was who determines whether something is desirable or not desirable.
Mr. MacLellan: Who would have that responsibility depends on the circumstances. In this case it's the provincial minister.
Amendment negatived
Mr. Ramsay: My second amendment, Madam Chair, deals with subclause 95.(3), line 16, the words following the word ``considers''. The words to be struck would be ``desirable in the particular circumstances and in the interests of the safety of any person'' and would be replaced with the words ``is consistent with the protection of society or any person in the particular circumstances''.
Again, ``consistent with the protection'' is mirrored in Bill C-41 under the alternative measures and would be consistent with that bill.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Before we get into this, I don't mind you alluding to other bills, but I want to remind the committee that we're dealing with Bill C-68 here; this is the firearms act.
I think after saying that, I will allow this to be answered by Mr. MacLellan. I just want to remind people to keep it relevant to the bills in front of us.
Mr. MacLellan: We would be opposed to this amendment for the same reason, Madam Chair.
Amendment negatived
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): G-39 is a new clause 95.1. Therefore we will deal with clause 95 as amended by G-38 before we deal with G-39.
Clause 95 as amended agreed to division
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): New clause 95.1 is in amendment G-39. Who is moving that? Mr. Bodnar.
Mr. Bodnar: Madam Chair, this particular clause is a new clause that simply indicates that the chief firearms officer of the province may perform the functions of the provincial minister of designating firearms officers for the province. It is simply a delegation of power so the minister can designate the new firearms officer to do the work indicated in that clause.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. MacLellan, do you have anything to add?
Mr. MacLellan: It's just a convenience for the provincial minister, Madam Chair.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. Hill.
.0950
Mr. Hill: I wonder how you would address the concern that while one person is appointed and basically non-accountable to the people, the other person is accountable, at least every few years, and therefore the people feel they have some control if he or she starts to run roughshod in enforcing regulations.
Mr. MacLellan: The provincial minister would still be accountable.
Mr. Hill: The amendment would replace the provincial minister with the chief firearms officer. Is that how it is, or is it the other way around?
Mr. MacLellan: Yes, it's a designation, as Mr. Lee has said. The provincial minister would still be accountable for the actions as if he or she were doing them him or herself.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
On clause 96 - Designated officers may perform functions of chief firearms officers
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): We have amendment G-40.
Ms Phinney: I move that clause 96 be amended by striking out line 19 on page 41 and substituting the following:
- 96.(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a fire-
Mr. MacLellan: The clause expands the power to authorize businesses to acquire prohibited firearms and prohibited weapons. These authorizations have to be issued personally by the chief firearms officer.
Amendment agreed to on division
Mr. Hill: In regard to subclause 96(2), under the exception or exemption concerning the authorization to carry, I know we dealt with this before in the sense that the other night we were dealing with a possible appeal process for that. We're talking about limiting the power to the chief firearms officer so that he or she cannot delegate the authorization to carry to any other firearms officer. If we're going to limit that to that one individual, what appeal process is available?
Mr. MacLellan: There is no appeal process.
Mr. Hill: Their word is law. They're second only to God in the sense that if they refuse....
Under subclause 96(2) we are limiting that, giving them that power, not allowing them to delegate it to anyone else.
In my riding there have been many cases of prospectors and trappers who had an authorization to carry in the past and who tried to get an extension of that under the new rules brought in by the Conservatives, but they weren't granted authorization to carry; in other words, they were refused.
.0955
Without the appeal process we talked about the other day, limiting that power to that one individual....
I wonder if you could indicate to us how many times there has been a refusal.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): This refers to an amendment that was defeated yesterday. You're going over exactly the same territory.
Mr. Hill: We're talking about limiting that power to this one individual. That's what this clause is dealing with.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): You're talking about an appeal process in this clause, and the amendment was defeated yesterday. We will not go backwards in this bill and go over the same territory.
Mr. Hill: I understand that, but here we're talking about limiting that power and I'm just trying to get at why we would want to limit that power to one individual.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. Hill, be careful, because I am going to be very strict on this now. I've said it a couple of times. We are not going to go backwards in the bill. If you have comments that are limited to this clause, I will allow them. In your preamble to your questions, just be aware that I am concerned about that.
Mr. Hill: Sorry; I was just trying to explain what were my concerns and those of my constituents. If I'm not allowed to do that, then that's fine.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. Hill, you know what you're allowed to do. I've outlined it. I am not going to discuss something that was defeated yesterday. Move forward on your question, please.
Mr. Hill: I'll pass.
Mr. Ramsay: Are we not allowed to discuss the application of one clause to other clauses that we've already covered?
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): You are not allowed to raise the same arguments that were used in regard to an amendment that was defeated, and that's what I heard in Mr. Hill's question.
Mr. Ramsay: My question is this: are we not allowed to discuss the ramifications of a clause -
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): If that's the question, but it was not what we were going over there. I will allow questions that are relevant to the clause, but I will not allow the same argument that was used on a clause that has already been defeated by the committee. I can only make it as clear as that, and I will have to listen to each situation. I'm trying to be as fair as possible, Mr. Ramsay, but we're not going to be dilatory and go over stuff that has already been defeated. If it is a different question that is relevant to the clause, then it will be allowed.
Mr. MacLellan, did you wish to comment?
Mr. MacLellan: I just want to answer one of Mr. Hill's questions, about the trapper. The trapper would be carrying a long gun. He wouldn't come under this clause because we're talking about prohibited weapons and ammunition. So there wouldn't be a problem for the trapper or somebody in a rural area.
Mr. Hill: Obviously, Madam Chair, I recognize the authority of the chair in determining this, but I thought my comments were relevant.
There are trappers and prospectors who would like to carry a handgun because it's easy to carry and they need mobility when they're doing their job. I recognize that it doesn't apply to long guns.
Mr. Wappel: I have a question on clause 96. The heading above clause 96 says ``Delegation''. The purpose of clause 96 is simply to outline in what circumstances officials other than the chief firearms officer may do things. It's not setting any new ground. It's not changing any appeal processes, or anything of that nature, which are previously dealt with. As I understand it, it's simply indicating under what circumstances the chief firearms officer personally must do something and under what circumstances the chief firearms officer can delegate to someone else.
There's nothing more to it than that, is there?
Mr. MacLellan: Nothing more.
Amendment agreed to on division
Clause 96 as amended agreed to on division
Clause 97 agreed to on division
On clause 98 - Definition of ``police officer''
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): On clause 98 we have four amendments. The order will be LW-8 -
Mr. Ramsay: I have a point of order. We have been handed what looks like a package of additional amendments. I see that they are amendments that go back. LG-001 refers to clause 2 on page 3. Of course, we're past that. As I go through it, I see that it covers amendments that we haven't arrived at yet. Will we be dealing with these amendments as we go forward?
.1000
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): As we go along. We'll deal at the end with any clauses that were stood. For instance, LG-001 refers to clause 2, which was stood. We will not go to the stood clauses until we have gone through the bill one time, as I understand it. The only ones we will come back to are those that were stood by the chair to a certain point in time.
Mr. Ramsay: We will be dealing with LG-001 and the following ones. Because we now have two packages, I just ask for us to have time to refer to them.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): As you've already done today, you can put something on the floor orally without even writing it down. These ones are written, and as the clerk alerts me to them, I'll bring them to the attention of the committee.
Mr. Ramsay: It's just that we now have two packages, or at least I have: one that is correlated and a new package.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): So we have some notice of them a little bit in advance.
Mr. Ramsay: Yes. Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): We will consider the amendments in this order: LW-8, LG-2, and LG-001, which you just got in your new package.
Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): I have a point of order. I will not be presenting LG-001 and LG-002.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): So they've been withdrawn before they've even been moved.
Mrs. Venne: Which ones have been withdrawn?
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): They had not been moved. I was just announcing the order.
Mrs. Venne: Which ones have not been moved?
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): LG-001 and LG-002.
We now move to LW-8, and I believe it will be moved by Mr. Wappel.
Mr. Wappel: For reasons that will become clear as we discuss clause 99 and the government's amendments to that clause, I will not be moving LW-8.
Mr. Ramsay: What has been withdrawn up to now?
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): LW-8 was not officially moved. I just want to caution that the word ``withdrawn'' does not refer to the withdrawal of a motion but to the withdrawal of a proposal that you have before you.
Just for clarification for everybody, LW-8, LG-2, LG-001, and LG-002 have not been moved.
We are left with G-41, which will be moved by Mr. Wappel.
.1005
Mr. Wappel: I move G-41.
G-41 amends line 34 on page 41 of clause 98. As is quite evident, the effect of the amendment is to remove the words ``police officer'' and put in the word ``inspector''. It says that ``inspector'' means a firearms officer and ``includes, in respect of province'', etc. This is part of a package of amendments that are going to be dealing with the inspection powers, as announced by the minister in his last appearance here.
Mr. MacLellan: Referring to what Mr. Wappel said, one thing we'd want to emphasize is that by changing the definition to ``inspector'', we are saying that the inspector is the chief firearms officer or someone designated by the firearms officer. A policeman can be designated, but not every policeman is an inspector.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mrs. Venne, and then Mr. Ramsay.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: I think this amendment should be dealt with together with G-42 because the changes in the substance are in G-42 and G-41 is only accessory. So, you should be in agreement, and Mr. Mosley as well. We should deal with the two of the them at the same time in the interest of time. G-31 is only a correlative amendment.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I'll deal with that issue first.
The point made concerning clause 99 was that G-42 relates to the same subject-matter as does G-41.
Mr. MacLellan, did you wish to comment on whether the sense of the two clauses will be better understood if we deal with them together?
Mr. MacLellan: I understand what Madame Venne means. We know where we're going on this, and I think it's just the definition. It does relate mostly to the next clause. I agree with Madame Venne, but I don't think that G-41 is a mystery.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: I will deal with the substance then and ask Mr. macLellan to explain what is this new creature which is called ``inspector''? What is an inspector if it's not a police officer? Could it be a police officer? What is this new person that is mentioned in C-68?
[English]
Mr. MacLellan: It arose from objections to using the term ``police officer''. We're saying we want an inspector to do what we had designated a police officer to do. An inspector is a firearms officer, or someone designated by the firearms officer. That person designated can be a police office, but it needn't be a police officer. Certainly, every police officer is not going to be an inspector. A police officer can be an inspector only if that police officer is designated by the firearms officer.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Madame Venne, did you have anything further?
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: I understand. An inspector is not a police officer, but he could be one.
[English]
Mr. Ramsay: What powers does an inspector who is not a peace officer have? Does an inspector have the power to lay charges?
Mr. MacLellan: We'll be getting into that as we go to the other clauses. As we move on to clause 99, we'll get into that area.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): The heading of the area is ``Inspection'', so that's what you'll see in the next clause. Really, that was Madame Venne's point.
.1010
Mr. Ramsay: Yes.
If my question is asked in the next amendment, that's fine, but I will still want to know the power of an inspector.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): That's what the next amendment will deal with.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 98 as amended agreed to
On clause 99 - Inspection
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): First, we will deal with amendment LW-9.
Mr. Wappel: Madam Chair, it's all right - I'm not moving LW-9.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): LW-9 is not moved.
I have amendment G-42, which we'll do at the end.
Mr. Wappel, first I just want to know whether amendments LW-10, LW-11, LW-12 and LW-13 are going to be moved.
Mr. Wappel: I wonder if we might deal with them as we get to them, depending on how -
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Let's deal with LW-10 then, because the clerk advises me G-42 is going to be dealt with at the end of this.
Mr. Wappel: All right.
Madam Chair, I will not be proceeding with any of my amendments that pertain to clause 99.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Okay, so that takes care of LW-10, LW-11, LW-12 and LW-13. We are left with G-42.
Mr. Bodnar: After the month or more of hearings we've had, G-42 is an amendment that I propose with great pleasure. It's an amendment to clause 99.
This particular amendment would narrow the inspection powers to apply to only businesses, gun collectors, owners of prohibited firearms, and anyone who owns more than 10 firearms. As well, I propose that on the fourth line of clause 99, as shown in G-42, after the word ``business'', we add the words ``as defined under subsection 2(1) of this Act''.
Those particular words would be added to make certain that the word ``business'' is restricted to a firearms business and does not apply to any business that there may be available - anything running from a retail business to any type of business. It's just to have greater clarity to restrict it to that particular type of business.
As well, the references to ``police officer'' have been replaced by ``inspector'' and references to part III of the Criminal Code have been deleted by amendment G-42. Also, subclause 99(3), which refers to disposal of the samples, has been completely deleted.
.1015
This amendment would also add a subclause requiring an inspector who removes anything to give a receipt for the particular item that is removed.
Madam Chair, I believe that is, in essence, the amendment, and I believe it covers the concerns I've had over the past month or month and a half.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. MacLellan, would you wish to add to that?
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Bodnar has described it very well. I think it's a major step forward.
[Translation]
M. Langlois (Bellechasse): I will vote against the whole section dealing with inspection powers. I submit that these provisions are beyond the rules of common law, that the rules that should apply to ensure compliance with the Act and for the inspection that might be carried out by a police officer should be common law rules, that is the police officer, in accordance with general rules, would need a warrant to be authorized to enter not only a residence but also any other private property.
These powers give too much discretion to the inspector. It is a clever disguise to designate the same people who would have done the work if we hadn't changed anything.
For all intents and purposes, the burden of the proof to change the rules applying to the visit rested with the government. The government did not convince me at all about the need to beyond the normal rules of common law.
[English]
Mr. Ramsay: I have lots of questions about this amendment. I'd like to begin by going back to the question I was asking about the previous amendment, and that is on the definition of an inspector. What are the powers of an inspector? Will the inspector have the power to lay charges under the firearms section or under the Criminal Code?
Mr. MacLellan: I just want to find it.
The powers of the inspector are set out on page 42, in clause 99.
Mr. Ramsay: Then let me ask this question: what's the difference, in terms of powers, between a peace officer and an inspector in regard to the enforcement of this bill?
Mr. MacLellan: There is no difference.
Mr. Ramsay: Then why are we changing the name from peace officer to inspector? Would an inspector not, in fact, be a peace officer? A rose is a rose by any other definition. They are peace officers, then, for the purposes of the enforcement of the provisions set out in this bill, are they not?
Mr. MacLellan: There really isn't any difference, I suppose. I guess if you look at it from the point of view of mixing inspection with investigation, there is a difference. This is just inspection. When you're talking about inspection, the inspector has the power to inspect but not the power to do an investigation.
Mr. Ramsay: Then may I ask this question: if an inspector enters a home, under the authority of the provisions of this bill and finds evidence of a violation of the provisions of this bill, does he have the power to investigate?
Mr. MacLellan: No, just the power to inspect. The inspector gets the information. This is an inspection; it's not search and seizure, and it's not an investigation.
.1020
Mr. Ramsay: If the inspector finds a violation of the Firearms Act or the Criminal Code as a result of his inspection, does he have the power to lay a charge? Does he have the power to seize the firearm that perhaps is not registered or is prohibited? Does he have the power of a peace officer to do these things?
Mr. MacLellan: I would like Mr. Mosley to give a more detailed explanation.
Mr. Mosley: These provisions do not give an inspector any of the powers of a peace officer. The inspector may or may not be a peace officer in the particular circumstances of the case. If the inspector is a peace officer, then that inspector is entitled to exercise any of the authorities a peace officer may have. An inspector who is not a peace officer could report a matter, if it came to his attention during the course of an inspection, to a peace officer. If the inspector is a peace officer, then the powers of a peace officer may or may not enable that inspector to act on what he or she may come across in the course of the investigation.
Essentially, the powers of a peace officer relate to matters that an ordinary citizen would not have. An inspector, in this case, has certain specified powers to examine as set out in subsections (1) or (2), but would not, by virtue of the designation as an inspector, be given any of those additional authorities - for example, to arrest without a warrant - that a peace officer might have.
Mr. Ramsay: I still haven't heard the answer I'm seeking. An inspector is going in there to inspect for a purpose, and that is to ensure that the provisions of the act have been complied with. When and if he or she finds a violation of the act, what powers does the inspector have to enforce the statute? If they find a prohibited firearm or an unregistered firearm or a firearm that's not properly stored, do they simply walk away and report it to the police? Do they have no powers other than to come in and look?
Mr. Mosley: An inspector who is a peace officer can act upon finding an offence being committed. An inspector who is not a peace officer would not have the same authority as a police officer in those circumstances, but would, as would any citizen who comes across certain kinds of offences in commission, be able to act upon that basis.
If evidence of the commission of an offence is found upon conducting an inspection, then the evidence may be seized under what is known as the plain view doctrine, which is an exception to the warrant requirements in the charter and also to the warrant requirements that are normally found in the Criminal Code and other statutes. But that would be only where it's clear evidence of the commission of an offence.
A violation of the Firearms Act would normally be in the nature of a summary conviction offence. If the inspector is a peace officer and comes across such a violation, he could act upon that, lay an information or take other steps. An inspector who's not a peace officer may be able to report that violation to a peace officer, who may then choose to act upon that information.
Anyone can lay an information before a justice of the peace, whether they're a peace officer or a private citizen. Then, of course, a justice of the peace has to determine whether to act upon that information and issue process.
Those are the general rules that apply under the Criminal Code and are not altered or affected by these provisions relating to the powers of an inspector.
Generally speaking, under this bill, if there's any indication that an offence is being committed before the inspector goes in, the inspector should not go in and conduct an inspection. The inspector would not then be involved in the matter. It should then be turned over to a peace officer to conduct an investigation and get a warrant before going in.
.1025
Mr. Ramsay: Then the inspector does not have the powers of a peace officer. I understand that you are saying that the inspector does not have the powers of a peace officer.
Mr. Mosley: That's quite clear. The inspector, per se, does not have the powers of a peace officer.
Mr. Ramsay: If I could just move to another part - I guess I have to ask the mover of the amendment this question.
On the second page of G-42, under paragraph 4, it states:
- An inspector who takes any thing while carrying out an inspection of a place under subsection
(1) must give to the owner or occupant of the place at the time that the thing is taken a receipt for
the thing that describes the thing with reasonable precision, including, in the case of a firearm,
the serial number of the firearm.
- So this clearly indicates that an inspector has the power to seize a firearm, and that wasn't what I
understood Mr. Mosley to be saying.
There's no mention of the procedure to be followed if the firearm has no serial number. We understand from the witnesses who have appeared before the committee that there are literally thousands of firearms in Canada that have no serial number. I see that no provisions are made in your amendment to provide for that type of a situation, although your amendment does call for the listing of the serial number on the receipt, if a firearm is seized. Could you respond to that?
Mr. Bodnar: I can respond to a limited extent, because generally firearms will have serial numbers and they will be put on. I can see the concern you have if there is no serial number, and perhaps that particular subclause should be looked at to indicate if the serial number of the firearm were available.
Perhaps Mr. Mosley could comment more on that in the event that it is a firearm that doesn't have a serial number.
Mr. Mosley: I would agree with that. It's a good point, and subclause (4) could be amended by adding words to that effect in the concluding line. Perhaps the words ``where available'' would suffice to meet the concern.
Mr. Ramsay: During your description of the power of an inspector, did I misunderstand you, Mr. Mosley? I thought you indicated that the inspector would not have the power to seize a firearm, but apparently that's a misunderstanding on my part. Is it?
Mr. Mosley: I don't think we actually said anything about seizures, but paragraph 1(b), for example - can ``examine any firearm and examine any other thing that the officer finds and takes samples of it'' - may contemplate the actual seizure of the firearm. It may be that the firearm in question needs to be examined by a forensic expert as to its identification. It is quite clear that subclause (4) as proposed in the amendment to the bill does contemplate the removal of a firearm from the place.
In terms of the terminology, it's not a seizure in the sense of a seizure of an article as the basis for the laying of a criminal charge or the prosecution of a charge. It is a taking away, if I can use those terms, in preference, to support the objectives or aims of the inspection provisions of the act.
.1030
Mr. Ramsay: I'm sorry, but I don't understand. If an inspector has the power to go into a place and seize a firearm, as subsection (4) authorizes him to do, and subsection (4) recognizes that power in that a receipt has to be issued, and in subsection (4) that particular point is made in that a firearm should be described in the receipt, including the serial number - and that will be amended to read ``the serial number, if available'' - this means to me that the inspector does have the power of a peace officer, at least in part, not only to enter a place and to examine and to inspect, but also to seize. We can put whatever word we want on the taking away of a firearm, but it still amounts to a seizure of that firearm as a result of evidence of a violation under this particular bill.
So I ask again, am I misunderstanding the explanation of the powers of an inspector that has been given here this morning by the officials of the government, that they do not and will not have the power of a peace officer, and yet at the same time, at least in one area, they do have the power of a peace officer, which is to seize a firearm?
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): It looks as if we're going to go on for some time here. At some point I would like to take a break.
Mr. Ramsay: Why don't we do that now and give them time, perhaps, to research this. It's 10:30 a.m. If it's in order, I'd move an amendment.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): The chair will bring it back, if that's agreeable.
.1033
PAUSE
.1058
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Order.
Mr. Ramsay: Madam Chair, we adjourned at 10:30 for 5 minutes. It's now almost 11 o'clock. Is there some reason that we could place on the record why there's been a delay of 25 minutes from the adjournment for 5 minutes?
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I'll just correct you there. We did not adjourn for 5 minutes; we adjourned to the call of the chair, and I'm calling you back now.
Mr. Ramsay: I'm sorry, Madam Chair. I thought I made the adjournment for 5 minutes.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): No, you did not. The chair makes the adjournments, and I made it to the call of the chair. I'm quite clear on that, thank you.
We are back. I hope that everybody has had sufficient time to do whatever business they had so we can return the debate.
Mr. Ramsay, were you finished?
Mr. Ramsay: I was finished, yes.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): We're returning to our discussion. Mr. Wappel.
Mr. Wappel: As I indicated, I didn't move any of my amendments because I support the government amendments on clause 99. So I wish to speak in favour of G-42. In particular, before I do that, I want to make sure that we are clear.
.1100
Mr. Bodnar suggested an amendment to subclause 99(1). He and I have subsequently discussed it, and we note that proposed subclause 99(5) at the bottom of G-42 deals precisely with the point that Mr. Bodnar had suggested be inserted in subclause 99(1). So there's no need to make an additional insertion, because proposed subclause 99(5) deals with it, in terms of making sure we know what we're talking about when we talk about business.
Mr. Bodnar: That's correct.
Mr. Wappel: The other point I wanted to make is that it appears as if there's consensus in the committee - although it's up to the chair to draw that consensus, I just want to make sure I'm clear - on an amendment suggested by Mr. Ramsay. We're now using two words and I want to make sure we know what we're using. There was some suggestion that it would be, in subclause 99(4), ``the serial number of the firearm, where available'', but someone else said ``the serial number of the firearm, if available''. Before we actually vote on G-42, I'm simply asking that we get that crystal-clear. We don't have to do that now, because I don't want to discuss that. I want to discuss the amendment itself.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I want to clarify this. We have not dealt with a subamendment using words to clarify yet. I understood that was part of the discussion that was to be had. There is no subamendment on the floor. Mr. Ramsay raised adding some words, but I do not have a subamendment before me at this time for this body to deal with.
Mr. Wappel: Perhaps, while I'm making my comments on G-42, that might be an interesting hint to Mr. Ramsay that he might draft something and provide it to the chair. In any event, that's up to him.
I'm speaking in favour of the government amendments because I, like Mr. Bodnar, for over a month have had significant difficulty with the inspection powers. Indeed, obviously, I drafted a number of amendments to deal with what I consider to be my problems.
It is my understanding - and if I am correct there is no need to answer - that clause 99 of course does not deal with a dwelling-house. A dwelling-house is dealt with entirely separately in clause 101, and amendments will be coming with respect to that. The word ``place'', except as it may be modified in clause 101, does not deal with a dwelling-house.
I want people watching, listening and reading to understand that what we're talking about now in clause 99, for all intents and purposes, does not deal with a person's home. We're talking about places other than dwelling-houses. That's the first point I want to make.
The reason I make it is that I therefore support the inspection provisions on that understanding. We are not invading a person's home. I want to make that crystal-clear, because I thought I heard one of the questioners ask if the inspector could go into someone's home. I know that was inadvertent, but that's not the case under clause 99, with a small moderation that we'll see when we get to the amendments on ``dwelling-house''. If a business is being conducted out of the dwelling-house, then it's a business, not a dwelling-house, for the purposes of an inspection. That's point one.
Point two is this. I want to get it on the record that I have been provided by the Department of Justice with the names of 42 federal acts passed into law by this Parliament at various times that contain inspection powers. I have examined them. I will not go through all of them, but I am now convinced that the inspection powers that are proposed in clause 99 as it will be amended should these amendment pass are very similar to inspection powers contained in 42 other federal statutes. They are not identical, of course, because we're not dealing with packaging and labelling or food, for example; we're dealing with firearms. I will refer with specificity to a few.
In the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act, subsection 26(6) states that an inspector may at all reasonable times for the purpose of performing any function pursuant to this Act enter any premises where electricity or gas is being generated, produced, stored and distributed.
.1105
Under the Explosives Act - and perhaps here we're getting a little bit closer - subsection 14(1) reads that an inspector may, at any time - and I underscore the words ``at any time'' - enter and inspect any factory, magazine, vehicle, or other place in which the inspector believes, on reasonable grounds, any explosive is being manufactured, stored, or conveyed. Read ``firearm'', perhaps, as we're discussing it now.
This is existing law, for those who think that this particular clause is somehow intrusive and new and that the jackboots of tyranny are beginning to march out of Ottawa across the land. This is not the case. At least I have been satisfied that it is not the case.
Subsection 7(1) of the Feeds Act, a federal statute, reads that an inspector may, at any reasonable time, enter any place in which the inspector believes, on reasonable grounds, there is any feed. He can open any package and he can take any samples he wants to take, at any time he wants to take them, and he can require any person to produce for inspection copies of any bills, copies of any bills of lading documents, mixing instructions, or anything else. This is an inspector under the Feeds Act. If we can examine feeds, then surely we can examine a business that is selling firearms.
Under the Fertilizers Act - and some might say that this is comparable to that - subsection 7(1) reads that an inspector may, at any reasonable time, enter any place in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds there's any article contained therein. He can open any package found. Why he would want to open a package of fertilizer I don't know, but he can do it. The person in charge is required to give all reasonable assistance to enable the inspector to carry out his duty in checking bags of fertilizer. So the store owner presumably has to help him open the bags. That's the Fertilizers Act.
There are two more, I think.
As to fish inspection, an inspector may, at any time, enter any place or any premises on any vehicle, steamship, boat, railway car, truck, carriage, or aircraft - any vehicle that is in any way used for the storage of fish - and he can open any container and check it out and he can ask for any documents, and you cannot impede him in any way in carrying out his duties in so doing. It goes on and on and on.
For example, the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act has very similar provisions, and the Canadian Dairy Conversion Act, dealing with milk, has very similar provisions of entry, examination and the taking of samples.
I have become convinced that if we can look into fertilizer, into fish, into milk and all of these other things, then, provided the appropriate safeguards are there - which I believe they are - there is absolutely nothing (a) new or (b) overly intrusive in clause 99 that isn't in 42 other federal acts. It is for this reason that I support clause 99 as proposed and underscore again that it does not, in any way, deal with a dwelling-house or interfere with the long-held, and I believe true, belief that a person's home is his or her castle. Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): There being no comments from the government side, we'll go now to Mr. Hill.
Mr. Hill: Despite the assurances of the hon. member across the way, people are very uneasy about this.
I ask the government representatives first: do those other examples that Mr. Wappel drew to the attention of the committee result, were charges to be laid - for example, for improper handling or storage of milk or fertilizer - in a criminal record? Would that be the result of a charge laid under those inspection powers that he referred to?
Mr. MacLellan: If the particular act is supported under the criminal law power, then, yes, it would result in a criminal record.
.1110
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I will allow your question, because this is an important point.
Mr. Hill: Which ones of the examples that Mr. Wappel just read into the record would result in a citizen being charged under the Criminal Code? I think there is a very distinct difference between -
Mr. MacLellan: He wouldn't be charged under the Criminal Code. For instance, under the Food and Drugs Act, if there's a conviction it would result in a criminal record, but it wouldn't be charged under the Criminal Code.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Just to clarify, Mr. Hill, when you say examples, you have now had a list of 42 acts distributed to you.
Mr. MacLellan: I have submitted a list of the 42 acts -
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): That would include things like -
Mr. MacLellan: - to which Mr. Wappel referred, which was very helpful.
Mr. Hill: Could you then indicate to the committee which of the 42 acts or how many of the 42 acts would result in a criminal record for someone charged under the act? I don't want to read through the acts; it would just waste time.
Mr. MacLellan: I don't think we would want to mention all 42 acts, but Mr. Hill should get a more complete explanation. I would like Mr. Mosley to do that.
Mr. Mosley: The difficulty is with notion of what constitutes a criminal record. There is no clear definition of that term. Some of these acts, or many of the offence provisions, may be justified under Parliament's criminal law power.
It may be helpful to refer to the Criminal Records Act itself, which defines in effect how people get pardons for federal offences. It speaks of anyone who has been convicted of an offence under an act of Parliament.
So for every single one of these federal statutes where there has been a conviction for an offence under them, that person can apply under the Criminal Records Act to obtain a pardon.
We have to be careful about the concepts. The act does not define a criminal record, but it provides a mechanism whereby one can obtain a pardon for an offence under any federal statute.
Mr. Hill: I would like a clarification. Would the charges that would be made under these other federal acts that were submitted result in an individual being fingerprinted and proceeded against for having committed an indictable offence or a summary conviction offence?
Mr. MacLellan: There would be no fingerprinting on a summary conviction offence.
Mr. Hill: No, I mean in cases of charges being laid under these 42 acts where there are inspection powers.
Mr. MacLellan: Yes, there could be fingerprinting under an indictable offence, or indeed sometimes under a hybrid offence, which is one way or the other. If they're charged with an indictable offence, then they could be fingerprinted.
Mr. Hill: Despite the fact that Mr. Wappel says that his mind has been put at ease, a lot of concern has been expressed about this particular clause. I recognize that we're dealing with G-42, the amendment that will see ``inspector'' inserted instead of ``police officer''.
A concern I have about that is, with the way the clause was originally, the police officer.... I think everyone understands the training that's necessary, the testing that is under way for a police officer. There is psychological training, for example, to make sure that they can do the job.
Now, by your own admission on a previous clause, you say that ``inspector'' or ``police officer'' can be interchanged. It might be a police officer, but also it might not be. Could you help me in directing me to that part of the bill where it will deal with what training and testing would take place for an inspector were he or she not a police officer?
.1115
Mr. MacLellan: There's no particular clause that deals with the training. What would actually transpire is it would not just be a roster posted where the police officers go and look to see if they are on duty for the inspection of firearms. Certain police officers would be doing this, would be inspectors. They'd be like police officers, for instance, who do special work on community policing or on public relations. They would have special emphasis and they would have special training on the sensitivities and how to handle this.
As Mr. Mosley said, because they're police officers they would have additional powers that other inspectors wouldn't have, but they would be given special sensitivity training under this act.
It's not all policemen and a different policeman every day. There would be certain policemen who would do this.
Mr. Hill: The point I'm trying to make to the government witnesses is that it would not necessarily relieve people's concern or uneasiness with this clause and with the powers that are being granted inspectors by having, as we're doing with G-42, the term ``inspector'' replace that of ``police officer''. At least with the term ``police officer'', we know what training they have to take, we know what testing - In the case of the RCMP, it's very comprehensive, to make sure they're suitable to become a police officer. Now we have no definition of what testing or training will be done before a provincial minister, under clause 98, would appoint an inspector who may not be a police officer. That person will be given these same powers of inspection.
Mr. MacLellan: Inspectors won't be police officers. They may be in some smaller communities where the police officer could do this role, but in most communities the police officers' time is so taken up right now that to give them these additional tasks would not be reasonable. In most cases, they would be separate, new inspectors who would be hired and trained to fulfil the role.
Otherwise, you'd be taking police officers who have a full schedule now and giving them additional duties, and I just don't see that happening in most municipal centres.
Mr. Hill: While I respect that, I just want to make it abundantly clear that the concern has not been alleviated by having ``inspector'' replace ``police officer'' in this clause or the previous one, because there will be the ability to abuse power in the sense of harassment of citizens with this inspection. At least with a police officer, we know what training they have to take.
Once again, as with so many clauses, we're just taking the government's word that adequate training - sensitivity, for example - will be ensured by these inspectors. That isn't very reassuring to me or to a lot of other people.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: The first thing that comes to my mind - and Mr. Mosley was mentioning it earlier - is that it's either or, either the inspector is a peace officer, or he is not. As you were saying earlier, this is not necessarily the case. However, at least the inspector is an ordinary citizen.
Now, when it comes to arresting someone, the inspector, if he's not a peace officer, still has the same power as an ordinary citizen. So, if he arrives somewhere to carry out an inspection and he finds someone in the process of committing an indictable offence - this is a case for a flagrant offence - it could be said that he has, at least, the same power as an ordinary citizen, i.e. that he can arrest the offender, on the understanding that he has to put that person into the hands of the appropriate police authorities. This is my interpretation and if you don't share it, I would like you to tell me where I'm wrong.
.1120
Second, the inspector is a police officer - or to use a broader term - if he's a peace officer, with regard to arresting people, he has much more power and he can arrest someone if he has reasonable ground to believe that the person in question has committed an offence or an indictable offence, is in the process of committing it or is about to commit it.
However - and this a question I'm asking - can't we say that when the peace officer who is also an inspector goes somewhere for the purpose of an inspection, he then becomes a functus officio and cannot act as a peace officer, but only for the purpose of an inspection and nothing else, even if he were in a position to find something else?
At this stage, these are the questions that come to my mind and I would like to hear what you have to say in this respect.
[English]
Mr. MacLellan: I would like to address that, and then ask Mr. Mosley to do so, as well.
When we made the change, the idea was that it would be more palatable to people if we changed the term ``police officer'' to ``inspector'', because, as Mr. Wappel has said, there are 42 acts where we have inspection. There isn't abuse there, and there's not going to be rampant abuse here.
Certainly, there are going to be some people - that's the same in any business - who are more abrasive or curt than others. They may be having a bad day. They may not be as sensitive to courtesy as others, or as they might be on other days, or as other inspectors may be. But the situation is to do the job of inspection, and that's it. There's no hidden agenda in this bill.
I would like Mr. Mosley to answer as well.
Mr. Mosley: For the assistance of members of the committee who were listening to the interpretation of Mr. Langlois's question, I would point out that the interpreters translate the French term ``acte criminel'' as ``criminal act'', quite logically. But ``acte criminel'' en Français is the equivalent of ``indictable offence'' in English. This is an important distinction, because the rule with regard to an ordinary citizen who may arrest without a warrant is quite limited.
An ordinary citizen can, under section 494 of the Criminal Code, arrest without a warrant somebody whom they find committing an indictable offence, or where on reasonable grounds they believe that person has committed a criminal offence, which would include summary conviction, and is being freshly pursued by a peace officer. In either event, they have to turn that person over forthwith to a peace officer.
The distinction is important, because an inspector who is not a peace officer could not in fact arrest someone whom he finds in violation of a summary conviction offence under the Firearms Act.
With regard to the point Mr. Langlois made about the limitations on the inspection authority, that's quite correct. As I mentioned earlier, if a peace officer has reason to believe that an offence has been committed, then they can't act under this clause and conduct an inspection. That would be quite improper. Any case that would result from that would be tossed out of the courts. They have to obtain a warrant and act under that procedure.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I would have another question to ask Mr. Mosley. The peace officer can arrest someone without a warrant, under the Criminal Code, where he believes on reasonable grounds that there is a warrant for the arrest of the person in question, in the jurisdiction where he is at the time.
For instance, the inspector who is also a peace officer goes somewhere to carry out a firearms inspection and he thinks he recognizes someone he has seen previously at police headquarters and who is being sought after. The way I understand it, he can then arrest the individual in question, without a warrant.
[English]
Mr. Mosley: Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: To conclude I'll make a comment. Mr. MacLellan underlined earlier that he did not believe that there would be any abuse here, which is usually the case. However, we have to remember an event which, for Quebeckers, was very sad. Remember, in October 1970, inspection powers were widely extended and it was the War Measures Act which was enforced, before being replaced by the Emergencies Act.
.1125
I remember, I was in law school at the time and before you could get in court houses, you had to submit to an extensive search.
When you give people some powers - and on this point, I agree with Mr. Hill - you have to ensure that they have the necessary training to exercise these powers as wisely as possible, and that they also have what it takes to bear the stress that goes with these powers. In other words, when you give some powers to someone, very often what happens is this: people have a tendency to test the limits of their authority.
So, I would ask the minister to ensure that those inspectors who are not going to be peace officers - in the case of the latter, training has been greatly improved over the years - are provided with a type of training which is, at least, equivalent.
[English]
Mr. Bodnar: I would like to follow up on what Mr. Wappel had said: the inspections now are inspections that are not under the Criminal Code. They're inspections similar to what's under the other legislation referred to by Mr. Wappel. It is extremely important for the public to know this. These inspections are so similar to the ones that have been referred to. The Criminal Code inspection here is removed. We have similar inspections in other acts. I'll just give you one further example, which Mr. Wappel did not refer to. We have similar inspections under the Canada Pension Plan Act.
Under this act, the authorized person may require the owner, occupant, or person in charge of the premises or place to give to the authorized person all reasonable assistance to answer all proper questions relating to the administration or enforcement of this act. I have not heard of these authorized people breaking down doors, going to senior citizens, requesting such information and forcing them to give information.
Similarly, under the Pesticide Residue Compensation Act, to my knowledge nothing like that has been happening in Saskatchewan - abuse by these inspectors walking into premises and being unreasonable, even though the act says every person found at the premises shall give an inspector all reasonable assistance to enable the inspector to carry out his duties or functions under this act.
It continues also under the act called the Plant Protection Act. It's surprising that we wouldn't even question something like the Plant Protection Act. Yet here, where the safety of people is involved, we are questioning an inspector looking at it. We seem to give more protection to plants in this country than we do to the people of this country.
About the inspectors - and there is a concern about the inspectors, and who is appointed, and how they're going to do their inspections; an important point made by Mr. Langlois - the inspectors are appointed by the attorney general of the provinces. It's of your province, the attorney general of my province; and if there is a problem with inspections in my province, Mr. Mitchell had better make sure he's appointing qualified people, and he'd better get qualified people, because he was before our committee and had concerns about inspection. Now he can do something about it.
About another point Mr. MacLellan has cleared up, I will not follow up and take up more time, but I simply indicate these particular matters, and these are my comments. I'm saying really, let's get concerned about the safety of people. We've been concerned about the safety and quality of every other product and thing in this country.
.1130
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Ms Meredith.
Ms Meredith: Thank you, Madam Chair. It must be very clear to people by this point that I am very concerned about what is not written and not specified, what is going to become part of this legislation, and the ambiguity of the usage of words.
Although it was raised by witnesses before, and you have an amendment in place before us now, I find that ambiguity on ``thing'' is still here. It doesn't even make any reference to anything relating to firearms or ammunition or whatever. It just generally says ``any thing''. Particularly in this amendment on subclause 99.(4):
- (4) An inspector who takes any thing while carrying out an inspection of a place under
subsection (1) must give to the owner or occupant of the place at the time that the thing is
taken a receipt for the thing that describes the thing with reasonable precision.
Mr. MacLellan: You can't just do anything they want. Paragraph 99.(1)(d) says ``require any person to produce examination books...that is relevant to the enforcement of this act or the regulations''. It's limited in what can be done. This is the same as it is under other acts where you have inspection powers.
It's there. It's going to be in the regulations. Certain powers are in the bill now. But the regulations are going to give a good deal more information on what can be done. Abuses will be readily acknowledged and will be evident. The inspectors of course will have to be held accountable. It's not going to be an easy job, because there are going to be a lot of people looking at the way the inspectors handle this job. The inspectors are going to be under surveillance, particularly by the businesses they visit.
So I do not see that there is going to be any room or possibility of abuses, unless it's arbitrary.
Ms Meredith: That still doesn't address my concern. If I had the regulations in front of me I would certainly feel a lot more comfortable, because then I would know what parameters we're working under. I don't have the regulations. With all due respect, you have not been able to present us with many of the regulations that are going to be a major part of this legislation. I don't have confidence in something I haven't seen. I am a little concerned that we are using some very general terms, when with a few changes they could be made more specific...and tighten them up.
Mr. Mosley: If the concern is with subclause (4), an inspector who takes any thing while carrying out an inspection...that is of course only an inspection under subclause (1). In subclause (1) ``thing'' is qualified by the context. It has to be read in the context in which it appears. So if you look at 99.(1), the chapeau, if I may, of that subclause, refers to:
- a firearm, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition or prohibited
ammunition or a record in relation to any of those things
- open any container that the officer believes on reasonable grounds contains a firearm or
other thing in respect of which this Act or the regulations...applies;
.1135
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. McLellan, did you wish to add anything?
Mr. MacLellan: No. Mr. Mosley said what I was going to say.
Mr. Hill: Following up on what Mr. Wappel said, and recognizing that ``dwelling-house'' is contained in clause 101, so this clause and this subamendment do not refer to inspection of a dwelling-house, what about an unattached garage at a home or a shed in the backyard? Would that be contained in the undefined phrase ``any place''?
Mr. MacLellan: I would like Mr. Mosley to comment on this as well, but this is an inspection warrant and there's not going to be a big hunt for something illegal. That's not the idea. It's not to turn up everything; to dig up the back yard, to look in the shed, to look in the garage. It's an inspection.
The people who are being inspected are going to be presumed to be following the law. Every place the inspector goes, he or she is not going to assume there's a cache of illegal firearms or information that is clandestine and needs to be brought forward. I know inspectors have to do their job as well.
Mr. Mosley: Place is limited, Madam Chair, by the terms of subclause (1). It has to be a place where, for example, the inspector believes on reasonable grounds that a business is being carried on.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I'm at the end of my list and I'm going to call the question now. Mr. Ramsay, are you going again?
Mr. Ramsay: Yes, and I suppose I should make that subamendment to make this amendment more palatable. Before I do that, I would like to ask a couple of questions.
Will a peace officer be an ex-offico inspector under this proposed act?
Mr. MacLellan: The police officer has to be designated as an inspector. Not any police officer can be an inspector. The police officer has to be designated as an inspector.
Mr. Ramsay: Then if we're going to see inspectors appointed by the provinces, I'd like to have some idea if the cost of... We're looking at new powers that are going to enable the state to enter the places of three to five million people.
I'm sorry. That has to do with the businesses. Nevertheless, the $85 million cost that's been estimated and put forward by the minister: does that include the cost - and there will have to be some degree of training for these new inspectors - of training and appointing these inspectors?
Mr. MacLellan: Yes, the minister has stated on various occasions that he and the Attorneys General and provincial Ministers of Justice are going to be meeting on this whole question. As far as our purposes are concerned, when we come back to clause 93, which we've stood, that would be a more appropriate clause to deal with this question.
.1140
Mr. Ramsay: A supplementary. It's a very simple, straightforward concern, and that is whether or not the cost of the inspectors who will be appointed across the country has been included within the $85 million estimate to set up the system. Or will this be an additional cost?
Mr. MacLellan: As I mentioned, it is going to be an area of negotiation between the Minister of Justice federally and the Attorneys General and Ministers of Justice provincially. The problem is we really don't know, at this point, how many inspectors are going to be appointed. We don't know exactly the numbers. So it has to be a matter of negotiation with the provinces. Ind it's very difficult to speculate right now.
Mr. Ramsay: I would like to offer this just as a housekeeping matter, a subamendment to the government's amendment G-42. I would add just two words to subclause (4) on page 2. Those two words would be right at the end of that paragraph, where it reads ``of the firearm''. The amendment would read, ``of the firearm, if available''. I would add the two words ``if available.''
Mr. MacLellan: I just want to make one suggestion. I think Mr. Ramsay has made a very good point. I would like to suggest to him that we could add the words ``where available'' at the end of the line above that, after the words ``serial number, where available, of the firearm''.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): In addition to those words, if I understand you, the line above where Mr. Ramsay has just quoted will read ``precision, including, in the case of a firearm, the serial number, where available, of the firearm''; and then are you suggesting that would be in lieu of ``if available'', because it would seem a bit redundant?
Mr. MacLellan: Yes.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): You're suggesting alternate wording.
So Mr. Ramsay, you're requesting a friendly amendment to the motion of the government. What we are now asking in return is whether as a friendly amendment with the same viewpoint - you wish to withdraw ``if available'' and go with ``where available''?
Mr. Ramsay: In fact, I'd feel much more comfortable if the government amended their own amendment. I'm prepared to withdraw that subamendment.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Withdraw the subamendment? I think Mr. Bodnar moved this.
Would you take a friendly amendment as ``where available'', as suggested by our parliamentary secretary?
Mr. Bodnar: Does the parliamentary secretary prefer the word ``where'' or ``if''?
Mr. MacLellan: I would suggest after the phrase ``the serial number, if available''.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. Ramsay's wording is withdrawn. We now have the wording ``if available''. I'm going to call the question on the subamendment as just verbally given to the words ``if available'' in G-42.
Subamendment agreed to
Amendment agreed to on division
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: We voted no on this one as well.
.1145
[English]
Clause 99 as amended agreed to
On clause 100 - Duty to assist police officers
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): There are a couple of notations in our packages here. I have LG-003. Has that not been moved? Then I have LW-14,
Mr. Wappel, I presume that is you.
Mr. Wappel: Madam Chair, in view of amendments that I believe are going to be coming, I will not move LW-14.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Now we are down to amendment G-43. Can I have a mover?
Mr. Bodnar: Madam Chair, I have G-43 that I wish to move, but I also wish to move an amendment to clause 100, which I can give you the wording of and which we do not have in writing apart from G-43. It's on line 4 of clause 100, after the word ``shall'': just add ``when requested by the inspector''.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Have you looked to see whether this amendment should be coming first in order over G-43?
Mr. Bodnar: That's why I made it now. I wanted to make sure that by passing G-43 I wasn't closing the door on this particular amendment. But I believe this amendment can be made now, in G-43, unless the clerk has other suggestions.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I'm looking at G-43 and I don't see anything that affects line 4, so I believe it's nearly immaterial in this particular case. We'll do this one first, since you have started.
So are the words again ``when''?
Mr. Bodnar: Just after the word ``shall'', ``when requested by the inspector''.
Mr. MacLellan: That's helpful, Madam Chair.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Then I would not have to talk to article 100 as amended, because the provisions remain the same. If we do not provide for a maximum assistance under article 107 which states that every person who would not give the inspector all possible assistance would be «guilty of an endictable offence and liable for emprisonment for a term not exceeding two years;» or would be «guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction», then we find ourselves in a situation where in order not to be convinced of a criminal offence, a person might have to incriminate herself, which is not acceptable in a society where the rule is that no one can obstruct the work of people in charge of an inquiry. There is, between what this rule is saying and prompting people to incriminate themselves a gap that I'm not willing to bridge.
.1150
All the more so, Madam Chair, since Criminal Code's provisions already provide for the case of someone obstructing the work of the peace officer. We should require nothing more from the citizen than not hindering the work of an inspector, and this is different from having people giving information which might incriminate them and expose them to the sanctions provided for in section 91 and 92 of Part III of the Criminal Code. I find this quite serious and I would like you to come back to my question, to my concerns with this matter.
[English]
Mr. MacLellan: I'm wondering if Mr. Langlois realizes that we are deleting the part that relates to part III of the Criminal Code.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): It's a question of which one we do first, Mr. Langlois, if you've had a chance to look at G-43. G-42 just passed.
Mr. MacLellan: It's in G-43.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): It's a question of which one you do first here. It could have been either way.
Mr. MacLellan: It is for the purpose of discussing the amendment Mr. Bodnar made. I just wanted Mr. Langlois to know that, if he hadn't read G-43.
Mr. Wappel: Madam Chair, I want to speak in favour of both the oral amendment byMr. Bodnar and G-43 in due course. Again, I agree with the concerns expressed by Mr. Langlois. We had the same concerns. We listened to the witnesses.
We now know, as a result of the amendment we just passed, the inspectors will not be enforcing the Criminal Code. They will be inspecting under the proposed Firearms Act. Again, on this subject of the powers of an inspector and the requirements of people who are asked to do something by an inpsector, I want to refer to just a few of the acts I referred to earlier.
Under the Feeds Act, subsection 7(2), feeds for animals, it says the owner or person in charge of any place described in subsection (1) and every person found in that place - the occupant - shall mandatorily give an inspector all reasonable assistance to enable the inspector to carry out his duties and functions
Under the Fertilizers Act, subsection 7(2), the owner or person in charge of any place described in subsection (1) and every person found in that place - the occupant - shall mandatorily give an inspector all reasonable assistance to enable the inspector to carry out his duties and functions.
Under the Canadian Dairy Conversion Act, subsection 18(2), the owner or persons in charge of any place referred to in subsection (1) and every person found in that place shall mandatorily give the inspector all reasonable assistance.
You can get the feeling that it's the same wording in all of the acts. How about the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, under subsection 13(3), which says the owner or the person in charge of a place entered by an inspector pursuant to subsection (2) and every person employed therein shall give the inspector all reasonable assistance to enable the inspector to carry out his duties?
Under the Explosives Act, which is the last one I will refer to and which is getting closer, for explosives, firearms, subsection 14(3), the operator of a place entered by an inspector and every person employed in that place shall give the inspector all reasonable assistance to enable the inspector to carry out his duties.
So having seen these acts, having read these assistance provisions to the inspector in all of these other acts...it's clear to me, at least, that the inspection provisions in clause 100 in particular, as specified by Mr. Bodnar, where the inspector must first ask for assistance, are by no means a rarity, an undue intrusion that Parliament has suddenly come up with under the Firearms Act, because it is already dealt with in many, many, many other federal acts.
.1155
We've already heard from Mr. Mosley that for the purposes of the Criminal Records Act a conviction under any of these acts would be something the Criminal Records Act refers to. In that way, any breach of any act of Parliament results in a criminal record of sorts.
So I have become convinced that these are by no means unusual powers, particularly withMr. Bodnar's amendment that the inspector must request the assistance - which, by the way, you didn't hear in any of these other acts. If you're examining fertilizers, fish or milk, you don't have to ask. It's a positive duty. Here, we're conceding, if I may put it that way. We're saying that the inspector must ask for help with firearms.
We've gone a long way, I hope, to alleviating the concerns of the public that there's something sinister here. At least I am so alleviated and I'm pleased to support the motion.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): We're still on the subamendment, ``when requested by the inspector''. Mr. Bodnar, do you wish speak on that again?
Mr. Bodnar: Yes.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Then, Mr. Hill, are you speaking on that subamendment?
Mr. Hill: I'll make a few comments to the clause itself.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Okay. Then Madam Venne on the subamendment.
Mr. Bodnar: It's most important to have this subamendment passed so that people are not convicted of an offence of not supplying information when the inspector may not have even requested them to give this information. That is the reason for this. At least the inspector should ask for something before a charge is laid for refusal or not giving it.
I just want to indicate one or two other matters that Mr. Wappel has referred to. I have a list of statutes. My list is longer than Mr. Wappel's. It totals 65 statutes in which there are similar provisions to what Mr. Wappel referred to.
An interesting one is the Health of Animals Act, where there are similar provisions. When we are concerned about the health of animals, we allow such inspection. I would hope that when we are concerned about the health and safety of individuals we would pass provisions at least similar to those we have in that particular statute.
Even with the Meat Inspection Act there are similar provisions.
So the list goes on and on. I won't repeat what Mr. Wappel said, but these are two other very interesting statutes where, again, we're concerned about the safety of food products and animals. We should be concerned now about the safety of people.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mrs. Venne.
Mrs. Venne: Madam Chair, first let me tell you that, any way, I'm against that kind of inspection power, something which may be due to my conservative side which is resurfacing.
Furthermore, if we vote for Mr. Bodnar's motion, then we would have to take out the last sentence from paragraph (b) «that he or she may reasonably require», as this will be redundant because, if I do understand, this amendment applies to both (a) and (b).
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): No.
Mrs. Venne: No? It doesn't concern both (a) and (b)?
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. Ramsay, did you want to speak on this point?
Mr. Ramsay: I was just going to make a comment in response to what I've heard fromMr. Wappel and Mr. Bodnar.
They have pointed out or suggested that the powers to inspect are something which is a part of our society and that there should be no objection to enacting these powers. However, these powers are connected with a host of new offences that been created and they have to do with the ownership of firearms. They have to be registered. There is objection to that in many parts of the country. The owners have to be licensed. When we go back into Bill C-17, which is the existing law, the firearms have to be properly stored. They have to be properly safeguarded.
.1200
When we look at the inspection powers, they are connected with what a lot of people consider to be an invasion by statute of the ownership of private property. I just put that comment on the record.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. Ramsay, for clarification, the offences you cited just now are ones under the Criminal Code and what we are talking about in this subamendment is offences that will be dealt with under the Firearms Act; which is, as you know, not the same thing. I just wanted to clarify, because I think you may have said that inadvertently again.
What you cited just now had to do with Criminal Code offences and what we're talking about right now is the inspection areas that are going to be under the proposed Firearms Act, as Mr. Bodnar already pointed out just a couple of minutes ago.
Mr. Ramsay: Yes, but I also understand the inspector will have the power to seize firearms.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): We're not in the seizure clause right now. I'm trying to clarify this.
Mr. Ramsay: We have heard Mr. Wappel and Mr. Bodnar range all across a number of statutes when depicting the power we have granted authorities to inspect. What I'm pointing out is that these inspecting powers are in direct relation to criminal acts, criminal offences, that have been created by this bill, licensing and registration particularly, and safe storage. That is a very specific point I wanted to place on the record.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I'm not going to enter into debate with you, Mr. Ramsay. That's not my job as chair.
Do any of the officials want to comment? I'm going to call the amendment after this intervention.
Mr. MacLellan: This is an inspection power. I think it's been stated by Mr. Wappel and byMr. Bodnar that it's not new. As Mr. Wappel said, the words in Mr. Bodnar's oral subamendment go a long way towards making it a lot friendlier than similar provisions in other acts. This is not an invasion or an arbitrary act. It is an inspection.
I also want to comment on what Mr. Langlois said when he talked about prosecution indictably for a violation of clause 100. The actual clause that deals with the penalty is clause 107. It's a hybrid offence and will be proceeded on indictably or summarily. It also applies to clause 106. That's the reason why it's a hybrid offence.
I also want to say that if you have an inspector who perhaps meets someone who is not only uncooperative but downright unfriendly, the inspector has to be able to.... Not everyone the inspector meets is going to be a nice person. The fact of the matter, Madam Chair, is that it's going to be a section under which it going to be very seldom that anyone is charged, frankly. For one thing, you have to prove they didn't give any assistance.
I don't think that if someone doesn't cooperate that they're going to go to the trouble of charging, but it is there and it has to be there as a means of providing the penalty.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I will call the question now on the amendment about adding words ``when requested by the inspector''.
Amendment agreed to on division
.1205
Mr. Hill: So we're perfectly clear on this, or as clear as we can be - I recognize that the amendment now has dropped the reference to part III of the Criminal Code. However, Mr. Bodnar earlier referred to the Pension Benefits Standards Act, I believe it was, stating that citizens must provide information and help inspectors inspecting under that act, similiarly to what we're going to put into place with clause 100 here; in other words, a requirement that citizens actually participate in the investigation or the inspection.
So we can clear up any differentiation among these 42 or 60-some acts, whatever the case may be, do those other acts - for example, the one he used that puts his mind to rest - have the and/or situation in there similar to what we have in clause 106, which you just referred to, Mr. MacLellan, where it would give the powers-to-be the authority to convict for up to two years?
How far you can go with enforcing this compliance of the citizen not to remain silent, where they have to assist in the inspection, is a very important point.
Mr. MacLellan: It's clause 107.
Mr. Hill: Yes, that's right.
Mr. MacLellan: In the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act, subsection 33(1) says every person who obstructs or hinders an inspector in executing his functions under this act is guilty of an offence punishable by up to $1,000 if prosecuted summarily, or up to $5,000 if prosecuted on indictment.
The Plant Protection Act says in section 48 every person who contravenes any provision of this act or who refuses or neglects to perform any duty imposed by the act is guilty of an offence punishable by up to $50,000 and/or six months imprisonment if prosecuted summarily, or up to $200,000 and/or two years imprisonment if prosecuted on indictment.
This too - so you have the hybrid offence - is not unusual.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. Langlois; and I'm calling the question. We've had a lot of discussion.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Thank you, are you calling the question before or after what I have to say?
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Yes, certainly.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I am inclined to believe Mr. MacLellan when he says that there will be very few legal actions and hence very few sentencing, under clause 107, because of people's contrevening clause's 101 provisions. However, you will admit that they would be even more seldom if clause 101 would not exist.
I very much liked Mr. Wappel giving us a list of statutes containing such provisions. As we all know his talent of litigant, I would very much like seeing him pleading for the opposing position. I am sure that he would have a great deal of satisfaction defending the opposing view because he is so flexible. Sooner or later, we will have the opportunity to see him doing this, and certainly in a more convincing way because this time he will be himself more convinced.
Mr. Wappel: I am a lawyer.
Mr. Langlois: After what Mr. Wappel said, an example came to my mind. Let us suppose that a police officer shows up at Mr. Wappel's residence and asks him where he stores his counterfeit bank notes. He then would not have to give an answer. He would not have to answer, no one else would have to answer that question. Counterfeiting money is a serious offence. An inspector knocks at your door, Mr. Wappel, and asks you where you store your rifles and your guns. And now you have to answer his questions because it says here that you have to provide him with all reasonable assistance.
.1210
And if Mr. Wappel refuses to answer and the inspector finds some weapons, Mr. Wappel might be sued under clause 107 because he refused to supply information and he could also be sued because he possesses non-registered firearms, or he didn't have the requested licenses - which is far more serious for a minor offence. But I do not think that this satisfies to the proportionate test which exists in our criminal system.
Furthermore it is a simple question which is being put to the individual. This test does not appear to be the same in both the French and the English versions. I wonder if we don't want to be harsher with francophones than with anglophones.
The English version reads as follows:
[English]
- The owner shall give the police all reasonable assistance to enable him...
while the French version reads as follows:
- on doit donner aux policiers toute l'assistance possible...
- Which makes me believe that we go much further in the French version. We do not find in it the
reasonable test; there is no mention of reasonable assistance. How could a court assess the
possible test? I've never found that in law. The court can judge on what is reasonable, but not on
what is possible. I think, at least, that we should make the two versions alike, and that we should
have the reasonable test in the French version.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): There is no amendment on the floor at the moment, then, except for what we're dealing with. So I'm calling the question on amendment G-43.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 100 agreed to on division
On clause 101 - Warrant required to enter dwelling-house
We are now on clause 101, and I guess it will be our last clause before we adjourn. Mr. Bodnar.
Mr. Bodnar: Madam Chair, I would like to move this particular amendment, G-44.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Excuse me one second, Mr. Bodnar. I have some others.
Mr. Wappel: Madam Chair, I will not be moving any of my amendments that relate to clause 101, for the variety of reasons I've spoken of on a number of other issues.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): For clarity for people's lists, LW-15, LW-16.1. LW-16.2, LW-16.3 and LW-16.4 are not moved. We are now at G-44, and then there will be new clauses BQ-8 and G-46.
So we'll go to G-44. Mr. Bodnar, you have the floor.
Mr. Bodnar: Thank you, Madam Chair. This particular amendment that is being proposed is fairly long - it's two pages - but the effect of this particular motion is to require an inspector to give reasonable notice when an inspection is to take place in a dwelling-house.
This does away with a lot of the concerns that peace officers or inspectors may try to use this particular provision for a different purpose. In other words, you can't get in to look into one particular offence, so you'll use the inspection provision under this proposed act to get into a premise. By having to give notice, this would not give them that opportunity to be able to do this effectively, or at all. If it's not effective, it's not of any value.
.1215
This particular amendment is in addition to subclause 101(1), which already states that an inspection of the dwelling-house can never be conducted except with the consent of the occupant or under a warrant. So this particular matter is in addition.
To safeguard against possible abuses by inspectors a new subclause 101(3) has been added, stating that inspections must be confined to rooms in a home, where firearms are stored, or security systems are located, and additionally in the case of businesses and gun collections in homes, to the rooms where related records are stored.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. MacLellan, do you have anything to add?
Mr. MacLellan: No, Mr. Bodnar has stated it quite clearly, Madam Chair.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. Hill.
Mr. Hill: With the insertion of ``except where business is being carried on in the dwelling-house'' once again, I would understand that would be unreasonable grounds to believe a business is being carried on there.
What about a case where, if we insert this amendment, some neighbour says, I believe my neighbour is selling firearms or ammunition out of their home. Would that result in this clause allowing an inspector to go then and inspect that home without a search warrant?
Mr. MacLellan: Under those circumstances the inspector would be aware that there is a chance that an offence is being committed. This would not be an inspection, it would be a tip that something illegal was happening. So then there would have to be an investigation and the police officer would have to get a warrant to search the premises.
Mr. Hill: But is it not true that under this amendment to this clause a warrant wouldn't be necessary if there were reasonable grounds for suspicion that a business was being conducted involving firearms or ammunition? Technically it wouldn't require a form.
Mr. MacLellan: If it were just in the course of an inspection. I think if the person were selling firearms illegally, which he would be, presumably, that would be a different story from just an inspection. If, because the person isn't registered as a business, they're doing it without saying they're a business, that would be a violation and a criminal investigation would ensue as a result of that.
Mr. Hill: So I am led to believe what you are saying is no, the clause would not be used like that. There's no chance it would be used like that: with a tip, an inspector would go to a house and say I'm here to inspect because I have a tip that you are conducting the business of selling ammunition; somebody saw somebody walk out of your home with a box of shells.
Mr. MacLellan: No. The inspection purpose would only be, Madam Chair, for somebody who says they're a business operating out of the home.
Mr. Bodnar: Madam Chair, I think it's important to note that simply a tip may not be reasonable grounds...that's been referred to. You have to have a factual basis for any particular belief.
One neighbour trying to get at another neighbour...and I think the courts generally, in issuing...this deals with warrants...do not consider that an opinion is worth too much unless you have a factual basis for dealing with that particular opinion.
.1220
It's important, I would suggest, that anyone who wants to carry on a firearms business not hide behind the dwelling-house provision. The nature of business must take precedence in certain cases.
As well, when a business is carried on out of a home, there are usually portions of the home where business is carried out. I would suggest that generally a business such as this is carried out in one room, or out of a basement, or out of a garage. The other parts are the dwelling home. That may be part of the business and exempt from it. That all will depend on the interpretation that will be given by the court as this matter evolves.
Once the statute is passed, that isn't the end of it. Courts then take a reasonable approach on interpreting the statute, to give it a reasonable interpretation so the rights of people are weighed against the rights of society generally.
Ms Cohen (Windsor - St. Clair): I just want to point out, following the same sort of reasoning as Mr. Bodnar, that there's a vast difference in law between suspicion and reasonable doubt. There exists a vast body of law that deals with search and seizure and illegal search and seizure. I think most criminal lawyers would tell you, especially prosecutors, that can be a very frustrating experience, because a search-and-seizure that is improperly conducted and brings the administration of justice into disrepute goes out.
Just to give you some reassurance in this list of statutes, which has had these kinds of inspection provisions in them and search-and-seizure provisions as well, Mr. Bodnar I'm sure will be familiar with the provisions under the Income Tax Act, which were ruled to be unconstitutional. So there are other safeguards here.
As much as some people may choose to vilify the charter, this is the reason the charter exists. If for some reason an inspection is undertaken which is inappropriate, or a warrant is issued which is inappropriate, it will get caught. If the warrant was issued inappropriately, the evidence that flowed from that warrant will also get caught and the populace will be protected.
Life is just very complicated, sometimes. Sometimes you need provisions and then you need a safeguard for those provisions. That's why the charter exists.
Mr. Ramsay: As a matter of interest, this amendment, in concert of course with the clause itself, grants an inspector the authority to obtain a search warrant to conduct an inspection. I'd be interested to know whether or not there are similar authorities under these other other federal statutes that have been mentioned for an inspector to obtain a search warrant to search a dwelling.
Mr. MacLellan: It's a warrant. It's not a search warrant. There's a major difference.
Mr. Ramsay: All right, a warrant to enter a dwelling to inspect.
Mr. MacLellan: It's virtually identical to the acts Mr. Wappel and Mr. Bodnar mentioned.
Mr. Ramsay: So a warrant is available for inspectors under all these other federal statutes to enter a dwelling.
Mr. MacLellan: Yes.
Mr. Ramsay: Do they need a warrant to enter any other place?
Mr. MacLellan: No.
Mr. Ramsay: So if an inspector obtains a warrant to conduct an inspection within a home, I understand the inspector can enter the home, conduct an inspection and seize things; seize firearms, seize other things as listed under the previous clause we dealt with. Is that right? Am I understanding this amendment correctly?
.1225
Mr. MacLellan: What the inspector can do if he takes the firearm...it's for inspection. He isn't seizing it to the extent that he's there not to give it back. He doesn't have those powers. He has the right to take a firearm for inspection. For instance, if he wanted to take it to a forensic laboratory for further investigation, he or she could do that.
Mr. Ramsay: My question, I think, is fairly clear. The inspector - I was going to call him or her an officer, but I'd better not, it's an inspector - can obtain a warrant to enter a home, and has the power to seize things and take them out of that home. Is that right?
Mr. MacLellan: It's not a seizure. ``Seizure'' is not the right word to use. I know whatMr. Ramsay means, and I can understand.
Mr. Ramsay: Is ``to take'' something different?
Mr. MacLellan: Yes. Seizure would be where you take it and it's introduced in evidence, perhaps, in a court case. But this is to take it for a purpose, an inspection purpose, for further inspection.
Mr. Ramsay: Then are you saying an inspector entering a home under the authority of a warrant cannot seize or take anything for the purpose of evidence, or purpose of a charge?
Mr. MacLellan: I think I'd better let Mr. Mosley answer, because it's getting a little far afield.
Mr. Mosley: On the premises the inspector is entering to conduct an inspection...and has no prior knowledge that an offence is taking place, the inspector may come across evidence that a firearm has not been properly stored. In those circumstances the inspector could subsequently rely on that evidence to lay a charge under the Firearms Act for contravention of that offence under the act, or the regulations, as the case may be.
I think the minister or someone at an earlier occasion made reference to coming across a body in the course of an inspection. An inspector who comes across evidence that another criminal offence is taking place...clearly that evidence - if not anticipated but found, and it's in plain view, encountered in the course of the inspection - could be admissible in subsequent proceedings under another act entirely; under the Criminal Code, if necessary. But the object of this inspection power, and the object of having a warrant, is to authorize entry into the premises.
Mr. Ramsay: Then what is the purpose of conducting tests or analysis and taking any measurements if the purpose is to determine whether or not the firearms are being kept in accordance with the law? If they're not being kept in accordance with the law, we see where the inspector can seize or take - it doesn't matter to me - if you take something from an individual in relation to an offence that has been committed, if the firearm is not registered, that's what he's going in there for...at least to check to see whether the firearm is registered, to see whether the owner has a licence to have the firearm, and to see whether the firearm is safely stored. That's the purpose for the inspection, I would assume.
.1230
If there's evidence that there has been a violation of storage, registration and licence to own, then obviously the inspector has to take some action. The action is not supportable without the evidence, and the evidence is those things which are mentioned in this act.
I'm not clear on this, and we should be clear, because to me it's a very simple question. It has to do with the powers of the inspector. Does he have the power to seize? It seems to me he had the power to take, because we just dealt with an amendment where the individual inspector has to give a receipt for the things he takes.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Is it possible to have a brief answer here? We've already dealt with this.
Mr. MacLellan: Yes, if he takes it for purposes of inspection, he's taking it out of the premises so he has to give a receipt. The powers are in clause 99.
Taking the firearm, for instance, would not add to a charge of safe storage. The fact is that you have to see the location. You'd need to move the whole room, perhaps, into the courtroom to -
Mr. Ramsay: What about the licensing administration?
Mr. MacLellan: I think Mr. Mosley expressed it very well. If he wants to add something to it, I'd certainly -
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): We have dealt with this before, and we're getting close to 12:30 p.m. I'd like to be able to call this question before we break, but I'm not prepared to go on at length. We'll go for another five minutes, and then I'm going to call the question.
Mr. de Savoye.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye (Portneuf): Thank you, Madam Chair.
When we say «inspection» in English or visite in French, we are not talking about an «investigation» and enquête.
The examples that were given earlier about inspections in places where animal food is produced really are «inspections», or visites to check that standards are met. If a food batch is not up to standards, it would be rejected and won't be sent to the market for consumption.
In this bill, I don't think we would see an inspector enter a dwelling house to check if a firearm is functioning well, that the aiming cross is well placed; or if the firearm meets the standards. When there is an inspection, it is more likely that the inspector thinks there is an offence commited and that it could lead to legal proceedings. Therefore, those two types of inspections are completely different.
In the examples we are given, the inspectors are the one who make sure that quality and standards are met. In that type of inspection, I see more of an investigation, and enquête. I would like Mr. MacLellan to tell me if I am right or not.
[English]
Mr. MacLellan: I would just like to state that the inspector doesn't necessarily go because he feels there's a violation. He's an inspector. I think the inspector could reasonably assume there's not a violation, everything is being complied with.
But I would like Mr. Mosley to answer this as well.
A voice: A point of order -
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Mr. MacLellan should we read subclause 99.(1) again, where it says that the inspector must believe, to carry out an inspection, that there are prohibited firearms on the premises, for example: he must suspect that something is wrong.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Mr. Mosley.
Mr. Mosley: Subclause 99.(1) says these inspections have to be for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the act and the regulations. To begin with, you have to have as a threshold a belief that there may be a firearm or something that's governed by the proposed act in that location before you can conduct an inspection. It's just common sense. Every day hundreds, if not thousands, of inspections under these innumerable acts are carried out across this country.
.1235
The inspectors are not inspecting because they know there's a violation of the act. They're going on the routine administration of the statute. They go in and they find a violation. They may choose to try to encourage compliance by suggesting to the individual what they need to do to meet the standard required by the act. In this case of safe storage, for example, they suggest that the individual get a secure locking device for their firearm, etc. They don't need to lay a charge, but they have the discretion, where appropriate to do so, when they have found an offence having been committed in relation to the proposed act or the regulations.
Mr. Hill: My question deals mainly with the clause itself. Are we going to be voting on the clause or are we still on the amendment?
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): We're on the amendment to the clause itself. We're dealing now with G-44, and we have been for a while.
Mr. Hill: Before we adjourn, will we be voting on clause 101? I want to get this question in. It's very important, I feel, before the -
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): Well, please do it fast. We're getting over time and I don't want to -
Mr. Hill: I just want to assure you it's not on the amendment. It's on the clause itself.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): That's fine.
Mr. Hill: Clause 101 states...and I'll make this question very succinct. Consent of the occupant. Would a child be considered the occupant? An inspector comes to the home and asks for the consent of the occupant, and we have a young child there.
Mr. MacLellan: Madam Chair, the courts wouldn't accept that a young child would necessarily have knowledge of the information the inspector is seeking.
Mr. Hill: But would the inspector have the legal right to proceed with the inspection if the child allowed him or her access?
Mr. MacLellan: It has to be somebody who knows why the inspector is there and can appreciate what the inspector is doing. A young child would not have that appreciation nor that capacity. So the inspector would not be able to go into the premises in a situation like that.
Mr. Hill: For the purposes of this clause, consent of the occupant really means an adult occupant of 18 or 19 years of age or over.
Mr. MacLellan: I would say certainly someone who had an appreciation of why the inspector was there.
The other thing, too, is that there is a situation where a teenager who knows firearms, who knows what the purpose of the inspector is, then could let the inspector come in. I think it's an appreciation or an understanding of it. It's a judgment call. I think if there were any question, it would come down on the side of the home owner.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): I will now call the question on G-44.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 101 as amended agreed to on division
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Barnes): We will now adjourn. When we return we will be on BQ-8 and G-46. Our next meeting is on Monday from 9:00 until 12:30 and from 2:00 until 7:00 or whenever we finish. That was the decision of this committee made earlier this week.
The meeting is adjourned until Monday.